Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou don't give up, now do you?

Not often, no.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAll this time wasted on the internet trying to grab the old mike over and over and over again... wouldn't that be better spent, like, designing a game?

I suppose.  So would the time "wasted" watching anime.  But I don't do really well at heads-down design 24/7.  I like a bit of recreation and entertainment to spice things up.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOr have you given up on the designer thing and decided to settle for the marketeer slot?

Oh, I'm still in design ... doing Misery Bubblegum, my game about sad, sad, sweet, sweet shojo-manga teens.  It's going pretty well ... had a lot of nice playtests and some breakthroughs at GenCon.

I'd do this in any Q&A at this point, because I have a gaming itch I want to scratch. (And I want to talk about the particulars of gaming.)

Pretend you're going to start running a D&D 3.5 game. You've got some friends together. How would you go about prepping and starting running a game?*

*By which I'm curious what kind of characters you allow people to generate, what kinds of books you use or, more importantly, why you use them, how you go about using NPCs and generally going about being a DM.

I'm willing to bet you go about it differently then I do, because we have some different takes on gaming, but this isn't a trap.

THe rules of this thread are prejudiced against real conversation.  I predict that even less will come of it than previous PR stunts and nonsense.

I mean, come on, seriously people, this thread is essentially built on a premise that is in direct odds with the principles and philosophy of this site.  

"You can ask me questions, but I refuse to actually offer real support for any of my assertions, and if you attempt to call me on it, I will ignore you"?  Isn't that everything we're supposed to be against here?

I move that this thread be closed now, as it's basic premise is already dodgy from post #1.

Quote from: John MorrowAbove, I posted a link to Ron's statements from 2001, topic 24 on The Forge.  Is that early enough for you?

I think there's still a pretty well known history of conflict before that date ... stuff like the "roleplay vs. roll-play" and the conflicts between White Wolf fanboys and those who considered themselves owners of "traditional" RPGs in that generation.  So, no ... not early enough for me to feel that it's when things Started.

Quote from: John MorrowHave you ever heard of Hunter Logan's draft FAQ for gaming theory on The Forge?

Well, I have now, but I hadn't before.  Is it interesting?  Do you have a link?

Quote from: John MorrowOut of curiosity, when did you first get involved?  Gaming Outpost days?  The early days of The Forge?

I did Usenet back in the late eighties, early nineties, and then the Forge more recently, and conversations at game-stores, etc. from the seventies throughout.

Quote from: John MorrowWas Ron really "hitting back", or are you begging the question here?

I think Ron was responding to things that occurred before his essays, and that they have a bearing on what has happened since.  As the question is about who first attacked, that seems relevant to me.

Quote from: John MorrowIn what way do you think Ron was "hit"?

I think folks said things, and Ron found them offensive.  Same as, y'know, Ron said things and other people found them offensive.

You seem to have a lot of strong opinions on this subject.  I'm sorry to only respond to your (few) questions, but ... well ... there you are.  Q&A thread.  If I missed any questions, please re-raise them.  It was a long post, and I might have gotten sloppy

Quote from: Thanatos02Pretend you're going to start running a D&D 3.5 game.

Don't have to pretend, as it turns out.  I plan to run at least some short-form sessions pretty soon, and I'm in prep-work.

'course, the idea that I'd want to run D&D in one-evening chunks may be the first point of division from your style.  Still, my logistics make short-form much more attractive than long, these days.

Quote from: Thanatos02You've got some friends together. How would you go about prepping and starting running a game?

Okay, first off:  My friends are sending mixed signals about this.  They say they don't want to take the time to learn any of the rules (which, having just done it myself ... not all that onerous) but they're all excited about building their characters, and I'm like ... "Dude!  How do you plan to do that without knowing any of the rules?"  But, whatever.  I'll thrash that out with them over email (and, quite possibly, have them roll up characters over email, with me guiding them through the process).

I'm inclined to go first-level, because it's the minimum new rules stuff for us all to take on board (less feats!), and I think it provides a really good frisson of life-and-death decisions.

Also, that means (if I understand my reading correctly) that as GM I won't have to think about Prestige Classes for a long, long time.  Maybe never.  Other than that?  I'm happy with any of the character types.  Dwarven druid?  Halfling barbarian?  If the rules say it's okay then most anything sounds good to me.  I've got a great group.  Together, we'll make things sing.

I figure there'll be a lot of group back and forth in char-gen.  I don't imagine we'll end up with four spell-casters and no fighters, for instance.  But yeah, if there's that level of rules-cluelessness then I'll step in to provide some guidance.

As for prepping the adventure ... I'm planning to dig in here (as recommended in this thread) and pull out a good 1st-gen module, up-rules it to 3.5, and go!  I'm a little disappointed that they don't have Keep on the Borderlands (which I remember as an intriguing and nicely episodic setup), but I'll just deal.

I'm planning to use the PHB, DMG and Monster Manual ... as well as the module.  I expect I could add in a lot more than that, but at first level (and with a rules-shy group) I don't see that it'll add much value.  The game presented in the core books looks solid to me (no surprise!) ... we're going to give it a whirl.

Quote from: J Arcane"You can ask me questions, but I refuse to actually offer real support for any of my assertions, and if you attempt to call me on it, I will ignore you"?  Isn't that everything we're supposed to be against here?

I don't know, man.  I'm not exactly clear on what we're supposed to be against and for ... probably other people can give you stronger opinions.

I gotta tell you, though ... I like discussions that don't develop into arguments.  I think they're pretty cool:  folks can say "Yeah, I believe this, but I don't insist that you believe it too."

Frankly, having a discussion without argument tends (to my mind) to have people saying what they believe, and then not feeling the need to support it and buttress it with, well, arguments.

But, like I said, I don't know whether we're "supposed to be against" that kind of discussion.  I really hope not.

Dude, the stated purpose of this site is to provide a place where free speech reigns above all.

What you have done with this asinine thread is created material proof of what folks like Maw have been screeching up and down for months now, that the Forge types like yourself can't stand up anywhere where there's no moderators and trumped-up "rules" to hide behind and keep you from being called on anything.

In a way, I suppose it's pretty comical.  You starting this thread at all proves their point quite avidly.

But as much as that amuses me on an almost spiritual level, that kind of shit still doesn't belong here, so why don't you bugger off back to the Forge or RPGnet, where that kind of thing is more the de rigeur.  

You've officially lost any glimmer of respect you may have had with this move, so really, there's no point in you being here anymore.

Quote from: TonyLBI did Usenet back in the late eighties, early nineties, and then the Forge more recently, and conversations at game-stores, etc. from the seventies throughout.

Hey, this actually raises something useful. Tony, did you ever post on rec.games.* Would you mind linking to any of your archived posts on Google Groups?

Quote from: Elliot WilenHey, this actually raises something useful. Tony, did you ever post on rec.games.* Would you mind linking to any of your archived posts on Google Groups?

I certainly recall doing so (as well as some lively activity on alt.callahans) and I wouldn't mind at all digging up my younger, more idiotic self ... but I'm honestly having trouble dredging up a memory of what my username was back then.

That was (a) my college years, when I thought pseudonyms were immense fun and (b) a long time ago.  I might have been posting under "CaptainXS."

Yeah, I'm not ... y'know ... real proud of that name in retrospect :sweatdrop:

And ... I tried searching under it and found nothing.  Dang it!  Now you've gotten me really curious.  I might even browse around, trying to find some of the discussions I was in on.  Somebody who knows more about Google Groups UI, please PM me and tell me how to get back to the subject headers for ~1990, without having to use the "Older" button to manually page back through thousands of pages.

For reference, it looks like the first GNS FAQ post-dates (June 14 ,2001) the thread I posted a link to earlier.

Quote from: TonyLBI think there's still a pretty well known history of conflict before that date ... stuff like the "roleplay vs. roll-play" and the conflicts between White Wolf fanboys and those who considered themselves owners of "traditional" RPGs in that generation.  So, no ... not early enough for me to feel that it's when things Started.

Sure, but isn't almost all of that attacking from the same side that Ron is?  Where is the history of hostility from the traditional gamers or "roll-players" directed toward the story-oriented folks who don't like traditional games?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I have now, but I hadn't before.  Is it interesting?  Do you have a link?

Oh, it was an excellent FAQ, I think (I have read a copy).  Here is one of his messages about it:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=323.0

I'm sure you've never seen it because Ron never did post it, as far as I know.  I do recommend Hunter Logan's design column on RPGnet, though.  I think some of his better ideas made it into that column.

Quote from: TonyLBI did Usenet back in the late eighties, early nineties, and then the Forge more recently, and conversations at game-stores, etc. from the seventies throughout.

That's what I thought, but it sounds like you missed the early GNS days.

Quote from: TonyLBI think Ron was responding to things that occurred before his essays, and that they have a bearing on what has happened since.  As the question is about who first attacked, that seems relevant to me.

Was the problem that Ron was attacked for his play style or was the problem something else?  There is a group of people in this hobby who saw great promise in the structure of role-playing games but never liked the particulars of traditional role-playing games.  As a result, they felt trapped by the majority into a style that they felt ruined the game for them rather than having fun.  What the resent is the tyranny of a style of play that ruined their fun, and once they find what they were really looking for, they expect everyone else to share their path to enlightenment and fear that the majority will crush them again, the way it once did.

There was a similar theme on the Fudge mailing list among people who advocated the really freeform use of Fudge.  They resented people who wanted to add crunchy rules to Fudge because they feared, and even at times admitted it, that Fudge would become considered crunchy and that it would crush what they most liked about it.  Why?  Because they had been trapped in games far too crunchy for them for years and resented it.

So the attack doesn't necessarily start as the response from another attack.  It had to all start somewhere.  And that somewhere can be resentment of past experiences and fear of where things might go.

Quote from: TonyLBI think folks said things, and Ron found them offensive.  Same as, y'know, Ron said things and other people found them offensive.

So who said the first offensive thing and why?

In my experience, a lot of the insults spring out (and not just from the story-oriented folks) from likes and dislikes being expressed as universal truths and from from bad experiences with a particular type or types of gamers in the past.

 I don't think most people's negative opinions of game styles and such come from contact with the opinions critical of their style.  I think they come from bad experiences with other styles and from fears that something they love might be lost to a different style of play.

Quote from: TonyLBYou seem to have a lot of strong opinions on this subject.  I'm sorry to only respond to your (few) questions, but ... well ... there you are.  Q&A thread.  If I missed any questions, please re-raise them.  It was a long post, and I might have gotten sloppy

The truth is that I respect your opinions quite a bit because you've always been a straight-shooter as far as I'm concerned and patiently answered a lot of questions that I directed at you.  And I think you've done a fine job of answering me here.  I simply think you are barking up the wrong tree here. And I think you are missing a huge dynamic in the resentment that people have for certain styles of play and certain theories if you don't look at where many of those resentments really come from -- the bad experiences that gamers have had.  And that's one of the reasons game style advocacy always winds up like a straw man battle between an idealized perfect style of play and a style of play that does nothing right, because they are often being made by people who have only seen the other style of play done wrong.

Quote from: John MorrowSure, but isn't almost all of that attacking from the same side that Ron is?

I honestly don't even know what "side" Ron was supposed to be on at that time.  Maybe if you divide the sides up the right way then it comes out the way you're saying.  I don't know.  All I know is that I don't remember any clear bad-guys setting out to relentlessly attack the innocent.

My recollection is that everybody was pretty randomly attacking everybody else.  Some folks were attacking White Wolf gamers because they were too artsy, some attacking them because they weren't artsy enough, others attacking non-White-Wolf types for being inadequately something-or-other, or too much that-other-thing.  

But then, I'm not so great at distinguishing sides, as has been pointed out elsewhere.  It sure seemed important to the people at the time, though.  I imagine it may well have been important to me, though that's a long, long lens of past to look through.

Quote from: John MorrowWhere is the history of hostility from the traditional gamers or "roll-players" directed toward the story-oriented folks who don't like traditional games?

I don't know.

My opinion is that it's probably there if a person goes looking for it, but that's not the question you asked.  You asked "Where is it?" and I don't know the answer to that.

Quote from: John MorrowWas the problem that Ron was attacked for his play style or was the problem something else?

"The problem"?  No, Ron feeling attacked wasn't "the problem."  Nor was the problem something else.  I don't think there was a single problem that you can point to and say "This started it ... this thing, and no other factor."

Quote from: John MorrowSo who said the first offensive thing and why?

In my opinion, nobody.  Like I've said, I don't think that there's one "first offensive thing" that happened with no past history to inform it ... or if there is, it's so far in the past and in a different context that we wouldn't even recognize it.

Quote from: TonyLBAlso, that means (if I understand my reading correctly) that as GM I won't have to think about Prestige Classes for a long, long time.  Maybe never.  Other than that?  I'm happy with any of the character types.  Dwarven druid?  Halfling barbarian?  If the rules say it's okay then most anything sounds good to me.  I've got a great group.  Together, we'll make things sing.

I'm a little curious as to how you're thinking of getting characters together. My players and I have worked a lot of different scenerios in the past to explain how players end up working together to avoid the "Meet in a tavern." scene that's become so pastiche at this point that it might have actually rolled back over into fun again... (Fundamentally a question, I guess.)

What kind of creative agenda, if any, do you subscribe to?

Do you feel that D&D subscribes to a creative agenda of some sort? (How do you think of D&D in terms of how you plan to play it?)

Quote from: TonyLBMy recollection is that everybody was pretty randomly attacking everybody else.

Spend some time with Google Groups and read some of those old message threads while you are searching for your former self.

Quote from: TonyLBSome folks were attacking White Wolf gamers because they were too artsy, some attacking them because they weren't artsy enough, others attacking non-White-Wolf artsy types for being inadequately something-or-other, or too much that-other-thing.

Again, the problem was White Wolf's attitude and contempt for other styles of play, as expressed by their rule books.  If there is one thing that people can't stand, it's other people treating them with contempt.  That's the tipping point in these debates.  Once you start talking down to people, they're going to try to stomp all over you.

Quote from: TonyLBBut then, I'm not so great at distinguishing sides, as has been pointed out elsewhere.  It sure seemed important to the people at the time, though.  I imagine it may well have been important to me, though that's a long, long lens of past to look through.

I have an excellent long-term memory, by the way.  I can remember standing in my crib, hearing crickets for the first time and having them explained to me, being toilet trained, giving up my bottle, and so on.  So it doesn't seem such a long lens to me.

Quote from: TonyLBMy opinion is that it's probably there if a person goes looking for it, but that's not the question you asked.  You asked "Where is it?" and I don't know the answer to that.

Well, it's always dangerous to assume that something is there if you have no evidence of it.

Quote from: TonyLB"The problem"?  No, Ron feeling attacked wasn't "the problem."  Nor was the problem something else.  I don't think there was a single problem that you can point to and say "This started it ... this thing, and no other factor."

I don't think there is a single problem, but I think there is a fairly predictable set of problems that leads to these things.  I think that you are correct that the problems predated Ron, but I don't think you are correct that Ron is necessarily a product of those previous problems.  I think that resentment of game styles and critical opions of other styles happens spontaneously all the time, as a product of experiences with other styles and the bad play of others rather than in response to encountering critiques aimed in the other direction.

Quote from: TonyLBIn my opinion, nobody.  Like I've said, I don't think that there's one "first offensive thing" that happened with no past history to inform it ... or if there is, it's so far in the past and in a different context that we wouldn't even recognize it.

That's fine, but I think the "past history to inform it" may not be hostility at all.  For example, a person shoots an intruder in their home, they might shoot the intruder even if the intruder hasn't shot them first because something else (legitimate or not) is triggering that response.  Similarly, I think it's common for people to insult other styles of play, without having their style of play insulted, because something else is triggering it.

B

Quote from: Thanatos02I'm a little curious as to how you're thinking of getting characters together.

I've been assuming that we'll figure out some reason that their characters knew each other ahead of time.  Just like the tavern thing, it's corny and overused, but I figure it still works just fine.

Quote from: Thanatos02What kind of creative agenda, if any, do you subscribe to?

I'll gladly get on board with most ways that I've seen people get fun from their games.  Afterwards we might get together and say "Wow, we really hammered home the X, Y and Z that session" ... but that's usually afterwards.  In the game itself, I say "Wow!  What Jed's doing looks like a lot of fun!  I'm getting in on that."

I don't think that creative agendas (in the GNS sense) are as big a deal as I've seen people make them:  I don't think they're a nuanced enough tool to analyze game-play without pigeon-holing it, and I'm fer damn sure that they're not a nuanced enough tool to analyze players, with all their varied interests.

Quote from: Thanatos02Do you feel that D&D subscribes to a creative agenda of some sort?

No way.

Quote from: Thanatos02How do you think of D&D in terms of how you plan to play it?

Knowing my group, I suspect that we'll get excited about the raw game-play elements ... but I also think we're going to notice and draw each other's attention to some of the in-built things that the system itself says about heroism and daring, about the danger and allure of the unknown and about the kind of people who willingly go into it.

Adventurers are bad-ass, and I suspect that will be a major emphasis of our play.  But adventurers are also ... peculiar people.  I suspect that oddness, and the ways that adventurers are outside society by choice, may get some screen-time as well.

Is that a creative agenda?  I dunno.  It's a rough draft of some of the things I suspect will come up as we play, however.

Quote from: TonyLBSomebody who knows more about Google Groups UI, please PM me and tell me how to get back to the subject headers for ~1990, without having to use the "Older" button to manually page back through thousands of pages.

Go here. Check the radio button that lets you select message dates, then use the drop-down menus to limit date range. Enter search terms in fields near the top (AFAIK searches will cover subjects and body of messages, but you can also use the Subject field to just search subjects).

Or just enter the group name (you can try wildcards, but I'm not sure they work properly) and don't bother with search fields. This should give you the whole group within the date range.

The one tricky thing after all this: use the Google Search button near top right. Somehow the layout of the page makes me want to click the Lookup Message button at lower right, but that's only for when you're hunting for a message by Message ID.