TheRPGSite

O.k. So one of my most successful games is Squirrel Attack! It does not follow what seems to be "acceptable" around here in terms of game style. I was wondering if it (and I) fall into "wanker naval gazing" category and should "go away".

It:
1. Is strongly set up against hack an slash. A group of squirrels that decide to attack a dog are, well, dog meat.

2. It has Karma which is a mechanism for meta gaming, player plot control.

3. It's subject matter is a mix of not traditional (playing squirrels) and traditional (I would go as far as to say trite) fantasy tropes.

4. It was never part of a "grand design" but done on a lark. (This may be a point of disqualification).

So, I could see how some might qualify it as too narrow and not traditional, thus making it somehow unacceptable. SA! has been on my mind since I am writing and prepping a lot of Gen Con and saw some pretty clear and decisive statements in other threads about who is welcome and who is not on theRPGSite. I mean, there are mission statements and then there is the culture of a site. I am starting to think that this site is more narrowly focused than I once thought.

So, to sum up the questions:
1. Is a game about squirrels, with the above clarifications, unacceptable subject matter (since there are apparently acceptable and not acceptable) for discussion and inclusion on the RPGSite?

2. What the hell are non-trad/"wanker naval gazing" games anyway?
2a. Examples of mechanics or setting that make them so please.

Thank you for your time.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, to sum up the questions:
1. Is a game about squirrels, with the above clarifications, unacceptable subject matter (since there are apparently acceptable and not acceptable) for discussion and inclusion on the RPGSite?

2. What the hell are non-trad/"wanker naval gazing" games anyway?
2a. Examples of mechanics or setting that make them so please.

Thank you for your time.

Bill

1. Yes. All games are acceptable for discussion and inclusion, including wanker navel-gazer games. Silly games are also not necessarily wanker navel-gazing games - ref TOON - though they may be.
2. Emphasis on Player actions vs. emphasis on Player Character actions. No GM or very limited GM role. Others will I'm sure follow, but these are the ones I am sure of.
2a. Apres moi, le deluge.

-clash

Dude, honestly, the only people that would seriously care about the answer to that question aren't worth dealing with anyway.  

Talk about whatever the fuck you like.

Quote from: flyingmice1. Yes. All games are acceptable for discussion and inclusion, including wanker navel-gazer games. Silly games are also not necessarily wanker navel-gazing games - ref TOON - though they may be.
2. Emphasis on Player actions vs. emphasis on Player Character actions. No GM or very limited GM role. Others will I'm sure follow, but these are the ones I am sure of.
2a. Apres moi, le deluge.

-clash

Clash,
It would seem that non-trad games are unacceptable, not in the letter of the law but in the court of public opinion. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying they "should" be allowed or loved or whatever but that it is stated, much as you have, that they are included but then held up as a derisive mark against a poster. So, it may even be the intention of the sites owner to include (I do not believe this) by way of his mission statement but the community seems to deride and mock any such discussion.

Or, have I had too much coffee and am on a caffeine high? ;)

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt1. Is a game about squirrels, with the above clarifications, unacceptable subject matter (since there are apparently acceptable and not acceptable) for discussion and inclusion on the RPGSite?

Not if you rewrite it for Amber Diceless.

Quote2. What the hell are non-trad/"wanker naval gazing" games anyway?

Naval gazing... tricky. Not to presume, but In Harm's Way might qualify here. Clash?

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
It would seem that non-trad games are unacceptable, not in the letter of the law but in the court of public opinion. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying they "should" be allowed or loved or whatever but that it is stated, much as you have, that they are included but then held up as a derisive mark against a poster. So, it may even be the intention of the sites owner to include (I do not believe this) by way of his mission statement but the community seems to deride and mock any such discussion.

Or, have I had too much coffee and am on a caffeine high? ;)

Bill

The court of public opinion doesn't consist of only two or three people. There are a lot of us here who don't foam at the mouth reflexively. This is besides the fact that I know your systems, and you are more trad than I am if anything, which makes me suspect that this post is intended as a test-case precedent-setting sort of deal.

-clash

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, honestly, the only people that would seriously care about the answer to that question aren't worth dealing with anyway.  

Talk about whatever the fuck you like.

And I do. However, if no one wishes to discuss it, or worse yet will turn the thread into a flame war where I am not even talking about what I started out with, then what good is talking about what I want on this site?

I mean it in this way. I do not go to a cooking site and talk about RPGs. Why? Because it is not what the community wants to talk about. Now, they may get flamey or snarky or just ignore it and let it sink but any way you cut it, I do not get to talk about RPGs. And I would not expect to. The same applies here. If the culture is such that discussion of such games is frowned upon/ignored/flamed then I should look elsewhere for that type of discussion (as has been suggested).

Personally, if that is such a culture, the mission statement of the site should be altered and maybe a sticky of topic guidelines should be thrown up. Something like, don't mention the forge or stated positively like "This is a site for discussion of Traditional RPGS" and then a definition of what such a game is.

Bill

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot if you rewrite it for Amber Diceless.



Naval gazing... tricky. Not to presume, but In Harm's Way might qualify here. Clash?

Definitely. I even have a couple of illos of Naval guys gazing off into the distance - some through telecopes! You nailed it, Pierce! :D

-clash

Yep! Test-case!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThe court of public opinion doesn't consist of only two or three people. There are a lot of us here who don't foam at the mouth reflexively. This is besides the fact that I know your systems, and you are more trad than I am if anything, which makes me suspect that this post is intended as a class-action precedent-setting sort of deal.

-clash

Clash,
Oh, I am not trying to be coy here. Yes, it is an attempt by me to raise awareness and discussion on a matter that I feel affects the site and the quality of discussion. I use my own games as I do not like singling out other publishers but I believe arguments could be made for others far more involved with this sites basic functioning than I.

As for consisting of 2-3 people, well, that is another thing I had hoped to find out here. The right 2-3 people could be very important in effecting the culture and discussion of the site. If we do not ban, then those three people can chase off people who would discuss non-trad games or the like, this forming and shaping your discussions. Do you see my point?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
Oh, I am not trying to be coy here. Yes, it is an attempt by me to raise awareness and discussion on a matter that I feel affects the site and the quality of discussion. I use my own games as I do not like singling out other publishers but I believe arguments could be made for others far more involved with this sites basic functioning than I.

As for consisting of 2-3 people, well, that is another thing I had hoped to find out here. The right 2-3 people could be very important in effecting the culture and discussion of the site. If we do not ban, then those three people can chase off people who would discuss non-trad games or the like, this forming and shaping your discussions. Do you see my point?

Bill

I'm cool with it. Just remember - I don't lead, I don't follow, and I don't get out of the way. :D

-clash

Please ignore.

Talk about whatever you like, Bill.

Personally, I enjoy all games, even the one the "hard core" here despise.  In fact, tonight I'm playing Dogs in the Vineyard...one of my all time favorite games.

I think there should be a more tolerant attitude here on some sorts of games.  This place should have been a place where one can talk about RPGs and not be censored for speaking one's mind.  Instead, it's gotten almost as bad as RPG.net's d20 ghetto.

I'm almost fed up with the place.

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, honestly, the only people that would seriously care about the answer to that question aren't worth dealing with anyway.  

Talk about whatever the fuck you like.

Rarely do I just plain old say "What He Said", but...

...What He Said.

I dunno if I'm one of those 2-3 guys...prolly not, more like an interpreter.

I don't think discussion of any sort of game is excluded. What gets attacked rather is a kind of rhetorical bait-and-switch. E.g. I know nothing of Squirrel Attack other than what's in the original post. Let's suppose the original post didn't exist, or didn't explicitly acknowledge that "Karma is a mechanism for meta gaming, player plot control."

So now somebody says, "I love the Karma mechanics from SA, they let me do X, Y, and Z." (It really doesn't matter what XYZ are.)

Then somebody else says, "I don't care for metagame mechanics like that, they tend to make the game more like improvisational theater; I prefer a 'virtual world' that's independent of me as a player-character." That person may even say, "With mechanics like that, it's not really a roleplaying game."

[Edit: someone else might say "We do XYZ all the time without using anything like the Karma mechanic.]

At this point the conversation can go in several directions. (1) We argue about what a roleplaying game is, which some take as a veiled attack on their preferred style of play or an attempt to drive them from the site. (2) Somebody says all RPGs are improvisational theater, there's no such thing as 'virtual world', the concept of distinct 'metagame mechanics' is nonsense, you're deluded if you think any mechanics aren't metagame, Karma is just a way of formalizing what "we all do anyway" when we play RPGs.

Or (3), you respond, "Well, I guess it's not the game for you," or even "Yes! That was exactly my goal, to make the game more like improvisational theater, too bad you're not into that, if you've never tried it maybe you'd like it, but it's up to you."

(1) & (2) are tedious, bring out the worst in people, and frankly (2) is at least arrogant and possibly intellectually dishonest. (3) isn't going to cause any trouble, would certainly be welcome as far as I'm concerned, but if you're trying to generate traffic so you can gain exposure for your game, it may not be the best tactic.

OK, how 'bout this.

Bill, talk about whatever games you want.  Anyone wants to chime in, they'll chime in.  Anyone wants to jump your case, shame on them.

Its about squirrels atracking a dog - right?
  I got that correct?

 Thats the LEAST naval-gazing thing that I've ever heard of.

Its right up there with the Snits vs. the Blotamus or even "Awful Green things from Outer Space".

 Bill - relax man. From what I can tell the "swine" are supposed to be , you seem to be one of the least swiney.

- Ed C.

Well, two of the games I designed are Tales from The Wood and It's a Dog's Life (respectively woodland creatures and prairie dogs) so I say carry on doing what it is you are doing.

Quote from: Simon WWell, two of the games I designed are Tales from The Wood and It's a Dog's Life (respectively woodland creatures and prairie dogs) so I say carry on doing what it is you are doing.

Hi Simon! Aren't you the guy who wrote "Lashings of Ginger Beer"?

Do these games you mentioned attract an abnormal amount of women? I'm working on a theory...

:D

-clash

Quote from: Simon WWell, two of the games I designed are Tales from The Wood and It's a Dog's Life (respectively woodland creatures and prairie dogs) so I say carry on doing what it is you are doing.

Either we have chatted on RPG.Net or a lot of people were comparing SA! to Tales from the Wood. So, for my part, I welcome any and all comments from you and your perspective on this situation and SA! (BTW-If you do not have a copy please let me know and I can at least send you the PDF).

To Clash, oh, I am not worried about having my feelings hurt and storming off. I am more concerned with if those 2-3 people have their way, only people who believe in thier manifesto will sign up. Thus, shaping the community falls to the people at the extremes. This is no different than if it was an extreme form of acceptance. I do not think the RPGSite should be all inclusive from a topics point of view. I do not come here to discuss movies or cooking. Yeah, a thread or two swapping gamer recipes is one thing, a forum dedicated to techniques on gay love I do not have interest in.

So, perhaps my initial post sounded like "Poor me" but what I was hoping for was more "Hmm, maybe he has a point" or "The man is crazy". I usually get the latter.

So, no one else sees a problem? We are scaring off the right folks? We are limiting the discussion in the desired manner? We are excluding the bad people while drawing the good people? Those aren't rhetoric questions, honest, I might just be jumping at ghosts here.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, no one else sees a problem?

We are scaring off the right folks?

We are limiting the discussion in the desired manner?

We are excluding the bad people while drawing the good people?
Bill

I see a problem! The only thing I can do about it is call it when I see it. Some folks are getting seriously paranoid, and are hitting the other side back first. pre-emptive retaliatory strikes, as it were. Unfortunately, that's like saying you're sorry after your dog chewed up a baby. It just doesn't cut it. We need to reach some kind of consensus on this stuff. No top-down solution is coming, and it isn't desirable anyway. That way lies the Big Purple.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHi Simon! Aren't you the guy who wrote "Lashings of Ginger Beer"?

Do these games you mentioned attract an abnormal amount of women? I'm working on a theory...

:D

-clash

Hi Clash,

yes I did (write Lashings of Ginger Beer)

and yes they do seem to (attract women, I mean - my g/f, who never role-played before got into it by playing Tales from The Wood and It's a Dog's Life - now she plays more or less anything).

I'm just about to get my copy of In Harm's Way from LULU, btw. I'm a great fan of Ramage, Bolitho, DeLancey and Hornblower (and historical gaming in general).

QuoteSo, no one else sees a problem?

Of course I see a problem.  I just also see that the only solution is for good folks to just keep talking about games, and leave the loonies to dig their own graves.

I had my fill of trying to argue with psychotics, then I realized that it was futile, and that their idiocy was so ridiculous on it's face that it really parodies itself without any outside interference.

People like that crave attention more than anything else, and if you give it to them, it only feeds their idiocy.  It doesn't matter what the attention is, even if it's an attempt to upbraid them for their asinine behavior, because all that does is stroke their egos and let them play the martyr.

If you want to be more proactive in dealing with situations like VBWyrde's arrival, send them a PM warning them of the futility of engaging with the local rabid weasel patrol.  I myself gave him exactly the advice I'm giving you now in the #rpgnet IRC.

There is good discussion here, it's just that, like most unmoderated forums, there's shit one must learn to avoid.  But it doesn't really help to feed the shit.

Quote from: HinterWeltEither we have chatted on RPG.Net or a lot of people were comparing SA! to Tales from the Wood. So, for my part, I welcome any and all comments from you and your perspective on this situation and SA! (BTW-If you do not have a copy please let me know and I can at least send you the PDF).

Bill

I guess that's bound to happen, given our two games' subject matter. No, I don't have SA, I'm happy to trade you, if you like.

I'm guessing that by Wanker-Naval Gazing, you mean games that are less about playing the game and more about either the "art" of designing largely unplayable games with an extremely narrow focus and mechanics written to elicit fawning admiration rather than with the idea of simply playing the game.

If that is the case, then I don't believe either Squirrel Attack! (or any of my games) fall into that category.

I wrote my games because they interested me. They were designed to be played by me and my friends. The fact that they enjoyed playing them made me want to offer them outside of my group.

They are playable games with fairly traditional mechanics but unusual subject matter. I don't care that not everyone will want to play them and some people won't understand the interest in them. Whilst, those people are not my target audience, they would still recognise them as role-playing games.

Quote from: joewolzI think there should be a more tolerant attitude here on some sorts of games.  This place should have been a place where one can talk about RPGs and not be censored for speaking one's mind.  

I don't think anyone's censored, nor are "non-trad" rpgs put down as specific games, only vaguely and generally. If you talk breathlessly about your fun Dogs in the Vineyard or Polaris session, I'm pretty sure no-one's going to threadcrap.

I think there's a lot of self-censoring going on. "I don't like your attitude to X, so I'm not going to talk about X" people say - to themselves, before they even post anything or actually discover what the attitude to X is.

Just talk about what you want to talk about. When it comes to talking generally about different kinds of rpgs, your "non-trad" rpgs get a lot of abuse, sure. But if you talk about some specific game, whether it's one you played or one you're developing, you'll be able to have a good discussion with no-one threadcrapping, I reckon.

Remember that the biggest shitstorms here have been about people - "my GM/players are a pain", "you must be a fuckstick then", etc. I've yet to see a Dogs in the Vineyard flamewar here.

Quote from: HinterWeltO.k. So one of my most successful games is Squirrel Attack! It does not follow what seems to be "acceptable" around here in terms of game style. I was wondering if it (and I) fall into "wanker naval gazing" category and should "go away".

So, to sum up the questions:
1. Is a game about squirrels, with the above clarifications, unacceptable subject matter (since there are apparently acceptable and not acceptable) for discussion and inclusion on the RPGSite?

2. What the hell are non-trad/"wanker naval gazing" games anyway?
2a. Examples of mechanics or setting that make them so please.

Thank you for your time.

Bill

If it's a roleplaying game, it's acceptable.

I have no idea what wanker naval gazing is.

If you started a post about a squirrel RPG, I'd probably just move along quietly. If you started a post about a new modern conspiracy/horror RPG, I'd be interested. Just because I'm not interested doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about whatever you want.

Because people have a lot of leeway to say whatever the heck they want here, there are a lot of abrasive posts, especially toward non-traditional games. I try to just ignore it.

Keep the faith.

Bill, if you wish to stay and discuss your most successful game from time to time, that's cool. Of course, it might be because squirrels crack me up. :)

If this thread is any indication, you'll be fine here.

Quote from: GoOrangeIf you started a post about a squirrel RPG, I'd probably just move along quietly. If you started a post about a new modern conspiracy/horror RPG, I'd be interested. Just because I'm not interested doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about whatever you want.

Because people have a lot of leeway to say whatever the heck they want here, there are a lot of abrasive posts, especially toward non-traditional games. I try to just ignore it.

Keep the faith.

I want to emphasize something, I am not saying we must have discussion at gun point, just wondering if we, as a community, are moving towards the stated goals (mission statement) or towards an exclusive culture ("They" should be punished for bringing the "war" here).

At no point do I think (and you have not implied this) that moderation is the answer either. As Clash has said, you can stand up for what you want in life or you can run away. This is my way of standing up and saying "Do you think there is a problem"? If so, we should be vigilant and tell these folks that are wrong. Fight as hard for the new guy/"indie" game/whatever as they to to drive off those they find undesirable. I am heartened by many of the responses in this thread.

Bill

Quote from: Simon WI guess that's bound to happen, given our two games' subject matter. No, I don't have SA, I'm happy to trade you, if you like.

Simon,
email me at bilbo@hinterwelt.com with the email I should send a comp copy to and I will get you set up. I am always interested in looking at new games.

Thanks,
Bill

Can we give the squirrels submachineguns and the dog gets a running head start??


- Ed C.

Squirrels?

Quote from: HinterWeltAt no point do I think (and you have not implied this) that moderation is the answer either. As Clash has said, you can stand up for what you want in life or you can run away. This is my way of standing up and saying "Do you think there is a problem"? If so, we should be vigilant and tell these folks that are wrong. Fight as hard for the new guy/"indie" game/whatever as they to to drive off those they find undesirable. I am heartened by many of the responses in this thread.

What I find tiring is the "us v them" mentality that seems to permeate most discussion on this board. If you are concerned about folks being turned away, you're a whiner. If you dislike the hostility evident in certain posts, you are against free speech. If you like certain games, you are drinking the kool aid. The thing is if you post here regularly you begin to realize that not all folks suffer from "gamer hate"...but the noise generated by the few who do, drowns out nearly everyone else.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: joewolzTalk about whatever you like, Bill.

Personally, I enjoy all games, even the one the "hard core" here despise.  In fact, tonight I'm playing Dogs in the Vineyard...one of my all time favorite games.

I think there should be a more tolerant attitude here on some sorts of games.  This place should have been a place where one can talk about RPGs and not be censored for speaking one's mind.  Instead, it's gotten almost as bad as RPG.net's d20 ghetto.

I'm almost fed up with the place.

On this site we've had non-flamewar threads about Nobilis and DiTV. You really can talk about anything here; the fact that its GEARED toward Trad games, but tolerant of discussion of any games, is just a hallmark of how much interest/positive feedback you are likely to get.  I mean obviously, you're going to get more people here interested in talking good stuff about Star Wars than about The Mountain Witch, but if you start a thread about the latter which is actually ABOUT the game (and not about how much better the game is than normal games or something like that) and people come in to expressly threadcrap, I would be quite pissed off at those people.

I'll note also that I'm not familiar with Squirrel Attack, but I've seen Roma Imperious.  I don't care for the game for certain personal issues I have with it, but I certainly don't think its a non-mainstream game or something like that.
I don't tend to think of Hinterwelt as a publisher of "Swine games".  

As for SA, I think that making the game comedic instantly means that its far less likely to have the level of pretentiousness to qualify as Swine material in my book.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWeltTo Clash, oh, I am not worried about having my feelings hurt and storming off. I am more concerned with if those 2-3 people have their way, only people who believe in thier manifesto will sign up. Thus, shaping the community falls to the people at the extremes. This is no different than if it was an extreme form of acceptance.

Bill

I wouldn't want this site to be the kind of site where you couldn't talk about certain games because of a few extremists taking over. I also wouldn't want it to be a site where people could post about how mainstream games or regular gamers are inferior with impunity.

The secret is finding a balance between the two.  "balance" in this case not quite meaning 50/50 split, but rather meaning that the overall emphasis on this site is one that FAVOURS Regular Roleplaying, but doesn't censor legitimate discussion about any games (including Forge games) either through mod action or through threadcrapping.

RPGPundit

Bill,

I've dug the concept of SA since you first brought it up on another forum a year or so ago. The whole concept, as you explained it then, reminded me of a game I was in at my and only convention years ago, called Katz Gone Bad, where the PCs were animals prowling around a neighbourhood. SA seems far from pretentious. I wouldn't worry about talking about here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Quote from: KoltarCan we give the squirrels submachineguns and the dog gets a running head start??


- Ed C.

Well, I have The Pie Incident where squirrels fight a horrible monster in New England, I am releasing next month a supplement Shaolin Squirrels with Squirrel-Fu and Squirrels Ahoy with piratic squirrels so I could easily see The Squirrel Mob down the pike. Also, the biggest enemies are actually Anmeow and her Catsassins. ;)

That said, sorry, no machine guns. The squirrels do not use implementation. :(

Bill

Quote from: David RWhat I find tiring is the "us v them" mentality that seems to permeate most discussion on this board. If you are concerned about folks being turned away, you're a whiner. If you dislike the hostility evident in certain posts, you are against free speech. If you like certain games, you are drinking the kool aid. The thing is if you post here regularly you begin to realize that not all folks suffer from "gamer hate"...but the noise generated by the few who do, drowns out nearly everyone else.

Regards,
David R

Agreed, and this is the point I am trying to highlight. I feel a growing level of us vs them. This can be a tactic to grow a business or forum ("We are elite but they are bad, join us and you can be elite too") but I find such tactics self defeating for what I would like to see out of a forum. To me, inclusion and general openness is a good approach. I would like to believe, towards the beginning of theRPGSite that it was more inclusive in tone or perhaps it was just less vocal. Back B.P, it was the wild west but I really dug on the "Protect yourself with logic". Today, although that still works to an extent, I am concerned in what appears to be a growing sentiment of "Toe the party line". It seems to be derivative of the exclusionary tactics.

Am I off here David? I do not want to seem paranoid. Maybe I have just clicked on the wrong threads. I am willing to admit I am wrong or misinformed. After all, these are just my impressions and discussion of my observations is why I brought it up to the community.

Bill

there can be a bit of 'tude here, but i enjoy hearing about new games!  it just makes me sad that i don't have the time to try them all out.  plus the fact that my gaming group tends to stick to the same old games, i guess i may have to really push to get them to try stuff like nebuleon, or sorcerer, or in harm's way.  

maybe it's the threads, too.  the ones i hit tend to less combative.  but i also stay out of off topic, mostly.  there dwells the rabid wolverines ;)

Yeah - I go into off topic as often as I go into Tangency - that is zero. I'm here to talk about games.

-clash

What I find entertaining is the so called "haters" of viral marketing are doing a fine job of making these games known.  I actually just picked up Mountain Witch and Primetime Adventures more out of curiousity to see what the fuss was about.  Games that I'd normally be disinterested in are at worth a passing look.  I plan on giving them a once over and posting soon.

I'd like to think this site doesn't have a narrow focus as far as gaming goes.  I know I'm all over the map as far as what I like, and most of the posters I enjoy here are the same way.  I think there's definitely sometimes a backlash against games that are felt to be darlings elsewhere, but having the freedom to let loose and criticize them should be kept separate from have a narrow scope of acceptable games for discussion.

As for SA, Bill, I can't see as how it would ever be classed as a "navel-gazer" anyhow.  It's just a game that sets out for its players to have a fun, perhaps somewhat silly time.  I can't think of anything that wouldn't be welcome about that.

Thanks guys!

I actually think this thread has uplifted me a bit in my opinions of the direction of the site.  I'm going to take Kyle's advice and start a thread now.

Quote from: GunslingerWhat I find entertaining is the so called "haters" of viral marketing are doing a fine job of making these games known.  I actually just picked up Mountain Witch and Primetime Adventures more out of curiousity to see what the fuss was about.  Games that I'd normally be disinterested in are at worth a passing look.  I plan on giving them a once over and posting soon.

If you really think that my hating a game is enough to convince you that you'll like it, more power to you. Go nuts.  I really don't give a tinker's fuck whether or not you play indie games, as long as they're prevented from having an undue influence that ends up warping and ruining regular RPGs, and so long as they don't manage to sell what they're selling through lies and deception.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWeltAm I off here David? I do not want to seem paranoid. Maybe I have just clicked on the wrong threads. I am willing to admit I am wrong or misinformed. After all, these are just my impressions and discussion of my observations is why I brought it up to the community.

No you're pretty spot on. I have my own little theory as to why the "us v them" mentality seems to be taking hold here. First of, it's not everybody...in fact I'd go so far as to say that the majority of gamers here and elsewhere (although acknowledging the "distinctions" in the hobby as Elliot puts it) are either ignorant and/or unimpressed with the Pundit & Co's "war". I mean the Enworlders are happyly discussing the stuff they like. tBPers are romancing their latest "darling", nobody seems too concerned that this hobby is in danger of anything.

But ranting on your blog does not get the kind of attention a war played out in a forum gets you. So old blog posts are highlighted, game designers who are considered part of the "collective" are called out and loyal proxies watch for any signs of enemy movement.

There's a whole lot of collateral damage going on and frankly that's the biggest turn off for potential posters to this site. There are not many threads where the underlying hostility of some poster are not made known and normally it's the same folks who believe there's a war. This in turn gets everybody a tad twitchy and this leads to disinterest which I don't think is very good for this forum.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you really think that my hating a game is enough to convince you that you'll like it, more power to you. Go nuts.  I really don't give a tinker's fuck whether or not you play indie games, as long as they're prevented from having an undue influence that ends up warping and ruining regular RPGs, and so long as they don't manage to sell what they're selling through lies and deception.

RPGPundit

I think it's yours and others inability to just be disinterested in a game.  Some of these games I never would have heard about or if I did it would be a quick once over that I would decide I didn't need.  They're not just new or different games but games that are destroying the hobby as we know it.  Then you use comments from the creators, fans, or interested passerbys as ammunition to prove your point.  There are more elitist assholes playing D&D than any assholes playing indie, small press, or 2nd tier publishers.  Talking about a game like Dogs in the Vineyard is like talking about the Passion of the Christ in church.  The average gamer will be interested in what the controversy is so they can judge for themselves.  They're drawing attention to the things they hate.

It's almost like your a not a very religious person who's a student of theology.

Quote from: GunslingerIt's almost like your a not a very religious person who's a student of theology.

Which, ironically, is a pretty good description of my actual RL Job.

RPGPundit

Bill,

Only if Lenny starts to wax poetically about the torture of being Squirrelferatu - the horror of being undead;  My lord, his goals are to feed on people and squirrels! And don't even get me started on Kharma points - we'd have to rehash our entire discussion from Game Day. Your games, from my limited experience, are anything but Wanker Navel Gazing.

But none of that matters.

If you think the fact that the sideshow of the "war" takes away from your business potential here, then that's a business decision.  But I rarely see, as others have pointed out, huge flamewars erupt over someone liking or talking about a game.

Jim

Quote from: James J SkachBill,

Only if Lenny starts to wax poetically about the torture of being Squirrelferatu - the horror of being undead;  My lord, his goals are to feed on people and squirrels! And don't even get me started on Kharma points - we'd have to rehash our entire discussion from Game Day. Your games, from my limited experience, are anything but Wanker Navel Gazing.

But none of that matters.

If you think the fact that the sideshow of the "war" takes away from your business potential here, then that's a business decision.  But I rarely see, as others have pointed out, huge flamewars erupt over someone liking or talking about a game.

Jim

Jim,
Business potential is in all forums. That is not my point. My issue was, and is, that the community is being shaped by the people on the extremes. This thread was, and continues to be, an attempt to raise awareness of what I hope is still the majority to this issue. I think it has helped but I could be wrong.

I can still see points that could be made about SA! It is not a "serious" adventure game. Is it necessarily a journey of exploration into the depths of your soul? I do not think so but who knows? I have quoted Lenin and now Lao Tsu in the books. Still, if you prefer, pick any other game that fits the profile better and ask the same questions. It is not so much discussion of "those games" are forbidden as we are stacking the deck so that people interested in all types of RPG discussion is narrowed to a subset. Again, perhaps not a bad thing but something I would like to avoid. As long as the owner does not disagree with that then I will continue to help out where I can to make new folks feel welcome, whether they are from a Forge background or a more trad background. If others have thought it over and come to the same conclusion, I feel the thread has served its purpose.

Of course, YMMV,
Bill

Hi Bill. . . nope.  I don't think that you make "wanker naval gazing" games -- such games are, I think, those that try to impose a specific style of play (e.g., story-oriented drama, hack and slash adventure, etc) by design.

Quote from: jdrakehHi Bill. . . nope.  I don't think that you make "wanker naval gazing" games -- such games are, I think, those that try to impose a specific style of play (e.g., story-oriented drama, hack and slash adventure, etc) by design.

My concern here, or use of it as an example, is that with the addition of Karma, I have transfered some power to the players to control plot, an area traditionally reserved for the GM. This seems to be counter to many of the extremists stance on acceptable design. Again, not going "Wah! Protect me!" but just wondering if such designers are welcome on theRPGSite still.

Hopefully my point is clear. I have gone some nights without sleep and am getting a bit fuzzy in my logic.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAgain, not going "Wah! Protect me!" but just wondering if such designers are welcome on theRPGSite still.

Has anybody told you to fuck off and die beacause you like squirrels? ;) I can't speak for the site (in fact, only Pundit can, really) but I welcome your participation here. I don't think your karma mechanic forces a certain style of play, rather, it is presented purely as an option, making a certain style of play possible (not mandatory).

See, now you made me go and reread Karma in SA!  Which is fine cause the pain meds will put me to sleep in a few anyway and it's a nice way cap off a just lovely day.

I think you overstate the effects of Karma.  As you state in the Iridium Lite section:

Quote from: Hinterwelt (from Squirrel Attack!)Karma is a player mechanic rather than an in game character mechanic. It represents the character's luck.

In a way, you straddle the fence here.  It's a player mechanic in that it can be invoked by the player in a meta-game way (re-rolling, automatic success, etc.). However - it's meant to represent the character's in-game aspect of Luck.

To me, it's no different than many mechanics from many games that in execution use meta-game information but represent in-game...stuff.

So as I said in our late-night post-game discussion, it's a neat way to satisfy different play styles.  Best, it can be pretty easily discarded, from what I can tell.

Having said all that, I think you are also overstating the effect of some (admittedly high profile) people here who might take an extreme stance on some aspect or another.  I am, so far, pretty confident in TheRPGSite folks to call bullshit on that stuff.

I mean, my god...Luke Crane is carrying on a discussion here - including Abyssal Maw!

Go, Bill.  Rest.

Quote from: jdrakehHas anybody told you to fuck off and die beacause you like squirrels? ;) I can't speak for the site (in fact, only Pundit can, really) but I welcome your participation here. I don't think your karma mechanic forces a certain style of play, rather, it is presented purely as an option, making a certain style of play possible (not mandatory).

I think in this I see your point. The issue is not the mission statement, which I believe it is reasonable to interpret, represents the owners stated objective. This is more about the community and the influence of a select few. We can sit around and all tell each other how reasonable we are while 2-3 people hunt down and attack new entrants to the site with a verve that could be described as fanatical. Again, we can say, "Well, if they were going to fit in, they could take it" or "If you do not like it, leave RPGSite". To me, these are undesirable solutions. I prefer to raise awareness and state my concerns of this trend upfront. Perhaps I am welcome but what about the next guy? This creates the trend of encouraging a certain type of person to become members. Let's face it, would you wade through a series of attacks because someone told you there was good discussion somewhere in there? Perhaps you would, but not me. I would invest my time where I am welcome.

And, as I have said, I am hoping to appeal to the community to police itself. There is no "or else" to that statement, just an appeal. I do believe that the majority of posters, given the choice, will respond with a desire for inclusion. However, yet another purpose of this thread was for me to get a feel for the current population. It seems that they desire this as well.

Again, I just used my games because I prefer not to single others out. You could, no doubt due to all the reviews you have done, provide better examples.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAgain, we can say, "Well, if they were going to fit in, they could take it" or "If you do not like it, leave RPGSite". To me, these are undesirable solutions.

I agree 100%.

QuoteThis creates the trend of encouraging a certain type of person to become members.

Well, while I don't support it, Pundit has been pretty clear since taking over this site that it is intended to serve primarily as a community for fans of "traditional games" (whatever the fuck that means). So, while you and I may see deliberate exclusion as a bad thing, it's basically the site owner's mission in life. And, in the end, it is his site.

QuoteAgain, I just used my games because I prefer not to single others out. You could, no doubt due to all the reviews you have done, provide better examples.

I could cite examples of games that many people here consider to be navel-gazing, though I won't. Not because it's beneath me or anything, merely because I (like you) believe that such labeling -- on both sides of the argument -- is doing more to hurt our hobby than help it.

Quote from: James J SkachSee, now you made me go and reread Karma in SA!  Which is fine cause the pain meds will put me to sleep in a few anyway and it's a nice way cap off a just lovely day.

I think you overstate the effects of Karma.  As you state in the Iridium Lite section:

In a way, you straddle the fence here.  It's a player mechanic in that it can be invoked by the player in a meta-game way (re-rolling, automatic success, etc.). However - it's meant to represent the character's in-game aspect of Luck.

Jim,
I also go on with a lot of "At the discretion of the GM" kind of thing. Karm can be used to reroll failed checks, ensure success of checks or perform extraordinary feats. So, yes, it is still character oriented but it can effect plot by introducing hidden cinematic elements.

Quote from: James J SkachTo me, it's no different than many mechanics from many games that in execution use meta-game information but represent in-game...stuff.

So as I said in our late-night post-game discussion, it's a neat way to satisfy different play styles.  Best, it can be pretty easily discarded, from what I can tell.

I agree that is can be dropped with absolutely no effect. However, I suspect you are not considering the many effects to plot that Karma can generate. It is one of the points the "Old Guard" playtesters had issue with. One guy vowed never to play Iridium Lite as it has a meta-game element in it and he liked the direct connection all elements of Iridium Standard have to the in setting game;i.e. no meta-game rules. So, not everyone sees it like that. ;)

Quote from: James J SkachHaving said all that, I think you are also overstating the effect of some (admittedly high profile) people here who might take an extreme stance on some aspect or another.  I am, so far, pretty confident in TheRPGSite folks to call bullshit on that stuff.

I have just seen people driven off by this crap and am a bit tired of it. I am voicing that view in the best way I can, with rhetoric and story. It is my passion. If e all get together and say "Hey, Bill, you are over reacting." Fine, I will contain myself. I still think the number of folks driven off is larger than a lot of people realize and would like them to think about it. Next time one of the kooks goes off, we will mass on them and maybe make a better showing. It looks like Wyrd has decided to give the site another go and that is the kind of thing I am hoping for...so, mission accomplished...for now.

Quote from: James J SkachI mean, my god...Luke Crane is carrying on a discussion here - including Abyssal Maw!

Yes, and look at that "discussion". I mean, really look at it. Not with RPGSite blinders on but like a guy, just wandering through wondering if he wants to give the site a try. Maybe you think it is peachy. I see Luke (and I don't particularly like his usual posting style either) being reasonable. I see a bunch  of loaded questions. I see a couple of truly interested parties asking reasonably worded questions. Again, Luke is handling a pretty antagonistic Q&A with a certain amount of poise. Mind, that does not seem to be his standard on this site.

Also, I am not even saying treat people better. I am saying, I hope folks will restrain themselves a bit with new members. Try and let them get above 5 posts, not drive them off because you happen to have a hate-on, you know, be decent. I don;t think that is asking too much especially from a site that touts calling people on BS presumably with logical argument.

Quote from: James J SkachGo, Bill.  Rest.

I will most likely go recarpet the family room. ;)

Quote from: HinterWeltYes, and look at that "discussion". I mean, really look at it. Not with RPGSite blinders on but like a guy, just wandering through wondering if he wants to give the site a try. Maybe you think it is peachy. I see Luke (and I don't particularly like his usual posting style either) being reasonable. I see a bunch  of loaded questions. I see a couple of truly interested parties asking reasonably worded questions. Again, Luke is handling a pretty antagonistic Q&A with a certain amount of poise. Mind, that does not seem to be his standard on this site.

Honestly, while I think that the OP in that thread had good intentions, I have to agree with most of what you say here. The thing is, Luke is a pretty personable guy or, as he has characterized himself elsewhere, "an asshole's asshole" :rolleyes: If somebody wants to know something about BW, BE, or Luke in general, one just has to ask. Really.

He has his own forum for this.

People genuinely interested in honest dialogue would have already gone there, posted, and talked with the man. Here, he's basically been asked to do Q&A for people that either personally dislike him or dislike the things that he enjoys. He'll not likely sway the folks like Pundit into giving him or his games a fair shake, nor will those folks likely dial back the irrational hatred long enough to be open to that possibility.

The thread in question seems less like a Q&A session that it does an ambush. I commend Luke for his responses thus far.

Quote from: jdrakehHonestly, while I think that the OP in that thread had good intentions, I have to agree with most of what you say here. The thing is, Luke is a pretty personable guy or, as he has characterized himself elsewhere, "an asshole's asshole" :rolleyes: If somebody wants to know something about BW, BE, or Luke in general, one just has to ask. Really.

He has his own forum for this.

People genuinely interested in honest dialogue would have already gone there, posted, and talked with the man. Here, he's basically been asked to do Q&A for people that either personally dislike him or dislike the things that he enjoys. He'll not likely sway the folks like Pundit into giving him or his games a fair shake, nor will those folks likely dial back the irrational hatred long enough to be open to that possibility.

The thread in question seems less like a Q&A session that it does an ambush. I commend Luke for his responses thus far.

Ironically, an ambush requested by, none other than Luke himself. I mean, he was being his usual charming self in another thread and when asked a couple of questions, offered to answer anything in another thread if Analq started one.

Are the questions loaded?  Sure.  Have you seen Luke post here?  He's a big boy, he can handle himself (and I'm sure he does :rimshot: ). And VBWryde seems to be able to.  In fact, Luke harshes on him for his post on how to bring peace.

But I guess my overall point would be: as bad a it all could be, instead look how it turned out.  And there's a reason it turned out that way - because the kind of self policing that could lead to your fear instead lead to a decent discussion.

And yeah, I think it is a decent discussion.

Quote from: James J SkachIronically, an ambush requested by, none other than Luke himself.

He might have requested the thread, I don't think that he requested the BS questions.

QuoteHe's a big boy, he can handle himself. . .

I never suggested otherwise.

Quote. . . because the kind of self policing that could lead to your fear instead lead to a decent discussion.

I agree with Bill. I think that you have some blinders on. People wandering in from the outside, I think, will see that thread for what it is -- a bunch of bitter, self-righteous, assholes trying to bait Luke into acting like an asshole so that they can crow about the Swine Conspiracy.

Well, we are a bunch of master baiters around here...

What's with me and the monkey spanking?  Too much time in the hospital, I tells ya..

Could be. I might even be one of the baiters.  I do want serious answers to questions not directly related to BW or BE.  Since he came on here, essentially, as a defender of the faith (that is, in less snarky terms, to defend the Forge), I think it's perfectly reasonalbe to ask questions that would, depending on how they were answered, put some of "the war" to rest.

At least, I hoped that's how it would happen.

Alas, I think we have a situation where neither side will blink.  What I mean is that, for Luke to answer "Yeah, Edwards can be an ass, brain damaged was just that, and GNS isn't what makes my motor run, though aspects of it do help me design," would give too much of the store away.

No different than pundit doing the opposite would be the same for him.

Quote from: James J SkachSince he came on here, essentially, as a defender of the faith (that is, in less snarky terms, to defend the Forge). . .

See, I don't think that's the case. Seems to me that he came here to answer questions. In point of fact, you were wrong when you suggested that Luke asked for this Q&A session. As the OP in the Q&A thread makes clear -- he asked Luke to do some Q&A here.

QuoteI think it's perfectly reasonalbe to ask questions that would, depending on how they were answered, put some of "the war" to rest.

I think that might be perfectly acceptable, too -- what you're failing to acknowledge is that how such questions are asked is also important. Right now, by the admission of many posters doing the asking, they're trying to "trap" Luke. Also, you seem to be open only to accepting answers that you want to hear, per your remark above (concerning answers).

That kind of attitude makes the whole affair totally pointless.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat I mean is that, for Luke to answer "Yeah, Edwards can be an ass, brain damaged was just that, and GNS isn't what makes my motor run, though aspects of it do help me design," would give too much of the store away.

Do you feel that such a series of statements from a prominent Forge-denizen would substantially mellow the believers in the War?

Quote from: jdrakehSee, I don't think that's the case. Seems to me that he came here to answer questions. In point of fact, you were wrong when you suggested that Luke asked for this Q&A session. As the OP in the Q&A thread makes clear -- he asked Luke to do some Q&A here.

Fair enough.  But Alalq - who is certainly not, IMHO, trying to lay a trap, asked, and Luke said "sure, but start another thread."  Now, if luke couldn't handle it or didn't want to deal with it, he could very easily have said no.  Contrary to the vibe he gave off when discussing his (what now appears strange) "rock-star" incident, he's being at least decent enough to engage.

Quote from: jdrakehI think that might be perfectly acceptable, too -- what you're failing to acknowledge is that how such questions are asked is also important. Right now, by the admission of many posters doing the asking, they're trying to "trap" Luke. Also, you seem to be open only to accepting answers that you want to hear, per your remark above (concerning answers).

That kind of attitude makes the whole affair totally pointless.

Now, I'm laying a trap. Well, not really.  I'm just looking at all of the places I think people find issues and trying to, through questions, walk luke through that. With more venom and less tact, that's what I'm guessing AM is trying to do as well. Sett's just out of his mind. And if you look at his last answer, it tells me alot.  He does truly think a game can be objectively better than another. Perhaps my followup - instead of what I wrote about his answer to Spike - should be to understand in what ways he believes this to be true; by what measure?  In fact, I'll go ask. Just becasue I disagree doesn't mean I will only accept answers I want to hear.  Only that I want to hear straight answers to the actual questions.

All of which is balanced to a great extent by other posters who are asking questioned specifically (and, in some cases, very confrontationally - see Spike) about his design. When I have more time, I'll go look at that thread again and count the bad, good, and middling posts.  I bet it's fairly even - but that's just a guess.

It's a fair question as to whether or not I have blinders on.  I'd only ask you to look at yourself in the same manner.  Is your recent rising disgust with certain posters and positions making you hyper sensitive to what could be a damn fine thread that clears the air a bit?

Quote from: TonyLBDo you feel that such a series of statements from a prominent Forge-denizen would substantially mellow the believers in the War?

I think if enough people just copped to it - came out and said in the most public and forecful of ways these kinds of things, it would go a long way.

And don't get me wrong, I don't think they have to prostrate themselves to all of Pundy's wild-eyed ravings - they don't have to say "ya know, I am a pretentious git." But when someone says you are, saying that's their problem is something I rexamined in my life many years ago at the urging of some very wise people.

Quote from: James J SkachI think if enough people just copped to it - came out and said in the most public and forecful of ways these kinds of things, it would go a long way.

Well, here's hopin'.  I think I said pretty much all those things in the most recent Pistols thread.  I'd certainly be pleased to think that was part of an ongoing march toward more reasoned discourse.

Quote from: James J SkachI think if enough people just copped to it - came out and said in the most public and forecful of ways these kinds of things, it would go a long way.

That's what I meant by being open only to hearing specific answers. You want Forge posters to come over here and justify your viewpoint by way of submission. There are many people who don't believe that Edwards was full of it when he said these things or, alternately, for whom GNS is very important. Why should they sell out their personal beliefs and "admit" that your views are superior. That seems awfully unfair to me.

Now, to my credit, I think that Edwards is stunningly full of shit. That said, I would have vastly less respect if those people who don't believe this sold their beliefs down the river, came over to theRPGsite, and admitted otherwise just to appease the egos of certain posters here. I don't like a lot of people who post at the Forge but I do respect them.

Quote from: jdrakehThat's what I meant by being open only to hearing specific answers. You want Forge posters to come over here and justify your viewpoint by way of submission. There are many people who don't believe that Edwards was full of it when he said these things or, alternately, for whom GNS is very important. Why should they sell out their personal beliefs and "admit" that your views are superior. That seems awfully unfair to me.

Now, to my credit, I think that Edwards is stunningly full of shit. That said, I would have vastly less respect if those people who don't believe this sold their beliefs down the river, came over to theRPGsite, and admitted otherwise just to appease the egos of certain posters here. I don't like a lot of people who post at the Forge but I do respect them.

Mr Hargrove - that is simply a straw man!

I'm not asking people who believe Edwards is full of wisdom to come here, genuflect, and say he's full of shit.  I'm asking them first - is he full of shit?  If not, then you must be ready to defend all of the shitty things he's said and done, and to which you lend your name, specifially in this case. If you do, then please help us understand how and why you continue to associate with him and his theory.  I'd really like to know, and not inthe judgemental way.  In a sense, I'm giving them the perfect opportunity to say in what specific ways the agree and disagree so as to help clear the air.

Look how well tony and I get along now.  We've come to a decent (I think) understanding.  I think we often see things in very different ways, but we don't have any inclination to say that one is objectively better than the other.  In fact, I often try to understand his view point to get a better grasp on why he thinks the way he does.

So, no. Sorry.  I don't want people to sell out their beliefs.  First establish them in plain language.  Then, if we disagree, either defend them or at least help me understand from whence you come - if you care to at all.

I don't respect people if they can't provide a simple straight answer of a relatively rational, straight-forward question. I don't respect people who claim "brain-damage" to sell games. I'm just trying to figure out who really believes it, that's all.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm not asking people who believe Edwards is full of wisdom to come here, genuflect, and say he's full of shit.

Really? Unless you've gone back and edited your posts, that seems to be exactly what you're asking of such posters. You very specifically said that you hoped they would 'cop to it' (the "it" being your views on Edwards) :rolleyes:

Quote from: jdrakehReally? Unless you've gone back and edited your posts, that seems to be exactly what you're asking of such posters. You very specifically said that you hoped they would 'cop to it' (the "it" being your views on Edwards) :rolleyes:

Ahhh...miscommunication on my part.

I mean cop to it one way or the other.

Stay with me here...

If they don't agree, then there are some difficult questions to answer about why hang around.  Someone like Luke, or the new guy VBWyrde, have a good reason - the business side of the indie movement seems to be a good alternative for them. More power man.

If they do agree, then state it emphatically. And then be ready for the shit storm of protest because of the position this means you're taking.

Among the problems I see with the "Indie" movement is:

• Conflation - that is, the indie business movement with the indie theory movement.  I can see the attraction to the former, even the latter for some folks who like to game a certain way. But what ends up happening is that in order to feed the first, the second suffers.  And I can see how people get in this kind of weird spot becasue the two are so intertwined.
• There is No War - this is a fine attitude to take if you are not completely on board with the indie theory - you've cherry-picked idea that help you -  but you are on board with the indie business side. But this seems to now be the default answer and because it's so easy to conflate the two it seems to be saying "Look, we're just over here selling these games as independent publishers - what are you all upset about."

What ends up happening is this interesting bait and switch (again with the bait!).

So I apologize for the bad communication - I was answering shorthand to Tony and didn't get that it could be construed this way.

Quote from: James J Skach

• Conflation - that is, the indie business movement with the indie theory movement.

If I may, I think that what people mostly feel called upon to defend is a third thing:  The "Indie" community.  Actual people, rather than either abstractions or profit.  And yeah, I totally second the idea that conflation among all three items makes communication much harder.

Quote from: James J SkachIf they don't agree, then there are some difficult questions to answer about why hang around. Someone like Luke, or the new guy VBWyrde, have a good reason - the business side of the indie movement seems to be a good alternative for them. More power man.

If they do agree, then state it emphatically. And then be ready for the shit storm of protest because of the position this means you're taking.

Because it's not that different than any forum, I'd say.  You take what you think is good with what you think is bad.  You stay because you think the good outweighs the bad.

Quote from: James J SkachAhhh...miscommunication on my part.

I mean cop to it one way or the other.

Ah, my bad. These are the dangers of text-based communication ;)