Quote from: RandallS;641544What difference does it make to our fun and our campaign if we are the only people in the world playing using these rules? None that I can see. What difference to our fun and our campaign would it make if there were 1 million other people in the world playing using these rules? None that I can see.

That was my point to him in a PM exchange. Maybe you'll have better luck than I with it, but he didn't seem to understand.

I sort of gave up on him after that. If I couldn't make him understand something that basic, I decided that I certainly couldn't explain more complex concepts like rule mechanics and their advantages/disadvantages to him. I've ended up dropping him into the ignore list.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641547No game lasts forever. Even under the best of conditions, people go their separate ways. It happens.

Many times, but I've never had any long-term problems starting new groups and finding new players for them -- even when I'm using homebrew systems.

QuoteThat being said, it sounds like you're not describing a game at all. Instead you are describing freeform, or something very close to it. In any case that particular game definitely lacks the depth to be interesting, but that's another subject.

I guess that depends on what complexity level you want an RPG to have before you consider it a game. Microlite74 Extended is basically OD&D with all four supplements and my house rules from 1977-1978, but rebuilt around the Microlite20 system. The rules are free and you can find via my sig. Like OD&D (and early 1e), players really don't need to know or interact with a lot of mechanics to play well. All they have to do is describe what they want their character to try to do and the GM adjudicates, including telling them what to roll if a roll is needed.

True, neither OD&D nor Microlite74 is a great game for players who like to study and manipulate rules, but the lack of rules that need to be studied and manipulated mean that one has a far wider pool for potential players to draw on. One is not limited to those who enjoy reading several hundred pages of rules and mastering them to play an elf.  That's probably why I don't have much trouble finding new players.

Quote from: RandallS;641554One is not limited to those who enjoy reading several hundred pages of rules and mastering them to play an elf.  That's probably why I don't have much trouble finding new players.

It's a myth that complex games systems require this. I have players who have never opened a HERO System Book or read a single page of Age of Heroes.

In the real world, it's called on the job training. It works for gaming too.

Quote from: RandallS;641554I guess that depends on what complexity level you want an RPG to have before you consider it a game. Microlite74 Extended is basically OD&D with all four supplements and my house rules from 1977-1978, but rebuilt around the Microlite20 system. The rules are free and you can find via my sig. Like OD&D (and early 1e), players really don't need to know or interact with a lot of mechanics to play well. All they have to do is describe what they want their character to try to do and the GM adjudicates, including telling them what to roll if a roll is needed.

I'm saying two things here. First, extremely thin rules might as well not be rules, which rather defeats the point of paying for them. You can play freeform for free, after all.

Second, any game with sufficient depth to interest me takes weeks to learn, meaning that games are divided between "Very significant time investment" and "Would get bored of in hours, if not sooner if I tried at all". I don't learn game systems to learn them, I learn them to play them and that requires players.

That being said, not knowing or interacting with the mechanics means you have no idea what you are doing.

You're in a tomb, an undead appears. Is it a good idea for your Barbarian to go charge it? Answer: That depends on how good Barbarians are at melee, how good your particular Barbarian is at melee, and what sort of undead it is and what it can do to you... all of which are mechanics. Now Barbarians being what they are, he'll likely charge it regardless of whether it's just a random skeleton he can smash easily, or a Lich who will Harm punch him into next week if he so much as thinks about it. But in order to make informed choices even in general terms mechanical knowledge is required. And when playing a character who isn't supposed to be suicidally reckless? A greater degree of judgment is required.

Even knowing what your opponent is is not enough. Skyrim dragons are a joke. D&D dragons will make a joke of you. This is also a question of mechanics.

QuoteTrue, neither OD&D nor Microlite74 is a great game for players who like to study and manipulate rules, but the lack of rules that need to be studied and manipulated mean that one has a far wider pool for potential players to draw on. One is not limited to those who enjoy reading several hundred pages of rules and mastering them to play an elf.  That's probably why I don't have much trouble finding new players.

D&D (any edition) has a number of rules designed to screw over the player. The older editions were simpler and presented more straightforward gotchas, but system mastery was still required. That said, you're right I wouldn't be interested at all, and I don't think casual type games will last very long because they aren't meant to but my main objective objection is that somewhere, a game designer is expecting people to pay money for nothing instead of to get rules in their rulebooks.

Quote from: danbuter;641390Wow. I honestly thought you were trying to have a real conversation, but it seems you are just jerking people around. Anyone else on this forum have a Call of Cthulhu rpg that doesn't have a big section of insanities in it?

 (Call of Cthulhu does not mean Trail of Cthulhu or your own little homebrew. It means the Chaosium game).

I have two editions of the game,. One has 1 page devoted to certain insanities, the other has a whopping two pages. In neither is there any indication that they are handed out by GM fiat or assigned to influence roleplaying. They are, as I said, a "loss condition" of the game, earned through player choice the same way as physical wounds or diseases in any other game (in fact, much less arbitrarily than diseases). And they have the exact same influence on a person's roleplaying choices.

I disagree that they are a genre mechanic at all, rather the absence of a sanity system is a genre convention in any game trying to "model reality" to any extent.

Quote from: gleichman;641382You have a very odd opinion of what 'affect roleplaying' is, seem to forget the random insanity tables included in at least the early editions of the game,

No "sanity tables" I can see. Please indicate the edition your referencing because it must be pre-5th edition, meaning an at least 15 years OOP version of the game, and even then I highly doubt the rules have altered that radically. There's insanities a player can contract by losing sanity yes, but again I fail to see any difference between that and a character roleplaying out a debilitating wound. If you were playing a fantasy game and a pPC goit bitten by a werewolf, would you let the player "choose" whther or not they were infected with Lycanthropy? No? Enforcing roleplaying on them! Its a ridiculous assertion. These aren't personality mechanics, they're wound conditions rising as a result of player choice. Do you let the player decide if they've been wounded in combat or not? Of course not, its the consequence of their actions, their roleplaying choices, reinforcing teh reality of the game environment.

Moreover, having an insanity may influence a person's personality, but as presented they serve only as a guide. Its still up to player choice how to deal with an insanity or how it manifests.

Quoteand also have a odd view of what ad hominem is.

Yeah, I use the dictionary definition

QuoteAn ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

Quote from: TristramEvans;641566No "sanity tables" I can see. Please indicate the edition your referencing because it must be pre-5th edition, meaning an at least 15 years OOP version of the game, and even then I highly doubt the rules have altered that radically.

All my references tend to be 1st editions of the game in question.

However given danbuter's comments, it's clear to me that the edition isn't the question, but rather your inability to understand the game's rules and the simple concept that I didn't matter if I have the choice of how to role-play insanity if I'm *required* to replay insanity.

Quote from: TristramEvans;641566Yeah, I use the dictionary definition

Twisted to suit your ends. Try a more detailed definition: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Quotegeneral category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Thus- "Your point about ad hominem is wrong and you're stupid is not an ad hominem", is a insult (preceded by a fact).

While- "you live in your mothers basement and thus know nothing of gaming" , is ad hominem.

It's sad that such simple things have to pointed out to people.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641547And so if you are playing a game with a small player base and that game ends for whatever reason it is extremely unlikely you will ever use that system again, making the time spent learning it wasted. Conversely, learn the rules of a more active game and it becomes much more practical to replace players as they leave or start new games entirely.

This is only true if we assume that it's impossible to learn new rules; i.e. if the body of "people who know this ruleset" is static and/or out of our personal control.

But that's not actually true. In fact, it's the opposite of true.

I've played RPGs with 30+ people over the last year (not counting conventions or online games). Of those, the vast majority had never played the systems we were playing before. (Many had never played RPGs at all.) How is this possible? Because they learned the rules. It's not that tough.

This makes RPGs unique from other games... in no way whatsoever. How do I get new players for Arkham Horror? The same way I get new players for any other game: I invite my friends to play and then, nine times out of ten, I teach them the rules.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641547No game lasts forever. Even under the best of conditions, people go their separate ways. It happens.

And so if you are playing a game with a small player base and that game ends for whatever reason it is extremely unlikely you will ever use that system again, making the time spent learning it wasted. Conversely, learn the rules of a more active game and it becomes much more practical to replace players as they leave or start new games entirely.

Remember, tabletop gaming is very localized. It's not enough to have x people playing the game. They need to be within at least driving distance of you. So that critical mass breakpoint - the point where if a game has fewer players than this it isn't sustainable is a lot higher since players have to be close to you, then you have to find them. There is no "Microlite NA" server you can just connect to and find any interested players on the continent.

That being said, it sounds like you're not describing a game at all. Instead you are describing freeform, or something very close to it. In any case that particular game definitely lacks the depth to be interesting, but that's another subject.

Edit: Cute. Well, I was definitely mistaken about gleichman. Originally I was under the impression he had a good idea of what he was talking about and doing. Instead, he is only seeking total and mindless agreement. Don't give him that, and he gives up on you instantly. Even when someone carefully and explicitly explains all they have to do is back up their position with some decent logic, it doesn't happen. I will chalk that up as a lesson learned, and since that point has been established, there's no longer any need for me to speak to him either. So unless someone else has something to say to me, I'm done with this thread.

Certainly if there are more players of a game its easier to recruit (that is why I still play 3E). But i dont think people should avoid a game just because it has a smaller player base. Some of my best campaigns are with games almost no one plays. If you could only learm one system it might make sense to limit your options that way. If you play a great game with a small group and the group splits, leaving you with no players who use that system, you either pick up a different game or recruit new people to play the old one. I dont mind learning a new game system (I actually enjoy it). It is also not usually a waste to learn a game system. It helps you learn more about gaming, your own tastes, what works and what doesn't. Each time I go through that process i come out of it a better GM and better player.

Quote from: gleichman;641567All my references tend to be 1st editions of the game in question.

Okay, well, I have a copy in pdf. Page #? Because quite honestly I think you're lying through your teeth.

QuoteHowever given danbuter's comments, it's clear to me that the edition isn't the question, but rather your inability to understand the game's rules and the simple concept that I didn't matter if I have the choice of how to role-play insanity if I'm *required* to replay insanity.

Again, do you let your players chose whether or not to be injured in a game?

QuoteTwisted to suit your ends.

lol, yeah, I contacted the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary, and forced them to twist the definition to "suit my ends". Jesus. Speaking of insanity, you're roleplaying narcissistic delusional megalomania pretty well. Did DNA force that personality mechanic on you?

QuoteThus- "Your point about ad hominem is wrong and you're stupid is not an ad hominem", is a insult (preceded by a fact).

That's absolutely moronic. Adhominem is insults. Reading comprehension much?. Its all the asinine assumptions you make about various poster's personal lives when you respond to their argument about roleplaying to cover up that your "list" is self-contradictory and outright false in a number of conclusions, that you have no responses for anything you're challenged on because you haven't actually thought through any of the arguments well enough to actually present them in a concise clear manner, and your advocation of a game that doesn't exist, your little Hero system/some crap you only half remember about RQ - heartbreaker.

While I think gleichman goes way overboard with insults, and I think you could make a case many of these do veer into ad hom territory, ad hominem is not just a mere insult. Calling someone stupid isnt ad hominem. Saying someone is stupid and therefore their argument must also be stupid, is ad hom (you could argue gleichman does this impicitly and therefore engages in ad hom, but ad hominem is a kind of argument that attacks the person instead of their position or pine of reasoning.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641573Certainly if there are more players of a game its easier to recruit (that is why I still play 3E). But i dont think people should avoid a game just because it has a smaller player base. Some of my best campaigns are with games almost no one plays. If you could only learm one system it might make sense to limit your options that way. If you play a great game with a small group and the group splits, leaving you with no players who use that system, you either pick up a different game or recruit new people to play the old one. I dont mind learning a new game system (I actually enjoy it). It is also not usually a waste to learn a game system. It helps you learn more about gaming, your own tastes, what works and what doesn't. Each time I go through that process i come out of it a better GM and better player.

D&D 3.5 still has a relatively large player base (by tabletop gaming standards) despite being a dozen years old and there being several new editions. It most likely has the highest of any game by a large margin, easily illustrated by checking a PbP forum not intended for any specific system and checking the game lists. It generally comes out 75% D&D 3.5, 20-24% other D&D, 1-5% other.

Despite that, how many good players are there? Fewer than one hundred I'd say.

Once you consider 2% of all tabletop gamers are good on a good day, and combine that with everything else you can see why a game you can barely find "a group" for, much less a good group is undesirable. The actual system itself is irrelevant. It could be total junk or the best thing ever. If no one plays it, you can't either, because it isn't a solo activity - you need a good group in order to utilize it.

Now don't get the wrong idea - you have to rewrite 3.5 to practically resemble a different game in order for it to be very enjoyable. Meaning not all Caster Uber Allies. Compared to what you'd have to do with another system though, that's tame. It is the least flawed option, because it presents you with the greatest number of chances to luck out and find a good player. And that is what tabletop gaming is about - selecting the least flawed option, and not selecting the things that are good. Going into why would be at least a thread onto itself.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;641568This is only true if we assume that it's impossible to learn new rules; i.e. if the body of "people who know this ruleset" is static and/or out of our personal control.

But that's not actually true. In fact, it's the opposite of true.

Nope, that's wrong.

Whenever a person is asked to learn rules, the time/effort required is measured against the benefit gained by learning them. A person isn't going to work for hours/days/weeks/months just because, but might if they get something sufficient out of it.

So when you say "Hey, learn this new game system you don't know." The longer and more involved that process is, the better the resulting game must be to justify the investment.

If it's some casual game with no depth, it'd likely just take a few hours to once over everything, so the bar is relatively low. At the same time, the game itself probably won't last very long as it doesn't take very long to explore the entirety of concepts it covers. If it's one of those "Here's over 9,000 pages of rules, go memorize all of them." type games? Good luck convincing someone who doesn't already know this stuff to go hit the books for your game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641576While I think gleichman goes way overboard with insults, and I think you could make a case many of these do veer into ad hom territory, ad hominem is not just a mere insult. Calling someone stupid isnt ad hominem. Saying someone is stupid and therefore their argument must also be stupid, is ad hom (you could argue gleichman does this impicitly and therefore engages in ad hom, but ad hominem is a kind of argument that attacks the person instead of their position or pine of reasoning.

If the attacks were going along with actual explanations, responses or arguments, then I'd honestly could give a crap. as yous ay, its par for the course around here. Its the fact Gleichmann cant actually respond to any question/inquiry/debate and uses them to cover up that really makes his entire argument overall simply an exercise in ad hominem with no substance. That whole "I'd need to start a whole bunch of other individual threads to answer these questions" or "the reason you disagree with me is because you don't understand" weaseling that makes the constant personal attacks so obviously covers for a person who is so desperate for validation of their "onetruewayism" gaming that makes it so distasteful to me. Or at least a very easy target.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641576Saying someone is stupid and therefore their argument must also be stupid, is ad hom (you could argue gleichman does this impicitly and therefore engages in ad hom,.

No, it either is clearly stated or not.

Saying your argument is stupid and thus you are stupid is not ad hominem.

Saying your atheist and I don't even have to consider your RPG argument is ad hominem.


You have such a interest in my posting style, it would pay therefore to be accurate in judging. I insult people, I don't ignore what they say for trivial reasons unconnected to what they are saying.

The closest I come is when dealing with someone like you, I often wonder if your status as a person who sells games alters what you're willing to say online and if it results in that finely crafted public image of reasonability you employ. That would be ad hominem, and I try to beat that tendency down as it would wrong.

Quote from: gleichman;641582Saying your argument is stupid and thus you are stupid is not ad hominem.

Not if you say it while looking in a mirror.