It had to happen eventually, didn't it? I mean, its been five years or more now, since the fall of the great army of story-based gaming. Their Dark Lordis long since gone, his one pretentious name-dot thrown into the pit of some volcano, destroying him forever. The Swine hordes have fled back to within the gates of their kingdom, their power over the rest of the gaming world gone forever.
The good guys won, and the true King, "D20, son of D&D" was crowned by the white-clad Wizard of the Coast (once only a grey-clad producer of magic cards) in his shining city. And all good people have rejoiced for it. These days all have sworn fealty to his system of governance, or have seen the wisdom in it and so designed their own systems after his. Even the distant and damage-resistant Naked Dwarves of the Warhammer, the strange Paranoid people of the underground Complex, and the lead-absorbent Trolls of the Shadow Runs.
The Swine have lost everything. Once they ruled over the gaming world with an iron claw, imposing their story-based pretentious terror on all peoples. Now they are nothing, broken. Still "number 2" but only technically. I mean hell, if this is how "nuber 2" behaves, its no surprise Number 1 is light years ahead of the crowd.
....
Story-based gaming is the core of Swine philosophy, and as I've explained before, the Swine motivation is primarily that of giving themselves a grotesquely overinflated sense of self-worth and meaning in their otherwise meaningless lives. Their game has to not be a game, it has to be something far more than a game. It has to be "art", it has to be "culture", it has to be "intellectual", it has to be something very special that only the chosen and misunderstood few will be able to understand or appreciate, something that MAKES THEM SPECIAL just for playing it, without requiring them to actually be artistic, cultured, intellectual or special in any real sense of those words.
Now, one of the fundamental requirements of the Swine philosophy is elitism; a strong sense of social hierarchy, usually directly inverted to the actual social hierarchy you would find in the real world. The Swine, in their world, are the "Elite", the ones who are special because they understand and play their games. They must therefore be games which are "not for everyone", which are exclusive, which reject "lesser beings". The more you can reject those "lesser beings", the more special that makes you. Never mind that its all a big cover-up for their own sense of rejection at the hands of a society that wants nothing to do with pretentious shitheads who have not yet learned (and possibly never will) that you get to be special not by virtue of birth or by default but by ACTUALLY FUCKING ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING.
But the Swine need for Elitism is their undoing; it is what will lead them to devour themselves completely in the end, as they are doing now. Its what would have brought Roleplaying down with them, had it not been for the rise of D20. To be "Elite" you must constantly be purging your ranks, otherwise you're only as special as the rest of the losers in black lace and white make up around you, and that really can't feel very special even to a Swine. So what to do?
There's no choice: you have to create another "tier" of exclusivity, something to let the OTHER Swine know that while they may in fact be superior to the "unwashed masses", you are superior to them. Rein·Hagen did it by being the guy who was actually in charge of White Wolf, which defined Swine Culture in the RPG world (and his successors are more than happy to continue ruling over the scraps of his once dark and mighty empire in the exact same way). Its the reason why Story-based gaming is essential to the Swine, because story-based gaming makes the players lesser beings to the "storytelling" GM, and the GM a lesser being to the metaplot-writing failed novelists over at WW.
How could any other Swine be expected to eventually react, if he hoped for forward advancement? The only way would be to DENOUNCE WW. This was something that had already been happening for some time. Ron Edwards set himself up as the Cult Leader of the Forge, drawing fawning yes-men into his surroundings by selling the point that he was more "indie" and "exclusive" and therefore better than WW, even turning WW into the "unwashed masses" that the Swine all seem to be so fearful of, and creating the promise that anyone who came and followed him would be "saved" by the transforming power of being more "elite" than the damned souls who followed WW's false idol. And to wrap it all up in a neat package he invented a bunch of total bullshit about "GNS theory" to try to make his "work" look academic and intellectual, and not just a bunch of mindless pretentious drivel. Oh, and I think there was also something about a mothership and purple kool-aid in there somewhere...
Anyways, back to the point at hand: inevitably, the WW Swine fanboys will have to denounce WW en masse. It was predestined from the moment WW lost the industry leadership; it meant gaming is no longer the Swine's fiefdom and they've been mad about it for some time. D20-hate will only get them so far, and after five years of trying desperately to bring down D20 in any way possible and getting nowhere, they are getting hungry in looking for someone to pay for their loss of status. Maybe this debauchle over licensing will be it; the straw that broke the clove-cigarette-smoking transylvanian-wine-drinking bad-fiction-writing fake-artiste's back. But even if it isn't, the process has begun (really it BEGAN with the nWoD and DRM), and is only going to get worse and worse, as the Swine first take down their mother-corp, and then fight viciously amongst themselves to establish pretentious dominance.
I plan to bring popcorn.
This is the great weakness of the Swine, and why they are doomed to fail. Their exclusionism will eventually force them to exclude each other. It nearly brought down the industry, but fortunately we have been spared that fate, though reconstruction is still tenous and we must continue to be vigilant and work hard to restore the fan base. Yet every day we grow stronger, and the Swine weaker. I cannot pity them though, they sealed their own fate the moment they decided that the pretense of "being superior" was more important than actually doing something to make yourself so.
RPGPundit July 09, 2005
Teens love being part of something special. If they can't belong to the prestigue clique, they'll invent a prestique clique of their own. But eventually most people do grow up.
RPGs are all about the adventure. Doing hazardous things for various reasons because you want to get something done. But to have adventures you need a well constructed world where the constraints make sense in the context of the game.
I find "story" to be needlessly constraining. Not only that, story flies in the face of what happens in a session in the first place. Going by the description of the word the great majority of humanity uses, a story is an account of events that have already occured. Even when a story is told in the present or future tense. (Naught but rhetorical devices those two.)
A game session is the events as they occur. To make this simple, playing an adventure is like actually performing the actions, albeit vicariously. In effect, you are playing a character who is living through the events played out in the game. He's not in a story, that's his life.
That storyteller crap is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what RPGs are. A misunderstanding based on the fact the events in an RPG are imaginary. Fictional in a word. However, with RPGs we have methods of presenting fictional events that are truly present tense. But since they are present tense they cannot be part of a story as they occur. No, the story comes when the participants recount what happened.
D&D 3.x has problems of its own, but at least it doesn't pretend to be a way of telling a story.
Interesting. The clock's started. There are four years left. We'll see what the world looks like then.
-Andy
That intro is the best RPG punditry ever.
If a hater is hated, is the hater-hating-hater's hate... Shit, I got mixed up.
Much like the anime industry (if only on a tinier scale), RPGs are headed to market armageddon. Unlike the anime industry, small scale POD and digital distro can keep the niche product flowing as long as the writers are willing to write.
But! If the pie gets even smaller, will design efforts suffer correspondingly? Mike Mearls has written about the death of the freelancing market, saying that indie games are where the next generation of design will have to come from. How can "major" game companies (defined as, I guess, those with more than a couple full time employees) hope to lure away indie designers who are seeing direct returns from their efforts?
Quote from: fonkaygarryThat intro is the best RPG punditry ever.
If a hater is hated, is the hater-hating-hater's hate... Shit, I got mixed up.
Much like the anime industry (if only on a tinier scale), RPGs are headed to market armageddon. Unlike the anime industry, small scale POD and digital distro can keep the niche product flowing as long as the writers are willing to write.
But! If the pie gets even smaller, will design efforts suffer correspondingly? Mike Mearls has written about the death of the freelancing market, saying that indie games are where the next generation of design will have to come from. How can "major" game companies (defined as, I guess, those with more than a couple full time employees) hope to lure away indie designers who are seeing direct returns from their efforts?
The next generation nearly always comes from "indie" game designers. thats how it has always been.
Many of todays game designers started out as "indie" game designers, including one of D&D 3's designers, Jonathan Tweet. Mark Rein Hagen was an indie game designer. Gary Gygax was an indie game designer. (I suppose technically, he still is.) Likewise Kevin Siembieda. So this doesn't actually represent much of a change. What has changed is that the current crop seem to be intentionally making games that not many people really want to play other than.. other indie game designers. In which case they either live in the same town or they only really play over IRC. Otherwise they don't actually play.
In any case, today only a few indie game designers seem to make that much money, and none of them see wide distribution. They're an outgrowth (and a reaction to ) the 1990s, and in a way theyre still kind of stuck there, endlessly cloning Fudge, aping Over the Edge.
The next decade's designers will be people that came up playing the current version of D&D, understand why it rules, where it has problems, and will want to improve on that.
So in a way, I guess the future belongs to the Mearls and Kenson types.
I think White Wolf's doing a fine job on themselves, there doesn't need to be any uprising.
Quote from: Abyssal MawI guess the future belongs to the Mearls and Kenson types.
The more things change... I'm glad to see that this isn't a unique point in gaming history.
By the by: Are there any numbers for how the different companies (mostly WW) are faring? Exalted 2e's big and shiny and fun, but is it selling fast enough to keep WW from going tits up? Same with Green Ronin and WFRP.
Quote from: Abyssal MawWhat has changed is that the current crop seem to be intentionally making games that not many people really want to play other than.. other indie game designers.
Yes. That is the reason why they sell their games over the Internet, instead of just mailing them to their indie designer friends.
You don't really know what you're talking about, don't you?
Quote from: Abyssal MawIn which case they either live in the same town or they only really play over IRC. Otherwise they don't actually play.
Yes, you don't have idea about what you're talking.
Quote from: Abyssal MawIn any case, today only a few indie game designers seem to make that much money, and none of them see wide distribution.
Mongoose Publishing approached Vince Baker (the author of DitV) and made him an offer to distribute his game, sharing profits on a 50% basis. Quite a honest deal. You can read about the details here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20139.msg210930;topicseen#msg210930,
though I assume by your previous post that you're not into such things as knowing shit before writing an ignorant post
Well, if you read that you can see that Vince Baker rejected the offer simply because he's selling the same amount of books that Mongoose could offer him, so he would be losing cash in that case. So you can see that some indie games get as much distribution as some mainstream publishers can offer.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThe next decade's designers will be people that came up playing the current version of D&D, understand why it rules, where it has problems, and will want to improve on that.
This is the stupidest thing of all. So, the next decade designers will be people that has experience doing the same games that 30 years before, and will produce nothing new, because, you know, change and diversity are VERY BAD THINGS.
I'm no theory fan. I play mainly mainstream games (some D20 games included), but I also enjoy some indie games. Other indie games, I don't like it. But this is pure drivel.
I love offending the swine!
:hatsoff:
Fucking hilarious:
Quote from: RPGPunditStory-based gaming is the core of Swine philosophy, and as I've explained before, the Swine motivation is primarily that of giving themselves a grotesquely overinflated sense of self-worth and meaning in their otherwise meaningless lives.
Well, I'm a psychologist and I wouldn't dare to make such an analysis.
Quote from: RPGPunditTheir game has to not be a game, it has to be something far more than a game.
I've always read in those swiney books you hate that a game "can" be something more... and I agree with that. I've never read any "must."
Quote from: RPGPunditThe more you can reject those "lesser beings", the more special that makes you.
Nothing like, for example, rejecting people who chooses to play other games than mainstream because they get more fun. Or rejecting people who simply disagrees with the idea of D20 as the best thing ever. I see.
Quote from: RPGPunditNever mind that its all a big cover-up for their own sense of rejection at the hands of a society that wants nothing to do with pretentious shitheads who have not yet learned (and possibly never will) that you get to be special not by virtue of birth or by default but by ACTUALLY FUCKING ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING.
Well, if you talk about WW Swine, they have accomplished something: they have published several big - time successful RPGs, that have had a big impact on teh hobby. If you talk about indie Swine, they have done the same, though in a lesser scale. And they keep making games that have influece on mainstream designers. Not counting that there are many indie designers that also work on mainstream games.
Quote from: RPGPunditIts what would have brought Roleplaying down with them, had it not been for the rise of D20.
This is like reading Ann Coulter talking about how liberals are going to destroy the world becauser they're evil and hate us.
Quote from: RPGPunditIt nearly brought down the industry, but fortunately we have been spared that fate, though reconstruction is still tenous and we must continue to be vigilant and work hard to restore the fan base. Yet every day we grow stronger, and the Swine weaker.
I always find hard to understand and reconcile the notions that the Swine (specially the indie Swine) are nothing but a blip, just because everyone loves D20, with the notion that the Swine is everywhere, and we must stay on guard to avoid that they destroy our hobby, burn our mainstream books, and ran over our dogs with their cars.
Quote from: Abyssal MawI love offending the swine!
:hatsoff:
Have a cookie! Good doggie!
I don't know if I can be considered a Swine, see. I'm not into theory, though I acknowledge that some good ideas and some cool games have come from it.
My gaming is mainly mainstream: I'm actually running James Bond 007 and Call of Cthulhu, and my all - time favourite game is RuneQuest. I own, and have played and enjoyed several indie games (Sorcerer, Dogs, Burning Wheel and several others), and I think they're excellent products, but by no means do I limit my gaming to that kind of games. I also like Vampire and other WoD games (in both incarnations), and don't give a shit about the pretentiousness of it. I also am a big fan of Conan D20, Iron Heroes, Black Company and the like.
So I don't know if I am a Swine or not. But such an utter ignorance on your part about the topic at hand is truly amazing. At least the Pundit is a funny reading, and makes some good points which I wholeheartly agree with.
I've seen your discussion with droog in the thread about perfect systems and I think you're nothing but a Pundit boot-licking troll who likes to flamebait people, with the puerile hope of upsetting them. That's cool in my book: each one spends time as he/she sees fit. But you don't have either the skill or the sheer capability needed to offend me, or anyone else, not as long as we are in Internet and I can easily ignore your posts. And, as you persist of being an ignorant on the topic at hand, I don't think you have nothing useful to contribute.
Here, have another cookie, anyway. You're a good doggie. Someday, you will find a master who loves you.
I suppose we could each perceive each other as being in the dark about certain things, and just go on living like that. Surely you as a psychologist (lol) can see the value in that. :)
But I'll stand by my statement anyhow: indie publishing is not that influential or important to roleplaying as a hobby. Or to put it another way-it's about as influential and important as previous indie publishing efforts like Bunnies and Burrows. Or Sherpa. Or "Aftermath" or whatever. Or hundreds of other little games that nobody really seriously played but people like to namecheck every once in a while. Indie gaming isn't that new. The swinish supremacist attitude is kinda new, and kinda odious. But that's another subject.
The only significant difference between now and then is the technologies involved. Instead of selling games at conventions, or from the back pages of catalogs and ads in magazines, people can now use the internet, and the various publishing technologies to make better looking books. And thats great!
However, the conscious decision to create and publish games that aren't that appealing is something the indies will have to struggle with on their own.
The reason most of what we are seeing looks bigger than it actually is, is because it's amplifed by the internet, and the strange echo chamber of fandom that indie fans live in distorts the stark reality. The top selling indie game ever -- sold maybe 5% of what Mutants and Masterminds sold on it's first print run. Most indie games don't sell more than a hundred copies-- if that. Even their big success stories are not like.. that successful. Yet, it's aggresively marketed all over forums like these.
However, I am glad you don't think I have nothing useful to contribute! I agree. I don't think I have nothing useful to contribute either. It is quite the opposite!
I'm glad you enjoyed my exchange with droog. I did too.
Quote from: Abyssal MawOr to put it another way-it's about as influential and important as previous indie publishing efforts like Bunnies and Burrows.
I'll have to say that attempting to distinguish between "mainstream" and "indie" RPG publishing back in '76 when
B&B was released seems somewhat futile.
Quote from: GrimGentI'll have to say that attempting to distinguish between "mainstream" and "indie" RPG publishing back in '76 when B&B was released seems somewhat futile.
Ok, I see your point. Everyone was small back then. But I was also making the point that D&D started as just as much of an indie game - cobbled together in a basement-- as anything else.
But this kinda applies to what I'm saying in the first post- some games appeal and some don't. According to Wikipedia, Bunnies and Burrows came out within a year of D&D. But it was not a runaway success story. Why not?
My theory (haha) is that B&B is simply less appealing- both in subject matter and other elements. When the indie kids see that their favorite indie games aren't catching on, they invariably point bitterly at "marketing" rather than the much more likely reason: people aren't that interested because the subject matter is so much more limited.
"I love offending the swine!" You're a fatuous cunt, Anal Maw. You're all eaten up with something or other, aren't you?
See how the Punjab has moderated his rhetoric since July 2005? It's because successful site>petty hate.
You're an abyss of crap. Something Chris Chin or Ron Edwards or somebody else said is festering inside you and turning toxic. It's filled up your eyeballs and you can't see straight.
I never thought I'd say this... but I kinda pity you.
Quote from: Abyssal MawI never thought I'd say this... but I kinda pity you.
You can't come back at all, can you? I'd pity you if I gave a fuck.
Quote from: droogYou can't come back at all, can you? I'd pity you if I gave a fuck.
Come back to.. what?
Seriously. If you keep this up, I'm going to have to request a new arch enemy.
Quote from: Abyssal MawCome back to.. what?
Seriously. If you keep this up, I'm going to have to request a new arch enemy.
Oh, boy.
You are a dickhead.
You're just trying to pick little fights. You're saying the same thing over and over again. You're not adding anything except petty hate.
Let's revisit our earlier discussion, since you enjoyed it. I made this comment:
Quote from: droogNah, I don't believe that either. I like games as diverse as Burning Wheel and HeroQuest. One's heavy-crunch and gritty, the other's light and cinematic. I also like Nicotine Girls, which is a far cry from either in setting.
But I'll say again: if you only like one sort of game, there's probably a perfect system for you.
All right, we are talking system, which in common use means 'mechanics', 'rules'. Your singularly inappropriate reply is:
Quote from: Abyssal MawBut those are all swine games which make you feel really special because theyve been endorsed. How are those any different if the real reason you play them is so you can pat yourself on the back?
Nicotine girls. haha.
It's just rude. I'm talking system (and those games are very different mechanically) and all of a sudden you jump straight for the ad hominems. What's it all about?
So, I'm forced to conclude that you're a dickhead. I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and assume that you can get better, but I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope. I think I've seen your efforts elsewhere on the net.
On the one hand, I want to reply, because I have some funny ones I kinda save up for these kinds of situations.
On the other hand, I'm wanting to stay on topic. (P.s. You dragged that other argument all the way over ... here?)
On the other other hand, I'm looking up at the title of this topic.
then... I'm looking down and seeing you.
And I'm thinking to myself...
:hmm:
Okay, Anal. You win. I won't talk to you any more. I don't use ignore lists, so you can snipe away and I'll probably see it. Now, I'm not planning to leave this forum just yet (I'm figuring somebody like Jeff Rients is the benchmark, not you), so you'll have to read or ignore my posts likewise. But us interacting is a waste of bandwidth.
This is it for us, baby. I hope you'll be happy. It's been real.
I think for once I agree with Droog!
Maw you have not said anything of use in this whole thread and hardly any of it was even loosely based on reality.
and no I'm not a "swine".
Quote from: ImperatorI've always read in those swiney books you hate that a game "can" be something more... and I agree with that. I've never read any "must."
The "can" is comparative. when they say "gaming 'can' be something more..." its inevitably followed by something implying "...than mere hack n slash played by unwashed masses, such as D&D".
QuoteNothing like, for example, rejecting people who chooses to play other games than mainstream because they get more fun. Or rejecting people who simply disagrees with the idea of D20 as the best thing ever. I see.
No, not really. In rejecting them, I'm just one of millions. Not part of some special elite. I'm just the average gamer, who likes his games because they're
fun not because they make him feel smart or artistic for playing them.
QuoteI always find hard to understand and reconcile the notions that the Swine (specially the indie Swine) are nothing but a blip, just because everyone loves D20, with the notion that the Swine is everywhere, and we must stay on guard to avoid that they destroy our hobby, burn our mainstream books, and ran over our dogs with their cars.
Simple. The Swine were ALWAYS a minority, and in the past, they were far more of a minority than they are now. They were a tiny group in gaming, people like Rein·Hagen, who nevertheless managed to take over and subvert the entire ideological direction of mainstream RPGs, just because the company that SHOULD have been market leader (TSR) had fucked up so totally and were so messed up internally that they were in no position to provide any kind of alternative.
History is rife with tiny minorities being able to take over the wishes of the majority, especially when they give them the old song and dance of "we're smarter/more artistic/more politically aware/more dedicated/whatever than you, therefore you must allow us to guide you to a new golden age!" (said "golden age" inevitably being a total fucking disaster).
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThe "can" is comparative. when they say "gaming 'can' be something more..." its inevitably followed by something implying "...than mere hack n slash played by unwashed masses, such as D&D".
.................................................
No, not really. In rejecting them, I'm just one of millions. Not part of some special elite. I'm just the average gamer, who likes his games because they're fun not because they make him feel smart or artistic for playing them.
Look, for what it's worth, I don't think it's something more, just something different. I'm sure I haven't tried to put on airs about it.
I don't feel elite for playing
Dogs in the Vineyard. I felt like I was having fun at the time, though I suppose I could have been mistaken.
I think you should stop being so sensitive, live up to your own standards, and run the site.
Quote from: McrowMaw you have not said anything of use in this whole thread and hardly any of it was even loosely based on reality.
and no I'm not a "swine".
I consider my most important points to be posts #5, #12 and #14, and my general belief to be wholeheartedly in agreement with the original essay.
But hey, can't please everyone!
Let's see...bringng up one's doctorate/education level, invoking the name of Ann Coulter, and the ever-popular dividing up
Quotequotes
line by
Quoteline.
It's like teh internets in a nutshell, isn't it? Mention
Snakes On A Plane and I'd say you're set. :highfive:
On a separate note, I'm (honestly) very happy for Vince Baker and everything, but by Christ, I get tired of that Mongoose story. Fucking great. They also thought
Jeremiah (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=32) would be a good license to pick up, so let's temper our erections just a bit. It's not a vindication of all indie games, it's one moderate-sized company wanting to publish one indie game. I don't see how that can be indicative of anything as a whole.
And shit, I don't care if folks play
Dogs In the Vineyard,
Dungeons & Dragons,
Rifts,
Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding, or
Duck Hunt: The RPG. So long as they're having fun and not telling me I'm a cretin for not having fun
their way*, it shouldn't matter to my gaming table what they play. Sorta the whole "your rights end where mine begin" philosophy.
*-I'm fully willing to admit to being a cretin for many other reasons, just not that one.
Quote from: RPGPunditThe "can" is comparative. when they say "gaming 'can' be something more..." its inevitably followed by something implying "...than mere hack n slash played by unwashed masses, such as D&D".
Personally, I find "Can be something more" just a tad insulting.
"Can do different things, in different ways, than we're doing now.", you bet.
But if you give me a D&D that technically does everything D&D does now, but
also is intended to be marvellously educational in regards to medieval history, I will look at you like you're off your nut. When I want an educational RPG, I'll buy one. I'm not actually opposed to such RPGs, and very likely
would buy one. But I don't want people trying to sell it to me as "D&D that does more!"
Quote from: Zachary The FirstDuck Hunt: The RPG
Please tell me that has rules for shooting that giggling dog.
Quote from: jrientsPlease tell me that has rules for shooting that giggling dog.
The dog is a protected PC with no stats. You knew that, didn't you? :O
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceThe dog is a protected PC with no stats. You knew that, didn't you? :O
-clash
OMG that is SO DEPROTAGONIZING! I can't believe you would sink to such a first-order fantasy trope to protect your setting!
Reported to Unca Ron.
Quote from: RPGPunditThe "can" is comparative. when they say "gaming 'can' be something more..." its inevitably followed by something implying "...than mere hack n slash played by unwashed masses, such as D&D".
I'm not entering to discuss what the authors meant, because I don't give a shit. And I don't see why you (or anyone) should, frankly.
Quote from: RPGPunditNo, not really. In rejecting them, I'm just one of millions. Not part of some special elite. I'm just the average gamer, who likes his games because they're fun not because they make him feel smart or artistic for playing them.
That's all well and fine. But I can't see why your fun is lessend or put in danger by other people having fun in different ways.
Let's assume for the sake of the example that you're right and the Swine games because they feel smarter that way. So what? I read Vampire, and saw a cool game with interesting possibilities. I also read the pretentious and artsy parts, and I didn't mind them.
Quote from: RPGPunditThey were a tiny group in gaming, people like Rein·Hagen, who nevertheless managed to take over and subvert the entire ideological direction of mainstream RPGs, just because the company that SHOULD have been market leader (TSR) had fucked up so totally and were so messed up internally that they were in no position to provide any kind of alternative.
I don't see the story that way. I feel that there was a market leader and then the number of alternatives grew. That's OK in my book. So you could play D&D, Vampire, and many other games and styles: that's more options than before, and it's good... just like now, with the advent of indie gaming.
I could agree that, in the end, Vampire ended taking a direction quite different than in its origins. But that's another question.
Quote from: RPGPunditHistory is rife with tiny minorities being able to take over the wishes of the majority, especially when they give them the old song and dance of "we're smarter/more artistic/more politically aware/more dedicated/whatever than you, therefore you must allow us to guide you to a new golden age!" (said "golden age" inevitably being a total fucking disaster). RPGPundit
But that's never a permanent condition. And in gaming, nobody's making you play in a way that you don't like: you can make your games the same way as you've always liked them.
Remember: Internet is not representative of the gaming hobby, as most of the gamers don't use message boards, gaming blogs, and the like. So most of the hobby don't know about all these things.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenPersonally, I find "Can be something more" just a tad insulting.
"Can do different things, in different ways, than we're doing now.", you bet.
But if you give me a D&D that technically does everything D&D does now, but also is intended to be marvellously educational in regards to medieval history, I will look at you like you're off your nut. When I want an educational RPG, I'll buy one. I'm not actually opposed to such RPGs, and very likely would buy one. But I don't want people trying to sell it to me as "D&D that does more!"
Well, you could do a really good medieval historical D20 game (just not D&D).
And hell, anyone who's played my True20 Roman campaign will come out of it with the equivalent level of knowledge of someone who took several university-level Roman history courses.
I have no problem with games being "educational", or "smart"; I do have a problem with the perception that games are inherently "intellectual" or that people are "intellectuals" for playing them, or (most importantly) that this should be as important or more important than having fun.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditI have no problem with games being "educational", or "smart"; I do have a problem with the perception that games are inherently "intellectual" or that people are "intellectuals" for playing them, or (most importantly) that this should be as important or more important than having fun.
Give it up, man! This paragraph goes in circles. You said it yourself – education can be fun. We find that lots of things can be fun, in fact, as a game.
Quote from: RPGPunditWell, you could do a really good medieval historical D20 game (just not D&D).
RPGPundit
Not without some pretty fundamental monkeywrenching.
What, exactly, do you believe would need to be "fundamentally monkeywrenched"?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditWhat, exactly, do you believe would need to be "fundamentally monkeywrenched"?
RPGPundit
I think that that would depend of the D20 version you use: it's not the same D%D than D20 Conan than T20.
"D20" is really just the stats, skills and resolution mechanic. You could certainly do a historical game with it, on the order of the d20 Minigames that came out of Polyhedron a couple of years ago.
And then there's D20 Past (http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Products/Default.aspx?doc=177400000).
Quote from: ImperatorI think that that would depend of the D20 version you use: it's not the same D%D than D20 Conan than T20.
Therein my point. "fundamentally monkeywrenched", in D20, would mean changing something utterly basic to D20 that goes far beyond the typical scope of D20's adaptibility, which is one of its strongest qualities.
Or, in other words, I think Grim is just being an anti-D20 shithead in this case, and I'm calling him on it.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditWhat, exactly, do you believe would need to be "fundamentally monkeywrenched"?
RPGPundit
You'd have to overhaul combat to gain some, well, you hate the term 'realism' but some versimillitude and believability. Levels wouldn't be a good mechanic to use so that has to go, experience systems would need to be overhauled. No magic, so you'd probably have to work out some additional qualities of craftwork rather than just using Masterwork, the disease and poison rules would need to be overhauled.
There wouldn't be much left that recognisable as d20 and, indeed, if you're going for a more simulation/education approach you'll want a more average bell curve better done by using two dice instead of one.
Assuming you wanted to do a reasonable representative job anyway.
Quote from: GRIMYou'd have to overhaul combat to gain some, well, you hate the term 'realism' but some versimillitude and believability. Levels wouldn't be a good mechanic to use so that has to go, experience systems would need to be overhauled. No magic, so you'd probably have to work out some additional qualities of craftwork rather than just using Masterwork, the disease and poison rules would need to be overhauled.
I think you're confusing "Dungeons and Dragons" with "d20"
d20 Modern (possibly with it's d20 Past sourcebook - what's that like btw?) has already done most of that. If you don't like the level mechanic then you'll never like the d20 (F/M)SRD stuff, but I'm beginning to come round to it
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI think you're confusing "Dungeons and Dragons" with "d20"
d20 Modern (possibly with it's d20 Past sourcebook - what's that like btw?) has already done most of that. If you don't like the level mechanic then you'll never like the d20 (F/M)SRD stuff, but I'm beginning to come round to it
This is a tangent to the original thread but I figured you asked....
D20 Past: It's a very slim book- about 75 pages or so?
The first chapter discusses different takes on historical gaming and advice (historical and semihistorical, whether or not to play it totally straight or include some fantasy elements, how to do it if the players want to change history, etc).
The later chapters include three sample settings- a 'renaissance/age of sail'(17th century) one, a 'victorian/cowboy' (19th century) and a late 1930s-ish pulp-noir type era. The optional fantasy elements would be adding sorcery to the Age of Sail, adding supernatural elements to the victorian era, and adding weird science to the 1930s one.
It's pretty ok for the $13 I paid for it. You can get a copy from Amazon for like 7$.
I just put together the 'T. Fannon' bit from your name. Are you going to Con on the Cob?
Quote from: GRIMNot without some pretty fundamental monkeywrenching.
Medieval Player's Manual or whatever it's called from Green Ronin does a pretty fair job, particularly if you want to play medieval scholars, clerics (in the historical sense) and artists.
There's also a pretty good small press rpg on rpgedge called Medieval Murder Mysteries which does a good job of this. I was surprised how little work it took in fact given I am not a big d20 fan.
Quote from: GRIMYou'd have to overhaul combat to gain some, well, you hate the term 'realism' but some versimillitude and believability.
Like what? In what way?
QuoteLevels wouldn't be a good mechanic to use so that has to go,
Why? because you don't like them? Other than that I see no reason why they couldn't be used for a historical medieval campaign. They seem to work just fine in my historical Roman campaign.
Quoteexperience systems would need to be overhauled.
Experience system from what? Different D20 games use different xp systems. Are you saying not a single one would work? Why not?
QuoteNo magic, so you'd probably have to work out some additional qualities of craftwork rather than just using Masterwork, the disease and poison rules would need to be overhauled.
These at least make a little more sense than the rest of your anti-D20 gibberish. But these are all easy things to work out.
QuoteThere wouldn't be much left that recognisable as d20 and, indeed, if you're going for a more simulation/education approach you'll want a more average bell curve better done by using two dice instead of one.
Assuming you wanted to do a reasonable representative job anyway.
So your basic argument comes down to "I don't like D20, therefore D20 would have to get rid of things I don't like for it to be able to do historical campaigns well"?
That's pretty pathetic. Given that I have and am currently running a very successful historical campaign using D20 (True20, in this case), your argument seems utterly absurd to me. D20 wouldn't need to be changed any more than it is changed to play, say, Conan or Babylon 5.
Most of your arguments actually come from a very different claim, namely that you couldn't use D&D to play straight medieval history; which you then superimpose into D20. Because D20 haters tend to like to pretend that D&D and D20 are one and the same, rather than D&D being just one possible iteration of D20. I guess that's because all of your arguments for D20 hate break down when you look at how successful D20 has been with all those other games, huh?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditI guess that's because all of your arguments for D20 hate break down when you look at how successful D20 has been with all those other games, huh?
Not all such arguments do, though. Here's mine:
d20 systematically acts as a
cinematic game once a certain level is reached. At a certain level of skill, a character becomes capable of actions that simply don't fit historical reality.
To run a more strictly historical game, I'd feel the limit the characters to around level six - or, equally possibly, to have a 'regular' person at 3rd level, and give the PCs a range up to 12 or so, and rewrite the 'top-end' skill uses slightly to eliminate the clearly cinematic.
The rest strikes me as, while not perfect, certainly within the limits of what I can accept simply because "It's a game, damn it. Get over it."
Quote from: RPGPunditMost of your arguments actually come from a very different claim, namely that you couldn't use D&D to play straight medieval history; which you then superimpose into D20. Because D20 haters tend to like to pretend that D&D and D20 are one and the same, rather than D&D being just one possible iteration of D20. I guess that's because all of your arguments for D20 hate break down when you look at how successful D20 has been with all those other games, huh?
RPGPundit
The real question then is, at what level of change is it no longer d20 but rather something new?
I don't consider d20 to have been successful at...
Historical
SF
SF/Fantasy
Modern
It has sold and people use it for those purposes but IMO it doesn't do them well. It's good for D&D as it stands but it takes an awful lot of wrenching to serve the purpose of anything else.
Your opinion may well differ, perhaps my criteria for success and enjoyment of a game are different, hell, people enjoy Palladium, who am I to judge? I think d20 is good at what it does but it is still just D&D trying to fool people by donning subtly different hats.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenNot all such arguments do, though. Here's mine:
d20 systematically acts as a cinematic game once a certain level is reached. At a certain level of skill, a character becomes capable of actions that simply don't fit historical reality.
To run a more strictly historical game, I'd feel the limit the characters to around level six - or, equally possibly, to have a 'regular' person at 3rd level, and give the PCs a range up to 12 or so, and rewrite the 'top-end' skill uses slightly to eliminate the clearly cinematic.
The rest strikes me as, while not perfect, certainly within the limits of what I can accept simply because "It's a game, damn it. Get over it."
I don't think so. I think that if you use a grim and gritty HP mechanic, and make sure to have a correctly limited list of available feats, you can go all the way to 20th.
RPGPundit
Quote from: GRIMThe real question then is, at what level of change is it no longer d20 but rather something new?
I don't consider d20 to have been successful at...
Historical
SF
SF/Fantasy
Modern
So its been "Unsuccessful" because you, personally, don't like it?
That's a pretty pathetic argument. I mean, I despise Vampire, and detest Exalted, but I can admit that both of these have been relatively speaking "successful".
QuoteYour opinion may well differ, perhaps my criteria for success and enjoyment of a game are different, hell, people enjoy Palladium, who am I to judge? I think d20 is good at what it does but it is still just D&D trying to fool people by donning subtly different hats.
You're wrong. If you got over your D&D-hate and actually tried playing some of these games, you would see just how wrong you were. Suggesting that, say, Mutants & Masterminds or Spycraft are just "thinly-veiled D&D" is utterly absurd, and serves no purpose besides demonstrating your personal ill-informed prejudices.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditI don't think so. I think that if you use a grim and gritty HP mechanic, and make sure to have a correctly limited list of available feats, you can go all the way to 20th.
Hm. Maybe.
Changing HP and rewriting high-end skill uses might strike some people as "fundamental changes", though. Depends on their definition.
Limiting feats is pretty much totally normal, though.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThe later chapters include three sample settings- a 'renaissance/age of sail'(17th century) one, a 'victorian/cowboy' (19th century) and a late 1930s-ish pulp-noir type era. The optional fantasy elements would be adding sorcery to the Age of Sail, adding supernatural elements to the victorian era, and adding weird science to the 1930s one.
As all three of those interest me, I may have to keep my eyes open for it. Not a long review, but enough to interest me in the book at least. :)
Why do people with no real expereince in d20 declare themselves experts on the matter of 'how it works'? I see this constantly.
This quote for example:
QuoteThe real question then is, at what level of change is it no longer d20 but rather something new?
What level of change indeed? I'm talking about straight d20 Modern with no changes. It works fine, as far as my experience has been.
Quote from: Abyssal MawWhy do people with no real expereince in d20 declare themselves experts on the matter of 'how it works'?
d20 cred.
:D
Quote from: RPGPunditSo its been "Unsuccessful" because you, personally, don't like it?
That's a pretty pathetic argument. I mean, I despise Vampire, and detest Exalted, but I can admit that both of these have been relatively speaking "successful".
Then you're going by commercial success. I'm going by 'does what it's supposed to'.
Quote from: RPGPunditYou're wrong. If you got over your D&D-hate and actually tried playing some of these games, you would see just how wrong you were. Suggesting that, say, Mutants & Masterminds or Spycraft are just "thinly-veiled D&D" is utterly absurd, and serves no purpose besides demonstrating your personal ill-informed prejudices.
RPGPundit
I have played Spycraft, d20 Modern, Mutants and Masterminds etc.
M&M is heavily monkeywrenched to make it work, IMO that barely qualifies, if it even still does, as d20 any more. Spycraft has a couple of big 'flanges' to make it approximately work, but it's still a bit of a clunker. d20 Modern remains an oxymoron.
Quote from: Abyssal MawWhat level of change indeed? I'm talking about straight d20 Modern with no changes. It works fine, as far as my experience has been.
Which means that your idea of how a modern setting game should run is fundamentally different to mine.
Quote from: GRIMd20 Modern remains an oxymoron.
I'm writing for a guy, a US Army veteran whose MOS was "Special Weapons" and was a senior NCO when he left. In other words not only was he trained to fight post-apocalypse, he was trained to train others to fight post-apocalypse
He has written a series of supplements for an apocalyptic zombie RPG called "Year of the Zombie". His system of choice? d20 Modern. He has made one change to the rules in MSRD, to up the lethality of the Massive Damage save
(also the stats of some of the weapons and vehicles in the SRD have been modified, but even I can tell the weapon ranges in the SRD are off and I've only used a firearm a couple of times in my life)
He bitches about the firearms rules and occasionally threatens to write his own, but that's one subsystem. Everything else is RAW
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm writing for a guy, a US Army veteran whose MOS was "Special Weapons" and was a senior NCO when he left. In other words not only was he trained to fight post-apocalypse, he was trained to train others to fight post-apocalypse
He has written a series of supplements for an apocalyptic zombie RPG called "Year of the Zombie". His system of choice? d20 Modern. He has made one change to the rules in MSRD, to up the lethality of the Massive Damage save
(also the stats of some of the weapons and vehicles in the SRD have been modified, but even I can tell the weapon ranges in the SRD are off and I've only used a firearm a couple of times in my life)
He bitches about the firearms rules and occasionally threatens to write his own, but that's one subsystem. Everything else is RAW
I'm wondering whether his military experience really amounted to two guys standing opposite each other and taking it in turns to shoot one another in the chest until one fell over :/
I know that sort of thing was more standard in the Napoleonic era but I wouldn't have thought it passed for combat tactics these days.
Quote from: GRIMI'm wondering whether his military experience really amounted to two guys standing opposite each other and taking it in turns to shoot one another in the chest until one fell over :/
I know that sort of thing was more standard in the Napoleonic era but I wouldn't have thought it passed for combat tactics these days.
This pretty much proves you don't have any idea how d20 works, especially d20 modern. I think you just blew your cover.
The tactical end of d20 is extremely involved. (Some say it's a little too much involved), and it involves a huge amount of tactical movement, special actions, using terrain, cover and concealment. Player skill is extremely important to who wins a battle too- skilled but outclassed players can often beat better-equipped higher-level players through tactical gaming alone. They even have tournaments over this stuff.
Why do you think d20 gets the criticism about having to use miniatures? Of what use would miniatures be if all you did was mark off hitpoints?
Why do you insist on nominating yourself as an expert on things you don't really have any knowledge of?
Hi Grim:
You have to know I'm no big fan of D20, but you are way off here. I dislike it because it's generally too obsessive-compulsive tactically for my tastes - it's a lot of work to run properly. I've played in various incarnations, though, which is much better because you only have to worry about your own character. There is an extremely high level of player character tactical choice in combat. Whether you like D20 or not, that's one area where the game can't be faulted for being limited.
-clash
Quote from: Abyssal MawThis pretty much proves you don't have any idea how d20 works, especially d20 modern. I think you just blew your cover.
The tactical end of d20 is extremely involved. (Some say it's a little too much involved), and it involves a huge amount of tactical movement, special actions, using terrain, cover and concealment. Player skill is extremely important to who wins a battle too- skilled but outclassed players can often beat better-equipped higher-level players through tactical gaming alone. They even have tournaments over this stuff.
Why do you think d20 gets the criticism about having to use miniatures? Of what use would miniatures be if all you did was mark off hitpoints?
Why do you insist on nominating yourself as an expert on things you don't really have any knowledge of?
I've written a considerable amount for d20. Informed I'd say, but not 'expert' per se. Yes, you have all those tactical options etc but it doesn't feel that way, the combat still feels wooden and you're playing for rules-bending, not for genuine tactical advantage or for the dramatic feel of the combat. It is all rather wooden and unengaging and at the end of the day all you're potentially really changing is the rate at which the HPs are ticked off.
Given the choice between laughing at the usual jackass who says there is no roleplaying in d20, and the jackass who says there's no tactical game to d20, I'll usually pick the first guy just out of familiarity.
Again, what rules bending? We're talking about characters that take cover and use terrain advantages, as well as skill use (like feinting an attack to draw off an attacker, using bluff to create a diversion, using tumble to move through groups of attackers without getting hit.. that sort of thing). Rules as written.
It's bizarre. I can't stand GURPS, for example. Or Shadowrun. And in fact, I haven't played either of them for years. And when/if I see people discussing GURPS or Shadowrun, I don't seem to have any need to comment on it.
I'm noting that the d20 products linked to your site are all (seemingly) the sort that removed most of the tactical elements anyhow.
What's the old legend I used to hear...
"The ancients say... at one point a lot of smug wannabes jumped into d20 publishing despite the fact that they hated the system. They flooded the market with substandard stuff, caused a glut, and then got bitter."
:hmm:
I'm not saying thats you or anything, but I'm just saying!
Quote from: Abyssal MawAgain, what rules bending? We're talking about characters that take cover and use terrain advantages, as well as skill use (like feinting an attack to draw off an attacker, using bluff to create a diversion, using tumble to move through groups of attackers without getting hit.. that sort of thing). Rules as written.
Exactly. Playing the rules as written. Ruleslawyering, Murphy's rules, playing the system, the RPG equivalent of card counting and yet, with all those built in 'tactical' options basic things like aiming for a particular location etc aren't covered.
Even with all these supposed options it comes down to bang, take 2d6 damage, your turn, bang, miss, your turn, bang, miss, your turn, bang hit, critical, 4d6 damage... until someone runs out of hit points.
Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm noting that the d20 products linked to your site are all (seemingly) the sort that removed most of the tactical elements anyhow.
Really? Feast of Crows is a abstracted tactical system for doing large scale battles. The ACTUAL PDFs are character classes, Cloak of Steel/Live System are modernisations of d20 that, if anything, increase the tactical possibilities to more genuine tactical possibilities and then there's the stuff I've done for The Le, Mongoose and others which is, alas, all pretty conventional d20 stuff but that's what one gets paid to do a lot of the time.
What's the old legend that _I_ used to hear?
Audience + Anonymity = "Shitcock!"
Not that that's you or anything, I'm just saying...
Taking cover is "rulesbending" now?
I admit that options to aim for a particular location are missing from the SRD, but YotZ has added a little subsystem for that. Still looks like d20 though
Quote from: GRIMEven with all these supposed options it comes down to bang, take 2d6 damage, your turn, bang, miss, your turn, bang, miss, your turn, bang hit, critical, 4d6 damage... until someone runs out of hit points.
I think we might actually be thinking of different games, particularly as you haven't mentioned Massive Damage saves...
Quote from: GRIMExactly. Playing the rules as written. Ruleslawyering, Murphy's rules, playing the system, the RPG equivalent of card counting and yet, with all those built in 'tactical' options basic things like aiming for a particular location etc aren't covered...
Man, thank god there are no hit locations. That annoys me to no end.
Anyhow, using cover and concealment isn't ruleslawyering or taking unfair advantage of the rules. Don't be ridiculous.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThis pretty much proves you don't have any idea how d20 works, especially d20 modern. I think you just blew your cover.
Well, if GRIM thinks that it's a bad option (not my opinion, btw, as I haven't read it or played it), he just would be following the Pundit's way of 'I don't need to read/play this game to know that is crap.' :D So no problem.
Quote from: ImperatorWell, if GRIM thinks that it's a bad option (not my opinion, btw, as I haven't read it or played it), he just would be following the Pundit's way of 'I don't need to read/play this game to know that is crap.' :D So no problem.
Imperator: I READ any game that I make any serious comment on. If I haven't READ a game, I will explicitly state as much if I choose to make any comment on it.
I do not play every single game I read, nor do I believe one needs to play a game to know whether its "crap" or not. But you do need to read it.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Abyssal MawMan, thank god there are no hit locations. That annoys me to no end.
Anyhow, using cover and concealment isn't ruleslawyering or taking unfair advantage of the rules. Don't be ridiculous.
Depends if you're thinking within the scene or at the meta level of mechanical exploitation, perhaps best exemplified by the exploitative 'spiked chain' character builds etc.
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI think we might actually be thinking of different games, particularly as you haven't mentioned Massive Damage saves...
A sticking plaster upon a gushing aortal wound.
Quote from: RPGPunditImperator: I READ any game that I make any serious comment on. If I haven't READ a game, I will explicitly state as much if I choose to make any comment on it.
I do not play every single game I read, nor do I believe one needs to play a game to know whether its "crap" or not. But you do need to read it.
RPGPundit
I stand corrected, then. Should I understand that you have read DitV? In such case, I am sincerely interested in knowing which problems did you find in the game. And I mean it, I'm not being sarcastic or snarky.
Yes, I did read DiTV, and I think I've already been clear about the problems I have with that game.
RPGPundit
Quote from: GRIMDepends if you're thinking within the scene or at the meta level of mechanical exploitation, perhaps best exemplified by the exploitative 'spiked chain' character builds etc.
Which can't be done in d-fucking-20 Modern
Can we establish some parameters for this discussion? Since we were talking about firearms (which aren't in the D&D SRD) I assumed that we were talking about d20 Modern
Quote from: GRIMA sticking plaster upon a gushing aortal wound.
Dunno mate
It sorts out the problem you've just raised. Longarms will trigger a massive damage save on an average-to-good roll, shortarms on a good roll. Tough characters are more likely to get very annoyed if they're shot rather than just falling over and bleeding out. It also makes Weapon Specialization very deadly as the +2 damage makes triggering a massive damage save much more likely
Personally I think a DC of 15 is too low (except for cinematic campaigns), but that's easily house-ruled. Tim's 10+damage is a bit high (by the time it's been triggered, the DC's already in the 20's), 5+damage sounds about right