TheRPGSite

Amusing article about why some companies don't want anything to do with tabletop rpg gamers.

http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2010/06/19/why-you-cant-have-nice-things/

Quote from: from above linked postWe looked at the market at the time and determined that the service was pretty much tailor-made for roleplayers and that they were the most natural early adopters.

Once we got actual tabletop gamers from the "leading edge" of the hobby, he discovered they were so insufferable he changed his business model to stop attracting them. They were bad for business.

Let me save someone some reading:

WAAAAAAAAAH THOSE MEAN OLD GAMERS WON'T SHUT UP AND BE A PERFECT MARKETING DEMO AND FIT INTO THE MOLD SOME MARKETROID INVENTED WAAAAAH.

Sounds like they designed 4E with the express purpose of pissing those people off and succeeded.

Quote from: The articleHow were they assholes? My client used a bunch of methods to tag RPG players and monitor them moving through the system. This is what he found out about them:

    * Instead of having social conversations, they focused on concrete goals.
    * They related to content in a cynical fashion.
    * They dissuaded other users from getting involved with the content.
    * They complained all the goddamn time.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;388953Let me save someone some reading:

WAAAAAAAAAH THOSE MEAN OLD GAMERS WON'T SHUT UP AND BE A PERFECT MARKETING DEMO AND FIT INTO THE MOLD SOME MARKETROID INVENTED WAAAAAH.

heehee

Quote from: ggroy;388940Amusing article about why some companies don't want anything to do with tabletop rpg gamers.

http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2010/06/19/why-you-cant-have-nice-things/

I don't think the article is so much amusing as it is spot-on. The greatest hindrance to the popularity of gaming is some of the gamers themselves.

I've been trying to put together a gaming group lately and I've been avoiding the local gaming stores for a lot of the same reasons cited in the link.

I want to play games with people who happen to play games. I don't want to play with 'gamers' (or, what I call 'mouth-breathers'). And I don't think I recognized that fact until just now. (I thought I was avoiding recruiting in those places because of cliques and my own slight timidity.)

If I can't meet you at the local Mexican restaurant and have a beer with you, then I sure as shit don't want you at my house, sitting across the dice-littered table from me.

It's been a hard road, putting together a group of non-gamer gamers, but shit...  the alternative is simply too much to bear, honestly.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe I just want to game with friends, and I'm too fucking picky.

Quote from: jeff37923;388964I don't think the article is so much amusing as it is spot-on. The greatest hindrance to the popularity of gaming is some of the gamers themselves.

What's that supposed to mean, you elitist prick? *wipes greasy fingers on his pit-stained size XXXXL "I like Boobs" shirt*

Quote from: Kaz;388968I've been trying to put together a gaming group lately and I've been avoiding the local gaming stores for a lot of the same reasons cited in the link.

I want to play games with people who happen to play games. I don't want to play with 'gamers' (or, what I call 'mouth-breathers'). And I don't think I recognized that fact until just now. (I thought I was avoiding recruiting in those places because of cliques and my own slight timidity.)

If I can't meet you at the local Mexican restaurant and have a beer with you, then I sure as shit don't want you at my house, sitting across the dice-littered table from me.

It's been a hard road, putting together a group of non-gamer gamers, but shit...  the alternative is simply too much to bear, honestly.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe I just want to game with friends, and I'm too fucking picky.

Well, I'm sure with your attitude a lot of gamers wouldn't want to game with you, either.

HAPPY 500TH POST TO ME!

Good for them.

Quote from: Cylonophile;388973Well, I'm sure with your attitude a lot of gamers wouldn't want to game with you, either.

I'd game with Kaz just because he is showing some discriminating good taste when it comes to who he will invite into his home.

Which, is the point of the article.

Quote from: Kaz;388968Maybe I just want to game with friends, and I'm too fucking picky.

No you are not and believe me, in the end it is very much worth it.

Quote from: jeff37923;388976I'd game with Kaz just because he is showing some discriminating good taste when it comes to who he will invite into his home.

Well, there's "discriminating taste," and then there's "being a prick."

Sometimes there's a bright line between them, and sometimes they just sort of shade into one another.

Just so I don't look like a total ass, maybe I should use another example.

I used to play baseball, and now that I'm older, I have been delegated to softball. I used to play quite a bit when I was in the service, but I don't play anymore. I don't because I don't want to surround myself with 'softball guys (http://www.joesportsfan.com/?p=170)' and all the crap that comes with them.

So, I just play pick-up games of softball when I get the chance. I play with friends who happen to be softball players.

The same way I avoid obnoxious softball guys with $875 crushed-graphite-powder bats who think they're Hank Aaron, I avoid mouth-breathing, foul-smelling social retards.

And to hedge my bets, yes, I know not all softball players are frat boy assholes, just like I know everyone in my FLGS isn't Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.

Guess I got lucky with my Sunday group. We got together through Meetup.com, exchanged some emails, and met at Applebee's first to chat and get a feel for the group. No wierdos besides me, and we've even got three girls (hee! boobies!) in the group. So I guess it can be done, but you just have to roll well.

Quote from: Kaz;388968I've been trying to put together a gaming group lately and I've been avoiding the local gaming stores for a lot of the same reasons cited in the link.

I want to play games with people who happen to play games. I don't want to play with 'gamers' (or, what I call 'mouth-breathers'). And I don't think I recognized that fact until just now. (I thought I was avoiding recruiting in those places because of cliques and my own slight timidity.)

If I can't meet you at the local Mexican restaurant and have a beer with you, then I sure as shit don't want you at my house, sitting across the dice-littered table from me.

It's been a hard road, putting together a group of non-gamer gamers, but shit...  the alternative is simply too much to bear, honestly.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe I just want to game with friends, and I'm too fucking picky.

I recognize this impulse. I play at game stores in order to find people I want to play with at home, and really? It's about 50/50. Plenty of people out there I wouldn't invite over. Not even because they're bad people, although some of them are crap, but there are sometimes incompatibility issues. If I have nothing in common with you besides gaming, I may still be happy to play with you at a game store, but I might not really want to hang out with you otherwise and I might not want you in my home.

Quote from: Werekoala;388987Guess I got lucky with my Sunday group. We got together through Meetup.com, exchanged some emails, and met at Applebee's first to chat and get a feel for the group. No wierdos besides me, and we've even got three girls (hee! boobies!) in the group. So I guess it can be done, but you just have to roll well.

There's at least one actual convicted pedophile on my local Meetup for tabletop.

I am, needless to say, somewhat reluctant to draw upon that well.

Quote from: Kaz;388968If I can't meet you at the local Mexican restaurant and have a beer with you, then I sure as shit don't want you at my house, sitting across the dice-littered table from me.

What if the guy's allergic to cilantro? I call "foul."

If they hate opinionated gamers so much because they're not healthy for the marketing model, then indeed, they should move on to new targets. Like. Move on. For good. Reeducating gamers because they don't fit the marketing model is not exactly what I'd call "moving on to new targets".

Quote from: J Arcane;388990There's at least one actual convicted pedophile on my local Meetup for tabletop.

I am, needless to say, somewhat reluctant to draw upon that well.

Wow, did they include that in their profie or something?

Seriously, I imagine there are plenty who are NOT convicted pedophiles. So you might want to just not invite them?

Quote from: Shazbot79;388991What if the guy's allergic to cilantro? I call "foul."

If I couldn't eat at the Hacienda (http://www.mipequenahacienda.com/)...  I'm not sure if life would be worth living.

Very interesting to hear this perspective - we don't often get to hear inside information from marketers about the RPG biz.

Needless to say, it rings true.

Quote from: Benoist;388996If they hate opinionated gamers so much because they're not healthy for the marketing model, then indeed, they should move on to new targets. Like. Move on. For good. Reeducating gamers because they don't fit the marketing model is not exactly what I'd call "moving on to new targets".

I don't think that the point is that these social retard gamers are bad for the marketing model, as much as they are bad for the market or hobby.

RPG gamers are whiny little bitches when they don't get their way, and since there are differing camps of RPG gamers whose way conflicts with each other, engaging with the RPG community sets the whiny little bitches loose because you can never please them all.

Quote from: jeff37923;389006I don't think that the point is that these social retard gamers are bad for the marketing model, as much as they are bad for the market or hobby.

Interesting. What I see is a hobby which, since its very infancy, has been empowering the user to craft his own materials and take possession of the games sold by game companies. RPGs are, in this respect, very particular products, since they support the user's worlds of imagination, which all but ensures a feeling of ownership on his part.

Basically, to me, complaining that RPG users are too opinionated is simply looking at RPGs the wrong way. It's intrinsic to the nature of the product that a large portion of its audience will be opinionated, and feel empowered by the product itself. Just wishing otherwise is to wish RPGs were not RPGs.

So, either you come up with a marketing model that is based off the product itself, or you transform the product to fit a preset marketing model. This piece reads to me like some sort of rationale for the latter.

Quote from: Benoist;389017Interesting. What I see is a hobby which, since its very infancy, has been empowering the user to craft his own materials and take possession of the games sold by game companies. RPGs are, in this respect, very particular products, since they support the user's worlds of imagination, which all but ensures a feeling of ownership on his part.

Basically, to me, complaining that RPG users are too opinionated is simply looking at RPGs the wrong way. It's intrinsic to the nature of the product that a large portion of its audience will be opinionated, and feel empowered by the product itself. Just wishing otherwise is to wish RPGs were not RPGs.

So, either you come up with a marketing model that is based off the product itself, or you transform the product to fit a preset marketing model. This piece reads to me like some sort of rationale for the latter.

Whiny opinionated gamers have been giving the hobby a bad name and driving people out of the hobby and making it difficult to bring in new blood since the beginning. Even if they are the hobby, they still hurt it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389015RPG gamers are whiny little bitches when they don't get their way,

Yeah, like most hollywood stars, rockers, rappers, fashion models and other cool types of people.

Just without the money.

Quote from: Benoist;389017Interesting. What I see is a hobby which, since its very infancy, has been empowering the user to craft his own materials and take possession of the games sold by game companies. RPGs are, in this respect, very particular products, since they support the user's worlds of imagination, which all but ensures a feeling of ownership on his part.

Basically, to me, complaining that RPG users are too opinionated is simply looking at RPGs the wrong way. It's intrinsic to the nature of the product that a large portion of its audience will be opinionated, and feel empowered by the product itself. Just wishing otherwise is to wish RPGs were not RPGs.

So, either you come up with a marketing model that is based off the product itself, or you transform the product to fit a preset marketing model. This piece reads to me like some sort of rationale for the latter.

I agree with you, benny. Gamers are not like TV and movie audiences who sit there mindlessly swigging whatever swill the producers feel like flinging at them, they participate actively in the hobby and as such are going to be a more "opinionated" audience than most movie, TV or music audiences.

Complaining that they're opinionated and they express their opinions on the hobby and game is ridiculous. Some go too far, true, but the gamers is an active participant in the rpg media, not a passive listener/viewer.

And anyway, are people without opinions worth associating with.

"What do you think of (XXX), Frank?'
"I don care, doesn't matter, whatever."

Yawn.

Quote from: Kaz;389022Just without the money.

People can have money and still be stupid, selfish assholes, and peopel can be broke and still intelligent, decent and interesting.

Tabletop rpg games have a really low barrier to entry.

Becoming a movie star, rock star, fashion model, etc ... have significantly higher barriers to entry.

Quote from: ggroy;388940Amusing article about why some companies don't want anything to do with tabletop rpg gamers.

Unfortunately, given that we know nothing about the product other than its producers assumed that tabletop roleplayers were a "natural target" for it, this really doesn't tell us anything. Were the gamers assholes and the product truely something almost every tabletop gamers would want, need, and be willing to pay whatever price was asked for? Was the product not that great (or not really as useful to tabletop gamers) as the producers thought and the gamers just told them so? Somewhere in between? There's no way of telling from the article.

Frankly, as I don't think consumers have any obligation toward a producer, I'm always skeptical of articles complaining about potential consumers daring to not behave the way the producer would like -- especially if not being willing to buy is one of the complaints. (From the article: "They resisted most desired behaviors (that is, the stuff that actually might make money).")

Not being willing to buy usually means that the potential customer either does not really need the product or believes that the price is higher than it is worth to him. While both are bad from the producer's point-of-view, the consumer isn't being mean, he is simply doing his job -- deciding what is and what is not worth HIS hard-earned money.  Taking advantage of free or low cost options rather than parting with more money for more expensive (and more profitable to the producer) options is also just the consumer doing his job right.  So when I see complaints from companies about nasty people resisting paying them money, I have to take their other complaints about nasty consumer behavior with a large dose of salt.

Quote from: ggroy;389026Tabletop rpg games have a really low barrier to entry.

Becoming a movie star, rock star, fashion model, etc ... have significantly higher barriers to entry.

Yeah, like being willing to fuck producers and promoters mostly.

Face it, the big thing for the above is "charisma", which no one can agree on anyway.

Quote from: Cylonophile;389032Yeah, like being willing to fuck producers and promoters mostly.

Face it, the big thing for the above is "charisma", which no one can agree on anyway.

Or having a huge rich sugar daddy for extensive plastic surgery and bribery.

Quote from: Cylonophile;389024Complaining that they're opinionated and they express their opinions on the hobby and game is ridiculous. Some go too far, true, but the gamers is an active participant in the rpg media, not a passive listener/viewer.

The link in the op doesn't damn gamers for having opinions.

It's that they found most gamers to be negative in relaying ideas, unable to partake in casual conversation, bitch incessantly and act as a barrier to new participants.

In other words, they were assholes.

You can have a strong opinion and have a forceful will, without doing the things listed.

Oh come on. We seriously cannot have a discussion of this link without speculating what the "friend"'s business idea was.

Don't disappoint me guys.

Quote from: Kaz;389001If I couldn't eat at the Hacienda (http://www.mipequenahacienda.com/)...  I'm not sure if life would be worth living.

Is that a chain?

There's a Mexican place near Portland, OR called "The Hacienda" (actually there are like 30 "Haciendas" here) that has the exact same garish color scheme.

And, incidentally, kick-ass strawberry margaritas.

In other words, a significant part of the gamer demographic (particularly online?) consists of socially retarded people.
Not a huge surprise given how gaming has intentionally driven itself further from the mainstream of normal society at a steady pace.

The fault for this lies with the Lawncrappers, those who say we should be tolerant to them, and the Swine who have a vested interest in this happening.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Windjammer;389039Oh come on. We seriously cannot have a discussion of this link without speculating what the "friend"'s business idea was.

Don't disappoint me guys.

Bikini-mail escort service?

Quote from: Shazbot79;389041Is that a chain?

There's a Mexican place near Portland, OR called "The Hacienda" (actually there are like 30 "Haciendas" here) that has the exact same garish color scheme.

And, incidentally, kick-ass strawberry margaritas.

Interesting. My wife had the strawberry-banana margarita and loved it (I drove home, is the end of that story).

Also, they have a burrito Mexicano worth killing a man over.

So...  maybe?

This would be News, except that you can replace "tabletop role-playing gamers" online with:

* Model Train Enthusiasts
* Gun Nuts
* Sports Fans
* Fitness Buffs
* Historians
* New Mothers
* Librarians

etc. etc. ad nauseum...

Reads like someone needed to vent and had no content for a blog update.  Low hanging fruit and all...

Quote from: Windjammer;389039Oh come on. We seriously cannot have a discussion of this link without speculating what the "friend"'s business idea was.

Don't disappoint me guys.

If this guy's client was relatively recent:

- MMORPG
- movie, tv show
- board game

If this guy's client wasn't recent and was from a decade ago or more:

- PS1, Sega, N64, etc ... video game
- non-d20 rpg
- card game
- movie, tv show

http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/04/transmedia-part-one/
http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/05/transmedia-part-two/
http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/07/transmedia-part-three/

Quote from: Kaz;388968I've been trying to put together a gaming group lately and I've been avoiding the local gaming stores for a lot of the same reasons cited in the link.

I want to play games with people who happen to play games. I don't want to play with 'gamers' (or, what I call 'mouth-breathers'). And I don't think I recognized that fact until just now. (I thought I was avoiding recruiting in those places because of cliques and my own slight timidity.)

If I can't meet you at the local Mexican restaurant and have a beer with you, then I sure as shit don't want you at my house, sitting across the dice-littered table from me.

It's been a hard road, putting together a group of non-gamer gamers, but shit...  the alternative is simply too much to bear, honestly.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe I just want to game with friends, and I'm too fucking picky.

Maybe the problem is you old folks.

No offense, or anything.  It's just that for younger generations, being a "geek" or a "gamer" doesn't necessarily mean you're autistic.  Most people I know who are "gamers" are perfectly normal, healthy individuals.  Very few are the mouth-breather types who you want to toss out the door.

Quote from: Peregrin;389057Maybe the problem is you old folks.

No offense, or anything.  It's just that for younger generations, being a "geek" or a "gamer" doesn't necessarily mean you're autistic.  Most people I know who are "gamers" are perfectly normal, healthy individuals.  Very few are the mouth-breather types who you want to toss out the door.

I find a gap between flesh-and-blood gamers and the boogeymen gamers described on the internet pretty surprising too. I don't know how much age has to do with it, but I've seen very little stigma against tabletop games or other geek pursuits either in high school or in college or at work or church when I still went, or wherever. And while I do see that there are "people who game" and "gamers" and that these are two different kinds of people on some level, IME they're both decent bunches of people and I tend to play with mixed groups. The dividing line, if there is one, is just that "gamers" are more likely to GM (I've known a few who are "gamers" but just plain refuse to GM, and some "people who game" who GM occasionally, so even that's pretty blurry).

As for the article... it's entirely possible the gamers just didn't like the product. The horror. We're culturally obsolete 'cause we won't buy shit we're not interested in and maybe say so sometimes.

Quote from: Benoist;389056http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/04/transmedia-part-one/
http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/05/transmedia-part-two/
http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/07/transmedia-part-three/

I punched out after part one. The fact is that most RPG writing groups are a half dozen guys with thirty grand in seed money. If they can sell a couple thousand copies of their book, they'll get their seed money back. And then they can do it again.

Yes, they'd sell a lot more if they could get people to make iPhone apps and shit. But they can't. Because you make an RPG on less than it costs to pay the salary on one programmer. The difference in scale between this guy's plans and the actual companies he is supposedly giving these plans to is staggering.

-Frank

Quote from: Peregrin;389057Maybe the problem is you old folks.

I'm just into my 30s and I'm already 'old folks?'

Good gravy. I don't even have young'uns yet!

The fact of the matter is, despite their age, I see these people interact in stores, at gaming clubs, whatever. And a decent amount of them are socially deficient, all-around annoying, or just uber nerds. From teenager to grandpa. They do little to help grow the hobby.

Gotta love Erik Mona's take (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-3.html#post5219947) on the OP's link:

Quote from: Erik MonaI can think of about 26 full-time employees at Paizo who are probably glad we didn't take this idiot's advice.

--Erik

Quote from: Benoist;389063Gotta love Erik Mona's take (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-3.html#post5219947) on the OP's link:

We'll see in a few years who was right, and who will be eating their words.

Quote from: ggroy;389069We'll see in a few years who was right, and who will be eating their words.

Indeed, though maybe no one will in the end.

Quote from: Benoist;389063Gotta love Erik Mona's take (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-3.html#post5219947) on the OP's link:

GM Skarka's response  (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-3.html#post5219947)to Erik Mona is pretty good as well.

Quote from:  GM SkarkaSeriously?

His advice is "be nicer people and foster a more positive culture online."

That makes him an idiot?

I'm beyond disappointed in your response, Erik. I'm disgusted.


There's a whole bunch of knee-jerking to this article, which entirely misses the point.

What he's talking about is that the WORST elements of the RPG community, as represented online, is sadly defining the segment for people OUTSIDE the community -- even in those areas where RPGers should be valued.

...and that's a bad thing.

A direct quote from his closing:

"I would really like the tabletop RPG community to be at the center of roleplaying in all media, sharing their insights, but it’s not going to happen unless that center attracts."



The result of saying that? A negative pile-on by the usual suspects... aided and abetted by professionals looking to buff up their populist cred.

Irony, thy name is Gamer.

I also find it interesting that all of the qualities that GM Skarka listed in his Transmedia blog posts for a Transmedia company are being used successfully by Paizo.

Erik's post (linked above) has been moderated:

~ considering that we are not discussing some random person on the internet, but someone who is an ENworlder and posting in this thread, it is certainly NOT appropriate to call him an idiot. Thanks. Plane Sailing ~

Quote from: jeff37923;389072GM Skarka's response  (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-3.html#post5219947)to Erik Mona is pretty good as well.

Rebuttal. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-4.html#post5220014)

Trotskyists/Christians/goths who say "Other Trotskyists/Christians/goths are arseholes. Ha ha, right on. We're not like that though" never seem to succeed in convincing the mainstream to like them, or even to see them as different to 'those others' who are the problem. Probably partly because the negative stereotype is precisely that of little groups who have frantic arguments despite being identical to outsiders.

Quote from: Age of Fable;389082Trotskyists/Christians/goths who say "Other Trotskyists/Christians/goths are arseholes. Ha ha, right on. We're not like that though" never seem to succeed in convincing the mainstream to like them, or even to see them as different to 'those others' who are the problem.

A "guilt by association" problem.

That's what the groups in question inevitably decide, yes.

Quote from: Kaz;389062I'm just into my 30s and I'm already 'old folks?'

Good gravy. I don't even have young'uns yet!

The fact of the matter is, despite their age, I see these people interact in stores, at gaming clubs, whatever. And a decent amount of them are socially deficient, all-around annoying, or just uber nerds. From teenager to grandpa. They do little to help grow the hobby.

True -- they are around.

But I don't associate those people with "gamers."  I know plenty of people with an obsession for one medium/hobby or another, and they're perfectly functional human beings.  It's just a matter of having your priorities straight and common sense.

Quote from: ggroy;389083A "guilt by association" problem.

That's what the groups in question inevitably seem to conclude, anyway. Or at least that combined with "mainstream people are ignorant."

In any case, the original article comes close to concluding that "the product was fine, but the audience was faulty", and that seems to suggest someone who doesn't get how selling stuff works.

It's all bullshit to me. Want to grow the hobby? Play games. Introduce new people to your games, not people who already are gamers. Make them entertaining, and they'll ask for more. Stop being cheap bitches, and offer games to your nephews and nieces. Expose them. Then they'll go buy games on their own, if so inclined.

That of course assumes that one is able to function socially by having non-gamer friends, being a decent host when inviting people over to play games, and be able to make the experience entertaining while playing.

That's it, really. This has nothing to do with people having opinions on the net. Nothing *at all*. People outside the hobby don't give a flying fuck about RPGnet, ENWorld or theRPGsite. They don't even know what those are. That's a blunt, cold hard fact.

Quote from: Age of Fable;389086That's what the groups in question inevitably seem to conclude, anyway. Or at least that combined with "mainstream people are ignorant."

In any case, the original article comes close to concluding that "the product was fine, but the audience was faulty", and that seems to suggest someone who doesn't get how selling stuff works.

That wasn't what he said. He didn't say that the rpg customers wouldn't buy the product. The problem was that they came in and shit on everything and drove other customers away. The customer can indeed be wrong in that case.

Quote from: Benoist;389088That of course assumes that one is able to function socially...

Which seems to be the crux of the problem. The gamers making the biggest impressions on those outside of gaming (who might be introduced to the hobby) are the socially retarded, the Lawncrappers.

Quote from: jeff37923;389091Which seems to be the crux of the problem. The gamers making the biggest impressions on those outside of gaming (who might be introduced to the hobby) are the socially retarded, the Lawncrappers.

How do you know that?

Seems to me the Lawncrappers are visible on the internet. People who do not particularly care about gaming don't give a shit about gamers on the internet, or the places they visit. Seems to me to be a complete fabrication. A myth, rather than a fact.

Wonder how much "market research" is done these days by googling only, and very little else.

If marketing drones are that lazy, they would find all kinds of crap in google searches to think twice about dealing with certain niche groups.

Quote from: Benoist;389094How do you know that?

Seems to me the Lawncrappers are visible on the internet. People who do not particularly care about gaming don't give a shit about gamers on the internet, or the places they visit. Seems to me to be a complete fabrication. A myth, rather than a fact.

So you are telling me that you have never encountered a socially retarded or just plain asshole gamer?

Skarka and Sheppard sure seem to hate the byjeezus out of the RPG business, don't they?

Lord Hobie

Quote from: jeff37923;389096So you are telling me that you have never encountered a socially retarded or just plain asshole gamer?

Where? In a game store? Sure (edit - I'm actually trying to think of a single instance, and have a hard time remembering one. But let's assume I did). But that's basically assuming that somehow newbies to gaming show up at a game store having never played a game, see some asshole arguing over a game and leave disgusted, and that this scenario would be a widespread, common occurence on how people are introduced to role playing.

This has NEVER been the case. Most people aren't introduced to gaming by gaming stores, and aren't introduced to gaming by ENWorld and RPGnet.

They are introduced to gaming by guys like you, Uncle/Dad/Friend Jeff, running games and exposing them to gaming. They saw or played one time, and found gaming entertaining enough so that you, Uncle Jeff, or mom or dad or whoever decided it was time for them to get a game of their own.

That's how most of us have been introduced to gaming, and that's still what's going on today.

Quote from: Benoist;389088It's all bullshit to me. Want to grow the hobby? Play games. Introduce new people to your games, not people who already are gamers. Make them entertaining, and they'll ask for more. Stop being cheap bitches, and offer games to your nephews and nieces. Expose them. Then they'll go buy games on their own, if so inclined.

That of course assumes that one is able to function socially by having non-gamer friends, being a decent host when inviting people over to play games, and be able to make the experience entertaining while playing.

That's it, really. This has nothing to do with people having opinions on the net. Nothing *at all*. People outside the hobby don't give a flying fuck about RPGnet, ENWorld or theRPGsite. They don't even know what those are. That's a blunt, cold hard fact.

Absolutely.

Quote from: jeff37923So you are telling me that you have never encountered a socially retarded or just plain asshole gamer?

Yes, but it's generally easier to regard them as "social retards of just plain assholes", because seriously...you know that would fit no matter what their hobby.

I don't even buy that there are any more or less of them than any other hobby or past-time...it's just that we're talking about them at an RPG website, and an unmoderated one (in the traditional sense) at that.

Quote from: Lord Hobie;389099Skarka and Sheppard sure seem to hate the byjeezus out of the RPG business, don't they?

While their general thesis might have some merit, there is also some crazy irony in Malcolm Sheppard and Gareth Skarka -- two of the most consistently douchebaggy online "insiders" in the RPG "industry" -- calling out douchebaggy online fans of RPGs.

Physician, heal thyself!

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389090That wasn't what he said. He didn't say that the rpg customers wouldn't buy the product. The problem was that they came in and shit on everything and drove other customers away. The customer can indeed be wrong in that case.

Or the consumer can be right. We have no idea what the product was. Yes, they might have been driving people away from the next Star Wars. Then again, they might have been warning people that it was really the next Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. We have no way of knowing -- and given that 90% of everything generally is rubbish really no reason to assume it was the next Star Wars.

Quote from: Benoist;389100They are introduced to gaming by guys like you, Uncle/Dad/Friend Jeff, running games and exposing them to gaming. They saw or played one time, and found gaming entertaining enough so that you, Uncle Jeff, or mom or dad or whoever decided it was time for them to get a game of their own.

That's how most of us have been introduced to gaming, and that's still what's going on today.

I agree. The problem is, once they've been introduced and are sorting through their feelings about gaming, then they go beyond "Uncle/Dad/Friend Jeff" and encounter asshats in FLGSes or online. It's not about being introduced to gaming by an asshat, it's about having to decide if gaming is worth enduring the stinky, socially maladjusted neckbeards, lawncrappers, and edition warriors.

On a related note, did anyone catch Warren the Ape last night?

Seanchai

I see a failed "game entrepreneur" rationalising his choices to abandon his former job. Since I am also familiar with his previous posting record on RPGNet and ENWorld, I must also confirm what Garnfellow wrote - Malcolm's an insufferable prick with colossal chips on both shoulders, typical RPGNet extremist politics and a bitter hatred for his supposed audience, which makes anything he wants to sell me - idea or product - suspect.

I am also seeing something of a trend here on TheRPGSite: peoples' critical thinking ability has decreased to the extent that they take this clown at face value and don't call out his obvious bullshit. Two, lotsa people here have gobbled up the "gamers = dysfunction" meme (with Forgist origins, of course). I have previously discussed why this image is a fallacy based on self-image problems and a really nasty negative stereotyping trend within the hobby, so I will not go into details.

Disappointing on all counts.

[edit]It might be worth it to mention that "RPG writer" is not a good job. It is a slog to write several pages of content a week at two cents a word or maybe a bit more for larger companies; no IP ownership and a lot of ramen noodles in your diet. It is not exactly a wonder it grinds people down to the extent they start to hate this phase of their life as they move on - which, if they want to think long-term beyond the age of, what, thirty-five or fourty, they should.[/edit]

Quote from: Seanchai;389106It's not about being introduced to gaming by an asshat, it's about having to decide if gaming is worth enduring the stinky, socially maladjusted neckbeards, lawncrappers, and edition warriors.

Can't remember the last time I ever met one in a store.

Quote from: Benoist;389100This has NEVER been the case. Most people aren't introduced to gaming by gaming stores, and aren't introduced to gaming by ENWorld and RPGnet.

They are introduced to gaming by guys like you, Uncle/Dad/Friend Jeff, running games and exposing them to gaming. They saw or played one time, and found gaming entertaining enough so that you, Uncle Jeff, or mom or dad or whoever decided it was time for them to get a game of their own.

That's how most of us have been introduced to gaming, and that's still what's going on today.

Fuck yeah.  I was brought into gaming by high-school friends -- I never would've found out about it (or at least to the point where I'd want to play) on the net or through a shop.

Even then, quite a few of my friends (and as I'm slowly finding out, a good portion of my acquaintances whom I met outside of gaming) play RPGs, and none, none of them have ever even heard of RPGnet, theRPGsite, the Forge.  These sites are practically invisible, and game stores aren't even a social crux for most of the RPG groups I know -- in fact a majority of the RPG groups I've played in or have met (including during the d20 boom) never went near a store unless they were there to buy dice or Magic cards.

QuoteCan't remember the last time I ever met one in a store.

There are still a few hardcore d20 3.x warriors in my area...the rest of us ignore them.  I even offered to run an AD&D game and they wouldn't give it a second thought.  Apparently 4e broke too many traditions, but AD&D was too close to the original *shrug*.

Also a few really weird guys.  But the owner's a bit of a nut, too (he just recently opened up an S&M shop somewhere else using the game store's profits from last quarter), so I guess it should be expected.  As long as they don't bug me, I don't care.

Unless one is spending his or her life in a gaming store, I'm willing to bet these instances are not as common place as people would have us believe. I remember Ed talking about this some time ago, saying he had to ask some people to calm down maybe twice during the last year in the store, or something to that extent. I believe this issue of "stinky neckbeards" is blown wayyy out of proportion.

Quote from: Benoist;389110Unless one is spending his or her life in a gaming store, I'm willing to bet these instances are not as common place as people would have us believe. I remember Ed talking about this some time ago, saying he had to ask some people to calm down maybe twice during the last year in the store, or something to that extent. I believe this issue of "stinky neckbeards" is blown wayyy out of proportion.

Maybe so, but I luck must've given me a really bad hand.

Most of the people I know who play RPGs don't even go to shops, so it's not much of a problem.  I've got a big enough of a social pool to draw from.

My friends and I used to game allll the time in a local store - back in the 80's. Its probably been 25 years since I rolled dice anywhere but someone's house or a convention.

Nowadays, at least in my neck of the woods, I'm not sure there ARE many stores where you could play, even if you wanted to.

Also, yes, I have met and gamed with smelly neckbeards. One of my friends is borderline, in fact, but that's just the way he is after all these years - he ain't gonna change. IT nerd, you know the type.

Quote from: Benoist;389108Can't remember the last time I ever met one in a store.

You're awesome. Upthread, you said you had met them in a store. But when it comes to agreeing with any tiny bit of anything I've said, you'd rather go back on what you'd said, editing your post as well. Nice. Stay classy, dude.

Seanchai

Holy fuck:

Quote from: JDCorleyI have a deep suspicion that the reason all of this is true is because the hobby has set itself up with designers/producers and consumers, when the actual experience of the hobby is more like a small group of artists buying and using paint and canvases. The idea that the fundamental transaction in the hobby is me buying something from someone is always going to be cuckoo, once you think about it a while.

Quote from: GarethNo, the problem is that a group of *consumers* somehow got it into their heads that they’re “artists.”

It’s self-aggrandizing delusional bullshit like this that lead to the wider media community, even in areas where you’d think RPGers would be valued, walking away as fast as they can.

Gamers aren’t artists. A gamer is a consumer who purchases and uses a category of products, specifically GAMES. That’s all.

That’s no more “cuckoo” than golfers purchasing and using golf gear…. Which certainly doesn’t make golfers “artists.”

Get over yourself.

Quote from: JDCorley...
But whether you call it art or sport (another good example, since many connect athletics to dance – a physical activity requiring skill and improvisation within a set framework) or something else, gaming has at its core a noncommercial activity. Companies have to find some way to help that activity along in such a way that people will pay for it.

To use your sport comparison, soccer can and is played with a ball made of rags. It doesn’t mean there is no place for soccer ball manufacturers. It just means they have a very different relationship with the soccer enthusiast than a car manufacturer has with its customers.

I guess what I’m primarily talking about here is Malcolm’s bullet point: “resisting desired behaviors”, with desired behaviors being the behaviors that make companies money. I think that is not a bad thing. I think that is a good thing. I think that is the best thing. And I think it should and will never go away, because to play RPGs, all you need is one person in your group to own the books and some dice, and you can work hard to improve your game/the fiction without ever buying anything again. At some point, we’ll want to buy a better soccer ball, and we’ll come and find one. Until then you can expect resistance to commercial offers of any kind, because the offer has nothing to do with the reality of the fundamental activity of the hobby.

Quote from: Gareth“gaming has at its core a noncommercial activity”

….and the prosecution rests.

You can’t fix this level of dysfunction. Tabletop RPG Community Delenda Est.

This is precisely why producers of other media look to draw the non-toxic individuals and elements from the community, and convert them into their base, rather than engaging with the community as a whole.

The end result, is that tabletop is left with a rump core of completely dysfunctional “fans” that not only is shrinking, but actively driving people away, thereby speeding its own demise.

Know what? That right there is what's wrong with gaming. You, Gareth and friends, turned it from community-based shared creativity into the passive consumption of uninspired pablum you and supposed "game design pros" were paid $0.05 a word to write. You don't get the core idea of the hobby you made your living on, and now have the audacity to question others' rights to treat it as the social, bottom-up and user-driven medium it was meant to be from the start. Amazing. This post has really opened the doors to something really ugly, like finding a roomful of corpses below the house of a nice old teacher. Falsehood and rot everywhere, real mind-poison.

And know what? People like Gareth and Malcolm leaving will be good for the hobby. It will be a better, saner, more intellectually honest and creative (although yes, smaller) place without them.

Good riddance! Leave! Out! Out! Out!

Quote from: Seanchai;389115You're awesome. Upthread, you said you had met them in a store. But when it comes to agreeing with any tiny bit of anything I've said, you'd rather go back on what you'd said, editing your post as well. Nice. Stay classy, dude.

Seanchai

Dude, you're forgetting that I amended (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=389100&postcount=65) (at 1:49 PM, i.e. prior to your own post) said post mentioning that I couldn't remember the last time I did, but assumed I did.

So really, you're the one who should stay classy, here.

GMS is a fuckwad. In other news, water's wet.

Quote from: The Article* Instead of having social conversations, they focused on concrete goals.
    * They related to content in a cynical fashion.
    * They dissuaded other users from getting involved with the content.
    * They resisted most desired behaviors (that is, the stuff that actually might make money).
    * They complained all the goddamn time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;389043The fault for this lies with the Lawncrappers, those who say we should be tolerant to them, and the Swine who have a vested interest in this happening.

RPGPundit

I find the complete lack of self-awareness exhibited in your response to be... well actually, I find it hilarious. Coming from someone whose online persona revolves around cynical judgment and incessant criticism of product you dislike, and just plain all around constant bitching, the irony is thick. Pundit, you are one of the most toxic personalities in the online RPG community. Nearly every point listed above can be applied directly to you.

Quote from: Melan;389116You, Gareth and friends, turned it from community-based shared creativity into the passive consumption of uninspired pablum you and supposed "game design pros" were paid $0.05 a word to write. You don't get the core idea of the hobby you made your living on, and now have the audacity to question others' rights to treat it as the social, bottom-up and user-driven medium it was meant to be from the start. Amazing. This post has really opened the doors to something really ugly, like finding a roomful of corpses below the house of a nice old teacher. Falsehood and rot everywhere, real mind-poison.

And know what? People like Gareth and Malcolm leaving will be good for the hobby. It will be a better, saner, more intellectually honest and creative (although yes, smaller) place without them.

Good riddance! Leave! Out! Out! Out!

I completely agree, by the way. This is exactly what it is.

Is Gareth really trying to compare the dynamic and social creative output of a gaming group with static products like video-games and movies?

Big giant multiquote ahead!

Quote from: Benoist;389056http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/04/transmedia-part-one/
http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/05/transmedia-part-two/
http://gmskarka.com/2010/05/07/transmedia-part-three/

I should've fucking known.  more "new media consulting" bollocks, like the shitheads who show up on my Twitter followers from time to time who want to sell me their $70 book on how to market to the Twitter Generation or some shit.

Quote from: Benoist;389079Rebuttal. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-4.html#post5220014)

Fucking go Erik.  Pathfinder is doing great, and it's because of guys like him who actually treat gamers like people who want to play your game, instead of ignorant plebes who are fit only to buy whatever slop you dish at them.

Quote from: Age of Fable;389082Trotskyists/Christians/goths who say "Other Trotskyists/Christians/goths are arseholes. Ha ha, right on. We're not like that though" never seem to succeed in convincing the mainstream to like them, or even to see them as different to 'those others' who are the problem. Probably partly because the negative stereotype is precisely that of little groups who have frantic arguments despite being identical to outsiders.

And always missing the real irony that it's usually them who're the biggest douchebags, and the real problem with their hobby.

Some of the gamers I've known whom I think many people like Sheppard and Skarka and even some people on this board would dismiss as "creepy fatbeards" or some other such term at a glance were the most welcoming and creative gamers I encountered.

Meanwhile the "oh but I'm not like one of THOSE geeks" types, of which RPGnet and the Forge in particular are well stocked, tend to be the ones whose elitist attitude causes more harm than anything else, and whose simultaneous love of, and obliviousness to, their own ironies result in some of the most ridiculous pablum I've ever seen.  

Quote from: Garnfellow;389103While their general thesis might have some merit, there is also some crazy irony in Malcolm Sheppard and Gareth Skarka -- two of the most consistently douchebaggy online "insiders" in the RPG "industry" -- calling out douchebaggy online fans of RPGs.

Physician, heal thyself!

I love Skarka.  The man is so fucking clueless as to the irony of his own existence that it is staggering.  Everything that man has ever done or said has been a contradiction in terms.

The Dunning-Krueger effect  (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/)in action.

Quote from: Melan;389107I see a failed "game entrepreneur" rationalising his choices to abandon his former job. Since I am also familiar with his previous posting record on RPGNet and ENWorld, I must also confirm what Garnfellow wrote - Malcolm's an insufferable prick with colossal chips on both shoulders, typical RPGNet extremist politics and a bitter hatred for his supposed audience, which makes anything he wants to sell me - idea or product - suspect.

I am also seeing something of a trend here on TheRPGSite: peoples' critical thinking ability has decreased to the extent that they take this clown at face value and don't call out his obvious bullshit. Two, lotsa people here have gobbled up the "gamers = dysfunction" meme (with Forgist origins, of course). I have previously discussed why this image is a fallacy based on self-image problems and a really nasty negative stereotyping trend within the hobby, so I will not go into details.

Disappointing on all counts.

[edit]It might be worth it to mention that "RPG writer" is not a good job. It is a slog to write several pages of content a week at two cents a word or maybe a bit more for larger companies; no IP ownership and a lot of ramen noodles in your diet. It is not exactly a wonder it grinds people down to the extent they start to hate this phase of their life as they move on - which, if they want to think long-term beyond the age of, what, thirty-five or fourty, they should.[/edit]

Quote from: Melan;389116Holy fuck:

Know what? That right there is what's wrong with gaming. You, Gareth and friends, turned it from community-based shared creativity into the passive consumption of uninspired pablum you and supposed "game design pros" were paid $0.05 a word to write. You don't get the core idea of the hobby you made your living on, and now have the audacity to question others' rights to treat it as the social, bottom-up and user-driven medium it was meant to be from the start. Amazing. This post has really opened the doors to something really ugly, like finding a roomful of corpses below the house of a nice old teacher. Falsehood and rot everywhere, real mind-poison.

And know what? People like Gareth and Malcolm leaving will be good for the hobby. It will be a better, saner, more intellectually honest and creative (although yes, smaller) place without them.

Good riddance! Leave! Out! Out! Out!

Excellent points all.  The fewer of these asinine "consultant" types in this hobby, the better.

Quote from: Benoist;389108Can't remember the last time I ever met one in a store.

Try being female and working in a shop that also sells rpgs.  Oh you will see them.  Staring at you from behind racks while pretending to be looking at a book on psychology (now that was a moment of irony).  Then they go tell their friends and they all come and stare at you.  It gets even worse when they discover that you are a gamer also.

Online it reaches a whole new level.  I had to change the handle I use and even switch email addresses to get away from the creepy online stalkers types.  Lesson learned on that one I'll tell you.

GMS has many excellent ideas in his Transmedia discussion.  

Lawncrappers / Swine / Stinky Beards are mostly imaginary bogeymen.  Sure a few exist, but they are vastly outnumbered by the mainstream of gamers who have no problem holding down jobs, taking showers and having girlfriends and just like to toss dice.

RPG as hobby =/= RPG as industry.  However, I do believe that the failure of the industry will result in the disappearance of the hobby.

Overall, I agree with the article.   Online RPGers are a pretty useless lot.  Lots of spittle and fury that can't do any good for noobs who may wander into our forums.

Quote from: dekaranger;389133Try being female and working in a shop that also sells rpgs.  O.

Ouch, that sucks. I don't think I've ever done that--I certainly hope not. I usually marched up and talked to the game store owner/worker to talk to them, if they were interested in conversation. That is, no matter their physical sex. I miss the owners wife at the local store--he's usually there when I go in, and he's awesome. Yet his wife was too and she's not around as much. I imagine she's working another job to make real money. ;/

On the other hand, I'm sure the nice young lady who owned the local comic book store a decade or more ago had the same issues. Although I walked up and talked to her about comics, as I would any guy comic store owner. Again if interested.  


I guess I'm odd. Ah well.

Quote from: dekaranger;389133Try being female and working in a shop that also sells rpgs.  Oh you will see them.  Staring at you from behind racks while pretending to be looking at a book on psychology (now that was a moment of irony).  Then they go tell their friends and they all come and stare at you.  It gets even worse when they discover that you are a gamer also.

Yeah, I can imagine that happening. Awkward.

Quote from: dekaranger;389133Online it reaches a whole new level.  I had to change the handle I use and even switch email addresses to get away from the creepy online stalkers types.  Lesson learned on that one I'll tell you.

That too I can easily believe.

For reference, a follow-up from GMSkarka: Irony, Thy Name is Gamer (http://gmskarka.com/2010/06/22/irony-thy-name-is-gamer/)

Quote from: dekaranger;389133Try being female and working in a shop that also sells rpgs.  Oh you will see them.  Staring at you from behind racks while pretending to be looking at a book on psychology (now that was a moment of irony).  Then they go tell their friends and they all come and stare at you.  It gets even worse when they discover that you are a gamer also.

Online it reaches a whole new level.  I had to change the handle I use and even switch email addresses to get away from the creepy online stalkers types.  Lesson learned on that one I'll tell you.

Had to deal with a creep who acted like this last year. Had a woman join our Labyrinth Lord group and the DM started hitting on her, even though she was engaged to be married and showed no interest in becoming romantic with anyone but her fiance. It got to the point that she felt so uncomfortable by the unwanted attention from our DM, that she left the group. At which point, our DM went completely emo and quit the game and gaming because, "his muse had left and he just couldn't go on anymore."

Two years previously I sat in on a D&D game where one Player went out of his way to be a misanthrope. He went through three PCs in two months, each one played as more of a douchebag than the last. Things finally culminated and the group imploded when another Player, whom this guy didn't like, had to leave early from the game for work and had to leave his character (who was dead and awaiting a Raise Dead spell) behind and the douchebag's PC (for no in-character reason) took the corpse, set it on fire, and scattered the ashes in the local river. When asked why he did that dick move, he said it was in-character but never explained why it was in-character.

Then, of course, there is my tale of D&D Sensitivity Training. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=221302#post221302)

I agree with Spinachcat, the fucked-up gamers are few and far between. Thank God, because if they were any more common, then I doubt that anyone would play tabletop RPGs. They tend to be such spectacular fuck-ups when encountered that they become impossible to forget.

Quote from: Benoist;389139For reference, a follow-up from GMSkarka: Irony, Thy Name is Gamer (http://gmskarka.com/2010/06/22/irony-thy-name-is-gamer/)

Whose own point would seem to be made just by reading this thread.

Quote from: Gareth's blog(including some absolutely delusional garbage from the “Indie” crowd about how the resistance to monetization was due to the fact that gamers are “artists.”).

Or, if he had actually considered the point from a different perspective, there are some of us who are creative individuals that like using our games as toolkits and don't necessarily need to buy-in to the industry every franchise cycle to keep playing.

In fact, most of my more "casual" RPG-playing friends don't want to spend money on new books every edition.  They just want to sit down and play a game.  To them it's no different than sitting down and playing Monopoly, and who the fuck buys every new edition of Monopoly that comes out?

Also, another point, that the co-called "indie" crowd is very much into bottling up tiny ideas and marketing them (not necessarily a bad thing if you want a really tight, focused game), which kind of runs counter to the more trad toolkit approach where you'd see the sort of conflict between creator and consumer.  

So I'm not sure Gareth is really right in his labeling the origin of that type of "gamers are creative/artists" thinking in the indie crowd -- seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to the word "artist" rather than contemplating Corley's point.

Quote from: jeff37923;389141Whose own point would seem to be made just by reading this thread.

GMS finding irony in some gamers' knee-jerk reaction. Gareth M. Skarka, no less.

Irony INDEED.

Quote from: Silverlion;389137Ouch, that sucks. I don't think I've ever done that--I certainly hope not. I usually marched up and talked to the game store owner/worker to talk to them, if they were interested in conversation. That is, no matter their physical sex. I miss the owners wife at the local store--he's usually there when I go in, and he's awesome. Yet his wife was too and she's not around as much. I imagine she's working another job to make real money. ;/

On the other hand, I'm sure the nice young lady who owned the local comic book store a decade or more ago had the same issues. Although I walked up and talked to her about comics, as I would any guy comic store owner. Again if interested.  


I guess I'm odd. Ah well.

People walking up and talking to me is fine.  Especially if it's about something that the store carries.  Heck there is a regular who has the 'look' of the bad gamer type, big beard, over weight, middle aged, comic t-shirt, etc that I talk to every time he comes in.  He's funny, tells great stories and is an all around nice guy.  It's the folks who don't walk up and talk, the ones who just kinda hang out and stare.  They just creep me out and make me glad I don't work there after it gets dark.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;388953WAAAAAAAAAH THOSE MEAN OLD GAMERS WON'T SHUT UP AND BE A PERFECT MARKETING DEMO AND FIT INTO THE MOLD SOME MARKETROID INVENTED WAAAAAH.

Thread won at post #2.

Quote from: RPGPundit;389043The fault for this lies with the Lawncrappers, those who say we should be tolerant to them

The Swine I'm familiar with, but who are the Lawncrappers?

When I'm trying to recruit players, I'll start as a player at the FLGS and see people who I want to try out.  Then I'll GM my own game at the FLGS and see who I think I want to actually invite to my home.  There's definitely a segment of the gaming population I don't want in my house.

That having been said, the marketing tripe the guy's whining about in his article is no big news.  It's target the lowest common denominator, you'll get more people.  Once you move on to discriminating customers who have defined tastes, the number becomes smaller the more refined the taste or sensibility.  Look at these boards as a perfect example.  We're a small segment of the tabletop population and usually you can't get more then ten of us to agree on any one thing.  Why do you think Hollywood turns out Michael Bay fiasco one after another, because people fill the seats.  People don't care that the movie sucks, they want to see robots and Megan Fox's sweaty abs.

Quote from: Benoist;389079Rebuttal. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/278604-companies-staying-away-rpg-gamers-4.html#post5220014)

Lord, Erik's rebuttal gave GMS and the idiot a trashcan-sized asshole.

Quote from: Spinachcat;389135RPG as hobby =/= RPG as industry.  However, I do believe that the failure of the industry will result in the disappearance of the hobby.

I don't think the hobby will die anytime soon. There are enough out in internet land to keep producing material if only for the love of it. And we gamers will keep introducing our friends to RPGs.

Fuck the industry. Look what happened to EGG and TSR. Look at all of the designers of 2.5e and 3e that have struck out on their own. Necromancer produced some of the most memorable products, and Clark is a lawyer (I hope he made some money for his work.) My point is the industry is brutal to both those that produce and those that play.

What WOTC forcing a sourcebook per month during its heyday... seriously? If I took all of the material they put out during 3e and 3.5e I don't think I could play half of it my lifetime. I have been in two different groups that played a mish-mash of 1e, and BD&D. During the three or so years they used maybe half-dozen modules. These are the fucking people that bought-in the late 70's early 80's. Fuck, Goodman's first-so-called Golden Age. Those groups had maybe 6 hardbacks! These people spent more on Tolkien's books than D&D (everyone in those groups had the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Silmarillion, and the Hobbit.)

Yeah for the hobby, fuck the industry.

Quote from: Benoist;389119Dude, you're forgetting that I amended (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=389100&postcount=65) (at 1:49 PM, i.e. prior to your own post) said post mentioning that I couldn't remember the last time I did, but assumed I did.

You're right. Mea culpa. My apologies.

Seanchai

Quote from: CRKrueger;389161Lord, Erik's rebuttal gave GMS and the idiot a trashcan-sized asshole.

I rather think the bit in his rebuttal about "marginal RPG businessmen trying to explain their failures" might have stung a bit as well...

Lord Hobie

Quote from: Lord Hobie;389165I rather think the bit in his rebuttal about "marginal RPG businessmen trying to explain their failures" might have stung a bit as well...

Lord Hobie

I know.  

Quote from: Eric Mona kicking assI see as you piling on the tired old cliche of "the customer is the problem" that I see parroted again and again by marginal RPG businessmen trying to explain their failures.

Ouch.

Quote from: Melan;389116Know what? That right there is what's wrong with gaming. You, Gareth and friends, turned it from community-based shared creativity into the passive consumption of uninspired pablum you and supposed "game design pros" were paid $0.05 a word to write. You don't get the core idea of the hobby you made your living on, and now have the audacity to question others' rights to treat it as the social, bottom-up and user-driven medium it was meant to be from the start. Amazing

I have to agree. The hobby doesn't benefit from attitudes like those above expressed by people in the industry. I don't even think the industry benefits in the long term. As I've said before the tabletop RPG hobby can survive without the industry, but the tabletop RPG industry can't survive without the hobby. I think attitudes like those you quoted do far more harm to the industry in the long run than all the neckbeards -- real and imagined -- at game stores.

Quote from: kregmosier;389051This would be News, except that you can replace "tabletop role-playing gamers" online with:

* Model Train Enthusiasts
* Gun Nuts
* Sports Fans
* Fitness Buffs
* Historians
* New Mothers
* Librarians

etc. etc. ad nauseum...

Reads like someone needed to vent and had no content for a blog update.  Low hanging fruit and all...

Yep, every group has their mouth breathers.

Quote from: Melan;389116Good riddance! Leave! Out! Out! Out!

:worship:

Quote from: GarethNo, the problem is that a group of *consumers* somehow got it into their heads that they're "artists."

No, the real problem is that rpg writers are usually failed novelists who somehow got it into their heads that they're "artists."  

Quote from: Melan;389116Good riddance! Leave! Out! Out! Out!

:worship:

Quote from: jeff37923;389140Had to deal with a creep who acted like this last year. Had a woman join our Labyrinth Lord group and the DM started hitting on her, even though she was engaged to be married and showed no interest in becoming romantic with anyone but her fiance. It got to the point that she felt so uncomfortable by the unwanted attention from our DM, that she left the group. At which point, our DM went completely emo and quit the game and gaming because, "his muse had left and he just couldn't go on anymore."

So that's what happened to him.  I knew he had some kind of melt down, but I didn't know the details.  Still, this sort of thing happens outside of games all the time too.

Quote from: Werekoala;389114Also, yes, I have met and gamed with smelly neckbeards. One of my friends is borderline, in fact, but that's just the way he is after all these years - he ain't gonna change. IT nerd, you know the type.

Then there's times like this: A regular showed up at the store to browse for an hour or so  - and he smelled, noticeably.
That was very unusual.
 My face must have scrunched up .
 He noticed my reasction and I discreetly informed him that he had an odor and that he doesn't usually doesn't have an offensive ...um smell.
His reaction? "Oh man, I'm sorry. I slept at the girlfriend's place last night I didn't get a chance to shower this morning. "
He wasn't lying - I knew he had recently started dating someone. He was also honestly apologetic about it.


- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPundit;389043.................
Not a huge surprise given how gaming has intentionally driven itself further from the mainstream of normal society at a steady pace. ...................


RPGPundit

I know I've said a version of this in other threads - however.....

Pundit, you're wrong on this one.

 If anything RPGs and gaming is actually closer to the mainstream or has even merged with it.

More and more people have either tried D&D/RPGs or have been in a campaign at some point in their lives.

The problem crops up when some news media and some gamers do not recognize this fact and are still reacting to things based on the out-of-date cliches and stereotypes.

When I see "overweight neckbeards" in the store, they are not the RPG players and purchasers - they are the miniatures gamers for the most part. We're talking the ones that play WARHAMMER 40K, WARMACHINE, BATTLETECH, Star Wars Miniatures, etc..


Most of the D&D and Role playing gamers are clean, mostly normal looking people with good hygiene.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Seanchai;389163You're right. Mea culpa. My apologies.

Seanchai

Thank you, man.

Quote from: jeff37923;389140Had to deal with a creep who acted like this last year. Had a woman join our Labyrinth Lord group

Wait. You've been playing LL lately?

Quote from: mhensley;389175So that's what happened to him.  I knew he had some kind of melt down, but I didn't know the details.  Still, this sort of thing happens outside of games all the time too.

It probably does, but what I am willing to write about is the edited version of events. It got extremely creepy for everyone involved.

Quote from: Benoist;389190Wait. You've been playing LL lately?

Yeah....

Quote from: jeff37923;389199Yeah....

Sorry. Just came back from the kids' grad so, my brains might just be dead right now and I don't remember. How is it working for you?

Quote from: Benoist;389202Sorry. Just came back from the kids' grad so, my brains might just be dead right now and I don't remember. How is it working for you?

We like it. Works well for our games for the group.

I love the system. It is simple and elegant, is very compatible with B/X, BECMI, and RC. It lets you create a character in about 5 minutes by hand (Look ma! No computer needed!). Seems to be more attractive for casual gamers and useful for pick up games.

I have to admit, a portion of my enthusiasm for Labyrinth Lord may be because I am going through a period of rejecting how common sense and some basic small unit tactics have been replaced with Feats and Powers in 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E in Players I've encountered recently. No amount of awesome special abilities will be able to take the place of some sound planning in game.

Quote from: jeff37923;389213No amount of awesome special abilities will be able to take the place of some sound planning in game.

You know it's bad when they start asking for jars of oil instead of flasks.

Wasn't even running D&D at the time...but at least it lets me know my players are still capable of thinking outside the box.

Older article by Malcolm Sheppard on the same topic.

http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2010/03/21/where-did-you-go-tabletop-joe/

Quote from: ggroy;389235Older article by Malcolm Sheppard on the same topic.

http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2010/03/21/where-did-you-go-tabletop-joe/

QuotePeople who just want you to know how much sparkly vampires suck, repeatedly, and use the words “Gygaxian” to describe pulp with extra goalpost shifting, or “Narrativism” to try and jazz up inane Tinkertoy story structures are really boring. Game companies should start ignoring them.

Is he a fucking idiot?  High-school age and early 20-somethings fucking hate Twilight.  All of us do, even the "normal" or "non-gamer" people.  It's a fucking retarded teen girl and middle-aged woman phenomenon.  A flash-fire for a limited demographic, not a cultural marker.  Not exactly within any demographic any type of gaming would attract in the first place.

Talk about being out of touch...

Quote from: RandallS;389171I have to agree. The hobby doesn't benefit from attitudes like those above expressed by people in the industry. I don't even think the industry benefits in the long term. As I've said before the tabletop RPG hobby can survive without the industry, but the tabletop RPG industry can't survive without the hobby. I think attitudes like those you quoted do far more harm to the industry in the long run than all the neckbeards -- real and imagined -- at game stores.

I am more pessimistic about the long-term viability of the broader hobby without an industry to support it, but I have also become less and less generous about the parasitic relationship between the "book collector hobbyist" set and the people who deliver their content stream. It has lead to a distortion of emphases from play to non-play, and from active participation to passive reception.

We should recognise that different people want different degrees of DIY from their hobby, but in the end, it is about sitting down with friends and making up things. Someone on Knights&Knaves once put it as "creativity aid vs. creativity replacement", and I think the people who make games should heavily focus on the former. In the long term, that is the viable model, since the opportunities for passive entertainment have become much more accessible and numerous with the Internet and choose-your-own-content. The question for game companies is "is it a viable model for me?" - and I am pretty sure it is more viable for Paizo than Gareth. It will, of course, always be viable for outfits like Necromancer Games or collectives like the ones who drive Fight On! and Knockspell, at least as long as the social networks which sustain gaming hold strong.

Finally, here is one more remark I have made previously (not my revelation, but I try to live by it) but which I think is also relevant to the argument in this thread: RPGs are games about hospitality and getting together in an age where letting strangers into your personal space, let alone home is becoming a strange event. It is an inherently social hobby; in part I think this is why it magnifies social friction and conflicts between individuals. What gamers should realise, above all, is that they are not that different from the rest of society - they just practice a form of entertainment that requires informal socialisation.

Quote from: Peregrin;389237Is he a fucking idiot?

A pretentious wanker, perhaps, but not an idiot.

This whole thing makes my brain hurt.

Why exactly would anyone who's not in the RPG business want to specifically target RPG gamers? It's not a large demographic, so why focus on it?

GMS's "transmedia" rants seem predicated on the assumption that because RPG companies have the skills to create transmedia products (probably true, at least the ones who have done lots of work with metaplots), this must obviously mean the RPG gamers would make great transmedia customers and would engage actively in transmedia communities etc. Which is such an odd assumption I'm still confused as to how exactly he made it.

Sheppard, on the other hand, is so coy about his example that it's difficult to tell what the hell he's arguing. However, it does again feel a bit like he's making the same mistake as Skarka, and viewing RPGs as being about "delivering world content to consumers" rather than being simply "games". His bizarre side-rant where he lays in to games for being media idiots because they're prepared to talk to game creators directly just confuses things further.

Actually, I think Sheppard is best summed up by the previous post about "firing the fans" when he's all "how can people change to avoid being fired", and the very first response he gets is "actually, I don't think the fans care about being fired". Which, of course, they don't. Arguably, sections of the D&D fan base have been fired, repeatedly, which has resulted in the industry shrinking faster than the hobby. The OSR he derides is actually the first attempt to "monetise" that section of the hobby market in years.

Hmm. Now I've stopped to think about it for a while to write this post, the whole thing just seems to be another example in the long history of "RPG Industry fails to understand the difference between the industry and the hobby, and berates gamers for not supporting their business models".

Quote from: Grymbok;389244This whole thing makes my brain hurt.

Why exactly would anyone who's not in the RPG business want to specifically target RPG gamers? It's not a large demographic, so why focus on it?

Actually its VERY large demographic - some few people are starting to recognize that truth.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Malcolm Douchey1. Please the old fans and ask them to perform outreach to new fans in exchange for cookies and ego stroking.
   2. Gradually alter the game to get new fans and migrate old fans (Helooooo new edition! Metaplot!)
   3. Hit the new fans hard; invite the old ones to come along for the ride, but don’t hold up the bus for them, so to speak.

This guy needs a reality check. Like. Real bad.

The vast majority of new gamers are introduced to role playing by people who already are gamers. It's been like this since the hobby's infancy, and it is still going on to this day (uncles, dads and moms, cousins, brothers and sisters, friends, friends of friends, etc). This guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

And yes, he's an idiot.

I've worked with Malcolm Sheppard before. It's a weird experience. He doesn't really discuss his ideas with other people, he just writes his section and walks away. His section likely doesn't synch well with the other sections, and he expects that to be handled by other people. He did part of the Nanotech chapter in Augmentation for Shadowrun, if that gives you any idea of what I mean.

But the short answer is: Malcolm Sheppard is one of the major writers behind NWoD Mage. I wouldn't take his opinion on how to grow an audience as gospel or even particularly well informed. When he got his chance to do things the way he wanted, he... made a bloated and sprawling rant the length of Remembrance of Things Past that no one understands and almost noone even in the fandom has actually completed reading.

You might as well be asking the guy who engineered New Coke to explain what beverage companies need to do to keep their market share. We aren't looking at a guy who had radical ideas but was never given a shot by a major publisher - we're looking at a guy who was pretty much allowed to do whatever he wanted and given basically as many 20,000+ word chapters as he wanted to do it with. And the result was a grinding failure.

He's trying to tell us that NWoD was the right way to go, because alienating the Camarilla Society was the best way forward. And that's... totally insane. The data does not support that hypothesis.

-Frank

Quote from: Koltar;389245Actually its VERY large demographic - some few people are starting to recognize that truth.


- Ed C.

Really? How large do you think it is then, and what's that thinking based on?

Quote from: Grymbok;389252Really? How large do you think it is then, and what's that thinking based on?

Wizards of the Coast said this year that the "lapsed D&D player" demographic was 24 million people. I don't know how good their market research was, but I am willing to call it better than some pontifications from a guy who wrote for a poorly performing edition of a White Wolf Game.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389253Wizards of the Coast said this year that the "lapsed D&D player" demographic was 24 million people. I don't know how good their market research was, but I am willing to call it better than some pontifications from a guy who wrote for a poorly performing edition of a White Wolf Game.

-Frank

Err... I'm the one saying RPG gamers are a small demo, not Malcolm. I certainly haven't written any White Wolf Games that I recall...

Anyway - if we're defining "RPG Gamers" as "People who used to play D&D but now don't" then yes it's a big demographic. I'm not sure it's a useful one - don't know how you'd reach it or what level of commonality of interests/behaviour you'd find.

But that doesn't seem to be the usage of the term that Sheppard and Skarka were using though.

Quote from: Werekoala;388987Guess I got lucky with my Sunday group. We got together through Meetup.com, exchanged some emails, and met at Applebee's first to chat and get a feel for the group. No wierdos besides me, and we've even got three girls (hee! boobies!) in the group. So I guess it can be done, but you just have to roll well.

Good hell, the Meetup group from around here was entirely populated with mouth-breathers.  One dude, honest to God, advertised for players by boasting of 'ROLEplayers, not ROLLplayers'.  I was thinking, did you post this from a super-luminal modem back in the 90s or something?

I swear, just about all of them were looking for some kind of non-rules based round-robin story session.  Fucking pussies.  :)

Quote from: Melan;389107I am also seeing something of a trend here on TheRPGSite: peoples' critical thinking ability has decreased to the extent that they take this clown at face value and don't call out his obvious bullshit.

I tried the bullshit calling for a while, but everyone seemed to think I was being an asshole.

Quote from: jeff37923;389140Had to deal with a creep who acted like this last year. Had a woman join our Labyrinth Lord group and the DM started hitting on her, even though she was engaged to be married and showed no interest in becoming romantic with anyone but her fiance. It got to the point that she felt so uncomfortable by the unwanted attention from our DM, that she left the group. At which point, our DM went completely emo and quit the game and gaming because, "his muse had left and he just couldn't go on anymore."

I am pretty sure that guy would not have made it out the door with my old group in high school.  

"Your... muse?  Fucking... what the fuck?"

Quote from: CRKrueger;389158People don't care that the movie sucks, they want to see robots and Megan Fox's sweaty abs.

You were looking about a foot too low, my friend.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.  ;)

Quote from: Benoist;389190Wait. You've been playing LL lately?

And he hasn't been over to the Citadel to talk about it.

You are a cock, Jeff.  :)

Quote from: Melan;389107I am also seeing something of a trend here on TheRPGSite: peoples' critical thinking ability has decreased to the extent that they take this clown at face value and don't call out his obvious bullshit.

I tried the bullshit calling for a while, but everyone seemed to think I was being an asshole.

Quote from: jeff37923;389140Had to deal with a creep who acted like this last year. Had a woman join our Labyrinth Lord group and the DM started hitting on her, even though she was engaged to be married and showed no interest in becoming romantic with anyone but her fiance. It got to the point that she felt so uncomfortable by the unwanted attention from our DM, that she left the group. At which point, our DM went completely emo and quit the game and gaming because, "his muse had left and he just couldn't go on anymore."

I am pretty sure that guy would not have made it out the door with my old group in high school.  

"Your... muse?  Fucking... what the fuck?"

Quote from: CRKrueger;389158People don't care that the movie sucks, they want to see robots and Megan Fox's sweaty abs.

You were looking about a foot too low, my friend.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.  ;)

Quote from: Benoist;389190Wait. You've been playing LL lately?

And he hasn't been over to the Citadel to talk about it.

You are a cock, Jeff.

Quote from: Grymbok;389244GMS's "transmedia" rants seem predicated on the assumption that because RPG companies have the skills to create transmedia products (probably true, at least the ones who have done lots of work with metaplots), this must obviously mean the RPG gamers would make great transmedia customers and would engage actively in transmedia communities etc. Which is such an odd assumption I'm still confused as to how exactly he made it.

Transmedia is old (http://www.giantitp.com/) news (http://www.nuklearpower.com/) for (http://goblins.keenspot.com/) RPGs (http://yafgc.net/). At least for D&D. It's just traditionally handled by third party publishers. This is also ignoring the steady stream of paperback fiction they've been churning out since before the internet. And the tv show. And the movies. And remember how many RPGs are actually licensed properties of other franchises.

Odds are, if RPGers had complaints, it might have been the bad content and not the distribution model.

Quote from: beejazz;389266Transmedia is old (http://www.giantitp.com/) news (http://www.nuklearpower.com/) for (http://goblins.keenspot.com/) RPGs (http://yafgc.net/).

Looking at the various Transmedia sites it reminds me of my sons when they were babies and discovering their navel. They marvel at something that already there.

It not that revolutionary what they "discovered". Main difference today is that the internet has driven down the cost of distribution and computers the cost of production down to the point where folks can reasonably attempt to tell a story using multiple formats at once. Or a related set of stories, Or whatever. It is little different than something like Jim Butcher's Dresden file where each novel about Harry Dresden add to an overarching meta plot. Or JMS' Babylon 5 with it's individual episodes mostly standalone but also building up a larger picture of the B5 universe.

Quote from: StormBringer;389255And he hasn't been over to the Citadel to talk about it.

You are a cock, Jeff.  :)

I thought The Citadel of Chaos (http://www.citadelofchaos.net/forum/index.php) only dealt with vintage games and not retro-clones.

Quote from: estar;389275Looking at the various Transmedia sites it reminds me of my sons when they were babies and discovering their navel. They marvel at something that already there.

It not that revolutionary what they "discovered". Main difference today is that the internet has driven down the cost of distribution and computers the cost of production down to the point where folks can reasonably attempt to tell a story using multiple formats at once. Or a related set of stories, Or whatever. It is little different than something like Jim Butcher's Dresden file where each novel about Harry Dresden add to an overarching meta plot. Or JMS' Babylon 5 with it's individual episodes mostly standalone but also building up a larger picture of the B5 universe.

While I agree that the whole transmedia thing is not a new thing, your examples are bad. Transmedia is about tie ins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvmZ9SPcTzU), while you are talking about planned story expandability. Transmedia is about selling or distributing related products in other media, your examples are just leaving room for sequels within the same medium.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389278While I agree that the whole transmedia thing is not a new thing, your examples are bad. Transmedia is about tie ins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvmZ9SPcTzU), while you are talking about planned story expandability. Transmedia is about selling or distributing related products in other media, your examples are just leaving room for sequels within the same medium.

-Frank

Yeah... the Babylon 5 example struck me as a bit off too, but considering that the Star Wars RPG (in all its iterations) was itself a tie in of a very large franchise... and then considering things like dragonlance novels and the D&D TV show, several popular computer games, the crappy movies, etc. transmedia is still old news as of the 80s.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389278Transmedia is about selling or distributing related products in other media, your examples are just leaving room for sequels within the same medium.

I don't think that what the proponents are talking about. They are not tie-ins but integral parts of the story itself. In other words you don't get the complete picture unless you view all the media they have to offer. From what I am getting each part could be enjoyed on it's own but needs all to be viewed to get the entire picture.

And it not limited to events in the "present" of the story. But could include stuff in the past or the future. I.e. prequels and sequels. So the argument of "all they were doing was writing sequels." about past efforts doesn't ring for me.

Again the big limitation in the past is that you needed a large wad of money to do anything in multiple media at the same time. Hence most example are limited and confined to a single media (books, tv, film, etc) Today the amount of money you need is considerably lower allowing even individuals to attempt this.

After reading this, it occured to me that RPGs are a rare case of a hobby where people make stuff and give it away free, and it's of comparable quality to products you pay for (in game usefulness if not production values). So the actual assertion that we "can't have nice things" is wrong.

Quote from: jeff37923;389276I thought The Citadel of Chaos (http://www.citadelofchaos.net/forum/index.php) only dealt with vintage games and not retro-clones.

Vintage gaming, Sir, which certainly may include clones, IMO. Nuance. ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;389276I thought The Citadel of Chaos (http://www.citadelofchaos.net/forum/index.php) only dealt with vintage games and not retro-clones.

Of course not!  Some of the example games in the Strategy Review section:

AD&D; B/X (Moldvay/Cook), BECMI (Mentzer) D&D; Holmes Basic; Labyrinth Lord; OSRIC; Swords and Wizardry; White/Brown box D&D (Greyhawk, Blackmoor)

They just don't get all that much discussion because the OSR has them pretty well covered.  There haven't been any retro-clones of other systems yet, so D&D clones are about all there is to talk about.

Quote from: StormBringer;389349O

They just don't get all that much discussion because the OSR has them pretty well covered.  There haven't been any retro-clones of other systems yet, so D&D clones are about all there is to talk about.

Ahem, see this post. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=389370#post389370)

Quote from: Silverlion;389368Ahem, see this post. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=389370#post389370)

Ok, yeah, I was exaggerating a bit.  There are others out there, but as you mentioned there, little support and even less recognition.

But hey, that is what the Citadel is for!  Start the talking, and pull in anyone you know!

Quote from: Melan;389241RPGs are games about hospitality and getting together in an age where letting strangers into your personal space, let alone home is becoming a strange event. It is an inherently social hobby; in part I think this is why it magnifies social friction and conflicts between individuals.

This is a brilliant observation.

Thank you Melan.

Quote from: Benoist;389246The vast majority of new gamers are introduced to role playing by people who already are gamers.

I am not so sure about this anymore.  

We have no idea if "playing D&D with Dad as a tyke" is going to translate into becoming a teen and gaming with fellow teens.   It may just be the "Daddy plays with me!" phase of pre-adolescence and tweenage.  

Back when RPGs exploded, it was young adults and teens converting over people of their same age group.    As gamers became old fucks, most stopped converting their fellows.

Though possibly, this is because adults interact in work environs or family environs, neither which is especially conducive for RPG discussion.   Sure, it occurs, but obviously its rare compared to schoolyard conversions.

The ENWorld version of this thread got shut down.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389569The ENWorld version of this thread got shut down.

In part because the mods pussied out over me saying that Shep and Skarka can go die in a fire if they can't be bothered to produce stuff worth buying.

And yes, EN World's modclique pussied out.  It's a bullyboy move, and I just sighed when I got the PM telling me that I couldn't even view the thread anymore.  (Which I got around by using another browser, which is how I got to see the close- anticlimatic.)

*sigh*

The points I made stand: We don't need them anymore, and if they want our custom then they have to step up and do better than what we can get for free on our own (and with minimal time invested).  More and more gamers grok this, as they can come up with cool shit they think is fun while playing Halo or watching Iron Man 2 or getting laid or cheering on the squad at the bar.  I'm thrilled to see this wholesale reclaimation of the original culture, as it will mean more gaming for all that actually want to fucking play the game.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389569The ENWorld version of this thread got shut down.

Wow. I'm shocked. So surprising. :D

Quote from: two_fishes;389121I find the complete lack of self-awareness exhibited in your response to be... well actually, I find it hilarious. Coming from someone whose online persona revolves around cynical judgment and incessant criticism of product you dislike, and just plain all around constant bitching, the irony is thick. Pundit, you are one of the most toxic personalities in the online RPG community. Nearly every point listed above can be applied directly to you.

Except for the most important one, that of feeling positive about the product itself. The people who are killing the gaming hobby are the ones who think gaming itself is "dysfunctional" (ie. the Forge Swine) as Melan so aptly pointed out earlier in the thread, while having a vested interest in recreating the hobby as a minority interest founded on their pet concepts.

I love gaming and I want it to grow. Those that are ruining the hobby are those who either actually hate gaming and want to remake it as "art" or "pseudo-intellectual pursuit" (like the Forge Swine) or those who don't actually give a shit about gaming but have hidden in it as a "subculture" where their personal social retardation and disgusting personality disorders are "tolerated" (the Lawncrappers), thanks to geek social fallacy.

And increasingly, the hobby is designed to drive more and more regular people out and to become a willful haven for the lawncrappers and the pseudo-intellectuals.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;389150Thread won at post #2.



The Swine I'm familiar with, but who are the Lawncrappers?

The Lawncrappers! (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=1808&highlight=lawncrappers)

RPGpundit

Quote from: Koltar;389187I know I've said a version of this in other threads - however.....

Pundit, you're wrong on this one.

 If anything RPGs and gaming is actually closer to the mainstream or has even merged with it.

More and more people have either tried D&D/RPGs or have been in a campaign at some point in their lives.

The problem crops up when some news media and some gamers do not recognize this fact and are still reacting to things based on the out-of-date cliches and stereotypes.

When I see "overweight neckbeards" in the store, they are not the RPG players and purchasers - they are the miniatures gamers for the most part. We're talking the ones that play WARHAMMER 40K, WARMACHINE, BATTLETECH, Star Wars Miniatures, etc..


Most of the D&D and Role playing gamers are clean, mostly normal looking people with good hygiene.

- Ed C.

I'm not trying to negate your personal experience at the FLGS, Koltar, but I think we're talking about two different things.

Look at my "Lawncrappers" essay; as I pointed out there, back when I started the hobby gaming was something that everyone was doing, that you didn't have to be an obsessive nerd to involve yourself in. There were always obsessive nerds in the hobby, but they didn't dominate the hobby. You could be a really "casual gamer"; and there was no more stigma at that time (aside from "satanic panic") to playing RPGs than there was to playing backgammon or monopoly.
But today, games are all oriented to gamers: the people who are being sold product and who are being encouraged by the industry are the most insular, most compulsive "fanboys", and the regular dude doesn't really have any game on the market that's simple enough or accessible enough for them to just pick up and game spontaneously.

That's problem one.

Problem two is that over time, as more of those "regular" people left the hobby, more of the extremists with personal social-retardation issues began demanding "tolerance" for their extreme behaviours.  Its like I've said before, I LONG for the time when your mom was afraid that if you started playing D&D you'd end up worshiping Satan; because now, if you start playing D&D your mom is likely to worry you'll end up a 40 year old virgin living in her basement.

And the more we've come to tolerate the Lawncrappers, the more regular people choose to leave; its a vicious cycle. The orientation in the industry to the hardcore fan has reduced the presence of regular people playing, which has in turn increased the influence of the Lawncrappers, which in turn leads more regular people to leave, and finally leads Lawncrappers who otherwise would never have cared about gaming to start gaming just because its seen as a "lawncrapper-safe" activity.

Finally, the third big problem is with the failed-novelists (as someone said above) and would be "Artistes" and "Pseudo-intellectuals"; the Swine, in other words, who actively WANT gaming to be a tiny subculture, because of their disdain for regular people who they think of as the (ironically) "Unwashed"  masses. These people don't want games to be easy or fun, the sort of things that attract regular people; they want them to have "Meaning" or "address story" or other bullshit, and dream of being in charge of a hobby (no matter how small) where they rule over a cadre of social retards.

I'm glad that you've personally seen evidence that lots of regular people are still gaming or getting into gaming; and I agree that I don't think by far that its "too late" for gaming to be "saved" (unlike, say, Furry fandom).   But the answer to all this is to gear gaming as a hobby away from the fanatics and toward the mainstream, so that these people feel like its their hobby, and not the Swine or the Lawncrapper's.

RPGPundit

Quite a number of people who I've met outside of the "gamer" subculture (ie, coworkers, friends of friends, boyfriends of friends, girlfriends of friends, etc.) actually are casual RPers who either gave it up because their group disbanded, lack of time, or whatever, but who wouldn't mind getting in on another game.

At least half of the people I know who do or who have played RPGs in the past are people I never would have expected to be gamers.  Quite a few either started with 2e or 3e (considering I'm only 22), and just never bought into the next iteration since their social circles changed with college and whatnot.  I'd say not to underestimate the number of casual and/or "normal" players the d20 boom brought in.

Obviously it's just that life got hold of them and media that's easier to fit into their lives (movies, video-games, etc.) have replaced RPGs.  What I wonder is if it's even possible to control the size of the hobby, or maybe it's just had its heyday and that's it -- culture everywhere is changing and there may be nothing we can do.

It's not that these people wouldn't play given the right group -- most of them seem more than willing to sit down at a table and play (the culture certainly didn't scare them away, since most of them played with high-school or college friends), but will they given the choice between tabletop or some other medium.  Wizards is currently attempting to address this issue with Encounters, but I'm not sure that style of play necessarily caters to enough tastes to draw back in more than a fraction of the lapsed casual players.

3e was a lucky break and very good timing, since it managed to catch a lot of lapsed players (and their kids and younger relatives who they could share the game with).  Whether or not we'll see this "perfect storm" again (or some alternate boom) for the people who started gaming in the 90s/early 00s, I'm not sure.

Well Pundit has a point about the Lawncrappers, but there's another force at work: age.

People stopped playing RPGs when they got out of high school or college the same way people stop doing everything they did in high school or college.  They get jobs, get married, move to different locations, lose track of old friends.  These people would probably game if they had time or people they liked to game with.  In the military RPGs are still popular, lawncrapper's haven't done anything there.

The problem is, the people who kept playing RPGs after college most of the time were people who weren't too successful at other aspects of life.  80s and 90s weren't exactly laid back, people were serious about work and money.

I think it's more a case of the normal people left just because life called, and Lawncrappers were all that were left.  I think once Virtual Tabletop gets more sophisticated you'll see some people come back, but then again, some people just aren't willing to designate a few hours a week as gametime anymore, instead they game on the console or online here and there.  The irony is, that always adds up to way more then if they just sat down to game. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;389674Well Pundit has a point about the Lawncrappers, but there's another force at work: age.

People stopped playing RPGs when they got out of high school or college the same way people stop doing everything they did in high school or college.  They get jobs, get married, move to different locations, lose track of old friends.  These people would probably game if they had time or people they liked to game with.  In the military RPGs are still popular, lawncrapper's haven't done anything there.

The problem is, the people who kept playing RPGs after college most of the time were people who weren't too successful at other aspects of life.  80s and 90s weren't exactly laid back, people were serious about work and money.

I think it's more a case of the normal people left just because life called, and Lawncrappers were all that were left.  I think once Virtual Tabletop gets more sophisticated you'll see some people come back, but then again, some people just aren't willing to designate a few hours a week as gametime anymore, instead they game on the console or online here and there.  The irony is, that always adds up to way more then if they just sat down to game. ;)

Something that exacerbates this is the schedules working people have these days. People don't work 9 to 5 jobs like they used to. Changing schedules, overtime, and weird hours are very common in 2010. When everybody works different and weird schedules, its hard to connect for a 4hr span on a regular basis. I wonder if the Uruguay Pundit describes has people working more regular hours as opposed to the mess we have in America.

I know plenty of "unsuccessful" people who are far more socially adept and less awkward than their more well educated brethren.

The unhealthily obsessed would exist with or without the emigration of casual players.  It's just a matter of getting the casual, "normal", whatever players to become the dominant force in the industry again.

Quote from: CRKrueger;389674People stopped playing RPGs when they got out of high school or college the same way people stop doing everything they did in high school or college.  They get jobs, get married, move to different locations, lose track of old friends.  These people would probably game if they had time or people they liked to game with.  In the military RPGs are still popular, lawncrapper's haven't done anything there.

I believe this is true.  Most of the people I gamed with in high school (maybe all of them) and even people I have taught to play rpgs no longer do so because there are too many other things they need/would rather do with their time.

Hell, I have considered giving up rpgs because I could use the time for better things and if I need to get my gaming fix then I will play an mmorpg.

Playing an MMO isn't exactly an efficient use of time, even compared to tabletop.

Quote from: Peregrin;389680Playing an MMO isn't exactly an efficient use of time, even compared to tabletop, In My Opinion

Fixed your typo.   Don't assume you know whats a good use of my time.  You don't know me and I know what's best for me much better then you.

For me, I get more out of MMORPGS then I do rpgs, I get a better value for my time, I dont have to deal with the headache of scheduling a game or arguing about what game to play.

They are a better value for the money for me, because I can play them more often and put more time into them, making the cost per play hour less.

To me, rpgs are becoming less and less worth it.   It's been a good 21 years and good things come to an end

Don't misunderstand Daed-- I never said you.  I was talking purely in terms of the amount of buy-in time required, not the quality of the time spent.

In otherwords, I can come home from work, and play one or two full matches of Team Fortress 2 in a half-hour, then go do other things.  MMOs require a significantly greater portion of time -- it's harder to just log in for a half hour and get anything accomplished.  I don't see tabletop as somehow requiring more time than MMO games in terms of payout you get per "session."

Quote from: Daedalus;389682Fixed your typo.   Don't assume you know whats a good use of my time.  You don't know me and I know what's best for me much better then you.

For me, I get more out of MMORPGS then I do rpgs, I get a better value for my time, I dont have to deal with the headache of scheduling a game or arguing about what game to play.

They are a better value for the money for me, because I can play them more often and put more time into them, making the cost per play hour less.

To me, rpgs are becoming less and less worth it.   It's been a good 21 years and good things come to an end

I'm hoping with better virtual tabletop options, then it won't become such a headache to get people together.  Mmorpgs unfortunately don't scratch my roleplaying itch.  I love the tactical challenge of biting off more then you should be able to chew and then coming out on top.  I like hanging out with friends online, but mmorpgs are increasingly becoming almost psychological experiments.  The attempts at controlling continued subscription through time and money sinks is so pathetically transparent it makes me sick.  I might go back to WoW when they get to level 100, then I can get on and cruise through 30 levels without having to raid.

The only game with a roleplaying server worth the name that I've found is LotRO and even then it's hard to just park your 65 and go back to roleplaying up another character when everyone wants the gear necessary to advance to the next level of raiding.  God, fucking kill me now.

For roleplaying it's a good old tabletop RPG (or Bioware game).

I played WOW for years... and enjoyed it, mostly... but it didn't have jack to do with roleplaying... and yeah, it ate up WAY more time than tabletop games.

City of Heroes was a lot easier to jump in, play a bit, jump out... and for some reason, maybe the much more customized look/powers of the characters, it did seem to encourage a bit more roleplay... too bad all the missions were so blandly alike.

I've seen a LOT more assinine behavior in MMOs than I have in face-to-face games. WOW in particular seems to breed/attract fucked up behavior.

WoW has come so close to being murdered by their own hardcore so many times.  That whole raiding bollocks, the gear and stat naziing, there are definitely some very unfun aspects to the game, that are still in there and still going because they insist on listening to a group of assholes who make up a very small portion of their actual total player base.

They slowly make it a little better with each expansion, but they still cling to a fear of letting those fuckers go, and with each change to try and make it more accessible you get a whole throng of screeching bitches whining about the possibility that someone might actually get on in the game easier than they did.

For a brief shining moment I thought they might acknowledge the problem when they released a quote saying there's be no new raids after Icecrown because "we don't want to continue spending time on content most players will never see", but then they turned right around and fed them another 25-man.

It's ridiculous.  Solo content is what made the game standaout and assert it's dominance in the first place, and yet solo content is the only kind of new content you actually have to pay extra for just to get more of in the form of expansions.  New raids are almost always free.

Quote from: J Arcane;389817It's ridiculous.  Solo content is what made the game standaout and assert it's dominance in the first place, and yet solo content is the only kind of new content you actually have to pay extra for just to get more of in the form of expansions.  New raids are almost always free.

I don't play WoW.  There, I said it, and I stand by my position.

Are 'raids' just something like a huge, constantly re-spawning megadungeon that groups just pile into for hours at a time?

Quote from: StormBringer;389823I don't play WoW.  There, I said it, and I stand by my position.

Are 'raids' just something like a huge, constantly re-spawning megadungeon that groups just pile into for hours at a time?

Dungeons in WoW are instanced, pre-designed dungeons.  Raid dungeons are essentially extra large versions of these, designed for massive numbers of players, and usually with a deliberately ludicrous level of difficulty so as to force everyone in said raid to have to follow certain strategies and character strictures to succeed.  Originally in pre-expansion WoW these were usually 40 player dungeons, with a few 20 mans of secondary priority and significantly lesser gear rewards.  Currently the tiers come in 10-man and 25-man forms, in either normal or "Heroic" difficulty, the latter of both being the only one anyone bothers with as despite it's inordinate difficulty it's also the one with the better gear.

In the upcoming expansion they are supposedly making ALL raids 10-man only, to make them more possible for smaller guilds, but they're also claiming they'll be even MORE difficult, in an attempt to pander to the "hardcore" set that threw a goddamn fit about the change.

Quote from: J Arcane;389826Dungeons in WoW are instanced, pre-designed dungeons.  Raid dungeons are essentially extra large versions of these, designed for massive numbers of players, and usually with a deliberately ludicrous level of difficulty so as to force everyone in said raid to have to follow certain strategies and character strictures to succeed.  Originally in pre-expansion WoW these were usually 40 player dungeons, with a few 20 mans of secondary priority and significantly lesser gear rewards.  Currently the tiers come in 10-man and 25-man forms, in either normal or "Heroic" difficulty, the latter of both being the only one anyone bothers with as despite it's inordinate difficulty it's also the one with the better gear.

In the upcoming expansion they are supposedly making ALL raids 10-man only, to make them more possible for smaller guilds, but they're also claiming they'll be even MORE difficult, in an attempt to pander to the "hardcore" set that threw a goddamn fit about the change.

Thanks!  Interesting development trend, actually.

But it sounds like my decision to avoid WoW by installing Linux is looking better all the time.  ;)

Quote from: StormBringer;389827Thanks!  Interesting development trend, actually.

But it sounds like my decision to avoid WoW by installing Linux is looking better all the time.  ;)

Slight correction: They aren't removing 25-man raids, they're just making them the same loot as 10-mans so they aren't required to progress up the loot tree.

It's a fun game, but the endgame has basically always sucked.  Once you get to cap you either quit the game, or start another character, because the fun parts are already over.

Quote from: J Arcane;389831Slight correction: They aren't removing 25-man raids, they're just making them the same loot as 10-mans so they aren't required to progress up the loot tree.

It's a fun game, but the endgame has basically always sucked.  Once you get to cap you either quit the game, or start another character, because the fun parts are already over.

So, they still need to work on that 'sweet spot at all levels' thing?  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;389833So, they still need to work on that 'sweet spot at all levels' thing?  :)

Yeah, sorta.  The way the character talents are now, there's sort of a magic place between 50 and 80 where your character has finally become genuinely kick-ass, but there's still advancement and fun to be had.  Before that it sort of comes and goes, there's definitely rough patches in the progression there.

Once you get to 80 though, your options become limited, especially if you just don't care about gear grind.  You can run random heroics every day to try to get better gear, do dailys for pointless reputation rewards, or raid.  If you have any quests left undone in the world you can do those, or go grind for achievements, but either of these serve little real purpose as they provide basically no real reward.

The ordinary dungeons in WOW were usually fun... if you managed to find a group, if people didn't quit group the first time they got hurt, if people didn't quit when some fucking magic dagger of twinkeness failed to drop for them on a boss...
The raids though are more like synchronized swimming, tactics/movement/placement written in stone, no room for error... and everyone is expected to take them MUCH more seriously... and come prepared... which usually involves hours of prepatory grinding for ingredients for potions/meals... or for the gold to purchase them with... with the right group they can still be fun but otherwise they end up being more like a part-time job.

Quote from: Peregrin;389685Don't misunderstand Daed-- I never said you.  I was talking purely in terms of the amount of buy-in time required, not the quality of the time spent.

In otherwords, I can come home from work, and play one or two full matches of Team Fortress 2 in a half-hour, then go do other things.  MMOs require a significantly greater portion of time -- it's harder to just log in for a half hour and get anything accomplished.  I don't see tabletop as somehow requiring more time than MMO games in terms of payout you get per "session."

Just to be clear, I am currently gaming and have a weekly group, so I am not a bitter ex-gamer, I am just not getting as much from gaming as I used to (Maybe due to burn out) and I am wondering if its time to quit gaming and move on).

As for MMORPGS I can play them for 1/2 and hour or an hour or more and it makes no difference to me, I enjoy it either way

The problem stems from the fact that, well into the development period of the original release, the company added the head of Everquest's hardest-of-the-hardcore raiding guilds (Fires of Heaven) and his best buddy to head up WOW's development team.

That's right, the "Raid Or Die" thing was not originally intended.  It came in late because the partisans from EQ who successfully rioted over raid-related issues took control of the new asylum.  Now, despite those folks being gone, it's so deeply entrenched that it will likely remain an issue until WOW finally goes offline for good.

The problem is that the raiding scene dominates the entire server economy.  All of the best items--looted or crafted--stem from raiding.  Most of the economic activity of a server drives the raiding scene; without, sweet fuck-all happens so everything stagnates and dies of suffocation.  Population and prestige stem directly from the vibrancy and potency of a server's raiding guilds- the more there are, and the better they do, the larger the population and the more active everything becomes.  The raiders rule the roost, they know, and they've successfully undermined every last move at dislodging them by the developers since the first expansion cut the big raid size from 40 to 25.  The new changes will likely result in the trappings changing, but nothing else in practice.

Watching and observing what players into WOW, individually and (especially) collectively say and do (and the difference between them) is very instructive on how to create a RPG that folks with those preferences will actually buy and play regularly.  (And thus allow folks to figure out how to create RPGs that other folks, with different preferences, want to buy and use in turn.)

There is no better illustration of this than the concept of "soulbound items".

For those that don't play, almost any magical gear comes in one of two forms: bind on equip, and bind on pickup.  And the absolute best gear is ALWAYS bind on pickup.  What this means is that the second you either pick up the gear, or put the gear on, it is "soulbound" to your character permanently. It can never be given to another player or auctioned, it can only be sold for a pittance to an NPC vendor.

It is a function that basically solely exists to satisfy the same "hardcore" attitude that has people up and arms when they reduce the raid difficulties or player requirements.  It is using the system to enforce their own ego stroking desire to make sure that no one in the game possesses something without going through the same shit they had to, so they can stroke their e-dicks over being better than anyone else.

It's also a sterling example of how they went even FARTHER than the very EQ that Tigole and Furor (the Fall From Heaven guys Brad mentioned) came from, because even that fucking game apparently wasn't "hardcore" enough for them.  In EQ almost every weapon or item in the game was tradeable, it was common practice for friends to kit out a new player in whatever old gear they had.  Most of it didn't even have level requirements.  UO was the same way, so was pretty much every MMO until WoW came along and introduced the whole asinine "soulbound" concept, and now almost fucking everyone does it.

THAT is how a "hardcore" group can fuck up a game.

Quote from: J Arcane;389817It's ridiculous.  Solo content is what made the game standaout and assert it's dominance in the first place, and yet solo content is the only kind of new content you actually have to pay extra for just to get more of in the form of expansions.  New raids are almost always free.

You see the reason solo content was so predominant in WoW wasn't because of non-raiders, it was because of raiders.  You can solo all the way to max level in WoW if you want and that is by design.  That way someone can make up a new character and powerlevel them to raiding status in a few days/couple weeks.  Non-raiders are the vast majority of their customers, however, raiders are the demographic that drives the design, probably because a bean-counter tells them the raiders are hooked, the casuals will fly to the next new thing, when in reality, it's the reverse.

The deathblow was struck to LotRO when it started the 25-man raids, how long before it dies, I don't know.

Raiding died in LOTRO before the expansions even came out.  They've tossed a few 12-mans in there, but they're completely unnecessary and no one does them.  "Raid or die" doesn't exist in LOTRO, regular dungeons, crafting, and reputation work are the main goal here, and the gear you get out of them is plenty up to snuff.

Helegrod was 24th, not 25, sorry.  There are lots of raids that people still do, two 12-mans in Moria, two 12-mans in Dol Guldur.  At least they added a way to quest yourself radiance gear instead of being stuck in a raid chain.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;389248He's trying to tell us that NWoD was the right way to go, because alienating the Camarilla Society was the best way forward. And that's... totally insane. The data does not support that hypothesis.

What do you think would have been the correct (or just better) way to save (or reenvigor) the WoD? After three editions of basically the same material?

And: isn't that a problem that Shadowrun will face/is facing as well? How many differently worded versions of Player's Guide to Vampire / Matrix can a publisher sell?

(Maybe in a new thread?)

Quote from: Peregrin;389664What I wonder is if it's even possible to control the size of the hobby, or maybe it's just had its heyday and that's it -- culture everywhere is changing and there may be nothing we can do.

It's not that these people wouldn't play given the right group -- most of them seem more than willing to sit down at a table and play (the culture certainly didn't scare them away, since most of them played with high-school or college friends), but will they given the choice between tabletop or some other medium.  Wizards is currently attempting to address this issue with Encounters, but I'm not sure that style of play necessarily caters to enough tastes to draw back in more than a fraction of the lapsed casual players.

Another thought to consider: This encounter style of play could change the rules of the whole hobby - or maybe is proof of an already changed hobby as it is just the symptom/latest incarnation of the balanced, delve style play that 3e invented.

This reminds me of the first paradigm shift in RPGs, the story-fication that lead to Dragonlance (and 2e, Raven's Bluff, and WoD).

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;390036What do you think would have been the correct (or just better) way to save (or reenvigor) the WoD? After three editions of basically the same material?

The World of Darkness people wanted three things:

• A better mechanical system (for heck's sake, their own live action hack was a better tabletop RPG than their main game).
  
• A rectification of the background into something that made any kind of sense at all.
• Sufficient mechanical alterations and balance shifting to allow people to play Superfriends/Monster Squad games without having the team vampire cry actual tears of blood while the mage sings anything you can do (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfHBPusZg6E&feature=related)

That's really all they wanted. Now, let's be honest: there were things that they didn't want that should have been done too them. The Werewolf people were apparently totally happy with their extensive dog rape justifications, but that seriously turns off... almost everyone... so Forsaken was right to go to an "only hump humans" paradigm. Similarly, Mage players were pretty much OK with the ability to transform the floor into solid nitrogen or cause solid objects to lose relative inertial velocity with the Earth being level 2 sphere effects. But the thing is: that shit is crazy and severely interferes with mages being able to fit into a mixed group of supernaturals without constantly teabagging their allies on accident.

But yeah: people wanted a reasonably complete overhaul of the World of Darkness. But they wanted to be able to bring their characters and their backstories into the new rules.

QuoteAnd: isn't that a problem that Shadowrun will face/is facing as well? How many differently worded versions of Player's Guide to Vampire / Matrix can a publisher sell?

Shadowrun is facing an entirely different problem right now where the people are raging about not having content. Shadowrun lives in a future timeline, where each year in the hear and now causes a year to pass in the future setting. As such, Shadowrun softcover books are like magazines or something. And when things get tweaked enough accumulated events and tehnological progress and game design insight and player feedback and shit - it gets compiled into a new edition. Roughly every five or six years or so (meaning that yes, it's "time" for 5th edition).

The problem is that the current license quasi-holders are running SR into the ground, and Shadowrun's release schedule is three years behind schedule. Meaning that the next edition will feel both overdue (because it will have been a long literal time since 4th edition got published) and too soon (because a lot of books, like the cutting edge developments book, won't have actually been finished).

So Shadowrun could actually be dead at this point. But making a new edition would be entirely plausible. I even did some rumination as to what I would do with it if SR 5th edition was in my hands (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51152&start=0) - which of course it won't be even if it happens.

-Frank

@WoW: I think those in this thread who claim to be in the know haven't played in quite some time. There is no need to raid right now as you get nearly as good equipment from dungeon emblems these days and while that equipment is a tad worse than that of raids it is plenty enough to either start raiding or do the non raiding endgame like pvp or heroic dungeons.
Raiding is easier than ever these days, even the endgame raid icecrown citadel can be done by a pick up group.

Quote from: Saphim;390071@WoW: I think those in this thread who claim to be in the know haven't played in quite some time. There is no need to raid right now as you get nearly as good equipment from dungeon emblems these days and while that equipment is a tad worse than that of raids it is plenty enough to either start raiding or do the non raiding endgame like pvp or heroic dungeons.
Raiding is easier than ever these days, even the endgame raid icecrown citadel can be done by a pick up group.

As a current player of WoW I find your implication that I don't know anything about the game to be fucking insulting.

Yes, you can get decent gear from grinding Heroics every day, running the same fucking dungeon over and over again every day for weeks on end.  

But it's still not as good as the raiding gear, which is why any guild of enough size inevitably still starts pushing everyone at cap to raid.

Quote from: Saphim;390071@WoW: I think those in this thread who claim to be in the know haven't played in quite some time. There is no need to raid right now as you get nearly as good equipment from dungeon emblems these days and while that equipment is a tad worse than that of raids it is plenty enough to either start raiding or do the non raiding endgame like pvp or heroic dungeons.
Raiding is easier than ever these days, even the endgame raid icecrown citadel can be done by a pick up group.

Fuck you, asshole. This is my main. (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Steamwheedle+Cartel&cn=Zuraiza) See that Shadow's Edge?  That means that I'm working towards Shadowmourne, a Legendary weapon.  You can't get Legendaries if you don't raid.  You can't get top-shelf crafting patterns if you don't raid.  You can good enough to get into Icecrown, but you're going to be carried until you get up to speed gear-wise.

I play. I raid. I know damn fucking well what the score is with WOW.  Don't you dare fucking tell me otherwise.

Quote from: Saphim;390071@WoW: I think those in this thread who claim to be in the know haven't played in quite some time. There is no need to raid right now as you get nearly as good equipment from dungeon emblems these days and while that equipment is a tad worse than that of raids it is plenty enough to either start raiding or do the non raiding endgame like pvp or heroic dungeons.
Raiding is easier than ever these days, even the endgame raid icecrown citadel can be done by a pick up group.

Fuck you, asshole. This is my main. (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Steamwheedle+Cartel&cn=Zuraiza) See that Shadow's Edge?  That means that I'm working towards Shadowmourne, a Legendary weapon.  You can't get Legendaries if you don't raid.  You can't get top-shelf crafting patterns if you don't raid.  You can good enough to get into Icecrown, but you're going to be carried until you get up to speed gear-wise.

I play. I raid. I know damn fucking well what the score is with WOW.  Don't you dare fucking tell me otherwise.

Quote from: J Arcane;390073As a current player of WoW I find your implication that I don't know anything about the game to be fucking insulting.

I'm not insulted, but I am aware of those changes also... and they don't make much difference towards the reasons I stopped playing.
It was much more to do with the 'elite player' attitudes toward the 'casual players' (despite 'casual play' easily equaling a part-time job) and the general rush-to-the-endgame attitude that made exploring older content frustratingly difficult. Recent changes to the LFG system did nothing but exacerbate all of those issues for me.
In the mind of most guilds it's still all about the raiding... whereas most of my enjoyment came from exploration and discovery on the way up.

Like with TTRPGs the vocal minority can quickly turn a game to shit if the designers listen to them... but with an MMO you don't have the option of just staying with the original edition or house-ruling out the crappy bits.

Quote from: J Arcane;390073As a current player of WoW I find your implication that I don't know anything about the game to be fucking insulting.

Yes, you can get decent gear from grinding Heroics every day, running the same fucking dungeon over and over again every day for weeks on end.  

But it's still not as good as the raiding gear, which is why any guild of enough size inevitably still starts pushing everyone at cap to raid.

Well if that is what you chose to be "fucking insulted" over, so be it. Doesn't change that the game has never been that accessible to even the most casual of players.
As for the need to raid. Not sure where you are getting that from, if someone doesn't want to raid then he or she can easily enjoy the wow content in dungeon purples and quest blues and still have a good chance of doing all non raid content, like the multiple epic questlines (return of muradin, fate of arthas, wrathgate etc.).
Why your guildmaster is pushing people to raid, that is between you and him. In my guild and in virtually every guild I have contact with raiding is not required and we still are at 11/12 ICC.
And as for the gear not being up to snuff. I just recently tanked sindragosa in frost gear and heroics gear. So either I am imba or you are wrong. I am pretty sure I am not THAT imba.

Sequel article to OP.

http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2010/06/25/why-you-should-have-nice-things/

Quote from: ggroy;390215Sequel article to OP.

http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2010/06/25/why-you-should-have-nice-things/

From his "So after saying all these bad things about a subset of gamers, why do I think they should be a part of all the cool stuff that's happening in media and fiction?" comment at the end, I suspect his version of the "nice things" I deserve is MUCH different than mine. I would not be surprised if most of the gaming-related things he things are nice are things I think are a waste of time and money -- and vice-versa.

I've gotten some really nice gaming things over the last couple of years. Most of them have nothing in common with what's happening in fiction and media. The gaming stuff I've seen that does have a lot in common with a big media production is stuff I have had zero interest in participating in, let alone spending money on.

Quote from: kregmosier;389051This would be News, except that you can replace "tabletop role-playing gamers" online with:

* Model Train Enthusiasts
* Gun Nuts
* Sports Fans
* Fitness Buffs
* Historians
* New Mothers
* Librarians

etc. etc. ad nauseum...

I dunno. Pretty much all of those at lack the "theoretically self sustaining after initial buy-in" quality Benoist speaks of.

QuoteReads like someone needed to vent and had no content for a blog update.  Low hanging fruit and all...

Well, I didn't click the link but I did see it was mob united media, aka Malcom, who has also brought us other such thoughts on gamer loathing as "gamers can't be trusted to decide what is fun in a game."

Quote from: ggroy;390215Sequel article to OP.

http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2010/06/25/why-you-should-have-nice-things/

Will you please stop getting this thread back on topic!  ;)

Well, this guy seems to have completely bought in on the Cluetrain Manifesto, but completely ignores two important factors.

One - Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap.  Which, if you apply to "networked market conversation", parts of which like Twitter and Facebook raise the crap percentage significantly.

Two - Pareto's Principle applied to business 80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.  Guess what, the people he wants to jettison are most of that 20%.

Quote from: CRKrueger;390260Well, this guy seems to have completely bought in on the Cluetrain Manifesto, but completely ignores two important factors.

One - Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap.  Which, if you apply to "networked market conversation", parts of which like Twitter and Facebook raise the crap percentage significantly.

Two - Pareto's Principle applied to business 80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.  Guess what, the people he wants to jettison are most of that 20%.

This is what he, that client he claims he worked for (not buying it) and GMS forgets.  All of life belongs to the hardcore; the rest just come along for the ride, and are ultimately expendable because they don't bring in the same sales.

Wonder if they've been taking their cue from music and movie companies, where they're trying to score "home runs" (ie. Britney Spears, N'Sync, New Kids on the Block, Boston, Duran Duran, Nirvana, etc ...) instead of "base hits" (ie. everybody else).

The "home runs" may very well be when tons of casual players latch on when something is the "new shiny thing".  (ie.  Core rulebook for players).

The hardcore crowd becomes the "base hits", when the casual players are gone and not returning.  (ie. Modules, supplement rulebooks, setting books, etc ...).

The OP article seems to be about pushing the hardcore crowd aside, so that initially they don't scare away the "casual" types from purchasing the "shiny new thing".

Quote from: CRKrueger;390260Well, this guy seems to have completely bought in on the Cluetrain Manifesto, but completely ignores two important factors.

One - Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap.  Which, if you apply to "networked market conversation", parts of which like Twitter and Facebook raise the crap percentage significantly.

Two - Pareto's Principle applied to business 80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.  Guess what, the people he wants to jettison are most of that 20%.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;390264This is what he, that client he claims he worked for (not buying it) and GMS forgets.  All of life belongs to the hardcore; the rest just come along for the ride, and are ultimately expendable because they don't bring in the same sales.

Doesn't this business plan become a downward spiral where the publisher is catering to the 20% hardcore consistantly and that 20% gets smaller with each successive generation of hardcore gamers? The hardcore consumers being steadily replaced with consumers who are even more hardcore than the last, yet fewer in number than previous cycles.

Where is the business growth potential in that?

Quote from: jeff37923;390274Doesn't this business plan become a downward spiral where the publisher is catering to the 20% hardcore consistantly and that 20% gets smaller with each successive generation of hardcore gamers? The hardcore consumers being steadily replaced with consumers who are even more hardcore than the last, yet fewer in number than previous cycles.

Where is the business growth potential in that?

Good question.

Don't know what it would mean for a large company like Hasbro.

For a small company, in principle they can attempt to thrive on inertia with a steady number of hardcore people buying their books regularly (such as Palladium).  Albeit this is a slow death.

I can see a company like Paizo ending up in this direction, if they have a steady number of hardcore people buying their books every month for many years.  If this turns out to be the case, we very well may never see a 2E Pathfinder.

Quote from: jeff37923;390274Where is the business growth potential in that?

There's not any.

It's why Nintendo is set for the next decade while Sony and Microsoft continue to cater 90% of their output to the "hardcore" 20 and 30 year-olds, losing the younger fandom and setting themselves up for the same collapse as the comic industry (or the PC game industry).  Nintendo rejected the status quo for "progress" in their industry and took things in a different direction, and even with mixed results in terms of quality, it's worked for them financially.  There has not been such an epiphany or challenging the notions of "progress" in the industry that's actually succeeded in a marketing sense.

But, which has the better quality titles in terms of content, production values, and higher actual software sales?  Sony and MS.  Nintendo doesn't have a plethora of quality titles -- they're riding on gimmicks and a few rehashes.  The difference is they let the general public consume all the millions of loads of crap (or maybe just buying the hardware) while the hardcore fans feed them their software sales for the time being, as they're slowly replaced with a different market altogether.

The distinction I think he's missing is that RPGs began as a niche creative hobby based on sharing, not as a market with products for the end-user to consume -- that would come a few years after.  They are not video games, they are toolkits for groups to create with (whether you consider it art, or not), but the marketing trends established by TSR over the years set the stage for imitation.  

Think of it this way:  If Home Depot tried to market a slightly "better" set of tools every ten years, claiming your old hammer and screwdrivers don't work, and the only observable difference is a gel grip and maybe a better color-scheme, you'd think they were fusking nuts.  But here in the RPG hobby, someone selling you reworked rulesets every few years that aren't subsantially different (or are substantially different and they're trying to tell you it's the same) is commonplace.

Where do we see this sort of behavior?  "Core" Nintendo titles.  Which sector of Nintendo consumers is disappearing?  The "core".  It doesn't matter how many fat, unbathed fucks we get rid of, unless the companies involved in this so-called "industry" realize that they're going to have to break with tradition in terms of how they relate to their audience, nothing is going to change.  Selling the same game only "better" only works for so long before it starts to kick you in the ass.

In other words, it's not the "core" fans that keep others away (didn't hurt Nintendo at all that their fans were bitching high and low and everywhere for the first 2 years their console was out), it's the company and how they seek to engage people who normally wouldn't be customers.

Nintendo has simple games that anyone can play, that don't require you to dedicate 10000 hours to "beat", don't require you to read a 350 page "hint book", or to chat on forums about how to maximize your character, or to have to master a whole complex set of mechanics or moves.
Everyone thought they were out of their mind for essentially going back to the "Pong" mentality instead of catering to the fucking retarded uber-nerds who want ever-more complex games, ever-more-exclusive (in the sense of the amount of commitment required to become a "serious player") RPGs, and ever more violent and dizzying first-person shooters (that otherwise are all the same).  But everybody but Nintendo forgot something: that the era of Pong was a fucking golden age, where you had a much vaster potential market. Where "video games" was not just the domain of 14-40 year old white male virgins.

And now Nintendo was proven right.

And RPGs should follow that example. Where's the tabletop RPG equivalent of the Wii? Where's the D&D Red Box set equivalent to their Pong?

RPGPundit

I'd say the "Golden Age" of video games is right now, and never before has interactive media been so accepted by the mainstream, nor number of sales or units moved.

The industry moved a bit slower due to a collapse back in the 80s (killing off growth until Nintendo took over with licensing to have some sort of quality control), but I think the video-game industry is more at the crossroads now like the RPG industry was back in the late 80s.  They've got the sales numbers, they have the appeal (they haven't completely lost younger gamers -- yet), now it's a matter of whether they continue to cater to the "maturing" audience, the hardcore fanboys, or seek to make games that are more universal in appeal.

That said, I'm not sure RPGs can really be salvaged at this point.  It's very hard to bring back an industry that's already cut itself off culturally from a few generations of potential buyers (as always with industries tied to subcultures, adolescents).

Quote from: RPGPundit;390372Nintendo has simple games that anyone can play, that don't require you to dedicate 10000 hours to "beat", don't require you to read a 350 page "hint book", or to chat on forums about how to maximize your character, or to have to master a whole complex set of mechanics or moves.
Everyone thought they were out of their mind for essentially going back to the "Pong" mentality instead of catering to the fucking retarded uber-nerds who want ever-more complex games, ever-more-exclusive (in the sense of the amount of commitment required to become a "serious player") RPGs, and ever more violent and dizzying first-person shooters (that otherwise are all the same).  But everybody but Nintendo forgot something: that the era of Pong was a fucking golden age, where you had a much vaster potential market. Where "video games" was not just the domain of 14-40 year old white male virgins.

And now Nintendo was proven right.

And RPGs should follow that example. Where's the tabletop RPG equivalent of the Wii? Where's the D&D Red Box set equivalent to their Pong?

RPGPundit

Not sure where you are living but right now the average video game takes round about 20-40 hours to beat if you have both thumbs, with 40 being the exception rather than the rule.
And it being the domain of white male virgins... I think every 4th player in my current guild is female but that's probably due to the fact that we are a bunch of couples playing together. Usually it is a tad lower I think.

Quote from: Peregrin;390378I'd say the "Golden Age" of video games is right now, and never before has interactive media been so accepted by the mainstream, nor number of sales or units moved.

I'd say some of what RPGPundit is talking about is a different 'golden age' of video games.  Mainly because of the pong reference.  I feel there was a golden age of video games a couple decades back, the 'Arcade Golden Age' when they were raking in millions upon millions one quarter at a time.  Nowdays you could consider it a 'Golden Age for home video games' or something like that.  

So why they may be moving a ton of a certain game today it may, or may not, be getting any more actual people playing it than an arcade hit of the 80's.  I remember when I was young and seeing a line of people waiting to play Dragons Lair at the local 7-11 or the packed out arcades in Six Flags (lined up outside the doors).

QuoteNot sure where you are living but right now the average video game takes round about 20-40 hours to beat if you have both thumbs, with 40 being the exception rather than the rule.

Actually, 20-40 hours was average in the 90s.  Most video games (hardcore RPGs aside, as they're still a niche genre) take less than 25 hours, with most action games clocking in around 13-15 for their single-player campaigns.

The number of hours continues to lessen as development for hi-fidelity games becomes more expensive.

Quote from: dekarangerI'd say some of what RPGPundit is talking about is a different 'golden age' of video games. Mainly because of the pong reference. I feel there was a golden age of video games a couple decades back, the 'Arcade Golden Age' when they were raking in millions upon millions one quarter at a time. Nowdays you could consider it a 'Golden Age for home video games' or something like that.

So why they may be moving a ton of a certain game today it may, or may not, be getting any more actual people playing it than an arcade hit of the 80's. I remember when I was young and seeing a line of people waiting to play Dragons Lair at the local 7-11 or the packed out arcades in Six Flags (lined up outside the doors).

True.  I always forget about arcades, since they were dying out when I was growing up, and the big emphasis was on home consoles (with computer games being the realm of adults unless you were playing Reader Rabbit).

The revenues being generated in the present generation of gaming dwarf anything that came prior to it, even factoring in inflation.

Gaming's as big as Hollywood now, anyone of the opinion that it's anything but an ever growing success is possessed of a deep lack of perspective.

Quote from: dekaranger;390393I'd say some of what RPGPundit is talking about is a different 'golden age' of video games.  Mainly because of the pong reference.  I feel there was a golden age of video games a couple decades back, the 'Arcade Golden Age' when they were raking in millions upon millions one quarter at a time.  Nowdays you could consider it a 'Golden Age for home video games' or something like that.  

And the translations to the home consoles at the time.  Additionally, it was a 'Golden Age' of creativity, really.  Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Pango, Space invaders...  What did these games have in common?  Not a damn thing, they were all originals, and companies weren't afraid to but out some weird concept game.  These days companies put out the same game in a different wrapper constantly.  A few tweaks here and there, some innovations, but largely one third person shooter is the same as any other.  Gears of War 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are wildly different in graphics, but not drastically different in gameplay.

Quote from: StormBringer;390398And the translations to the home consoles at the time.  Additionally, it was a 'Golden Age' of creativity, really.  Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Pango, Space invaders...  What did these games have in common?  Not a damn thing, they were all originals, and companies weren't afraid to but out some weird concept game.  These days companies put out the same game in a different wrapper constantly.  A few tweaks here and there, some innovations, but largely one third person shooter is the same as any other.  Gears of War 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are wildly different in graphics, but not drastically different in gameplay.

And there were also countless companies cloning the ever-loving bejeezus out of those old arcade titles to a level that would be utterly embarrassing today.

Quote from: J Arcane;390407And there were also countless companies cloning the ever-loving bejeezus out of those old arcade titles to a level that would be utterly embarrassing today.

Oh, absolutely.  The very early stages of 'copyright infringement' mania.  There is no doubt that Sturgeon's Law reigned supreme in those heady days.  The second half of Steven Levy's Hackers explores the phenomena.  How many dozens of expressions were there of guiding some creature around a maze eating various objects while pursued by enemies?  Answer:  Lots.

Quote from: StormBringer;390398And the translations to the home consoles at the time.  Additionally, it was a 'Golden Age' of creativity, really.  Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Pango, Space invaders...  What did these games have in common?  Not a damn thing, they were all originals, and companies weren't afraid to but out some weird concept game.  These days companies put out the same game in a different wrapper constantly.  A few tweaks here and there, some innovations, but largely one third person shooter is the same as any other.  Gears of War 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are wildly different in graphics, but not drastically different in gameplay.

I don't know. There are issues with this way of looking at it:

1. Bases are covered now that weren't then.
2. Some new features are evolution instead of revolution, especially with CRPGs.
3. There are massive exceptions every few years (katamari and portal being the best examples)

Most genres have an explosion of creativity at the start followed by a long stretch of people perfecting the genre later, IME.

Quote from: beejazz;390444I don't know. There are issues with this way of looking at it:

1. Bases are covered now that weren't then.
2. Some new features are evolution instead of revolution, especially with CRPGs.
3. There are massive exceptions every few years (katamari and portal being the best examples)

Most genres have an explosion of creativity at the start followed by a long stretch of people perfecting the genre later, IME.

Definitely, I am not saying that video games should have been somehow immune to the natural evolution of the market or anything.  I was pointing out why many would consider the early 80s a 'Golden Age' for gaming.  Many of the games that were around then still enjoy some popularity now, albeit in different forms and structure.  A game like Goldeneye on the N64, on the other hand, is all but forgotten.

Quote from: StormBringer;390445A game like Goldeneye on the N64, on the other hand, is all but forgotten.

Do you mean to the general public, or the geek populace?  Because most people I know who owned a 64 still rave about Goldeneye, and even Perfect Dark, though slightly lesser-known, was re-released on the 360 redone in high-res.

Not to mention Nintendo announcing a new Goldeneye at this year's E3.

Quote from: Peregrin;390446Do you mean to the general public, or the geek populace?  Because most people I know who owned a 64 still rave about Goldeneye, and even Perfect Dark, though slightly lesser-known, was re-released on the 360 redone in high-res.

Not to mention Nintendo announcing a new Goldeneye at this year's E3.

Yeah... goldeneye was a pretty awesome game.

Quote from: Peregrin;390446Do you mean to the general public, or the geek populace?  Because most people I know who owned a 64 still rave about Goldeneye, and even Perfect Dark, though slightly lesser-known, was re-released on the 360 redone in high-res.

Not to mention Nintendo announcing a new Goldeneye at this year's E3.

Geez, another new Goldeneye?  How many does that make now?  Ummmm...  one?

The golden age of video games is about 12, give or take a few years. I suspect the same may be true of RPGs. As a result, I'm a little skeptical of the objectivity of any claim over a particular date for a golden age that also just so happens to coincide with the claimant's age at the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;390372Nintendo has simple games that anyone can play, that don't require you to dedicate 10000 hours to "beat", don't require you to read a 350 page "hint book", or to chat on forums about how to maximize your character, or to have to master a whole complex set of mechanics or moves.
Everyone thought they were out of their mind for essentially going back to the "Pong" mentality instead of catering to the fucking retarded uber-nerds who want ever-more complex games, ever-more-exclusive (in the sense of the amount of commitment required to become a "serious player") RPGs, and ever more violent and dizzying first-person shooters (that otherwise are all the same).  But everybody but Nintendo forgot something: that the era of Pong was a fucking golden age, where you had a much vaster potential market. Where "video games" was not just the domain of 14-40 year old white male virgins.

And now Nintendo was proven right.

And RPGs should follow that example. Where's the tabletop RPG equivalent of the Wii? Where's the D&D Red Box set equivalent to their Pong?

RPGPundit

And yet that game most emphatically does not exist today, particularly if it isn't 4E D&D. D&D is the only brand name in RPGs with enough mainstream visibility to fulfill this sort of role. While involvement in the local RPGA has taught me that 4E is an easy game to learn on the fly, and easily picked up by newbs with no prior experience, I don't entirely disagree with you here. They may be aiming for this with the D&D essentials line, but we won't know until we see it.

As for other things, I don't think there is any current game that can serve as this. I think 3E D&D isn't a good game for this at all, as it has all of the complexity of 4E without having 4E's ease of use, transparency, or DM friendliness. Earlier editions of D&D are way out of date both thematically and from a game standpoint compared to modern tastes.

The best first game and the one I would recommend if I wasn't recommending learning 4E from the local RPGA would be Vampire: the Masquerade second edition. Back when I was playing Vampire twice a week, we recruited a number of new players who never played before, and the system was easy to get into from both the player and GM side. Why I rate 2nd edition Masquerade higher is due to it having a more compelling setting(at the time, its a bit dated now) and the fact that you could grok the setting just by reading the character creation section while ignoring the rest of the book, which I don't think you can do with the nWoD version. It was also self contained in one book, unlike Requiem.

Any other games either aren't newbie friendly(either in complexity or having a large, stable and accessible community to learn from) or don't have the exposure.

Quote from: two_fishes;390453As a result, I'm a little skeptical of the objectivity of any claim over a particular date for a golden age that also just so happens to coincide with the claimant's age at the time.

This may very well be the case.

I thought the "golden age" of tabletop rpgs was in the early 1980's.  Before that time, I wasn't playing any rpgs.  During the 1990's, I wasn't playing any rpgs at all either.

I suppose somebody else may have a different "golden age" timeline, if they started playing in the 1990's or 2000's.

One reason companies may not like RPGers is that they prefer customers who are docile. complacent and easily manipulated.

Gamers think too much, have too many opinions, ask too many questions and so on to be good consumers.

Quote from: two_fishes;390453The golden age of video games is about 12, give or take a few years. I suspect the same may be true of RPGs. As a result, I'm a little skeptical of the objectivity of any claim over a particular date for a golden age that also just so happens to coincide with the claimant's age at the time.

I'd say the golden age of RPGs is 16-21

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390458I'd say the golden age of RPGs is 16-21

The age range may very well be changing with time.

Quote from: two_fishes;390453The golden age of video games is about 12, give or take a few years. I suspect the same may be true of RPGs. As a result, I'm a little skeptical of the objectivity of any claim over a particular date for a golden age that also just so happens to coincide with the claimant's age at the time.

Well if it matters, I'm (almost) 23, my favorite games were all in the mid-to-late 90s, and I don't like a majority of the games coming out now.

The only reason I'm predicting it's now is because of the aforementioned abandonment of the youth as the driving force behind the console industry and an extremely high peak in revenue a few years ago.  Just look at the "critically acclaimed" titles ratings now compared to the days of the NES and SNES.  The content is maturing with the "boom" generation around the advent of the NES and quality licensed titles, but I don't believe there's enough content for young people to fill the void.  Once my generation abandons gaming to deal with real life and raising families, you're talking about a huge portion of the gamer population being taken out of the equation.

The only one catering to the youth in big ways is Nintendo, and even Shigeru is saying that interactive "toys" are more interesting than games.

Of course, it's the way all things go.  The youth are the drivers of markets, not adults, especially when looking at things like games or toys.  Without catering to the youth, an industry is setting itself up for a slow demise, with little chance for a real revival.  Neither the mainstream industry nor the indie games movement have done anything to really grow the hobby.

Quote from: Peregrin;390463Of course, it's the way all things go.  The youth are the drivers of markets, not adults, especially when looking at things like games or toys.  Without catering to the youth, an industry is setting itself up for a slow demise, with little chance for a real revival.  Neither the mainstream industry nor the indie games movement have done anything to really grow the hobby.

One just has to see what happened to Avalon Hill and SPI style wargames from the 1970's.

Interesting then that WotC noticed that 4E wasn't as newbie friendly as they'd like, and are now working on an alternate version to exist side by side with the main game to remedy this.

I'm really tempted to speculate whether they're going to have the RPGA adopt D&D essentials. It will piss off a lot of people, but if they want RPGA to be the entry into D&D its probably necessary.

They don't need to "adopt" anything, since Essentials is still regular 4e, just in a more concise format.  

Same rules, just a tad less content.

Quote from: Peregrin;390469They don't need to "adopt" anything, since Essentials is still regular 4e, just in a more concise format.  

Same rules, just a tad less content.

Well, RPGA during 3E allowed most supplements, though I think "newbie/casual friendly" was one of the last things 3E RPGA would ever be accused of.

What I was talking about was more along the lines of adopting Essentials as the standard for RPGA games, as opposed to "anything in Character Builder" like is true now, and limiting RPGA to Essentials only. I think its going to happen, though probably on a two-tiered level existing along side "anything goes".

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390458I'd say the golden age of RPGs is 16-21

And to think I dropped out at almost exactly 16 and wasted three years of my life not gaming... :D

Quote from: Peregrin;390463Well if it matters, I'm (almost) 23, my favorite games were all in the mid-to-late 90s, and I don't like a majority of the games coming out now.

The only reason I'm predicting it's now is because of the aforementioned abandonment of the youth as the driving force behind the console industry and an extremely high peak in revenue a few years ago.  Just look at the "critically acclaimed" titles ratings now compared to the days of the NES and SNES.  The content is maturing with the "boom" generation around the advent of the NES and quality licensed titles, but I don't believe there's enough content for young people to fill the void.  Once my generation abandons gaming to deal with real life and raising families, you're talking about a huge portion of the gamer population being taken out of the equation.

The only one catering to the youth in big ways is Nintendo, and even Shigeru is saying that interactive "toys" are more interesting than games.

Of course, it's the way all things go.  The youth are the drivers of markets, not adults, especially when looking at things like games or toys.  Without catering to the youth, an industry is setting itself up for a slow demise, with little chance for a real revival.  Neither the mainstream industry nor the indie games movement have done anything to really grow the hobby.

This is hilarious.  Just goddamn hilarious.

I love when this site talks about video games, it's so comically fucking clueless about them it's astounding.

Video games as a medium have diversified with age just as every other major medium has.

We're talking about a medium that is exploding in academia even, something I don't recall any of these penny-ante hobby fads you're using as your point of reference accomplishing.  

Again, get some perspective, stop confining your view of the medium only to the parts of it you've chosen to engage with, and you'll realize this thing is bigger than you think it is, and it sure as hell isn't going anywhere.  The money alone will see to that.

Quote from: J Arcane;390475This is hilarious.  Just goddamn hilarious.

I love when this site talks about video games, it's so comically fucking clueless about them it's astounding.

Video games as a medium have diversified with age just as every other major medium has.

We're talking about a medium that is exploding in academia even, something I don't recall any of these penny-ante hobby fads you're using as your point of reference accomplishing.  

Again, get some perspective, stop confining your view of the medium only to the parts of it you've chosen to engage with, and you'll realize this thing is bigger than you think it is, and it sure as hell isn't going anywhere.  The money alone will see to that.

Yeah... saying that games today are losing the youth market (they aren't, there are still games for younger folks, it's just that Nintendo and some PC games are the main ones working on that niche, plus rockband and some odds and ends) or that catering to adults is going to take them down is kind of funny. It's like saying anime and manga in Japan are going to collapse because they target adults too. They aren't. Because videogames, like anime and manga do target women and younger audiences alongside the audience that grew up with them and probably isn't going to stop having time for them (the main problem with an aging audience.. anime and manga are passive media, so outside of consumption they don't take up time... videogames are more and more focused on quick play (again rockband) pvp and running around a big world doing sidequests IME). First person shooters will stay mainstream thanks to how little time quick pvps will take up. Women will keep playing MMOs, Rockband, Sims, etc. Either platformers and puzzle games will have a comeback or they're just not on my radar in the same way Rockband usually doesn't make the discussions in internet discussions of videogames.

Quote from: J Arcane;390475Video games as a medium have diversified with age just as every other major medium has.

Some of it has happened, but rapidly rising production costs have meant most developers play safe and focus on the largest market share they can grab, which is a lot like how TV networks and major record labels work. Games will genuinely diversify only when more people learn to accept B-grade visuals* in exchange for experiences that target a niche audience, much like how you don't expect Avatar-level CGI from a B movie.
_________
* In the current environment, this means something like Doom3, which is already pretty good, just no longer cutting edge.

Video games and MMO's do a very piss-poor job of giving one those character life-options that table top RPGS can simulate. Bioware games like KOTOR and jade Empire come closest, but my biggest problem with KOTOR is the fact that I cannot be a SUBTLE Sith. Every option is an over-the-top evil option if one is going down that path. I CAN instigate a path to power that could literally take years by playing KOTOR tabletop, though. Mostly, my video games are limited to sports titles, and I actually prefer the sports titles to watching sports on TV (except for hockey, which I'll always sit down and watch over a beer)

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390470What I was talking about was more along the lines of adopting Essentials as the standard for RPGA games, as opposed to "anything in Character Builder" like is true now, and limiting RPGA to Essentials only. I think its going to happen, though probably on a two-tiered level existing along side "anything goes".

RPGA or LFR? LFR is a subset of the RPGA; the RPGA also includes things like D&D Encounters.

I won't be surprised if season 3 or 4 of Encounters is aimed squarely at Essentials. They've all included pregens so far, so no forcing anyone to buy anything, but non-pre-gens coming from Essentials material only? Sure.

LFR is not going Essentials only. First, what would you do about all the characters already created? Second, how would you change all the existing modules to remove all the monsters and magic items from non-Essentials material? Third, WotC just finished letting go of LFR -- they're not even requiring WotC approval of new modules any more. It's 95% of the way to being completely fan-owned.

Right now you get extra power slots for having renown and you get bonus renown for using options out of expansion books. Buying new books and making characters with the material in them specifically makes your character more powerful.

They could, and indeed should shy away from the "buy more books / get more power in-game" model. But I am not holding my breath for that to happen any time soon.

This being WotC, I think it more likely that we'll see a "block" format, where only the latest sets of classes are permissible. And yeah, that will probably start with Essentials, because that's as good a place as any for a break point. But unless heads roll over there real soon, there will be a Barbarian and a Bard coming in later books that will be compatible with Essentials games. Including the Essentials Block RPGA games.

It worked for Magic: the Gathering.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390505Right now you get extra power slots for having renown and you get bonus renown for using options out of expansion books. Buying new books and making characters with the material in them specifically makes your character more powerful.
-Frank

Not true. You do get reknown points for playing stuff out of the newer books that are being promoted, but they don't make you significantly more powerful.

Is a runepriest or a monk more powerful than a cleric or a rogue? Survey says no.

Quote from: Thanlis;390503RPGA or LFR? LFR is a subset of the RPGA; the RPGA also includes things like D&D Encounters.

I won't be surprised if season 3 or 4 of Encounters is aimed squarely at Essentials. They've all included pregens so far, so no forcing anyone to buy anything, but non-pre-gens coming from Essentials material only? Sure.

LFR is not going Essentials only. First, what would you do about all the characters already created? Second, how would you change all the existing modules to remove all the monsters and magic items from non-Essentials material? Third, WotC just finished letting go of LFR -- they're not even requiring WotC approval of new modules any more. It's 95% of the way to being completely fan-owned.

now that I think of it, it probably isn't necessary. While power creep exists in 4e, it isn't to a gamebreakin degree, especially not at low levels. Essentials only characters should function on reasonable terms along side older chars.

They've also explicitly stated that encounters season 3 will be essentials.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390505Right now you get extra power slots for having renown and you get bonus renown for using options out of expansion books. Buying new books and making characters with the material in them specifically makes your character more powerful.

You can't make your own characters in the current season. It's all pre-gens. There is no way to make characters with the material in newer books. So you're talking nonsense right off the bat.

But here's how the renown point system worked in the previous season:

Renown Point (RP) Awards

* accomplishment; maximum frequency; RPs awarded

* Complete an encounter; 1/session; 3rp
* Reach milestone; 2/chapter; 2rp
* Use DDI Character Builder; 1/season; 5rp
* PH3 class and/or race; 1/season; 2rp
* PH3 feat; 1/season; 1rp
* Revive a dying PC; 1/season; 1rp
* Hit for 15+ damage against 1 enemy; 1/season; 1rp
* Kill 3 minions in 1 attack; 1/season; 1rp
* Take 50 damage in 1 session; 1/season; 1rp
* Survive 8+ sessions without dying; 1/season; 1rp
* Complete all quests; 1/season; 1rp
* Moment of greatness; 1/season; 1rp

There were 12 encounters in the season, divided into three chapters. That means that the total available renown points from completing encounters was 36; the total available points from reaching milestones would be 12. Thus, the easy points that anyone could get for doing no more than showing up and standing in a corner: 48.

Total available points if you hit every single reward: 63.

Points available to someone who uses PHB3 material: 3.

So let's be really clear here. When Frank says "you get bonus renown for using options out of expansion books," what he means is that under 5% of the available points in season 1 were from options out of expansion books. It is also perhaps important to understand that the best reward available is a 50 point reward -- so if you show up for every session, you are only 2 points short of getting a chance at that one. Although if you show up for every session, you probably completed all the quests. 1 point short. Use the free demo Character Builder, and you're there. Copy a PHB3 feat out of a friend's book, and you're there. Avoid dying, and you're there.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390507They've also explicitly stated that encounters season 3 will be essentials.

Oh, I totally missed that. Can't say I'm surprised, though. OK, let me make another prediction: it'll be set in Nentir Vale.

Quote from: Melan;390499Some of it has happened, but rapidly rising production costs have meant most developers play safe and focus on the largest market share they can grab, which is a lot like how TV networks and major record labels work. Games will genuinely diversify only when more people learn to accept B-grade visuals* in exchange for experiences that target a niche audience, much like how you don't expect Avatar-level CGI from a B movie.
_________
* In the current environment, this means something like Doom3, which is already pretty good, just no longer cutting edge.

See, right there, that's exactly what I'm talking about.  You've got to expand your horizons.  You're focusing on a narrow band of the market and assuming the whole thing is that way.  It isn't.  This isn't the RPG market we're talking about, where it's all about the hardcore geeks and there is no other parallel market grouping.

There's more out there than just the latest AAA shooter. The indie scene has exploded in the past several years and produced some incredible successes, adventure gaming came back, the Sims rolls along like the juggernaut it has always been, Facebook gaming exploded, free to play gaming barged its way in from overseas, and on and on.

Just like the movie industry, there's many kinds of products aimed at all sorts of people, and in my experience these days you really can find something for anyone.

Ok, I must have missed that part of the DMG or whatever. Reknown Points?

They put ACHIEVEMENTS in 4e?

Unbelievable.

That said, never heard of it in the game I'm playing on Sunday - probably a good thing. :)

Quote from: Werekoala;390513Ok, I must have missed that part of the DMG or whatever. Reknown Points?

They put ACHIEVEMENTS in 4e?

Unbelievable.

That said, never heard of it in the game I'm playing on Sunday - probably a good thing. :)

Reknown is unique to D&D Encounters. It's not in any rule book.

Quote from: Werekoala;390513Ok, I must have missed that part of the DMG or whatever. Reknown Points?

They put ACHIEVEMENTS in 4e?

Unbelievable.

God forbid. (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2009/12/exploration.html)

XP for exploration and other goals =/= kewl Reknown Points for things like... using the Character Builder program. Also, someone's idea for a house rule (neat as it is) doesn't equal established game rule.

Still, interesting article - thanks for the link! :)

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, right there, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You've got to expand your horizons.

You can think they're retarded, J, but the speculations I'm talking about aren't coming from me or this site, but from within the video-game community.

I'm interested, though.  What do you think is causing the shrinking video-games market in Japan and what makes the Western market immune to such a trend?

Quote from: Peregrin;390532You can think they're retarded, J, but the speculations I'm talking about aren't coming from me or this site, but from within the video-game community.

I'm interested, though.  What do you think is causing the shrinking video-games market in Japan and what makes the Western market immune to such a trend?

The video games market in Japan is only shrinking if you ignore Nintendo.  It also requires ignoring the hnadheld market, which is increasingly the main gaming market in Japan and has been for a while.

As for the rest of the companies there that are struggling, maybe it's because they're a bunch of unimaginative douchebags who've been slinging the same drek for 30 fucking years and only now have had the competition needed to make them finally irrelevant.  

How many Final Fantasy games does the world really need?  This is a game that's gone through more rehashes than any series on the planet.  People were bound to get tired of playing it, and a whole string of clones, eventually.

Japanese game development has always defined the unimaginative, corporate approach to game design.  Their creative ethic is all but non-existent outside a handful of designers who've lucked into something like autonomy.  

Now that a Japanese made console is no longer the driving force for the industry, they have to compete with a much stronger Western development community, and they're failing, badly.

Quote from: J Arcane;390541How many Final Fantasy games does the world really need?

If it's Final Fantasy Tactics, a never-ending supply is good for me!
(seriously, love those games)

Quote from: J Arcane;390541Now that a Japanese made console is no longer the driving force for the industry, they have to compete with a much stronger Western development community, and they're failing, badly.

Good points.  I've heard mention that even Hideo Kojima admitted we produce better quality games, and he met with the Infinity Ward developers a while back.

Steering this back on topic a little bit, do you think there's anything that the RPG hobby could learn from video-game companies in terms of garnering new players, or do you think we've already burned out past the point of salvaging the industry?

Quote from: Peregrin;390615or do you think we've already burned out past the point of salvaging the industry?

If the open gaming + OGL thing had never happened with D&D in the early-mid 2000's, would tabletop rpgs have burned out even earlier?

Quote from: ggroy;390617If the open gaming + OGL thing had never happened with D&D in the early-mid 2000's, would tabletop rpgs have burned out even earlier?

Not sure, but the d20/3e thing was a perfect storm.  I don't know if something like that'll ever happen again.

Quote from: J Arcane;390512See, right there, that's exactly what I'm talking about.  You've got to expand your horizons.  You're focusing on a narrow band of the market and assuming the whole thing is that way.  It isn't.  This isn't the RPG market we're talking about, where it's all about the hardcore geeks and there is no other parallel market grouping.

There's more out there than just the latest AAA shooter. The indie scene has exploded in the past several years and produced some incredible successes, adventure gaming came back, the Sims rolls along like the juggernaut it has always been, Facebook gaming exploded, free to play gaming barged its way in from overseas, and on and on.

Just like the movie industry, there's many kinds of products aimed at all sorts of people, and in my experience these days you really can find something for anyone.

Now, now, let's not go overboard here. Yes, the "indie game" segment has undergone significant growth, but let's keep some perspective here: it did not grow from a "small" segment of the market to a "big" segment. It grew from "microscopic" to "tiny". That's not exactly an "explosion", and only an "incredible success" if we apply completely different standards than we do to mainstream titles.

Where are the sales figures for the most popular indie games? In the thousands? Tens of thousands? Modern Warfare 2 sold 7 million copies on its first day.

I'm not trying to diss indie games; they're one of the more innovative segments of the computer game hobby and are worth looking at. But let's avoid false bombastic statements and acknowledge that while they might be interesting, they're certainly not big. Not any more than Weird Science Fantasy OD&D campaigns are in comparison to the entirety of the RPG hobby.

Just pointing out.

There are indie games on the front pages of the biggest digital storefronts in gaming.  Steam, XBLA, PSN, all basically invented to give indies a place for their games to reach a mainstream audience, and they have.  Games like Braid, Trine, and Puzzle Quest have been great successes across all market vectors, to a level that the shareware age could never dream of.  Making your first indie game and throwing it on services like these has become the same stepping stone into the larger industry that it is for film houses.  

Yeah, there's not many of them that'll come close to the ridiculous numbers of Halo or MW2, but the same could be said of any indie film as well baring the occasional anomaly.  Puzzle Quest by all accounts I've seen did phenomenally well, selling a bazillion copies across like 30 separate platforms.

The bottom line however, is that they are a relevant section of the market, and it's basic ignorance to ignore that impact, especially as they prove the lie to nonsense like the post I was responding to.

Quote from: ggroy;390272Wonder if they've been taking their cue from music and movie companies, where they're trying to score "home runs" (ie. Britney Spears, N'Sync, New Kids on the Block, Boston, Duran Duran, Nirvana, etc ...) instead of "base hits" (ie. everybody else).

Absolutely.

The investment of effort and capital isn't different.  Base hits require lots of work too.   However, home runs make x10 profit.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390467I'm really tempted to speculate whether they're going to have the RPGA adopt D&D essentials.

Nope.  LFR will exist as "Advanced Play" for those who want more the casual Encounters play of the Essentials.  

Quote from: Thanlis;390503Third, WotC just finished letting go of LFR -- they're not even requiring WotC approval of new modules any more. It's 95% of the way to being completely fan-owned.

I haven't heard about this.   What's going on?

Quote from: ggroy;390617If the open gaming + OGL thing had never happened with D&D in the early-mid 2000's, would tabletop rpgs have burned out even earlier?

Nope.  

3e sold like hotcakes, OGL went to the bargain bin.

Ditto about the LFR.  How are they going to factor in player exploits/achievements if modules can't be approved?  Just advance the metaplot without actual-play input?

Quote from: Spinachcat;390654I haven't heard about this.   What's going on?

In short: this. (http://community.wizards.com/lfr/blog/2010/06/14/a_new_direction_for_lfr)

Quote from: Peregrin;390615Steering this back on topic a little bit, do you think there's anything that the RPG hobby could learn from video-game companies in terms of garnering new players, or do you think we've already burned out past the point of salvaging the industry?

Too late IMO. Would like to be pleasantly surprised, though.

Quote from: Spinachcat;390654Nope.  

3e sold like hotcakes, OGL went to the bargain bin.

What I was thinking of was the tabletop rpg industry in general, and not just 3E D&D specifically.  Even without open gaming + the OGL, the 3E D&D core books would probably have still sold well.  But what would have happened to the other 3PP companies?

For the then upstart rpg companies like Mongoose, Green Ronin, Necromancer, Fast Forward, Troll Lords, Malhavoc, Goodman, etc ..., they most likely would have:

- never exist at all (ie. Mongoose, Fast Forward, etc ...)
- published a fantasy heartbreaker (ie. Troll Lord's "Swords and Sorcery" rpg)
- published a new rpg without using the 3E SRD (ie. Green Ronin's "Mutants and Masterminds")

For companies like Pinnacle, Chaosium, Alderac (AEG), Atlas, etc ... and other established rpg companies which jumped onto the d20/OGL bandwagon, most likely they would have continued chugging along and producing new supplements for their existing non-d20 rpg games (ie. Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Legend of Five Rings, etc ...) and/or producing new rpg games without using the 3E SRD (ie. Spycraft, etc ...).

It's hard to say whether any of these existing companies, would have went into freefall in the absence of open gaming + OGL during the early-mid 2000's.

Question of the day: should computer game companies fire their audience? (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29292/Analysis_Is_The_Game_Industry_A_Happy_Place.php) Gamasutra paints the picture of an unhappy and toxic medium where developers, journalists and consumers have three things in common: dissatisfaction, frustration and resentment.

Select quotes:

QuoteOf course, the common stressor that developers and journalists together face is the video game consumer, primarily the core gamer. But the audience has a bone to pick, too – they’ve been promised revolution and given merely low-risk iteration. They watch helplessly while the industry seeks new ways to monetize them, casualizes their beloved properties so that a disinterested "everyone" can play (whether a game whose audience is as specific and passionate as StarCraft II’s needs to worry about "accessibility" is a fair question for the traditional audience to ask, for example).

User policies are implemented without too much apparent regard for enormous swaths of feedback, and gamers are consistently told by a more mainstream culture that their hobby is irrelevant, cannibalized in big gulps by Facebook and iPhone.

In this vicious cycle, where each of three parties continually fails to satisfy the others on which it most crucially depends, it’s easy to see the seeds of bitterness sown – angry developers lash out at one another in the public forum, fatigued of rivalries or disillusioned by the likelihood that they will be jettisoned from their home base like so much depleted material when their project doesn’t make targets.

Games media resents and condescends to its audience, and in many cases even develops aggressive vendettas against aspects of the industry it feels make appropriate targets. And the consumer seems terminally unhappy with them both.

QuoteMore and more developer sources I talked to suggested that fatigue, hostility, being at odds with one’s employer and questioning one’s career course is frighteningly common in the game industry. That being the case, it seems natural that elements like emotional detachment, anxiety and a lack of fulfillment make their way, even subtly, into the products the industry creates and into the ecosystem around the industry and its audience.
...
The average end user might not have any idea how games are made, but they may, on some level, be reacting to a thread of unhappiness on the creator’s side when they respond with constant negativity or dissatisfaction. Or not. Games media and developers alike know that gamers couldn’t give a damn.

QuoteCore gamers are demanding, entitled, obnoxious, sexist forum trolls. Of course, that’s not entirely true, and it’s probably not even a small part of the picture. But it sure seems like a sufficient summary sometimes from the view of a games journalist, who’s tasked with navigating the gap between an unhappy developer culture and a consumer culture that seems equally toxic.

"I thought I was talking to people who were like me," one of my colleagues said to me recently about the decision to do the work we do. "Like I could do my childhood friends a service somehow by going in this world we loved and bringing information back out. But sometimes it feels like I’m being attacked every day by commenters and I realize these people aren’t like me at all."

Like it or not, though, consumer hostility points to important facts: the audience isn’t being served well by the products it buys or by the media tasked with addressing it. Just as many developers are thrown young and underqualified into a pressure cooker, so are many writers.

Familiar? It should be. Also relevant in context of Peregrin's question in #229 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=390615&postcount=229).

[edit]Ho ho ho, there is even a comment (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29292/Analysis_Is_The_Game_Industry_A_Happy_Place.php#comment59047) by... dun dun... long-time RPG industry vet Lewis Pulsipher (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=697).[/edit]

It's not just the RPG gamers, its everybody anymore, as the Joker said "this town needs an enema".  But really the world does.

I haven't met an online MMORPG player or any online gamer who was mentally stable I think the damn world is crazy anymore.

Crazy FUN!