TheRPGSite

I'll start by admitting I am one, just to be safe.

I came up with this term while teasing :pundit: about F:tA!
---
We've all heard of BNG's. Bitter non-gamers. Scourge of the hobby and the websites people blather about the hobby on. We accuse people we don't like of being them sometimes. We join their fetid, wangsty ranks sometimes too when moving to a new place or are consumed by life outside of gaming.

But this is to warn y'all of a greater threat: bitter non-designers. Aka every bastard who said "game x sucks" and fails to explain why in a manner that doesn't invoke an episode of the Star Trek animated series. The shmucks who spam endlessly about D&D, WoD, Exalted, Wushu, DitV, MLwM, KPfS etc etc etc on and on, saying this is broken or that is swinish.

How many of these people actually are game designers? Moreover, how many of these people are published? Even better, how many actually are happy with their jobs as game designers? Very few I'm sure.

I can think of one guy who has made the majority of his way in life through designing RPGs, and that's Monte Cook, who's (apparently) about to quit and try something else after making a WoD book. Bravo for him; he's got a great resume from designing some good stuff in the 90's, 3rd edition for this decade which was an adrenaline shot for RPGs in this age of YuGiOh and other CCG crack...and THEN he makes some d20 pretty much on a whim with some buddies through Malhavoc and most of it's pretty damn good too! (And don't get me started on Arcana Evolved and the madness that is Ptolus.) So now he gets to try something on the other side of the gamer divide with the World  of Darkness and can escape this madhouse a happy man.

Who else can say they've done that; to contribute like that and have the option and grace to bow out without flamewars? Certainly not the whiny sorts that populate some of places like RPGnet. The impression I get from reading design diaries and similar pieces is that designing RPGs, like any creative occupation, has high risks and very few material rewards for even fewer people than Hollywood. We're a niche, and the writers can't satisfy everyone...and certainly can't satisfy the legions of anal-retentive nitpickers that zerg-rush whatever doesn't fit their fantasy of what gaming or storytelling "should" be about.

So try not to complain too much about shoddy products. You have options. You can:

1. House-rule and/or homebrew, though you probably do it already.
2. Submit something through one of an increasing number of easy lisences - and not just d20.
3. :fuckoff: and :chillpill:. Maybe you need a break from the hobby or something.

After reading this rant over, I think I do. Thank goodness summer's coming up!

Non-designers...isn't it easier to say, gamers or fans or you know, everyone else ? As for the bitter part...

Regards,
David R

Yawn.  I've heard this one a million times before.  It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.  

I've even heard it regarding every concieveable type of entertainment.  I've heard it about RPGs, video games, books, movies, TV series, cross-stitching, and on and on and on.

"You can't criticize because you didn't/don't write/perform/sing/etc. yourself!"  This version's just as laced with amatuer psychology and idiotic implications of jealousy as the rest of them.

Fuck you.  I like what I like, and don't like what I don't like.  That's all the "credentials" I need, thank you very much, now take your silly fallacies elsewhere.

Yeah, moreover I could do without another disparaging label.  Those never add any substance to conversation.

As with designing, critiquing can have differing levels of quality.

As with the games, the critique´s quality can be found out by everybody himself.

What´s your point?
That there´s not a general culture of quality in critiqe?

Or that all critique has to stop because there is so much lowly-motivated and shoddily done critique?

:raise:
So now we not only need to be involved actively in a regularly scheduled campaign, as JimBob likes to remind us, but also to have published a roleplaying game as part of our much-loved career as a game designer in order to participate in online discussion of games without being negatively labeled in one way or another?
:forge:

As a label, "game designer" means about as much to me as "writer of fiction". Voyager slash is technically "fiction". The guys behind FATAL are game designers. I'm pretty comfortable with 'gamer', meaning 'one who plays and discusses roleplaying games'.

Here's an analogy:

I'm not very good at cooking. I don't cook for myself very often. I could probably learn how to, but my lifestyle is a little too busy at the moment, although I am picking things up bit by bit (and I'm already far, far better than the useless fool I was when I went to university). Suffice to say, I'm not a master chef and would never claim to be.

That said, when someone serves me a turd with a parsley garnish on it in a restaurant, I know that I've been served a plate of shit. I don't have to know how to cook to know that. I don't even have to know what the chef ate in order to produce the turd in question. I can tell.

"If you don't Create you can't Criticise!" is the mantra of idiots who can't handle criticism everywhere.

Quote from: WarthurHere's an analogy:

I'm not very good at cooking. I don't cook for myself very often. I could probably learn how to, but my lifestyle is a little too busy at the moment, although I am picking things up bit by bit (and I'm already far, far better than the useless fool I was when I went to university). Suffice to say, I'm not a master chef and would never claim to be.

That said, when someone serves me a turd with a parsley garnish on it in a restaurant, I know that I've been served a plate of shit. I don't have to know how to cook to know that. I don't even have to know what the chef ate in order to produce the turd in question. I can tell.

"If you don't Create you can't Criticise!" is the mantra of idiots who can't handle criticism everywhere.

Well put in every way sir.

Quote from: Warthur"If you don't Create you can't Criticise!" is the mantra of idiots who can't handle criticism everywhere.

Very True.

...and yet, I still would like to see an explanation of the phenomena we see in geek cultures all the time, where people who are often a cross between this:

(http://www.mediacircus.net/findingforrester_4.jpg)

(the snooty Finding Forrester professor who goes on and on criticising literature, without having ever written anything of value)

and this:

(http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/images/comicguypoint.gif)

(no explanation needed)

...go on and on at length about the failings of games they are pre-disposed not to like.

Or is it as simple as, "They're a bunch of wining, bitter nerds?"

The only things worse than people who waste their lives playing games are the people who waste their lives designing games.

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenThe only things worse than people who waste their lives playing games are the people who waste their lives designing games.

(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8784/ohsnaptd9.gif)

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenThe only things worse than people who waste their lives playing games are the people who waste their lives designing games.

Sounds a little bitter to me.

Quote from: James McMurraySounds a little bitter to me.

Well, it is Jared. You expected maybe rainbows and ponies? :P

-clash

Oh SNAP I absolutely have to make rainbows and ponies more awesomer!

Quote from: David JohansenOh SNAP I absolutely have to make rainbows and ponies more awesomer!

Make them totally more awesomest - then watch the world beat a path to your door! Rainbows with sizzling acid attacks! Spiked ponies with cracked, bony carapaces! The world is waiting, David!

:D

-clash

James McMurray must be irony-proof.

Oh well.

The reason is that the roleplaying hobby isn't about designing games. That's an entirely different, completely seperate pursuit that -- as of now--typically culminates in a final metamorphosis into either a cultist or a salesman.  

Now, someone could make the case that you can't be a good designer without being an involved gamer, but the reverse is simply not true. You do not need in any way to be a game designer in order to take part in this hobby. Game design is largely irrelevant except for on a micro-local level. Like "in this adventure there will be a chariot race.. so I designed a little system here for chariot races". Every decent GM has to do something like that at some point.

Beyond that .. there are plenty of game designers out there who are decent people who also manage to come across as guys who actually design stuff out of a sense of fun and love of the hobby and it's community. Nobody ever has a problem with them. You ever see a guy flame Matt Forbeck? I haven't.

Then there's a couple of guys out there who think that their divine purpose is to enlighten the unwashed slavering peasants and "save" them. They see themselves as artistes who deserve adulation and tribute; they have the answers to your psychological and moral and political questions (even if you don't actually have any questions), and theyre going to save you all through roleplaying. Somehow. For them, gaming is an act of conspicuous consumerism.

The guys in that second group will tell you it's about "fun", but then they'll always, always, always want to redefine the term.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThen there's a couple of guys out there who think that their divine purpose is to enlighten the unwashed slavering peasants and "save" them. They see themselves as artistes who deserve adulation and tribute; they have the answers to your psychological and moral and political questions (even if you don't actually have any questions), and theyre going to save you all through roleplaying. Somehow. For them, gaming is an act of conspicuous consumerism.

Huh! My Father isn't going to like how you let the cat out of the bag on my Divine Purpose. I await thunderbolts....

still waiting...

Hold on! There are green M&Ms here! I told them NO GREEN M&Ms! They will ALL fry!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWell, it is Jared. You expected maybe rainbows and ponies? :P

-clash

Rainbows and Ponies may just be my new Avatar...hmmmm....

Quote from: flyingmiceHuh! My Father isn't going to like how you let the cat out of the bag on my Divine Purpose. I await thunderbolts....

still waiting...

Hold on! There are green M&Ms here! I told them NO GREEN M&Ms! They will ALL fry!

-clash

Move over bucko! Fun = Me! ...ok, Me and a Bag of chips...um, and nice cup of coffee...and a pastry...O.k. Fun = me, a bag of chips, a nice cup of coffee and a pastry...and squirrels...games about squirrels...and playing some games with Clash at Gen Con...Yes, so, to review, Fun = me, a bag of chips, a nice cup of coffee and a pastry, squirrels, games about squirrels and playing some games with Clash at Gen Con...

That should cover it then. Off with the lot of you. Nope, sorry, it is medical experimentation for the lot of you...

;) <-note smiley if you did not get the reference to redefining fun and us ego-maniacs.

Bill

IMO fans/gamers/non-designers sometimes know more about the game than the designer who created it. I mean designing a game is one thing, actually playing the game esp over a long period another. And this being the internet the way how some folks express their opinions...

Add to this the fact that this is such a small community and there is a lot of contact between producer and consumer, it's no surprise that discussions can get ugly, fast.

Play defines reality, and when a designer assumes his/her game satisfies everything said designer set out to do and the play/reality shows otherwise, I'm not really surprised that there is so much antagonism between some fans and designers.

The fact is you don't need to be designer to evaluate a game, esp when the designer sets out the aims/goals of the game in such an overt manner.

But then again there are always wankers who will just throw shit at you (designer) no matter what. Those guys are easy to spot and engagement adds nothing but more hostility.

Okay rant over.

Regards,
David R

I definitely agree.

Quote from: David RIMO fans/gamers/non-designers sometimes know more about the game than the designer who created it. I mean designing a game is one thing, actually playing the game esp over a long period another.

Interesting note on that. There's this guy in EDIT:"The Next Town Over" who freelances for WotC, writing official games and supplements for D&D.  IIRC, he wrote parts of Eberron, various game background stuff, etc. If I'm getting my info correctly, he's probably written a good few hundred pages throughout various D&D 3e/3.5 supplements, even today.

Quoth a friend:
"One of these days, I should really sit down any play this game."

The dude's never played a session of post-AD&D 2E D&D, and yet he's writing official material for it for years. :11zblink:

Just backs up your "the fans/gamers can know more about the game than the desginer" bit.

Is it food good material? If so, why does it matter if he's played or not?

edit: yeah, I meant "good material." :)

Mwa? Food material? Iron Chef the RPG?

-clash

Quote from: James McMurrayIs it food material? If so, why does it matter if he's played or not?

Umm, perspective?  Is it really that hard to grasp?

Would you want to eat food made by a chef with no sense of taste or smell?  

How the fuck are you supposed to know what actually works in play, if you don't actually, you know, play?

Honestly, the biggest thing that has been holding back my own design projects is that I don't feel I've been playing enough.  My head's not in the space to fully appreciate how things really go once they hit the table.  And I have a distinct shortage of GM experience, which is especially vital when you step into the design sphere.

I think the biggest problems in game design all stem from people not actually stopping for two bloody seconds to think about whether this or that thing will actually work in play.

I think it's a typo for "good material".

Quote from: J ArcaneYawn.  I've heard this one a million times before.  It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.  

I've even heard it regarding every concieveable type of entertainment.  I've heard it about RPGs, video games, books, movies, TV series, cross-stitching, and on and on and on.

"You can't criticize because you didn't/don't write/perform/sing/etc. yourself!"  This version's just as laced with amatuer psychology and idiotic implications of jealousy as the rest of them.

Fuck you.  I like what I like, and don't like what I don't like.  That's all the "credentials" I need, thank you very much, now take your silly fallacies elsewhere.

Ah, yes, but have you actually seen the term "BND" before?

What my initial post was getting into (besides my typical cynicism) was the number of people I've witnessed who honestly believe they'll break into creative industry X through the brilliant module/novel/interpretive dance they've made based on the campaign they're running. Sure it's possible, but don't count on it, and certainly don't try to bring those lucky (unlucky?) few who can be creative for a living down to your level by saying "I could've done better than that!"

Maybe you can, but what are the odds that you are? And What are the chances you have the contacts/opportunities to pull it off? Maybe I'm just more cynical about this because I'm a college student studying a field that has a much higher demand of $$$ than of people.

At some level, just about everyone is jealous of those who have "made it." I'm kinda just pointing out that there is a price to "making it." Angry fanboys is one, and Andy K's post is another. That one made me cry inside.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI think it's a typo for "good material".

D'oh! Thanks, your Snowy Simianship! That totally threw me! :P

-clash

:bow:

Quote from: J ArcaneUmm, perspective?  Is it really that hard to grasp?

If someone can create good material without ever playing it I don't give a rat's ass what their perspective is. Is it really hard to grasp that good stuff is good stuff?

I agree that it's probably a hell of a lot harder to create good material without being a player of the game, which is why I asked about this guy's stuff in particular. If someone has a list of his credits I'd love to see them.

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenThe only things worse than people who waste their lives playing games are the people who waste their lives designing games.

You have mesmerised me with your trendy ironic posturing.

Take me.

Take me now.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou have mesmerised me with your trendy ironic posturing.

Take me.

Take me now.

He likes his gamer designers like he likes his coffee - small, dark, and bitter....

You're too tall, Levi! Not to mention not bitter enough! :D

-clash

Quote from: J ArcaneUmm, perspective?  Is it really that hard to grasp?

Would you want to eat food made by a chef with no sense of taste or smell?  

How the fuck are you supposed to know what actually works in play, if you don't actually, you know, play?

Designers don't work in a vacuum. You play the stuff you've designed, then you give it to playtesters to play it for you. They give you a bit of a wider perspective on what you've written, problems that you haven't foreseen, because maybe your style isn't their style. Stuff like that.

Can anyone give examples of products produced by designers that they think haven't played the game? I suspect in most cases that this is a difference in style between the writer and the person playing more than anything else. After all, the writer only has his own experiences and those of a relatively small group of people to call upon in designing something whilst the product (hopefully) ends up being played by people with as many styles and wishes for the product as there are people playing the game (give or take).

Quote from: One Horse TownCan anyone give examples of products produced by designers that they think have been designed by writers who haven't played the game?

According to Andy K's post above there's a guy at another forum that does this for WotC.

Quote from: James McMurrayAccording to Andy K's post above there's a guy at another forum that does this for WotC.

Yeah, missed that. Still, if that's the case, i expect that it's more of a drain on the editing & playtesting crews involved in those products than a blight on the finished product. Unless of course someone can say that 'product x' sucked because of this, this and this and if he had played the system he was writing for, he would have understood this.

Quote from: James McMurrayAccording to Andy K's post above there's a guy at another forum that does this for WotC.

Not at another forum, in the next town over from me.  Friend of someone in my gaming group. I dunno if he's online in some forum or not. I suspect that he isn't.  It just sounds like he is contacted from time to time:

"Want to write more? We need a couple dozen pages on sorcerers in a jungle."
"Sure"
"Here you go, thanks!"

-Andy

Sorry, I saw you'd edited it and my mind jumped to the idea that you'd replaced RPG.net with "the next town over" to avoid this thread becoming about RPG.net.

Can you give a rundown of a few of the things he's responsible for creating?

Quote from: One Horse TownCan anyone give examples of products produced by designers that they think haven't played the game? I suspect in most cases that this is a difference in style between the writer and the person playing more than anything else. After all, the writer only has his own experiences and those of a relatively small group of people to call upon in designing something whilst the product (hopefully) ends up being played by people with as many styles and wishes for the product as there are people playing the game (give or take).

Many of the published CoC scenarios were written by a chap who had posted publicly that he stopped playing years before, Keith something I think, can't remember exactly.  That said, it shows in the scenarios.

It's actually very common, but we rarely find out who.  I've seen a number of designers say that they know people who write for lines they don't play and that it is quite common but for obvious reasons the precise identities don't tend to get disclosed.  After all, doing so would impact sales most likely.

My understanding is that a great many rpg products are designed by people who never played them, and in several cases by people who don't play rpgs at all.

Quote from: One Horse TownDesigners don't work in a vacuum. You play the stuff you've designed, then you give it to playtesters to play it for you.

I'm afraid this just isn't true.  Many designers are being paid by the word and need the work to pay the bills, White Wolf is particularly prone to this, many of those guys quite simply do not play the stuff they've designed and sometimes have no actual interest in the game in question.  It's a job.

Many, many companies do little to no playtesting.  Even those who do frequently pay little regard to it.  Mongoose is prolific, but their playtesting process is deeply flawed.  SJGames used to have a playtesting process in which playing was not actually required, but fixed this a couple of years back now.  Still, for ages an SJGames playtest did not involve anyone actually playing the game and again it definitely showed.

Quote from: Christmas ApeSo now we not only need to be involved actively in a regularly scheduled campaign, as JimBob likes to remind us, but also to have published a roleplaying game [...]

A "gamer" does not stop being a gamer simply because they're not gaming, any more than you sto beign straight or gay just because you're not getting laid.

A "gamer" is a person who games, or wants to game.

A "non-gamer" is a person who does not game, and does not want to game.

So a "Bitter Non-Gamer" is not simply a person without a regular game group, a BNG is a person who does not game, does not want to game, but rather than just finding another hobby, hangs around it and expresses bitterness about games and gamers.

If you do not game and do not want to game, then no, you are not qualified to tell us about what is good or bad gaming, any more than a vegetarian volunteer for PETA can give me a good recipe for steak and kidney pud.

If you game, or don't game but would like to, then your opinions about gaming are as important and useful as any gamer's.

Writing an rpg, well, it's not a big deal, except in that writing anything to complete, publishable form ain't easy.

See the thing is, I find this whole "I know about this 'dude' in the next town over who writes for Wizards" story totally unbelievable.

I don't find the idea itself unbelievable, but given the fact that it's Freddy Butterpants himself telling the story, and given the fact that this mysterious non-gamin' writer dude isn't named, nor any of the things he has worked on,

...and especially given the essentially dishonest promotion-at-any-cost, trade-war nature of the forgie cult...

I don't know. It just sounds like classic FUD* bullshit.



* - fear , uncertainty, and doubt.

I take it with a grain of salt, but find it believable.

There's plenty of d20 material, official no less, that doesn't look like it ever received playtesting. Truenaming, for instance.

Oh definitely heaps of stuff never gets playtested. I mean, I have here a copy of Active Exploits, and there's no Stealth skill. Now, the thing is aimed at "action" games - and that means, sneaking around will happen. It'd've come up in the first damn session. It's the kind of thing you'll easily forget while typing away, but just one session, and you'd remember it. Obviously, no playtesting - or the guy "tested" the rules, but didn't actually use them. When the person who designed the rules "tests" them, it's no test, because that person doesn't even have to look at the text to know the rules, so anything missing or messed-up, they won't notice.

The only real playtest is the blind playtest - giving out the text, and letting the group game just off that, with no advice or help from the game's designer. And bugger all rpgs get that kind of testing.

So yeah, heaps of rpgs aren't playtested, really. They can still have a lot of good things in them, though - I mean, the game designer will have payed quite a few games, and base their game on ideas from their experience. So they'll base their design on general experience, if not experience with that particular system.

Holy shit. I shut down the vBulletin "Erase trace of all of Abyssal Maw's posts" Greasemonkey script for one day after weeks of use, and look what I have waiting for me in this thread on the same day.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI don't find the idea itself unbelievable, but given the fact that it's Freddy Butterpants himself

Holy fuck, dude, I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop stalking me. Seriously.  The fact that I can now feel your hot breath on my neck when I post in random S-G threads, or that you actively read shit I posted under a pseudonym at RPGNet three years ago is really creeping me the fuck out.   Like, before it was cute with the whole "amass seekrit data for the WAR!" thing, but now it's really just plain sad and creepy. Please get a new hobby or something, or focus on gaming or whatever, and a little less on cyber-stalking me and my friends.

Seriously. Think about the time and effort you put into digging through three plus years of my posts on the Internet.

Quoteand given the fact that this mysterious non-gamin' writer dude isn't named, nor any of the things he has worked on...

Huh, yeah, I wonder why I'd want to keep the identity of my friend's friend hidden from the bitter stalkers that patrol these boards? It's proof enough that you're following me and my friends around all over the place (like when you called out Rob Donaghue on being a fatty. That was really fucking classy), I'd hate to think of what you'd do to THIS nice guy. I mean, what, he just writes because he finds it fun and he was asked to by WOTC. Is there anything wrong with that?

Here's some hints, though, and I'm not saying any more than this. No confirmation of name, nothing:
[EDIT, 2 Hours Later: Fuck this. Retracting info. I'm not turning him into prey for bitter cyber-stalkers like AM.]

Quote...and especially given the essentially dishonest promotion-at-any-cost, trade-war nature of the forgie cult...

Yeah, keep that torch a-burnin. You, Nox and Pundit, backs to the wall against the world.

Time to click on my vBulletin Greasemonkey script again, and have all traces of my little cyberstalker again vanish into the mists.

POOF.

Ahh, shit-free forum browsing again. Thank you, Mozilla. Thank you, Greasemonkey.

-Andy

Loren Wiseman has stated repeatedly that writing for Traveller is his job and wargaming is his passion. But then, as an old GDW hand he knows his stuff, and so long as he focuses on canonicity and starship design all's well.

Quote from: Andy K-Andy

Man, that got a rise!

I'm really just saying I don't actually believe your story. Although this probably can't be seen by your magical script (haha), it's a pretty straightforward deal.

What I "actively read you post as a pseudonym" was when you changed your name to attack someone (Seanchai, I thought) who expressed some unhappiness about some forgie game or something. That, to me, indicates an essential character trait of dishonesty in the service of a promotional agenda.

So when I see the same guy put forth this kind of unbelievable story, I tied the two together. Is that.. confusing? To anyone? In the kindest terms--  I'm saying that you are, in fact, an unreliable witness, and presenting my reasoning.

I'm kind of amazed how you call me a "cyber stalker" for posting that, by the way. Very dramatic. Your'e responsible for linking me dozens of times. Pundit possibly 10x the amount. Are you my cyber stalker too? Are you Pundits cyber stalker? Is anyone being threatened here? I'm just calling you a liar. That's not the end of the world, and besides the fact, it's true.  

Maybe people are actually accountable for things they say and do in public.

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 (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.

Wow, Andy K just pulled a "Crane", and not the "Denny" kind of Crane.
How pathetic.


A hint: If you say something on the internet, it could be read by people. If you make a big buffooney accusation, that nicely fits with your personal and social agenda of guerilla marketing, it´s a sign of good journalism if somebody presents some facts of your former behaviour.

So, maybe what you say is true. But all evidence point in a different direction. Especially since I´m pretty closely following the Open Design projects of Wolfgang Baur, wherein he talks a lot about how things go in the WotC, Paizo and d20 designwork, I cannpt imagine it being true. And it doesn´t in any way indicate the stuff you´ve been claiming without evidence or factoids.

All in all, you just sound hysterical, biased and pathetic.
You might review that behaviour if you want to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I dunno.

Whether knowing a public anecdote about someone "equals cyber-stalking" I'll leave up to the jury of my peers. I personally think Andy fears confrontation, and hopes to throw it off by throwing a fit and tying it back to the issue-o-the-day.

But I will say two things.

He PM'd me with a guys name! And it is indeed a guy who wrote some of one of the fluffy sourcebooks of Eberron. I PM'd him back but I don't think he will answer me back.

Ok:

1) This was a fluffy sourcebook with very few rules items. So let's say it's totally true, right? I'll pretend it is for a second. Let's say there is a hypothetical guy, who writes part of a fluffy Eberron sourcebook, but has never played D&D.

Well, you can't actually playtest fluff. You playtest rules. So this doesn't even apply.

So it seems like an exaggeration at best, if not downright dishonest and misleading accusation. And just as I predicted, Andy did turn around and immediately make a case for the stuff he advocates. The entire point of the exercise? Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

2) I'm still not sure I believe that this is a guy "who has never played the current version of D&D". I read his bio. Maybe it's a guy who hasn't played it often, or doesn't play in a regular group. Maybe it's a guy who hasn't played in a year or two. You know.. maybe. But I'm still stuck back at this "I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend..." and just not believing it.

Quote from: SettembriniAll in all, you just sound hysterical, biased and pathetic.
You might review that behaviour if you want to be taken seriously.

This is funny. Well funny coming from you. Thanks for the laugh.

Regards,
David R

I do not want to be taken seriously. I´m not selling anything. I´m not here for business.

I´m just me: The Titan of Truth and Lighthouse of Good Taste

EDIT:

If it needs someone to be hysterical, pathetic and biased to show the bias, guerilla agenda & hysteria of Forger Game Designers, then I will gladly be the most hysterical, pathetic and biased person that can be. Because I´m here for Truth, not for myself or my wanker game. I´m here for the love of the hobby, and not for some  overpriced  conspicous consumption  itsy-bitsy-one-idea-joke-of-product.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI 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.

Except of course in /actual/ play--6d turns out to barely be competent. The numbers don't work on a small scale. Sure you might get 85% success out of 200 rolls, but out of 5 it tends not to work so well. Because those statistics used to determine success are based on mathematic systems that really cover a LARGE number of rolls. In play only people with hard/wiggle dice (at least two hard dice, or one wiggle) were regularly successful at tasks--the normal dice didn't matter much at all. Because an individual die has no impact on further dice rolls, no influence at all. In say Storyteller--you aim for a number or higher, which means you can get any of three or so results per die that count as a "hit", bigger pools mean more chance that a number of dice hit that fixed number. But since there ARE no fixed targets in ORE you have no guarantee of a single match even at 10D.

You can love the game all you want--but in more than one session of play using it we saw the same comedic failures for anyone who didn't have special dice.

Quote from: SilverlionExcept of course in /actual/ play--6d turns out to barely be competent. The numbers don't work on a small scale. Sure you might get 85% success out of 200 rolls, but out of 5 it tends not to work so well. Because those statistics used to determine success are based on mathematic systems that really cover a LARGE number of rolls. In play only people with hard/wiggle dice (at least two hard dice, or one wiggle) were regularly successful at tasks--the normal dice didn't matter much at all. Because an individual die has no impact on further dice rolls, no influence at all. In say Storyteller--you aim for a number or higher, which means you can get any of three or so results per die that count as a "hit", bigger pools mean more chance that a number of dice hit that fixed number. But since there ARE no fixed targets in ORE you have no guarantee of a single match even at 10D.

You can love the game all you want--but in more than one session of play using it we saw the same comedic failures for anyone who didn't have special dice.

(See, now this is an example of rules that require playtesting having an actual effect on how the game experience works out-- there's clearly a divide between stuff like this-- rules-- requiring playtesting. And content such as "The Yuan Ti in this region are all working for the Inspired of Sarlona" requiring playtesting. My point is-- it should be obvious that "playtesting" content would have negligible effect).

Quote from: BalbinusIf 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.

Nothing sinister in it. I was responding to an earlier post of yours and didn't have time last night to respond to your later post. :)

Your blanket statement that playtesting doesn't happen (or is not effective) still isn't true, however. My experience tells me otherwise, just as your experience hasn't been good. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere between the two.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw(See, now this is an example of rules that require playtesting having an actual effect on how the game experience works out-- there's clearly a divide between stuff like this-- rules-- requiring playtesting. And content such as "The Yuan Ti in this region are all working for the Inspired of Sarlona" requiring playtesting. My point is-- it should be obvious that "playtesting" content would have negligible effect).

What's really funny is a friend with his freshly minted copy of Wild Talents in hand said "No, it works.." and then using a computer roller* I rolled a few multi-dice pools--of a half dozen 6d+ dice pools there were only a couple of matches in any of the sets. (He rolled a couple times as well, we ended up using Truth & Justice for a system for his pitch though--I don't know if that's telling or not)


*To be fair computer rollers only simulate randomness with a seed, not truly random, but it would appear to be so to most people.

Playtesting is definitely something that seperates the layers of quality in our hobby.

It´s not all about professionality, but it´s about what can you trust in a given product.

Example: The fact-checking at GDW was quite good, but their playtesting...left a lot to be desired.

And there´s a lot of niche products and adventures that saw a lot of playtest, but wouldn´t earn anybody anything.

It´s the mid-tier publishers  who continue to chafe under playtesting demands. Too small to do in-house, schedules too professional to wait for external playtests in a meaningful way.

Quote from: One Horse TownNothing sinister in it. I was responding to an earlier post of yours and didn't have time last night to respond to your later post. :)

Your blanket statement that playtesting doesn't happen (or is not effective) still isn't true, however. My experience tells me otherwise, just as your experience hasn't been good. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere between the two.

Playtesting certainly happens, I'm not saying it doesn't at all, just that there are more examples of it not happening than many people think.

The trouble is, there is a vested economic interest in not disclosing it when it does, so we're all stumbling in the dark a bit.  Fair or not, revealing that the designer never playtested some new rules would deter sales, so nobody will ever do that.

Keith Herber was the name I was trying to recall earlier, I read an interview with him in which he said he had stopped roleplaying entirely some years earlier.  He was still writing scenarios for CoC though, scenarios which often were heavily railroaded and very difficult to actually run.  I think that was because the writer wasn't in fact running them at all, or anything else.

But yeah, it's a mixed bag, some games get playtested, some don't, some that do are good and some are bad and some that don't are good and some are bad.  I think not playtesting leaves you vulnerable to certain kinds of errors that playtesting would have caught, but playtesting alone doesn't guarantee a good product.

Edit:  I slightly misremembered, he stopped gaming in 1993 after leaving Chaosium, so his CoC stuff (some of which was excellent) may well have been played.  He did however work as a game designer for White Wolf and others after that date even though he had stopped all roleplaying and no longer played at all.

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT:

If it needs someone to be hysterical, pathetic and biased to show the bias, guerilla agenda & hysteria of Forger Game Designers, then I will gladly be the most hysterical, pathetic and biased person that can be. Because I´m here for Truth, not for myself or my wanker game. I´m here for the love of the hobby, and not for some  overpriced  conspicous consumption  itsy-bitsy-one-idea-joke-of-product.

You are here to create divisions among gamers. You're not here for the love of the hobby. You here for the love of your game, a playstyle by your own words you think is morally superior. Let's not drag "Truth" into the fray.

Regards,
David R

It's possible we're coming at this from different approaches to using the system - I like as few rolls as possible, no idea how you feel - or just different experience. I have trouble not rolling a match just messing around with 5 or 6 d10s, maybe I just have better luck?

But either way, let me say this.
Come Monday, my group's getting together to discuss the specifics of a military sci-fi game I'll be running with a slight hack of Wild Talents, as well as doing a sample squad-level combat with the system to get our ORE feet under us. I'll probably put together something to discuss my experience on this site, paying attention to success and failure rates in particular given your statement. Since I think I'm the only ORE junkie around these parts, I can have all the vanity threads I want on it. :D

QuoteLet's not drag "Truth" into the fray.

The Truth is:

Others have divided gamers into "childish and under the influence of big business brainwash, but sane", "real adult-artists" & "emotional, braindamaged cripples", and sell product with that idea.

True is also, that WotC does the most, best and deepest playtesting of all RPG companies that exist.

Truth:

Forgers try to push the idea of the nuked applecart, that only individuals can deliver quality. IPR, IPR, IPR. That´s what this is about.

Also truth:

Andy K belongs to that group, and spreads his propaganda here. Now, bullying for public space is okay on the marketplace of ideas. But lying and distorting truth isn´t.

That´s why this is about truth, my dear fellow gamer.

And as before, you can think about me what you want, as long as you think equally bad about the other side.

If all your defense is: "But Set, all the ugly things you attribute them with, you do them, too!"
Then, albeit it does not justice to me, the important part of the message has come through: The uglyness that is the IPR-movements modus operandi.

Quote from: Christmas ApeBut either way, let me say this.
Come Monday, my group's getting together to discuss the specifics of a military sci-fi game I'll be running with a slight hack of Wild Talents, as well as doing a sample squad-level combat with the system to get our ORE feet under us. I'll probably put together something to discuss my experience on this site, paying attention to success and failure rates in particular given your statement. Since I think I'm the only ORE junkie around these parts, I can have all the vanity threads I want on it. :D

Cool, it be nice to see. Are you going to record the die results and give us a complete accounting? Or just summarize the experience?


As to luck--well I've been told I'm not allowed to roll d20's against my players in d20/Talislanta/Waste World--because of the repeated strings of 20's I get as a GM against the players (maybe it was balancing that out..). Though in Godlike it wasn't just me but an entire group who had the issue in play.

Or in a nutshell, because I've labored with some of this thoughts before, Sett fights dirty because they (IPR/Forge/Swine/Story Games/whatever) started a dirty fight.

I'm too far from The War to say one way or the other if it's right, but I respect his conviction.

Edited to better represent Sett's position.

Let me make it easy on myself, oh Argent Feline.

I'll give the pools and the die rolls for the players as best I remember them. Some matches may be off slightly.

I, however, will be using a few pages of truly random numbers from Random.org, arranged in rows of 10 numerals; when I need an NPC roll I'll just use that many from the next row down and record those. So in my case, I can present you with exact numbers, but tracking the rolls of all 5 players die by die is Not Happening.

Groovy?

Quote from: Christmas ApeLet me make it easy on myself, oh Argent Feline.

I'll give the pools and the die rolls for the players as best I remember them. Some matches may be off slightly.

I, however, will be using a few pages of truly random numbers from Random.org, arranged in rows of 10 numerals; when I need an NPC roll I'll just use that many from the next row down and record those. So in my case, I can present you with exact numbers, but tracking the rolls of all 5 players die by die is Not Happening.

Groovy?

Fair enough, I was just wondering about the method for testing purposes. Have fun :)

I´d take Thematic Games out of that. I have nothing against them, Thematic play can surely be fun, healthy and mind provoking. Not neccessarily for me, but that´s because I´m an armchair general, who gives fuck about exploration of individual motivations.

Thematic Gaming is definitely a decent hobby, and it is not damaging the rest of the hobby per se, or by design.

Just look at Puppetland: Did it start bile, hate and mockery? No, of course not.

Most games, I have no issues with.

But with some designers, and nearly all forger-fanboi-posters on forae or the diaspora blogs. Luckily,  most of them have fell silent.

But now and then, the  IPR-guerilla marketing venom  is injected, and I, the ugly anti-body, have to make you cough or puke.

Never forget: Bacteria don´t make you cough. It´s your immune system that does.

We have been vaccinated, because we see the viral idea, and reject it early and hard, so it can´t multiply.

Again:

WotC does the best playtesting that exists in the RPG market. Everything else is slander for sinister purposes.

If you can admit they dropped the ball utterly on Truenaming, sure.

Alternately, if you don't have it and haven't seen it, that's cool too.

Quote from: SettembriniNow, bullying for public space is okay on the marketplace of ideas. But lying and distorting truth isn´t.

What universe do you live in?

QuoteIf you can admit they dropped the ball utterly on Truenaming, sure.

I don´t have the book, but our Truenamer had to give up after some levels because he was totally wimpy. So my experience indicates a serious underpowering of Truenamers.

Quote from: SettembriniNow, bullying for public space is okay on the marketplace of ideas. But lying and distorting truth isn´t.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat universe do you live in?

Well, I happen to agree with Settembrini on this, too.

"Bullying" is completely subjective, and basicly amounts to someone weak crying foul when the other person has an overwhelming argument. We obviously aren't talking about physical bullying here. Nobody's getting stuffed into a locker or threatened. We're also saying it is a completely different subject than using dishonesty and distortion.

So yes. "Bullying" if we can call it that, and like I said-  based entirely on a subjective interpretation of the "victim" being verbally and intellectually outmatched--  is completely fair game in the marketplace of ideas.  The whole fucking point of a marketplace of ideas is that some ideas suck and need to be discredited. I can accept that my ideas might be wrong, but you'll have to prove it to me. I accept all challengers.  

Lying isn't part of the equation. Dishonesty- spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt..then turning around and trying to stealth market your stuff by exaggerating it's health and beneficial qualities.. is not engaging with the marketplace of ideas at all. It is simply using the veneer of discourse to manipulate the market.

Finally, there is a monetary aspect to why the use of dishonesty in the service of marketing is wrong. These aren't just ideas we are talking about, but ideas that are being promoted to sell actual things. Money is being taken, so there is a whole set of ethics here.

Now a product is a product. It should be sellable or not-sellable on it's own merits, right? And caveat emptor and all that. People have a right to sell their stuff. I agree. I have no problem with that.

But when outright dishonesty is used to sell things (and to downgrade and negate the "competition") people find themselves in the position of enriching themselves through dishonesty. An example is saying a given game has psychologically beneficial properties ("this game will help people overcome codependent relationships!") while at the same time spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the competition ("but if you play the wrong game, you might become brain damaged..")

The fact that we're just talking games makes this pretty screwed up, doesn't it?

And if you haven't seen those exact examples, I can show them to you.

Anyhow.

That's .. well. That's fucked up. That's something that should be challenged.

Are you saying we shouldn't have the right to challenge it?

Well Levi, I live in: Reality.

And reality is a place where people "cuten up their Avatar" to evoke sympathy for their agenda.

And a place where lies are dangerous.

Quote from: Christmas ApeIf you can admit they dropped the ball utterly on Truenaming, sure.

Alternately, if you don't have it and haven't seen it, that's cool too.

Geez, if that's all you want. :)

Truenamers seem screwed up to me as well, other than (possibly?) as an experiment.

But Binders rule.

Quote from: SettembriniI don´t have the book, but our Truenamer had to give up after some levels because he was totally wimpy. So my experience indicates a serious underpowering of Truenamers.

Absolutely their problem, so far as I've seen. Who the hell creates a D&D class around abilities that don't scale with level???

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut Binders rule.

No argument here.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd reality is a place where people "cuten up their Avatar" to evoke sympathy for their agenda.

You're bashing on the turtle now?  I like the turtle.  I don't think I'm alone.

Anyway, I think this whole "I fight dirty because they fight dirty" thing is childish, in the literal sense.  It is an attitude that you should have grown out of long, long ago.

Simple, simple lesson:  "Young man, the fact that your brother hit you does not mean that it is alright for you to hit him back.  Both of you are wrong for hitting each other."

Now, why don't we (as a society) want to go with the far simpler, more readily understood moral code of "Eye for an eye"?  Well, apart from the whole mass-blindness thing, let's think for a moment about how it encourages you to perceive another person.

Let's say that a young child wants to hit his brother, because he's angry and frustrated, and his brother isn't sharing the lego blocks.  But, this young man knows that it's not alright to hit.  So he looks for a loophole.  Aha!  If he is hit first then he is the injured party, and it's alright to hit ... just like he wants to!  NOW, how does he manage to get hit first?  Easy ... just be on the lookout for normal interactions (like reaching for a lego block) where people bump into each other, and choose to interpret that as an attack.

An attitude that retaliation is okay makes people prime themselves to see attacks in everything.  It's the kind of self-deception that can lead a person to believe that a picture of a cute little turtle is an attack upon them.

Quote from: SettembriniThe Truth is:

Others have divided gamers into "childish and under the influence of big business brainwash, but sane", "real adult-artists" & "emotional, braindamaged cripples", and sell product with that idea.

The truth is that you are trying to encourage gamers into believing that there is a war going on when the reality is that a small group of gamers/designers who have no influence on the majority of rpg design are trying to peddle their wares.

QuoteTrue is also, that WotC does the most, best and deepest playtesting of all RPG companies that exist.

Yes. I think this is the case.

QuoteTruth:

Forgers try to push the idea of the nuked applecart, that only individuals can deliver quality. IPR, IPR, IPR. That´s what this is about.

Well I happen to believe that this may be the case. Most of the games I like are produced by individuals or at least teams. I mean IHW is pretty great IMO and if I'm not mistaken Clash is the main guy behind it. I don't think the Forge would agree with me, but who cares. I off course don't think that this is the only way to go about designing games.

QuoteAlso truth:

Andy K belongs to that group, and spreads his propaganda here. Now, bullying for public space is okay on the marketplace of ideas. But lying and distorting truth isn´t.

Sett your whole war is based on deception. Don't go lecturing folks on lies and distortion.

QuoteThat´s why this is about truth, my dear fellow gamer.

Your version of it.

QuoteAnd as before, you can think about me what you want, as long as you think equally bad about the other side.

I think badly of any SWINE who spouts the kind of bullshit you do.

QuoteIf all your defense is: "But Set, all the ugly things you attribute them with, you do them, too!"
Then, albeit it does not justice to me, the important part of the message has come through: The uglyness that is the IPR-movements modus operandi.

Nope my defense is that at the end of the day, honest gamers who love rpgs don't buy the shit you , me or anyone else is peddling. They enjoy their games and leave all this internet bullshit, to folks who have to much time on their hands.

Regards,
David R

I´ll roll with it: Let´s say, I´m childish
[the first line of defense  Forgers take, it´s getting lame. Besides being condescending and patronizing].

So, what does this change the fact that Andy K was injecting his poison in the debate.
How are the actual facts changed by me being allegedly childish?

I tell you what:
Go fuck yourself with the judgement of my person. You can think of me what you want.

What I see is Andy´s poison.
And nothing you say has anything to do with his venom-injection.
Nothing I do will take that guilt away from him. I´m not responsible for him.

By doing this [not talking about the Elephant in the room], you tacitly acknowledge that Andy was guerilla marketing.

Again, David, whatever you think about me doesn´t matter. A cough might give you a sore throat.

But it´sthe bacteria that must get out.

With the bacteria out, the coughing stops.

EDIT:

It´s about truth. And the truth is: WotC only lets professional  or freelancing designers design D&D texts, that have a huge amount of insight and play experience.

It´s also about politics.

You mess these up continuosly. I can tell the truth AND have a bias. Andy has a bias AND is telling a lie.

You might hate the bias, but you must bow to the truth.

Quote from: SettembriniI´ll roll with it: Let´s say, I´m childish

But I don't think that you, as a person, are childish.  I think this line of argument that you're pursuing is.

I assume that you're a mature, sensible individual.  If you find yourself being drawn into childish behavior ... or worse, into trying to justify what you know is childish behavior, I expect you'd want to correct that.  Yes?

Now, frankly, I think that Andy's been drawn into some pretty childish behavior in this thread too.  If he comes out and says that he's hugely proud of the way he handled himself in this (the way you have) then maybe I'll have to have words with him too.  But for the most part, when I see people acting like doinks I assume that given a day or two to think about their actions they'll regret them.  I do the same damn thing:  I spout off about something, and then later I think "Aw man, I shouldn't have written that."

So no one except Andy does believe his little fairy tale?
Venom neutralized!

Mission accomplished.
We now return to your regularly scheduled Bitter non-designers thread.

QuoteSo, what does this change the fact that Andy K was injecting his poison in the debate.

POISON.  Wow.

Is this like dioxin? Or Dune-style kill-you-instantly "Gom Jabbar"?

Looking up in the "debate", I see that I equated some bitter critics to the Finding Forrester professor, and the Comic Book Guy (if anything, that's the more dastardly statement). Then, backing up someone else's side-observation, I said, "there is this one guy who writes for WOTC that hasn't played D&D".

I didn't say shit about "WOTC not playtesting thier stuff". And I didn't say that to deceptively leave it out or anything, it just didn't strike me to append every discussion of WOTC with my personal beliefs, listed off like the side effects on a drug commercial ("So this one dude who wrote some stuf for WOTC hasn't played D&D... Oh but I'm not saying that they don't playtest their stuff, they are well known for providing their materials to "tiger teams" of D&D core play groups for solid review, thorough playtesting and feedback. In fact, three of my friends including one of the authors of the material ('Stan!') were in the original intense playtest groups and their stories of vigorous playtesting and the intense feedback process really made me feel that they were 'doing it right' as it were. And I'm only appending this extra explanatory paragraph to each and every one of my sentences in case some bitter little fuck with a chip on their shoulder happens to come across my post and think that I'm saying 'WOTC doesn't playtest their stuff", cause I sure as shit don't believe it, and I'd actually be sorry if that impression came across simply because I was commenting on this one dude. Do not read my post before operating heavy machinery or if pregnant. If erection persists for more than four hours send Jeff Rients a private message.").

I've got a lot of friends who playtested the original D&D3E (and presumably 3.5, tho I don't know for sure), and having followed EnWorld religiously in 99, I could see that they playtested the fuck out of their stuff. I've got no argument against that, cause it's true. I'd never disagree with that.

So I have no idea where the "poison" is coming from. You say that you are the immune system, but you're acting like lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_erythematosus).

Quoteyou tacitly acknowledge that Andy was guerilla marketing.

Marketing? ...for what? My roleplaying game? (pssst: I haven't produced jack shit). I don't make a dime for anything in the RPG world. I don't get kickbacks for plugging games that I've played that I find fun. Maybe if (when?) I do, your comments will be true. Maybe if I start selling something, I'll be more careful about "my public voice".

Ciao.

-Andy

Quote from: David RNope my defense is that at the end of the day, honest gamers who love rpgs don't buy the shit you , me or anyone else is peddling. They enjoy their games and leave all this internet bullshit, to folks who have to much time on their hands.

Regards,
David R

You nailed that one to the cathedral door, David. Agreed 100 percent.

-clash

So we all agree.

All is well, all is well.:cool:

Quote from: Andy KLooking up in the "debate", I see that I equated some bitter critics to the Finding Forrester professor, and the Comic Book Guy (if anything, that's the more dastardly statement). Then, backing up someone else's side-observation, I said, "there is this one guy who writes for WOTC that hasn't played D&D".

FWIW - I think I've been pretty neutral in this debate. I've tried to stay away from accusations of "POISON!!!" and "CYBER STALKER!!!" But I have to be honest about how I took your posts. Because you didn't just say "there is this one guy who writes for WOTC that hasn't played D&D."  I mean, that might be how you heard it in your head, and I take you at your word that you didn't mean to imply anything.  I'm just letting you know what I, personally, inferred. I might be way off base, but I thought I'd point it out in the interest of peace and harmony.

What you actually said was:

Quote from: Andy KInteresting note on that. There's this guy in EDIT:"The Next Town Over" who freelances for WotC, writing official games and supplements for D&D. IIRC, he wrote parts of Eberron, various game background stuff, etc. If I'm getting my info correctly, he's probably written a good few hundred pages throughout various D&D 3e/3.5 supplements, even today.

Quoth a friend:
"One of these days, I should really sit down any play this game."

The dude's never played a session of post-AD&D 2E D&D, and yet he's writing official material for it for years. :blink:

I took this as you implying the quality of the work was crappy.  As I've said in previous posts, this would not be a stretch considering the odds of someone who doesn't play a game creating something good for it – not impossible, but improbable. A reasonable extension of this is that the final product is schlock.

You then followed it up with your next post to clarify that it wasn't another forum, it was another town.  But look at what you added on the end.

Quote from: Andy KNot at another forum, in the next town over from me. Friend of someone in my gaming group. I dunno if he's online in some forum or not. I suspect that he isn't. It just sounds like he is contacted from time to time:

"Want to write more? We need a couple dozen pages on sorcerers in a jungle."
"Sure"
"Here you go, thanks!"

Now you might not have meant it, but I sure took it as confirmation you meant to imply that, essentially, WOTC didn't give a shit about the quality of the work; it was all this wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am transaction.

Like I said, you might not have meant to imply it, but it was not a stretch to infer it.

Now I'm not suggesting you post it after every line about WOTC, but it probably would have been helpful to avoid the accusations that came later (not that they were true, but it sure resulted in an ugly little set of posts and us having to endure Sett's never-ending search for Truth, Justice, and the Prussian way!) to post, at some point, exactly what you said here:

Quote from: Andy KOh but I'm not saying that they don't playtest their stuff, they are well known for providing their materials to "tiger teams" of D&D core play groups for solid review, thorough playtesting and feedback. In fact, three of my friends including one of the authors of the material ('Stan!') were in the original intense playtest groups and their stories of vigorous playtesting and the intense feedback process really made me feel that they were 'doing it right' as it were. And I'm only appending this extra explanatory paragraph to each and every one of my sentences in case some bitter little fuck with a chip on their shoulder happens to come across my post and think that I'm saying 'WOTC doesn't playtest their stuff", cause I sure as shit don't believe it, and I'd actually be sorry if that impression came across simply because I was commenting on this one dude.

I don't mean to say you should have anticipated responses and preemptively posted this.  But this would have gone a long way, for me personally, in explaining that you weren't implying substandard WOTC final product by your anecdotal knowledge of this one guy.

I'm just saying...

Quote from: James J SkachI don’t mean to say you should have anticipated responses and preemptively posted this.  But this would have gone a long way, for me personally, in explaining that you weren’t implying substandard WOTC final product by your anecdotal knowledge of this one guy.

Ahhh, I see. Yeah, I can see how folks could have read all that stuff into my posts (and that's totally my fault for dropping a bomb that I thought was merely a pebble, without thinking of how others might take it or react), and probably explains Sett's hair-trigger reaction as well. I'll try to be a little clearer in future discussions on that sort of thing. More than likely, though, I'll just sit out those kinds of discussions in the future.  It's not worth getting Lupus over. :)

Thanks for your perspective, that shed a lot of light on things. I honestly do appreciate it.

-Andy

Quote from: SettembriniPlaytesting is definitely something that seperates the layers of quality in our hobby.

It´s not all about professionality, but it´s about what can you trust in a given product.

Example: The fact-checking at GDW was quite good, but their playtesting...left a lot to be desired.

And there´s a lot of niche products and adventures that saw a lot of playtest, but wouldn´t earn anybody anything.

It´s the mid-tier publishers  who continue to chafe under playtesting demands. Too small to do in-house, schedules too professional to wait for external playtests in a meaningful way.

Spot on in every way.

Except that the lower-than-mid tier are struggling even harder--well, at least those who produce complex rules for games that aren't one-shot lovechilds but which could potentially be played for decades.

The latest trend here seems to be to publish a "beta" pdf of the rules, for which you actually pay money, which earns you the right to critique those rules, and to a discount on the final version. This is what ICE are planning for HARP sci-fi, and it's what Marc is planning for T5.

That could turn out to be a real PR disaster, though. Giving people a test drive of a crappy prototype may turn them off a product they may otherwise have bought.

Flying Mice does two rounds of playtest. The first one is in house alpha testing, with me as the GM. Here we knock the rough edges off the rules, and pick the low-hanging fruit. By the time we've finished alpha testing, the game is about 90-95% finished, and the game is playable. Then we put it out to a small circle of playtesters, the beta testers. It's their job to see if the rules are expressed well and the rules clear and complete. They are supposed to run the game and give feedback - though some are upfront saying they can't run it  but they want to give feedback anyways, which is cool.

About 10-20% of the playtesters disappear and never give feedback, and about the same percentage actually run the game, based on their questions and criticism. The rest read the game and give their opinions and suggestions, all of which makes the games much better. Dependant as we are on volunteers, we can't force the betatesters run the games, but the critiques of those who only read the rules are valuable in another way, so it all tends to work out. Having more playtesters who actually run the games would be wonderful, but this is, I think, about the most we can hope for, given our size and audience.

-clash

And that's a wise strategy, clash, because it's all happening behind the curtain. Why people would inflict beta pdfs on the paying public OTOH escapes me. I guess because they're trying to cough up money for the artwork and the print run.

Quote from: flyingmiceFlying Mice does two rounds of playtest. The first one is in house alpha testing, with me as the GM. Here we knock the rough edges off the rules, and pick the low-hanging fruit. By the time we've finished alpha testing, the game is about 90-95% finished, and the game is playable. Then we put it out to a small circle of playtesters, the beta testers. It's their job to see if the rules are expressed well and the rules clear and complete. They are supposed to run the game and give feedback - though some are upfront saying they can't run it  but they want to give feedback anyways, which is cool.

About 10-20% of the playtesters disappear and never give feedback, and about the same percentage actually run the game, based on their questions and criticism. The rest read the game and give their opinions and suggestions, all of which makes the games much better. Dependant as we are on volunteers, we can't force the betatesters run the games, but the critiques of those who only read the rules are valuable in another way, so it all tends to work out. Having more playtesters who actually run the games would be wonderful, but this is, I think, about the most we can hope for, given our size and audience.

-clash

As my sig says. This is almost 1 for 1 how HinterWelt handles it. I will add that I have play testers from around the world including Egypt, India and China.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAs my sig says. This is almost 1 for 1 how HinterWelt handles it. I will add that I have play testers from around the world including Egypt, India and China.

Bill

Most excellent! :D

-clash

Pretty much how I handle it as well. Albeit I work like so: Test it myself with critical friends. Test it with more critical friends. Rewrite, recruit testers and send it to them. Get responses and rewrite as best to continue the feel and fix any problems.

Quote from: J ArcaneYawn.  I've heard this one a million times before.  It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.  

I've even heard it regarding every concieveable type of entertainment.  I've heard it about RPGs, video games, books, movies, TV series, cross-stitching, and on and on and on.

"You can't criticize because you didn't/don't write/perform/sing/etc. yourself!"  This version's just as laced with amatuer psychology and idiotic implications of jealousy as the rest of them.

Fuck you.  I like what I like, and don't like what I don't like.  That's all the "credentials" I need, thank you very much, now take your silly fallacies elsewhere.

Well said. Conversely, just because you publish a game yourself doesn't mean that you knwo dick about game design. Let's be honest, the "indie" label is a reinvention of "vanity press" publishing. These people could have wiped their ass with a napkin and photocopied it -- Lulu would still bind it and sell it as a book for their standard fee.

That said, I'm not saying that all "indie" games are crap (my shelf of several speaks to the contrary). But many of them are, IME. Or, if they aren't crap, they certainly aren't anything special. Point is, just because you have a published game, it doesn't mean that you know any more about gaming than people who don't. That kind of thinking is bullshit, mang.

Quote from: jdrakehPoint is, just because you have a published game, it doesn't mean that you know any more about gaming than people who don't. That kind of thinking is bullshit, mang.

I couldn't agree more. I just love it how people suddenly become experts after they make a few games. Experience means a lot, but there is not one way of doing things.

Quote from: HinterWeltAs my sig says. This is almost 1 for 1 how HinterWelt handles it. I will add that I have play testers from around the world including Egypt, India and China.

Bill

ESL playtesters?  Cool.

Quote from: joewolzESL playtesters?  Cool.

It makes for some difficulties but I am pretty quick with languages. I degrees in French and German and can muddle my way through Italian, Spanish and Japanese.

I often find there insight incredible and enlightening.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltIt makes for some difficulties but I am pretty quick with languages. I degrees in French and German and can muddle my way through Italian, Spanish and Japanese.

I often find there insight incredible and enlightening.

Bill

You just need to work on your English ;)

Quote from: James J SkachYou just need to work on your English ;)

Mein Deutsch is nicht sehr besser. Aber mon Francais, c'est tres bon.

;)

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAs my sig says. This is almost 1 for 1 how HinterWelt handles it. I will add that I have play testers from around the world including Egypt, India and China.

Bill

Question Bill, are these play testers natives or expatriates?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RQuestion Bill, are these play testers natives or expatriates?

Regards,
David R

Some are natives, some are military folk/expatriates. For instance, Saita is one of our Egyptian play testers. She handles all communication and at times I will send her hard copies of books (ouch). Her group normally plays GURPS and WOD but they like to try new games. She studied abroad and I first contacted her when she was studying in England.

I don't want to over emphasize this. Most of the play testers HinterWelt has are in the US. Some are contacts through gaming stores, others via internet, others at cons. Most contacts overseas are via our web site or local game stores (carrying our books and contacting us that way).

All told, we have 6 groups of foreign native play testers. Military are harder to track as they often move around. Ex-patriots only number 2. Actually, one of them is not a group, he is just himself but he does a good job with proofing and I feel kind of sorry for him so I keep him on the list.

Answer the question?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAnswer the question?

Yeah. It's just that I'm extremely interested in things like this, that's why I asked. Hearing about folks from India , China and Egypt who play test games reminds me how diverse this hobby is. There was no subtext to the question.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RHearing about folks from India , China and Egypt who play test games reminds me how diverse this hobby is. There was no subtext to the question.

My own pdf rpg was purchased in, aside from the developed West, Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Brasil, South Africa, and Nigeria. Of those, I only heard back from the Brasilian - his was the first play report I had outside the playtest groups - he said he'd run a game where the PCs were natives living in the jungle resisting the spread of loggers and slash and burn farmers...

It's a very diverse hobby, yes.

Quote from: JimBobOz... he said he'd run a game where the PCs were natives living in the jungle resisting the spread of loggers and slash and burn farmers...

:hmm:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzMy own pdf rpg was purchased in, aside from the developed West, Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Brasil, South Africa, and Nigeria. Of those, I only heard back from the Brasilian - his was the first play report I had outside the playtest groups - he said he'd run a game where the PCs were natives living in the jungle resisting the spread of loggers and slash and burn farmers...

It's a very diverse hobby, yes.

I hope those evil natives were defeated by the adventuresome loggers and noble farmers...

yes...diverse indeed...

Quote from: James J SkachI hope those evil natives were defeated by the adventuresome loggers and noble farmers...

yes...diverse indeed...

Wow, killer GM much?

I was making me onna dem dare political statements...kinda...

And yes, when I did GM, lo these many years ago. but those who survived were richly rewarded by my presence. :eek: