Hiya, Jim!  

Me, I don't see these 'swine' that Pundit seems to see.  I do see people being snooty about how their way of pretending to be a gay-ass elf is better than my way of pretending to be a gay-ass elf*, but I don't think those people are a threat to the hobby.

I just think they're dicks.

I'm very live-and-let-live, myself.  I've got Wushu ad Theatrix on my shelf, as well as AD&D 1st Ed. and HERO.  I don't see the game books trying to strangle each other, but maybe I'm not awake at the right time of night.

I just figure people should play games however they want to play games, and not let it go to their heads.

I own lots of 3.X stuff but I use it for ideas.  I'm not into the system anymore.  But it looks like I can use it with C&C, so as soon as I have THAT...

*Paraphrased from a great quote attributed to someone whose name I sadly keep forgetting.

Welcome to the site, JimLotFP.

I'm pretty much with Doc Rotwang on this.  To throw around the term 'swine' loosely seems to me to be a disservice to the sparkling and abundant variety of jackasses in the hobby.  Each of them deserve their own personalized slurs.  Wait, maybe Rotwang wasn't saying exactly that.  

Quote from: jrientsI'm pretty much with Doc Rotwang on this.  To throw around the term 'swine' loosely seems to me to be a disservice to the sparkling and abundant variety of jackasses in the hobby.  Each of them deserve their own personalized slurs.  Wait, maybe Rotwang wasn't saying exactly that.  

Well, if he wans't, I hope you were.

Welcome, Jim!  Always great to see a new face!  Hope you deicde to stick around a while!

And yeah, you need to get some Trav action going on.  One. amazing. game.

Welcome to the site!

Quote from: jrientsEach of them deserve their own personalized slurs.  Wait, maybe Rotwang wasn't saying exactly that.  

*shrug* Why not?

Quote from: JimLotFP...
All the people I played with when I got started were people that didn't know what D&D was - I introduced them.
...

That's good, that you are able to make new people to start gaming. Good for you no doubt. The trouble is, that you and your friends are not the RPG hobby. The point (your point acutally) was that if RPG publishers disappear, the RPG hobby will thrive. I still doubt it.

You of course can say... why the hell I should care about others. The answer is pretty much obvious. The others are creating this message boards for example and any other goodies you might be searching on the internet. The make the shops with hobby games exist. If there are no publishers, there will be no shops... if there are no shops there will be no rules to buy. That will turn you to photocopies or home-made products. Not bad, but surely not good also.

(And yes, I know there is an ebay and secondhand bookstore and such... but it is not the same... where will you buy your dice? or will you roll a pencil or draw cards? etc. etc.)

Lack of publishers and lack of shops would create serious pressure on even without it quite cornered hobby. Howgh.

Welcome to the site Jim! Always nice to have a fresh point of view.

Quote from: JimLotFPI finally gave up any hope for playing RPGs in 2000 with D&D 3.0 because I thought it was crap after buying the core books.

OK, I can understand this part, there is a lot I love about D&D and a lot that drives me nuts. I can certainly see how someone might not enjoy D&D.

Quote from: JimLotFPat the same time played PCs using Over the Edge with the plane-hopping villains using Al-Amarja as a "neutral ground" and I thought that would be a great way to introduce some campaign plot information.

Not on topic, but how did you like Over the Edge? I was considering using it for a modern occult horror game. I wonder how it would work for a gritty Constantine type setting.

Quote from: JimLotFPI hate WotC and d20. I think "dominance" is bad for any hobby, and I think concern for an industry harms a hobby.

You lost me here. I don't care for White Wolf for what are mostly personal and illogical reasons. It sounds like that is what you are doing here. I would disagree that Wizards is bad for the hobby. I don't care for some of what they do, but they are out there, getting RPGs out to the masses and they are doing a lot more to bring people into the hobby than any other single entity. WotC tries to target games at the largest audience possible, and tells people to "play it your way" to have the most fun.

Quote from: JimLotFPI think the growing indie movement is spectacular and will end up with its tendrils in absolutely everything RPG-related below the D&D level.

Completely disagree here. I don't think the indy RPG movement is going anywhere than where it currently is. Sure, one or two games may make it into the big leagues, but as a whole, the indy RPGs are going to stay small. Internet savvy folks like us get an overestimation of the popularity of indy games because they get talked about a lot, but in the real world, very, very few people are playing these games (compared to the big league games like D&D, WW, GURPS, WHFRP etc.).

A large percentage of indy games have a different approach to gaming than the traditional games, and when it comes down to it, it's just not as popular to the masses. Traditional GM-driven games with well defined player options and rules really does appeal to the masses more than free-form collaborative storytelling type games. I'm not knocking these games, they can be fun, I'm just opining that the majority prefer traditional games.

On a slightly different note, I think there is a lot of room for small press publishers to get themselves out there on the internet and make a go of it. Clash's Flying Mice is a good example with some traditional and some fresh settings/concepts. It's great to see things like In Harm's Way, which is kind of a niche game, being out there and available to people. Years ago, this kind of publishing wouldn't have been possible and most of us wouldn't have heard of it or had a chance to pick it up if we were interested.

So, it's great that small press games are out there as options for people, but I'm not buying into the idea that this indy movement is really going anywhere.

Quote from: JimLotFPOh, I wouldn't care for playing too many of the games from the look of them, too much meta-gaming in play and short-term gaming with not enough "what would my guy really do in this situation?" and long term campaign possibilities. But I find games like Sorcerer and Dogs are excellent resources for informing play of "normal" games, and as Forge attitudes merge with more old-school attitudes in those that have no prior interest in either (and more games are made by people inspired by but not a part of the Forge clique), I think the results will be more palatable to the current critics.

I don't think that there really is any tremendous groundbreaking going on at the Forge. People have been playing Forge-type gaming sessions using games like D&D for a long time now. Player directed plot has been around for a while as well. There have been big publisher games that used mechanics that a lot of people would think of as Forge-type long before there was a Forge.

Evolution of RPGs is good. New ideas, new variations on old themes, new mechanics etc. are healthy for the hobby. What I don't see is the real divide. The Forge clique are just an offshoot of old-school gamers. They really aren't some new breed who has just popped up out of nothingness. Some may think they are, but they're only fooling themselves.

Quote from: JimLotFPI've grown from the "Oh noes Vampire stole all the gamers!" days.

I never really had this impression. I could never really get into Vampire, but I never once thought it was stealing players. If anything, it brought more players into the hobby.

Quote from: JimLotFPand their work in getting their games made and to market is inspiring.

Agreed. This is what I like best about the current small press market. It's great to see different options available and niches getting filled.

Quote from: JimLotFPWhether or not the games are any good is completely irrelevant to this point. It disempowers big companies - always a good thing.

OK, now it sounds like we're getting into the realm of conspiracy theory, and away from serious discussion.

Quote from: JimLotFPHe could kick my door down, shoot me in the leg, and fuck my wife and it wouldn't stop me from getting value out of Sorcerer for my needs (not the author's intentions for it!), or investigating the next story-oriented RPG from his camp if it sounds interesting. I don't play RPGs to satisfy some clique, you know?

Well, bully for you. Personally, I don't like putting money into the pockets of someone who I don't like. There have been a few companies who have done things that piss me off and so I don't buy their products. I'm not discrediting their ideas or saying their systems are bad, but I'm certainly not going to give them my hard earned cash.

But how does D&D figure into this part of your philosophy. You hate D20 and WotC (because you don't like big business) - isn't this preventing you from using some cool ideas and potentially good systems? On the surface it appears hypocritical, perhaps I'm missing something.

Quote from: JimLotFPIf they think they've succeeded in their "better/more fun" goal, I think it's worth a look instead of condemnation for even attempting to do it in the first place. And realizing that "Forge Game" doesn't mean any one thing any more than "traditional RPG" does probably helps too.

Agreed. It doesn't hurt to look. I'm not against indy RPGs at all. There are a lot of neat ideas contained in some of those games. If something comes along that sounds interesting - I'll check it out. In this past year I've picked up Spirit of the Century, Inspectres, Dust Devils and a few others. I've been impressed with small press games like Starcluster and Hard Nova ][.

I never really like the distinction of Forge games and traditional games. I see more similarities than differences. I do use the terms a lot myself, unfortunately, because most people understand what you mean when you say Forge game and it's easier than my more convoluted semantic definitions.

Again, welcome aboard!

fresh blood!

welcome, jim!

is it all black metal in finland?  

do you like overkill?

/ :emot-rock:

i remember reading your ad&d tale on rpg.net.  i think it was one of those "101 days" type of threads.  kudos for bringing more people into the hobby!

Quote from: AlnagThat's good, that you are able to make new people to start gaming. Good for you no doubt. The trouble is, that you and your friends are not the RPG hobby. The point (your point acutally) was that if RPG publishers disappear, the RPG hobby will thrive. I still doubt it.

I'm hardly an exceptional human, certainly not when it comes to RPGs. If I can do it...

And realistically, no, the hobby wouldn't thrive. My problem with that reality is that there is not a single reason why it shouldn't thrive at this point even if there were no new product (although people would begin again and start making their own stuff no doubt). I'm responsible for my gaming, you're responsible for yours, and more people thinking that way will make a hobby healthier than any amount of companies with million dollar marketing budgets (or gamewriting collective trying to raise the "story" element in games, for that matter) producing games.

Quote from: GoOrangeNot on topic, but how did you like Over the Edge? I was considering using it for a modern occult horror game. I wonder how it would work for a gritty Constantine type setting.

I just have one session of experience with OtE and I definitely don't think I explored what it can really do. And not familiar with Constantine so couldn't tell you its suitability anyway...

Quote from: GoOrangeCompletely disagree here. I don't think the indy RPG movement is going anywhere than where it currently is. Sure, one or two games may make it into the big leagues, but as a whole, the indy RPGs are going to stay small. Internet savvy folks like us get an overestimation of the popularity of indy games because they get talked about a lot, but in the real world, very, very few people are playing these games (compared to the big league games like D&D, WW, GURPS, WHFRP etc.).

It'll just takes one game, whether an indie game or something written by one of the bigger publishing houses that's merely inspired by the concept, to explode commercially and if it's different enough it'll change the industry. One hit, and not only will people be having their weird ideas in greater numbers than they are now, but there will be businesspeople that will throw money into getting them out there, too. In a slumping overall industry (as we're led to believe is the current situation, right?), it'll be an idea outside the "mainstream" of the industry to give it a kick in the ass.

What's great about saying that is it really doesn't matter to me if I'm right. I'll likely still be playing the same games either way!

Quote from: GoOrangeA large percentage of indy games have a different approach to gaming than the traditional games, and when it comes down to it, it's just not as popular to the masses. Traditional GM-driven games with well defined player options and rules really does appeal to the masses more than free-form collaborative storytelling type games. I'm not knocking these games, they can be fun, I'm just opining that the majority prefer traditional games.

That's what current gamers generally prefer. I think the "next stage" that grows the hobby and brings in a ton of new people won't resemble the current general gamer preference - or at least it'll position itself in a way that people don't associate it with current general gamer preference. That'll be a selling point of why it hits big. Nobody currently gaming will appreciate it though because it'll be transmuting their precious pastime.

Quote from: GoOrangeI don't think that there really is any tremendous groundbreaking going on at the Forge. People have been playing Forge-type gaming sessions using games like D&D for a long time now. Player directed plot has been around for a while as well. There have been big publisher games that used mechanics that a lot of people would think of as Forge-type long before there was a Forge.

I'll agree with you point-by-point but I'll also say that all of that doesn't matter when you look at the whole package. The Forge has (by other people trying to brand them more than doing it themselves from what I see) something going on and it's not all just smoke and mirrors.

And I'm not aware of a Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard or With Great Power-type game already out there. Sure their mechanics didn't come from nothing, but their final results are unique. Please educate me if I'm wrong! (I plop all my opinions out in public like this for the purpose of finding the faults in my logic!)

And when it comes to why I don't play these games while saying how cool they are... well... I do want to play them. I just have absolutely no desire to run them. heh. I guess one thing I want in gaming is to be on the "empowered" side of the screen. I'd be more than happy to buy a book for a local GM if one would show interest, so I don't even have to hope that somebody "just happens" to want to run the game.

Quote from: GoOrangeI never really had this impression. I could never really get into Vampire, but I never once thought it was stealing players. If anything, it brought more players into the hobby.

In my personal experience I had a lot of people who used to play D&D but then had "outgrown" it for the "more sophisticated" new game. (SWINE! SWINE! ) And anybody it brought in, well, they weren't playing D&D so who cares?

Quote from: GoOrangeBut how does D&D figure into this part of your philosophy. You hate D20 and WotC (because you don't like big business) - isn't this preventing you from using some cool ideas and potentially good systems? On the surface it appears hypocritical, perhaps I'm missing something.

I'm using OGL offshoots, so I'm not just crapping on the whole thing (the SRD/Open source thing is frickin AWESOME although there are details I don't like). But in general d20 doomed itself in my house by taking something I already loved and changing it too much. If that's unreasonable, I have no problem being unreasonable.

Quote from: beeberis it all black metal in finland?  

do you like overkill?

Boring melo-death and insipid goth-flavored glam rock are the flavors of the day here. And Stratovarius-inspired keyboard rock. Reverend Bizarre is currently my favorite Finnish band and one of my favorite bands overall, but Jarva-era Sentenced and Tales/Elegy-period Amorphis remain constant favorites.

I like some Overkill but I haven't hit their catalog too deep. "Nice Day... For a Funeral" is probably my favorite song they've done.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I do see people being snooty about how their way of pretending to be a gay-ass elf is better than my way of pretending to be a gay-ass elf*
*Paraphrased from a great quote attributed to someone whose name I sadly keep forgetting.

Maddman (who came here some in the pre_RPGPundit days) used to have it in his sig but I can't remember if he said it or someone else.

QuoteI hate WotC and d20. I think "dominance" is bad for any hobby

True, but I think churn is bad for a hobby as well. I welcome the stability that has come... both in the D20 area and outside of it... since the advent of d20.

Oh, and welcome to theRPGsite.

Jim, aren't you the guy who posted the 101 Days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons thread at RPG.net?

I really enjoyed that, in fact it helped inspire me to hunt down copies of the core 1e books (mine had been stolen during a move back in college).

Did you keep up with that thread? I remember the initial adventure and the Keep on the Borderland stuff, but not much after that.

The general thing (or one thing) to understand about the "swine wars" is that most of it's a reaction not to the games or the production model, but to the Internet discussion, and to the fact that RPG theory has a tendency to be deployed in the service of reinterpreting others' opinions--and "proving" they're wrong. E.g., the dislike of meta-gaming which you've hinted at, if given as a reason for preferring AD&D or Runequest to Dogs in the Vineyard--risks being pooh-poohed as self-delusion about the nature of games.

There's also, frankly, a lot of arrogance on the part of the "indie" crowd, beginning with the use of the term "indie" in a way that simultaneously marginalizes and coopts the work of others. But if you've read Pundit's blog, you've already seen a recent discussion of that issue.

You can also chalk a lot of it up to people backing up their buds. The reaction to a given asinine statement varies depending on who said it and who's hearing it, and the counter-reaction has the same effect, leading to polarization.

Moving on to other stuff.

QuoteAfter being initially offended (how dare anyone denigrate my great work of genius!), I thought about it and decided the criticism directed at the thing was correct. (it didn't receive an enthusiastic response elsewhere either, so it's not just "Forge didn't like it so I fail.")

I haven't seen your game, but there's a troubling disconnect here. I'm not saying anyone has an obligation to read & critique your game. But I'm suspecting your game failed to garner enthusiasm largely because it didn't offer anything new enough to make a difference in the market--and you know what, if you were designing a game for you to play, that's completely irrelevant. The focus on publishing which is part of Forge culture means that the Forge has interests which differ from those of "the hobby" just as much as WotC does.

Quote from: JimLotFPIt'll just takes one game, whether an indie game or something written by one of the bigger publishing houses that's merely inspired by the concept, to explode commercially and if it's different enough it'll change the industry.

I think it's more complicated than that. If it really is that easy, why hasn't it happened already? The closest thing that I can see in past history is WW's Vampire game - but I don't see it as having changed the industry. It didn't usurp the reigning king or revolutionize the way we play. I don't see anything ground breaking on the horizon, and most games that come out of the Forge are really only appealing to a small, niche community at this point.

Again, it hasn't happened yet, and I don't see this revolution coming any time soon.

Quote from: JimLotFPOne hit, and not only will people be having their weird ideas in greater numbers than they are now, but there will be businesspeople that will throw money into getting them out there, too. In a slumping overall industry (as we're led to believe is the current situation, right?), it'll be an idea outside the "mainstream" of the industry to give it a kick in the ass.

The closest thing I can think of would be "Magic the Gathering". Not an RPG, but a geeky fantasy game that appeals to some of the same crowd. This was a revolution that spun off a whole mass of variants (collectible miniatures, cards and so on). I think any real revolution will be something so far off the beaten path that it won't be an RPG. Like MMORPGs, for instance. Yeah, RPG is in the title, but it's nothing like a tabletop RPG.

Quote from: JimLotFPWhat's great about saying that is it really doesn't matter to me if I'm right. I'll likely still be playing the same games either way!

Exactly. And so will everyone else. I think at this stage, people know what they like in roleplaying and there won't be another "next great thing" because people already have what they want and will play what they like.

Quote from: JimLotFPThat's what current gamers generally prefer. I think the "next stage" that grows the hobby and brings in a ton of new people won't resemble the current general gamer preference - or at least it'll position itself in a way that people don't associate it with current general gamer preference.

I wonder what young people are playing these days. Do teenagers get into tabletop RPGs like D&D? Or do they gravitate toward MMORPGs and collectible games? The people I game with are all in their late 20s and 30s. I have no idea what the next generation of kids are playing these days.

Quote from: JimLotFPThe Forge has (by other people trying to brand them more than doing it themselves from what I see) something going on and it's not all just smoke and mirrors.

I like the idea of a community out there to help small press publishers refine their games. I agree that it's not all smoke and mirrors. I do get irked at a few small parts of it that are just blowing smoke...

Quote from: JimLotFPAnd I'm not aware of a Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard or With Great Power-type game already out there. Sure their mechanics didn't come from nothing, but their final results are unique.

Well, you've picked 3 games that I'm unfamiliar with, so you'll have to spell out what it is about them that makes them unique for me to try and offer up an example.

Quote from: JimLotFPI'm using OGL offshoots, so I'm not just crapping on the whole thing (the SRD/Open source thing is frickin AWESOME although there are details I don't like). But in general d20 doomed itself in my house by taking something I already loved and changing it too much. If that's unreasonable, I have no problem being unreasonable.

OK, I can definitely see where you're coming from here. Despite your dislike of WotC, you do embrace some of the ideas that came out of it (like the OGL games). Also, disliking something because it has changed is completely reasonable. There have been quite a few games in RPG history who lost fans when a new edition was released.

Quote from: Elliot WilenJim, aren't you the guy who posted the 101 Days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons thread at RPG.net?

I really enjoyed that, in fact it helped inspire me to hunt down copies of the core 1e books (mine had been stolen during a move back in college).

Did you keep up with that thread? I remember the initial adventure and the Keep on the Borderland stuff, but not much after that.

I was swamped with school stuff at the time. The game went on to the end of May but updating game logs wasn't a priority at all. They eventally saved the kingdom and captured Lavesque though.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMoving on to other stuff.I haven't seen your game, but there's a troubling disconnect here. I'm not saying anyone has an obligation to read & critique your game. But I'm suspecting your game failed to garner enthusiasm largely because it didn't offer anything new enough to make a difference in the market--and you know what, if you were designing a game for you to play, that's completely irrelevant. The focus on publishing which is part of Forge culture means that the Forge has interests which differ from those of "the hobby" just as much as WotC does.

ehhh, it wasn't so hot. I have no regrets about abandoning the thing. "Resolving everything in one roll for quick play and having a rulebook for $5 shipping included," was what I was after, but the mechanic itself was very meat-and-potatoes. It was something just to do something for me, and not any special concept.

Quote from: GoOrangeI think it's more complicated than that. If it really is that easy, why hasn't it happened already? The closest thing that I can see in past history is WW's Vampire game - but I don't see it as having changed the industry. It didn't usurp the reigning king or revolutionize the way we play. I don't see anything ground breaking on the horizon, and most games that come out of the Forge are really only appealing to a small, niche community at this point.

...

I think at this stage, people know what they like in roleplaying and there won't be another "next great thing" because people already have what they want and will play what they like.

I don't believe for a second that the only people roleplaying today are all that would be interested in it, or that there can't be anything new to show these people. Finding that new thing is the hardest thing in the world though, which is why it hasn't happened yet. (and when it does, people will immediately wonder what the next thing will be...)

And that something is marginal now doesn't mean it will be tomorrow...

Quote from: GoOrangeWell, you've picked 3 games that I'm unfamiliar with, so you'll have to spell out what it is about them that makes them unique for me to try and offer up an example.

Isn't Sorcerer the granddaddy game of the indie movement? I don't even look at the books for the rules at all, just for the gaming advice fluff. Basically it's a "consequences of using power" game, your character can summon demons (which have a variable meaning) to do whatever, but the things you do in the game force you to make Tough Decisions, which then creates Humanity (which has a variable meaning) loss, and when you get to 0 Humanity you're basically out of the game, so I imagine gameplay is a tightrope walk between Getting Things Done and keeping the Humanity score up. And of course the game plays out to encourage you to risk Humanity. The story of the game depends on how the group defines exactly what "demons" and "humanity" mean.

Dogs, great little game, players are pseudo-Mormon enforcers of religious law... but by their position, anything they decide is automatically "right." They have supreme moral authority, so they don't have to abide by what religious canon is if they decide they have a better idea. They go from town to town basically unraveling and "fixing" all sorts of moral conflicts of the faithful. Players decide how far to push things with the escalation mechanic, and the fun really comes when players come into conflict about What to Do. Game is great fun, the GM creates the most screwed up soap opera/murder/cult situations he can imagine and then goads the players into running through town like a bull in a china shop. This is the only one of the three I have actual at-the-table experience with, and it was very positive.

With Great Power - nutshell version - is a superhero game where the mechanics are basically card game of "War". Each bit focuses on a certain aspect of a PC. Those involved choose which card to play from their hand, highest card wins. The winner decides the effect on the aspect in question, but the loser gets both cards... so later on, for the more important conflicts, they have the winning cards of all those hands they lost earlier, so they have a greater chance of whomping ass when it counts. Supposed to simulate the whole "hero gets in trouble early but is victorious in the end" kind of thing.

All three are RPGs in any sense of the term (GM and players, each player has his own character and the GM controls the world and NPCs, random resolution), but WGP and its playing card mechanics and lack of any characters stats whatsoever will be the most foreign to a traditional gamer. Sorcerer has a lot of playstyle ranting to wade through if one dislikes that sort of thing, but the other two are very friendly in tone.