'Originality' is way over-rated, but something I've noticed over the years in various media I've worked in... stuff that's done purely for profit, designed to be 'popular'... is just about always crap.
It might be well-done crap... but it's crap just the same.
That's not the same as saying that just because something becomes popular it's garbage...

As for Reagan and Tipper and their ilk... most artists will agree that having some restrictions often helps with creativity.

I remember 1982 well.

Mazes and Monsters was a made for TV movie. Nobody watched TV anymore by then anyway, at least the big three, ABC, NBC, and CBS. I only watched it to see if they would accurately depict RPG gaming. It didn't even come close. It was instantly recognized in our circles for the mainstream anti-D&D propaganda that it was.

Everybody was cruising to the tune of the cable channels, and the hottest shows were on HBO... and the best music, with scores of new bands, were being viewed on MTV, and the second breaking in the monopoly of the record companies was initiated in 1980 and was really gaining power in 82.

Conan the Barbarian was the hot movie of the year, loaded with scantily clad sultry women, wolves, warriors with swords and bows, thieves, wizards, and horses. It was not just good entertainment, it was great entertainment!

And D&D had been around for awhile by then.

In our social circle there were at least four other established gaming groups that ran different games than what I ran. These were games that I played in. One GM ran freeform fantasy games based on no rules set at all, except what the group agreed to during play... He also ran the world politics games, modeled on the original Origins National Decision Making Game where each player takes on the role of the leader of a world Power.

One GM ran a Gamma World/D&D mashup set in Spain as well as a Bushido game from time-to-time.

In our group one GM ran a mix of games including D&D, Tunnels and Trolls, and The Fantasy Trip.

In our group one GM ran a Star Wars homebrew created using D&D rules.

In our group one GM exclusively ran a historical fantasy game using Chivalry and Sorcery.

We all played different wargames as well.

None of us, in any of the groups expressly focused on playing games to push the envelope, to stretch the limits or even explore what was socially acceptable at that time. We played to learn about history. We played to bring life to our vision of what a fantasy world should be like and what it should include. We played in friendly competition, to outplay each other.

We of course, were quite aware about the sexual references in the early RPG editions, but didn't overtly address them using our games. In our discussions we were pleased that adult elements had been included with our games, but chalked up any unrestrained focus on that to eccentric GMing. In short, in our games we sought to be the Gamemasters instead of letting any individual game master us.

Our World was bigger because of RPG games. No one even thought of focusing on just one aspect of RPG's, because that would limit the game. And no one thought of using them to break any preconceived social limits. We already had enough on our plate with the unrefined and often undefined prejudice exhibited by other social groups, directed against D&D ...for no good reason other than it was different. To this day, I'm still not sure whether that may have been a campaign deliberately orchestrated for the sole purpose of limiting our freedom to dream and explore.

I'm inclined to believe otherwise now, because if it was, it didn't work, and D&D, and RPG's have been accepted in the majority of social circles.
I never saw any good reason to counterattack the right-wing ultra-conservative groups, and believed it would only serve to fuel the fires and create more opposition to my favorite recreational hobby.

As for the Reagan-era flinch. It was the RPG companies response to the gamers that insisted on pushing the limits just to see if they could. More gamers equal less responsible gamers. Instead of the well-educated and geniuses, the common people were entering the hobby in great numbers, and bringing their emotional baggage along with them.

Quote from: GameDaddy;449634Instead of the well-educated and geniuses, the common people were entering the hobby in great numbers, and bringing their emotional baggage along with them.

Batshit crazy.

I think what you're misunderstanding Esgaldil, is the difference between influence and pastiche, and between a natural evolution from existing sources and inspiration, and deliberate post-modern deconstruction.  

It's like the early days of any gaming console.  The first games for a new device usually suck horribly, because the people making games for it usually aren't making a game because they've had some idea, they're making it because they want "the RPG" or "the shooter" or whatever.

They're filling genre holes, instead of just focusing on making an interesting game.

Similarly, I find RPGs are downright chronically guilty of same. They're constantly making "a SF game" or "a postapocalyptic game with Cthulhu in it" or "This game that someone else already made except now there's a duck".

There's always bright spots, and sometimes good stuff comes out of this process, but it's not a natural one, it's a conscious one, done with the express intent of fulfilling ancient cliches.

Design by checkbox, as it were.  Like all those NWN persistent worlds, where the designer has just gone through a list of "this feature makes it an MMO", checking them off one by one so they can make for a nice bullet list on the Vault, but without actually ever stopping to consider whether it's actually fun or interesting or has anything to offer over a million other identical products.  

Indeed, that very word "product" is part of the problem. The language and ideas of monetization have become so endemic nobody seems to think outside of them anymore, so it's all built as if by a focus group or a committee.

It's one of the reasons why I sometimes wish stuff like Lulu and RPGNow had never come along at all.  The vibrant homebrew and DIY communities of the web in the 90s have given way to "well, I may as well slap a price tag on it and throw it online".

If Heavy Ordnance came out now it'd have an SEO-optimized website, banner ads on all the web sites, and you could buy it on Lulu for the low low price of $30.

Quote from: One Horse Town;449636Batshit crazy.

...Some of them even went on to become game designers because they didn't like the way we made and played our games.

Most of them ended up not making any games better, and busy themselves these days with name calling and insults.

Quote from: One Horse Town;449636Batshit crazy.

It's remarkable, isn't it.  He just seems to get nuttier by the minute.

Quote from: Seanchai;449630There's nothing smug about. It's genuine: I do feel bad for who aren't enjoying their gaming.

And that's all this is - a feeling of discontentment and someone searching, what's likely to be in vain, for the source of said feeling. They're not happy with what they're doing now, they remember being happy and excited way back when, and so they search from some differential scapegoat on which to pin the blame.

Seanchai

Two thoughts:

One, they may not want your pity.

Two, even if all of this is spurred on by "back in the day" feelings, there may be some valuable critique in it all.  If you've ever seen the 70-minute review of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, you'll know what I'm getting at.  It was obviously motivated by someone who was disillusioned with the new stuff, and who very obviously loved the old stuff.  But despite that bias being present, the entire review is full of golden nuggets in terms of actual film critique regarding the writing and composition of the film.  

Even then, the 12-year-old me, the supposed target audience for the film, it didn't take much for me to see that the film wasn't very well put together.  I couldn't express why as well back then, but I could feel it. If you go through the history of the development of the films (from the originals through the new trilogy) and the crew of writers and directors that changed, you can also see why this is the case.  Edwards has done something similar, here.  He's not saying "It was all gold and now it's all poo-poo", he's analyzing why things changed and whether or not there was any rational rhyme or reason behind it all.  At that point saying "nostalgia" or "doesn't game" won't cut it as a counterpoint, because the person has offered specifics that now have to be looked at on their own merits.

Anyways, having tons of fun is great.  I have tons of fun every week playing video and tabletop games with my friends.  I try out new stuff all the time and love it.  But that doesn't mean I'm not going to be critical of what I consume, even the stuff I like, nor am I going to discourage others of being critical of what I like.  I like a ton of half-baked stuff, but the fact that it's half-baked doesn't speak to how much I actually enjoy it.  It also doesn't excuse the creators for making something half-baked.

Quote from: J Arcane;449639It's remarkable, isn't it.  He just seems to get nuttier by the minute.

I actually agree with him about keeping more unseemly aspects out of gaming. Anyone who's seen me attack Poison'd knows this.

But i have no time for the kind of retarded elitism displayed above. "Common" people?

Shit, i thought that kind of thing was from the Britain of the 20th century.

Quote from: One Horse Town;449642I actually agree with him about keeping more unseemly aspects out of gaming. Anyone who's seen me attack Poison'd knows this.

But i have no time for the kind of retarded elitism displayed above. "Common" people?

Shit, i thought that kind of thing was from the Britain of the 20th century.

While tied up quite a bit in his own special brand of personal neurosis, on the whole it's just bog standard "I knew this before it was popular!" nonsense, really.  The proto-hipsterism of old-guard Tolkien fans at the dawn of "Frodo Lives!", before the reflex was adopted by wider culture through the lens of the music scene and the hipsters' ironic co-opting of geek culture.

It's sad, really.  His persecution complex regarding his fellow gamer must make it terribly difficult to find groups.  I know I'd have a hard time getting any real gaming if I thought my fellow gamers were all secretly plotting the next Holocaust.

Quote from: Peregrin;449640Anyways, having tons of fun is great.  I have tons of fun every week playing video and tabletop games with my friends.  I try out new stuff all the time and love it.  But that doesn't mean I'm not going to be critical of what I consume, even the stuff I like, nor am I going to discourage others of being critical of what I like.  I like a ton of half-baked stuff, but the fact that it's half-baked doesn't speak to how much I actually enjoy it.  It also doesn't excuse the creators for making something half-baked.

Dear God, I pray that in your infinite wisdom, you will bestow upon me the knowledge to create a device that can transmit this paragraph directly into the brains of every geek and nerd, every film-goer, every music lover, into basically every person who has proudly and unironically attacked criticism as if it's very pursuit were immoral.

Amen.

Quote from: One Horse Town;449642I actually agree with him about keeping more unseemly aspects out of gaming. Anyone who's seen me attack Poison'd knows this.

But i have no time for the kind of retarded elitism displayed above. "Common" people?

If you do something first, before anyone else does it, you are elite... retard.

In our social circles we were the first to adopt RPG games.

See what I mean about the baggage? In this case it's cultural instead of emotional, but it tends to produce the same results. Disharmony, dischord, and chaos.

Quote from: J Arcane;449645I know I'd have a hard time getting any real gaming if I thought my fellow gamers were all secretly plotting the next Holocaust.

They are also suppressing miraculous Tesla technology.

Quote from: GameDaddy;449648If you do something first, before anyone else does it, you are elite... retard.

In our social circles we were the first to adopt RPG games.

See what I mean about the baggage? In this case it's cultural instead of emotional, but it tends to produce the same results. Disharmony, dischord, and chaos.

In the context of the culture of the age, all that means is you had less of a life than the rest of them.

That really doesn't stand you on very solid high ground.

Quote from: GameDaddy;449648If you do something first, before anyone else does it, you are elite.

That's...not at all what elite means.

Arcane - I submit that  A) pastiche, B) deliberate post-modern deconstruction, and C) "built as if by focus group" are three very different things, and I still haven't heard any examples of late twentieth century creations that deserve the label "natural evolution from existing sources and inspiration".  I also stand by my use of Shakespeare as an example of the unimportance of easily identified originality (even though I think there needs to be something similar to Godwin's Law about using Shakespeare to defend the merit of anything that isn't Shakespeare).  The only people who are not self-aware about their use of source material are schizophrenics - strike that, even Daniel Johnston is self-aware about his use of source material...

I'm not really arguing with your lamentations about RPGs (although you can't claim that the RPGs in the seventies were not pastiches of their literary and mythological sources, whatever else they might have been), but the larger claim that "Geek culture... has been basically creatively dead for a while" is a huge assertion worth defending or retracting.