QuoteAnd I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find you bitching about DnD somewhere or other, even if it's only this or that about the latest edition.

In fact, jsut to drive home the real hypocrisy of it all, Pundit has himself stated in the past that he doesn't really like 3.5 as written.  

He's a True20 fan.

I feel really bad, cause I kinda started all this.  So I want to go back...back to the beginning...back to Ian's original statement.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaEnh. Most people I know listen to shit, commercial music, too.

Now I took this to mean that the music was commercial and shitty.  It really is a common way to read that sentence.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo, you see, you didn't read that correctly. I specifically wrote "shit, commercial music. "Shit music" is the intent of that statment; "commercial" merely modifies that statement. The music is shit, whether it's commercial or not.

What you specifically wrote, if I remember my English, does not reflect what you meant to write, apparently.  Because, you see, both "shit" and "commercial" modify music. This conflates the two. So really you end up with shit and commercial music.  It's ambiguous at best, so I'm sorry if I "misread" what you wrote by reading it in a relatively standard way. At best we could assume you meant shitty music and commercial music and the two are not linked in any way. But I get this weird feeling it's not what you meant. Why?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI enjoy turning them on to stuff I had to go out of my way to find.

I get the sense that you take pride in being the guy that knows about the music that's not "shit, commercial music." This influences heavily on how the first sentence about "shit, commercial music" is read, no?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI also didn't suggest that "stuff I had to go out of my way to find" is better or more worthy; I clearly stated that I simply enjoy turning them on to something they can't encounter when they don't look outside their accustomed sphere of influence. Sometimes they like it, sometimes they hate it, but they come away with something more than they started with.

There's two problems with this. First, taking your earlier post as a whole it certainly can be read as you claiming the stuff you go out of your way to find is better. I mean, the stuff the people you know listen to is "shit, commercial music," right?  But you, you go out of your way.  You're not lazy like them.  You don't just listen to that "shit, commercial music" that they are spoon-fed; you make an effort dammit!

Second, they don't always come away with something more. If they hate it, didn't you just waste their time?  I mean, if someone comes to me and says, "Hey, check out this new Afro-Brazilian music I just got down at the World Music store," I'm going to decline. I've got a pretty good idea of what I like, and, frankly, I don't have the time to check out the latest Afro-Brazilian beats given the chances that I won't like it. And who better to know and determine the value of that trade of my time versus the chances I'll like it?  If that person persists, and cajoles me into it, and I hate it, hasn't my time been wasted? "There's [Insert  Time Period] of my life I'll never get back," became a common saying (in the US, anyway) for a reason.

See, people make all kinds of decisions about what's important to try new, and when you can leave a sleeping dog lie. The suggestion I keep hearing in this thread, and asserted by you, is that trying something new is inherently a good thing.  That's not true.  It's not inherently a bad thing either.  Some people choose to do all of one or the other.  IMHO, most people just pick and choose.  Busy life? Why bother with the latest RPG design trend of exploding dice pools and personality mechanics when the GURPS game I've been playing for ten years is fun? Oh, just to try something new? Can you see how someone might be perfectly content with that decision and not need to be finding new RPG fashion at every chance?

Having said all that, let's get back to your analogy.  I assume your analogy was to liken music tastes with RPGS tastes.  Substitution would look something like this: "Most people I know [play] shit, commercial [RPG's], too. I enjoy turning them on to stuff I had to go out of my way to find."
Is this a fair reading of your analogy?
If so:
Which games that they play are shit?
Which are commercial?
Which are both shit and commercial?
Does commercial mean less quality in your opinion?
To what stuff do you turn them on that's not shit/commercial/both?
If not:
What is? What were you trying to say?

Quote from: Kester PelagiusWhich may be part of the problem.

The market is, naturally, sales driven.  Commercially trends in RPGs are gauged not on what people are actually playing but rather on sales figures.  Thus, if D20 is the big seller at Borders, the number crunchers look at the figures and, rightly or wrongly, assume that means D20 is popular.  They don't ask what other games or even if other games are stocked because they don't care.  Their only interest is in what is selling, not what people are actually playing.

I think that's where some people get confused.

It's not confusion until you want to start measuring things in ways that are, currently, not possible.  Is your claim that just because something sells well doesn't mean it's being played? What percentage of those who purcahse a game don't play it?

Is it that if Borders just knew about Niche Game X, they would stock it and hundreds of thousands of copies would sell?

What other measure would you use that could be reliably obtained and extrapolated to a meaningful and accurate picture of what's being played? Is there market reasearch? Should we go by Conventions and count up how many sessions of games are being played? But doens't that skew towards a certain demographic?

It's not a matter of being confused, it's  matter of using the best infomration you have.  Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that's sales and whatever market research is made public.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's certainly true that if you insist on a "yes" or "no" answer, then "do you think D&D is commercial and shit?" is the same as "have you stopped beating your wife?"

"Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!" If I answer "yes", then I am saying that I once beat my wife. If I say, "no", then I am saying that I beat her now. This is a problem if, in fact, I have never beat her at all.

"Do you think D&D is commercial and shit? Yes or no!" If I answer "yes", then I am saying something patently absurd, that what zillions of people like is shit, and that anything commerical must be shit. If I say, "no", then I am reversing my old position that commercialisation of things often, but not always, comes with a lowering of quality.

It's a rhetorical tactic to insist on a yes or no answer to a question which has no right yes or no answer; that way you make your opponent look either foolish (when they step into the yes/no trap), or cowardly (when they refuse to answer). The only way to win that game  is not to play. Ian's tactic is to openly refuse to answer it. My tactic would be to say, as I have here, that a yes or no answer is obviously stupid.

D&D is certainly commercial, but it is not shit. Its commercialisation over the years has led to its being better in some ways, and more bland and confused in others. It is not to my taste, but is obviously to the tastes of millions of other people, and they are not crazy or stupid to like it.

You're not debating people at rpg.net anymore, Settembrini and RPGPundit. You'll have to go beyond the "yes or no!" rhetorical tricks of an eight year old or neocon.

Let's be fair - the reason for the insistence on a yes or no answer is because every attempt to get any kind of answer has been met with - evasion? That's not quite the right word...avoidance?

When the question was first posed by Sett, Ian had every opportunity to answer with the kind of qualifiers you just provided.  He chose to avoid providing any answer. This often leads to the "Just a straight Yes or No will suffice," reponse.

If I were really a conspiracy theory nut, I'd think that's exactly what Iam meant to do by evading the question. But I only wear my tin foil hat on the second and fourth wednesdays of the month.

Quote from: droogWhen I was fourteen, I enjoyed playing Monopoly. I got into the limited strategy the game affords and played with friends and family. You can find a Monopoly board just about anywhere you go.

Somehow, and I can't remember how, I got interested in hex-grid wargames around that year. I also started reading a hobby magazine in the school library, and getting interested in games you couldn't find in everybody's living room.

That doesn't make me a better person. It just means I'm more aware than the average person of the range of board games available. And I'm sick of  Monopoly.

There's this other one called Clue.  You should get one.

:rimshot:

It's a joke, people...

Quote from: James J SkachIt's not confusion until you want to start measuring things in ways that are, currently, not possible.  Is your claim that just because something sells well doesn't mean it's being played? What percentage of those who purcahse a game don't play it?

Well, how many books are being sold doesn't necessarily correlate with how many games are being played. DnD happens to have a kickass marketing strategy, in that they sell to the players. You can really only sell supplements aimed at DMs/GMs specifically to one member of any given game group. The "Complete" "Races" and "Tome" series? Sell to players. And GMs for that matter.

Just a thought.

Quote from: beejazzWell, how many books are being sold doesn't necessarily correlate with how many games are being played.

And Skach went on to say that, that we couldn't know what proportion of this or that game line bought was actually played. And that in fact we cannot know this at all. So to talk about it is just premature speculation, which we leave to journalists who've not yet found a verbal cockring to deal with their problem.

I think it's fair to assume that the shitloads of D&D books being bought mean that there are shitloads of people playing D&D, and that the relatively miniscule number of Dogs in the Vineyard books being bought mean that there are relatively miniscule numbers of people playing that.

Of course, in theory it's possible that even if 1,000,000 D&D books are bought, only 10 people are playing it, but that when 1,000 Dogs books are bought, 10 people are playing for each copy, so that in play Dogs is heaps more popular than D&D. And less towards the extreme, it's possible that for every one hundred game sessions of D&D played, there's one Dogs in the Vineyard session played.

But it seems fucking unlikely.

If you go on what people are mostly playing, then in the next rpg that gets published, the "what is roleplaying?" chapter could say, "D&D."

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd Skach went on to say that, that we couldn't know what proportion of this or that game line bought was actually played. And that in fact we cannot know this at all. So to talk about it is just premature speculation, which we leave to journalists who've not yet found a verbal cockring to deal with their problem.

I think it's fair to assume that the shitloads of D&D books being bought mean that there are shitloads of people playing D&D, and that the relatively miniscule number of Dogs in the Vineyard books being bought mean that there are relatively miniscule numbers of people playing that.

Of course, in theory it's possible that even if 1,000,000 D&D books are bought, only 10 people are playing it, but that when 1,000 Dogs books are bought, 10 people are playing for each copy, so that in play Dogs is heaps more popular than D&D. And less towards the extreme, it's possible that for every one hundred game sessions of D&D played, there's one Dogs in the Vineyard session played.

But it seems fucking unlikely.

If you go on what people are mostly playing, then in the next rpg that gets published, the "what is roleplaying?" chapter could say, "D&D."

Nah, nah... my point wasn't that people are buying books they don't use... my point was that there are a shitload of DnD supplements, that players will buy these, etc. Any time I played DnD, almost everyone had a copy of the player's handbook. Then the copies (yes plural) of the DMG. Then the various monster manuals, completes, races, environment books, and tomes. Which somehow permeated even when I was teaching noobs to play. Shift to something... even as popular as D20 Modern or Star Wars... suddenly there were only two people with books. Because you just need one sourcebook to play one of those games, and anything optional is more GM geared and has fewer player options.

I'm not saying there are books that are not used to game. I'm saying that many DnD games have more copies of the same book.

Also, yeah... DnD and D20 are the most used things by far. No arguments on that point.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's a joke, people...

Maybe you should do a little tap dance.

I think the whole point of getting Ian to commit to a yes or no answer is to feed into the Pundit's and Sett's idea that there is a war going on. You see when the Pundit goes on about conviction it really means that he and the few of his ilk around here have rather extreme views about rpgs...and they are probably the only ones.

"Exalted, DitV, insert any game you hate and it's players are scum and Swine" is something which is extremely foreign to most gamers esp those who only play D&D...I say this because IME most people I know play mostly D&D.

So you have got to have an enemy, right? You have got to have folks who have the total opposite views that you have. So then you have a WAR. Then the next time Sett and/or the Pundit can go, "well Ian hates D&D, he's evidence of the Swine we keep talking about".

Now most folks who have no interest in D&D (or any game for that matter) just don't talk about it. They (and me, I suppose) talk about the games we like to play. There's more then enough goodwill around these parts to actually have conversations about a variety of games. Having no interest in a game does not translate to hating the game or it's players. But unfortunately to the Pundit, disinterests means hate .

I mean Tony LB talks about the stuff that interests him and chooses not to shit on stuff that does not. Why? It could be that most folks realize it's just a fuckin' game and that taste differ. Now reading Ian's post I don't see aything confusing about what he said. Maybe it's becasue I have read a lot of stuff by Ian and after a while as with any poster you kind of develop a short hand when you interpret what they are sayin'.

I understand why his post was such a moist inviting target to Sett. I can imagine the hard on Sett got from reading his post and that a nuanced answer would have been met with as much disingenuity that those who believe in this so-called war can muster.

Regards,
David R

Wow, when I checked out the thread and saw it had doubled since I'd last posted, I thought, "Damn! Now the thread will have moved on and I won't have a context to respond to my replies!"

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that at page 13 we're still debating the same fucking question.

So here we go: The reason you question is ridiculous, Sett, is this:

Quote from: SettembriniNo, you´re dodging the question.

If D&D is a fantastic game, why should one try something different, when you´re having fun with it twice a week?

Please explain that.

This only holds water if you only play D&D No, scratch that. It only holds water if you play ONE AND ONLY ONE GAME, whatever it may be. Doesn't have to be D&D.

I'll admit my statement was inaccurate, though. Your argument doesn't "make sense" if you only play one game; it's merely an understandable perspective if you only play one game. But your core argument, that if you're having fun gaming, you shouldn't (or have no reason to, or whatever) try new games. . .that's such steaming crap that I can't believe you can type it with a straight face. (Who knows, maybe you can't!)

The fact is, that people who have fun doing one thing can sometimes have fun doing another thing as well.

If they don't know about the second fun thing, they'll never experience it.

Some people will seek out new kinds of fun even if they're perfectly happy with their current fun.

That's all this is about. But folks keep trying to turn it into this big battle in the War. Using me or Ian or whoever as a proxy for the ever-elusive "enemy." So it's impossible to really be heard in this thread; Pundit or Sett or Maw only hear The Voice of Those Fuckers on RPGnet or Wherever. So it goes:

"They're not utterly separate, they're mixed in my group."

"But some of Those Fuckers think Dogs is popular!"

"Some people might like other games if they tried them."

"But some of Those Fuckers are too pushy!"

I'm tired of being a stand-in. Count me out.

But I must thank you for this, Sett:

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: It´s interesting how Ian dodges the question. It shows he´s a forger/swine submarine. Poisonous torpedoes, cowardice and all that.

. . .because "Poisonous Torpedoes" sounds like a great name for a rock band. :cool:

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: David RI think the whole point of getting Ian to commit to a yes or no answer is to feed into the Pundit's and Sett's idea that there is a war going on. You see when the Pundit goes on about conviction it really means that he and the few of his ilk around here have rather extreme views about rpgs...and they are probably the only ones.

(snip)

I understand why his post was such a moist inviting target to Sett. I can imagine the hard on Sett got from reading his post and that a nuanced answer would have been met with as much disingenuity that those who believe in this so-called war can muster.

I support this.

Melinglor, mate, you always take the bait. Stop discussing that shit with the war people. Let them be with their fairytale war. It's tiresome.

Quote from: RPGPunditMy younger brother is a "normal" roleplayer.  That is to say, he goes online to download porn and chat on the Myspace or whatever the fuck the kids are doing these days. He emphatically does NOT go online to look up shit about RPGs.

In other respects, my brother is an extremely dedicated gamer.  He roleplays on a weekly basis, and has been doing so for over 5 years now.

The other day, I asked him what RPGs he actually knew about. He knew about D20 (which to him is D&D, D20 modern, Spycraft, Star Wars D20, and "others"), and in fact D20 is the only system he really wants to play ever (he's far more of a D20 absolutist than I am); and he has neither heard of nor wants to hear about "weird variants" like True20. He doesn't trust them.
He knows about RIFTS and palladiums' various old games, even the ones that have been out of print for years.
He knows about Call of Cthulhu, and about Shadowrun, and about Star Frontiers (?!), and he knows about Warhammer though he doesn't care for it.  He knows about "World of Darkness" though not any particular games in it, much less the difference between first and second edition, and he has no interest in playing it.  For him, WoD is the periphery, alternative stuff on the fringe of gaming.

And that's basically it. Anything else that he might know about (ie. Qin) is only because I directly and recently introduced him to it.

So it strikes me that there really are two hobbies, utterly separate.  On the one hand, there's dudes like my brother, who know of four or five games and play one or two. And then there's the gamers who obsess about the games that only 0.1% of the world's gamers have ever heard of, not to mention the idiots on Forums who want to believe and claim that "Scion" or "spirit of the century" or "Truth and justice" are "basically mainstream".

The truth is that anything outside of those few games my brother mentioned (and one or two others possibly, like maybe GURPS) is not and will never be mainstream.  It is a testament to people's abilities to delude themselves to think anything else.

RPGPundit

Wish I had time to read the whole thread, but I have to run to work.  From reading the OP, I just have to say you are right (at least in my experience).  Most gamers play D&D and know of a few other random games they may try once or twice.

It's a misconception of people who post on RPG forums that all gamers are as anal as them.

Sometimes I wish I was one of those gamers myself.  It would often be a lot less frustrating.

A good example is Savage Worlds.  It gets a lot of hype on forums, and , the local game stores all stock at least a couple books...but I've yet to find one REAL person (gamer) who ever even heard of the game.

Quote from: grubmanWish I had time to read the whole thread, but I have to run to work.  From reading the OP, I just have to say you are right (at least in my experience).  Most gamers play D&D and know of a few other random games they may try once or twice.

It's a misconception of people who post on RPG forums that all gamers are as anal as them.

Sometimes I wish I was one of those gamers myself.  It would often be a lot less frustrating.

A good example is Savage Worlds.  It gets a lot of hype on forums, and , the local game stores all stock at least a couple books...but I've yet to find one REAL person (gamer) who ever even heard of the game.

I've always found that mindset strange. I have always been interested in trying new games. I said several times that I don't like D&D, but when I was offered to take part in a D&D game, my answer was always the same: Sure! . I afterwards quitted, but just because in my opinion the game sucked (game as in actual play, not D&D as a game).

Quote from: J ArcaneYou claim to be all about free expression, but boy are you quick to go on the attack when you smell even the faintest hint of disagreement with your Holy Writ.  

You're free to express, I'm free to beat the living shit out of you.

QuoteSo I ask again, how much further will this behavior progress?  When do you start banning people for having the wrong tastes?

Never, you stupid fuck. The fact that you can post slander like this and I don't ban you should be proof of that.

RPGPundit