Hm. I always thought it was called critical and analytical thinking. You know, the ability to have and express a nuanced view of something.

Quote from: luke;276038Hm. I always thought it was called critical and analytical thinking. You know, the ability to have and express a nuanced view of something.

Sadly, Ronny Boy never really expresses much of anything except his faux-intellectual affect.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;276019If I am, then I'm not the first. Clarity is not his strong suit. That essay was barely coherent. I only read it more than once to protect E, and to stay on topic. If I read it again, I'll likely die of boredom.

And I was irritated before, but I feel pretty mellow now, thanks. Overall, I'm a pretty rational guy. In fact, just a few days ago, I amended my statement a little bit when I realized that I slightly misread what Edwards wrote. Here it is:



So take note, that even though I slightly misread it, Edwards is still being a condescending prick in his essay. But like I said, whether by accident or intent, the man's writing is obnoxiously obtuse. That hasn't changed.



His "love" for these games, is like the condescending "love" one might feel for a retarded chimp that poops on the floor. And as far as E not needing protection, that's debatable. I decided not to take any chances when Edwards attempted to have him banned.

I thought your post was spot-on. The idea that Ron somehow loves these games after calling them 'painful' and expecting play of them not to be fun or interesting but a work of charity full of 'groan moments' and maybe-just-maybe educational is laughable.

Does anyone who feels the essay is less than completely negative think they'd feel good about seeing their own work reviewed that way?

Doubtful.

And, of course, everyone else knew *exactly* what "heartbreaker" meant -- it's a slam, another way to insult a game. Everyone after Edwards used exactly correctly.

As for speaking in my defense, it wouldn't have made any difference if the mods had decided to ban me, but I appreciated it anyway -- all too often people are silent because they're worried there might be repercussions for speaking up.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275955See, I disagreed when you said that RQ would be a heartbreaker if it were published today, but now I think you were right after all.* What is going on here is a divergence of scope and interest, based on the author's biases. To be fair, they're legitimate biases in themselves; it's just that one has a strong impression that everyone is expected to share them--and certainly that has been the case in innumerable Internet discussions with RE's fans and friends.

It's like with wargames--to a fan of the genre, the difference between an Avalon Hill classic (Tactics II, say) and, oh, The Russian Campaign is like night and day. To a fan of Euro games, they're both just hex & chit, IGU-UGO variations on  a theme. If you've played one, you've played them all.

*I seem to recall that Mike Mearls said, about the release of MRQ, that Mongoose was foolishly competing with D&D on its own terrain or something like that--in other words, it was a "heartbreaker", though he didn't use the term. I can't find the quote, though, so I may be misremembering.

Interesting. To be fair (although I never try to argue when someone agrees with me) my point about RQ was somewhat nuanced (I think RQ is a good game to use at the whole *idea* of a heartbreaker and raises questions about any given set of detection criteria).

Clearly everyone brings their own biases and perspective to the assessment game -- but the concept goes beyond the "you've played one, you've played them all" dismissal you posit -- it calls the games all sorts of names and basically declares them unnecessary.

It's the difference between having a point of view and not realizing there are other points of view out there.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;276060I thought your post was spot-on. The idea that Ron somehow loves these games after calling them 'painful' and expecting play of them not to be fun or interesting but a work of charity full of 'groan moments' and maybe-just-maybe educational is laughable.

Does anyone who feels the essay is less than completely negative think they'd feel good about seeing their own work reviewed that way?

Doubtful.

And, of course, everyone else knew *exactly* what "heartbreaker" meant -- it's a slam, another way to insult a game. Everyone after Edwards used exactly correctly.

As for speaking in my defense, it wouldn't have made any difference if the mods had decided to ban me, but I appreciated it anyway -- all too often people are silent because they're worried there might be repercussions for speaking up.

Cheers,
-E.

I fully expected to get my balls busted for defending you. It just bugged me that you were being pretty reasonable while the Ronites were playing a little game of "smack the heretic" whenever you'd (politely!) say something they wouldn't like. As soon as "Uncle Ron" piped in with his subtle appeal to get you banned, I'd had enough. So I spoke up.

And it's true, the essay is a slam. Edwards should just be more honest, and say that he thinks these games blow chunks. Frankly, I'm convinced he only cut them any slack at all is because they're "indie".

For sure, SL, but there's a deeper agenda beyond a pure & simple review. The games themselves aren't at fault (so the argument goes); the problem is that RPG design is in a rut which prevents designers from highlighting and focusing on the innovative elements they bring to the table.

From a purely aesthetic perspective, whatever the ridiculous hyperbole, this is just a matter of taste. RE didn't have much of an appetite for dozens of normal fantasy roleplaying games, or for that matter even see how different groups might be served by having a choice.

Then there's the marketing perspective: the claim that, whether or not anybody needs another fantasy RPG system, the market just isn't big enough to provide a critical mass of fans, once you subtract all the people who are happy with D&D and other games out there. The result is that the authors of the games are bound to be disappointed by lack of success, and the innovations found in the games are never going to get the exposure they deserve.

Now, I don't think this is pure bunk, but it is pretty parochial. There's a subtext of discouragement: don't design or publish a game that you enjoy and believe others will like. Instead you should refine and focus the game (i.e., following RE's theories)--or don't bother at all.

Perhaps a decade ago, this might have been good advice. Actually, it was probably good advice not to publish any RPG at all, unless you had a pretty big marketing budget. It doesn't matter if it was the most slavish D&D clone or an innovative system like Prince Valiant.

Today, given the ways that people have found to publish their games on small scale, without much capital up front (and to be sure, the Forge has helped develop and disseminate knowledge in this area), I don't think there's much reason for a person who wants to publish a game to shy away from doing so, or deviate from their vision based on a narrow demand for "innovation"--as long as they take care not to lose their shirt.

Whether or not they end up being disseminated as widely as a typical Forge game is going to be mainly a matter of publicity: there are maybe a few hundreds or thousands of people who actively seek out, buy, and play games because of the buzz generated through the Forge and its extended social network. "Traditional" RPGs don't get a lot of love through this channel.

But this is comparing apples and oranges. "Traditional" fantasy RPGs compete not only with D&D but also with 2nd and 3rd tier publishers. This is prima facie evidence that competing with D&D isn't a terrible idea in itself. At the same time (and regardless of whether those nth-tier companies are actually profitable) fans of "heartbreakers" don't have nearly the need for a Forge-type clearinghouse and network.

This thread needs a Power 19.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;276071Then there's the marketing perspective: the claim that, whether or not anybody needs another fantasy RPG system, the market just isn't big enough to provide a critical mass of fans, once you subtract all the people who are happy with D&D and other games out there. The result is that the authors of the games are bound to be disappointed by lack of success, and the innovations found in the games are never going to get the exposure they deserve.

Now, I don't think this is pure bunk, but it is pretty parochial. There's a subtext of discouragement: don't design or publish a game that you enjoy and believe others will like. Instead you should refine and focus the game (i.e., following RE's theories)--or don't bother at all.

It's also hypocritical -- when you consider all the hoops the indie scene has gone through to define market success down from being able to make your money back to just being out there, the idea that other people should accept some external, arbitrary definition of success as their standard is bizarre.

I suspect most folks doing RPG publishing have very modest ambitions -- other people playing their game and enjoying it. I doubt very many game authors would want playing the game to be charity work or study... which is what the essay calls for.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;276080I suspect most folks doing RPG publishing have very modest ambitions -- other people playing their game and enjoying it. I doubt very many game authors would want playing the game to be charity work or study... which is what the essay calls for.

Between KenHR and myself, we have gotten about 20 downloads of the Herbal Guide re-write, and once the illustrated version is out there, probably about that many more.  And we are jazzed about the response.

It is definitely more important to get the stuff out there than worry about people who don't enjoy it.  The coming year is already filling up with projects, and the same attitude applies.  If you want to sift through all the stuff we have planned just to hopefully find a kernel of usable material for all your suffering, don't bother.  Especially in this day and age, there is plenty of other stuff out there that won't be such a hassle.

Quote from: StormBringer;276104Between KenHR and myself, we have gotten about 20 downloads of the Herbal Guide re-write, and once the illustrated version is out there, probably about that many more.  And we are jazzed about the response.

It is definitely more important to get the stuff out there than worry about people who don't enjoy it.  The coming year is already filling up with projects, and the same attitude applies.  If you want to sift through all the stuff we have planned just to hopefully find a kernel of usable material for all your suffering, don't bother.  Especially in this day and age, there is plenty of other stuff out there that won't be such a hassle.

Now wait a second... that... that can't be: according to the essay, if indie people who find it 'painful' and full of 'groan moments' don't play it *no one will*!

I'm confused!
-E.

Quote from: -E.;276150Now wait a second... that... that can't be: according to the essay, if indie people who find it 'painful' and full of 'groan moments' don't play it *no one will*!

I'm confused!
-E.

I know!  We are faced with the utter ruin of our personal failure on this every day.  It makes it hard to get up in the morning.  

The more I think about RE and the Forge, the more they remind me of the whole modern art scene crowd thing - where anything new and different is good, solely by the virtue of being "innovative", and anything that actually looks nice to the average person is derivative and intellectually void.

It almost makes me wish I would have actually written my "Remains of the End" story game I kept threatening to write, just to be something of an Andy Warhol to the Forge.

Quote from: jgants;276268The more I think about RE and the Forge, the more they remind me of the whole modern art scene crowd thing - where anything new and different is good, solely by the virtue of being "innovative", and anything that actually looks nice to the average person is derivative and intellectually void.

I think both sides have their validities. I'm certainly weary of roleplaying games being very, very similar to each other, but change for the sake of change is novelty, not progress. We need both lateral progress - making constant refinements to the original - and linear progress, where games introduce quantitative differences to the original. Unfortunately, linear progress requires a goal, and progress toward a goal may eliminate many useful points which are not along that line. So while, for instance, storygames aren't for me, I'm pleased that there are people out there pushing that boundary in that direction; they may find something I will personally find useful, and they will certainly make progress toward their own individual goals.

Ultimately, what we need is a million people pulling in a million directions, all headed toward their own goals, whether that's refinement of the existing system or experimentation with new systems. The vast majority of alterations will turn out to be useless for everyone; some will be useful for small groups of individuals; a very small portion will be widely useful, and may indeed be refolded into the original mass. This is how progress is made, and I don't deign to denigrate those who are making it...even if I think the "progress" they're making is in a direction I don't personally care for.

The metaphor comparing the process to modern art - whether that's physical art or, say, music - is so very accurate that it's not really a metaphor at all. I may not like Prog Rock - I hate it, passionately - but I have no desire to see it eliminated; many useful musical ideas have come, over the years, from this thing I find detestable. So while I'll continue to hate it, I want people out there doing it, exploring the boundaries of music, bringing things back to the rest of us that might be helpful, and hopefully taking something from us in the process [we who are pushing the boundaries in another direction, that is].

Quote from: jgants;276268The more I think about RE and the Forge, the more they remind me of the whole modern art scene crowd thing - where anything new and different is good, solely by the virtue of being "innovative", and anything that actually looks nice to the average person is derivative and intellectually void.

It almost makes me wish I would have actually written my "Remains of the End" story game I kept threatening to write, just to be something of an Andy Warhol to the Forge.

Well, there is a dearth of Uno based resolution mechanics out there.  Want me to edit for you?  

Quote from: StormBringer;276275Well, there is a dearth of Uno based resolution mechanics out there.  Want me to edit for you?  

Bah, Remains of the End is set to use the innovative BRIDGE resolution system where players can set the stakes by bidding, nothing so random and gamey as Uno.