The Big Model: Who Wants Some?

edited April 2008 in Forum Discussion
I spent last night drinking myself into a stupor, and sometime around 3am I had what alcoholics refer to as "a moment of clarity." It finally dawned on me that I've really been doing a disservice to the community by continually trying to tear down the Big Model. I get it now! It's not possible to come up with something that describes roleplaying better than this! To think I've wasted all this time...for shame...

And so, I've accepted the Big Model as my personal salamander, and am reborn as a Big Model zealot. In penance for my misdeeds, I will defend the model to the death, and correct any and all misconceptions regarding this staggering perfection, delivered to Ron Edwards atop Mt. Sim sometime before breakfast. "All hail behaviorism!"

All you Big Model detractors: who wants some?

Comments

  • Oh, THAT "big model." I thought you were, like, pimping heavy hotties.
  • Ahem. I'll defend them too.
  • Max, don't you think the Big Model should mention players more?

    Graham
  • edited April 2008
    That's total bullshit Graham. Everyone knows that players are the least important part of roleplaying. Certainly less important than System, because, you know, SYSTEM MATTERS. If we try hard enough, we should be able to write a game that eliminates the players completely! Then there would be no chance of incoherence, so things are certain to run smoothly.

    The only remaining question in my mind: is this Holy Grail of roleplaying a Nar game? I mean it addresses the premise of not having players pretty nicely. Or is it a Sim game? How would no players realistically play this game while celebrating the no-player package? Or is it Gamist, like a challenge to remove yourself from the game? I'm sure Rev. Edwards will weigh in on this soon.

    Yours truly,
    Sibling Machine Gun of Enlightened Reason
  • Posted By: David ArtmanOh, THAT "big model." I thought you were, like, pimping heavy hotties.
    Unfortunately, Kirstie Alley is slim again, so we need to move on to other Big Models.

    image
  • Mmmm... Kirstie Alley. Times two. Man....

    Double your pleasure,
    double your fun;
    I used to have yearnings,
    but now I have none.
  • edited April 2008
    Posted By: David ArtmanDouble your pleasure,
    double your fun;
    I used to have yearnings,
    but now I have none.
    Is this Ephemera intended to be an instance of the Poetry Technique? That Technique has been deprecated for years! Now we're calling it Versificationism. It's much better specified. Of course, there will be those who say that Versificationism is poorly constructed. But that's because they don't get the other Techniques -- you have to understand them all before you get any of them. I suggest they go right back to Synecdochism and really grok that first.
  • Wait, is someone really working on a game that doesn't need players?

    That's what's been killing roleplaying--the players have to be there, _every time you want to play_! No wonder the hobby is disfunctional. It's doomed to fail.

    If you can write a game that will play by itself, even when I'm asleep or doing other things, and none of my friends want to come over or play, I will bow down to you, buy your game, and not play it for eternity.

    That's the Great Gamer's Dream.
  • Posted By: Paul T.If you can write a game that will play by itself, even when I'm asleep or doing other things, and none of my friends want to come over or play, I will bow down to you, buy your game, and not play it for eternity.

    That's the Great Gamer's Dream.
    Whoa, whoa, Paul!

    I think you're going in entirely the wrong direction here. Games shouldn't be played at all, even by themselves. Actually playing just messes up the perfection of system.

    I want a game that reports theoretical play without actually undergoing play. It's so much tidier.
  • Levi,

    Wow! Why didn't I see that before? Each time you play the game, you degrade it. And it's not just about the rules. You degrade the physical book, as well, which, as we all know, is as important as contents. The art gets scratched, the words get mixed up in your head, the pages get bent. And the players are degraded in the process, too (but that parts' obvious).

    Good god, I am so glad for the internet. My non-gaming has improved 200% just by reading this forum. Thank you all!

    How can anyone claim this advice isn't practical?

    (Levi, do you mind if I repost your advice on rpg.net, enworld, etc, but credit you as Leve Kornysen? Thanks! The RPG world will thank you.)
  • Posted By: Paul T.And the players are degraded in the process, too (but that parts' obvious).
    Well, yeah. I mean, that's the unfortunate sacrifice we make when we give up actual play - we lose that opportunity to degrade ourselves and other players by playing through delightful little morality-plays that lack any actual moral standpoint. Which is too bad, really, but I've found that watching Russian pornography can still scratch the itch for me.
    Posted By: Paul T.(Levi, do you mind if I repost your advice on rpg.net, enworld, etc, but credit you as Leve Kornysen? Thanks! The RPG world will thank you.)
    Oh, by all means. People need to know the truth.
  • edited April 2008
    Posted By: Levi KornelsenWell, yeah. I mean, that's the unfortunate sacrifice we make when we give up actual play - we lose that opportunity to degrade ourselves and other players by playing through delightful little morality-plays that lack any actual moral standpoint.
    Dear lord no! Giving up Actual Play would be bad. Actual Play is not only a fantastic way to do theory, it's the only way to do theory. You know your theory is right when it matches your own experiences. If anyone says something that doesn't fit, their experience is clearly broken, and they should ask for a refund. I believe you'll find this truth self-evident -- after all, it is one of our Principles.

    Regards,
    Sibling Machine Gun of Enlightened Reason
  • Posted By: Levi Kornelsenbut I've found that watching Russian pornography can still scratch the itch for me.
    Really? Man, I just go ahead and scratch. (Unless it's in public, of course.)
  • Posted By: Max HigleyDear lord no! Giving up Actual Play would bebad. Actual Play is not only a fantastic way to do theory, it's theonlyway to do theory. You know your theory is right when it matches your own experiences. If anyone says something that doesn't fit, their experience is clearly broken, and they should ask for a refund. I believe you'll find this truth self-evident -- after all, it is one of our Principles.
    *Sigh*

    I can see that we're going to have to ask Ron and Vincent for a policy decision on this, in order to go forward from here as a unified movement.
  • Eventually I will finish my watershed game, "This Game Was Meant To Be Read, Not Played," and you'll all finally understand. Of course, it wasn't meant to be written, either, so it might not get finished.
  • edited April 2008
    Posted By: Levi KornelsenI can see that we're going to have to ask Ron and Vincent for a policy decision on this, in order to go forward from here as a unified movement.
    Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply make up our own definitions for all of the Forge glossary terms and then use them interchangeably without notifying anyone? It's in the handbook, guideline #34.1.C:
    Unified Big Modelian Cult, Official HandbookThou shalt use Big Model terms to mean precisely what you want them to mean, in order to smite yon heathens. Having smitten said heathens, you will change the definitions again, without notifying anyone. Should an unfortunate soul see through this diversion, he shalt be mocked ruthlessly and his loyalty to the movement shall be thrown into question. Also, lewd things shall be done to him with a chainsaw.
  • Posted By: Max HigleyWouldn't it be more appropriate to simply make up our own definitions for all of the Forge glossary terms and then use them interchangeably without notifying anyone? It's in the handbook, guideline #34.1.C:

    Unified Big Modelian Cult, Official HandbookThou shalt use Big Model terms to mean precisely what you want them to mean, in order to smite yon heathens. Having smitten said heathens, you will change the definitions again, without notifying anyone. Should an unfortunate soul see through this diversion, he shalt be mocked ruthlessly and his loyalty to the movement shall be thrown into question. Also, lewd things shall be done to him with a chainsaw.
    Don't you be rules lawyerin' us, you ROLL-player.
  • The Big Model is really simple, and describes all of role-playing.

    There are people who play Red Box Hack. These are the Hackists.
    There are people who play In A Wicked Age. These are the Ageists.
    There are people who play both games. These are the Bothists.

    There's also people who don't play either, but since they don't play role-playing games, the model doesn't need to describe them.

    yrs--
    --Ben

    P.S. There is also a social contract.
  • Posted By: Ben LehmanP.S. There is also a social contract.
    Wait. I thought that read "Socialist Contact". No wonder my secret messages haven't been getting back to Control.
  • Pff. Is that the best you guys can do? I've already done all that, twice. Ben? Get off those mushrooms and return to your counseling sessions.

    BTW: Comrade Bob, that was _actually_ meant to read Socialist Contract - now you've ruined our code book and we'll have to kill you - for your own good.

    The only one here making any least sense at all (and not even that much) is Levi. He's got it. I'm not going to tell you why. If you're not seeing it straight away you're fuckheads anyway. That's not meant in a derogative sense, but as an insult.
  • The social contract is actually made with a hitman before the game. If, for example, your GM Herbie decides those twin 3D6 megadamage claws he let you have now only do 1D6 megadamage and now your juicer is such a total puss... well, maybe Herbie gets hit by a truck, maybe falls out a window, who knows? Accidents happen, am I right? We wouldn't want anything unfortunate to happen to Herbie and his precious "game balance," now would we?
  • Posted By: Ben LehmanThere are people who play both games. These are the Bothists.
    I think you mean "Bothans"
  • Posted By: JDCorleyPosted By: Ben LehmanThere are people who play both games. These are the Bothists.
    I think you mean "Bothans"

    That I do. That I do.
  • I don't understand. If you get rid of the players, how is everyone supposed to play the game wrong?
  • By running it wrong.
  • Running is playing, Paul. Or were you not a registered member of this forum when I established that? I've clearly outlined my correct assumptions more than once. Get with my program!
  • Why the emotional angle? It's not a faith - if you don't have a practical goal to meet, it's just a thing. It's only right or wrong relative to some practical use.
  • Posted By: Callan S.Why the emotional angle? It's not a faith - if you don't have a practical goal to meet, it's just a thing. It's only right or wrong relative to some practical use.
    Oh, fer fuck's sake.

    Get your religious innuendoes out of my ideological purity.
  • Posted By: JDCorleyPosted By: Ben LehmanThere are people who play both games. These are the Bothists.
    I think you mean "Bothans"
    How many died to bring us The Big Model plans?
  • Posted By: David ArtmanMany
    Many
  • With all of these terrible things going on in the world (Bothans and such), I'm starting to question my faith. Disillusionment has come quickly. I'm renouncing my cult name.

    ~ Max, Formerly Sibling Machine Gun of Enlightened Reason
  • edited April 2008
    Posted By: Levi KornelsenPosted By: Callan S.Why the emotional angle? It's not a faith - if you don't have a practical goal to meet, it's just a thing. It's only right or wrong relative to some practical use.
    Oh, fer fuck's sake.

    Get your religious innuendoes out of my ideological purity.
    Okay, now I'll tap your other knee to check it's reflexive jerk...
  • Posted By: Callan S.Okay, now I'll tap your other knee to check it's reflexive jerk...
    *Flail flail*

    *Thud*
  • "You got your religious innuendos in my ideological purity!"

    "You got your ideological purity in my religious innuendos!"

    "Mmmm, this tastes great!"

    "Yeah! Let's fight to the death!"
  • Posted By: Ron Hammack"Mmmm, this tastes great!"
    You call this escalating? Man, you wouldn't know escalation if it...
    Posted By: Ron Hammack"Yeah! Let's fight to thedeath!"
    ...Ah. I stand corrected.
Sign In or Register to comment.