Seperate section for LoO?

finarvyn · March 01, 2013, 07:01:22 PM

I think that Lords of Olympus has taken off to the point where it deserves its own discussion section instead of being shuffled in with ADRP. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

RPGPundit · March 03, 2013, 03:10:39 AM

I'm open to hearing arguments. However, I don't think that there's really enough conversation in this forum, of either Amber, LoO, Erick Wujcik Miscellanea, or LoGaS, that would require that we start to separate stuff out. All of these are commonly related to each other; I think that if between two or more of these subjects we were regularly having the first page overrun with new posts, that would seem like more of an emergency reason to do some sorting.

RPGPundit

Simon W · March 03, 2013, 06:10:38 AM

I finally cracked and picked up a copy of LoO the other day. I'm pretty pleased with my purchase. My first worry was that it'd be so similar to Amber that I wouldn't think I got my money's worth. My second worry was that it'd be so dissimilar to Amber that I'd have to learn a whole new set of rules. My concerns were unfounded. It is both similar enough to Amber to be recognisably based on Amber but different enough that I didn't feel I wasted my money. Just gotta get a campaign up and running now!

RPGPundit · March 04, 2013, 02:10:51 AM

Quote from: Simon W;633693I finally cracked and picked up a copy of LoO the other day. I'm pretty pleased with my purchase. My first worry was that it'd be so similar to Amber that I wouldn't think I got my money's worth. My second worry was that it'd be so dissimilar to Amber that I'd have to learn a whole new set of rules. My concerns were unfounded. It is both similar enough to Amber to be recognisably based on Amber but different enough that I didn't feel I wasted my money. Just gotta get a campaign up and running now!

I'm really really happy to hear that! Obviously, I understand the concern you had, but I also know that LoO adds a lot of new stuff for any old DRPG fan.

Please let me know how your campaign goes; you'd even be welcome start a log here (or convince some player to do so as a contribution).

RPGPundit

Croaker · March 04, 2013, 05:58:12 AM

Don't think it is necessary either.

Btw, pundit, I had forgotten it, but I did a fresh-from-reading review on amazon.

It's a little crude and short (Yeah, I'm lazy), but, well, here it is:
http://www.amazon.fr/product-reviews/193827007X/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_four?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFourStar&showViewpoints=0

Panjumanju · March 04, 2013, 11:56:59 AM

Conceptually I support Lords of Olympus in what is otherwise an Amber and Erick Wujcik forum, but I assume Arrows of Indira will be included as well when it comes out. I think calling this "The Official Amber DRPG, Erick Wujcik, Lords of Olympus and Arrows of Indira Forum" would be tedious.

Can we think of a better title, at least?

//Panjumanju

RPGPundit · March 04, 2013, 02:39:28 PM

Quote from: Panjumanju;634119Conceptually I support Lords of Olympus in what is otherwise an Amber and Erick Wujcik forum, but I assume Arrows of Indira will be included as well when it comes out. I think calling this "The Official Amber DRPG, Erick Wujcik, Lords of Olympus and Arrows of Indira Forum" would be tedious.

Can we think of a better title, at least?

//Panjumanju

No, Arrows of Indra most definitely will NOT be included here, as its a D&D-based game and not a Diceless RPG.

Arrows will be supported on the main forum and on a G+ page.

So don't worry about that.

RPGPundit

RPGPundit · March 04, 2013, 02:40:53 PM

Finarvyn, I would still be interested to know if you had any further reasons or arguments for why we should split the forum? Was it that you really think the forum is getting too full or busy? Or is it a subject thing?

RPGPundit

RPGPundit · March 04, 2013, 02:42:35 PM

Quote from: Croaker;634036Don't think it is necessary either.

Btw, pundit, I had forgotten it, but I did a fresh-from-reading review on amazon.

It's a little crude and short (Yeah, I'm lazy), but, well, here it is:
http://www.amazon.fr/product-reviews/193827007X/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_four?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFourStar&showViewpoints=0

Thanks very much! I was kind of wondering whether anyone in France was noticing it...

Panjumanju · March 04, 2013, 03:05:35 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;634182No, Arrows of Indra most definitely will NOT be included here, as its a D&D-based game and not a Diceless RPG.

Arrows will be supported on the main forum and on a G+ page.

So don't worry about that.

RPGPundit

My mistake.

Still, this will not be your last project based on the idea, will it?
My only point was that the title has gotten unwieldy, and while I support LoO's inclusion, I think it all could be housed better on the whole. I'm not sure what the solution is, exactly, but that's where my sense leads me.

//Panjumanju

finarvyn · March 04, 2013, 04:24:59 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;634184Finarvyn, I would still be interested to know if you had any further reasons or arguments for why we should split the forum? Was it that you really think the forum is getting too full or busy? Or is it a subject thing?

Mostly a subject thing. I see this section as currently having three kinds of threads:
1) Stuff which is specific to Amber
2) Stuff which is specific to LoO
3) Stuff which is general for diceless games

I have a huge interest in all things Amber (diceless or not) but I don't play diceless much at the moment, so topics #2 and #3 aren't as interesting to me currently. I find myself re-reading threads which are about Amber even if they have zero game content.

LoO is new and is grabbing the attention of lots of folks at the moment and has most of the new-content threads at the moment. It just seems like the Amber content is lost among all of the LoO chatter (setting stuff, etc).

If you think traffic is low here we can keep it all together. Not a deal-breaker or anything; I'll still hang out here.

RPGPundit · March 05, 2013, 09:51:31 AM

Quote from: Panjumanju;634203My mistake.

Still, this will not be your last project based on the idea, will it?
My only point was that the title has gotten unwieldy, and while I support LoO's inclusion, I think it all could be housed better on the whole. I'm not sure what the solution is, exactly, but that's where my sense leads me.

//Panjumanju

If there are sourcebooks or the like, they'll all be for LoO and won't need to be included in the title.

The only game that could have been added is Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, had the publishers wished it, but I believe they've expressed they'd rather try their own thing.

RPGPundit

RPGPundit · March 05, 2013, 10:01:54 AM

Ok. Well, from what I see of the forum right now, discounting this thread, the first 11 on the forum list are Amber-related, either directly or generally.

What's more, since LoO's publication the level of activity has gone up on this forum, with more posters coming in. But it seems like those posters are talking about Amber at least as much as they are about LoO!

I'm surely not upset about that, I'd love it if everyone was talking about LoO as well, of course, but one of the big goals of publishing LoO was to revive Amber, and I'm happy if people interested in LoO are helping to fortify the Amber-discussion on this forum.

RPGPundit

Panjumanju · March 05, 2013, 10:58:24 AM

Quote from: finarvyn;634255LoO is new and is grabbing the attention of lots of folks at the moment and has most of the new-content threads at the moment. It just seems like the Amber content is lost among all of the LoO chatter (setting stuff, etc).

I may have shared your reservations, except I think the Amber Diceless and Amber in general content has gone up quite a bit since LoO came out. We have a few new frequent contributors just to his sub-forum in the past month, and that's all pretty great.

//Panjumanju

Sydius Mendoza · March 06, 2013, 01:40:25 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;634442Ok. Well, from what I see of the forum right now, discounting this thread, the first 11 on the forum list are Amber-related, either directly or generally.

What's more, since LoO's publication the level of activity has gone up on this forum, with more posters coming in. But it seems like those posters are talking about Amber at least as much as they are about LoO!

I'm surely not upset about that, I'd love it if everyone was talking about LoO as well, of course, but one of the big goals of publishing LoO was to revive Amber, and I'm happy if people interested in LoO are helping to fortify the Amber-discussion on this forum.

RPGPundit

I must admit that I have been thinking about this topic for a while before Finarvyn started the thread. Like him, I too have a deep abiding (perhaps creepy) love for all things Amber. Lately I had been thinking that with all the attention LoO has been getting, that it maybe deserves it's own forum.

However, I understand the point Pundit is making on why he has not split the forum. More traffic for LoO is potential traffic for ADRPG as well. Never a bad thing.

Might it be easier to just standardize the title format of threads to include a subject header? I see that has already been done to some extent by putting [LoO] before thread titles for Lords of Olympus. If you did the same thing for the Amber threads (i.e. <[ADRPG] - "Thread title">), it would make sorting bit easier. Perhaps a bit time consuming from a standpoint of amending old thread titles, but it would achieve some separation while still keeping the diceless forum intact.