The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Thursday 15 January 2015

Old 'Angus' Edwards Sure Regrets That Night With Flossy

I sure hope you can see this, because it's hilarious.  This is both funny and painful to watch.  Ron Edwards keeps trying to reinvent himself as the Inventor of the OSR; but he has that one little hurdle of having called gamers Brain Damaged, and now he doesn't want to apologize for it but he really wants everyone to stop talking about it so that he can claim to have Invented the OSR...

Why, why won't they leave him alone and stop mentioning how he said gamers were Literally Brain Damaged just like 12 year old child abuse victims?!
It makes me think of that story about the guy in the bar, bemoaning: "I've built 20 bridges all over the county, but do they call me 'angus the bridge builder'?  No.  I've won fifty darts competitions but do they call me 'angus the dart thrower'? No.   I've probably drunk a thousand pints of ale in my lifetime, but do they call me 'Angus the ale-drinker'? Oh no... BUT YOU FUCK JUST ONE SHEEP..."

Anyways, in the comments he literally says "you're welcome, OSR"; it's fascinating how he's desperately turn around what was once a manifesto for Narrativism into a retroactive call to arms for Old School, now that he thinks there could be money and adulation in it.

Of course, part of the problem with him is that all his 'explanations' fail to explain anything. Never mind regular roleplayers, Edwards doesn't even know how to talk to regular HUMANS.    Hint: you send them a link to a 40-page essay about yourself that uses idiotic pseudo-intellectual jargon that a first-year undergrad would probably be too ashamed to stoop to, that doesn't actually explain anything, and then beam with pride at how misunderstood you are.

Sorry, Ron, you didn't invent the OSR.  You were the enemy of all that old-school stands for until you saw it was the next big "in" thing, and now you desperately want to be the Pope of it. Missing the good old days, I guess, like when you first posted the Brain Damage statement and on the Forge, instead of calling you an ass for it, all your little cultists positively DROOLED over you with declarations of "oh Yes Dear Leader, you're so right!! I was totally BRAIN DAMAGED before and i never even knew it!! Thank you oh great one for showing us all how fucked up we were and now guiding us to the One True Path of  collective-story creation with a deprotagonized GM and focus on addressing a theme rather than creating a virtual world, where emulation is distasteful and irrational and Immersion is either an Impossible Thing or another sign of mental illness!"

But now he wants to pretend he created the OSR.  Because, you now "collective-story creation with a deprotagonized GM and focus on addressing a theme rather than creating a virtual world" is TOTALLY what Old-school play is all about. 


Currently Smoking: Masonic Meerschaum + Image Perique


  1. "collective-story creation with a deprotagonized GM and focus on addressing a theme rather than creating a virtual world"

    What the heck does that even mean?

    1. I don't know David. I've been reading through the linked thread and it clearly means something to everyone over there but I'm completely in the weeds on it.

    2. I got a page or two into it, realized none of it made any sense to me, further realized that (even more importantly) I don't CARE! I don't care about Ron Edwards, 8+ year old threads on a forum I don't read anyway, or who's trying to get credit for starting the OSR. I've got blog posts to write, minis to paint, and a real life! This crap can kindly get flushed.

    3. It means:
      "collective-story creation"/"rather than virtual world": the setting doesn't actually exist, it's just a backdrop to tell a story on. And the story gets told by everyone: all the players get an equal process in making up the story as they go along (through storygaming mechanics that often can change the world willy-nilly, including retroactively, for the good of the story).

      Deprotagonized GM: The GM is not god. He has no great power. He's like a monopoly banker; all he does is govern how to resolve the rules, which he CANNOT CHANGE. The Game Designer is the genius, not the GM; everyone knows GMs can't be trusted to run their own game. Also, the GM normally can't say "no" to the players. Especially if they have "story points" or whatever; at most he has to "say yes or roll the dice", he can't just say "no".

      "Addressing a theme": Ron Edwards thinks that "story" is defined as a series of events that address a theme. Which is one of the most dumbfuck ways to define 'story' ever, but there you go. I think it was mainly a strategic decision, in response to the 'three act railroad' idea that White Wolf had for its understanding of story.

  2. Is there a cliff-notes version of that essay?

    I couldn't get past the first paragraph before my eyes glazed.

  3. Gotta love those undergrad papers that throw in a lot of big words to try to fool the reader into thinking something profound is being said when in actuality it's merely to obfuscate the lack of anything to say. Otherwise one would be clear and concise to get one's point across.