Chocolate.

Quote from: StuartI think it's the difference between making something YOU (the creator) think is cool, and something you're making while thinking "the kids will think it's cool".

We have a winner.

Quote from: SettembriniI cannot really put my finger on why EGG/Kevin or Hargrave are cool, whereas...the current fluffanistas leave a really bad "Episode I" taste in my mouth.

That would be nostalgia.

Quote from: droogThat would be nostalgia.

Or personal taste.

Which comes to the same thing, really, and has nothing to do with the actual gamebook as it'll eventually be published, or how it turns out in play.

But again, it's all premature speculation. Before you try to start an Edition War, at least wait for the edition to come out. I mean, if Uncle Ronny said he now had written the B3st3st Game Theory Ev4h, "which has nothing to do with GNS", I would at least wait for it to come out, and read it, before deciding whether or not to mock it.

D&D4e is supposed to come out in, what, May? Surely can wait till then to react to it, and then you'll have a more solid foundation for your geekgasm or nerdfury.

Quote from: SettembriniA single person´s power fantasy in form of a  haphazardly stitched together homebrew, delivered with passion and imagination?

OR

A power fantasy purposefully stitched together power fantasy based upon market research and (second) guessing the audience´s longings, delivered by Jon Doe, writer?

I pick whichever is the better (ie, fun) game.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI think it's the "bottled lightning" effect. Lightning is wild and cool and unpredictable when it occurs naturally. When you start trying to bottle it, though, it becomes tame, homogenous, and totally predictable. It's still lightning, but the elements about it that caught your fancy have been constrained in order to make it a replicable event.
 
!i!

Word.

It is about passion. RIFTS and Arduin and (for me, sue me) Synnibar get away with it because they are so enthusiastic about kicking ass and having fun. I don't play them, but they are a helluva energising read. Something focus-groupped to death doesn't deliver the same experience. You've gotta have personality before insanity turns into inspiring; corporate "intellectual properties" rarely take that leap of faith. Of course, there is a whole lot of uninspired, tepid homebrew junk, too.

Quote from: droogThat would be nostalgia.

Or not.

You know, some of us have looked over the newer versions of D&D, and played it and/or derivative (d20) games, and do still genuinely prefer the play experience of the older version.

Quote from: droogThat would be nostalgia.

And that would be a tired, useless argument.

Quote from: MelanAnd that would be a tired, useless argument.

Would it?

I mean, come on:

QuoteA single person´s power fantasy in form of a haphazardly stitched together homebrew, delivered with passion and imagination?

OR

A power fantasy purposefully stitched together power fantasy based upon market research and (second) guessing the audience´s longings, delivered by Jon Doe, writer?

Settembrini is making arguments that he would scorn were somebody else to make them. As an outsider, I can't see much objective difference between the two properties. It's always looked much the same to me.

As I see it, Settembrini is drawing a distinction between passionate/inspired and impersonal/uninspired game products. Power-gaming and the age of the products are independent qualities - Sett's statement could as well be "I'd rather take a rough gem than polished crap". I'd also argue that sometimes, a bit of chaos is better for products than meticulous organisation, but then I read game materials for inspiration, not reference. From this perspective, a human quality and authorial voice is very important, because the purpose of the supplement is not to contain (dump?) information, but to capture a mood, to make you enthusiastic and help create your own material. People like Kevin Siembieda, David Hargrave, Bob Bledsaw and Gary Gygax are all examples of game writers who wrote from their hearts, were a bit uneven and disorganised, and had a distinctive style. I'd say the kind of game writing they did has its attractive features, but it is less common than it used to be.

Point two (the "meta-discussion" part): the nostalgia argument has no useful purpose: it often becomes a red herring, or it is invoked as a rhetorical device to dismiss counter-arguments and paint all old products (that is, old products you personally didn't like) as obsolete. It is usually brought up in conjunction with misguided statements about "progress" or "evolution" in gaming. See Lev Lafayette's reviews for typical examples of this sentiment.

Quote from: MelanAs I see it, Settembrini is drawing a distinction between passionate/inspired and impersonal/uninspired game products.

For a guy who idolises D&D 3.x the way he does, I think that's kind of rich.

QuotePoint two (the "meta-discussion" part): the nostalgia argument has no useful purpose: it often becomes a red herring, or it is invoked as a rhetorical device to dismiss counter-arguments and paint all old products (that is, old products you personally didn't like) as obsolete.

I don't recall saying anything like that. I'm all for personal vision myself. I would never have thought Settembrini was such a hippie, though.

Sett has invested a lot in being misunderstood. His favoured rhetorical ploy obscurantism.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSett has invested a lot in being misunderstood. His favoured rhetorical ploy obscurantism.

Well, he is German, after all. Ever read Kant? Oy vey.

Quote from: David RSett has invested a lot in being misunderstood. His favoured rhetorical ploy obscurantism.

Regards,
David R

This is sadly true, and I find it a cheap and distasteful tactic on Sett's part.  The fact that he's using it more and more as time goes on leads to the very amusing side effect that it actually appears as though Sett's English is gradually getting worse and worse every day.

RPGPundit