Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 05:35:22 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:12:45 PM
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?

Does it make it any less of a lie if it doesn't?

Impact on gameplay is irrelevant.

It's a fucking game. Impact on how it plays should be the MOST relevant factor.

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 06:08:24 PM

Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 05:35:22 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:12:45 PM
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?

Does it make it any less of a lie if it doesn't?

Impact on gameplay is irrelevant.

It's a fucking game. Impact on how it plays should be the MOST relevant factor.

It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.

Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 07:43:13 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 06:08:24 PM

Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 05:35:22 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:12:45 PM
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?

Does it make it any less of a lie if it doesn't?

Impact on gameplay is irrelevant.

It's a fucking game. Impact on how it plays should be the MOST relevant factor.

It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.

I'm not deflecting. The guy said he was glad he didn't buy the book. Why not? Did he consider buying it for gaming, or for historical reference?

I'm glad I didn't buy the book because I wasn't going to play the game, but I thought it would be cool if I have it in my collection because I absolutely love the 1980s.  I'm glad I didn't because I wouldn't want to buy a book that lies about that topic.   My personal preference, that's all.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on August 28, 2022, 10:21:17 PM
I'm glad I didn't buy the book because I wasn't going to play the game, but I thought it would be cool if I have it in my collection because I absolutely love the 1980s.  I'm glad I didn't because I wouldn't want to buy a book that lies about that topic.   My personal preference, that's all.

OK, but I do find it odd that you wouldn't consider a non-fiction book about the 80s (you can't have read them all) as a source rather than a sci-fi RPG book?

In fairness to Cathode Ray, if we are being honest, a lot of non-fiction history book are in fact mislabeled fiction.

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 10:53:47 PM

Quote from: Cathode Ray on August 28, 2022, 10:21:17 PM
I'm glad I didn't buy the book because I wasn't going to play the game, but I thought it would be cool if I have it in my collection because I absolutely love the 1980s.  I'm glad I didn't because I wouldn't want  to buy a book that lies about that topic.   My personal preference, that's all.

OK, but I do find it odd that you wouldn't consider a non-fiction book about the 80s (you can't have read them all) as a source rather than a sci-fi RPG book?

Like I said, I love the 80s,and to quote Depeche Mode, "I just can't get enough".  I haven't read all the 1980s books, by a long shot, but not for lack of trying!!!!!  I read the 3rd edition Trouser Press Guide to New Music from cover to cover, for instance.  And I have almanacs that I consult regularly.  My friend knew I love the 80s and thought I'd love to borrow Tales from the Loop.

Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 07:43:13 PM
It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.

You're pretty insistent in claiming that it's a lie; it seems to me that a more correct statement would be "The US Congress investigation decided it wasn't likely to be true", which ... is a conclusion that has been wrong before. There are plenty of people on here who disagree with the US Congress over other decisions or judgements it's made, some of them quite recent. There are still multiple people, from both governments, who would have had direct knowledge, who claim it's true.

What data do you have that I'm missing? Does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory err in stressing the two-sidedness of the question?

And given that it's not entirely settled, you (plural) seem to be protesting an awful lot about a game assuming its truth. I really want to read over our host's latest Silk Road publications, but should I complain here about any historical inaccuracies he may have indulged in in favour of gameability? I'm no expert, but I did own a copy of Arrows of Indra, and I seem to recall it simplifying some things...

Wikipedia.... they don't choose sides.

  It is odd wikipedia likes to act as if there is some good chance a conspiracy around an election could be true....so long as the conspiracy points in the right direction.   I would say the conspiracy theory being presented as a fact in a game would not really bother me, and honestly I would not doubt if we had the really hard truth, that it could be true anyway.  For the game and for history, it worked out better (better is not the same as good) that Carter was sent packing.

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 29, 2022, 08:57:20 AM

Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 07:43:13 PM
It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.

You're pretty insistent in claiming that it's a lie; it seems to me that a more correct statement would be "The US Congress investigation decided it wasn't likely to be true", which ... is a conclusion that has been wrong before.

I'm not making legal statements here. The distinction you're trying to make is like arguing over whether someone is "innocent" rather than "not guilty." But if you really want to dive into semantics, fine... the book is making a positive claim that something happened. Positive claims need to be substantiated with credible evidence, which does not exist for this claim. Ergo, the claim is false; a lie. Dismissing a positive claim for the affirmative IS NOT support of a positive claim to the contrary; I'm NOT saying "it absolutely did not happen whatsoever," I'm only saying it's not true that it absolutely did.

QuoteAnd given that it's not entirely settled, you (plural) seem to be protesting an awful lot about a game assuming its truth. I really want to read over our host's latest Silk Road publications, but should I complain here about any historical inaccuracies he may have indulged in in favour of gameability? I'm no expert, but I did own a copy of Arrows of Indra, and I seem to recall it simplifying some things...

I brought this up already. I questioned whether the change had some further impact on the lore or not. If the game wanted to turn Reagan into a secret Iranian plant for whatever reason, okay fine. Not sure how that would fit in with the wider plot of the game, but "fictional world" and whatever. As it stands, though, that doesn't seem to be the case. The author is clearly pushing a bias, further evidenced by the fact they tried to credit Reagan's win on the people having woe's over Nixon's resignation... an event that happened six years earlier. That'd be like saying Obama won because of the Monica Lewinski scandal. Then calling him a Kenya-born muslim commie to boot (a claim Congress found no evidence for, but Hey!, they were wrong before right?).

I think that while the concept of the 'October Surprise' is a valid one, going back centuries in politics, the 1980 Reagan campaign story has been fairly discredited...I believe the first proponent of the theory that Reagan et al. negotiated with Iranian leaders secretly to win the 1980 election in a tit-for-tat agreement was started by Lyndon Larouche, of all people, and within a month after the '80 election. (Larouche, not exactly a man known for his moderate and balanced views, was a bit of a moonbat, but quite fascinating. More games should include Larouche elements of conspiracy, intellectual hubris, and paranoia.)

Gary Sick did the most to bolster this rumour with establishment credentials and less-insane credibility. But he was also clearly not an unbiased observer and researcher...a former member of the Carter administration, he had reputation, pride, and (via Oliver Stone, I believe) financial reasons to believe in the rumour....

As for the text the OP quotes...that's what it says, clearly. I am not sure which paragraphs FingerRod is referring to, but most of the rest of the text is pretty anodyne—neither wrong nor particularly flavourful, either. But the writers are Swedish...anyone who has spent a decent amount of time in Sweden knows that they generally skew left (unless they are pretty far right), and that there is a general animosity toward American politics. When I was there studying the language, natives would react to their discovery that I was American by asking me how I felt about capital punishment, e.g. It was a low-level of anti-Americanism, but one which really only extended to the political, not the cultural or personal (they didn't mind me, just the U.S. government). I find this to be in marked contrast to, say, Canada, another place I have spent a very long time: Canadians have been more likely, in my own experience, to dismiss the culture AND the people...endemic to vicinity with a superpower, I guess.

I can't fault the Swedes too much for still believing that the Reagan October Surprise myth has some reality in it...after all, more than half of all Americans also believed it was true for a while in 1992. Many might do still...

I like the idea of opposing factual carelessness like this...kudos! But I honestly don't think it makes a big difference in the game, or the setting. I like Tales from the Loop, and its Things from the Flood companion piece. I love the setting, and find it pretty evocative and fun. Not the only to play the 80s and 90s, but it can do a Stranger Things vibe very well, and even a juvenile Gamma World or many comics stories very well. And if you know Swedes, while they would rather live in Sweden, they love almost everything about American media and myth. That's where they want to game...it's a complex relationship. 

This question was not answered:

How does this change the game in play?

I feel the same way about T2k, too, by the way. It doesn't really matter how WWIII started, what matters is that you're in this hodge-podge unit and there's no more chain of command or front line and heaps of cities have been destroyed. How did that happen? Well, do you think the Russian and German soldiers at Stalingrad carefully considered the merits of Germany's demands for a Danzig Corridor, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? I'd say they had better things to think of, day-to-day.

Games can have all sorts of nonsense backgrounds to them, what matters is what shows up in play. I mean, I know we all like to occasionally indulge in some righteous nerdfury, but...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on August 30, 2022, 07:38:38 AM
This question was not answered:

How does this change the game in play?

I feel the same way about T2k, too, by the way. It doesn't really matter how WWIII started, what matters is that you're in this hodge-podge unit and there's no more chain of command or front line and heaps of cities have been destroyed. How did that happen? Well, do you think the Russian and German soldiers at Stalingrad carefully considered the merits of Germany's demands for a Danzig Corridor, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? I'd say they had better things to think of, day-to-day.

Games can have all sorts of nonsense backgrounds to them, what matters is what shows up in play. I mean, I know we all like to occasionally indulge in some righteous nerdfury, but...

It was not answered because it is not the topic. The original post is about a lie put into the history portion of the game. Happy replied asking if it was trying to rewrite history, or change it as a gameplay element. The next 8-9 posts go on to show it was being passed off as 'real'. Then goal posts were moved.

Whether it affects gameplay is not relevant to someone who does not want to spend money on a product that goes out of their way to spread old propaganda. As Effete pointed out, pushing the topic to gameplay is deflecting away from this.

Two things can be true, though. And that is what I found to be interesting in anthologos' post. So yes, the writers believe and pushed it, but it was not necessarily placed there to subvert. That matches the general tone when you factor in the positives around culture. Speaking of tone...note for anthologos: I was referring to the tone of the writing when discussing anything from the conservative government. For example, Reagan's age and how people laughed at Nancy's 'Just say no" campaign.

Kyle, I am a fan of the overall TFL product. The art alone is worth the price of the product, and the book is gorgeous. I do not like the system for a sustained campaign, but the setting is fantastic and nothing stops you from using a better system with it. It hit all of the nostalgic chords. I even created an Apple Music playlist from the one provided in the book. Fantastic. I would recommend the product. At the same time...

Some remain patriotic and are done with the bullshit and lies. We're going to call it out when we see it. And while it is not the topic, if that fact causes somebody to want to play the game less, then indirectly, yes it will impact gameplay. We've all been at tables where people pull away from the setting.

Quote from: FingerRod on August 30, 2022, 08:28:16 AM
It was not answered because it is not the topic.

Gaming should always be the topic. If you want to get indignant over things that are irrelevant in play, there's always rpg.net.