TheRPGSite

Unrelated to any specific game...

I mean seriously...I understand trying to convince people that games you like are great!  But, why try to convince people that like, love, or are at least open minded that a game sucks...and they have no reason to like it (or are at least stupid or inferior for not thinking it sucks)?

We see it over and over on the internet.  What is there to be gained in this action?

Justification?

There's a big difference between:

 A)evangelizing and trying to convince others that their favorite game sucks

AND
B) merely pointing out the reasons why you don't like a game that others are particularly fond of.

A is bad. B is not bad, IMHO.
Unfortunately, however, some people take offense at both and misconstrue B for A.

Quote from: LancerThere's a big difference between:

 A)evangelizing and trying to convince others that their favorite game sucks

AND
B) merely pointing out the reasons why you don't like a game that others are particularly fond of.

A is bad. B is not bad, IMHO.
Unfortunately, however, some people take offense at both and misconstrue B for A.

And some people mean to do B, and end up doing A, and insulting the players of said game as well (whether they mean to or not).

Unfortunately...

Case in point.:rolleyes:

Agreed, and the way you can tell the difference between them is what? Answer: telling them that the reason they think they like their favorite game is some other reason than they like their favorite game.

Except that again, you misconstrue.. But Nevermind.:rolleyes:

Funny - here I was starting with the premise that the person really wanted to do B...

See, when everyone else is, apparently, misunderstanding what you're trying to say - it might not be them....

But that's crazy talk, I'm sure...

Quote from: James J SkachFunny - here I was starting with the premise that the person really wanted to do B...

See, when everyone else is, apparently, misunderstanding what you're trying to say - it might not be them....

But that's crazy talk, I'm sure...

Problem is that people don't like to hear criticism of their favorite games, no matter how they are stated.. Particularly, on an online forum where it seems that people go out of their way to intentionally (or maybe not) misunderstand/mis-read posts and read into things that aren't there.

And then, when it is not about criticizing someone's favorite game all of a sudden everyone's post comprehension improves radically.. lol.

Why does Grubman start a new thread with a whiny title any time somebody disagrees with him on the internet?

;)

Also, since you're there, Grubman, Dar suspects you made a Freeport adventure for Savage Worlds.  If this is true, is it up anywhere inquiring minds could take a look at it?

Quote from: LancerProblem is that people don't like to hear criticism of their favorite games, no matter how they are stated.. Particularly, on an online forum where it seems that people go out of their way to intentionally misunderstand/mis-read posts and read into things that aren't there.

Which is why it is beneficial to consider how things might be taken; not to simply write off the misunderstanding as the fault of the reader - especially with respect to communication in this particular medium.

Quote from: walkerpWhy does Grubman start a new thread with a whiny title any time somebody disagrees with him on the internet?

Well, that was uncalled for.  First off, no one disagreed with me.  We all know what thread prompted this one...but it isn't some way to get even, it's just a way to discuss a related internet phenomenon.  I dodged out of it because it was going nowhere (as the last few pages show) and I knew it.  All questions were being sidestepped or answered with more confusing and contradictory answers.  It was an "agree to disagree" standoff and I left.  This thread was inspired by that one out of a desire to understand, but not a "whiny" response. I think it's an interesting topic on it's own, where as it would just sound insulting on the thread that will not be named.

I mean, I'm pretty open minded...and most people who have seen me around in person or on the internet will agree.  Sure, I have my moments, like everyone else, but overall I'm pretty open minded, positive, love the hobby, and do my little part to promote play and enjoyment.

The thing is, there has to be something more to it than misunderstandings.  Discussions about a games bad points and good points are certainly productive...but if you just don't like game A, what is the point of trying to convince others that Game A sucks...unless they are specifically asking if they should play or buy it?

I wish people weren't so sensitive to this type of criticism. After all, these are just games folks, not religions. People can tell me that FUZION sucks 'til they are blue in the face(and they have), and I don't get all emo about it.

The best thing to do is avoid the temptation to criticize someone's game. But I like to speak my mind, so it is a hard thing to do.

Quote from: grubmanWhat is there to be gained in this action?

Threads like this?

Regards,
David R

Getting back to the OP, I don't see much to be gained. People must imagine that by deploying arguments like "the only reason you like D&D is because you've never played anything else", they can get people to try other things. And actually, it kinda works. I'm sure some people get tired of justifying themselves and engaging in arguments about game X vs. game Y, when they only know game X. So they take a look at game Y or even buy it. I doubt that game Y gets played much as a result, though.

Other than that, dar's nailed it: justification. People are still shocked to find out that other people have different tastes, so the behavior in question is just a natural attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOther than that, dar's nailed it: justification. People are still shocked to find out that other people have different tastes, so the behavior in question is just a natural attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Not really. These folks are just behaving like dicks. I mean let's be honest here. You can have two people who disagree with each other about their individual preferences and still have a civil conversation without resorting to thrashing the preference itself.

Regards,
David R

It's not even that. Some people just don't like to take criticism and when they disagree with somebody else are quick to insults, petty comebacks, reading into things, and like behavior on an online forum.

Not once did I resort to any insults, name-calling, cussing, aside from saying, well, I think D&D 3e sucks for these reasons. My behavior was/is civil. My only "error" is that my opinions are not popular to some, and for that people like to thrash back and make up their own justifications for those unpopular opinions I have.

You may as well ask why people care what other people think of them . . .
or their games.

I really didn't want Lancer to become the target of this thread and put him on the defensive, I've certainly heard more volitile arguments and comments than his.  I probably should have waited a day or two before posting this.

This certainly isn't an excusive incident on the internet, it happens all the time.  Many of us are probably guilty of it at one time or another.

Quote from: David RYou can have two people who disagree with each other about their individual preferences and still have a civil conversation without resorting to thrashing the preference itself.

No! It's always good to discuss in great detail your preferences and the reasons for them! Like when your woman asks you to go down on her, you should ask her, "but why? Really it makes no sense", and if she gives a lame answer like, "it feels good, now lick!" just keep asking questions. That always makes things really good, having everything analysed critically. It's so hot, she'll spotaneously combust in front of you, honest.

Asking what people like and giving it to them is good and helps fun in a game session. Too much analysis of why they like what they like is not good, and makes no game session fun.

Quote from: David RNot really. These folks are just behaving like dicks. I mean let's be honest here. You can have two people who disagree with each other about their individual preferences and still have a civil conversation without resorting to thrashing the preference itself.

Well, of course you can, but I believe that these sorts of flare-ups aren't just a failure of civility. Here's Lancer:

QuoteOr is it a matter that most gamers (not hardcore ones like sites like these) only play D&D (instead of WFRP,MERP, Earthdawn, insert favorite fantasy game here) because it happens to be the most popular one? And I daresay, many of them just don't know any better. I certainly didn't when I used to be ignorant about skill-based systems and defended AD&D against them.

What we have here is an insistence that people's preference for D&D would be significantly altered by exposure to other games; it's a failure to believe that others' tastes aren't one's own.

That said, grubman, I think you missed the fact that the question in the thread was pretty expressly defined in terms of the tastes of person reponding, and Lancer did answer in those terms for a while until the above quote appeared.

Quote from: LancerIt's not even that. Some people just don't like to take criticism and when they disagree with somebody else are quick to insults, petty comebacks, reading into things, and like behavior on an online forum.

Not once did I insult anybody with any insults, cussing, aside from saying, well, I think D&D 3e sucks for these reasons. My behavior was/is civil. My only "error" is that my opinions are not popular to some, and for that people like to thrash back and make up their own justifications for those unpopular opinions.

See this is what I mean. How you could consider your behaviour civil when you use the term sucks when describing someone else's preference. I mean D&D does not work for me. It's all about tone. You want a reaction.

It's not that your opinons are not popular. The majority of this site's users were banned from other forums not because they had unpopular opinions but because of they way they expressed them.

You don't see the label "hater" being used on folks who don't like or play a particluar game. You see it used on folks behaving like dicks. People are not precious snowflakes. They can take honest civil criticism of their favourite games. *shrug* saying a game sucks tell me nothing about the game but everything about the person saying it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat we have here is an insistence that people's preference for D&D would be significantly altered by exposure to other games; it's a failure to believe that others' tastes aren't one's own.

And what we would call behaviour such as this?

Kyle : You miss Tangency Open, don't you?

Regards,
David R

Like saying "does not work for me" would have made a difference, David. Especially since I used "sucks" so many times (what twice?) throughout the discussion. :rolleyes:

Elliot hit the nail on the head. In this case, it wasn't about civility at all. Walker hasn't been saying anything particularly uncivil either in the thread of interest.

Many people just don't like certain opinions people hold and are offended by them.  I am not saying that nobody can handle fair criticism, but rather some can't. All I can say to those-- is that's too bad.

EDIT: BTW, Elliot. People's tastes can evolve over time as a direct result of exposure to different things. This is nothing new and I don't know why you have a problem with that.

Lancer I was talking about the nature of the discourse and some of it's participants in general...I should not have used your post as a launching pad. And yes if all you say, is that "D&D does not work for me" the conversation would be civil. *shrug* Like I said it's not about the opinon but the way how it's expressed.

Regards,
David R

ALright....let me guess some thread on tbp went badsly , so Grubman starts a thread over here. Then Walkerp refers to that thread tyhat most of us probably haven't seen.


 Have I got that right??


 If they tell you your favorite game sucks - then tell them to sit on a fork and give themselves a  misguided wedgie.


 Zheeesh!!!!


I like GURPS - everbody knows that by now.

I try my best  not to badmouth other games. (Although one in the fall deserv'd it)

I'm also willing to give SAVAGE WORLDS a try, and I own a good number of D20/D&D books (SAGA SW included) so I might give those a try.


The only game that really sucks - is the one where you're not having fun.


- Ed C.

Actually Koltar-- It wasn't TBP, it was here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10102)

Quote from: LancerActually Koltar-- It wasn't TBP, it was here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10102)

Oh...okay.

 Thank you for the clarification.

 Obviously, since I am not currently running either a 3e D&D game or D&D in general - I didn't look at that thread.

See - thats what I mean, tho If it doesn't apply to what I am currently running - then I don't tend to check out a thread.
- Unless I think there may general concepts discussed that may apply to other RPG systems and campaigns.


- Ed C.

One reason to do it is if you're putting together a group, or already have a group that's looking for a game to play. Then it's important to point out that game X is a kludgy piece of crap filled with hyper-detailed rules no one will ever learn or use, with an awful setting that has no room in it for the kinds of stories your group likes, and the book is $50 a pop, and so complicated and filled with fiddly tables that you'd require a copy for each player at the table.

On the internet on the other hand, it's because people solicit opinions from one another and then challenge one another to support their opinions with facts and evidence.

Quote from: David RAnd what we would call behaviour such as this?

Thickness? Parochialism?

I suppose once you've been exposed to enough people who take offense at the way you state your beliefs, it's at least possible that you're a dick if you don't think to re-examine them. But you know, in then end, if you really believe something and just don't express it, it's self-censorship; it doesn't further discussion, it just cuts it off.

On the other hand if you honestly re-examine your belief, then it's not dickery per se to stick to your guns. In this particular case, what takes it over the line isn't that it's an unpopular opinion, but that it resorts to saying that other people are deluded about their own tastes.

I mean, if someone thinks the the Star Wars prequel trilogy is "just fine", I've got no problem believing they have bad taste, but I don't doubt they enjoy the movies. Furthermore, and this is important, I have to accept based on this that I may not be able to offer useful advice to that person.

Whereas what goes on all the time in RPG discussions is that people are told their tastes and opinions matter so little that they should should listen to some supposedly wiser critic.

I was joking, Grubman, but you have started this kind of thread many times in the past.

There is a thin line between critical analysis and just being negative.  I think Lancer and myself have both been pretty consistent to talk about our experiences and our perspectives.  Why can't we feel that 3.x sucks?  Pundit thinks SotC sucks and it's one of my favourite games.  We argued about it.*  It's not the end of the world.  





*I won.

Quote from: LancerEDIT: BTW, Elliot. People's tastes can evolve over time as a direct result of exposure to different things. This is nothing new and I don't know why you have a problem with that.

I don't; to suggest that I do is a mischaracterization of what I've been saying.

EDIT: removed an overly dramatic adjective.

Quote from: walkerpbut you have started this kind of thread many times in the past.

There is a possibility that I have once or twice.  Sometimes when a thread goes out of controll I like to start a new thread about a tangent that would otherwise be lost in the original.  I don't think that is hardly a new practice, and I don't think trying to point a finger at me to make it look like I did some inapropriate, selfish, childish thing is exactly fair.  As far as "many times"  I'd sure like links to many such threads so I can eat my words.

Both Lancer and I base our position that people can be not aware of better things out there, because both of us were those people.  I played 3.x for quite a while and had a really good time most of the time, but eventually I just bumped up against what were for me limitations of the system.  I started to look around, eventually found other stuff.  When I introduced that other stuff to the group, they quite enjoyed it.  But none of them would have looked around, if it wasn't for me.  I think they now feel that they have more gaming options than they did before.  During the peak of our 3.x playing, we would discuss other genres but a sort of steampunk-modified D&D was about as far as we could conceive.  Playing a present-day game just didn't even come into our minds as feasible.  I think there are a lot of gamers like this today.  It's not presumptious to say that if they were given the taste of something different, they might then want to try other different things.

It's like food or movies or books.  Sure you might be happy with burgers or blockbusters or Tom Clancy but you might be quite psyched to check out some other culture's food or a good hong kong movie or Desmond Bagley.  You may still enjoy a burger but now you have more choices, which you didn't have before.

Quote from: grubmanThere is a possibility that I have once or twice.  Sometimes when a thread goes out of controll I like to start a new thread about a tangent that would otherwise be lost in the original.  I don't think that is hardly a new practice, and I don't think trying to point a finger at me to make it look like I did some inapropriate, selfish, childish thing is exactly fair.  As far as "many times"  I'd sure like links to many such threads so I can eat my words.

My apologies if I have offended you, Grubman.  At the risk of further offending you, I will say that I was not trying to paint you as someone who does inappropriate, selfish or childish things but that you just are a bit over-sensitive online at times (though I am probably the on the bottom of the list to be pointing such a finger).  I think that at this point, you would be quite used to this kind of stuff going down on internet gaming forums.

Anyways, my real question is about if you did a Freeport adventure for SW or not.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't; to suggest that I do is a grotesque mischaracterization of what I've been saying.

You mean like the way you mischaracterized my quote?- Claiming that I fail to believe that one's tastes aren't one's own?

I would never believe that. But at least we are even.

This is the problem with internet forums and discussions such as these. People just end up mis-quoting and mis-reading other people's points.

Quote from: walkerpAnyways, my real question is about if you did a Freeport adventure for SW or not.

The only fantasy adventure for Savage Worlds that I published online was for Evernight, and I've since removed it.

So here's what I'm hearing, walker. You didn't fully enjoy your D&D. You somehow found out about other games...is it really that hard, BTW? You tried them, you liked them.

What's missing from this is you and Lancer have, at various points in the discussion, argued that people who think they're happy with their game are unconsciously unhappy.

Quote from: walkerpMy apologies if I have offended you, Grubman.  

Not offended, it takes a lot more than that.  I just like to explain myself...rather than jut post a rolled eyes picture.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat's missing from this is you and Lancer have, at various points in the discussion, argued that people who think they're happy with their game are unconsciously unhappy.

I have? Are you sure you aren't getting us confused with Ron Edwards?

People are happy with the games they play, or else they wouldn't be playing them. Whether or not there are other games they would like even more, if made aware of them, is a different story.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat's missing from this is you and Lancer have, at various points in the discussion, argued that people who think they're happy with their game are unconsciously unhappy.

No, you have made this logical leap that we have done so.  I don't know where this comes from.  I think it's the last residue of the faux-swine wars or something.  We have not said that.  I have never said that or thought that.

Quote from: walkerpI was joking, Grubman, but you have started this kind of thread many times in the past.

It's because he's a big girl's blouse. He might even QUIT THE BOARD FOREVER soon. Um, again.

Why do people try to convince others that games suck? I don't know. Why does their attempt bother you?

*ringring*
"Hello?"
"Hey, Jim, it's Bob. Wanna come out tonight with the fellahs? We're having a few drinks and shooting some pool. And Joe will be there, remember him? We haven't see him for years."
"I can't." *tappity tap* "Someone is wrong on the internet."
*click*

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhereas what goes on all the time in RPG discussions is that people are told their tastes and opinions matter so little that they should should listen to some supposedly wiser critic.

Hence dickish behaviour.

Walker seems to think that folks who don't want to try new things are market controlled zombies. This is grade A Swine think right here. (Don't get me wrong, I think walker is an interesting poster, but on this subject, he's deluded)

It's not about the opinion Elliot, it's about the manner of expression. It's the difference between calling a game a piece of shit and saying the game just does not work for you.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: LancerYou mean like the way you mischaracterized my quote?- Claiming that I fail to believe that one's tastes aren't one's own?

Now I can't even tell if you've comprehended what I wrote.

What I meant was that you've said some things which suggest you don't believe that other people have different tastes from you. You wrote that many fans of D&D "just don't know any better. I certainly didn't when I used to be ignorant about skill-based systems and defended AD&D against them." This as part of questioning the premise that "most gamers think D&D is the best game on the market".

There are three possibilities here.

I. Many people have different tastes from Lancer (and Elliot). They like D&D because it satisfies those tastes very, very well, compared to the alternatives.

II. People who like D&D aren't really well served by it either at the individual or the group level. They'd quickly choose something else if they knew about it and could find players for it.

III. People who like D&D are quite well served by it, compared to the alternatives. Maybe they'd choose something else if they could find players for it. But in reality, if they each chose something else, they'd find they couldn't agree on which specific alternative to use. In other words, sure, Joey might enjoy playing d6 Fantasy more than D&D, but the other members of the group might not--Steve might prefer GURPS, then D&D, then d6, and Beth might want FATE, then D&D, then d6. (In economics/game theory I believe this is equivalent to saying that D&D is pareto optimal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency).)

If your quote is not saying (II), then I apologize for misintepreting you.

Quote from: David RIt's not about the opinion Elliot, it's about the manner of expression. It's the difference between calling a game a piece of shit and saying the game just does not work for you.

I get what you're saying. I understand how someone would be more offended by having their favorite game called crap as opposed to the other person saying they just don't care for it. But I don't personally react very strongly to that; I mean this is the Internet after all and people express all sorts of opinions in a strong fashion.

Claims of delusion or closed-mindedness on the other hand make it impossible for me to give people the benefit of an implicit "IMHO" in front of their comments.

None of the above.

IV. People who like D&D (3e)  are quite well served by it, until they find something they like even better.

EDIT: nothing to see here

Quote from: LancerNone of the above.

IV. People who like D&D (3e)  are quite well served by it, until they find something they like even better.

Nope, that's II. And with that, I think I'm done discussing this issue with you, Lancer. You have interesting things to say on other topics, but any heat you get on this one is well-deserved.

Whatever you say, Elliot.
IV is exactly what happened to me (with 2ndEd/Basic D&D anyhow). And although I still enjoy both 2ndEd and Basic D&D, there are games I've since found that I enjoy even more. I can respect your stance but I don't appreciate your trying to undermine my own personal experiences.

and II is essentially very different from IV.

EDIT:We will just have to agree to disagree

Okay, a final word here from me (hopefully). I realize that the phrasing of II and IV are a bit different. II says the group is unhappy while IV says they're just not as happy as they could be. The essence is that they both claim every D&D group should and would switch to something else if only they knew. I disagree, even though I don't mean to deny your experience or (obviously) mine. A lot of people have started with D&D and then either switched as a group or formed new groups around different systems. But I don't believe many of them do so without being, at some level, consciously dissatisfied and seeking out something else on their own initiative. And on that theory, I don't think it's at all productive to tell people they need to try something else because of some deficiency they themselves don't perceive and which, ultimately, may not exist for them.

You speak as if a person's tastes remain rigid throughout their lifetime, Elliot.

Hell, even my tastes in women have evolved over the years.. And my career preferences..

So goes with the types of games one likes.

QuoteAnd on that theory, I don't think it's at all productive to tell people they need to try something else because of some deficiency they themselves don't perceive and which, ultimately, may not exist for them.

A group may not find something better than what they currently are playing. But it sure doesn't hurt to try out new things , if for nothing else, than to expand one's own horizons. Just what is the harm in that?
It's certainly not productive to tell people not to try out new games just because they are happy with their  present one. Who knows what awesome game they are missing out on just because of a reluctance to leave their comfort zone?
At least, that's what I believe.

Quote from: LancerNone of the above.

IV. People who like D&D (3e)  are quite well served by it, until they find something they like even better.

See, this is what they are trying to tell you. You aren't saying some people, or many people, or a few people. You are basically saying all people are only happy with DnD until they find other games. It's not only wrong, it's arrogant. Did you mean to say that? If not, then perhaps you should look more closely at how you choose to express yourself. If you did mean that then you need to get a clue. Dude, I've been playing RPGs since the late 70s, and found alternative games even back then.... even a fantasy one in Dragonquest, which I still like. Every single memeber of my gaming group has been playing since at least the late 80s, and all are familiar with a great many games. I would guess based on past discussion that a large percentage of the active posters here are similar in background. We know about other games, and have for a very long time. Some of us even prefer some of those other games, and some of us prefer, yes prefer, DnD. This isn't because we are stupid or braindamaged. It's because we like DnD. Why, because it doesn't suck, that's why. You can say it, scream it, whine about it, tattoo it to your ass, and it will still be bullshit to say DnD sucks. Try saying DnD is not a game you enjoy, or does not fulfill your requirements in a RPG, and you'll be golden.

In answer to the original question:

Because the game in question sucks?

Quote from: grubmanWe all know what thread prompted this one...

Actually, I don't. I was off for a few days, busy moving fridge and stuff (or more accurately, getting people to move fridge and stuff)

So anyone want to point me to the root of all this evil? :D

Quote from: David RWalker seems to think that folks who don't want to try new things are market controlled zombies. This is grade A Swine think right here. (Don't get me wrong, I think walker is an interesting poster, but on this subject, he's deluded)

It's not about the opinion Elliot, it's about the manner of expression. It's the difference between calling a game a piece of shit and saying the game just does not work for you.

Regards,
David R

I agree with you all the way. Admittedly, I'm a hotheaded prick myself half the time, and  nothing trips my trigger quicker than inferring I'm some kinda idiot swallowing some kinda bullshit marketing and that I would be so much happier if I let that person make the choice about whats best... what arrogance.

Sigmund! I am glad to see you on this thread taking up the 3e banner and fighting my evil forces of darkness. :p

Quote from: SigmundSee, this is what they are trying to tell you. You aren't saying some people, or many people, or a few people. You are basically saying all people are only happy with DnD until they find other games. It's not only wrong, it's arrogant. Did you mean to say that? If not, then perhaps you should look more closely at how you choose to express yourself.

In response, to my wording- To directly quote myself here:

Quote from:  LancerA group may not find something better than what they currently are playing. But it sure doesn't hurt to try out new things , if for nothing else, than to expand one's own horizons. Just what is the harm in that?

AND

Quote from: LancerPeople are happy with the games they play, or else they wouldn't be playing them. Whether or not there are other games they would like even more, if made aware of them, is a different story.

Now does that sound like someone arrogantly claiming that EVERYONE is happy with D&D until they find other games? I concede that some may still find 3e to be the best game ever, even after trying out other games.
I am many things, but Ron Edwards I am not.

QuoteTry saying DnD is not a game you enjoy, or does not fulfill your requirements in a RPG, and you'll be golden.

Depends on which iteration of D&D, man. I enjoy Basic D&D, 1e, and 2ndEd.
3.x is where my problems lie. I am not a WotC hater, though, and if 4e hits my fancy, I'd be glad to spend my hard-earned money on that.

EDIT: I have bought and read True 20 recently. It is a marked improvement over base 3e, IMHO.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe essence is that they both claim every D&D group should and would switch to something else if only they knew.

You are taking it to an extreme.  What I'm saying, at least, is that sentence above but modified to "The essence is that they both claim some D&D groups might switch to something else if only they knew."

Quote from: SigmundSee, this is what they are trying to tell you. You aren't saying some people, or many people, or a few people. You are basically saying all people are only happy with DnD until they find other games.

When did he say all people?

Why is there a trend of d20/DnD haters becoming internet martyrs, happy in the martyrdom brought on by their hatred?

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe essence is that they both claim every D&D group should and would switch to something else if only they knew.

Shoot. I didn't even catch that little detail earlier. "EVERY GROUP?" That is a total no-no and it is not what I am saying at all.

Walker seems to be the only person on this thread that seems to understand what the heck I am saying.

Quote from: jeff37923Why is there a trend of d20/DnD haters becoming internet martyrs, happy in the martyrdom brought on by their hatred?

Martyrs for a good cause.. I think. :raise:

EDIT: This was MEANT to be a joke!

Quote from: LancerYou speak as if a person's tastes remain rigid throughout their lifetime, Elliot.

No, I don't mean to imply that. Rather, they're in the best position to decide when to experiment, and I can't believe people aren't aware of the existence of alternatives. In this environment it's great to make it easier to learn about and try out new stuff, but telling people they should  spend time and effort to deal with a problem that doesn't exist, as far as they're concerned, is a conversational non-starter.

Quote from: walkerpBoth Lancer and I base our position that people can be not aware of better things out there, because both of us were those people.  I played 3.x for quite a while and had a really good time most of the time, but eventually I just bumped up against what were for me limitations of the system.  I started to look around, eventually found other stuff.  When I introduced that other stuff to the group, they quite enjoyed it.  But none of them would have looked around, if it wasn't for me.  I think they now feel that they have more gaming options than they did before.  During the peak of our 3.x playing, we would discuss other genres but a sort of steampunk-modified D&D was about as far as we could conceive.  Playing a present-day game just didn't even come into our minds as feasible.  I think there are a lot of gamers like this today.  It's not presumptious to say that if they were given the taste of something different, they might then want to try other different things.

It's like food or movies or books.  Sure you might be happy with burgers or blockbusters or Tom Clancy but you might be quite psyched to check out some other culture's food or a good hong kong movie or Desmond Bagley.  You may still enjoy a burger but now you have more choices, which you didn't have before.

Walker, I think you've been fairly good about this stuff in both of the discussions, with few exceptions.

I'm of the opinion that others will find their favorite game on their own if D&D whatever edition isn't doing it for them. All I can do is show off my extensive collection of books and make them jealous.

Your situation? Possibly sucks. But really telling us about it isn't always strictly relevant when discussing more specific aspects of the system or metasetting, which is what I personally come online to discuss (and more recently some AP stuff)... even if now and again I do let myself get dragged into politics. Like now.

And political discussions being substituted for mechanical or setting discussions happens to other things than 3e. Shit, have you seen the Pundit work? Exalted, Nobilis, SotC, whatever. It's all fair game.

Lancer, you ain't off the hook. The politics are still irrelevant to the topic of the system or the setting, and on top of that, if you have a group playing your preferred game you've got no excuse to be holding on to this grudge. It's bitching for bitching's sake.

It's one thing to say "attacks of opportunity add something I don't need" or to say the same for feats or any number of other things. It's another thing to attribute people's preferences to ignorance.

For example I could say "Hey Koltar, point buy systems aren't my thing. I find them difficult and they model characters in more detail than I need." I don't think that would be offensive.

I could also say "Fuckin' GURPS man. What kind of gear-headed mathlete do you need to be to play in that system? Robots and GURPS players have no souls." That? Might piss a few folks off.

What is this?

The final bloody showdown between the 3e/d20 lovers and the 3e/d20 haters?

Man, when grubman next sees this thread...

Talk about massive derail...This is too freakin' hilarious.

Quote from: LancerMartyrs for a good cause.. I think. :raise:

Not in my view.

Here, let me explain myself. With the market dominance of the d20 system, a weird little meme came into being and began to be played out on just about every gaming forum I visited. The meme goes like this:

Poster X wants to play a RPG they like, but when they go to the local gaming group or FLGS all they find are d20 system players - who may or may not be interested in playing a different game than the one they are already playing. So Poster X then starts to insult and degrade the d20 players for playing a d20 game since it is not His/Her Favorite Game that they brought to play. It doesn't occur to Poster X that by insulting the local player base, that group of potential players may not be interested in ever playing with someone who has just insulted them - thus destroying any chance of getting some players.

Often, its the approach used that assures no players for Your Favorite Game and not the differences in the game system itself.

So, when I start seeing people rant and rave about how those evil d20 players won't look at this Other Great Game System, I have to wonder about the approach taken previously to get players to try this Other Great Game System.

Really, there are reasons why people like d20 and want to stick with it. Its a versatile system, and I know a lot of players who are unwilling to invest the time to learn a new game system when the one they are using works just fine for them. After all, they want to go ahead and play when they have free time, not learn something different - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Jeff, except I am not insulting anybody. People may be offended by what I have to say (i.e not like my opinions), but I am not insulting or degrading the 3.x/d20 players.

Quote from: LancerJeff, except I am not insulting anybody. People may be offended by what I have to say, but I am not insult or degrading the 3.x/d20 players.

No, you're just saying that being a martyr for the cause of Hating d20 is a good thing.

Quote from: jeff37923No, you're just saying that being a martyr for the cause of Hating d20 is a good thing.

Dude, it was a joke. Did you not see the smiley?

 Laugh, smile, or whatever suits your fancy.:p


This thread just gets sillier and sillier..

I have an off-topic question, now that we've beaten this one to death.

Lancer, WTF is your handle "Lancer", but you use a picture of Max for your avatar?

This has been bugging me for a while.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI have an off-topic question, now that we've beaten this one to death.

Lancer, WTF is your handle "Lancer", but you use a picture of Max for your avatar?

This has been bugging me for a while.

hehe.

Good question. Lancer is the name of the hero in one of my Genesis games. He is the Captain of the sleek and powerful Hellfire CNCS1 space fighter! Yeah, it was a shooter that I hold dear to my heart. Nothing to do with RPGs. There is no picture of him, though, so I had to look at other options.

I am a big Robotech fan, and I like Max. This site doesn't accept images of a larger size, though, so I had trouble using other options I had in mind. I may decide to update it to something else more appropriate.

And I have a feeling you like rabbits. Call it a hunch. :p

Quote from: LancerWhat is this?

The final bloody showdown between the 3e/d20 lovers and the 3e/d20 haters?

Man, when grubman next sees this thread...

Talk about massive derail...This is too freakin' hilarious.

Man, hate D20 all you want, but leave the fans out of it.

Or rather...

...Don't hate the player; hate the game

honestly?  guys?  as an avowed d20 / D&D hater I have to say that D&D is too mediocre to get into the top 100 games that suck.  Sorry, but I'm pretty sure we can come up with at least 100 games that suck more than D&D.

That could be 4e's marketing catch phrase "Now in the top 100 sucky games list!"  But I doubt they'll manage it.

With contenders like KABAL and Intersteller Elite Combat and Meta Scape and Arenson's Adventures In Fantasy, D&D just doesn't suck enough to make the list.

Don't forget FATAL..

This was interesting BTW. Talk about utter sucktitude.
http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Worst_RPGs_ever

Quote from: LancerAnd I have a feeling you like rabbits. Call it a hunch. :p

You'd be correct.:bunny:

There are people who are AFRAID of regular gaming, because they SUCK at it. They are pretty keen on telling why other people´s games suck.

Whenever I become embroiled in a debate over RPGs, it typically tends to involve unfortunate misconceptions about the system or setting of a specific game in itself: "a spell in Mage: The Ascension either fails horribly or succeeds completely without any middle ground between the two outcomes", to use a recent example, or "a PC in Nobilis can accomplish anything as long as the player just keeps spending all the miracle points she wants." What other people do for fun is no skin off my nose, though, and I don't really see the point of trying to argue that someone's taste is objectively wrong.

Quote from: grubmanWhat is there to be gained in this action?

Three things.

1. It is (should be) an intellectual exercise. By pointing out that game x sucks, and most importantly why it sucks, the writer explores, organizes, and reinforces his thoughts about his own gaming preferences. What something is not is just as important as what something is.

2. It's fun watching other people get pissy about opinions. Really, really fun. Some people on the internet pretend like their civil rights have been violated if someone is allowed to disparage their gaming preferences.

3. Sometimes, suckas gotta know.

Quote from: SettembriniThere are people who are AFRAID of regular gaming, because they SUCK at it. They are pretty keen on telling why other people´s games suck.

I suppose there must be.  Somewhere

But then maybe some people just hate how the entire world seems to identify their hobby by a game that sucks.

Quote from: LancerProblem is that people don't like to hear criticism of their favorite games, no matter how they are stated.

Of course, how well-stated, apt, etc., those "criticisms" are is in the eye of the beholder. People say tons of dumb stuff.

Seanchai

Quote from: David RHow you could consider your behaviour civil when you use the term sucks when describing someone else's preference.

It's not the suck part, but the being ignorant part that's fun.

Seanchai

I always thought that people would argue against someone else about a game, not because he wants to change his mind, but because he wants to change other peoples' minds.  I've rarely seen someone change their mind about a topic, especially about liking something.  However, I've seen someone make up their mind after reading a topic on a forum.

So... telling someone a game they like sucks, in a certain way, can persuade third parties.  It's basically an easy way to display propaganda.

Quote from: LancerA group may not find something better than what they currently are playing. But it sure doesn't hurt to try out new things , if for nothing else, than to expand one's own horizons. Just what is the harm in that?

None. None whatsoever.

But if they don't want to try new things, that's their business. In fact, that's their right. You don't get to be the Jesus Christ of the gaming world, bringing enlightenment to the masses.

Mentioning other games, etc., is awesome. But if they're not interested, that should be the end of the conversation. If you continue to press it, talking about how sheltered they are, you're a dick.

Seanchai

Quote from: grubmanWe see it over and over on the internet.  What is there to be gained in this action?

Gamers like to bitch.  When a gamer actually takes the time to post a response on the internet, then they are really in the mood to bitch or discuss a particular topic.  Like me, just now.  I typed a response musing about the fact that gamers like to bitch.

It doesn't matter what the topic is, gamers like to bitch.  Some gamers like to pee in other people's cheerios, while others are just bitching because they have nothing better to do at that particular moment in time.

Hell, bitching about meaningless minutia is kind of fun, possibly even cathartic, so there you have it.

We live in a dog eat dog hobby and every other gamer is wearing milk bone underwear.

Quote from: LancerJeff, except I am not insulting anybody.

Uh, yeah, you are.

Seanchai

In my frankly inestimable experience ;)  ;

I, of course, have game preferences and game dislikes.

My preferences often overlap with my group's dislikes, and vice versa.

For example, our group is currently playing AD&D 2nd edition. We played 3e for many years, but the group decided they preferred 2nd edition and switched back.

I LOATHE 2nd edition with the burning hatred of ten thousand suns!

But you know what? I'm having fun playing!

I've played lots of games I disliked, and I've disliked them for various reasons, but every time I've had fun!

The only time I don't have fun in a game is with a crappy GM. I've played in games I love and hated the experience because of a crappy GM.

So, as a result, I'll pretty much not dis a game I dislike on the internet. There's no real point.

I just wish other gamers would realize that with a good GM and good friends, you can have fun playing even the most insipid game.

Heck, I just with the other gamers in my group would realize that! It'd be a lot easier to sell campaigns to them!

Quote from: SeanchaiNone. None whatsoever.

But if they don't want to try new things, that's their business. In fact, that's their right. You don't get to be the Jesus Christ of the gaming world, bringing enlightenment to the masses.

If you continue to press it, talking about how sheltered they are, you're a dick.

I hope you are not directing this at me personally, but in a general sense. I certainly don't believe that only my gaming preferences are valid and everyone else needs to listen to the tenets proposed by Lancer's Gaming Sermon as the only true Word.

QuoteMentioning other games, etc., is awesome. But if they're not interested, that should be the end of the conversation.
Seanchai

I agree. I have no quarrel with you here.

Quote from: EvilschemerI just wish other gamers would realize that with a good GM and good friends, you can have fun playing even the most insipid game.

Heck, I just with the other gamers in my group would realize that! It'd be a lot easier to sell campaigns to them!

Your words ring true, Chris. I may also add that games are further improved when the players and GM all see eye to eye with one another-- Such is the case when playing with close friends that know each other well, and/or have been playing with each other for a long time.
So the whole "social dynamics" thing is pretty important too. Comfort level is important.

Quote from: LancerI hope you are not directing this at me personally, but in a general sense.

No, at you. There's a reason that out of all the folks who said they didn't like 3e in the other thread, you and walkerp are drawing heat.

Seanchai

Quote from: grubmanUnrelated to any specific game...

I mean seriously...I understand trying to convince people that games you like are great!  But, why try to convince people that like, love, or are at least open minded that a game sucks...and they have no reason to like it (or are at least stupid or inferior for not thinking it sucks)?

We see it over and over on the internet.  What is there to be gained in this action?

Well, noting first that I don't think Lancer did that, so as to be clear I'm not piling on him (I think he was part of a conversation that went haywire, but I wouldn't put it higher than that personally), sometimes it's just incredulity.

Let's take an example.  I think AD&D is a terrible game, truly sucktastic, I don't often say that as it's a bit rude and I've learnt to my (genuine) amazement that not everyone agrees.

Now, I still struggle to see how someone can think it's a good game and yet manage to live an independent life without the need for professional care, but I've learnt that there are many mystifying things in life and this is but one.

That said, that incredulity can lead you further than you mean to go, as you investigate exactly why someone's view is so utterly different from your own.  Honest curiosity can lapse into unintentional rudeness and from there as people push back to entrenched bitter conflict.  It's surprisingly easily done.

So, ask first I think, does this person genuinely think this is a terrible game and are they simply trying to understand how anyone could like it?  That won't necessarily take you to a good place, but it may enable you to defuse things by saying something like "hey, I get you think this is terrible and struggle to see why anyone would like it, but some of us do.  If you'd like to see why I'm happy to say, but I don't really want my reasons shot down particularly" and see how that flies.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou'd be correct.:bunny:

Few people realize that in RL Elliot actually is a six-foot tall rabbit.

Only I can see him, though, which occasionally complicates things, even in the Bay Area.

Quote from: grubmanUnrelated to any specific game...

I mean seriously...I understand trying to convince people that games you like are great!  But, why try to convince people that like, love, or are at least open minded that a game sucks...and they have no reason to like it (or are at least stupid or inferior for not thinking it sucks)?

We see it over and over on the internet.  What is there to be gained in this action?

I think most people who do this would argue that they're trying to make others "see (Game X) how it really is," ie. they lack the requisite empathy and imagination to understand that not everyone shares their preferences. For some of them I think it's a genuine mystery why people don't think in the same way that they do, and they'll keep hammering the point home as a way of trying to rectify the perceived problem. I think it stems from a lack of basic socialisation, and unfortunately the internet is awash with it.

Also, there can be deeper emotional issues at play. Agressively mocking RPG systems and their players might only be symptoms.

When someone engages in anti-social behaviour the question needs to be "What's their payoff for acting like this?" If you can get an honest answer (which is nigh impossible with online personas representing individuals who are likely in denial of their problems) then you can maybe start exploring the underlying issues. Good luck with that. :D

So, in brief, the best advice I can give is to try and ignore it and move on. There's nothing to be gained but frustration when engaging with people of this type. You might be looking to achieve resoloution via debate, whilst they're simply looking to get an emotional fix from arguing and trading insults, whether it be passively or overtly. Nothing good can come of it.

"Why do people try to convince others that games suck?"

So you'll know who to stop listening to.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!"Why do people try to convince others that games suck?"

So you'll know who to stop listening to.

I hadn't even considered that, but you may be right.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFew people realize that in RL Elliot actually is a six-foot tall rabbit.

Only I can see him, though, which occasionally complicates things, even in the Bay Area.

I can't tell if this is a reference to Harvey or Donnie Darko.

Quote from: LancerSigmund! I am glad to see you on this thread taking up the 3e banner and fighting my evil forces of darkness. :p




In response, to my wording- To directly quote myself here:


AND



Now does that sound like someone arrogantly claiming that EVERYONE is happy with D&D until they find other games? I concede that some may still find 3e to be the best game ever, even after trying out other games.
I am many things, but Ron Edwards I am not.




Depends on which iteration of D&D, man. I enjoy Basic D&D, 1e, and 2ndEd.
3.x is where my problems lie. I am not a WotC hater, though, and if 4e hits my fancy, I'd be glad to spend my hard-earned money on that.

EDIT: I have bought and read True 20 recently. It is a marked improvement over base 3e, IMHO.

I was only pointing out the wording of the thread I quoted. Notice I didn't say that you always are saying all people, only in that quote. It was just as an example of why some of us are seeing what we're seeing in your posts (and other's posts as well), when other posts are quite reasonable. I didn't really think you were trying to send that message which is why I asked. Posts like it make me question your other posts where you're more accepting of other people's preferences, it seems like mixed messages to me.

Grats in getting True20, it's a diamond in the rough I feel.

Quote from: walkerpWhen did he say all people?

In the quote in my post, obviously. That's the way it comes across and why so much flak gets caught seems to me. I'm sure it won't seem that way to you though.

Quote from: beejazzI can't tell if this is a reference to Harvey or Donnie Darko.

It's not a reference to either of those. It's a reference to me. Got any carrots?

He loves playing Bunnies & Burrows.  

I do try to convince him it sucks, but he's just not into trying out new things.

Quote from: David Johansenhonestly?  guys?  as an avowed d20 / D&D hater I have to say that D&D is too mediocre to get into the top 100 games that suck.  Sorry, but I'm pretty sure we can come up with at least 100 games that suck more than D&D.

That could be 4e's marketing catch phrase "Now in the top 100 sucky games list!"  But I doubt they'll manage it.

With contenders like KABAL and Intersteller Elite Combat and Meta Scape and Arenson's Adventures In Fantasy, D&D just doesn't suck enough to make the list.

See, Lancer, walker... here's some examples for ya. This troll here is so boring as to be barely worth mentioning. It's making me yawn just looking at it, and I gotta go to work, so onward...

Quote from: JimLotFPThree things.

1. It is (should be) an intellectual exercise. By pointing out that game x sucks, and most importantly why it sucks, the writer explores, organizes, and reinforces his thoughts about his own gaming preferences. What something is not is just as important as what something is.

2. It's fun watching other people get pissy about opinions. Really, really fun. Some people on the internet pretend like their civil rights have been violated if someone is allowed to disparage their gaming preferences.

3. Sometimes, suckas gotta know.

See, now this troll at least has a couple things with which to get ahold of it and squeeze until the puss comes out. The bit about using the "why it sucks" part as some flimsy excuse to insult people's preferences. The pseudo-intellectual bit about "What something is not is just as important as what something is.", much better. This way one can pull examples that might actually seem relevant in later posts. The last bit though kinda ruins it, takes it back into the toilet where it belongs.

I do it because my tastes are generally more refined than others', and if I don't share my views how will you ever learn?

note: I invite those whose sarcasm meters failed to check my posting history. I have often explained why I don't like something, but never to convince someone that they should also think a game sucks. I have, however, found myself trying to convince someone that my personal opinion about a game's suckage or rockage is valid even if it disagrees with them. I do that for two reasons:

1) it's fun

2) if I'm arguing on the internet with strangers, I'm not arguing in the living room with my wife. :D

Quote from: Sigmund. I didn't really think you were trying to send that message which is why I asked. Posts like it make me question your other posts where you're more accepting of other people's preferences, it seems like mixed messages to me.

But that's the point, Sigmund. I never said ever in any of my posts that ALL or EVERY group should ditch D&D for other games. I am not sending mixed messages. People are just taking things out of context and reading into things that aren't there. In this thread and the other 3e thread, I specifically use qualifying terms like "many" or "some" people, or leave it at "people." That some posters add extra flavor to my posts, and pass it off as statements I have made, is unfortunate and unfair.

QuoteGrats in getting True20, it's a diamond in the rough I feel.

It's a bit experimental. But I think it has the right idea in getting rid of AoO and simplifying much of the chaff. I am not particularly crazy about the wealth mechanic though.

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, at you. There's a reason that out of all the folks who said they didn't like 3e in the other thread, you and walkerp are drawing heat.

Seanchai

Umm.... too bad?:shrug:

When will some people learn that a critique on their favorite game/song/movie/DVD/food (whatever) does not constitute a personal attack on their own person?  Even if Bob expresses dislike at something Mary likes, it doesn't mean that Bob thinks that Mary is lower than dung as a human being. Bob and Mary can still be friends, have a beer together, make love to each other, and respect each other as people.

You have said I have "insulted" people. This is curious to me unless you interpret expressed dislike of one of your favorite games to be a personal slight. I challenge you to find a post where I resorted to name-calling, cussed people out, or ad hominem. When have I ever called you a "dick" like you called me?

I have said 3e sucks. Who cares? It's a freakin' game. I didn't say you suck.

Quote from: LancerUmm.... too bad?:shrug:

When will some people learn that a critique on their favorite game/song/movie/DVD/food (whatever) does not constitute a personal attack on their own person?  Even if Bob expresses dislike at something Mary likes, it doesn't mean that Bob thinks that Mary is lower than dung as a human being. Bob and Mary can still be friends, have a beer together, make love to each other, and respect each other as people.

You have said I have "insulted" people. This is curious to me unless you interpret expressed dislike of one of your favorite games to be a personal slight. I challenge you to find a post where I resorted to name-calling, cussing people out, or ad hominem. When have I ever called you a "dick" like you called me?

I have said 3e sucks. Who cares? It's a freakin' game. I didn't say you suck.

Look - when I agree with Seanchai, you know there must be something to think about. Given his quotes piece in your response (I don't have full context), I have to agree.

I don't care if you think 3e sucks or not. Matters not to me if you shout it from the highest mountain top or quietly and politely say so. In the parts of the discussion where you actually discuss parts of 3e that you don't like or don't fit your preference, I agree with some of them. However...

That's not what people are trying to tell you. They are, if I can be so bold as to speak for others, trying to tell you that when you say the people who play 3e only do because they haven't tried anything else, and/or there's something wrong if you do not wish to try something else, you've crossed into territory that's gone far beyond saying 3e sucks.

You don't want to think about that - that you might have (inadvertently, though I have my doubts given your reaction) said something insulting - so you write it off as some kind of hypersensitive over-reaction to you saying 3e sucks. I regret to inform you that you are wrong in this reading of the situation.

But, like walker has from his first post on this subject here   lo these many moons ago, you refuse to understand the difference between the two.

Quote from: James J SkachThat's not what people are trying to tell you. They are, if I can be so bold as to speak for others, trying to tell you that when you say the people who play 3e only do because they haven't tried anything else, and/or there's something wrong if you do not wish to try something else, you've crossed into territory that's gone far beyond saying 3e sucks.

That would be great if I actually said those things (hint: bolded emphasis mine), James. But truth be told I didn't. That some like to snatch things out of context and take things that I say to an extreme, so be it. If your prerogative is to twist the meaning of my posts, have fun with it. You can either understand what I really was saying in my posts (Walker did no problem), or you can twist my words to support whatever "evil" perception you have of me. Either way, it's your call.

I am not going to continue to try explaining myself, because frankly, it isn't that important.

Quote from: LancerUmm.... too bad?:shrug:

Too bad? You're the one who responded to me, concerned that I might addressing my statements to you ("I hope you are not directing this at me personally, but in a general sense."). What's this "too bad" crap?

Quote from: LancerWhen will some people learn that a critique on their favorite game/song/movie/DVD/food (whatever) does not constitute a personal attack on their own person?

If you keep your criticisms directly at the object and not the person, they aren't. When you start saying things along the lines of, "What kind of person enjoys [blank]?" you start getting into muddier water.

Quote from: LancerYou have said I have "insulted" people. This is curious to me unless you interpret expressed dislike of one of your favorite games to be a personal slight. I challenge you to find a post where I resorted to name-calling, cussed people out, or ad hominem.

"I don't understand how veterans would get so much out of 3e."

"And why would anyone go to 3e, after they have tweaked an older iteration enough to their tastes?"

"I just don't like to compromise my standards for a game system I am not completely happy with, just because it so happens to be the most popular one."

"I can understand why newbies to the hobby would like 3e.. Among other things, name recognition. I admit to not understanding specifically why VETS would not think 3e is anything but craptastic. Unless they haven't found other better fantasy games (which is hard to believe), don't like tweaking rules, or have failed to do so in a satisfactory manner to them-- which also explains the following point."

"As you have said in another thread, gamers are a "lazy" folk and want something more "complete.""

"And I daresay, many of them just don't know any better. I certainly didn't when I used to be ignorant about skill-based systems and defended AD&D against them."

"Many (notice I don't say ALL) players just don't know any better or are unwilling to try out new things...But I was specifically referring to those players that DON'T know any better and have just given in to the hype."

"I can say for certain that many players truly just don't know any better."

"I just try to get better players..."

"I don't think everybody plays 3e because they don't know any better, but I think many people do. And then many of those will eventually evolve from 3e and try other games, maybe ditching 3e forever or some may even stick with it (barring leaving the hobby)."

But, hey, I'm sure you didn't mean that folks who play D&D are ignorant sell outs in a bad way. Maybe, if they're lucky, they'll discover Rifts and "evolve," however.

Quote from: LancerWhen have I ever called you a "dick" like you called me?

Oh, but I wasn't calling you a dick. I was saying people who behave like you're behaving are dicks. I don't why you're getting so touchy - I'm just critiquing the behavior, not the person.

Anyway, stop whining about being called a dick, Richard.

Seanchai

I still don't see any name-calling, ad hominem, or cussing people out. I see someone expressing dislike for a game, that's it.
Although a couple of those posts can be taken out of their intended context to mean something else (i.e. "I don't understand how veterans would get so much out of 3e").

QuoteIf you keep your criticisms directly at the object and not the person, they aren't. When you start saying things along the lines of, "What kind of person enjoys [blank]?" you start getting into muddier water.

This is where we are in disagreement. So now I can't make my own deductions as to what I percieve are some of the types of people that may be playing a certain game? Notice when I say things like -- "many gamers play 3e because they don't know better" --  I use the qualifying term "many", not "all". I could have just as easily said "some" instead. Either one is a big difference in tone from "everybody".

Not only that, but I even went as far as admitting to being among those that didn't know any better!- Effectively, insulting myself! THINK THIS CAREFULLY: Does that make any sense to you that I would insult myself along with the 3e/d20 gamers I supposedly "insulted" as a whole?

You are still confusing dislike of a game with dislike of the gamer.

Let me give you some examples...It would be totally different if I said now:

"People that play 3e are idiots."

"I can't believe that vets are so stupid as to play 3e!"

"Anybody that plays 3e or d20 is a LOOOSER!!!"

"You gotta be pretty stupid to  play 3e instead of (insert favorite system here)"

"EVERYBODY that plays 3e just doesn't know any better. They are all a  bunch of hack and slash powergamers that haven't got a clue.."

"3e gamers don't know how to roleplay. All they are , are a bunch of munchkins"

This is a big difference from the comments I actually wrote. Incidentally, I don't believe in any of the above crap. For some reason you think I am actually saying the above , instead of what I actually wrote.

QuoteAnyway, stop whining about being called a dick, Richard.

I'm whining? So says the guy that has a beef with me.

Quote from: LancerI still don't see any name-calling, ad hominem, or cussing people out.

Saying people are ignorant isn't name calling or an ad hominem?

Quote from: LancerI see someone expressing dislike for a game, that's it.

No. The quotes I posted are instances where you address people, not the game.

Quote from: LancerSo now I can't make my own deductions as to what I percieve are some of the types of people that may be playing a certain game?

"I see someone expressing dislike for a game, that's it." Which is it, you're expressing dislike for a game or you're talking about the people who play that game? Because it seems like you're admitting to addressing D&D players, not just D&D, with the statement above.

Quote from: LancerNotice when I say things like -- "many gamers play 3e because they don't know better" --  I use the qualifying term "many", not all. I could have just as easily said "some" instead. Either one is a big difference in tone from "everybody".

Ah. Well then. Many of the folks who continue to try to force people to try new things after said folks have expressed a desire to continue playing what they're playing are complete dicks. Better?

Quote from: LancerYou are still confusing dislike of a game with dislike of the gamer.

No. You clearly think poorly of both D&D and D&D players.

Quote from: LancerI'm whining? So says the guy that has a beef with me.

Dude, I'm not sure who you're trying to win over with your self-declared martyrdom, but this is the wild west. There are no moderators here who are going to protect you from the results of your stupidity. If you're panties are in twist over someone suggesting you're a dick, best to leave. Being called a dick ain't nothing.

Seanchai

Never mind.:rolleyes: So much for civility. Still trying to tell me what I think?

This is just not getting anywhere. You have your mind made up and are closed to reason..
I am not even going to go into all your inaccuracies and just plain falsehoods.
Seanchai, you believe what you want to believe. True or not.

Quote from: LancerBut that's the point, Sigmund. I never said ever in any of my posts that ALL or EVERY group should ditch D&D for other games. I am not sending mixed messages. People are just taking things out of context and reading into things that aren't there. In this thread and the other 3e thread, I specifically use qualifying terms like "many" or "some" people, or leave it at "people." That some posters add extra flavor to my posts, and pass it off as statements I have made, is unfortunate and unfair.

Well, I might consider that it's me, but I'm not the only one making these observations, so I'd still take a look at how you're presenting your thoughts if I were you.

QuoteIt's a bit experimental. But I think it has the right idea in getting rid of AoO and simplifying much of the chaff. I am not particularly crazy about the wealth mechanic though.

I agree for the most part. I don't mind AoO, but for some genres and/or groups it does slow things down too much. I also don't like the wealth system, although I understand why they are using it since the game is meant to be multi-genre. For fantasy I'd change it to coinage, but for modern and future I think I might keep it for some types of games where wealth and treasure are not much of an issue. Sorry, for the minor digression everyone.

Quote from: SeanchaiDude, I'm not sure who you're trying to win over with your self-declared martyrdom, but this is the wild west. There are no moderators here who are going to protect you from the results of your stupidity. If you're panties are in twist over someone suggesting you're a dick, best to leave. Being called a dick ain't nothing.

Seanchai

It's obvious who wasn't around for the old Nutkinland days ain't it? I'll tell ya, if they think the little bit of directness some of us use around here nowadays is bad it's really good they weren't around then. Leopold would have raised some hell.

Since it seems this thread has just about run its course-- So what WERE the olden days like, Nutkinland? Leopold (who is he?)?

Why do us newbies have it so easy now?:raise:

Quote from: LancerThis is where we are in disagreement. So now I can't make my own deductions as to what I percieve are some of the types of people that may be playing a certain game? Notice when I say things like -- "many gamers play 3e because they don't know better" --  I use the qualifying term "many", not "all". I could have just as easily said "some" instead. Either one is a big difference in tone from "everybody".

Not offensive. Just wrong. No one plays a game they don't enjoy "because they don't know any better." If they don't enjoy it, they learn better or quit playing. If they're playing it, it's because they enjoy it. There isn't some "many" in denial. Only you.

Quote from: LancerSince it seems this thread has just about run its course-- So what WERE the olden days like, Nutkinland? Leopold (who is he?)?

I don't know who the fuck Leopold is, but I do know Randolpho legally changed his RL name to that of his character.

Or so he claimed.

I actually rather enjoy the naive abrasiveness of a walkerp or a Lancer post.  It's a hell of a lot more genuine than the fake politically correct or false robustness of some other people's posts.  Much more representative of what you would deal with in meat space while TRYING to comprehend their intent instead of dissecting it.  A number of 1st edition assassins on this site, isn't there?  The home of the rhetorical brave.

Leo was just one of many dudes around the old Nutkinland that used to be kinda abrasive at times :) It was kinda funny really, as long as ya knew not to take the shit seriously. It's been awhile though, I think lots of folks went to Circus Maximus after the original Nutkinland closed up, but eventually it was revived, then morphed into this site.

Quote from: GunslingerI actually rather enjoy the naive abrasiveness of a walkerp or a Lancer post.  It's a hell of a lot more genuine than the fake politically correct or false robustness of some other people's posts.  Much more representative of what you would deal with in meat space while TRYING to comprehend their intent instead of dissecting it.  A number of 1st edition assassins on this site, isn't there?  The home of the rhetorical brave.

I don't mind anyone being abrasive as long as they can take as good as they give.

Quote from: David RAnd what we would call behaviour such as this?

RPG Theory? :D

Someone probably already said it; I came to the thread late... sorry.
-E.

Quote from: beejazzNot offensive. Just wrong. No one plays a game they don't enjoy "because they don't know any better." If they don't enjoy it, they learn better or quit playing. If they're playing it, it's because they enjoy it. There isn't some "many" in denial. Only you.

You really have to miss about half of my posts to arrive at that conclusion about me, beejazz..

Let me quote myself again.. Coming from post #40 of this thread.

Quote from: LancerPeople are happy with the games they play, or else they wouldn't be playing them. Whether or not there are other games they would like even more, if made aware of them, is a different story.

So what is this about me saying that people play games they don't enjoy?
When people actually take the time to read my posts, instead of mis-quoting me, this thread would be a more pleasant place.

Quote from: SigmundWell, I might consider that it's me, but I'm not the only one making these observations, so I'd still take a look at how you're presenting your thoughts if I were you.

Except, when I can point out the exact instances where people have mis-quoted me at every turn, and show that what I actually stated is at odds to what they claim I stated, then the problem is not with how I have presented my arguments, it is with how others have presented theirs (i.e logic leaps).
Let me make a case:

Why do several posters have the same problem with my posts?- I imagine that there must be a domino effect involved. One person in disagreement with me twists what I say-- Someone else comes along and reads that person's mis-characterization of my arguments (thinking that is what I believe) and then posts something based on that misunderstanding..Then another comes along..etc.

I see it over and over again on this thread.

EDIT: I have to say though, that I see a lot of similarity between people's mis-characterizations of my posts and Ron Edwardesque opinions. As if people are wanting to see "Ron Edwards" in my posts when none of that is there. Maybe some are influenced by a hatred of the man? I dunno.

Following Gunslinger's correct observation:
I admit that the "abrasiveness/directness" of my opinions (and they would be to 3.x/d20 fans) may have something to do with why some folks claim things I didn't state. I'll be civil in all my posts but what I am not going to do is mollify them by sugar-coating things up either. If I am going to soften things in that manner, best not post anything at all. At least, that's what I believe.

Quote from: LancerSo much for civility.

Dude, you don't get to whine about civility when you start off by claiming many of the 4 million D&D players are ignorant and would evolve to a better place gaming-wise if they'd move on from D&D.

Moreover, as you said, "I admit that the "abrasiveness/directness" of my opinions (and they would be to 3.x/d20 fans) may have something to do with why some folks claim things I didn't state."

So let's not pretend you don't know why folks are reponding as they are, that you didn't say what you said, etc.. I realize you're a drama queen and that this is how you get off, but c'mon dude...

Quote from: LancerStill trying to tell me what I think?

No, just what you said.

Quote from: LancerThis is just not getting anywhere. You have your mind made up and are closed to reason..
I am not even going to go into all your inaccuracies and just plain falsehoods.
Seanchai, you believe what you want to believe. True or not.

Still whining...

Quote from: LancerWhy do several posters have the same problem with my posts?

We can read.

Seanchai

Seanchai, what is your agenda?  Are you just pro-WotC all the way?  I'm curious because most of the other people on your side of this debate I kind of know their various agendas, but I can't figure out where you are coming from.  Why are you so angry about this?

Why is Seanchai so angry and why does he insist on trying to tell me what I think?

Quote from: SeanchaiI realize you're a drama queen and that this is how you get off, but c'mon dude...

If it makes Seanchai feel happy, let him continue his own "personal war with me" and spout whatever he wishes.. Hey! It's easy enough to do online behind your computer and doesn't cost a thing. :)
 
We are taking a good look at who the real drama queen is. So by all means,  flame away! :p

Quote from: walkerpSeanchai, what is your agenda?  Are you just pro-WotC all the way?  

You've been around for months, and that wasn't clear to you until now?

The mind boggles.

:p

I wasn't aware that opinion = agenda.

Quote from: walkerpSeanchai, what is your agenda?  Are you just pro-WotC all the way?  I'm curious because most of the other people on your side of this debate I kind of know their various agendas, but I can't figure out where you are coming from.  Why are you so angry about this?

So, what? It's a giant conspiracy if people disagree with you?

What is going on if they just think you are full of more shit than a Christmas turkey?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe mind boggles.

Quit boggling your mind! You'll go blind and get hairy palms! :D

Quote from: LancerExcept, when I can point out the exact instances where people have mis-quoted me at every turn, and show that what I actually stated is at odds to what they claim I stated, then the problem is not with how I have presented my arguments, it is with how others have presented theirs (i.e logic leaps).

Dude, it aint just this thread, and your insistence that it has to be everyone else and not you demonstrates a complete lack on your part of the willingness to even consider the alternative. Have fun with that.

Quote from: One Horse TownI wasn't aware that opinion = agenda.

They are if they don't match with walkerp's or Lancer's apparently. So what the hell is this agenda we all have damn it, I didn't get the memo. :mad:

Quote from: SigmundThey are if they don't match with walkerp's or Lancer's apparently. So what the hell is this agenda we all have damn it, I didn't get the memo. :mad:

You hadn't posted in a bit, Sigmund. At least in threads I was viewing. I forgot to forward that on to you. My apologies.

I wasn't talking to you bitches, I was talking to Seanchai.  I've already got your agendas figured out.  

And by agenda, I mean, generally, what are your gaming values that informs your position in this argument.  I've made mine abundantly clear.  I have a pretty good idea of most of the rest of the posters. But Seanchai's I don't understand.  Maybe he is just an angry, argumentative guy but I'm curious to know if there is a more coherent position behind it.

This site is fraught with agendas, buster.

The texts, the subtexts, the pauses, the fonts, even the orthography... merely forgetting to type the bloody circonflex in "Harn" will get you marked for dogpiling by THE MEMBERS OF THE BLACK LODGE.

Quote from: SigmundDude, it aint just this thread, and your insistence that it has to be everyone else and not you demonstrates a complete lack on your part of the willingness to even consider the alternative. Have fun with that.

Thing is I have considered the alternative. And in every instance I have noticed that the other poster is the one who has made the logic leap regarding my position vs. 3e, not I. That's not insistence or an unwillingness to be wrong, but it's just the darn honest truth.

I have made logic leaps and errors before on other threads (who hasn't), but I am afraid this time around, it's not me.

Quote from: walkerpSeanchai, what is your agenda?  Are you just pro-WotC all the way?

Nope. For example, I recently said they were dumb for missing the whole Kenzer Co thing with the Dragon compilation. I'm just don't blindly hate them like yourself.

Quote from: walkerpWhy are you so angry about this?

I'm not. Why are you so angry about it? Your posts are far more strident than mine. I'm just having fun at Lancer's expense.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNope. For example, I recently said they were dumb for missing the whole Kenzer Co thing with the Dragon compilation. I'm just don't blindly hate them like yourself.

Nope.  I recently gave them credit for the OGL.  Touché!  

Quote from: SeanchaiI'm not. Why are you so angry about it? Your posts are far more strident than mine. I'm just having fun at Lancer's expense.

Well I do have a clear agenda. I also just tend to be strident about stuff.  Genetic thing.  You do really go to quite an effort to have fun, I have to say.

Quote from: LancerWhy is Seanchai so angry and why does he insist on trying to tell me what I think?

You can think whatever you'd like. You can say whatever you'd like. In fact, given the entertainment value present when you do both, I highly encourage to publicly continue to do so...

Quote from: LancerIt's easy enough to do online behind your computer and doesn't cost a thing.

If you want continue this conversation face-to-face, I'm more than willing. Where are you located? I'm in Denver, Colorado. PM me and we'll set it up.
 

Quote from: LancerWe are taking a good look at who the real drama queen is.

Dude, when you say that wearing a pink prom dress, tiara, and long white gloves, it kind of has an ironic ring I don't think you intend for it to have.

Seriously, though, you know you posted aggressive anti-3e statements in what pretty much was a pro-3e thread. You puffed your chest out and basically said, "I have strong opinions and I'm the kind of guy who just says what he thinks." More than enough folks have had the same response to your statements that you have to know that there might be a disconnect between what you meant and what you said, yet you're not correcting yourself. So if we stop and ask ourselves why you're doing what you're doing, it's pretty clear that the drama created being a hater is filling some kind of psychological need for you.

Quote from: LancerSo by all means, flame away!

I'm not sure I can top your flaming responses thus far. The lisp when you say, "D&D players are ignorant of better game choices," is cute and all, but it's not really my style. I'd much rather fuck your mother.

Seanchai

Edit: Fixed attribution

Quote from: walkerpYou do really go to quite an effort to have fun, I have to say.

No, not at all. People like Lancer make it easy...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIf you want continue this conversation face-to-face, I'm more than willing. Where are you located? I'm in Denver, Colorado. PM me and we'll set it up.
 

Set what up?!  A furtid sexual encounter?  I can't even remember the context of my quote so I'm not sure if I'm up for that sort of thing.

Quote from: SeanchaiNope. For example, I recently said they were dumb for missing the whole Kenzer Co thing with the Dragon compilation.

Actually, that wasn't you. It was me.

Unless you're my sock puppet, which you might well be.

Quote from: walkerpI've already got your agendas figured out.  

Then please, oh genius for great justice, let us know what the fuck they are.

Quote from: wankerpAnd by agenda, I mean, generally, what are your gaming values that informs your position in this argument.  I've made mine abundantly clear.  

REVENGE!

or

You're an internet martyr who loves the negative attention.

or

All Of The Above

Quote from: wankerpSet what up?!  A furry sexual encounter?  

Wankerp's true motivation finally comes out of the closet.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityActually, that wasn't you. It was me.

Unless you're my sock puppet, which you might well be.

It explains his hand up your....well...nevermind...

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThis site is fraught with agendas, buster.

The texts, the subtexts, the pauses, the fonts, even the orthography... merely forgetting to type the bloody circonflex in "Harn" will get you marked for dogpiling by THE MEMBERS OF THE BLACK LODGE.

I'm offended by your subversive spelling of "circumflex". Learn to type in American!

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm offended by your subversive spelling of "circumflex". Learn to type in American!

Oh no!

It's...

...the macho attack rabbit!

(http://users.commspeed.net/guzzi/images/klrabit.gif)

Beware the Neanderthal Bunny, alien!
(http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3415/marvinbugsky8.jpg)

Monty Python Bunny Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI18qAoKq4)

Quote from: Elliot WilenBeware the Neanderthal Bunny, alien!
(http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/bester/250/images/marvbugsth.jpg)

All I can see is a fortunecity.com placeholder, hare brain!

Gaze upon my works, and tremble! Er, try reloading.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBeware the Neanderthal Bunny, alien!
(http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3415/marvinbugsky8.jpg)

Oh NOES!!! Run away! Run away!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityActually, that wasn't you. It was me.

Clearly, when I said, "Bad WotC! Bad WotC!" I meant that they'd done a highly intelligent thing. Sorry for the confusion on your end.

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerpSet what up?!  A furtid sexual encounter?  I can't even remember the context of my quote so I'm not sure if I'm up for that sort of thing.

I fixed my post. I know you're not up for a furtid sexual encounter - remember when you got drunk and told us about the time you got overexcited and accidentally overinflated your implant until it popped?

Besides, I've I'm gonna go guy, I want some moobs. From what I can tell browsing the Palladium forum, RIFTS fanboys seem to deliver in that department. So Lancer it is...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiClearly, when I said, "Bad WotC! Bad WotC!" I meant that they'd done a highly intelligent thing. Sorry for the confusion on your end.

Seanchai

No, you were feebly trying to be ironic. Pathetic fail, but the effort counts.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, you were feebly trying to be ironic.

Er, no. I was trying to intimate that they were a bad dog which needed to be slapped on the nose with a newspaper. I'd look up the word "ironic" before using it again - it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Seanchai

Maybe, beacasuse some games really do suck...

Quote from: FritzsMaybe, beacasuse some games really do suck...

Really? Try to be more specific about which game suck and why. We will see, if there is general agreement on that one.

Alnag: FATAL...? Racial Holy War...? I think we could agree at for example these games...

Quote from: FritzsAlnag: FATAL...? Racial Holy War...? I think we could agree at for example these games...

I wonder... have you read any of those two, you mention. Or do you mention them just because others mention them often. What elements of those two mentioned above or any other you find sucking are those that create this feeling? Do you belive that designers of those games have those feelings about them as well. Or might it be so, that there is still a group of people, though generally silent and maybe not large enough, that find some pleasure in those products?

I belive, that one can be very clear about his own feelings and evaluation of games. I tend not to belive in objective (universal) kind of evaluation. Some games are made famous by vocal minority, some games are silently praised by majority, some games might work only for very small group. But who am I (or you) to say what is good for someone else? How can you, how dare you, to make such decisions for other people?

Quote from: AlnagWhat elements of those two mentioned above or any other you find sucking are those that create this feeling?

Even leaving aside the objectionable content, those two games are simply atrociously designed from the mechanical point of view. Just to point out a few details by the book, in FATAL reaching professional competency in just about any field takes several lifetimes and royalty cannot even earn enough money to buy a suit of armour without saving up for a decade, while RaHoWa basically lacks a functional resolution system of any kind but still forces the PCs, those supposedly "heroic" champions of the white race, to leave their opponents alone when bribed as a special attack.

(Frankly, the one good thing you can say about FATAL is that anyone who reads through the nearly thousand pages of agonizingly dull sexist/racist/homophobic garbage will never compain about the charts in Rolemaster again.)

Quote from: AlnagWhat elements of those two mentioned above or any other you find sucking are those that create this feeling?

Puting aside what Grimgent wrote just names of these games are enought... FATAL stands for "Fantasy adventure to adult lechery" and racial holy war... is well it's fucking RACIAL HOLY WAR...

Quote from: AlnagDo you belive that designers of those games have those feelings about them as well.

No, in the case of FATAL, they were probably making fun of everyone... In the case of RaHoWa, they were stupid enought to not realize what crap were they writing...

Quote from: AlangOr might it be so, that there is still a group of people, though generally silent and maybe not large enough, that find some pleasure in those products?

Probably yes, there might be small and not so vocal communities, who might enjoy these kind of games... but I think that goreans would like something like FATE more than FATAL... while nazis are probably to busy fighting foin the sake of white race to play RPGs (and most of them lacks nessesary brain capacity to do so)

Quote from: AlnagI belive, that one can be very clear about his own feelings and evaluation of games.

Yes... sure...

Quote from: AlnagI tend not to belive in objective (universal) kind of evaluation.

So technicaly you don't belive that 1+1=2, because that's also sort of universal evaulation... yes it's based on some axioms, like everything else.

And, you can say that some game sucks, for example Shab-al-hiri roach sucks (learned the hard way) and it sucks because it failed to provide enjoable and diverse event cards. (Some cards are cool, most of them just suck, and when some player ends up with two, or three sucky cards it's a lot frustrating), well, this is based on axiom, that game should provide means to be enjoyed.

Quote from: AlnagSome games are made famous by vocal minority, some games are silently praised by majority, some games might work only for very small group.

I sence very strong hate towards particular kind of gamers and games in this sentence... that one that calls them swines...

Quote from: AlnagBut who am I (or you) to say what is good for someone else?

Based on some axioms, you can tell that some game sucks, because wast majority of gamers (or even non-gamers) will find it sucky... and you can tell othrs about your oppinions about games you know and when you have bad experience with centrain game, you should warn fellow gamers... well, I am currently trying not to speak bad about games I've never played (I've been not doing this allways, you know), such as RIFTS which scares and repels me with it's apparent inconsistency, but I've never played that, so why speak dirt about it, while I've played Dungeons and Dragons 3.5E several times and disliked that game so my oppinion which I gladyl tell to anyone is that Dungeons and Dragons suck, but well, it's not hte universal suck like for example RaHoWa, but my personal oppinion. Is there anything with sharing my oppinons with other people...?

Quote from: AlnagHow can you, how dare you, to make such decisions for other people?

Only thing I can do is to tell them my oppinion, but it's ultimately up to the to decide.

Fritzs, honestly... did you or did you not see those two games - FATAL and Racial Holy War?

Quote from: FritzsSo technicaly you don't belive that 1+1=2, because that's also sort of universal evaulation... yes it's based on some axioms, like everything else.

Actually... if you leave the straightforward black and white thinking you might see, that 1+1=2 is just one of many possible solutions. Another one might be 11.

Quote from: FritzsAnd, you can say that some game sucks, for example Shab-al-hiri roach sucks (learned the hard way) and it sucks because it failed to provide enjoable and diverse event cards.

And yet, some praise the game... strange.

Quote from: FritzsI sence very strong hate towards particular kind of gamers and games in this sentence... that one that calls them swines...

And who is paranoid here?

Quote from: FritzsBased on some axioms, you can tell that some game sucks, because wast majority of gamers (or even non-gamers) will find it sucky...

So the majority is always right?

Quote from: Fritzswell, I am currently trying not to speak bad about games I've never played

So I suppose, that you've actually played both Fatal and Racial Holy Wars or are you actually contradicting yourself in the same post? :p

Quote from: Fritzswhile I've played Dungeons and Dragons 3.5E several times and disliked that game so my oppinion which I gladyl tell to anyone is that Dungeons and Dragons suck,

Which contradicts that part about the majority... interesting.

Quote from: FritzsIs there anything with sharing my oppinons with other people...?

Acutally... no. Continue the good work! ;)

FATAL and RaHoWa should be relegated to some kind of Godwin's law of RPG aesthetics discourse.

But, but, but character stats for anal circumference. Anal. Circumference!


EDIT: And no dating rules.

Quote from: AlnagActually... if you leave the straightforward black and white thinking you might see, that 1+1=2 is just one of many possible solutions. Another one might be 11.

I wrote this:

Quote from: Fritzsyes it's based on some axioms, like everything else.

...you know, what axiom is, don't you...?

Quote from: AlnagSo I suppose, that you've actually played both Fatal and Racial Holy Wars or are you actually contradicting yourself in the same post?

These two games failed at entirely different level, it failed at... how to call it, univerzal civilization values and cuctoms... (of our civilization of course)... so it's entirely different situation. I don't blame these games for their rules, but for what they are and I would hate these even if they weren't RPGs but something else... is that clear...?

[QUOTE="Alnag]Which contradicts that part about the majority... interesting.[/QUOTE]

And if it works for majority... OK it's not working for me and to say that I mojority of gamers I know IRL are not playing Dungeons and Dragons... so if they asked me about my oppinionn I would tell them that Dungeons and dragons suck... the fact that most gamers will not finfd it sucky has nothing to do with my oppinion.

To make it clear:

Under most gamers will find it sucky cathegory fall games which for example lacks resolution mechanics,. has too uncosistent rules to be ever played... or game that fails at "civilization values like FATAL where it's explicitly said that this is game about raping.

Unter I find it sucky cathegory fall games I, or you or whoever find them to be sucky. (for example I played Shab al hiri roach and I foud it, but htere might be people that won't call it sucky, for some reason)

You guys are boring me. Stop being boring.

Let's review the OP, which a number of people must not have read before flapping their gums:

Quote from: grubmanUnrelated to any specific game...

I mean seriously...I understand trying to convince people that games you like are great!  But, why try to convince people that like, love, or are at least open minded that a game sucks...and they have no reason to like it (or are at least stupid or inferior for not thinking it sucks)?

We see it over and over on the internet.  What is there to be gained in this action?

I think I can summarize this as: what is to be gained by trying to convince someone who enjoys a game, that the game is not, in fact, enjoyable?

But really we've answered the question already.

So Fritzs, the truth is, that you've never seen them. You just heard about them. Right?

I conclude so from your repeated inability or reluctance to answer this simple question.

Quote from: AlnagSo Fritzs, the truth is, that you've never seen them. You just heard about them. Right?

The PDFs aren't all that difficult to find on the 'Net, without any question of dubious legality since FATAL was never published commercially while RaHoWa is essentially a White Power recruiting pamphlet. It's just not worth the time, trust me: from all the furore surrounding the games you might think that there's at least some comedy value to them, but really, there's not. They are nothing more than ugly, petty homebrews whose systems are as dysfunctional as their settings. Bringing them up in order to make a point in a serious discussion, well, doesn't.

GrimGent, I didn't bring them up in this discussion. I've just got a problem with credibility of Fritzs claims.

Alnag: You should be honest and wrote that you have problem with Fritzs himself not his credibility...

and I've readen few pages of FATAL, if you really do need to know this. Never read the whole thing... why should I, only these few pages were enought to realise what kind of crap it is. I've never readen Racial Holy war and I've never feel any need to do that, just by name you know what kind of crap it must be.

Quote from: FritzsAlnag: You should be honest and wrote that you have problem with Fritzs himself not his credibility...

Since when do you talk about yourself in third person singular? Oh, never mind. Now the problem is, that what you are exhibiting here is your usual way of thinking, which is a little bit... well illogical, IMO. And I have problem with that. Let me explain.

You claim that:

Quote from: Fritzswell, I am currently trying not to speak bad about games I've never played (I've been not doing this allways, you know)

but you also know, that FATAL and Racial Holy War are examples of games, that really do suck. Not even that. Despite that you read just

Quote from: Fritzsfew pages of FATAL

and

Quote from: Fritzsnever readen Racial Holy war

not to mentioning to actually play them, you know that

Quote from: FritzsIn the case of RaHoWa, they were stupid enought to not realize what crap were they writing...

So, in case of game, that you actually never seen in your whole life and just heard about it, you are able to assess its quality based on its name and some kind of divine inspiration, I guess. And you still ask, if there is anything wrong, if you share your opinion with other people? Of course, there is something wrong. Wrong is, that it is NOT your opinion.

To prove, that your approach is ultimately wrong, I will present you with wider application of your method, which you sumarize like this:

Quote from: Fritzsjust by name you know what kind of crap it must be.

Ok. So, name says it all, right?

Dogs in the Vineyard - crap. Seriously, who want's to play Aesop's Fables, pretending to be a dog or something.
My Life with Master - crap. Is that some kind of BDSM scenario or something? Sounds like that.
Polaris - crap. Some astronomer must wrote it. Nothing good can come out of it.
Og - crap. I mean, you can't mean that seriously, just two letters. Does that make any sense?

I think, you get the idea, why this approach is not the best one. The problem is, that this is your usual modus operandi. And I indeed have problem with that. Because it makes no sense.

Alnag: Please, realize, that you cannot use same measurents for everything... games like FATAL should not be mentioned with games like thankfully allmost anything else... and I hat written that, only if you've readen my post you schould know this:

Quote from: FritzsTo make it clear:

Under most gamers will find it sucky cathegory fall games which for example lacks resolution mechanics,. has too uncosistent rules to be ever played... or game that fails at "civilization values like FATAL where it's explicitly said that this is game about raping.

Unter I find it sucky cathegory fall games I, or you or whoever find them to be sucky. (for example I played Shab al hiri roach and I foud it, but htere might be people that won't call it sucky, for some reason)

So there are games that fail universaly and you know it, even when you haven't tryed to play it, because for example FATAL is fucking game about raping and it's explicitly written in rules... IT'S GAME ABOUT RAPING!!!

And about RaHoWa:

I've readen review... but just name is enought, because RaHoWa isn't just that terrible game but also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaHoWa_%28band%29)... so it's like milder version of giving your white power RPG name of Mein Kampf...

Quote from: FritzsSo there are games that fail universaly and you know it, even when you haven't tryed to play it, because for example FATAL is fucking game about raping and it's explicitly written in rules... IT'S GAME ABOUT RAPING!!!

Don't say? So what about Poison'd? Oh wait... that one, you actually defended. Probably without seeing it either. And this explains why:

Quote from: FritzsPlease, realize, that you cannot use same measurents for everything...

Yeah, yeah. You have problem with racism right? And the fact, that you are appling different criteria on different games doesn't bother you? Don't answer, that's just rhetorical question.

Grow up.

Quote from: AlnagSo what about Poison'd? Oh wait... that one, you actually defended. Probably without seeing it either.

Well, there's a difference. In Poison'd, the mechanics revolve entirely around the effects which a life of sin and violence has on your character, and the text doesn't present those actions as righteous and admirable. In FATAL, the mechanics are mostly concerned with calculating precisely how much someone's orifices will tear when your character rams his fist into them, and the text very much does describe in loving detail how much fun raping princesses to death and then eating their corpses can be. It's all in the approach and presentation.

People want mechanics for everything these days. In the old days we just roleplayed fisting prisoners and eating princesses.

Alnag: Grimgent allready answered your question about Poisond'...

Aand, about different criteria... it's entirely different story, and it's like this:

Step number one.

Test game for containig material, hat is generaly considered stupid, offendig, or evil (and by evil I mean that it's in direct dissent with commonly shared human values and mentioned game promotes it)

If game contais this, it's naturaly sucky game and it fall to the same category as FATAL or RaHoWa. If no, take step number two.

Step number two

Read it, and if it's playable, then play it... if you weren't happy and you found in that game something you really disliked, or hated, then you have right to call that game sucky...

And yes, while there might be people, that will find games like RaHoWa great, they, I hope, are just very small minority...

Quote from: AlnagReally? Try to be more specific about which game suck and why. We will see, if there is general agreement on that one.

Rather more to the point: KABAL which requires you to divide the square root of your attribute by the square root of your target's Agility and multiply by one hundred to find the chance to hit.

or

Time Ship in which the vital skill rules are only found in a short paragraph on the GM screen and most of the rule book is spent explaining how it is an ancient time travel ritual and not a game at all.

or

Galloway's Fantasy Wargaming with its magic rules "so real you might actually start to believe it's real".

or

D&D 3.5 with its...oops sorry...there I go again...

:D

Quote from: AlnagYeah, yeah. You have problem with racism right? And the fact, that you are appling different criteria on different games doesn't bother you? Don't answer, that's just rhetorical question.

Grow up.

:killingme:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: FritzsStep number one.

Test game for containig material, hat is generaly considered stupid, offendig, or evil (and by evil I mean that it's in direct dissent with commonly shared human values and mentioned game promotes it)

If game contais this, it's naturaly sucky game and it fall to the same category as FATAL or RaHoWa. If no, take step number two.

See. And that's where the problem is... in step number one. Somehow I fail to see any kind general human agreement about what is stupid, offending or evil. A joke one finds stupid the other might find incredibly funny. Sexualy explicit picture one finds offending pornography other one might find pleasurable erotic. Torturing of prisoners some countires consider evil, other actually commit in the name of their security. In this kind of world you seriously want to argue that there are some general norms, that we have some common human values?

In reality, it is always subjective decision, and pretending otherwise is stupid, offending and evil, in my not even a bit humble opinion. The problem is still the same just adressed from different angles.

It is a problem of opinion-making. You don't have your own. You are just mimicking others. You haven't seen a game, you just accept what others say about it. You don't even provide arguments, you just accept what GrimGeant will hint you. It's like being a sheep following the rest of the flock wherever they go never questioning anything. How do you know GrimGeant isn't making it up?

This is not even funny anymore, because your efforts to prove something are really pathetic. You lack spine, to have your own opinion without support of some putative consensus. You lack rationality to see that as a problem. And you lack spirit to admit that.

Quote from: David JohansenRather more to the point: KABAL which requires you to divide the square root of your attribute by the square root of your target's Agility and multiply by one hundred to find the chance to hit.

That sounds pretty complicated. Especially, if you must do this repetively, which I guess is the case... because you have different targets.

Quote from: David JohansenTime Ship in which the vital skill rules are only found in a short paragraph on the GM screen and most of the rule book is spent explaining how it is an ancient time travel ritual and not a game at all.

Well... maybe it is ancient time travel ritual. You never know... :p

Quote from: David JohansenD&D 3.5 with its...oops sorry...there I go again...

Interesting... so does D&D suck or not and why?

Quote from: AlangYou don't even provide arguments, you just accept what GrimGeant will hint you.

I've played Poisond' few times... so in this case I have very good idea what is this game about... and I've found page with rules for RaHoWa... suprisingly, the game is very moronic with almost incomprehensible rules and retarded side story...

About universal human values... show me example of one large and succesfull society which views murder, rape, infanticide in peacetime and during normal circustances (religous rituals , such as aztec human sacrifices aren't considered normal circumstances, because they weren't something daily)... yes, there might be some exceptions, but exceptions are rare...

Or, you might just go asking people what do they think of rape and murder, and bes uprised, that allmost everyone will call these act , what they are... and they are evil...

And,commiting torure in the name of state security is nessesary evil, but still evil...

Quote from: AlnagYou lack spine, to have your own opinion without support of some putative consensus. You lack rationality to see that as a problem. And you lack spirit to admit that.

I lack soul also, I sold it for cookie!!!

Quote from: David JohansenTime Ship in which the vital skill rules are only found in a short paragraph on the GM screen and most of the rule book is spent explaining how it is an ancient time travel ritual and not a game at all.

That is so awesome that I feel compelled to go out and find a copy.

And saying a game "sucks" is still an infantile and pathetic troll of a way to express your dislike of it. It conveys no information other than the person using  it is either too lazy or too stupid to find terminology that would demonstrate why they dislike something, and by it's all-inclusive nature insults anyone who might disagree with them. It's the Beavis approach to self-expression.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat is so awesome that I feel compelled to go out and find a copy.

Seriously don't, even the Escape From Gommoragh scenario doesn't live up to its potential at all.

Time Ship would be even worse than FATAL except that it happens to have a fairly functional system hiding under the cruft.

Yes I did actually run all three adventures when I was 13.

Sigmund: errr... it is OK to say game A sucks because of something, isn't it...

Quote from: FritzsSigmund: errr... it is OK to say game A sucks because of something, isn't it...

Sure, if you don't mind coming across as someone incapable of expressing yourself better than some high school aged skate punk who's acquired most of your vocabulary from South Park then knock yourself out.

Fritzs is a non-native speaker, mate.

Edit: So interpret his words univocally, not idiomatically.

Quote from: GrimGentWell, there's a difference. In Poison'd, the mechanics revolve entirely around the effects which a life of sin and violence has on your character, and the text doesn't present those actions as righteous and admirable. In FATAL, the mechanics are mostly concerned with calculating precisely how much someone's orifices will tear when your character rams his fist into them, and the text very much does describe in loving detail how much fun raping princesses to death and then eating their corpses can be. It's all in the approach and presentation.

So one is digusting, and wrapped in sickness with a side order of, "i just blew my fucking lunch," and the other is disgusting and wrapped in emo tourism with a side order of, "but it was a beautiful experience?" :talktothehand:

One Horse Town: What do you mean by emo tourism...?

Quote from: Elliot WilenFATAL and RaHoWa should be relegated to some kind of Godwin's law of RPG aesthetics discourse.

Tack Poison'd on there, too while you're at it.

What should we call this new law?  Do you wish to make it eponymous or would your prefer naming it after a popular culprit?

Quote from: One Horse TownSo one is digusting, and wrapped in sickness with a side order of, "i just blew my fucking lunch," and the other is disgusting and wrapped in emo tourism with a side order of, "but it was a beautiful experience?" :talktothehand:

QuoteOne Horse Town: What do you mean by emo tourism...?

You know how american tourists will go to a country for a week, and then come back or go online and ramble on as if they know everything about its culture?

Imagine that same effect, but applied to an emotional experience.

Quote from: J ArcaneTack Poison'd on there, too while you're at it.

What should we call this new law?  Do you wish to make it eponymous or would your prefer naming it after a popular culprit?

We can begin by formulating the law in parallel with Godwin:

As an online discussion of RPGs grows longer, the probability that someone will attempt to make a point using RaHoWa or FATAL approaches one.

The rest basically follows the corollaries of Godwin's law--especially that points made via RaHoWa and Fatal are almost never really relevant to games in general, or even the discussion at hand.

Fritzs basically admits this via his two-step analysis, which shows that his initial introduction of the two games was a vacuous distraction. Unfortunately Alnag took the bait and is now in the unenviable position of trying to defend games which have inherently fucked-up premises.

I would exclude Poison'd actually, not because I didn't think the actual play reports suggest it's made of pretentious wank, but because pretension is at least arguable in most cases--there's a lot you can get away with via appeal to irony or supposed depth of feeling, but (with the caveat that I've never read either game) I don't imagine the authors of RaHoWa or FATAL even try to justify themselves on those grounds. Unlike, say, Costikyan's Violence or Tynes' Power Kill. So there's an argument to be had over Poison'd; it might even depend on whether you just look at the text versus AP versus comments by the author, but RaHoWa and FATAL are also not really relevant to that discussion IMO since hypocrisy and pretension are fairly important elements of the discussion that are lacking in RaHoWa and FATAL.

As for naming, I'd rather not have my name tacked onto the principle.

Moreover, we have a rather charming godwin icon already.

:godwin:

Quote from: FritzsOne Horse Town: What do you mean by emo tourism...?

Just to add to J's definition, it's when a designer thinks that he/she  can convey an emotional experience (normally traumatic) via the system (We All Had Names) and when players think the designer has succeeded, when they claim to have experienced said emotion. See also misery tourism. Keep in mind it's thrown about here pretty often. I've seen some use the term as a shorthand for playstyles they dislike esp with regards to certain games WoD, UA etc.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenWe can begin by formulating the law in parallel with Godwin:

As an online discussion of RPGs grows longer, the probability that someone will attempt to make a point using RaHoWa or FATAL approaches one.

The rest basically follows the corollaries of Godwin's law--especially that points made via RaHoWa and Fatal are almost never really relevant to games in general, or even the discussion at hand.

I don't think it's true, though. I mean, we can discuss railroading and dice systems and length of skill lists and point-buy vs random roll and nostalgia for ca 1980 games, and this shit never comes up.

It's only sure of coming up when people discuss games that suck.

Only because those discussions haven't gone on long enough. ;)

Everyone knows that basically Monte Cook is Hitler.

Explains why he's unwelcome in Belgium.

Well the Belgians, I mean forget about it. They don't take shit from anybody.

Quote from: LancerI am not particularly crazy about the wealth mechanic though.

Nobody like it. Heh, I forgot it even existed, actually; It's all credits and gold peices over here.

This thread is a total cluster, btw. Good work.

Quote from: AosThis thread is a total cluster, btw. Good work.

Everyone, take a bow.

Quote from: AlnagReally? Try to be more specific about which game suck and why

Hybrid.

Quote from: FritzsOne Horse Town: What do you mean by emo tourism...?

What David R said. Although i believe it's the first time i've used the term myself.

Controversial crap dressed up as meaningful, when it mainly sells on the controversial crap aspect (controversy sells right?) - meaningful isn't really meant for a game.

Read a book or watch a movie.

One Horse Town: OK... I don't think, that Poisond' mainly sells because of itž's controversial aspect, but because it's game, where you play brutal and fucked up (and probably quite realistic, pirates after all weren't heroes as some movies show them but thugs and murderers) pirates...

I think it sells because vincent baker makes good games.

I really doubt that it "sells" in any meaningful sense at all. I mean really, is a couple of hundred copies mean that you can consider yourself "good"? In what context?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI really doubt that it "sells" in any meaningful sense at all. I mean really, is a couple of hundred copies mean that you can consider yourself "good"? In what context?

RPGPundit

How often does forward to adventure sell in hard numbers?

Quote from: SaphimHow often does forward to adventure sell in hard numbers?

Oh for pity's sake.

 Pundit calls you on the claim that Baker designs good games - SO, instead of answering Pundit you take a swipe at his game??

 Oy Vey!!

Baker dsoes NOT design "good games" , he designs artsy fartsy pretentious crap pretending games.

Based on the previews that I've read of Forward to Adventure! , Pundit designed an actual GAME that goes for the basics and may actually be fun.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarOh for pity's sake.

 Pundit calls you on the claim that Baker designs good games - SO, instead of answering Pundit you take a swipe at his game??

 Oy Vey!!

Baker dsoes NOT design "good games" , he designs artsy fartsy pretentious crap pretending games.

Based on the previews that I've read of Forward to Adventure! , Pundit designed an actual GAME that goes for the basics and may actually be fun.

- Ed C.

Nice try at a diversion. You failed though. I thought you and pundi like the numbers so much and he even brings the sales numbers of D&D regularly into the arguement saying that they mean that people like what they play. Well lets see whether pundi is as liked as mister baker, luke crane or fred hicks.

Those games sell, they get played, people enjoy them. You can call them crap, but that doesn't make them crap. So, you see, I actually answered his question.

It gets bought and played, therefore it is good. Just like pundi likes to say.

Now shut up or actually contribute instead of attacking people or their work who are not even present.

Quote from: SaphimHow often does forward to adventure sell in hard numbers?

That's the point. Baker doesn't sell much more than I do, maybe less. The difference is I recognize that FtA! is an amateur labour-of-love and essentially a kind of vanity-press project which happens to make me (and Clash) a little bit of money on the side, where as Baker (and his goons) believe that his equally meager sales make him the equal to the likes of Gygax, Jackson, Siembieda, etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's the point. Baker doesn't sell much more than I do, maybe less. The difference is I recognize that FtA! is an amateur labour-of-love and essentially a kind of vanity-press project which happens to make me (and Clash) a little bit of money on the side, where as Baker (and his goons) believe that his equally meager sales make him the equal to the likes of Gygax, Jackson, Siembieda, etc.

RPGPundit

Follow up with numbers and quotes or shut up.
Mister Baker repeatedly stated that he makes game out of an artistic drive. I think he never stated that that makes him the same as Mister Gygax even though in a way it does. Gary Gygax created D&D because he thought it should be done. Not as some vanity press thing, same as Vincent Baker according to some podcasts.
I think the only one here who is artsy and or does it to be part of the "designer club" is you.

Oh... and in case I haven't mentioned it: numbers. And not those cheapo pdf ones. Real paper books sold.

*koff*...*cough*...Bullshit *koff*

Vincent Baker is not a Gary Gygax.
  Never can be .
The comparison is almost an insult to Gary.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar*koff*...*cough*...Bullshit *koff*

Vincent Baker is not a Gary Gygax.
  Never can be .
The comparison is almost an insult to Gary.


- Ed C.

You don't get it. I can see that. Now hush.

I haven't seen any numbers for Poison'd, which also, note, is still only sold via PDF.

Do you own it, Saphim?

Based on the information that's available, I think the game owes whatever sales it's gotten to two things: Baker's reputation, and the controversy stirred up by certain early emo-tourist AP reports at The Forge and RPGnet.

Does Baker make good games? My experience begs to differ: I didn't care for Dogs in the Vineyard, and trying to convince me that the game is great--it's just my fault or something--is just as bankrupt as trying to convince people that they don't really enjoy themselves playing D&D.

Elliot that is a well thought out and relevant response. As usual you do yourself credit with every post.
I, however, operate under a different paradigm.
My response to the current direction of this cluster:

Quote from: SaphimYou don't get it. I can see that. Now hush.

Sorry - I'm not married to you and we're not dating either.
 That means you can't "hush" me.


When compared to Dungeons & Dragons, the Baker designed games of Dogs in the Vineyard and "Poison'd".......    DO kind of suck.



- Ed C.

Elliot is like my superego. He's what I aspire, but pathetically fail, to be. That's why I invented him.

Quote from: KoltarSorry - I'm not married to you and we're not dating either.
 That means you can't "hush" me.


When compared to Dungeons & Dragons, the Baker designed games of Dogs in the Vineyard and "Poison'd".......    DO kind of suck.



- Ed C.

In this case. Shut up then until you can contribute something. You compare two games based on your preference and declare it a fact. That is about as stupid as it gets. If you don't get it. Look up the word preference. And now: Hush.

@Elliot: Uh, don't care much for pirates, though I own DitV. Still not seeing what this has to do with the discussion. I am also not sure where you got the demographics on the poison'd buyers. Care to follow up with a report or something like that?
Ah no... you don't have one. You are guessing and doing some wishful thinking. I see. Stop bullshitting then.

So, "I demand proof, even though I'm not going to provide any of my own, so I win, neener neener"?

Old schtick is old.

Saphim, you are engaging in the most puerile form of argument, begging others to make your case for you. I will not, though I might if I could, out of a sense of pity if nothing else.

BTW, have you played DitV?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI haven't seen any numbers for Poison'd, which also, note, is still only sold via PDF.

As i understand it, it was only ever a '(tr)ashcan' edition anyhow - you know, that charming ploy to get people to spend money on a half-finished and half-assed game.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo, "I demand proof, even though I'm not going to provide any of my own, so I win, neener neener"?

Old schtick is old.

Ah of course. That is the way it works. One person makes a dubious claim like for example "poison'd's sales depend on emos" and then comes up with nothing to back that up and when someone asks for some numbers it goes like you wrote above. Sure. That's how debates work. Right. :haw:
@Elliot: I was not begging anyone to do anything for me. But you have to come through with numbers if you make some far fetched claim.
I played DitV btw and whether or not I like it does mean nothing. People can like whatever they want and if it sells it is good... at least for those people. This is about preferences not about some universal truth.

Quote from: One Horse TownAs i understand it, it was only ever a '(tr)ashcan' edition anyhow - you know, that charming ploy to get people to spend money on a half-finished and half-assed game.

Trashcan editions are sold as what they are, if you buy one and are unhappy with that proposition you only have yourself to blame.

I dislike the trashcan concept so I don't buy them, as is my right.  Others do support the concept and do buy them, as is theirs.

I see no moral element to the issue, it's merely a question of whether one personally feels an ashcan is worth one's time and money.

Regarding Baker and Gygax comparisons, I believe the comparison was made by Pundy upthread so as to refute it, I don't recall Senor Baker himself making such a comparison ever.

On his games, Dogs has sold I think around 2,000 or so copies, probably more by now.  I don't like Dogs, I think it's well designed but the dicefest really kills any fun for me.  I think In a Wicked Age is excellent, I have no view on Poison'd save to note that in its own way it's about as historical as Pirates of the Caribbean.

OHT: According to this (http://www.lumpley.com/games/) page, it's for sale as a PDF with no indication of ashcan status, and promise of hardcopy version "soon".

So there's some free publicity, which Abyssal Maw has astutely analyzed on many an occasion.

So, Saphim, didn't like it, but afraid to admit it, eh?

Look, there are no numbers on Poison'd. What there is, is a couple threads at The Forge and RPGnet, and a great deal of fire and brimstone as a result. Who's playing it now? Gosh only knows. I do know that a number of fanboys smirkingly claimed that the controversy was fine and dandy because it'd boost sales of the game.

Quote from: SaphimNice try at a diversion. You failed though. I thought you and pundi like the numbers so much and he even brings the sales numbers of D&D regularly into the arguement saying that they mean that people like what they play. Well lets see whether pundi is as liked as mister baker, luke crane or fred hicks.

Koltar's right, it's lame to try to bolster your argument by attacking Pundy's game, when the game he's defending is not his own.

Whether Pundy is as liked as Senor Baker is neither here nor there if the comparison at issue is D&D and DitV (neither of which I like, hurrah!).

Quote from: SaphimIn this case. Shut up then until you can contribute something. You compare two games based on your preference and declare it a fact. That is about as stupid as it gets. If you don't get it. Look up the word preference. And now: Hush.

@Elliot: Uh, don't care much for pirates, though I own DitV. Still not seeing what this has to do with the discussion. I am also not sure where you got the demographics on the poison'd buyers. Care to follow up with a report or something like that?
Ah no... you don't have one. You are guessing and doing some wishful thinking. I see. Stop bullshitting then.

Go fuck yourself with your condescending drivel. Poison'd, based on the AP by the actual author, is nothing but an excuse to be crude and shocking, apparently for the same reason teenagers swear. It's sad and does nothing for me except hope that the author and fans seek help for their emotional issues. We all know the game is awful and we know why, apparently because we are smarter than you, so unless you can show hard numbers that the game has somehow sold even as many copies as FtA, how about you shut the fuck up and go away jerk-off.

Quote from: BalbinusTrashcan editions are sold as what they are, if you buy one and are unhappy with that proposition you only have yourself to blame.

Quite; however, the ashcan concept was born in a certain context . Whatever the intention, I don't believe it can quite separate itself from the poisonous (haha) idea that people ought to buy games to "support" a "movement".

QuoteI don't recall Senor Baker himself making such a comparison ever.

Nor do I, this is a case of Pundy being either manic or sly--he did after all hook a couple fish.

QuoteI think In a Wicked Age is excellent

I saw your post about the game on RPG.net. Have you gotten round to playing it yet?

Quote from: BalbinusI see no moral element to the issue, it's merely a question of whether one personally feels an ashcan is worth one's time and money.

True. If you want an unfinished game go for it - no one is going to disabuse you of the notion. Certainly not the designer.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo, Saphim, didn't like it, but afraid to admit it, eh?

Uh, no. It is just that this is exactly what this thread is about. Why do you or Koltar or pundi feel the need to tell others that the games they play suck?
Btw. Nice way to dodge the point. I am still waiting that you back up your claim. You know. Emos. Pirates etc.

@balbinus: I was not attacking pundit's game. I was asking him to for the numbers of sales. Of course with the implication that when he mentions the "meager sales" of indy publishers compared to D&D and from there deducting that the indy games suck, that he will have to admit that his game sucks.
Or that Sales don't mean anything. And the public opinion doesn't mean anything. It is whether you have fun with something or not, that matters.
I frankly don't believe that pundit is anywhere near in sales to baker (luke crane said a couple of years ago on a podcast that mr. baker sells a thousand books per year), but that doesn't mean that either DitV or FTA is a good or bad game. It just shows how many people have bought it. Nothing else.

@sigmund: oh a diagnosis about the emotional state of other people based on the report about a make belief game that was published on an internet forum. I suppose you don't have an academic degree to actually be able to deduce whether someone needs help or not... otherwise you would hardly make such rather funny statements.

This is news to me.. Vincent Baker makes good games? :what: :p :confused:

I'd rather run d20!! Oh yes I would!

No Spahim you were trying for a ricochet attack on Pundit by bringing up his game.

I don't have to say Poison'd sucks - the actual play threads and the responses to them did that forme.

As a general rule, I don't tell anybody their game sucks - I let them discover that on their own.

Also, if I asked this question of 5 or 6 gamers I know:
 "Hey I got these 3 games here we could try, game 1 is called Dogs in The Vineyard, game 2 is called Poison'd and game 3 is called Forward to Adventure! - which one do you guys want to try?"

Response : "HEy lets try that third one , that sounds like it might be fun."

One gamer says: "Hold on a sec, lets read the descriptions of each one..."

 So we read the description paragraphs and....

We wind up trying Forward to Adventure! - because it still reads like an actual RPG that you have fun with.


- Ed C.

Quote from: SaphimUh, no. It is just that this is exactly what this thread is about. Why do you or Koltar or pundi feel the need to tell others that the games they play suck?

I don't. Clearly you've been wearing some sort of distorting lens when reading my posts.

I am saying that regardless of whether Poison'd sucks or rocks, its sales have been driven by Baker's reputation and the controversy stirred up by the initial AP reports.

Here are the two threads I'm referring to: From The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24749.msg240279) From RPG.net (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=350453)

On the gloating about controversy driving sales, I came across it this morning but I'm having trouble digging it up again.

Since the game is still in ashcan, I think the fun of the game is moot. People are buying the game mainly on hearsay and reputation, and what's most interesting--and what supports the emo-tourism jibe--isn't even the source--people obviously trust people whose tastes seem to align with theirs--but the nature of the hearsay.

Quote from: Saphim@sigmund: oh a diagnosis about the emotional state of other people based on the report about a make belief game that was published on an internet forum. I suppose you don't have an academic degree to actually be able to deduce whether someone needs help or not... otherwise you would hardly make such rather funny statements.

No, I'm just a certified counselor with experience in drug and alcohol rehabs, from both sides of the therapy. My statements are funny to you because you're apparently an idiot, and an asshole to boot.

Quote from: SigmundNo, I'm just a certified counselor with experience in drug and alcohol rehabs, from both sides of the therapy. My statements are funny to you because you're apparently an idiot, and an asshole to boot.

Yeah sure, invoke your "credentials" on the internet. That makes you look clever ^^. If you really were a counselor you would know that you can't diagnose from a written body of text with at least one level of removal from some of the participants.

@Elliot: I am not seeing any demographics on the customers in those threads. Maybe I just overlooked it. Or you are winding like a snake trying to get out of something stupid.

@Koltar: Oh that was my plan? Good that you told me. I sometimes forget whether I try to explain that preference is something personal other people can't argue about or I am just attacking pundit. Well either that or you are misinterpreting what I said ^^

Anyway, this is just going round in cycles, something for which I am not willing to invest the time repeating myself (how often did I ask Elliot to backup his claims? geeeee). I am done with this thread.

IIRC, Vincent Baker himself admitted that he wrote Poison'd based on a rape fantasy he had about the lead actress of Pirates of the Carribean. It's awefully hard to climb up to the level of 'acceptable' when you start out at the depths of 'sucktitudinous craptasticness' that this demonstrates.

Thus Saphim, why Poison'd sucks.

Now, in all honesty, I'd have slightly more respect for Baker if he stated that the only reason why he created Poison'd as an ashcan and pushed the controversy sales was to make his visit to GenCon pay for itself. That kind of con-artistry and the tacit demonstration of disregard for the emo-tourists who would buy a partially written psychodrama experiment would make me smile.

Hey, if Baker says it's an "ashcan", let's take him at his word, then we know what to do with it.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's the point. Baker doesn't sell much more than I do, maybe less. The difference is I recognize that FtA! is an amateur labour-of-love and essentially a kind of vanity-press project which happens to make me (and Clash) a little bit of money on the side, where as Baker (and his goons) believe that his equally meager sales make him the equal to the likes of Gygax, Jackson, Siembieda, etc.

RPGPundit

So, FORGE games aren't work of sorta amateur (they are called indies, and for example Baker isn't working for any corporationa and this game probably isn't his main source of income) labour-of love...? I thought that anything you do for such little profit as you can gain by making RPGs must be by definition product of something you called labour-of-love...

And I am not sure if they even think that this makes them equal with Gygax, or if most of them even compares themselves to Gygax, or cares about Gygax...

Your game sucks.

Quote from: BalbinusRegarding Baker and Gygax comparisons, I believe the comparison was made by Pundy upthread so as to refute it, I don't recall Senor Baker himself making such a comparison ever.

It doesn't matter whether the claim was being made by Baker, ever; what matters is that in this thread, the suggestion was made by certain people that Baker can be put in the same league because of his game having "sold", proving that he's "good".

QuoteOn his games, Dogs has sold I think around 2,000 or so copies, probably more by now.  

2000 copies is considered a RUNAWAY "success" by the forge crowd; it makes it one of the very best-selling forge games ever; and that's still multiple orders of magnitude below the sales levels of games that normal people would consider "successful". In terms of sales, DiTV (never mind "Poisoned") is light years closer in terms of units sold to FtA! than it is to D&D, RIFTS, GURPS, CoC, Amber, or other games written by people that really could be considered "Good" game designers who make games that really "Sell".

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusKoltar's right, it's lame to try to bolster your argument by attacking Pundy's game, when the game he's defending is not his own.

Never mind that I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I've sold more print copies of FtA! than baker has sold print copies of "Poisoned".

I'm pretty fucking sure that I've sold more total copies too, while we're at it.

And while if his claims are true he's sold more copies of DiTV than I have of FtA! (at least for now), it really doesn't mean fuck all when the difference between his sales and mine are in the order of hundreds, while the difference between his sales and those of the big mainstream games are in the order of millions.

Let's put it this way, if there was a scale of "sales" ranging from 1 to 10000, if FtA! was a 1, DiTV would be a 2, while D&D would be a 10000, with other games like GURPS, RIFTS, CoC, etc. being somewhere in the 5000+ range.

To suggest that because someone who's reached point 2 on the scale of 10000 is thus a "success" or as "good" as the guys who make games that reach the past 5000 range is ridiculous and pathetic; almost as ridiculous and pathetic as to try to claim that the difference between being a 1 and a 2 on that scale is somehow something worth bragging about.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Saphim@Elliot: I am not seeing any demographics on the customers in those threads. Maybe I just overlooked it. Or you are winding like a snake trying to get out of something stupid.

No, I'm being completely upfront, and you're engaging in typical tactics of writing off the evidence presented and demanding more and more. There's no "data", only impressions to be formed from the way the game has been hyped and received. Here's another lovely example of (a) what it is that attracts people to the game and (b) what they end up doing with it.

X marks the spot (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24763.msg240271).

(BTW, I love how our friend Temple describes his group as having a "regular DitV game", only to reveal in the next paragraph that the group had played a grand total of ONE GAME of DitV before.)

Quote from: jeff37923IIRC, Vincent Baker himself admitted that he wrote Poison'd based on a rape fantasy he had about the lead actress of Pirates of the Carribean.

Holy *BLEEEP*!!

If thats true , then thats even more reason to dislike the guy and that particular excuse for a game.


- Ed C.

Oy, vey. Temple is a real Forger turd, a true catpissman.

Please, Elliot, we already had a Poison'd thread. Forger games suxxorz, and people who say otherwise usually don't have a game group. We know that by now.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHey, if Baker says it's an "ashcan", let's take him at his word, then we know what to do with it.

(http://www.13dots.com/reddragon/trashcan/final.gif)

Forger game. Please dispose of thoughtfully

More like BURN BABY BURN.. AND while you are at it-- BURN the cinders until there is nothing left. lol.

EDIT: I apologize for my delirious nature tonight.. :)

Quote from: SaphimYeah sure, invoke your "credentials" on the internet. That makes you look clever ^^. If you really were a counselor you would know that you can't diagnose from a written body of text with at least one level of removal from some of the participants.

Oh, so you've got the academic credentials now bitch? What the fuck do you know? Go away, and take your diagnosis and credential bullshit, and your lame ass personal attacks in lieu of actual points with ya.

Quote from: Elliot WilenQuite; however, the ashcan concept was born in a certain context . Whatever the intention, I don't believe it can quite separate itself from the poisonous (haha) idea that people ought to buy games to "support" a "movement".

I agree actually, personally I think the notion of buying an unfinished rpg in part to support a movement is nonsensical, but then I did say I don't support it.

I just don't find it unethical, as it's an entirely honest process.

Re IaWA, I haven't played it yet, not sure when I'll get to.  A bit indie for my group (as indeed are most indie games for most groups).

On an aside, Pundy, you are of course quite correct that for a Forge game 2,000 copies is a runaway success.  I was aware of that, by Forge standards Dogs is a runaway success.  Comparisons to Gygax are,  however, silly unless the comparison in question is "I personally enjoy Vincent Baker's games far more than Gygax's games" which is a mere expression of taste (rather than attempting to assert objective qualities) and would I think be unarguable.

Quote from: SigmundOh, so you've got the academic credentials now bitch? What the fuck do you know? Go away, and take your diagnosis and credential bullshit, and your lame ass personal attacks in lieu of actual points with ya.

I know that this right now looks like I called you on your "experience" and you are responding with nothing but nasty words. Which probably means you were lying or exaggerating your "experience".

@Balbinus:
That is exactly my point. There is no objective way to judge whether a RPG is good or bad. It comes down to personal enjoyment and taste and nothing else.
Some people like levels, some don't. Some people like a system for social conflict resolution. Others don't. Etc. etc. And some people like to explore moral issues with their gaming. *shrug* I don't see any problem with that. The problem lies with the forge people and the pundi posse calling each other names and accusing each other of "stuff". That's just childish.
Some people here just seem to think that their personal enjoyment is congruent with some kind of "universal truth" of game design.
Funny. Isn't that something pundit always accused the forge of?

@Elliot:
No, I am not asking you for more and more evidence. I am asking you to present some numbers at all. All you have done so far is collecting anecdotes(a grand 3 or 4 in total). That is not the way it works.
And yes you are right, there are no numbers on which you could have based your "theory". You pulled something right out of your ass. It smells.

Oh and apologies to Koltar. I think I got a "tad" over board with my attacks (well actually a lot).
Same goes to pundit. I wanted to show something with asking for the numbers, like I pointed out in the posts, it descended into a flamefest though before you could answer. Apologies.

Quote from: Saphim@Elliot:
No, I am not asking you for more and more evidence. I am asking you to present some numbers at all. All you have done so far is collecting anecdotes(a grand 3 or 4 in total).

3 or 4 examples of fucked-up Poison'd games is 100% of all the Poison'd game sessions ever.

Quote from: SaphimIn this case. Shut up then until you can contribute something. You compare two games based on your preference and declare it a fact. That is about as stupid as it gets. If you don't get it. Look up the word preference. And now: Hush.

OK, here's an idea for a basis of comparison.

It is indisputable that the original D&D and its immediate successors were hugely influential, and prompted a real explosion of creativity - pretty much every RPG published in the 1970s and early 1980s has "system DNA" which you can trace back to D&D. In my estimation, the difference between a good RPG - a game which you can take and use to have wicked cool with your friends without too much tweaking - and a truly great RPG - a game where you can point to it and say "this, right here, is an important part of the development of our hobby" - is not so much in sales as it is in inspiration.

There are a very, very few other games which can claim to have prompted an explosion of creativity comparable to D&D's, and many other games which simply ride the waves of that creativity. Runequest and BRP begat a myriad of unrelated-but-influenced percentile-skill RPGs. Between them, The Fantasy Trip, Champions/HERO and GURPS championed point-buy in an era when nigh-all RPGs generated characters via random rolls. D&D 3E's OGL prompted a new explosion of creativity inspired by the revamped D&D rules.

You can't say the same about many Forge games - in fact, I can't think of any off the top of my head aside from Sorcerer (while Sorcerer was arguably just a World of Darkness imitator, it was pretty much the first Forge game to gain widespread attention, though it seems to have fallen by the wayside since). Dogs In the Vineyard simply hasn't inspired a wave of imitators and games taking leaves from it; it's simply just another game which is riding the wave of creativity prompted by Sorcerer. Furthermore, what influence Sorcerer and DitV have is more-or-less limited to the Forge and its imitators, a subset of self-published RPGs, which are a subset of the RPG industry as a whole, whereas the likes of, say, D&D (original and 3.X) and BRP influenced the entire market.

How's that for an objective argument as to why D&D is better than DitV?

Saphim,

I'd suggest, if I may, you step back from the shut-up type posts which aren't helping.  Restate your core argument in one or two simple paragraphs, asking people to ignore previous posts and take this as a fresh clarification, and see how that flies.

To be honest, I've totally lost what you were saying, I scrolled up and just saw you telling people to shut up and demanding evidence for things, I have no real idea what your actual argument is (guys, please don't amusingly restate it on his behalf for my benefit).

Step back, deep breath, avoid further responses to people you're locked in flames with and restate your point shorn of any exaggeration it may have picked up as the thread progressed.  See how that goes.

Quote from: WarthurYou can't say the same about many Forge games - in fact, I can't think of any off the top of my head aside from Sorcerer (while Sorcerer was arguably just a World of Darkness imitator, it was pretty much the first Forge game to gain widespread attention, though it seems to have fallen by the wayside since). Dogs In the Vineyard simply hasn't inspired a wave of imitators and games taking leaves from it; it's simply just another game which is riding the wave of creativity prompted by Sorcerer. Furthermore, what influence Sorcerer and DitV have is more-or-less limited to the Forge and its imitators, a subset of self-published RPGs, which are a subset of the RPG industry as a whole, whereas the likes of, say, D&D (original and 3.X) and BRP influenced the entire market.

How's that for an objective argument as to why D&D is better than DitV?

My issue here is by that argument Sorceror is a better rpg than Traveller, and them's fighting words...

I shall try.
Pundit said that a couple of hundred copies sold doesn't make what Vincent Baker does good games.

So, what makes a good game? Thousands of copies sold? Brand recognition? Connection to some indie scene? Or whatever else we like to tag on it.

Nothing of that. A good game is one that you enjoy. There is nothing more to it.
D&D is sold more often than any other game and therefore probably enjoyed by more people than any other game.
Does that make it better than other games? No.
Good means something different to everyone and has nothing to do with sales numbers.
Individuals don't like D&D more or less because it sells more often.

I will stop here for now and see what people are going to make out of it.

Quote from: SaphimI shall try.
Pundit said that a couple of hundred copies sold doesn't make what Vincent Baker does good games.

So, what makes a good game? Thousands of copies sold? Brand recognition? Connection to some indie scene? Or whatever else we like to tag on it.

Nothing of that. A good game is one that you enjoy. There is nothing more to it.
D&D is sold more often than any other game and therefore probably enjoyed by more people than any other game.
Does that make it better than other games? No.
Good means something different to everyone and has nothing to do with sales numbers.
Individuals don't like D&D more or less because it sells more often.

I will stop here for now and see what people are going to make out of it.

I agree with all of that save one point, some individuals doubtless do like D&D beecause it sells more.

Partly because people like success, partly because they find it easier as a result to get a game going with it than anything else, partly because they expect to like it because others do and those expectations are often self-fulfilling.

Otherwise, I would say there are ways we can semi-objectively assess if a game is good or bad, it's just most Forge games (and indeed most games) pass those tests.  We can say, what does this game seek to do?  We can ask, do this game's mechanics obstruct or hinder what it seeks to do?

If a game seeks to be an rpg of pulpy fun, but has complex mechanics that get in the way of pulpy fun, I think we can say it's a bad rpg regardless of whether some enjoy it.  

Put another way, if an rpg's mechanics actively (and that's key) work to defeat the aims of that rpg, even if some people enjoy it objectively it is a failure of design.

I think actually more non-Forge games fail that test than Forge ones, but only because there are vastly more non-Forge games out there.

Double post.

Quote from: BalbinusMy issue here is by that argument Sorceror is a better rpg than Traveller, and them's fighting words...

Given that CT sold something like 100,000 copies, I'd be amazed if there weren't plenty of games out there that were influenced by it. (Off the top of my head, how about any game with a lifepath system?)

Besides, Traveller does have an outpouring of third-party and fan-made products for it, something which DitV can't boast. You're not likely to see British Isles Dogs Support products at your local con.

Quote from: WarthurHow's that for an objective argument as to why D&D is better than DitV?

I am not sure that this is as objective as you think it is. Actually it is purely based on your situation. Let me clear that up a little.
I live in germany. When you meet a non rpg gamer here and tell them about your hobby and say something like "it's like D&D only with spaceships" when you describe some sci fi RPG you get blank stares. Not because you spoke english, but because D&D is not very known around here.
Now if you were saying "it's like DSA only with spaceships" you would be understood.
When you walk into a RPG/tabletop shop here of middling size, then it will have about 3-6 different RPG systems on the shelves. Usually not one of them will be D&D. You will get DSA, shadowrun, CoC, Vampire and 7th sea.

Same goes for a lot of assumptions you americans take for granted, like for example the wargame roots of the hobby. For us germans, our RPG hobby started with DSA which had nothing to do with wargames, was not done by wargamers but usually fantasy authors and never even mentioned miniatures.

So, is D&D in the USA better than D&D in germany?
And what about france? They play totally different games often with high a high grade of "historical realism". And so on, and so on.

Quote from: SaphimI am not sure that this is as objective as you think it is. Actually it is purely based on your situation. Let me clear that up a little.
I live in germany. When you meet a non rpg gamer here and tell them about your hobby and say something like "it's like D&D only with spaceships" when you describe some sci fi RPG you get blank stares. Not because you spoke english, but because D&D is not very known around here.
Now if you were saying "it's like DSA only with spaceships" you would be understood.
When you walk into a RPG/tabletop shop here of middling size, then it will have about 3-6 different RPG systems on the shelves. Usually not one of them will be D&D. You will get DSA, shadowrun, CoC, Vampire and 7th sea.

Yes, but in most markets "D&D in space" will work, whereas I can't think of any territory where "Dogs In the Vineyard in space" will work better than "D&D in space", Germany included.

QuoteSame goes for a lot of assumptions you americans take for granted, like for example the wargame roots of the hobby. For us germans, our RPG hobby started with DSA which had nothing to do with wargames, was not done by wargamers but usually fantasy authors and never even mentioned miniatures.

Except they presumably didn't invent DSA without reference to any other RPGs; they presumably were influenced by D&D, T&T, Runequest, and whichever other fantasy RPGs caught their eye. You can't blithely pretend that there was no influence from D&D, and thus no wargame influence.

Of course I can't and neither did I. DSA was an attempt to create a german D&D clone. Though the people doing it were no wargamers so the wargaming aspect got de-emphasized a lot while the "let's pretend" aspect was emphasized.

That is all I am saying.

Quote from: SaphimOf course I can't and neither did I. DSA was an attempt to create a german D&D clone. Though the people doing it were no wargamers so the wargaming aspect got de-emphasized a lot while the "let's pretend" aspect was emphasized.

How would they know what parts to de-emphasise (aside from obvious wargame elements like miniatures) if they were not wargamers? As Sett has frequently declared on here, what people in the RPG scene call "wargaming" has only the loosest resemblance to what early-1970s wargaming was actually like.

Quote from: WarthurHow would they know what parts to de-emphasise (aside from obvious wargame elements like miniatures) if they were not wargamers? As Sett has frequently declared on here, what people in the RPG scene call "wargaming" has only the loosest resemblance to what early-1970s wargaming was actually like.

How would I know how they did it? I was not present. I only know that the wargaming elements did not stick while we had huge articles about roleplaying, as in acting out the character just for the sake of doing it very early on.
And I know that they are not wargamers, because they are still around.

Anything more would be a speculation.

Quote from: SaphimI shall try.
Pundit said that a couple of hundred copies sold doesn't make what Vincent Baker does good games.

Because prior to that someone on this thread suggested that Baker's couple of hundred sales meant that he WAS making "good games".

QuoteNothing of that. A good game is one that you enjoy. There is nothing more to it.
D&D is sold more often than any other game and therefore probably enjoyed by more people than any other game.
Does that make it better than other games?

Of course it does.
It doesn't make it the "best game ever" or the best game for you, but the fact that it has sold millions means that, OBJECTIVELY, as a game, as genius of design, as far as understanding what people want, as far as being successful in general and lasting the ages, it is clearly vastly better than any Forge game is or likely ever will be.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SaphimSo, is D&D in the USA better than D&D in germany?
And what about france? They play totally different games often with high a high grade of "historical realism". And so on, and so on.

Dude, no one gives a fuck about Germany or France.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, no one gives a fuck about Germany or France.

RPGPundit

I care about France.

I'll give you Germany.

Where's the love for Germany?

Right here's some love for Germany.

Quote from: SaphimI live in germany. When you meet a non rpg gamer here and tell them about your hobby and say something like "it's like D&D only with spaceships" when you describe some sci fi RPG you get blank stares. Not because you spoke english, but because D&D is not very known around here.
Now if you were saying "it's like DSA only with spaceships" you would be understood.
When you walk into a RPG/tabletop shop here of middling size, then it will have about 3-6 different RPG systems on the shelves. Usually not one of them will be D&D. You will get DSA, shadowrun, CoC, Vampire and 7th sea.

Same goes for a lot of assumptions you americans take for granted, like for example the wargame roots of the hobby. For us germans, our RPG hobby started with DSA which had nothing to do with wargames, was not done by wargamers but usually fantasy authors and never even mentioned miniatures.

So, is D&D in the USA better than D&D in germany?
And what about france? They play totally different games often with high a high grade of "historical realism". And so on, and so on.

I've always been surprised by the success Das schwarze Auge has had in Germany, even above D&D, it would be interesting to know why.

An American gamer after reading this might think that people in Europe like artsy :rolleyes:  games, but it depends of every country. In my home country, Spain, D&D3 is king. No doubt about this. I don't live any longer in Poland, but I got the impression that D&D was doing well there. It depends.

Regarding France, is it true that D&D is not the main seller there? I thought the situation of D&D in France was similar to the one here.

In rapidly decreasing order of relevance, Germany gave us Durer, Beethoven, me myself, Goethe, Marlene Dietrich, Martin Luther, Settembrini, a million billion clueless bottom feeders, Boris Becker, more bottom feeders, still more, and Saphim.

So is the bottom food good in Germany?

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course it does.
It doesn't make it the "best game ever" or the best game for you, but the fact that it has sold millions means that, OBJECTIVELY, as a game, as genius of design, as far as understanding what people want, as far as being successful in general and lasting the ages, it is clearly vastly better than any Forge game is or likely ever will be.

RPGPundit

According to that logic micheal jackson is the best musician ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

I beg to differ.
Thriller is just the most sold album. D&D is just the most sold game. The numbers don't say anything above that.

Have some mustard with that.

Quote from: AosSo is the bottom food good in Germany?

It depends on what you like. It's certainly very nourishing.

Quote from: SaphimAccording to that logic micheal jackson is the best musician ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

I beg to differ.
Thriller is just the most sold album. D&D is just the most sold game. The numbers don't say anything above that.

I, for one, have never heard anyone claim that Thriller, or Michael Jackson for that matter, was 'Bad'.

Maybe not to taste, but never 'teh suck'.

In fact, even taking Bonzo and Iron Lungs and the Elephant Man's Skeleton into account, during a very long period of time MJ could 'do no wrong'... which only began ending once the first allegations of pedophilia surfaced.

In fact I am reasonably certain that if I looked hard enough in the right circles I could find an analysis (collegiate paper thingy???) of Thriller that attempted to establish academically why it was 'objectively good'.

If I... you know... cared.


- Spike, whose main entertainment these days is trollbaiting....

As best I know, D&D is still the best selling game in France, there are some interesting differences to the French rpg market but I'm not sure this is the best thread for them.

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, no one gives a fuck about Germany or France.

RPGPundit

So, I am probably that no one...

I like Kurt Weill, though this is largely on the strength of Ute Lemper's performances...so...I like Ute Lemper.

Quote from: BalbinusRe IaWA, I haven't played it yet, not sure when I'll get to. A bit indie for my group (as indeed are most indie games for most groups).

If you do, I'd be interested. That's really the thing here, IaWA sounds like it might be interesting, but I'm not going to buy it on the strength of that alone, or even someone's reading of it whose tastes I think are similar to mine. I've bought or played several Forge games on the strength of hype and relayed readings, even AP by certain people, but the experience has taught me to largely discount the value of anything said in their favor except for AP by people whose opinions I value.

EDIT: or even better, AP by myself, with someone else largely footing the bill, as at a con. However here I think I'm likely to run into a serious problem, which is that the games, not surprisingly, attract people who are receptive to the hype--in other words, I'd probably be sitting down at a table with at least one Temple.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI like Kurt Weill, though this is largely on the strength of Ute Lemper's gorgeous long legs...

:naughty:

Quote from: Elliot WilenI like Kurt Weill, though this is largely on the strength of Ute Lemper's performances...so...I like Ute Lemper.

If you do, I'd be interested. That's really the thing here, IaWA sounds like it might be interesting, but I'm not going to buy it on the strength of that alone, or even someone's reading of it whose tastes I think are similar to mine. I've bought or played several Forge games on the strength of hype and relayed readings, even AP by certain people, but the experience has taught me to largely discount the value of anything said in their favor except for AP by people whose opinions I value.

EDIT: or even better, AP by myself, with someone else largely footing the bill, as at a con. However here I think I'm likely to run into a serious problem, which is that the games, not surprisingly, attract people who are receptive to the hype--in other words, I'd probably be sitting down at a table with at least one Temple.

The difficulty here, is it's explicitly a campaign focussed game, so even a con tryout isn't really going to show whether it delivers or not.

Ah, I think I was aware of that, but somehow I got IaWA mixed up with Poison'd in mid-post.

Quote from: ClaudiusI've always been surprised by the success Das schwarze Auge has had in Germany, even above D&D, it would be interesting to know why.

An American gamer after reading this might think that people in Europe like artsy :rolleyes:  games, but it depends of every country. In my home country, Spain, D&D3 is king. No doubt about this. I don't live any longer in Poland, but I got the impression that D&D was doing well there. It depends.

Regarding France, is it true that D&D is not the main seller there? I thought the situation of D&D in France was similar to the one here.

There's a simple reason for all this.

DSA is essentially a D&D-clone; in its earliest forms it was even moreso than today, if I'm not mistaken.  And it was written in German, by Germans. So its a language-barrier issue. DSA came out and took hold of the market before a decent German edition of D&D could do so.

Why did this not happen in Spain? Simple.  The Spanish translation of D&D was one of the top concerns as far as translation works were concerned for D&D; they translated to Spanish and got the Spanish-language version of the game out earlier and with more effort because from an American perspective (and really, just common sense) that was the biggest obvious priority and the best potential market for them.  

That's why pretty much in every Spanish-speaking country (just like virtually every English-speaking country), D&D is the top RPG, whereas in almost every other country D&D ended up coming in second to a local homegrown D&D-clone game. Its the same in latinamerica; every country in latinamerica has D&D as its top RPG EXCEPT Brazil, where spanish isn't the national language.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusAs best I know, D&D is still the best selling game in France, there are some interesting differences to the French rpg market but I'm not sure this is the best thread for them.

Fine then... go off and start a new thread. What's this interesting difference you speak of?

From youtube it seems that the same high geek, high camp factor is involved, however, may have missed vital some subtle clues.

There some existential factor involved?

Quote from: SaphimAccording to that logic micheal jackson is the best musician ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

I beg to differ.
Thriller is just the most sold album. D&D is just the most sold game. The numbers don't say anything above that.

As some vague concept of "Art" (which of course music is), you can try to argue that of course Thriller is a vastly inferior album to many other albums that sold far worse.

However, RPGs are NOT "art", they are motherfucking GAMES. The definition of a successful game must be that it is popular with people and that people want to play it.

And just like (putting aside any question of artistic merit) one must argue that in terms of craftsmanship and recognizing what works for its audience, Thriller is indeed a better album than, say "Yoko Ono's Greatest Hits"; one has to recognize that in terms of craftsmanship and recognizing what will actually work and appeal to people, D&D is an objectively better game than My Life With Master.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's a simple reason for all this.

DSA is essentially a D&D-clone; in its earliest forms it was even moreso than today, if I'm not mistaken.  And it was written in German, by Germans. So its a language-barrier issue.

This is borne out by what my Hungarian friend told me. Throughout the 1980s lots of people wanted to roleplay, they heard about D&D, and there were lots of photocopied English versions. But TSR wouldn't translate into Hungarian, or even send the English versions there.

So some Hungarians wrote their own version.

Then in the 1990s after the transformation, a zillion people were gaming, but the native Hungarian game was most popular - suddenly the guys who used to have to photocopy it could get it printed properly. And Wizards wandered up with D&D, but it was a bit late.

I don't know how things stand now, but the basic point remains - the most popular rpg in your country is likely to be the first one that comes out in your native language. And the one most like D&D :)

Quote from: RPGPunditAs some vague concept of "Art" (which of course music is), you can try to argue that of course Thriller is a vastly inferior album to many other albums that sold far worse.

However, RPGs are NOT "art", they are motherfucking GAMES. The definition of a successful game must be that it is popular with people and that people want to play it.

You know, few hundrets years ago music wasn't considered "art"...

Quote from: FritzsYou know, few hundrets years ago music wasn't considered "art"...

And what was it considered than?

Anyway... there are some similiarities between game, art and ritual. But despite these similarites those three things are not the same.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't know how things stand now, but the basic point remains - the most popular rpg in your country is likely to be the first one that comes out in your native language. And the one most like D&D :)

True for Czech republic as well. We've got unchallenged D&D clone round here. The TSR/WotC licensing policy is reason for this. Because there were at least three attempts to buy licence for reasonable price, without success.

Quote from: RPGPundit2000 copies is considered a RUNAWAY "success" by the forge crowd; it makes it one of the very best-selling forge games ever; and that's still multiple orders of magnitude below the sales levels of games that normal people would consider "successful".

Interesting thing is, how long does it take to sell 2000 copies of Forge game. Years essentially. Now, I've just checked blog of Simon J Rogers (Pelgrane Press), he wrote, that Trail of Cthulhu has sold the initiall run of 2000 copies (in like 2 months) and there are going to reprint.

Now Pelgrane is not some big player right, so this is good comparison. Trail is such a mix of traditional elements and some newer stuff and it somehow sells better. Fascinating indeed.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAh, I think I was aware of that, but somehow I got IaWA mixed up with Poison'd in mid-post.

For a variety of reasons, not least among them it's utter lack of historicity, I have no interest in Poison'd.

Alnag: The same ROPGs are considerd today... just entertaiment, and sometimes ritual but mostly entertaiment... good musicians were good entertainers, not artists...

Just look at all that what is called art today, for example dadaism... is it considerd art...? Yes... Would most people consider it to be fun...? Hell no!

Quote from: FritzsAlnag: The same ROPGs are considerd today... just entertaiment, and sometimes ritual but mostly entertaiment... good musicians were good entertainers, not artists...

Sure, there is this appeal on attention in both game and art (the one, that we can call entertaining), yet that does not eliminate artistic aspect of music.

Quote from: FritzsJust look at all that what is called art today, for example dadaism... is it considerd art...? Yes... Would most people consider it to be fun...? Hell no!

Well the whole western art is not a very good example of vast majority of artistic products, but I see some nice analogy between traditional arts and traditional RPGs on one hand and Forge dadaistic games and dadaism on the other one. Guess what? Most people would not consider neither Forge game nor dadaism product very entertaining.

Alnaq, I can't help but note (and with a certain irony) that you're posting to this thread trying to convince others that Forge games suck.

So, on topic, why do you feel the need to try to convince others that games suck?

Quote from: BalbinusSo, on topic, why do you feel the need to try to convince others that games suck?

Actually, I feel urgent need to tease Fritzs, if that counts... :p

Despite the fact, it might sounds like I think that I think (or trying to convice other people that Forge games sucks) it is not like that. I think that some games are less entertaining for majority of gamers as dadaist art might be less entertaining for most people. Does that mean that dadaist art sucks? Hardly.

That does not mean, that one doesn't have any preference at all. I know exactly that I like A more than B and usually I know even why is that so. That fact does not make B sucks, but it makes A shine. ;)

Quote from: AlnagAcutally, I feel urgent need to tease Fritzs, if that counts... :p

I feel strong urge to call you moron everytime I see your avatar...

And you should tell people around there about your great little theory about FORGE games causing break up in "infested" gaming groups:rolleyes:

Quote from: FritzsAnd you should tell people around there about your great little theory about FORGE games causing break up in "infested" gaming groups:rolleyes:

Sure why not. I have a theory about those laser-focused games that are sometimes called "Forge games" or "indies". They don't cater well the preferences of mixed group of player types. So once such mixed gaming group (which I thing is most prevalent) starts playing such a game they might be fun for one or two and really boring for the rest because of its one single focus. IMO in most cases they don't facilitate the group cohesion very well.

So to put it simply, the groups that are less socialy tied or in some kind of bad shape anyway (which is why they usually try new system anyway) has significantly bigger chance to break. This I believe is one of the reasons why spreading of indies is so slow.

Now Fritzs might want to imply, that means that those games sucks. Yet I don't think so. I think, that when your game group fall apart, that sucks. That really sucks. I think that some games create more tension, more argument and more friction which contributes to possible group breakage. If that means that those games sucks as well I am not sure, but whatever.

I should add that Fritzs and buch of other group-less wanderers don't like my theory.

Alnag: And where did you get the idea I amj group-less...? Well  If you assume only people who play mere and once per week to be group-haves, then I am indeed group-less...

Quote from: BalbinusAlnaq, I can't help but note (and with a certain irony) that you're posting to this thread trying to convince others that Forge games suck.

I think it's more because he wants to give his Forger rival Fritzs some stick.

Quote from: FritzsAlnag: And where did you get the idea I amj group-less...? Well  If you assume only people who play mere and once per week to be group-haves, then I am indeed group-less...

It's more about if you stick with the same people rather than frequency. I can imagine that one plays every and each day with someone yet is group-less because the structure of the people he plays with changes (significantly).

damn double post

Alnag: I am playing with the same people weekly...

Quote from: grubmanUnrelated to any specific game...

I mean seriously...I understand trying to convince people that games you like are great!  But, why try to convince people that like, love, or are at least open minded that a game sucks...and they have no reason to like it (or are at least stupid or inferior for not thinking it sucks)?

We see it over and over on the internet.  What is there to be gained in this action?

A related post:  http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LRPGSW/message/1716

Quote from: SaphimI know that this right now looks like I called you on your "experience" and you are responding with nothing but nasty words. Which probably means you were lying or exaggerating your "experience".

I really care very little how this looks to you, but I can tell you that I reacted like a hotheaded asshole (which I am) to you being a smug and condescending prick (I'll let your posts along those lines speak for themselves), especially to someone who's been such a positive and useful contributor to this site as Koltar.