28 Days Later

So now the question of what women would like to see on covers has spread. It’s started a meme. That meme has further spread to all sorts of places.

What I like is that many of the replies so far have been about videogames rather than TT RPGs. It reminds me there is a bigger world out there than the little corner I normally write in, and that there are ever so many more things under the sun than I think of in the course of a standard day.

There has also been a small explosion of other feminist writings about sex, gender representation, and selling with sex, that I’ve been happy to see. Even the ones that disagree with me. This is one of those things that only gets better with talking, thinking, trying, failing and succeeding, talking, thinking, and trying some more.

So far the result of just the last couple weeks of conversation has been a lot of internet noise, at least four new projects or games that I’ve heard about being inspired directly by the conversations, and maybe a renewed sense that the world isn’t just okay and done quite yet. (And no, I take no credit for this. The conversation was started before I joined. I’m just happy to have been a small part of it.)

I know I’ve often been tired, frustrated, and felt ignored and attacked in the course of things. But I’ve also made some strong reconciliations, new friends, and more respect for old friends. All of that is life, and in the end I’m leaving the month with a sense of optimism.

And there it is, post 28 in February. I think for March I’m going to try for one a week, with one post per month on an issue of social context in gaming land and the rest being other stuff. Maybe more AP reports. Maybe combining them to show how social issues can make gaming rock or suck.

P.S. Also check out the hot Nordic Scene blogs that are new in the Blogroll. I particularly like Telegram, and its current posts about Immersion are some fun.

Exalted Lite Hack

So I like Exalted, especially when I’m looking for some old school, GM based participationist play where the point is for the players to ride the roller-coaster and kill everything along the path anime style. However, at this point I don’t find myself having a lot of fun with many of the extended maneuvers, multiple stunt tree stacking, and many of the other things that used to draw me to Exalted. I find myself wanting a game with more emphasis on stunts and virtues, the things that sort of defined Exalted’s difference from all those other high-action games for me.

So I made up this little hack. It started off with the simple thought of “well, 2 bonus dice for a stunt on top of a pool of 44 dice isn’t that much, but 2 bonus dice on top of a pool of 2 dice is…” and then when I looked at the old Exalted demo on the WW site (from before 1st ed was released) it bloomed into my brain.

This is a fairly incomplete draft. I know, for example, that the charm section is an imbalanced mess. However, I’m hoping that you awesome people can help with that, as I’m bored with working on it alone.

Once again, cut for the longness: Show ▼

For those looking for a more thorough rewrite of Exalted, turning it into something awesome and different rather than just a refocused version, should check out Jonathan Walton’s excellent and ongoing hack.

Tribe 8 TSOY

So I’ve been tinkering on this on and off for days. What I have now is only about 1/2 complete, as I still haven’t nailed down the specifics of Conjunctional Synthesis, never mind Technosmithing and Sundering, and many of the Tribes abilities and Secrets are only notes at this point. However, I think this should be enough for a launching point, and frankly its getting too long for me to have energy to finish alone.

So if anyone wants to help — giving me game balance suggestions about what’s already been done, ideas for more cultural stuff, or full writeups of the stuff that’s only notes now — I’d love it. Elsewise, I’m going to leave this as is until I actually get a game of it started.

Also, its going behind a cut to spare your screens, because its really quite long.

Show ▼

For those not familiar with Tribe 8, or wanting a refresher, this page is a good place to start. For those not familiar with TSOY, the whole game is available due to the awesomeness of Clinton, Right Here.

Church and State goes Truth and Justice

Here are the power writeups for the major powered NPCs of Church and State in Truth and Justice format. Just for all y’all who want to play in that awesome system.

Arson

Qualities: Power-Armor Pilot (Good +2), Leadership (Expert +4), Mobster (Good +2), Wealth (Good +2), Psychotic Pyromaniac Megalomaniac Nutjob in Search of a Flaming Death (Poor, -2)

Powers: Arson Suit Power Armor: Control Fire (Expert +4), Super Armor (Good +2)

Stunts: Fire Bomb Overload (Signature for Control Fire, (Good +2) 1 VP), Fire-Absorbing Strength Boost (Signature, gives Super Strength (Average +0), 2 VP), Bomb Blast-Jump (Signature, Gives Super-Jumping (Average +0), 1 VP), Burning Shield (Spin Off (Good +2) 2 VP).

Battery

Qualities: Berserker (Expert +4), Do Exactly What He’s Told (Good +2), Friend of Animals (Good +2), Mobster (Good +2), On the Slow Side (Poor -2)

Powers: Super Strength (Expert +4), Invulnerability (Good +2)

Stunts: Shockwave (Signature (Good +2), 1 VP), Thunderclap (Signature (Good +2), 1 VP), Invulnerable Rage (Signature (Good +2), 2 VP), Super Breath (Spin Off (Good +2) 1 VP)

Hitman

Qualities: Marksman (Master +6), Sneaky Bastard (Expert +4), Fast Getaway (Good +2), Mobster (Good +2), Sharp Senses (Good +2), Coward (Poor -2)

Powers: Rail Rifle (Expert +4 – does Super Scale Damage), Highly Skilled (Good +2, listed in Qualities above)

Stunts: In the Eyeball (Signature (Expert +4), 1 VP), Bouncing Shot (Signature (Good +2), 1 VP)

Numbers

Qualities: Mathematician (Expert +4), Disguise (Good +2), Gamble (Good +2), Know All About Super Heroes (Good +2), Arrogant Prick (Poor -2)

Powers: Luck (Expert +4), Super Intelligence (Good +2)

Stunts: Make You Choke On It (Signature (Expert +4), 2 VP), Eat Moving Vehicle (Signature (Good) +2, 1 VP)

Riot

Qualities: Fast Reflexes (Good +2), Intimidate (Good +2), Leader (Good +2), Mobster (Good +2), Wealth (Good +2), Sadistic (Poor -2)

Powers: Cause Fear (Expert +4), Cause Exhaustion (Good +2)

Stunts: Mass Fear (Signature (Good +2) 2 VP)

Smash and Grab

Qualities: Fast as Fast Can Be (Expert +4), Thief (Expert +4), Armor (Good +2), Shock Gloves (Good +2), Taunt (Good +2), Can’t Shut His Mouth (Poor -2)

Powers: Teleportation (Expert +4), Highly Trained (Average: In Qualities above), Use Other People’s Gadgets (Average +0)

Stunts: Teleporting Dodge (Signature (Good +2) 1 VP), Snatch and Pop (Signature (Expert +4) 2 VP), Fusillade (Signature (Good +2) 2 VP – attack against a group of close targets)

Archangel

Qualities: Lord of Hosts (Master +6), Demon Slayer (Expert +4), Intimidating (Expert +4), Give Comfort (Good +2), Theology (Good +2), Dogmatic (Poor -2)

Powers: Angel (Master +6), Minions (Expert +4)

Stunts: Sword of Justice (Signature Stunt Weapon, Master +6, Superscale Damage, 2 VP), most other stunts are either Signature or Spin-off based off Angel, and their general effects are listed in Into the Lions Den.

Rock N Roll

Qualities: Turn the World On With His Smile (Master +6), Musician (Expert +4), Will of the Revolutionary (Good +2), Money to Burn (Good +2), Temper Like a Hair Metal Drummer (Poor -2)

Powers: God of Rock (Sound Mastery, Master +6), Minions (Expert +4)

Stunts: Heavy Metal Thunder (Signature Energy Blast, Master +6, Superscale Damage, 2 VP), most other stunts are either Signature or Spin-off based off God of Rock, and their general effects are listed in First Against the Wall.

Marxism for the Gaming Dummy

I wrote this for Church and State, and then used parts of it for commentary in PUSH: New Thinking About Roleplaying. Since then I’ve had several querries and comments about it, so I thought I’d put the whole thing up. Maybe the “Gaming Dummy” will become a regularly monthly column — I could easily see various articles on history, rhetoric, religion, and such being useful to folks and I do know plenty of otherwise useless trivia.

Anyway, Marxism for Gaming Dummies:

A lot of us Swine are a trash talking college boys whove gotten more education than was good for us, and promptly started spouting things about how the “dominant hegemony imposes consumer fetishes through the pseudo-individualism of post-modernist para-texts.” Now that’s all well and good for people who spent too much time in culture theory classes sucking up to the teacher, but for those who want to make their NPCs speak intelligently without having to take a class on Neo-Marxism, this section presents a few names and terms that you can drop into their dialogue to give it that authentic pseudo-intellectual stink. By dropping the following names and terms into his ranting, you can make your players think you too are one of the Marxist l33t.

Cultural Determination: The basis of many Marxist arguments is that there is no inherent human nature. Rather man creates the world he lives in, and that world in turn shapes the nature of man. So if we create a society based on greed, then people will be greedy. But if we can break the vicious circle and make a culture based on cooperation, then people will become cooperative.

Marx: The grandfather of Marxist theory (bet you couldn’t guess), Marx argued that our culture is driven by greed and the desire for material wealth and that the dominant society makes an ideology to legitimate their domination. In other words, everyone wants lots of stuff, just for themselves, and the rich make up rules that let them have the most stuff.

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove: The iron fist is the obvious methods of physical control — the police, military, and the courts. The velvet glove is the more subtle methods of mind control — such as media, education, and the church. Althusser is the name most associated with the use of this term.

Culture Industry: This theory says that mass-media (movies, radio, television) are all part of the velvet glove, which make the masses (that’s us) stay happy, sappy, and pliable while bilking us of all our money. So every time you go to the movies The Man programs you, makes sure you stay happy and in control, and takes your money at the same time. This to leads pseudo-individualism, which is what happens when people start defining themselves by the mass market. So if you think you’ve got a real personality because you like Eminem and not The Backstreet Boys, then you’re really just a pseudo-individual. Adorno is the name to toss when talking this talk.

Hegemony: The process of control and education that makes people see the current power structure as not only right, but as a matter of common sense. So people not only think that Bill Gates really deserves to have 32 billion dollars, but that there is no other possible way the world could work if people couldn’t get that rich. Gramsci is the name that you must drop to give this word some theoretical respectability.

Structuration: Theory that the repeated acts of individuals are what create social structure, and that social structure then reinforces the acts of individuals. This stance also says individuals can make a change simply by not repeating the actions that shape society. So if you want to change the world, you start by changing yourself and your relation to the culture around you and it will inevitably lead to social change. Giddens, who isn’t really a Marxist, is the big name behind this little theory.

But Brand, Don’t You Like Sex? (RANT)

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I also like cheesecake. It’s fun. I also like Roleplaying Games, they’re fun. But two great tastes, like onions and chocolate, do not always taste great together.

Below is a rant. It isn’t nice, it may not be fair to some people. Read at your risk.

Show ▼

If you want more to chew on, I suggest checking this out — the part about the bikini math quiz (page 22) is brutal: Sexualization Report.

A Question for the Ladies

So yesterday I talked a lot of trash about, depending who you ask, looking women in the eyes, Conan, roleplaying, or Michael Jordan. So today I want to return to the topic of women in RPG art, but with a different focus and much less from me, Mr. Mouthy.

Ladies, what RPG covers (or interiors) have you seen that involve a woman in the art that make you say, “I want to play that” or, just as good “I want to play her.” Or that make you feel like it is a game you could like, or be included in by a group of guys you’d never met and whose maturity you didn’t neccisarily know?

In other words, can you name for me (with links when possible) RPG art of women that has not just been passable but has actually attracted you to the game?

(Yes, guys, I know we have opinions too. For this one post keep em to yourselves. This post is inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft who many years ago suggested to the mouthy men that if they wanted to know what women thought they should 1) ask the woman and 2) shut up and listen.)

So ladies?

Why is that Woman on Her Hands and Knees?

Much has been said and done about the objectification of women in RPG art, and the ways in which it is and is not changing in the modern hobby. At this point “objectification of women” is almost a jingle, spoken so often that it loses meaning and is often tossed off at the drop of a hat in order to shut down any discussion of sexual and gender roles and power relations. Of course, its used even more often for the opposite effect, sneered at in a preemptive attack to shut down the discussion of problems before they can start.

So I’m not going to talk about objectification of women in terms of why its bad for women. I’m going to say a brief bit about why its bad for men. Not everything I’m going to say below applies to every case. The stories of sex and sexuality in our culture are infinitely diverse, and each of us comes from our own history of petty neurosis and sexual formations, and so any given story can be as different as night at day. But there is, none the less, some aggregate truth in what I’m getting at, an issue that I’ve seen shading enough sexual stories that I can’t help but speculate that it has some relevance to at least some of us.

Let us take one picture and have a quick look at it.

Not the Worst I Could Find, Trust Me

Now, I don’t know if any given person is going to find the girly front and center on that cover sexy, but I do. She’s of a physical type that I like and she’s got that “I Dream of Jeannie” outfit that speaks of all sorts of orientalist fantasies of decadent other places where the sexual mores and laws of our restrictive society don’t apply. She’s round and womanly and sexy and available.

Yes, available. She’s on her hands and knees, she’s submissive, she’s probably a slave or so controlled by the evil sorcerer standing above her she may as well be. She’s available to me because of her status, because of her innate submission, because of the orientalist permission of her outfit, and a thousand years of cultural substratum telling me that a woman like that is a prize.

I don’t have to wonder, when I look at her and fantasize, what she thinks about me. I don’t have to consider why a woman like that would be interested in me. I don’t have to face the fact that she’s out of my league, physically like the type of woman I’d have trouble speaking to face to face in real life without saying something stupid. The way the picture presents her makes her mine already, and so I don’t have to think about her or her desires, I don’t have to think of a reason why she would like fat, nerdy, non-heroic me. I just get to leer and own, because she’s that low.

Of course, that makes me just as low, doesn’t it? I don’t think of a reason why she would like me, I don’t think of reasons why an attractive woman might want to have sex with me. In making her my accessible, object fantasy I do not have to face my own sexuality, my own limitations, or the fact that some women may find me attractive on my own merits and the linked proposition that other women will not. I don’t have to fear rejection, because rejection is something that only human beings give to me. Objects don’t. In my fantasy I’m able to be as little as I think of myself as and still posses her, because she has no attribute that makes her above my reach.

And no, simply giving her a sword doesn’t help. She may not be a slave then, but if the way the body is held and presented tells you she’s in heat and wants it, it’s all the same thing isn’t it? She doesn’t want you, she just wants anyone and since you’re there you’re just that lucky. You still don’t have to think about why her, why you, or that there is another human being there. Its still a body, and its just now a dominant one rather than a submissive one. There is still no equality, and the observer still owns the interaction. (Consider the “fuck me now” pose of the noble woman in the background.)

When I look at a sexy woman that isn’t objectified, I have to wonder why she would want me. I have to question my own sexuality and sexual attractiveness. I have to deal with my negative qualities and try to find enough belief in myself to think that I could be worthy of her sexual attention, much less her emotional commitment. I have to think of her as a human being, and in so doing I have to think of myself as one as well — and not just that, but a worthy human being.

Being fed a constant diet of slave girls who can’t meet my eyes, loins and breasts being offered up to my penetrating gaze, and round things with no power of their own doesn’t help women’s image in the hobby — but it also doesn’t help the boys’ image either. Is this the most that we think of ourselves, that not just an occasional fantasy is about a girl who can’t say no, but that a vast swath of them are? Can’t we think of ourselves with a little more respect than that? Can’t we think enough of ourselves to be attracted to women who might need, you know, people with positive qualities to be attracted back to?

Wild Talents: The Red Branch

“A small man I see, one who shall demonstrate feats of arms at the price of many wounds in his skin. The light of heroes is upon his brow, and the name Victory is his mind. For the battle he sets forth, and to you all he shall be a bane. Your hosts he will mow down, and make your slain lie thick as new snow upon the ground, and by him shall ye all lose your heads. The blood of heroes will pour from their skin, their bodies shall be mangled, and all shall fear the Hound of the Forge.”

– Tain Bo Cuailnge

The Connachta are rising in central Ireland, their power spreading throughout the land. Prophets and bards all sing of their sovereignty, and dream of the day when one of their number shall be High King. They are not without foes, however. In the north the Ulaidh and their Red Branch stand fierce, ready to fight any intrusion into their land. To the south the Eoghanacta build forts in styles learned from the Romans, gathering the local tribes under their rule as they prepare for a great war. In the wild places and the out-isles the Cruithni, the Picts, wait and watch as the Gaels go to war with each other.

It is a dynamic time. Wandering hunters make war with growing kingdoms while a warrior with will and charm can become a great chieftain, a king, or even hope to seize the legendary High Kingship of Tara. Culture clashes with culture as the old wandering tribes fight against the growing continental culture of the Gaels. Patrick has brought a new religion, and walks the land beating the magics of Druids and baptizing many to a new God. It is a time when even the most prosaic of lawmakers recognize “fearann claiomh” - the sword land law that states that land belongs to any who can capture and hold it. It is in this time that the Fir Clease rise to become legends. Men and women given powers beyond what mortals can hope to match, these “Men of Feats” will shake the history of Ireland and gave birth to great cycles of myth. Some claim the Fir Clease’s powers come from magical arms and armor, some from special training, most claim their powers are given to them by the divine: Christians call upon the Might of Christ, and Druids speak of the gifts of the Tuatha De Danann. The Fir Clease themselves speak of the “Glow of Heroes” and the “Victory Arena of the Mind” - for they alone can see the marks of power which divide them from ordinary men.

Though many fear the Fir Clease, all clamor for their loyalty. A single one of their number can turn the course of a whole battle, crush armies, raise fortresses in a day, and sings songs that can melt hearts or crush pride. In them, in their power, rests the pride of the whole people, and so they bear the weight of expectation as well as the power of glory.

The Red Branch is set in Ireland between 200 and 600 A.D. The player characters are talents, known as Fir Clease, who have come together as part of a tribe or nation (having them be members of a derbhfine - an extended family - is a good way to bring them together). As part of the wild and changing milieu of Irish life they have a chance to become heroes. Heroes can defend their land from the Connachta like the original Red Branch heroes, challenging enemy Fir Clease to single combat. They could become the new Niall Nine- Hostages, trying to conquer the whole of Ireland and unite it at Tara, with the crown of the High King upon one of their heads. Or perhaps they will side with Patrick, and try to spread the word of Christ throughout the island by working miracles - or work as a Druid who teaches the power of the old ways and backs his beliefs with his talent? Whatever they choose, the destiny of the Emerald Isle is in their hands.

(Recommended Settings: Red 2, Gold 4, Blue 3, Black 2. Realism, moderate. Dice Tweeks: Too Many Tens, Fast and Dirty Lose Dice, Fir Clease and Tuatha can squish rolls by 1 level at the cost of 2 Willpower. Recommendation for talents being tied to genetic ruling stock as per “Whosoever Can Lift This Castle is Rightwise King of England.”)

Typical Archetypes include Mystic, Super-Normal, Godling, and Mutant.

Possible Optional Extras:

The Tuatha De Danna follow the rules for non-human talents. The Aos Si (faeries) are living constructs created by Tuatha science.

Magical items follow the standard rules for Foci, and there are a few powerful magical smiths who make them for their own use. Some of the god-level powers of the universe may have points enough to spare to make a magical item and give it to a favored follower, but this is at the GM’s discretion.

Sacred sites (churches, monasteries, stone circles, drumlins, etc) have a special effect on talents - letting them gain Willpower by performing rituals at a site important to their cult. (Easter mass at a church, starting the fire at Cill Dara, etc.) Roll Cool + Faith, and regain Willpower equal to either the height or the width of the roll, whichever is higher. This can only increase your Willpower to one higher than your Base Willpower.

Defeating another talent in a Comhlann (formal dual) increases your Willpower by their Base Willpower as normal. In addition it causes those who survive to lose half their Willpower in the next combat they face you in. For that effect the conflict does have to follow all the rules of a comhlann - it has to be equal, witnessed by holy folk, has it’s parameters and conditions fully agreed and sworn to before hand, etc.

If you are fighting someone who holds one of your family as a hostage, or to someone you have given slanaiocht (your word of honor) you lose one point of Permanent Willpower.

Violating a geas (a magical/social prohibition - placed by a druid or a woman) causes you to lose a number of points of Willpower equal to the width of the geas.

If anyone uses trochlaigh (ritually starving themselves outside your house, done when they feel injured by you but are unable to force you to make reparations) against you, you are at -1 dice to Cool and Command until you settle the matter.

Optional Skills

Body: Sword, Axe, Spear - Killing things with pointy objects.

Coordination: Chariot - Running people over and not falling out.
Horseback Riding - running people over while mounted on a horse.
Javelin - throwing a spear at things to kill them (pointy end first, please).
Sling - Killing things with rocks and some string.

Sense: The Glow - specialized sense for noticing other talents and their power effects.

Brains: Law - training as a fili or the equivalent. You know, and know how to use, the god-awfully obscure, arcane, and confusing laws of Irleand.
Mythology - not much different than history, in the PC’s mind. Good for knowing who killed who and why you should thus be able to kill them.
Theology - detailed knowledge in a specific religion.

Command: Geas - only works if you’re a noble woman or a druid. This lets you put a prohibition on someone, causing them to have to do, or not do, something arcane and stupid. For more powerful geases, miracles are the way to go.
Poetry - the Irish are big dopey saps, and a good poet can make them cry or laugh, and then kill them while they are distracted.

Cool: Faith - the degree to which you believe in the superstitions of your cult. Can be used as Mental Stability, and to try to resist the use of Geas or to gain Willpower through ritual.

Recommended Reading:

Pagan Shore by John Carnahan. For the Pendragon RPG, this is a great example of how to use real history in a mythic setting. Wonderful cultural and historical detail.

Myth, Legend, and Romance: An Encyclopedia of the Irish Folk Tradition by Daithi O hOgain. Both scholarly and readable, this is the single best source for information and understanding of the deeps of Irish folktales and legends.

Heroes of the Dawn: Celtic Myth. Part of the Myth and Mankind series by Time Life. It isn’t the deepest book, but has a very approachable layout with lovely pictures and jargon-free writing. (Unlike mine. I like to use jargon. Jargon ON).

Celtic Mythology by Proinsias MacCana. Dense and almost painfully academic, this book still has lots of hard information about Celtic myth.

The Lion of Ireland, Bard, and Red Branch by Morgan Llywelyn. The… um… more oddly tinted parts of these books are iffy, but none the less they are full of good ideas for running heroic campaigns in a mythic Ireland.

The Tain translated by Thomas Kinsella. A decent, and easily avaliable, translation of the saga of the Red Branch.

(Updated from an old file posted to the Godlike mailing list in celebration of Wild Talents finally being released.)

On the Issue of Names, Categories, and Definitions

So today I am sick as a dog. Rather than posting something new and exciting, I’m going to repost something that I wrote in Fang’s journal a few months ago. I want to have it in one place, and I think its worth saying in one chunk.

The topic of names, categories, and types of RPGs and if they are or are not games or RP or what and which is Story Game and what isn’t, has been getting a lot of talk recently, between here and Levi and John and Vincent (though on Vincent’s blog its about religion and category terms/labels) and I’ve been trying to stay more or less quiet about it because, well… because it’s a hobby horse of mine.

See, here’s the deal. Human beings think in groups, clusters, and packages. This is the reason the term “outside the box” is funny, because we all think in boxes, and outside of one box is usually just a different box. There is all sorts of argument and debate about why this is, from cognitive psychology to rhetorical studies — but most people seem to agree that one of the primary ways the human mind makes sense of the world is by fitting things into groups and attaching labels to those groups.

(Thus, incidentally, some of the reasons why things such as racism and sexism can be so hard to fight. But that’s a different argument.)

Similarly, we need language to communicate. But language never (rarely?) communicates exactly what we want it to. Instead we grope about talking about things close to what we mean, things that are linked to what we mean, and things that are the opposite of what we mean. When we say Dog, as Derrida tells us, we are saying “not cat” and when we say woman we are saying “not man.” The problem with existing words is that they come with loaded guns (sometimes thousands of years worth of them). The problem with new words is that they don’t yet mean anything, and so only have meaning in terms of what they are not.

There is a point at which this comes to start seeming hopeless. It’s like the Greek argument about the arrow only getting halfway there: if an arrow goes halfway to its target, and from there half the remaining distance, and from there half the distance remaining… it will never get to the target. When we’re all groping about for ways to put the formless into form, to make categories that are useful for forming cognitive models without being exclusive or limiting, and when we can only speak in terms of what we aren’t saying… it gets ugly.

However, Wittgenstein here comes to our rescue by reminding us that language is a game. I find it constantly hilarious that people in our community are always trying to define the word “game” into very specific focus, as that was one of Wittgenstien’s chief examples of how defining a word is an exercise in silly. See, any word that we define means that it is a word we already use — before the dictionary, the man, or history told us exactly what it meant. Wittgenstein’s point is not that it is impossible to define “game”, but that we don’t have a definition, and we don’t need one, because even without the definition, we use the word. Despite the fact that there are so many possible variations, everyone can spot correct and incorrect usage of the word. It’s only on the narrow points that we get disagreement.

Which brings us back towards where we started. See, old Witty also argued that words don’t mean anything on their own, they only mean something in terms of their social and cultural positions. Because in the game we play, words carry power — power to decide who will serve and who will eat, who will get laid and who will go home alone, who will be respected and who will be the crackpot in the corner. We fight over the definition of words so much because we’re playing the game of culture, and in that game the winners define the world and the losers become slaves.

So that brings up one answer to how you make a group that is willing to give some room around words and definitions - you need a group that is playing fair, not for keeps, and to really communicate rather than to dominate the communication. This is no easy thing to do, and is something that is actually trained heavily against in our culture. Being open minded, flexible, and really interested in what people do is not an easy thing to do for yourself, much less an easy thing to help others do.

The second part of the answer ties back into the stuff about boxes from uptop. See, one of the problems that we get into with boxes is that we get into logic chopping. Even when people are trying to be good, most of our Western world is trained in a method of discourse that emphasizes precision and exactness in a way that actually goes (to some degree) against the nature of language. They’ve made mistakes in understanding the vague and intuitive rules that language uses, and have thereby tied themselves up in Gordian knots. If people are willing to let language lie fallow, give it some time to develop, remember that words can mean more than one thing — even multiple things that contradict each other — then they can actually work at building vocabulary that is shared in the sense of real language.

That people can’t do that is one of the reasons for the jargon wars we get. Those who control the label on the box control the contents of the box. But even without the social dominance issues, people who are seeking to rationally understand something will be looking for precision and focus and will become upset when they can’t find it. How frustrating is it for a newcomer to have to struggle through the vague and shifting meanings of shit like “Lumpley principle?” Ironically, its when those meanings haven’t been socially or politically charged and controlled that they will be at their least stable. And so the frustration mounts, because to a real degree in learning the jargon one must learn the paradigm, and it is just like learning a whole new language.

So, in addition to people who are wanting to communicate rather than dominate communication, you also need people who have a degree of negative capability — the ability to take things as nebulous, shifting, and uncertain and yet still have enough interest, focus, and dedication to speak passionately about them. You need people willing to play the game not to win but for the joy of the game, who are willing to learn the rules as they play despite the fact it will often feel like they have no idea what they are doing, and who can then go from doing both of those things to making up new rules, but not using those rules to win.

Sound hard? Well, it is. And let me say that much as it is annoying in the RPG and RPG theory fields, it isn’t nothing on the similar wars that happen in other fields. Our stakes are too small for our games to be like those of comparative religion, global politics, or big bussiness — where these games are played for blood.

So how do you build a community that fosters those things?

I haven’t a clue.

Or, I don’t have any good clues. My current idea is that you must start with good people, probably a small number of them, and build the game from the ground up with them. Once they have their shit together, newbs can be brought into the game — with the understanding that they’re coming in to learn the rules first and change them second.

Of course this has all sorts of elitist baggage and potential for abuse. But at the moment I haven’t a better plan.

The other way I look at it is from Post-Positivism, which basically is a philosophy born out of positivism (the individual genius will discover the universe, which actually exists) and post-modernism (everyone is making up their own stuff as they go along) to say that there is a really real universe out there, and that the best way to find it is to have everyone (or at least everyone who is serious about it) discuss, argue, and share their different view points to see what common points and synthesis develops. The idea is that from years and years of this (generations and centuries, even) we’ll get closer and closer to the real truth of things in time.

The thing that drives me nuts is that under this philosophy it is possible to argue, and argue hard against each other and still come out with better knowledge on the other side. But that often fails in practice, because the assumption of the philosophy is that both sides are arguing with their first priority to come to a better focus on the truth — when in reality most people are arguing to be right, to impress someone, or to become the alpha dog.

So in that manner, as part of that “good people” thing is you have to ruthless eliminate those arguing to be right, and focus on those trying to understand. The issue with that, of course, is that it can be difficult to impossible to tell from the outside who is who.