The peripheral community that is a f*cking pox on our hobby

[Settembrini]

I think Jackalope made my argument in American-English.
Thanks!

Passion it is, indeed.

[jgants]

I can buy the passionate GMs = better GMs argument, as a general rule.  It's the passionate GMs = collectors axiom that Sett is making I disagree with.

Sure, some GMs may show passionate by buying more and more stuff.  But others might not.  And what about all those games where there really aren't any essential supplements (Call of Cthulhu comes to mind).

And I find no correlation whatsoever between good GMs and people who collect non-game materials.  I've had plenty of D&D gaming fun with people who never really read any classic fantasy novels.

[Mike S.]

You can read what he writes? For me, it's like spilling a bag of marbles on a tile floor and trying to watch where they all go simulataneously...

Seanchai

I can read what he says- it's just shit 99% of the time.  Him making claims that people who collect games are better GMs then people who have one book is nothing but garbage and I have gamed with people who have only used one book and have had a lot of fun.

I am running a game right now that I am only using one book with (All Flesh Must be Eaten) and my group is having a blast.

[estar]

T
DMs with large collections of support material are, obviously, going to have more support for their game, and thus can devote more time and creative energy to creating original material.

I will add that being an avid reader of your chosen genre as well as a reader of books about the historical period of your genre also help broaden your base of support material.

For example, because of my work developing add-on and reading the source material for the realistic space simulator Orbiter has made adjudicating detailed space travel a snap for me* and allows me to focus on the areas I am weak on or need to flesh out more.

Rob Conley

*Basically my experience has taught that realistic spaceflight is esstentially on of budget management. The budget you are managing is change in velocity.

Basically your craft will have one of two characteristics. Either you are fuel limited which means you change only change your velocity so much and that it (realistic fuel and engines). Or you are limited in the amount you can change your velocity at a single moment but have esstentially unlimited fuel (Traveller 1G drives).

The two situations produce a different feel to space flight and different challenges. I know how to outline the choices for the player to make meaningful decisions and when skill rolls are called for. And most importantly how to cut out the boring or non essential parts.

[Jackalope]

I can buy the passionate GMs = better GMs argument, as a general rule.  It's the passionate GMs = collectors axiom that Sett is making I disagree with.

He is overstating the point a bit, but as a general rule, I've noticed it.

Sure, some GMs may show passionate by buying more and more stuff.  But others might not.  And what about all those games where there really aren't any essential supplements (Call of Cthulhu comes to mind)

Obviously the best Attack of the Humans GMs aren't going to have vast collections of AoH books (there were no supplements).  it's a general rule: apply common sense as needed. That said, of the CoC GMs I've played with, the best had pretty much everything available for the game, the worst were borrowing the core book from a friend.

And I find no correlation whatsoever between good GMs and people who collect non-game materials.  I've had plenty of D&D gaming fun with people who never really read any classic fantasy novels.

Eh, that's not been my experience when it comes to players, but I've never met a GM who wasn't familiar with the genre he was working in.  It's really noticeable in a supers games, like Champions.  I can't stand running Champions for people who aren't very familiar with the tropes of the superhero genre.

[Engine]

I drive a late 80s BMW. Lest anyone feel I'm being elitist and/or showing off, I should note it's in a condition that would cause any sane human to run screaming from the experience of driving it; I recently spent a couple of months driving it with no clutch - "rev-matching," is the answer to the question some of you are asking - for example. Anyway, I point it out because it's the last of what BMW aficionados consider "real BMWs."

Why is this? Because in the last 80s, facing increased competition from its domestic competitors, BMW was under a great deal of pressure to radically expand its customer base. [Which is the inevitable result of building cars meant to last 20-30+ years.] This meant, since it was the greatest consumer of cars in the world, selling more cars for the US market.

Then as now, Americans were a sizeable people, so the cars needed to be larger, which meant they needed to be heavier, which meant they couldn't change direction - acceleration, cornering, braking - as well. Americans also held the strange - to das Germans - belief that they should be able to do other things while driving, like suck down a Big Gulp, which meant cup holders. [Drinking on Highway 60 while going 70MPH is no big deal; drinking on the autobahn when going 240KPH is highly unwise. Smoking's okay, though: I have a very nice ashtray.] It also meant increased emissions controls [although they wisely chose not to cripple cars for the European market]. In the end, it meant a more complicated, less focused car, which wasn't nearly as much fun to drive, which cost more to repair, and which got radically worse gas mileage [from emissions controls and increased weight]. If someone gave me the choice between a brand new 1986 3-series and a brand new 2008 3-series, I would choose the '86 with no delay.

What's my point with this automotive diversion? The fact is, if BMW hadn't made the changes they did, it is highly unlikely they would still exist as the company we know today. Given the choice between a BMW that made chunky cars and no BMW at all, most BMW fans - and certainly most BMW accountants - would choose the former. While I, of course, would simply drive an old BMW.

If "collectors" - which appears to be the term in use for "people who buy RPGs but don't play them, thus diluting the purity of our gaming intent and sending signals to the RPG companies that we gamers don't agree with" - are significant enough in number to effect the RPG companies' products, they must exist in numbers sufficient to effect their bottom lines. If the voices of collectors are so many that they drown out those of players, they must be a very significant portion of the sales. So you've a choice, between RPG companies making products informed by sales numbers "distorted" by people who aren't playing the game, or RPG companies who don't make nearly so many sales, which in this business often means "no RPG company at all."

While I, of course, will simply play old RPGs.

[J Arcane]

I'm starting this thread so as not to derail the one in which Balbinus made (pretty much) the above statement.

I've seen Balbinus (and others) say the same thing before both here and on RPG.net, and seem to recall Bruce Baugh backing it up with anecdotes from within the industry. It really intrigues me. I think I get the underlying argument: games company producing books that appeal to collectors aren't necessarily producing books that work for gamers. And so long as the collectors are buying those books there's no incentive to correct or evolve the game itself because collectors don't care about it. Collectors won't give you feedback about how your initiative system reads beautifully but sucks spotty fat ass in play, or how ZOMG POWERZ X make playing anything without them a flat-out waste of time, for example.

So (in particular I'm asking this of Balbinus, but I'm expecting others to have an opinion too), can you expand or correct my take on the argument, and tell me how much of an impact it really has? Are there immediate concerns, or are you talking more about a gradual erosion of game quality? Can you cite games where you have seen the negative effects you're worried about actually take place?

I note in the meanwhile that the discussion continues in Settembrini's Luke Crane thread, but would still like to talk about the core issues here.

Since everyone else is busy rambling on about some bullshit Settembrini tangent, I felt it necessary to quote the original post again, to remind everyone what I'm talking about when I say I agree with that sentiment.

Really, you need only look to some of the stuff that's boomed then died by the RPGnet darling phenomenon to see it at work.  Some game with a marginally cool premise gets hyped to shit, pumped out in semi-gloss, and everyone and their mother buys it, and then promptly never actually plays it because the actual game is tripe and virtually useless.  Meanwhile, the initial sales are still enough to keep milking the hype with further releases for a game that no one is actually playing, until eventually the whole thing fizzles and dies as more and more people start realizing this game is fucking useless and stop buying up every release.  

This kind of flash in the pan crap does hurt the hobby, and the industry, despite claims to the contrary, because if you flood enough of the market with useless tripe, eventually people just give up on buying the things altogether.  It happened in 1984 to the Atari, it happened to the D20 market, it's happening to the Wii slowly but surely.

[Quire]

Okay, 35 posts in. Summation: next to nothing about the issues raised in the opening post.

After the first few posts we could have called for the thread's title to be changed to 'Let's shit on the Prussian!' and move it to Off-Topic. Fun,  but not what I asked about. Then it meandered quite wildly into 'Can you DM Iteration X of D&D Or Indeed Any Game With Only Core Book(s)?'. WTF?

Does anyone fancy addressing the actual issue I started the thread to talk about, or am I really wasting my fucking time here?

[Quire]

Thanks J. That puts some shape in the concept.

Engine - you're as full of shit as ever. One day, you'll take a crap, and reverse climate change. Or something.

[Engine]

Okay, 35 posts in. Summation: next to nothing about the issues raised in the opening post.

That's about par. Next will be 70 posts discussing the thread, but not what the thread was about, mixed in with complaints about the complaints about the person being complained about. Welcome to theRPGsite: we really just like to argue about shit; it doesn't actually have to be about gaming.

Engine - you're as full of shit as ever.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Why do you think so?

[Mike S.]

After the first few posts we could have called for the thread's title to be changed to 'Let's shit on the Prussian!' and move it to Off-Topic. Fun,  but not what I asked about.

The Prussian is walked into it by posting this bullshit rant.  Myself as well as others have proven that what he is saying is not true and all this thread amounts to is Settembrini saying "look at me, look at me! I need attention!"

keep moving, there is nothing to see here

[Engine]

Engine - you're as full of shit as ever.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Why do you think so?

[Quire]

Settembrini saying "look at me, look at me! I need attention!"

Don't give it to him then. Yeah?

[Mike S.]

Don't give it to him then. Yeah?

If you will notice I haven't directly replied to any of his replies, only those of other people in this thread

[Jackalope]

If "collectors" - which appears to be the term in use for "people who buy RPGs but don't play them, thus diluting the purity of our gaming intent and sending signals to the RPG companies that we gamers don't agree with" - are significant enough in number to effect the RPG companies' products, they must exist in numbers sufficient to effect their bottom lines. If the voices of collectors are so many that they drown out those of players, they must be a very significant portion of the sales. So you've a choice, between RPG companies making products informed by sales numbers "distorted" by people who aren't playing the game, or RPG companies who don't make nearly so many sales, which in this business often means "no RPG company at all."

I don't know if there really are enough of these so called "collectors" to distort the market.  I've met at least one guy who simply bought everything on the market, read it, and stashed it away in an archive.  But that's one guy in twenty years of being involved in the gaming scene.  I myself am guilty of picking up stuff "just to check it out", but I find reading any gaming related book -- good or bad -- to be useful to some degree.

There certainly are classes of books -- a lot of FR supplements, "system less books" -- that I think appeal mostly to collectors, but I could be wrong.