Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

[Abyssal Maw]

I would like to point to the fact, that every thread in which they are talked about, sells books.

So they are using us to make more money.

Fuck you for that.

I advise everybody to ignore them, their games, and never ever talk to or about them again.

There is in fact a plan they are doing now to accomplish just exactly that. Started by the guy who made the post just above mine. He says the talking points should be swine swine swine and people should pretend to talk negatively about his games. Thus manipulating the anti-pundit crowd, which is presumed to be ignorant and willing to buy stuff to defy the pundit.

The real talking point? They're not that fun.

The whole plan can be subverted and turned upside down. The fact is, many of these guys picked "consicuous consumption flavor-du-jour" as their business model, without really thinking it through. That means they sell one game (usually to someone who has been fooled about what the game actually does) and then... ruin their reputations forever. Many of the advocates took the ultimate forgie advice and left gaming altogether. Many of the forgies that remained behind find themselves without gaming groups or unable to create meaningful gaming experiences with regular people.

People aren't playing these games outside of demos and cons, even at the height of their popularity, which is now over with. And they alienated huge swaths of a potential userbase, and they are still paying the price for that.

[Temple]

There is in fact a plan they are doing now to accomplish just exactly that. Started by the guy who made the post just above mine. He says the talking points should be swine swine swine and people should pretend to talk negatively about his games. Thus manipulating the anti-pundit crowd, which is presumed to be ignorant and willing to buy stuff to defy the pundit.

The real talking point? They're not that fun.

The whole plan can be subverted and turned upside down. The fact is, many of these guys picked "consicuous consumption flavor-du-jour" as their business model, without really thinking it through. That means they sell one game (usually to someone who has been fooled about what the game actually does) and then... ruin their reputations forever. Many of the advocates took the ultimate forgie advice and left gaming altogether. Many of the forgies that remained behind find themselves without gaming groups or unable to create meaningful gaming experiences with regular people.

People aren't playing these games outside of demos and cons, even at the height of their popularity, which is now over with. And they alienated huge swaths of a potential userbase, and they are still paying the price for that.

This sounds a lot like baseless accusations, actually.

[luke]

I know Tony's in the limelight now, but there were a bunch of questions thrown at me in this thread. Unfortunately, it got away from me and the signal to noise ratio proved too much. I'm happy to answer more questions, but can we go back to the Q&A thread to do that? You pose 'em, I'll answer 'em and you can do what ever you want with em.

[RPGPundit]

This sounds a lot like baseless accusations, actually.

There are a number of threads on Storygames (even in the section they allow the "proles" to read) where they talk about how Spirit of the Century's sales "SPIKED" after I gave it a negative review.
I know that I've been sent a metric shitload of "storygames" ever since that fact came out, by people who have every reason to believe that I am going to give them just as sound a beating in the media or worse than I did to SoTC.

So I wouldn't say its all that baseless, actually.

RPGPundit

[Settembrini]

Plese join the siege, Pundit.
It follows logically from your last post.

[Temple]

There are a number of threads on Storygames (even in the section they allow the "proles" to read) where they talk about how Spirit of the Century's sales "SPIKED" after I gave it a negative review.
I know that I've been sent a metric shitload of "storygames" ever since that fact came out, by people who have every reason to believe that I am going to give them just as sound a beating in the media or worse than I did to SoTC.

So I wouldn't say its all that baseless, actually.

RPGPundit

No, this is very probably true. As I said, all publicity is good publicity, and you are a pretty central (or at least visible) figure in the online gamer community.

What strikes me as baseless accusation are the implications of Forge-based indie game designers in some kind of cult, conspiracy or plot to kill, subvert or otherwise ruin the entire rpg market. I just dont see it.

Youre a freemason, Pundit. You should know how easy it is for something benign to appear as a conspiracy from the outside, or from casual observation better than most on this board.

[RPGPundit]

Youre a freemason, Pundit. You should know how easy it is for something benign to appear as a conspiracy from the outside, or from casual observation better than most on this board.

Yup, that's why I try to look at what people actually say; and what they actually say is pretty damning.  The whole "we're just misunderstood" argument didn't even fly BEFORE "Brain Damage"; and it certainly doesn't fly now.

RPGPundit

[luke]

Since you've moved me and Tony and our bad ideas about roleplaying to the ghetto, can we have our our Forum instead? I think it would nice right under yours, we could even call it something clever like "The Butcher's Block."

[RPGPundit]

Since you've moved me and Tony and our bad ideas about roleplaying to the ghetto, can we have our our Forum instead? I think it would nice right under yours, we could even call it something clever like "The Butcher's Block."

Something along these lines is currently being discussed in the Help section, only if I do choose to go this route it'll be called something more like "Shameless Self-promotion".

RPGPundit

[Anon Adderlan]

Alrighty...

So, chaosvoyager, exactly where are we going with this?

I'm commenting on the quality of the actual Q&A thread(s?) by asking a series of rhetorical questions designed to reflect the questions being asked.

For example...

"Do you believe that designing new RPGs is harmful to the hobby?"

Of course it isn't, and nobody thinks it is. It's a position you want to imagine the other guy to have so you can pretend to oppose it.

And this just further supports one of the points I'm trying to make. What purpose do Q&A threads that ask about positions we 'imagine' other people to have so we can 'pretend' to oppose them serve other than to just annoy and embarrass everybody?

There are plenty of games out there, why to make a new one? Why bother? Why dilute already quite diluted hobby?

And I highly doubt that I'm 'imagining' Master Degree to be implying that new games harm the hobby (though you could argue that he's using the word 'dilute' in a positive way).

Objectively bad games exist.

***

That doesn't mean that there is such a thing as an objectively good RPG - it all hinges on your definition of "objectively good".

Honestly, I can't see how these two can both be true unless you lack a criteria for 'good', which now that I think about it...

On the other hand, if you work on another definition of "good" then you might be able to find some objectively good RPGs.

Many of the anti-forge, or anti-anything crowd for that matter, don't HAVE a definition for 'good' of any kind, only 'bad'. As such they can only argue 'against' something, not 'for' it.

Thing is when someone bases their attacks on the 'subjective' value judgments of their opponent, they cannot use their own value judgments without opening themselves to the same kind of attacks.

And one thing I noticed is that the Q&A thread eliminated the option of applying 'objective' criteria pretty early in the game. In such an environment, useful questions about games, or game design are impossible to ask.

Oh, and finally, you cannot design something without having a criteria. But if you have a criteria, that means you consider some game designs to be 'better' and some to be 'worse'. And that means these kinds of Q&A tend to be anti-design, and anti-designer.

The only way I can see a new RPG hurting the hobby is if its content was especially objectionable and drew the wrath of the general public.

Same here, and considering F.A.T.A.L. and the LARP vampire murders, it would have to be really bad. However, there appears to be a few gamers that feel that certain indie games are harming the hobby simply by existing in the first place.

Less often? Most certainly. It doesn't make economic sense for them to change their lines frequently.

Sorcerer has never had a second edition, and it never will.

Come to think of it, MOST indie games lack a second edition (and yes, I know exceptions like TSoY and Shock exist), and when they do have one, it rarely changes the rules enough to break backwards compatibility.

TSR and WotC have broken backwards compatibility with every new edition of D&D and Star Wars they've released. D&D even went from 3.0 to 3.5 within three years, and changed just enough to render huge stocks of 3.0 books incompatible and unsellable.

It is important that people are free to form an opinion. Personally, I'll buy any well-designed game unless the designer or publisher were actually shown to be white supremacists or some other kind of bigot; there is a point where I will boycott a product because I don't want to give money to the people behind it.

This is the most important question of the bunch, because this whole 'swine war' has nothing to do with RPGs at all, and everything to do with the people involved. It has led to people making value judgments about things that have nothing at all to do with the things themselves, but with their perceived proponents.

And it's fine if you don't want to send money to an asshole, but for many this goes beyond just boycotting a product or person to boycotting the inherent ideas involved. That's bad enough, but it's a terrible basis for a Q&A.



My main point is that you can't have a useful Q&A about much of anything at all with these elements in play.

[James J Skach]

Alrighty...I'm commenting on the quality of the actual Q&A thread(s?) by asking a series of rhetorical questions designed to reflect the questions being asked.

And this just further supports one of the points I'm trying to make. What purpose do Q&A threads that ask about positions we 'imagine' other people to have so we can 'pretend' to oppose them serve other than to just annoy and embarrass everybody?

Well, for one, I do not know Luke's stand on certain things. I honestly want to know to form a basis of discussion beyond screaming.  I mean, if Joe say "X is objectively better than Y," I know where he stands.  I might disagree and try to explain why, but I would hope to cut down on misunderstandings because I'm not aware Joe thinks X is objectively better than Y.

Many of the anti-forge, or anti-anything crowd for that matter, don't HAVE a definition for 'good' of any kind, only 'bad'. As such they can only argue 'against' something, not 'for' it.

I'm not sure if you meant this as irony or to include Forge/GNS/TBM in the "anti-anything" crowd. I mean, in the very Q&A thread we're discussing, Luke Crane discussed how he thinks GM Fiat is inherently a weak design and so he wanted to design something else.  That seems like a design born out of being against something (as much as it could be seen as one born out of being for the opposite).

Thing is when someone bases their attacks on the 'subjective' value judgments of their opponent, they cannot use their own value judgments without opening themselves to the same kind of attacks.

Agreed.  Which is one of the reasons there are those who believe GNS/TBM is weak for that very reason; GNS/TBM is seen by some as based on subjectivity but implying the role of unified theory. I'm trying to understand why this is so.  Part of that has to be trying to understand the individual people, what they believe, and why - and then finding out if it's opinion or some kind of supported fact.

And one thing I noticed is that the Q&A thread eliminated the option of applying 'objective' criteria pretty early in the game. In such an environment, useful questions about games, or game design are impossible to ask.

I know I asked Luke, in good faith, how he comes to the conclusion that, for example, GM Fiat is objectively weak design.  The best I can tell from the answers is the he believes GM Fiat reduces accessibility and ease of use.  That's an interesting opinion, but hardly the objective truth. I'd love to see evidence – some kind of proof that GM Fiat inherently reduces accessibility and ease of use – but that's virtually impossible. So it all boils down to taste – and trust me when I say I've got no problem with Luke have a preference to design and play a certain way.  Seems to me he's having a ball doing it so good for him!

Oh, and finally, you cannot design something without having a criteria. But if you have a criteria, that means you consider some game designs to be 'better' and some to be 'worse'. And that means these kinds of Q&A tend to be anti-design, and anti-designer.

Patently false if you mean I consider some game designs to be objectively better or worse.  I don't. I consider them to be the product of the designers' goals and criteria of what is better or worse. I like the kinds of games I like, but do not expect everyone to.  We play RPGs – we've been looked at as having a weird hobby for so long that passing judgment on someone else's way of having fun is a bit foreign to me.

I have, for the most part, admiration for game designers.  I wish I had the time and drive and talent do it myself. In the mean time, I will enjoy the fruits of their labor if their effort appeals to me. But when a designer says one way is objectively better than another without solid evidence (and in some cases it seems evidence to the contrary), I have to question that person as to why they believe what they do. That's not anti-design or anti-designer.

This is the most important question of the bunch, because this whole 'swine war' has nothing to do with RPGs at all, and everything to do with the people involved. It has led to people making value judgments about things that have nothing at all to do with the things themselves, but with their perceived proponents.

Well, I for one have no problem with the people – I haven't met any of them.  I've traded words on a screen with a few and even, in the specific case of Luke Crane, set aside some nasty words between us to try and understand him better.

My main point is that you can't have a useful Q&A about much of anything at all with these elements in play.

You can if you try really, really hard.  And then you have to click your Ruby Red shoes together...

[Warthur]

Same here, and considering F.A.T.A.L. and the LARP vampire murders, it would have to be really bad. However, there appears to be a few gamers that feel that certain indie games are harming the hobby simply by existing in the first place.

Well, that's just moonbattery, especially considering that most indie RPGs will go out of print within a decade of their publication.

Sorcerer has never had a second edition, and it never will.

Come to think of it, MOST indie games lack a second edition (and yes, I know exceptions like TSoY and Shock exist), and when they do have one, it rarely changes the rules enough to break backwards compatibility.

TSR and WotC have broken backwards compatibility with every new edition of D&D and Star Wars they've released. D&D even went from 3.0 to 3.5 within three years, and changed just enough to render huge stocks of 3.0 books incompatible and unsellable.

On the other hand, indie publishers tend to publish a greater variety of games than mainstream publishers, and often each will have its own unique system. The likes of Wizards and White Wolf, meanwhile, tend to riff on their house system.

[Calithena]

Though they had numerous other faults, TSR did a great job keeping D&D back-compatible. The only non-back-compatible things before 3.0 were some of the 2e skills & powers splats, but you could add those on to anything, so that's OK.

Only with 3e did you get a serious mechanical break with the past.

Anyway, why did these two threads get moved to the ghetto?

[Brantai]

Anyway, why did these two threads get moved to the ghetto?

It's not obvious?

[James J Skach]

I'm always amused when people claim this or that thread is in "the ghetto" by...well...posting to the thread...that's in the ghetto...