Theyre hardly obscure. Theyre promoted highly at conventions and online.

The point is they aren't very good.

And have another look at those numbers. D&D and Vampire didn't become popular after 10+ years of "market saturation". They became popular almost immediately.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTheyre hardly obscure. Theyre promoted highly at conventions and online.

The point is they aren't very good.

And have another look at those numbers. D&D and Vampire didn't become popular after 10+ years of "market saturation". They became popular almost immediately.

That is a good point.

Quote from: apparition13Speaking of which, I think the mechanics from OTE would fit the bill. You could fit them on a single sheet.

I'm pretty sure there is a 1-2 page summation of the rules in either the main book or the players book that they put out. (maybe both.)

Quote from: droogGosh, I wonder why one game could possibly be more widely-known and popular than another. Is it gymnastics or arithmetic?

Can I go with some from Section A and some from Section B?

Quote from: Abyssal MawTheyre hardly obscure. Theyre promoted highly at conventions and online.

The point is they aren't very good.

And have another look at those numbers. D&D and Vampire didn't become popular after 10+ years of "market saturation". They became popular almost immediately.

Well, I agree that exposure isn't the dominant factor -- and that D&D and Vampire took off relatively quickly.  Still, D&D was released in 1973 in an open field as far as RPGs were concerned, and it still took some time for it to sell out.  Vampire took off within a more crowded field, but it also had a real marketing campaign with money behind it.  For example, there were full-color flyers for Vampire sent to game stores, while nearly all indie games you still can't buy at game stores at all.  

My point here is simply that "well-known amongst RPGnetters" isn't the same thing as "well-known amongst the general RPG-buying public" -- in the same way that "well-loved amongst RPGnetters" isn't the same as "well-loved amongst the general RPG-buying public".  

Compared to similar releases -- i.e. PDF or print-on-demand, Internet-only sales without being in main venues like RPGnow or DriveThruRPG -- a number of Forge-related games, like Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard, are having remarkable success.  No, that's not anywhere close to success on the level of D&D or Vampire -- but it's not nothing, either.  Industry people are talking about indie games now, when five years ago they wouldn't even have heard of the concept.

I don't buy it. I think theyre praised more than played by far.

What we have here is 20 people cross promoting each other, fairly loudly, using new print on demand publishing technology, and fully taking advatange of the internet as a medium of promotion and commerce.

In short- these are games that are marketed out the ying yang in a way no previous rpg has ever been marketed -- fully taking advantage of an organized network of cross-promoters and multiple commerce points-- and yet they still haven't caught on in any significant way.

That in itself is no crime. I like plenty of things that are kinda obscure. But what has poisoned the well beyond redemption is the fact that so many of these guys are such grandiose self-deluded turds. I swear if I never read another dime-store psychologist yammering on about what constitutes "healthy roleplay" or whatever it will be too fucking soon.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThat in itself is no crime. I like plenty of things that are kinda obscure. But what has poisoned the well beyond redemption is the fact that so many of these guys are such grandiose self-deluded turds. I swear if I never read another dime-store psychologist yammering on about what constitutes "healthy roleplay" or whatever it will be too fucking soon.

Y'know, I don't think any particular design style has a monopoly on grandiose jerks spouting about what the right way to roleplay is.  It is possible that you notice them more in design styles you don't personally agree with.

You'd be wrong about that one, Tony.

Elsewhere, the debate over roleplaying is basicly a meaningless question of preferences. Nowhere else has anyone ever got so full of themselves they decided to make a serious allegation of widespread brain damage, or try to promote some kind of supremacist complex.