Out on the old abandoned road, these two kids stopped to make out one night.  Right when it was getting interesting, they both hear these weird noises.  So the guy, he got out to investigate. He was out there for quite a long time and the girl kinda dozed off.  Then these scratching noises woke her up...

No..I'm serious..a friend of my friend told me this happened to the sister of this guy he knows...

I'm not saying it is or isn't true.  I have no idea.  But you can't start claiming all sorts of weird character flaws on someone for questioning it.  Every urban legend I've ever heard starts with "a friend of this guy I know..." or something similar.

James, I have no idea if you are making a post of understanding with me or not, but thats what I'm saying; the situation isn't unbelievable itself, but I call into doubt the veracity of the story based on several other criteria, including (and especially) the identity of the guy who was posting it. I consider said person to be dishonest and to have an ulterior motive.

Now, I admit I'm a pretty mean guy sometimes on this stuff, but my reasoning should be pretty clear. I also allow for plenty of interpretation on whether I'm just wrong or not.

(Of course, I'm not wrong. I think that explains the overreaction. )

I don't know if it's a "post of understanding" or not.  And I have no opinion of Andy K, except that I've disagreed with him on some occaisions and agreed with him on others (neither necessarily in specific posted reponses from me).

All I'm saying is you can't go off half-cocked and call people cyber stalkers if they call into question your assertion that starts with "I know a friend of a friend who..." When you start with that, you had better assume people will not believe you and accept that the only way you can get them to is to name actual names.  If you are unable or unwilling to do that, like it or not, regardless of the source of the response, you're going to have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune....it just goes with the territory.

And that responding to a post does not a cyber-stalker make. I don't know the rest of the history, and quite frankly I don't want to. But I saw a reasonable response to an assertion, so it seemed a bit of a non-sequitor to me.

That's all...

I said "understanding" because I'm not presuming "agreement".

Andy is gathering his friends, I hear, so yeah, guys, it's me. I am the cyber-stalker! Here I am!

 **I BUTTERPANTSED ANDY KITKOWSKI**

:haw:

Quote from: James J SkachAnd that responding to a post does not a cyber-stalker make. I don't know the rest of the history, and quite frankly I don't want to. But I saw a reasonable response to an assertion, so it seemed a bit of a non-sequitor to me.

Well, that's the thing. If, say, anyone else said, "I think you're full of shit", I'd be like, "OK, here's some hints, but I don't want to reveal the dude's name to the hyena pack." I even PMed the name to someone on request, because they were geniunely interested in reading the dude's works.

The "Cyberstalker" comes from the fact that Abyssal Maw's "thing" is to follow all the game advocates and designers that he doesn't like around, decietfully misrepresenting thier words (TonyLB's "Behold Swarm!", plus attempting to derail about a dozen conversations that Tony is involved in), childishly insulting them (Rob Donoghue --> Fatty), or more insidiously, spending all his time reading every single post they make, commiting them to memory, for use in future debates (usually misrepresented, very rarely not).  

In the above example, he found a footnote to a post I made in a deep thread over at Story Games, where I refer to some posts I made on RPGNet three years ago.

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2794
See the part where I say (in regard to posting anonymously in the 3-year old RPGNet thread):

QuoteEDIT EDIT: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I was Freddy Butterpants. Man, the days of RPGNet anonymity were wild ones. I don't really miss them, though, cause look at the kind of bullshit I screamed when I could be anonymous. I really don't like the things I said. :-(

He then trolled all the RPGnet posts I made under that pseudonym three years ago, deliciously savoring each one for the one day when he could use them in an argument, dropping that "Freddy Butterpants" bomb (and of course ignoring my comment above about anonymity).

That's the stalkerish behavior that I was referring to.  He literally put more work into that jab of carefully reading my posts, than I have put into, well, anything that I've ever written on the internet. :-)

Anyway, after talking with some buddies, it just sounds like this is the normal behavior for this guy: Getting stalked by Peter Seckler is kind of like a rite of passage these days: I've seen him do the same thing to Vincent Baker, Matt Snyder, Joshua Neuman, and so on. It's like posting a review of Synnibar, and inevitably attracting Raven S McCracken, wherever he is or whatever he is doing, to write you a stern rebuttal email.  Peter's like the Gaming Forum Candyman: "Look out, he's right behind you! And he's weilding that out-of-context post you made eons ago!"

At first, I felt the general illness of knowing that someone had that agenda shoved so far up their ass that they were willing to dedicate hours of investigation into reading what I wrote (cause who knows what else they would do, yadda yadda)... One of my friends got seriously stalked all over the place after participating in some internet discussions (Livejornal, forums, etc) on child raising and atheism, and her relayed experiences kinda freaked me out for a sec there. Cause I don't know this guy for shit, and it's really creepy that he follows me all over the net like an ex-girlfriend.

But after hearing other stories about his original post-911 beef with various Forge dudes and all, the origins of all that Forge/creator-owned gaming hate... well, all that impotent rage looks like it is directed solely to winning arguments on RPG sites or getting a rise from calling dudes names.

Like, the spat between Abyssal Maw and me is literally the equivalent of two geeks disagreeing on the origins of Green Lantern's superpowers. It took me a bit to realize that, I dunno, I wasn't looking forward to years or real insecurity and unease. Cool. Relief.

Mind you, all of this is totally divorced from the thread, which looks like it pretty much played itself out on the 12th. Unless there's anything further to wring from the ideas above.

-Andy

All due respect, Andy, but you appreantly missed the part in my response where I said I didn't care about the history.  I'll be more specific.  I don't give a fuck about any spat between you and AM.  I don't need to know who also claims cyber stalking. I don't need name dropping to support positions.  I don't need links to threads to arguments that took place months or years ago.

I don't know if AM cyber-stalked you or not.  It's irrelevant to the point.  You can't expect to have people take at face value an assertion that begins "A friend of a friend is a guy who..." It just doesn't work. You might very well be telling the truth.  I have no idea.  Quite frankly, I don't care about the person specifically. I'm taking you at your word.  Looks like other people here claim it's common practice, though their support seems to be as anecdotal and second had as yours. But I'm apathetic on the proof for this reason:

Who the fuck cares?  I think it was James M. already said something similar. If you like it and/or it's good, why do you care if the person plays the system?  I mean, it seems to me this would certainly make it difficult to create a good product, but it's not a mutual exclusion.

It's like saying an fan or sportswriter can't suggest a rule change to baseball cause, ya know, they don't actually play the game. If it was a good rule change, would baseball ignore it? Of course not. The odds of it coming from someone outside the game are probably very low, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.  And if someone who knows baseball, in general, the odds might just go up.

Oh heck, I just deleted my post. It speaks for itself.

Cheers Andy!

Quote from: James J SkachAll due respect, Andy, but you appreantly missed the part in my response where I said I didn't care about the history.

I gotcha. But I wanted to explain why I freaked out, and didn't reply with a simple:
"Oh, ok, here's his info, didn't realize y'all wanted it that bad".
or
"Shut up, jackass".

I totally hear you on the fact that it's lame to make a claim based on a friend of a friend. It is. Especially in fields where observational data is important to make a conclusion that changes people's lives. And yet, here we are talking about RPGs.  I didn't think it was an important enough subject to qualify, or that it was a comment that would come under such scrutiny. It wasn't the "crowning piece of an argument" it was a throwaway comment (I'm far more interested in understanding the "Finding Forrester/Comic Book Guy" phenomena).

QuoteIf you like it and/or it's good, why do you care if the person plays the system?  I mean, it seems to me this would certainly make it difficult to create a good product, but it's not a mutual exclusion.

It's totally an aesthetic reason.  I have the "feeling" that people who play the games they write are more in touch with what it needed to make that game work.  It surely isn't always the case.

But, I find the games that I buy and play the most, are the ones produced by writers, designers and freelancers that actually play the games they write (I'm not not even talking "mainstream vs creator-owned": There are plenty of mainstream games where the people writing the game play the game as well).

And that is my own personal preference, BTW, not a statement of Truth. Hell, let the stacks of Blue Planet and Tribe 8 be my witness. :-)

QuoteIt's like saying an fan or sportswriter can't suggest a rule change to baseball cause, ya know, they don't actually play the game.

This is a pretty convincing metaphor, actually. I'll have to think about that.

And far be it from me to decry that all games with non-player freelancers are junk or anything like that. In fact, the game I'm working on currently has at least two writerst working on it that have never played the game, and yet at it's core it's a fun little piece of work.

Quote from: Andy KThe "Cyberstalker" comes from the fact that Abyssal Maw's "thing" is to follow all the game advocates and designers that he doesn't like around, decietfully misrepresenting thier words (TonyLB's "Behold Swarm!", plus attempting to derail about a dozen conversations that Tony is involved in)

Huh?  Whuh?  :confused:

Does Abyssal have a pattern of posting in response to me?  Why am I always the last to notice these things?

The name is vaguely familiar, but beyond that ... I got nothing.  What's he like?  Should I be worried or flattered, or both, or neither?

Quote from: Andy KI totally hear you on the fact that it's lame to make a claim based on a friend of a friend. It is. Especially in fields where observational data is important to make a conclusion that changes people's lives. And yet, here we are talking about RPGs.  I didn't think it was an important enough subject to qualify, or that it was a comment that would come under such scrutiny. It wasn't the "crowning piece of an argument" it was a throwaway comment (I'm far more interested in understanding the "Finding Forrester/Comic Book Guy" phenomena).

Oh, I'm certainly not suggesting we are.  Otherwise, I'd be saying put up or shut up (with the names).  I'm just saying, can't be surprised by it - and that perhaps your reaction to AM had nothing to do with his questioning this particular point, but your history. We're cool (at least from my view...)

Quote from: Andy KIt's totally an aesthetic reason.  I have the "feeling" that people who play the games they write are more in touch with what it needed to make that game work.  It surely isn't always the case.

But, I find the games that I buy and play the most, are the ones produced by writers, designers and freelancers that actually play the games they write (I'm not not even talking "mainstream vs creator-owned": There are plenty of mainstream games where the people writing the game play the game as well).

And that is my own personal preference, BTW, not a statement of Truth. Hell, let the stacks of Blue Planet and Tribe 8 be my witness. :-)

Yeah - this falls under my speculation that it's unlikely a person who didn't play a particular game would write something that's seen as good to most of that game's players. I just think you can't write something off based on it - at least give it a read.  When it's horrible, then you can say "man there's ten minutes I'll never get back."  The only question is whether or not the chance you'll find a gem is worth it.  And now that I think about it, how many of us general Joe and Jill Gamers actually know whether or not an author does or doesn't play the game?

Quote from: Andy KThis is a pretty convincing metaphor, actually. I'll have to think about that.

wow - a good metaphor?  those are truly hard to come by :eek:

SJ Games used to playtest using the Pyramid boards, they've since fixed the issues I describe in this post precisely because of the problems I'm about to speak to (which is to their credit).

The files would be posted up to the board, users of the board would post comments, generally based on their knowledge of the subject matter or on points of spelling and grammar.  I participated in many of these, not once did I see anyone refer to playing the game supplement under discussion nor were their comments borne of actual play, they were almost always either points that arose on a bare reading or technical points from their knowledge of the underlying subject matter.

Authors would respond, taking some points, addressing some others, rejecting points as well of course.  Not once did I see a response indicating that the grounds for acceptance, addressing or rejecting were based on actual play.

Now, there may well have been actual play in the background, Gurps Arabian Nights went out for blind playtesting because I was in one of the playtest groups, but I think that stopped and for a while the Pyramid board was it, playtesting without play.

It showed in the books, I have several times tried to sit down to use one to run an actual game using the relevant supplement.  I always find the same thing, tons of accurate (and well written) information but surprisingly little that is of concrete application to running a game.  I think that was a direct consequence of the playtest process, that's what it selected for.  They were textbooks, not gaming books.

SJ Games no longer does this, which as I say is to their credit.

Does not playing automatically mean bad design?  Of course not, I'd trust Greg Stolze writing rules for a WoD game he'd never played over most people who had played it shitless, but is it ideal to have games designed by people who don't play them?  Ain't no way.

Many games have errors in them that actual play would have revealed, they have those errors because they were not actually played.  As a rule, before I buy a product I expect it to have been tested to ensure it works, that applies to games as much as it does to vaccuum cleaners.  With a game written by designers who don't play and which has not been blind playtested, I am buying a product that nobody has ever tested.  I think we see the effects of that all around us in the industry.

Does it mean it can't still be good?  No, but it sure decreases the odds on it being good.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm afraid this just isn't true.  Many designers are being paid by the word

Well, it's true in my experience. Everything i've written and am currently writing is both played by myself and will see a playtest...and i'm paid by the word.

Still no one has cited an example with a product name and author name and reasons why they think the product suffered as a result. It's all hearsay otherwise and contrary to my own (admittedly fairly brief) experience.

Quote from: BalbinusDoes not playing automatically mean bad design?  Of course not, I'd trust Greg Stolze writing rules for a WoD game he'd never played over most people who had played it shitless, but is it ideal to have games designed by people who don't play them?  Ain't no way.

Many games have errors in them that actual play would have revealed, they have those errors because they were not actually played.  As a rule, before I buy a product I expect it to have been tested to ensure it works, that applies to games as much as it does to vaccuum cleaners.  With a game written by designers who don't play and which has not been blind playtested, I am buying a product that nobody has ever tested.  I think we see the effects of that all around us in the industry.

Does it mean it can't still be good?  No, but it sure decreases the odds on it being good.

I took part in a few--and included comments about playing. (I also playtested some stuff for GOO on the site) but actual play data was often ignored by the designers, some of them didn't care if it worked or not. "We like it this way" is not a response to "this doesn't work  because X, Y and Z"


Of course I personally wouldn't trust Greg Stolze to design his way out of a hat in a stiff wind--but then I actually played Godlike, not just looked at the numbers, and found how sadly pathetic PC's are supposed to be in that game more comical than gritty. *shrugs*

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, save my tremendous love for Stolze's ORE, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, Silverlion.

There are options for playing more competent Special Operations PCs, while the basic rules are generally intended for raw recruits, teenage Privates fresh off the boat, unless I'm badly disoriented. This doesn't suggest to me "bad game design" as "very low starting competency". How competent were you hoping they'd be? A 6d Rifle pool is the man who lifts the gun to his shoulder, fires without aiming, and hits his target 85% of the time in a combat situation.

First level D&D PCs are pretty shitty too. WFRP 1e characters could be awful. The bulk of CoC investigators are outmatched by just about everything in the creatures section, "cultist with a knife" included. I don't consider any of these to be bad games from shitty designers - okay, WFRP 1e had its moments. But my point stands. You?

Edited to pretend I can spell.

Quote from: SilverlionI took part in a few--and included comments about playing. (I also playtested some stuff for GOO on the site) but actual play data was often ignored by the designers, some of them didn't care if it worked or not. "We like it this way" is not a response to "this doesn't work  because X, Y and Z"


Of course I personally wouldn't trust Greg Stolze to design his way out of a hat in a stiff wind--but then I actually played Godlike, not just looked at the numbers, and found how sadly pathetic PC's are supposed to be in that game more comical than gritty. *shrugs*

If Greg Stolze doesn't work for you, insert a game designer who hires out that you do like, I doubt he's the only example that we could use.

The SJ Games playtest process was deeply flawed in my experience, sounds like it was in yours too even though your experience was slightly different.  Not sure why One Horse ignored that in saying it was all hearsay, I was posting about stuff I actually participated in.