So what were the best new games released in 2016, for you?
(Asking for last-minute expansion of the Indie RPG Awards.)
The Delta Green: Agent's Handbook (https://shop.arcdream.com/collections/role-playing-games/products/delta-green-agents-handbook).
Blades in the Dark
Mongoose Traveller, Second Edition.
Cepheus Engine (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/186894/Cepheus-Engine-System-Reference-Document?term=cepheus&test_epoch=0).
Quote from: Hermes Serpent;978103Blades in the Dark
Ditto on 'Blades in the Dark', it's pretty fantastic.
Didn't buy or read any new games in 2016...who knew there were any!
Godbound and Adventures in Middle-earth. Rippers Resurrected is great, too, though technically the first non-core PDFs for it released at the end of 2015.
Quote from: Dumarest;978119Didn't buy or read any new games in 2016...who knew there were any!
You need this site worse than I do :D
Quote from: Dumarest;978119Didn't buy or read any new games in 2016...who knew there were any!
Everyone but you, ostrich. :)
Was Blades in the Dark 2016 or 2017?
I thought it wasn't actually released until 2017.
Quote from: jhkim;978154Was Blades in the Dark 2016 or 2017?
I thought it wasn't actually released until 2017.
The PDF has been out quite a while; physical books were what took a long time. DTRPG has it listed as Jan 10, 2016. Though the 'final' PDF version wasn't until Jan. 30th of this year. I'm comfortable calling it 2016.
Quote from: Michael Gray;978162The PDF has been out quite a while; physical books were what took a long time. DTRPG has it listed as Jan 10, 2016. Though the 'final' PDF version wasn't until Jan. 30th of this year. I'm comfortable calling it 2016.
That's a 2017 release date, to me. Otherwise, how do you draw the line? In the social media age, early drafts are often available long before a game is actually published.
Quote from: Pat;978163That's a 2017 release date, to me. Otherwise, how do you draw the line? In the social media age, early drafts are often available long before a game is actually published.
Conversely, in the social media age, many games are *never* published in physical book form. So that makes dates trickier.
I'd say that if the final form of Blades in the Dark was published in PDF in 2016, with the same content as the physical book published later, then it was published in 2016.
Hmmm... There's not that much that I can think off.
Quote from: jhkim;978185Conversely, in the social media age, many games are *never* published in physical book form. So that makes dates trickier.
I'd say that if the final form of Blades in the Dark was published in PDF in 2016, with the same content as the physical book published later, then it was published in 2016.
But it wasn't, which was my point. The "final" version of the PDF was released on 1/30/2017 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2080350433/blades-in-the-dark/posts/1795357). I was never talking about the print version.
Quote from: Pat;978210But it wasn't, which was my point. The "final" version of the PDF was released on 1/30/2017 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2080350433/blades-in-the-dark/posts/1795357). I was never talking about the print version.
Oops! Sorry - I missed that.
Quote from: jhkim;978095So what were the best new games released in 2016, for you?
(Asking for last-minute expansion of the Indie RPG Awards.)
To toot my own horn, you might consider Low Fantasy Gaming RPG
The Black Hack 3/23/2016 (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/178359/The-Black-Hack)
Godbound 6/28/2016 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/godbound-a-game-of-divine-heroes/posts/1616351)
Low Fantasy Gaming 10/21/2016 print (https://lowfantasygaming.com/2016/10/21/low-fantasy-gaming-softcover-via-lulu/), PDF probably earlier
The Nightmares Underneath 11/14/2016 (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/195355/The-Nightmares-Underneath)
X-Risks (Eclipse Phase) 6/29/2016 (http://eclipsephase.com/releases/x-risks)
Broodmother Skyfortress 12/12/2016 (http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/index.php?mact=News,m74c78,default,1&m74c78pagenumber=2)
Maze of the Blue Medusa (4/2016 based on blog posts, can't find official announcement)
There was also a 4th edition of Gangbusters released, but it seems to have vanished off the net. And some Arc Dream games like the latest version of Delta Green, but while they've been nominated for the Indie RPG Awards before, I'm not sure they really qualify.
Quote from: Pat;978236There was also a 4th edition of Gangbusters released, but it seems to have vanished off the net. And some Arc Dream games like the latest version of Delta Green, but while they've been nominated for the Indie RPG Awards before, I'm not sure they really qualify.
I'd say Delta Green counts as a new game. It is basically a new edition of Call of Cthulhu, but it makes a lot of notable changes.
Quote from: HorusArisen;978125You need this site worse than I do :D
Too many games, not enough time...I have more games than I can deal with as it is. Most of mine came out between 1977 and 1989. Kind of a shame that most of them stay on the shelf 99% of the time. Still, if anything brilliant and original comes along, point me in the right direction.
Quote from: Baulderstone;978240I'd say Delta Green counts as a new game. It is basically a new edition of Call of Cthulhu, but it makes a lot of notable changes.
Referring to "indie". The awards use a more expansive definition than I would.
My favorite new game from 2016 was, ...of course, the Fate sci-fi game by Sarah Newton, MindJammer.
Quote from: Pat;978236The Black Hack 3/23/2016 (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/178359/The-Black-Hack)
Godbound 6/28/2016 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/godbound-a-game-of-divine-heroes/posts/1616351)
...
The Nightmares Underneath 11/14/2016 (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/195355/The-Nightmares-Underneath)
These three for me. One is super cheap and the other two free without artwork btw for anyone who wants to check them out.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
I want that one and the Harlem-based Cthulhu too.
Difficult to date game release dates sometimes, but I guess the most original in premise so far has been Tales of the Loop. Just not quite enough for me to really consider it a favourite though. I'm probably most interested in older lines still - loving Mongoose Traveller for example (including Mindjammer), and I quite liked the release of GURPS Discworld (on the cusp of the new year). Whatever my misgivings about the Call of Cthulhu 7E core rules, their full colour supplements are a visual treat. The new Unknown Armies is interesting, although I find there to be quite a lot to digest in the new systems they've brought into the game. Other kick-starters like Kult: Divinity Lost, Delta Green (the full RPG rules) and Paladin may be the most interesting for me, ultimately, but I've yet to see them.
For completely new games, however, probably Tales of the Loop.
I'd pick Feng Shui 2e, but it's not without its flaws. Getting rid of the Buro was a bad idea, and no character creation was a bad idea. Also some of the rules are broken.
Adventures in Middle-earth was my favorite new RPG from last year.
Quote from: Pat;978251Referring to "indie". The awards use a more expansive definition than I would.
I missed your point. You are right. I like the strict definition that an indie game is one that is published by the guy that designed it. Stolze's made indie games in that past, such as
Reign, but in this case he is working for Arc Dream. If this counts as indie, so does every game not made by WotC or Paizo.
I think I need to go with
Delta as my game of the year. Partly because it is the only 2016 game I have run, but also because I have been running
Call of Cthulhu since the mid-80s, and this is the first "new edition" of the game where I feel it was genuinely improved. It is my new baseline for the rules, even when running non-Delta Green CoC. I've been holding off on doing more with it until I the full version of the rules comes out, and it has been hard.
Quote from: Ulairi;978363Adventures in Middle-earth was my favorite new RPG from last year.
I thought that was a supplement for converting D&D rather than an actual game in itself, no?
I'd forgotten about Nightmares Underneath. That's gone high on the list of newish thing I want to check out.
Quote from: Baulderstone;978365... but also because I have been running Call of Cthulhu since the mid-80s, and this is the first "new edition" of the game where I feel it was genuinely improved. It is my new baseline for the rules, even when running non-Delta Green CoC. I've been holding off on doing more with it until I the full version of the rules comes out, and it has been hard.
I'm in the same camp.
DG: the Rpg is the system that I had hoped CoC7e would be. An improvement and fine-tuning of the CoC/BRP engine.
I'm planning my next CoC campaign now, and I'm using DG as my baseline. I just need to generate some additional professions, and alter the skill list, and I expect it to work perfectly.
P.S. A month ago, Arc Dream provided an in-copy-editing manuscript of (what was called) the Case Officer's Handbook to Kickstarter backers. I've just gotten around to reading through it, and was happy to see some stats for mythos horrors.
Quote from: K Peterson;978391P.S. A month ago, Arc Dream provided an in-copy-editing manuscript of (what was called) the Case Officer's Handbook to Kickstarter backers. I've just gotten around to reading through it, and was happy to see some stats for mythos horrors.
Thanks. I must have missed that. I'll do an email search for it.
Quote from: Baulderstone;978365I missed your point. You are right. I like the strict definition that an indie game is one that is published by the guy that designed it. Stolze's made indie games in that past, such as Reign, but in this case he is working for Arc Dream. If this counts as indie, so does every game not made by WotC or Paizo.
There are many games - even outside of WotC and Paizo - which are written purely under contract. The creator contracts a number of writers for the majority of the content. In turn, the writers submit manuscripts, and then have no control over what happens to the game. Often their content is changed, and they have no say in the final game that comes out, which is often significantly different than what they submitted. From what I've heard, this happens for a lot of game companies - including Steve Jackson Games, Palladium, and others.
For the Indie RPG Awards, I want to also include some collaborations between creators. Games like A Penny for My Thoughts, or Pundit's Forward to Adventure! aren't strictly creator published. The author designed the game, but turned to another RPG creator to help with layout and distribution. However, there is a significant difference between those cases and what I've understood of typical contract writing. If the author of the majority of the text mostly has control over the design as it is released, then I consider that indie for the purposes of the awards. I realize that this leaves a grey area over how much control the author effectively has, but I think the important dividing line is excluding strictly contract writing with no control.
Quote from: Dumarest;978374I thought that was a supplement for converting D&D rather than an actual game in itself, no?
It is an actual game line in and of itself. No different than somebody above mentioning the new Fate scifi game.
If we are talking "indie" RPGS, which I think it almost impossible to define anymore. But, I'll define it as anybody releasing a game and publishing or writing games isn't their full time job. I'd add James Spahn's Hero's Journey. It's the best rendition of Sword & Wizardry and I'm sad that he's kind of abandoned the product line.
Quote from: Ulairi;978464It is an actual game line in and of itself. No different than somebody above mentioning the new Fate scifi game.
That answer is a bit of evasion, no? Part of a "game line" does not equal "game." A referee screen could be part of a game line.
So, again, is it an actual game in itself?
Quote from: Dumarest;978475That answer is a bit of evasion, no? Part of a "game line" does not equal "game." A referee screen could be part of a game line.
So, again, is it an actual game in itself?
I don't understand the difference. It's a game. It's based on the 5E but it's no different than any other OGL game.
Quote from: Ulairi;978479I don't understand the difference. It's a game. It's based on the 5E but it's no different than any other OGL game.
Thanks.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;978507You're full of crap. Adventures in Middle Earth is a setting book that requires the 5E rulebooks to play. It's an expansion, not a stand-alone game.
Well, rulebook really. You'd probably get by on the free basic rules too, if you had to. The DMG and Monster Manual wouldn't be necessary though.
It's a difficult thing to define a 'game' in the context of RPG book formats and supplements. I'd say that having a whole line of Middle Earth books pushes it a little beyond being just a supplement. Aside from not telling people how to roll dice, it's about as comprehensive as The One Ring line, really.
Quote from: Baulderstone;978365I missed your point. You are right. I like the strict definition that an indie game is one that is published by the guy that designed it. Stolze's made indie games in that past, such as Reign, but in this case he is working for Arc Dream. If this counts as indie, so does every game not made by WotC or Paizo.
I think I need to go with Delta as my game of the year. Partly because it is the only 2016 game I have run, but also because I have been running Call of Cthulhu since the mid-80s, and this is the first "new edition" of the game where I feel it was genuinely improved. It is my new baseline for the rules, even when running non-Delta Green CoC. I've been holding off on doing more with it until I the full version of the rules comes out, and it has been hard.
Sounds awesome I guess I'll have to add it to my wishlist.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;978507You're full of crap. Adventures in Middle Earth is a setting book that requires the 5E rulebooks to play. It's an expansion, not a stand-alone game.
It requires the basic rules and really basic understanding of how 5E works. It's a game line.
Quote from: Ulairi;978717It requires the basic rules and really basic understanding of how 5E works. It's a game line.
If it doesn't have the basic rules, it's a supplement to whatever contains the basic rules. Whether the supplement has spawned its own supplements is irrelevant.
Quote from: Ulairi;978717It requires the basic rules and really basic understanding of how 5E works. It's a game line.
Okay, so it's NOT a game in itself. Sheesh. Simple question. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Baulderstone;978365I think I need to go with Delta as my game of the year.
(...) this is the first "new edition" of the game where I feel it was genuinely improved. It is my new baseline for the rules, even when running non-Delta Green CoC.
Quote from: K Peterson;978391DG: the Rpg is the system that I had hoped CoC7e would be. An improvement and fine-tuning of the CoC/BRP engine.
What did they change?
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;978787Not really. The books are designed very similarly to the setting supplements from 2E and, particularly, 3E (among others): Core setting book that includes setting-specific classes, races, and rules. Then a line of setting-specific supplemental material.
No one went around claiming that the Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft were stand-alone OGL games. The difference between the Dragonlance setting supplements and the Dragonlance 5th Age game was also crystal clear. There's zero reason to be "confused" by a largely self-evident and obvious distinction.
Well it's funny, because the ICv2 just listed Adventures in Middle Earth as a Top 5 selling RPG for Spring 2017: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4308-ICv2-s-Spring-2017-Industry-Report-Stays-Steady-Middle-Earth-Arrives!#.WXqzp62B22w
Quote from: TrippyHippy;978940Well it's funny, because the ICv2 just listed Adventures in Middle Earth as a Top 5 selling RPG for Spring 2017: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4308-ICv2-s-Spring-2017-Industry-Report-Stays-Steady-Middle-Earth-Arrives!#.WXqzp62B22w
Yeah, if someone wants to dismiss AiMe as "not a game" then they'd better be doing the same to nearly every Savage Worlds title out there along with the new World of Darkness game lines. By that logic everything from Savage Rifts to Vampire: the Requiem wouldn't be considered games, and that's just silly.
Quote from: Brand55;978941Yeah, if someone wants to dismiss AiMe as "not a game" then they'd better be doing the same to nearly every Savage Worlds title out there along with the new World of Darkness game lines. By that logic everything from Savage Rifts to Vampire: the Requiem wouldn't be considered games, and that's just silly.
Then you're calling the group you quoted as an authority "silly", because here's the Summer 2008 ICV2 Top 5 Role-Playing Games (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/13174.html):
1. Dungeons & Dragons
2. Warhammer 40K: Dark Heresy
3. World of Darkness
4. Shadowrun
5. Exalted
#3 isn't Vampire: The Requiem or Werewolf: The Forsaken, it's World of Darkness.
You're using a different definition. This particular discussion started comparing stand alone game and supplements. Clearly, all the games you listed require another book, so they're not stand alone. They're all supplements. There's no way to rationally dispute that. The people who disputed that, like you, are actually talking about something else entirely. Because you dropped the "stand alone" and "supplement" part, and started talked about how those games have tons of support. Which means you're talking about game lines, not whether a particular book is stand alone. Those are two completely different things.
And note, from the conflicting examples above, that ICV2 seems to be using a mixture of both definitions to decide what qualifies as a "game" (which is a more general term, and more difficult to define).
Quote from: Pat;978948You're using a different definition. This particular discussion started comparing stand alone game and supplements. Clearly, all the games you listed require another book, so they're not stand alone. They're all supplements. There's no way to rationally dispute that. The people who disputed that, like you, are actually talking about something else entirely. Because you dropped the "stand alone" and "supplement" part, and started talked about how those games have tons of support. Which means you're talking about game lines, not whether a particular book is stand alone. Those are two completely different things.
And note, from the conflicting examples above, that ICV2 seems to be using a mixture of both definitions to decide what qualifies as a "game" (which is a more general term, and more difficult to define).
Pinnacle Entertainment introduced two new RPGs recently - "The Goon
RPG" and "Fear Agent
RPG" - and both require Savage Worlds to play. Mongoose's "Judge Dredd
RPG" had two editions, one based on D20 and requiring the 3rd Edition D&D Player's Handbook, and the other Traveller.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;978955Pinnacle Entertainment introduced two new RPGs recently - "The Goon RPG" and "Fear Agent RPG" - and both require Savage Worlds to play. Mongoose's "Judge Dredd RPG" had two editions, one based on D20 and requiring the 3rd Edition D&D Player's Handbook, and the other Traveller.
Did you not read the post? Because that's a perfect example of using a different definition.
Quote from: Pat;978961Did you not read the post? Because that's a perfect example of using a different definition.
I love it when people say "Did you not read the post?!" - implying that the point raised has no bearing on it, but it does. Firstly, by way of illustrating what you have said, dumbnuts!
Of course it's an issue of definition, but y'see, for me the supplement in many ways is actually the system rules themselves. When I play Adventures in Middle Earth, for example, the actual game I am playing is that and they are really supplemented by a ruleset that just so happens to be found in another book. The authors of The Goon and Fear Agent also seem to think so. Here's the thing, I don't actually think Savage Worlds or GURPS or whatever is actually a 'game' until the parameters of what you intend to do with the rules are established. These books merely outline systems of play, but an actual RPG is only held in the context of a setting or at least implied setting too.
Regardless, I don't think Adventures in Middle Earth should be scratched from any list of new RPGs as it was a significant new release.
Quote from: Pat;978948You're using a different definition. This particular discussion started comparing stand alone game and supplements.
No, the original question was whether AiMe was a game or just a supplement for D&D. The simple answer is both. There is a big difference between something like AiMe, which requires the basic D&D rules but is meant to create an entirely different game experience, and a book that just adds more class options to what can be found in the Player's Handbook. It's the same for Savage Worlds products. A PDF with a bunch of NPC stats or optional power trappings is just a supplement. Deadlands Reloaded, with all its Edges and rules and setting information to go along with its adventures, is a full-blown game that happens to also be a supplement to the same core SW rules it uses.
Game or supplement AiME came in at #4 in ICv2 Retail Store survey (https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/38060/top-5-roleplaying-games-spring-2017) for the Spring of 2017.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;978507You're full of crap. Adventures in Middle Earth is a setting book that requires the 5E rulebooks to play. It's an expansion, not a stand-alone game.
Yes but the free basic rules or SRD supplies everything it needs specifically the uses for combat and using abilities and the "stuff" (classes, spells, magic items, and 90% of the monsters) are not intended to be used. Instead the product substitutes alternatives grounded in Middle Earth. So while AiME is not a full RPG it not just a supplement either but rather something in between that radically alters 5e for the Middle Earth setting.
I think there is a definite gray area here to me that isn't even worth fighting about. Trippy Hippy mentioned Savage Worlds. Pinnacle has released some actual stand-alone games using the SW system. Solomon Kane is one example. That apparently makes it a separate game while 50 Fathoms is not. But Pinnacle easily could have just made Solomon Kane a supplement and 50 Fathoms a standalone. They just happened to have a model back then of making licensed SW products standalone books. If the way the games were sold was switched, they would still play the same at the table though.
It just seems weird to have the line between different games drawn entirely in the way they are packaged and not in how they play at the table.
Quote from: Baulderstone;979021It just seems weird to have the line between different games drawn entirely in the way they are packaged and not in how they play at the table.
It because it based on a survey of RETAILERS, so reflects how they think. So in some of the early surveys Mongoose and Green Ronin kept popping up as those names. Probably no single products had the number to break into the top five but as an aggregate Retailers kept looking for the latest from those two so lumped all together when they reported it. In fact I am sure it applies to everything entry on that list especially FFE's Star Wars which is up to three RPG and associated lines at this point.
AiME is own marketing entity with a distinct base among the hobby so it not surprising it pops by itself and not as D&D 5e.
Quote from: estar;979022It because it based on a survey of RETAILERS, so reflects how they think.
Sure. I wasn't singling you out with my comment. I was just making a general statement that happened to queue in behind yours. I was really looking at more as a GM at the table than a retailer.
But, as someone that spent years in gaming retail, let me swap hats. As a retailer, I would want it to be clear that AiME is
not a complete game so that people don't get home with it and wonder where half the rules are. I'd want it clearly designated as a supplement to D&D 5E.
I agree that the definition isn't worth arguing over.
As a side note, supplements are also eligible for the Indie RPG Awards - under a different category than core game rules. For award purposes, AiME would be considered a supplement - because it does not include in itself the core rules of play. It isn't eligible because it isn't indie, but plenty of other supplements are eligible. I'd love to hear about more 2016 supplements / expansions / separate lines / whatever-we-call-them in this thread - whether indie or not.
Quote from: Baulderstone;979030But, as someone that spent years in gaming retail, let me swap hats. As a retailer, I would want it to be clear that AiME is not a complete game so that people don't get home with it and wonder where half the rules are. I'd want it clearly designated as a supplement to D&D 5E.
Of course, and the reverse is true as well. AiMe is not an ideal pick for adding new things to an ongoing game of D&D, not like a Player's Handbook 2 would be. Luckily the player's book for AiMe is fairly clear in stating it's just for making characters to play in Middle-earth using 5e rules. Anyone who at least read the back cover should pick up on that.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;978965I love it when people say "Did you not read the post?!" - implying that the point raised has no bearing on it, but it does. Firstly, by way of illustrating what you have said, dumbnuts!
Of course it's an issue of definition, but y'see, for me the supplement in many ways is actually the system rules themselves. When I play Adventures in Middle Earth, for example, the actual game I am playing is that and they are really supplemented by a ruleset that just so happens to be found in another book. The authors of The Goon and Fear Agent also seem to think so. Here's the thing, I don't actually think Savage Worlds or GURPS or whatever is actually a 'game' until the parameters of what you intend to do with the rules are established. These books merely outline systems of play, but an actual RPG is only held in the context of a setting or at least implied setting too.
Regardless, I don't think Adventures in Middle Earth should be scratched from any list of new RPGs as it was a significant new release.
Those are points we could have discussed, but you didn't raise them until now. Which means you're not only incapable of following a discussion, but you also can't form a coherent response.
Quote from: Brand55;979013No, the original question was whether AiMe was a game or just a supplement for D&D. The simple answer is both. There is a big difference between something like AiMe, which requires the basic D&D rules but is meant to create an entirely different game experience, and a book that just adds more class options to what can be found in the Player's Handbook. It's the same for Savage Worlds products. A PDF with a bunch of NPC stats or optional power trappings is just a supplement. Deadlands Reloaded, with all its Edges and rules and setting information to go along with its adventures, is a full-blown game that happens to also be a supplement to the same core SW rules it uses.
I largely agree with that, with a slight clarification: There was talk about AiMe, then someone asked if it was a
supplement, and people replied that it was a
game (or RPG or game line). Since supplement and game aren't exclusive opposites, the responses were orthogonal to the question. Which is why it felt like people were talking past each other. As you say, "both" is a valid answer.
"Is it a supplement?" is pretty easy to answer, and has important ramifications (you need another book). "Is it an RPG?" is a different, and much tougher, question, and I suspect the ICV2 approach is probably the best. As estar noted, it's determined pragmatically (by retailers), and they seem to be using a standard that's largely based on marketing and branding -- i.e. is it being sold and promoted as a distinct line? Though even that get confused when it comes to things like the World of Darkness vis-a-vis Vampire: The Requiem.
I really liked Gods of the Fall but felt it was let down by the system.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;978763What did they change?
Dirk, so you know, I am not ignoring your question about
Delta Green. I am just waiting until I can give a proper breakdown of the changes. I have a busy couple of days, so I can make off off-the-cuff opinionated posts, but I don't have time to sit down with
Delta Green and list the changes. I ran it during the playtest, so I don't want to go from memory and get it wrong. Expect an answer late Saturday night or Sunday when I have some time to kick back and relax.
Quote from: jhkim;979032As a side note, supplements are also eligible for the Indie RPG Awards - under a different category than core game rules. For award purposes, AiME would be considered a supplement - because it does not include in itself the core rules of play. It isn't eligible because it isn't indie, but plenty of other supplements are eligible. I'd love to hear about more 2016 supplements / expansions / separate lines / whatever-we-call-them in this thread - whether indie or not.
I'm not the person to ask, but the DMs Guild stuff should be big in 2016, since the program launched that January.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Baulderstone;979030But, as someone that spent years in gaming retail, let me swap hats. As a retailer, I would want it to be clear that AiME is not a complete game so that people don't get home with it and wonder where half the rules are. I'd want it clearly designated as a supplement to D&D 5E.
Agree however the situation is tad more complex in that they don't need to buy the PHB, DMG, and MM to use it. All they need is freely available on the internet basic rules.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;979064And when you answer that question by claiming that it is a game "in and of itself" and that it does not require the rules from D&D 5E to play it, you are full of shit.
However you are not being precise either in specifying what are the rules of D&D 5e. Are they the rules found in the System Reference Document, the basic rules, or the combination of the PHB, MM, and DMG? You are both talking past each other.
Note: AiME is designed so that either three possibilities can be used to run it as a complete RPG.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Baulderstone;979030But, as someone that spent years in gaming retail, let me swap hats. As a retailer, I would want it to be clear that AiME is not a complete game so that people don't get home with it and wonder where half the rules are. I'd want it clearly designated as a supplement to D&D 5E.
I can tell you I once bought what I
thought was an RPG called
Testament (basically D&D but set in Biblical times and places) and was
extremely annoyed when I discovered it wasn't a game at all but rather I would have to also buy the latest D&D version in order to use it. Gave it away as I had no desire to spend additional money. Luckily I got it used and cheap.
(It wasn't clearly stated anywhere "THIS BOOK IS NOT A GAME IN ITSELF. USE OF THIS BOOK REQUIRES D&D VERSION 3 1/2.")
Quote from: Justin Alexander;979064Mayfair did the same thing with the "Batman Roleplaying Game" back in '89, and was also heavily criticized for it. (It was a particularly boneheaded move by Mayfair because a bunch of people enthused from the Batman movie bought their "game" and found something completely unplayable.)
Are you perhaps thinking of something other than this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1184[/ATTACH]
Because the Mayfair Batman RPG was completely self-contained and required no other materials in order to play it. In some ways it actually improved upon the first edition of DC Heroes, but again it by no means required that you buy anything else aside from 2 10-sided dice. I've used it many times for low-end super hero games where the characters are in the vein of Batman, Daredevil, (the Steve Ditko) Blue Beetle or Spider-Man.
I'm utterly baffled how anyone could think that having to download or otherwise acquire the actual rules set separately from Adventures in Middle-earth makes Adventures in Middle-earth a self-contained roleplaying game. By definition, if I have to acquire a set of rules in order to use another book, the latter is not a self-contained RPG.
Edit: By the by, I wasn't attempting to upset anyone by asking if it were an actual RPG or was merely a supplement thereto. I'm not sure why there would even be a debate now that I've checked it out and it's obviously not an RPG.
Quote from: Pat;979044Those are points we could have discussed, but you didn't raise them until now. Which means you're not only incapable of following a discussion, but you also can't form a coherent response.
Bizarre logic. I don't think you are capable of following a discussion, and are just lashing out accordingly.
Quote from: Justin AlexanderAnd when you answer that question by claiming that it is a game "in and of itself" and that it does not require the rules from D&D 5E to play it, you are full of shit.
Well, actually I didn't say that and you have misquoted, so you're full of shit.
To be blunt, in all this debate, all this amounts to is a couple of pedants trying to tell others what they can and can't choose as their favourite games from the last year. Somebody says they like "Adventures in Middle Earth" or "Mindjammer" or whatever? Good on 'em I say, and the naysayers can fuck off. Gamers are intelligent enough to read the blurb and work out for themselves what the requirements to play are. But if you are just picking out your favourites, in a thread like this, then people should be able to nominate what is relevant to them. The OP asked what were the best rpgs of 2016, and this thread has just spent a half dozen pages debating what we are allowed to pick as if it's that big a deal. The Origins Awards this year, picked these titles in their "Roleplaying Games" category:
7th Sea: Second Edition by John Wick Presents
Curse of Strahd by Wizards of the Coast-D&D
No Thank You, Evil! by Monte Cook Games
Star Wars: The Force Awakens by Fantasy Flight
Shadowrun-Seattle Sprawl by Catalyst Game Labs
Symbaroum by Modiphius Entertainment
Storm King’s Thunder by Wizards of the Coast-D&D
Star Wars: Edge of the Empire-Special by Fantasy Flight
The One Ring: Horse: Lords of Rohan by Cubicle 7
Volo’s Guide to Monsters by Wizards of the Coast-D&D
Make of that what you will.
Quote from: Celestial;978105Mongoose Traveller, Second Edition.
Cepheus Engine (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/186894/Cepheus-Engine-System-Reference-Document?term=cepheus&test_epoch=0).
Quote from: Psikerlord;978235To toot my own horn, you might consider Low Fantasy Gaming RPG
Those three are the ones I found most interesting. Also, Feng Shui 2, if it counts.
But I'd like to give a special shout-out to Orbital 2100 (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/193706/Orbital-2100) by Zozer Games. It's at least as much of a "game" as AiME:D!
Quote from: Biscuitician;978361I'd pick Feng Shui 2e, but it's not without its flaws. Getting rid of the Buro was a bad idea, and no character creation was a bad idea. Also some of the rules are broken.
Much as I love FS2, are you sure it was published in the 2016?
(I disagree the lack of chargen was a bad idea, but leaving that aside, can you PM me which rules you're finding to be broken?)
Does Blades in the Dark count? If so, that's my vote.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;979126Bizarre logic. I don't think you are capable of following a discussion, and are just lashing out accordingly.
Classy, the way you had to edit a snide attack in, on top of the dismissal. You started this tangent with name calling, and now you've escalated to crying victimhood because someone draws a different line between a supplement and a game than you do. And apparently even more horrifically,
people are actually talking about it. (Shudder!) They must be stopped, right?
Nobody's persecuting you.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;979126The Origins Awards this year, picked these titles in their "Roleplaying Games" category:
...
Volo's Guide to Monsters by Wizards of the Coast-D&D
Make of that what you will.
You're implying a book of monster lore is a stand-alone RPG. No, it's not.
Quote from: AsenRG;979134But I'd like to give a special shout-out to Orbital 2100 (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/193706/Orbital-2100) by Zozer Games. It's at least as much of a "game" as AiME:D!
Is that an updated version of Orbital, a near-future sf game that was available on Lulu a couple years back? Sounded interesting, but I never snagged a copy.
Quote from: AsenRG;979134Much as I love FS2, are you sure it was published in the 2016?
I got my copy in 2015, and checking the Kickstarter updates, everything from the final backer PDF, thru books shipping to backers, to the books being available in retail happened in 2015 (April, July, and September, respectively).
Quote from: Pat;979148Nobody's persecuting you.
I don't think they are, but I think you are an idiot for claiming I hadn't read your post and I think you are reacting because I called you on it. Moreover, don't flatter yourself to think I've singled you out on the matter of editing. I edit half my posts, whenever I think of something else relevant to say, or to clarify, or to check spelling. I couldn't care less what you think is classy or not.
QuoteYou're implying a book of monster lore is a stand-alone RPG. No, it's not.
No, actually what I did was to provide a full list of the Origins 2017 Nominees under the category "Roleplaying Games". If I was implying anything it was that if these judges couldn't give a shit about categorisation, then why should we here on this thread?
You do realise that, technically, the AD&D 1st Player's Handbook was a 'supplement'. It didn't have complete rules, and required other rules to play (and the DMG with all the combat tables didn't actually arrive for a couple of years). What it was supposed to be a supplement to, I have no idea, yet people have always regarded it as it's own game.
A supplement, to my mind, is something that enhances or completes the core rules of a game. Adventures in Middle Earth doesn't enhance or complete the D&D Players Handbook at all - it doesn't add to the classes, spells or anything to do with the D&D game - it merely utilises and requires the reference of the D&D5E system in order to play (and this could simply be the free Basic D&D rules) as you need. 'Requires another book' doesn't mean 'supplemental to', and really it's just a marketing ploy to encourage players to try out their game with the familiarity of a popular system. Its still it's own game, though, which is quite different to D&D. I'd imagine if they could publish the game with the full mechanics included they may well have done - but I expect the license prohibited it, and the system is so familiar and simple that I doubt it would have made much difference. The whole definition of what constitutes a seperate 'game' became immensely blurred when D20 came out, but it's just an issue of marketing ultimately.
It's a grey area, which is all anybody has argued on this thread. Moreover, why anybody feels the need to police people on this thread for simply listing their favourite games is beyond me. If ICv2 and Origins don't care, then neither should we.
Okay let's just all accept that the OP is best rpg or supplement and move on shall we?
Curse of Strahd is excellent, didn't realize it was released in 2016 or I would have included it.
Quote from: Pat;979150Is that an updated version of Orbital, a near-future sf game that was available on Lulu a couple years back? Sounded interesting, but I never snagged a copy.
Yeah, it is, but it was updated for the Cepheus Engine in 2016, so it kinda fits.
I can't tell how much was changed, since I didn't get it before the update:).
QuoteI got my copy in 2015, and checking the Kickstarter updates, everything from the final backer PDF, thru books shipping to backers, to the books being available in retail happened in 2015 (April, July, and September, respectively).
I'm also a KS backer, but assumed I might be misremembering the year when I received it;)!
John Kim, the OP, runs the Indie RPG awards, and was looking for games published in 2016 that would qualify for the award, and hoping you all might nominate some. That's why his interpretation of what an RPG is more important than yours for this purpose. :D
I released four new RPGs in 2016 - along with 5 new editions of older games - ND nine supplements, but there's a limit of two of each per designer for the Indie RPG award. Knowing you clowns would never nominate a non-OSR game, I picked two of each and nominated myself. :D
Quote from: flyingmice;979305John Kim, the OP, runs the Indie RPG awards, and was looking for games published in 2016 that would qualify for the award, and hoping you all might nominate some. That's why his interpretation of what an RPG is more important than yours for this purpose. :D
I released four new RPGs in 2016 - along with 5 new editions of older games - ND nine supplements, but there's a limit of two of each per designer for the Indie RPG award. Knowing you clowns would never nominate a non-OSR game, I picked two of each and nominated myself. :D
This is the Internet. No one's opinion is ever more important than mine! :D
Quote from: TrippyHippy;979189I don't think they are, but I think you are an idiot for claiming I hadn't read your post and I think you are reacting because I called you on it.
Your reply had nothing to do with my post. You're only calling out your own stupidity.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;979189No, actually what I did was to provide a full list of the Origins 2017 Nominees under the category "Roleplaying Games". If I was implying anything it was that if these judges couldn't give a shit about categorisation, then why should we here on this thread?
One of which is a book monster lore, thereby implying it's an "RPG".
But the Origins category is a poor analogy, because they're not making any distinction between stand alone game and supplements. It's explicitly a category for anything at all related to RPGs, whereas in this discussion we're making a distinction between supplements and core games.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;979189You do realise that, technically, the AD&D 1st Player's Handbook was a 'supplement'. It didn't have complete rules, and required other rules to play (and the DMG with all the combat tables didn't actually arrive for a couple of years). What it was supposed to be a supplement to, I have no idea, yet people have always regarded it as it's own game.
A supplement, to my mind, is something that enhances or completes the core rules of a game. Adventures in Middle Earth doesn't enhance or complete the D&D Players Handbook at all - it doesn't add to the classes, spells or anything to do with the D&D game - it merely utilises and requires the reference of the D&D5E system in order to play (and this could simply be the free Basic D&D rules) as you need. 'Requires another book' doesn't mean 'supplemental to', and really it's just a marketing ploy to encourage players to try out their game with the familiarity of a popular system. Its still it's own game, though, which is quite different to D&D. I'd imagine if they could publish the game with the full mechanics included they may well have done - but I expect the license prohibited it, and the system is so familiar and simple that I doubt it would have made much difference. The whole definition of what constitutes a seperate 'game' became immensely blurred when D20 came out, but it's just an issue of marketing ultimately.
It's a grey area, which is all anybody has argued on this thread. Moreover, why anybody feels the need to police people on this thread for simply listing their favourite games is beyond me. If ICv2 and Origins don't care, then neither should we.
You're the only one policing things, by trying to shut down discussion. The rest of us are just discussing definitions. Which you actually do as well, in this post.
I think there are multiple ways to define supplements. But the Players Handbook isn't a good example, because, as you asked, what exactly does it supplement? Nothing. It does require other books to play (the DMG and MM), but that's mutual. They're all equally core. Whereas 5e doesn't need AiMe, but AiMe does need 5e. So by at least one definition, it's a supplement. If you expand the definition to include the core book of a product line/brand, then you could argue that AiMe is core and not a supplement. Either way, I'd say the primary distinction between a core book and a supplement is dependence.
Quote from: flyingmice;979305Knowing you clowns would never nominate a non-OSR game, I picked two of each and nominated myself. :D
I've suggested a few that aren't OSR. Here are a few more (with the caveat I've never played them, they just sound interesting). I believe they're all from 2016.
Cryptomancer, Land of NOP
Chariot, Room 207 Press
Quill, Trollish Delver Games
I quite like the Airship Daedalus RPG (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/447/Deep7?keywords=airship+daedalus+rpg&test_epoch=0&page=1&sort=4a) from Deep7.
Quote from: Pat;979323Your reply had nothing to do with my post. You're only calling out your own stupidity.
It had everything to do with it - directly referring to your points.
QuoteOne of which is a book monster lore, thereby implying it's an "RPG".
It's not my list. You are reading your own implication into it.
QuoteBut the Origins category is a poor analogy, because they're not making any distinction between stand alone game and supplements. It's explicitly a category for anything at all related to RPGs, whereas in this discussion we're making a distinction between supplements and core games.
They categorise their list as "Roleplaying Games". It's not an analogy.
QuoteYou're the only one policing things, by trying to shut down discussion. The rest of us are just discussing definitions. Which you actually do as well, in this post.
I'm not able, and have never been able to shut down discussion - moreover the discussion isn't about you and I, it's meant to be about picking best games of 2016.
QuoteI think there are multiple ways to define supplements. But the Players Handbook isn't a good example, because, as you asked, what exactly does it supplement? Nothing. It does require other books to play (the DMG and MM), but that's mutual. They're all equally core. Whereas 5e doesn't need AiMe, but AiMe does need 5e. So by at least one definition, it's a supplement. If you expand the definition to include the core book of a product line/brand, then you could argue that AiMe is core and not a supplement. Either way, I'd say the primary distinction between a core book and a supplement is dependence.
When the Player's Handbook was released there was no Dungeon Master's Guide, and wasn't for several years. The prefix 'Advanced' led some gaming groups to surmise that it was a supplement to the OD&D box set and in a way it was, as it had simply collated all the supplemental material released in the interim. So is it a core rules book or a supplement? It's a grey area. By extension, the Adventures in Middle Earth is a more complete game that 1st Ed AD&D was, at the time of the Player's Handbook's initial release, and you can easily get by with just an SRD.
And for me, as a single RPG book release of any description in 2016, Adventures in Middle Earth is probably the one that made the most impact in the hobby.
Quote from: Pat;979325I've suggested a few that aren't OSR. Here are a few more (with the caveat I've never played them, they just sound interesting). I believe they're all from 2016.
It was just a joke, Pat - I didn't mean it literally!
Since I started all of this: Where in the OP does he specify wanting "self-contained" or "supplements"?
Adventures in Middle-earth is the best game that I purchased last year. Some of its supplements have a good shot of being my favorite products this year.
It's a game and it's really really good.
For an OSR pick: Hero's Journey from Barrell Rider Games.
As an update, you can check out the 38 games and 11 supplements that are registered so far on the Indie RPG Awards page.
http://indie-rpg-awards.com/2016/
I think I've got all the stuff mentioned in this thread that is remotely indie.
Quote from: jhkim;980368As an update, you can check out the 38 games and 11 supplements that are registered so far on the Indie RPG Awards page.
http://indie-rpg-awards.com/2016/
I think I've got all the stuff mentioned in this thread that is remotely indie.
Hero's Journey from Barrell Rider Games?
Quote from: Ulairi;980372Hero's Journey from Barrell Rider Games?
Oops! I forgot to push the latest updates to the site.
Yes, I have Hero's Journey - and now the listing is showing on the site. Thanks for checking!
Looking much better! :D
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;980647Never said you did. Ulairi did. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37360-Best-new-games-of-2016&p=978507&viewfull=1#post978507) I notice you then did the exact same thing with Pat, demonstrating an inability to keep track of who said what to who (including yourself). Try to keep track of a conversation if you're going to insist on making yourself look like an idiot in it.
It was a response to your direct reply to me with this quote:
Quote from: Justin AlexanderAnd when you answer that question by claiming that it is a game "in and of itself" and that it does not require the rules from D&D 5E to play it, you are full of shit.
Ulairi never said it was a game "in and of itself" in your citation either, by the way, so you are full of shit about that too. He merely said it was "a game", but you are too blinkered in your self-righteous opinion that you cannot make out that subtle difference. Moreover, you're the guy that took this thread down the whole 'full of shit' tone in the first place, so you are the idiot in chief here in any case - presenting yourself as some sort of overriding authority in a topic that is both a minor issue and a grey area.
Oh, and that Infinity RPG looks like a load of shit too - you're probably just pissed that nobody wants to mention it here.
I'm bemused that anyone would dig in his heels and defend the idea that a sourcebook requiring an actual game with rules is a game rather than merely a sourcebook Obviously it is not. Nobody would seriously claim that it was. Just admit you were wrong and move on. This isn't Congress where changing your mind and admitting you are wrong is verboten.
Quote from: Dumarest;980670I'm bemused that anyone would dig in his heels and defend the idea that a sourcebook requiring an actual game with rules is a game rather than merely a sourcebook Obviously it is not. Nobody would seriously claim that it was. Just admit you were wrong and move on. This isn't Congress where changing your mind and admitting you are wrong is verboten.
The arguments been had, and the distinction between something that supports or completes a particular game and something that simply utilises the ruleset of another line has been made. Adventures in Middle Earth
doesn't actually supplement the D&D game. You are playing something distinct when you play it, but you do require basic rules in order to play it (which could be freely purchased, in terms of what is actually needed). Hence, in this case, the rules supplement the game and not the other way round. Someone also nominated Mindjammer using the Traveller rules above - same thing.
The linking of a game towards a particular ruleset is a marketing ploy, but they are not 'supplementing' another game if the outcome means you are no longer playing the original game. When you buy Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, it actually supplements what exists in the D&D Player's Handbook. When you buy Adventures in Middle Earth, it doesn't. It is it's own game that requires reference to a rules document to play. A rules system is not a game in and of itself.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;981259EDIT: ... wait. Did you mean that I'm supposed to be pissed off that nobody has mentioned my non-indie game published in 2017 for a Best Indie RPG of 2016 award? Jesus. That's so dumb I wasn't even able to parse it as a coherent thought, let alone an insult.
It's an insult. Apparently your thought processes aren't coherent enough to even process that. It figures. This thread wasn't titled 'Best Indie RPG', but 'Best New RPG of 2016' - and your own inability to fulfil your kickstarter campaign in 2016 (as projected) is your own issue.
Quote... in a discussion directly relating to what Ulairi said.
You put a comment in quotation marks that literally nobody had said. Not me, nor Ulairi. Your squirming around what it was in relation to is irrelevant after this point - you were misquoting.
QuoteIn what sense? Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, and countless other D&D setting supplements have added new rules, classes, races, and the like. (And, in many cases, also removed options found in the core rulebooks.) There is no meaningful distinction between AiME and these other products that have been referred to unequivocally as supplements for 30+ years.
All these D&D settings are designed to make full use of the D&D core rules. The new rules presented in these products are designed to be supplemental the D&D core game. Adventures in Middle Earth is not designed to supplement the D&D game, barely uses any of the Player's Handbook in effect, but adapts the basic 5E mechanics to the Middle Earth game.
Mindjammer too may refer to itself as a supplement somewhere in the text, but what it's actually marketing itself as being is an adaptation of their IP setting to the Traveller ruleset. It's difficult to switch the rules presented in Mindjammer back into the core Traveller game as the assumptions are different. As such, it's not expanding the Traveller rules from the core, but developing them in a new direction. A new game, as such. You could argue the same for DC Adventures making use of Mutants & Masterminds' rules. The only difference is that they provide a self contained ruleset (identical to M&M) because they have the licensing power to do so. However, it's still a demonstrably different game line.
I vote for The Sprawl, a cyberpunk PbtA game by Hamish Cameron. More info here: http://www.ardens.org/games/the-sprawl/ (http://www.ardens.org/games/the-sprawl/)
Quote from: TrippyHippy;981263It's an insult. Apparently your thought processes aren't coherent enough to even process that. It figures. This thread wasn't titled 'Best Indie RPG', but 'Best New RPG of 2016' - and your own inability to fulfil your kickstarter campaign in 2016 (as projected) is your own issue.
So the game didn't come out in 2016? Look, you either mock him for his game that came out in 2016 not being considered to be the best of 2016, or you can mock him for not having a game out in 2016, but you can't do both.
QuoteAll these D&D settings are designed to make full use of the D&D core rules. The new rules presented in these products are designed to be supplemental the D&D core game. Adventures in Middle Earth is not designed to supplement the D&D game, barely uses any of the Player's Handbook in effect, but adapts the basic 5E mechanics to the Middle Earth game.
So it is like a GURPS supplement?
Quote from: Baulderstone;981291So the game didn't come out in 2016? Look, you either mock him for his game that came out in 2016 not being considered to be the best of 2016, or you can mock him for not having a game out in 2016, but you can't do both.
Actually, it's proving to be quite easy...
QuoteSo it is like a GURPS supplement?
Nope. Because GURPS supplements make full use of the GURPS core rules. Case in point being GURPS: Traveller or GURPS: Castle Falkenstein, which ignored aspects of the original game design, and simply made the settings an accessory extension of the GURPS system. That said, I've still met plenty of gamers that liked the GURPS: Traveller 'game' but didn't care for the rest of the GURPS line, so in some cases the line can be blurred again.
A more pertinent comparison would be:
Quote from: artikidI vote for The Sprawl, a cyberpunk PbtA game by Hamish Cameron. More info here: http://www.ardens.org/games/the-sprawl/
Which presents a cyberpunk setting with the established ruleset of PbtA, because they want to utilise and capture the PbtA system and market, respectively.....but it's still it's own game.
There is this confusion over what constitutes a 'game' here, but it isn't exclusively an issue of being a self contained set of rules - or AD&D Player's Handbook 1st edition wouldn't qualify either. As I said before, the D20 market in particular muddied the waters, while the same factors are present in products like Adventures in Middle Earth or Savage Worlds' 'games'.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;980688The arguments been had, and the distinction between something that supports or completes a particular game and something that simply utilises the ruleset of another line has been made. Adventures in Middle Earth doesn't actually supplement the D&D game. You are playing something distinct when you play it, but you do require basic rules in order to play it (which could be freely purchased, in terms of what is actually needed). Hence, in this case, the rules supplement the game and not the other way round. Someone also nominated Mindjammer using the Traveller rules above - same thing.
The linking of a game towards a particular ruleset is a marketing ploy, but they are not 'supplementing' another game if the outcome means you are no longer playing the original game. When you buy Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, it actually supplements what exists in the D&D Player's Handbook. When you buy Adventures in Middle Earth, it doesn't. It is it's own game that requires reference to a rules document to play. A rules system is not a game in and of itself.
This is hilarious. You really can't just admit you're wrong and just acknowledge the difference between a game you can play with no other books/boxes/products and a supplement requiring ownership of the game rules? No one will think less of you for having been incorrect; they may even think more highly of your ability to own up.
You should write speeches for politicians to explain why they didn't support X until they supported X while simultaneously they always supported X until they didn't.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This shit is melting my mind...
Man this thread jumped the shark quite early on but refuses to die..
On the simple grounds of respecting others sanity, I have deleted my recent posts.
Debate done. Have a nice day.