Quote from: GeekyBugle;1134717What I find sad is that Pterosaurs and T-Rex didn't live at the same time and also -Rexs had feathers.

Bah. Next you'll be telling me that cavemen and dinosaurs never lived at the same time.

Quote from: Mistwell;1134732If UBI replaced all Government benefit programs (except those you pay into, like Medicare and Social Security) I think it could work well.

That'll never happen, not in this world. Government programs don't just go away like that. You'll have UBI + everything else as well.

And you don't pay into Medicare and Social Security. The money taken out of your paycheck is just a tax, that goes into a general fund. What you withdraw isn't what you put in, because that was spent long ago. It's just payment based on some arbitrary rules, which is funded by taxes on the people who are currently paying taxes.

Quote from: Pat;1134692Do you expect tons of full-color pictures in your Encyclopedias?

Though textbooks are a fairer comparison. They might have some pictures here and there, but mostly it's diagrams, charts, or graphs -- which aren't pictures, and RPGs have plenty. That's why I don't understand why people feel the need for all these illustrations, especially full color ones. They're not picture books or coffee table books.

When I talked to professors about what cell biology or immunology text they were going to adopt (in my last job) their big concerns were
1: Website support
2: Illustrations, and not just tables and charts. Pictures.

Quote from: Omega;1134346That being the damn push for colour art and usually lots of it and the mania that this actually sells the book. Not the game. Kill this fad off and book prices would drop. But as long as publishers keep believing this lie then the books are going to cost alot more.

Many of my friends, who are really into RPGs and play at least once a week, will not look at a book unless it is in full color. The biggest complaint my friends have about Savage Worlds is the lack of fully illustrated bestiaries.

I firmly believe art sells books more than the system or even the writing. Our copies of Overlight can attest to that. Good systems and content is how you grab a niche audience large enough to fund the art needed to make a popular game.

Quote from: Pat;1134736Where did I advocate for long written descriptions? I didn't. Your argument is based on a strawman.

The necessary information to run a setting is the concrete details, like names, stats, maps, and so on. You need that, and it can't be conveyed through art. But you don't want too many details, because it's a lot harder to memorize someone else's work on all kinds of topics that might or might not come up in your game, and keep every detail of that straight, than it is to remember what you, yourself, came up with in the course of a game. That's why RPGs work best with an extensive improvisational component. Give the GM specific details for game stats and the necessary setting elements, but leave the rest open. Tone, trappings, and so forth don't need to be extensively detailed, they can be primarily defined by reference and allusion, allowing the GM to come up with the specifics only when needed.

Setting bibles are bad for that same reason -- while they're good for maintaining setting consistency when dealing with numerous authors, it becomes a lot of work ensuring every new element is consistent with the entire previous body of work, and it limits many stories. But that cross-consistency is simply not an issue in a single campaign run by a single GM, where the setting unfolds as the players engage with it. The GM doesn't have to vet everything for consistency with an established canon, because whatever the GM presents to the players is the canon. The setting bible for a new campaign starts out as just a few pages, and they're all in GM's head. That's much easier to work with.

Inspiration is useful, but it doesn't have to be art. A few words, or references to TV shows, movies, novels, or legends work just fine. And when it's art, it works best when it's detached somewhat from the setting. (Which is why I argued it doesn't have to be part of the game.) Because that way, you're not bound by it; it's a launchpad, not a prison. Conversely, by portraying it, you're limiting the world. You're creating the visual equivalent of an exhaustive setting bible, and forcing the GM to maintain some level of consistency with all kinds of extraneous, non-essential details.

You need to look up the definition of "strawman", cuz you seem to make a fast and loose use of it.

Just because you disagree with the framing of a single sentence that doesn't make the entire thing I said a "strawman". Specially when you come out and bring up stuff like "names (which I'm assuming means cities, regions, etc.), stats, maps, etc." which by necessity requires lots of information, and by extension would make my usage of the word "long" in the context of descriptions not a strawman. So my statements stand in their entirety.

It doesn't matter that you personally don't consider that information long or believe you could somehow cram a meaningful and compelling description of a world into a relatively small amount of text. The reality still remains that for people who're not uber-nerds or dedicated TTRPG gamers, but casual players that don't want to read anything and see books not as "games", but as homework, any amount of text is too "long". But an image is instantaneous.

It doesn't matter that the nerd GM actually bothered to read the text, you still need to convince them to play the game. And the thing that does that is usually pictures, not descriptions.

And GM creative license or edge cases is not a compelling reason to not attempt to visually define a world, like that somehow prevents GMs from making up their own stuff, or like the same "problem" doesn't exist if you resort to using other media for inspiration or visual references instead. You still have the same issue of being "constrained" by images that might not 100% conform to the special snowflake scenario that you're trying to present, only your pulling from a dozen different sources with no clear art direction or direct relation to your world.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1134750You need to look up the definition of "strawman", cuz you seem to make a fast and loose use of it.

Just because you disagree with the framing of a single sentence that doesn't make the entire thing I said a "strawman". Specially when you come out and bring up stuff like "names (which I'm assuming means cities, regions, etc.), stats, maps, etc." which by necessity requires lots of information, and by extension would make my usage of the word "long" in the context of descriptions not a strawman. So my statements stand in their entirety.

It doesn't matter that you personally don't consider that information long or believe you could somehow cram a meaningful and compelling description of a world into a relatively small amount of text. The reality still remains that for people who're not uber-nerds or dedicated TTRPG gamers, but casual players that don't want to read anything and see books not as "games", but as homework, any amount of text is too "long". But an image is instantaneous.

It doesn't matter that the nerd GM actually bothered to read the text, you still need to convince them to play the game. And the thing that does that is usually pictures, not descriptions.

And GM creative license or edge cases is not a compelling reason to not attempt to visually define a world, like that somehow prevents GMs from making up their own stuff, or like the same "problem" doesn't exist if you resort to using other media for inspiration or visual references instead. You still have the same issue of being "constrained" by images that might not 100% conform to the special snowflake scenario that you're trying to present, only your pulling from a dozen different sources with no clear art direction or direct relation to your world.

Strawman n
1. A weak or imaginary argument set up only to be easily confuted
2. Exactly what you did in your previous post.

In your attempt to deny your strawman, you just made an even bigger one. Not only did you repeat that whole fabrication about my imaginary preference for long descriptions, but your attempt to justify it is completely specious. Because all that name stuff you listed? None of it -- none of it -- can be conveyed through art. That information is necessarily presented via text, if it's going to included in a setting. So you're going to end up with the same name-related stuff in your text, whether or not it's accompanied by art. So you can't say that long descriptions are an inherent characteristic of settings presented via text, but are not an inherent characteristic of a setting presented via art plus text.

I think your argument that GMs may be convinced to play a setting based on the art is interesting. It's not how I think; I'm not going to be sold on a setting because of a few pretty pictures, because that will have nothing to do with the play experience. But it could explain why so many publishers push art-heavy books on the market --- though I suspect it's less that, and more that pretty art can catch the eye. Which, on a crowded shelf with many options, can be a difference between a sale and no sale. In other words, the art didn't convince the GM, but it got the GM's attention and that allowed the other merits of the product shone through.

Your argument that art doesn't restrict creativity is false, however. Imagery is powerful; once we see something, it's hard to erase, and pretend we didn't see it. It gives us a set of conceptions and preconceptions that restrict how we'll be able to imagine things in the future.

You're also drawing a false comparison between art depicting the setting, and art that serves as loose inspiration. They're not the same; art that reflects a setting is a type of canon, or a visual equivalent of a setting bible. You have to conform your ideas to it, to some degree, or you risk conflicts between what you say and the images. Art that's inspirational but not directly related to the setting does not face that limitation, because you're not constrained by it. I made that point in my previous posts, and it's why I don't mind weird and oddball art. I'm drawing a distinction between that and trying to visually present a setting via a relatively consistent art style.

Quote from: Pat;1134756Strawman n
1. A weak or imaginary argument set up only to be easily confuted
2. Exactly what you did in your previous post.

Dang bro, your a freaking genius at setting up strawmen yourself. Its like layers within layers.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1134763Dang bro, your a freaking genius at setting up strawmen yourself. Its like layers within layers.

No, I supported all my points. You're just continuing to be an asshole.

I like art that's meaningful to the game/setting in some manner.

I agree that great covers do sell games. That's foremost in Palladium's business model. Brom was worth every dime for the Nightbane cover.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4574[/ATTACH]

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;1134654I was in the industry more than a decade ago, first as a writer, then as a publisher.

What did you write? What did you publish?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1134670Or publish your own stuff instead of writing for others, of course that has way more risks than being a paid drone but the fruits will be yours and yours alone.

My buddy is a one-man game design shop. There's lots of non-creative skills necessary to make self-publishing work, and you have to be manage your stable of artists, editors, printing houses, etc.

We had a playtest day today and he took me through the workload for a card game expansion project and its the kind of turmoil and toil that you can only succeed at if you enjoy all of the not-gaming processes. Fortunately for him, he loves the autonomy so much that the process is worth every struggle.

Quote from: oggsmash;1134688Ah, I remember him as basically being the beginning of crazy power creep in Rifts  (Mercenaries ( or south america cant remember) I think was the first I had where guns got BIG).

I might be the only fan of CJ Carella's South America books!

My favorite Rifts campaign used only South America, Russia and Atlantis. Love to run that again.

Quote from: Mistwell;1134732If UBI replaced all Government benefit programs (except those you pay into, like Medicare and Social Security) I think it could work well.

Mistwell, your presentation of UBI is worth a thread of its own in RPGPundit's forum. You bring up some very interesting points worth discussing in more detail.

Why is it that claims of strawmanning and dictionary definitions never seem to be convincing arguments to me?

I guess it must be because I am an arsehole.  Yeah, thats why.  :cool:

Quote from: Shasarak;1134773Why is it that claims of strawmanning and dictionary definitions never seem to be convincing arguments to me?

Great, another asshole.

I can mock you with a fake dictionary definition as well, if you like.

90 per cent of the points raised by Stephens are true of every other creative or writing job. I've never understand why people in creative work express that kind of self-pity. It can't be healthy to resent your industry and job that much. Like the part about being 5-8 years behind in his career because he didn't hang out in bars with insiders at cons. People who don't get along with others always look for reasons why they're passed over in the workplace. But the truth is if you're really good at your job, you'll be recognized and promoted even if you don't schmooze with colleagues. And there are plenty of people who get hammered with colleagues all the time and never get choice jobs.

QuoteFantasy and scifi art has sexualized women for decades, so many pro artists assume that's what you want. Explaining otherwise takes more words that describing the art piece. I had to go with "No skin should be exposed except on the face." It was 75% effective.

I expect the only time an artist drawing women is given the instruction that "no skin should be exposed except the face" is if they're doing a catalogue for the Amish.

Excuse me, it is arsehole.

Dictionary warriors should be able to respect the distinction.

arsehole n
1. Like an asshole, but more puckery.

Quote from: Pat;1134756Strawman n
1. A weak or imaginary argument set up only to be easily confuted
2. Exactly what you did in your previous post.

1. That's not the actual definition of "straw man".
2. You're the only one "fabricating" things here by impugning my motives and reframing my points as some sort of malicious attempt to mischaracterize what you said, as opposed to expressing my OPINIONS on what I consider the inevitable end result of what you're suggesting.

And all after you went off on Shrieking Banshee a couple posts ago about how ridiculous a standard it would be to have to add an "IMO" disclaimer to every statement made in a forum conversation. Yet here you are, descending into idiocy cuz you can't tell the difference between my opinion and me putting words in your mouth that you never said.

But sure, let's play this game...

Quote from: Pat;1134756Because all that name stuff you listed? None of it -- none of it -- can be conveyed through art. That information is necessarily presented via text, if it's going to included in a setting. So you're going to end up with the same name-related stuff in your text, whether or not it's accompanied by art. So you can't say that long descriptions are an inherent characteristic of settings presented via text, but are not an inherent characteristic of a setting presented via art plus text.

OMG! Where did I say that a setting presented via art plus text was not an inherent characteristic of long descriptions? That statement appears nowhere in my post! Your argument is a straw man!

Your entire post is invalid, because straw man!

But, no. Your argument is invalid because you're dismissing the notion I presented that all that "name-related stuff" necessarily leads to long descriptions, not on the basis that it doesn't (which is a given, despite it apparently being a straw man), but on the basis it must necessarily be presented through text regardless, so that additionally including art would make the presentation even longer--which is not a dismissal of anything I said, therefore not an argument that refutes any of it.

And yes, contrary to what you assert you absolutely can convey at least a portion of that name-related stuff through art. Assuming that by "names" you mean stuff like cities, you can include an image of a city in order to illustrate its architecture and portions of its cultural makeup by displaying the way that people dress, their skin tone and facial features, and other characteristics that hint to their ethnic makeup, what their markets look like, the types of decorations they use, etc. All of that can help convey new players the types of places their characters may visit or originate from faster than a description. And the fact that you still need a written description to get the in-depth details does not refute anything I just said.

Quote from: Pat;1134756I think your argument that GMs may be convinced to play a setting based on the art is interesting. It's not how I think; I'm not going to be sold on a setting because of a few pretty pictures, because that will have nothing to do with the play experience. But it could explain why so many publishers push art-heavy books on the market --- though I suspect it's less that, and more that pretty art can catch the eye. Which, on a crowded shelf with many options, can be a difference between a sale and no sale. In other words, the art didn't convince the GM, but it got the GM's attention and that allowed the other merits of the product shone through.

OMG! I never said that GMs may be convinced to play a setting based on the art. More straw man!

I was talking about new people and potential players. Though, I suppose it could apply to GMs shopping around for a setting as well. But here you go on about how that's "not how I think", etc. and try to rationalize how the cover art simply attracted the GM as a marketing scheme rather offering any meaningful contribution to "convince" the GM (despite "convincing" them enough to buy it), which kinda goes back to Shrinking Banshee's earlier statement about you presenting your opinions as fact. It's not how you think, therefore art can't possibly play a role in helping convey a setting enough to convince someone to buy or play it.

Quote from: Pat;1134756Your argument that art doesn't restrict creativity is false, however. Imagery is powerful; once we see something, it's hard to erase, and pretend we didn't see it. It gives us a set of conceptions and preconceptions that restrict how we'll be able to imagine things in the future.

You're also drawing a false comparison between art depicting the setting, and art that serves as loose inspiration. They're not the same; art that reflects a setting is a type of canon, or a visual equivalent of a setting bible. You have to conform your ideas to it, to some degree, or you risk conflicts between what you say and the images. Art that's inspirational but not directly related to the setting does not face that limitation, because you're not constrained by it. I made that point in my previous posts, and it's why I don't mind weird and oddball art. I'm drawing a distinction between that and trying to visually present a setting via a relatively consistent art style.

The fact that imagery can be powerful does not mean that therefore art compels you to play the game only a certain way or that you can't imagine things beyond it. Not every scene that exists in a world can be presented through art--at least not in a way that would be feasible to accomplish and fit into one book. There's too many possibilities to illustrate everything. "Preconceptions" sounds like a personal failing, not a problem that's intrinsic to art.

All you're really telling me is that you personally can't let go of an image in your head or look beyond it, therefore art depicting a setting shouldn't exist.