Quote from: gleichman;233073GNS is the natural result of the acceptance of post-modernism by Western institutes of higher learning. Edwards was nothing but the result of that mindset.

And yes, it's pox on everything.

Fucking christ, that's stale.

Quote from: Thanatos02;233330Fucking christ, that's stale.

Once I would have thought GNS would be gone by now too. But some bad pennies keep on giving.

Quote from: gleichman;233333But some bad pennies keep on giving.

You don't say.

Great thread.

Love seeing someone worked up and spiteful over something a little different. I haven't connected all the dots yet; not sure yet what's so bad about collectors--- we tolerate all breeds of non-gamers on gamer sites (otherwise there wouldn't be tangency/off topic fora)--- but loving the vitriol.

This isn't off-the-rack ranting. I likes it.

Quote from: Quire;233254....STILL don't care about Stephen's book-collecting habit. The idea that he doesn't/hasn't/won't play seems quite ridiculous. I really don't think he counts, no matter how busy he is right now. You're not...JEALOUS of him, are you? *joke*

I actually find the guy pretty decent other than on this point. I liked WoD: Armoury precisely because it was a good book for gaming with rather than obscurely-written crap like much of WoD: Antagonists. But we're not looking at him as a writer, but as a representative purchaser of books.

QuoteIf a gamebook has (yet) another little story rather than more beastie stats, or chase rules, or another character class... I do not see how that is a pox on the hobby. It's a flavour I might not like the taste of, but how is it a pox on the hobby? Or is it only a pox on the hobby if I don't like the taste of it?

White Wolf's supplements used to come in a standardised soft-cover format of 96 pages IIRC (Now they're around 128 pages hard-cover, IIRC). Every page devoted to game fiction is another page taken away from gaming material. For example, Legacies: the Sublime, has _twelve_ pages of fiction at the beginning of it, most of that due to the formatting and the use of space-eating art throughout the story. That's the space for two additional legacy write-ups eaten away by what could plausibly fit on two or three pages. When game fiction directly competes for space with the material that is actually used by gamers to play the game, it certainly is damaging to the hobby.

We can also tell that WW intended for its fiction to be for collectors by its short in-character collections of them. Stuff like Hunter: Apocrypha is of almost no real gaming use (except perhaps as a prop), and one even has trouble mining it for ideas because of how obtusely it's written. It's beautifully bound though, and it is referenced in-character throughout the rest of the line as tremendously interesting and important for what's going on. I can't see anyone but a collector wanting a book like that.

Another example, this time not with game-fiction, but with the gaming contents of books. D&D 3.5 books were designed under the principle that they should contain at least one thing that would sell them to any and every player around the table. That meant every book had at least one PrC, at least one new monster or obstacle, one new magic item, one new spell, one piece of GMing advice, and whatever space was left, was devoted to the actual topic under discussion. The idea was to force people to collect as many books as possible to get the material they wanted. You couldn't just buy a book devoted entirely to PrCs, and until the very end of the line, you couldn't just buy a book with all the spells. Everything was dribs and drabs here and there so that you'd have to assemble as large a collection as possible.

In my experience, the biggest collectors have also been the biggest players. They don't play everything they buy - there's no way all those fat settings books are ever going to see play - but they are typically the twice-weekly guys. Of the half-a-dozen super-collectors I know these days, only a couple bother with message boards. The others seem happier getting together and bullshitting in the pub.

I'd say there's strong brand-loyalty within the RPG community, and this leads to a "completist" mentality, among other things (eg, imaginary style wars, tooth-grindingly bad Hunter S Thompson pastiche etc etc). I think the effect non-playing collectors have on the hobby is negligible.

As for inspirations for games, I like a nice strong set-up with an obvious call to action. I don't think I've ever consciously ripped one from some other medium, although it all mulches around in my mental compost heap. More and more I wait and see what the players come up with before thinking about things too hard.

Ned

Hi,

I'm afraid this thread has drifted so far from the OP, I don't actually know what it's about.

In the absence of Son of Kirk, who usually disagrees with me on these issues, I'd note that he normally queries whether there has been any deterioration in the quality of games since collecting became widespread and queries whether my argument is basically a species of badwrongfunism.

The first is a good point, and I think they have deteriorated though he thinks they haven't.  The second I don't think is a good point, but I would note that he has persuaded others with it on occasion so obviously he makes it better than I do (which is fair, it is his point after all).

This is actually a better argument for rpg.net.  Most posters here actively game, so nobody really takes offence.  Huge numbers of rpg.net posters aren't actually active gamers, so tons take offence.  It makes for a more polarised thread.  That said, I have no fucking clue what this thread is about.  GNS?  WTF?

The problem, Balbinus, is that your argument is entirely anecdotal, and runs counter to the experience of numerous gamers of a similar vintage to yourself (SoK is late 30s, btw).

I could argue vigorously and eloquently that the sky is purple, but I would never convince any of those people who look outside and see a blue sky.

Ned

I'm confused.

I have a large collection of games and buy suppliments for extensive game lines, a variety of individual games and core books for game lines that don't interest me enough to pursue the entire line. Of the books I buy, I typically get serious use out of maybe a third of them, if that. The rest I generally read and use for inspiration in other games, or occasionally for campaign ideas in that system should the opportunity ever arise to run it (I have at least half a dozen campaign ideas for different systems ready to go at the drop of a hat, and periodically dust those ideas off and look for improvements based on material from recent purchases).

I also read extensively and have pretty eclectic taste. I frequently reread the same books two or three times. Recent authors that I've read include, but are not limited to Roger Zelazny (too much time spent in the Amber forum), HP Lovecraft, Umberto Eco (I prefer his earlier stuff), Joe Abercrombie (check out his First Law trilogy - it's pretty good), Shakespeare (I like to read the plays before I go to see a new performance) and Eddings. I have read all of the Iliad, the Odyessy and the Aeneid, much of it in the original Greek and Latin (MA in Classics) and written more essays on literary structure than I care to think about.

At the same time, I'm a big fan of a lot of modern "geek" tv shows. Buffy, Firefly, Flash Gordon, Highlander, Heroes, Dark Angel to name but a few. I freely admit that I apply no critical judgement to the tv I watch, mostly it's just free and easy escapism.

So, am I a collector of RPGs and a blight on the industry? Am a a proud and noble supporter of my chosen hobby? Am I a slave of modern pop culature tv with no understanding of deeper narrative structure nor ability to apply it to the games I run? Or am I a pretentious fool who reads too much dull shit and enjoys highbrow entertainment that the bulk of potential players won't appreciate?

Or is it possible that I'm just a fairly typical representative of a lot of gamers of a certain age and educational background, and that none of the stereotypes fit me any more than they do anyone else, and the notion that something as broad and ill defined as a "collector" could be a universally positiove or negative influence on the industry is absrd? Ditto the notion that certain forms of background reading can be objectively better or worse for GMing without reference to teh games being run and the interests of the players involve.

Thanks for your time, you may now flame me at your leisure.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey;233400The problem, Balbinus, is that your argument is entirely anecdotal, and runs counter to the experience of numerous gamers of a similar vintage to yourself (SoK is late 30s, btw).

I could argue vigorously and eloquently that the sky is purple, but I would never convince any of those people who look outside and see a blue sky.

Ned

I did say he had a good point, I don't think I was unfair in summarising his view on the matter.  I disagree with him, but I don't regard his view as absurd.  Merely wrong, much as he views mine of course.

Besides, all arguments about rpgs are basically anecdotal, we have so little reliable data.  Either we argue on anecdote or we don't argue at all, and where would that leave us?

That said, I would say my argument is based more on economic principles than pure anecdote, put simply I argue that if price signals reward x and not y then x will over time tend to dominate.  The anecdotal bit is how many pure collectors there are and whether there are enough of them for their price signals to swamp those of players or player/collectors.  I don't think anyone much argues that there are different price signals, and on my side I would cite such luminaries as Bruce Baugh and Brand Robins (of Tribe 8 fame), both of whom have agreed with my analysis and both of whom said that pure collectors had a very real impact on games they worked on.  In the case of Tribe 8, a highly detrimental impact according to Brand.

Various rpg.net posters saying something to the contrary is all well and good, but I do personally place more confidence in what industry professionals have had to say on the topic, and they tend to take my side of this particular argument.  Quite honestly, I think many rpg.net posters have a vested interest in my being wrong because they recognise themselves in my description of collectors who don't play, though I don't include SoK among their number.

Both Bruce and Brand have publicly posted about how they have seen collectors making comments on games that were not the sort of comments that those who actually played were making, and in the case of Tribe 8 those collectors massively outweighed players in terms of purchases made.  OWoD at the end actively marketed to those who bought just to read, their adverts specifically referred to those who were buying for that purpose.  I do rather think there are some facts on my side here.

Edit:  In fact, on recollection, my argument isn't entirely anecdotal, every industry pro who posted to the relevant rpg.net threads agreed with me.  It was just general posters who didn't.

Quote from: Balbinus;233478Either we argue on anecdote or we don't argue at all, and where would that leave us?

In heaven, Balbinus, in heaven.

Just in case it's 39 virgins Heavan- I'd like to take a moment to agree with all of of you.

Quote from: Balbinus;233478Both Bruce and Brand have publicly posted about how they have seen collectors making comments on games that were not the sort of comments that those who actually played were making, and in the case of Tribe 8 those collectors massively outweighed players in terms of purchases made.  OWoD at the end actively marketed to those who bought just to read, their adverts specifically referred to those who were buying for that purpose.  I do rather think there are some facts on my side here.

Edit:  In fact, on recollection, my argument isn't entirely anecdotal, every industry pro who posted to the relevant rpg.net threads agreed with me.  It was just general posters who didn't.

IIRC, the substance of Bruce's comments was "we knew the collectors were there and tried to focus our games to move the collectors to players" while Brand's were "why did no one play my game (sob)!"

Neither of those games were designed with collectors in mind, which is the negative effect you are trying to imply with your economic principle. Show us the successful game line that is unambiguously designed to be collected and not played and you will have proved your case.

Ned

Quote from: Balbinus;233478I don't think anyone much argues that there are different price signals, and on my side I would cite such luminaries as Bruce Baugh and Brand Robins (of Tribe 8 fame), both of whom have agreed with my analysis and both of whom said that pure collectors had a very real impact on games they worked on.  In the case of Tribe 8, a highly detrimental impact according to Brand.

I'm betting the impact of collectors not buying RPG books would be highly detrimental to publishers as well. Given how marginal many RPG companies are already, a loss of say 30 per cent of the market would make many game lines commercially unviable. Looking at my shelf, I have my doubts that Talislanta 4E, Castle Whiterock, or the Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane would have made it to market if the only people they were sold to were gamers who were pretty sure they were going to run a game. How many of the people who own those books have run games with them? Blind guess - maybe a quarter. But I'm still glad they were published.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey;233490IIRC, the substance of Bruce's comments was "we knew the collectors were there and tried to focus our games to move the collectors to players" while Brand's were "why did no one play my game (sob)!"

Neither of those games were designed with collectors in mind, which is the negative effect you are trying to imply with your economic principle. Show us the successful game line that is unambiguously designed to be collected and not played and you will have proved your case.

Ned

My case isn't that there are games purely designed for collectors.  I don't think any such thing.

I can point though to OWoD which as I say had adverts expressly aimed at people buying to read rather than to play.

I'd say the high watermark was the late 90s, with the metaplot explosion, which I think was a clear case of marketing to collectors.  Happily I think we've backed off that particular gaming cul de sac.

Brand posted mostly on storygames about the impact of collectors on the Tribe 8 line, and he was very clear that their effect was negative.