Quote from: Malcolm CraigI would respectfully disagree. Some of the first stuff available through IPR was D20 (Brennan, a co founder of the site, wrote the D20 'Bulldogs!' SF setting). I really don't think it is there as an alibi in any way.

Cheers
Malcolm

Oh for fuck's sake. Claiming IPR doesn't have an agenda is about as stupid as me claiming that I'm neutral about RPGs or Pipe Smoking, or that Qoltar is indifferent about Klingons.

And saying shit like this wins you no points.  Why not just admit that IPR has an ideological bent, and then go on to fucking defend it, rather than making a claim so ridiculous ("the publishing arm of the Forge obviously sees D20 as being just as good and great as whatever Narr-microgame-played-with-tiddlywinks that's flavour of the month") that no one could possibly take it seriously?!

RPGPundit

Quote from: CalithenaAs far as sales figures go, the state of our hobby is not so good. Indie designers have a right to crow about selling 1-2000 copies of their game, given that there has only been one game (Exalted) published by anyone since 2000 which was not either (a) a new edition of a previously existing game or (b) a licensed property that sold more than 5000 copies.

RPGs are not selling in the numbers they used to.

Bullshit. D&D is selling just fine. The only thing the above shows is that New RPGs are not selling like they used to.  And the reason for that would probably be that so much crap is being produced that gamers decide its safer to stick to D&D, D20, new editions of old stuff, and licensed games.  

Its a sign that most of the important niches have already been filled, and that gamers are already getting what they want from existing RPGs, and don't need or want "revolutionary" indie games. They're already doing fine with the games they've got.

Its not a sign that the industry as a whole is in terrible crisis, or that the Forge crowd have anything to be proud of.

RPGPundit

Gates are created to keep out the things you fear.

Storygames, the Forge, and RPG.net block access or ban users because the people who run them are afraid of what those users argue, because they know that their own arguments are false.

I know that what I'm saying is the truth, so I fear no man. The dogs can come here and bark, but in a level playing field like theRPGsite, they can't win, and they end up giving me free advertising.

So yes, Andy, Ron Edwards, and the Modclique are all fucking cowards, who lack enough confidence in their own convictions to allow people to argue with them in their own political headquarters.

Yet they love to come here (or send their cultists here, in the case of Edwards) to argue with me and accuse me of being "intolerant" in my own headquarter, where I allow all comers to say their piece.  That's the difference between them and me, that's why I'm a better person.

And that, in the end, is why Tony has clearly taken a side. He dares to "call me out" here, but he wouldn't dare to "call out" Ron Edwards on the Forge.

RPGPundit

In that kind of market, I think anyone who designs an RPG and manages to sell more than a thousand copies on their own can feel proud of their achievement.

I was responding to an earlier poster who was mocking game designers who bragged about selling 1 or 2 thousand copies. I'd love to write anything that sold 1 or 2 thousand copies.

My point wasn't about the industry, though I see how it could be taken that way. My point was I don't think we should trash people just because they're happy that they sold a thousand games. A lot of us would like to do that ourselves, and I'd brag about it if I'd done it.

I just don't like it when we slag what in other contexts would be regarded as a genuine achievement (wouldn't we be thrilled for Clash if he posted that he'd just sold his 2000th copy of Cold Space or whatever?) just because we happen to be irritated at those who achieve it.

3e does seem to still be doing pretty well. It hasn't caught up to 1e yet but it doesn't have the same kind of pop culture force behind it that 1e did.

Almost everything else is well down, though. I think a lot of this has to do with the economics of the hobby store and the three-tier model, which would also be the vector for a good new game to sell more than one or two thousand copies in the old days, but whatever, I don't really care what people think about that.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts a sign that most of the important niches have already been filled, and that gamers are already getting what they want from existing RPGs, and don't need or want "revolutionary" indie games. They're already doing fine with the games they've got.

I think it is also a sign that by and large, new editions of old games tend to be more polished than entirely new games. While we can all cite examples of editions which have wrecked a game, or at least failed to live up to previous editions (Paranoia 5th Edition, ugh...) by and large the older the game is, the more playtesting and polishing it's had, simply because it's been on general release for much longer and the gaming public at large have been tinkering with it for longer.

Ars Magica 5th Edition is an excellent example of this: it's by far the most well-organised, smartly-presented, and competently designed version of the game to date. Ars Magica 1st Edition was part of the "indie" crowd of its day - OK, granted, I don't know whether it was technically creator-owned or not, but it was a small press product and copies of 1st Edition are incredibly rare - and it was much more rough around the edges than the current edition is.

The first editions we're seeing now - "indie" and otherwise - are rough, uncut stones, like D&D was when it was first released: they've not had the extensive playtesting of older games, and it remains to be seen whether there's any gemstones at all amongst them, but maybe when they've gone through half-a-dozen editions a small handful for them will be selling like the old classics (and the rest will, like so many other games, simply be forgotten).

Quote from: Pierce InverarityJames, I'm just a regular member, not a decision maker. Publishing my list would only produce what this site has way too much of already: inconsequential flamewar negativity that leads nowhere.

And that's precisely what I'd like to get rid of: Foci of unproductive negativity. People who use this site as a platform. People who keep Pundy, Sett & al. from positive, productive thinking, and in doing so get free advertising space.

Oh fucking brother.  Maybe it's just because I've been staying away from Pundit's pwersonal soapbox forum, but this has to be the biggest piece of horseshit I've seen on this site in a long time.

Yeah.  It's other people's fault that Pundit/Sett/Maw/etc. are paranoid jackasses with delusions of their own importance.

Quote from: TonyLBNow I understand where Andy's coming from [...]  I don't know whether he ever turns people away for their attitudes, but the vibe I've gotten from his discussions is that's not something he'd be at all comfortable with, so if it happens I'd assume it's a rarity.  

Well, I got turned away.

But hey, maybe I was the only one!

Quote from: RPGPunditGates are created to keep out the things you fear.

That makes sense in principle, but then I think... hey, a gate kept me out. And the idea that Andy K - or anyone else - should fear me is pretty absurd.

So I think gates are to keep out the things you fear, but also to keep out the things you dislike.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd that's precisely what I'd like to get rid of: Foci of unproductive negativity. People who use this site as a platform. People who keep Pundy, Sett & al. from positive, productive thinking, and in doing so get free advertising space.

I'll assume that there's some sort of very subtle, very pointed humor to this statement, satirising the notion that Pundy and Sett are somehow being compelled by malignant forces to behave negatively.  Because, from where I'm sitting, Pundy and Sett et al are themselves foci of negativity.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI'll assume that there's some sort of very subtle, very pointed humor to this statement, satirising the notion that Pundy and Sett are somehow being compelled by malignant forces to behave negatively.  Because, from where I'm sitting, Pundy and Sett et al are themselves foci of negativity.

No, they're foci of wasted time. Theirs, and ours. Negativity can rawk the house, are you kidding? When critique is necessary, it should be delivered with some verve. So that's not the issue.

The issue is that the critique has been delivered many times now, and is kinda done. The latest pistols thread? zzzzzzzz Only infraweb noobs will have learned anything at all, because the frontlines have been in place for years now.

However. Our heroes are also perfectly capable of awesomeness. They just need the red cloth removed that some individuals, inadvertently or not so inadvertently, will dangle in front of them over and over again. Perhaps because said individuals know that the best critique of all is coming up with viable alternatives.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, they're foci of wasted time. Theirs, and ours. Negativity can rawk the house, are you kidding? When critique is necessary, it should be delivered with some verve. So that's not the issue.

The issue is that the critique has been delivered many times now, and is kinda done. The latest pistols thread? zzzzzzzz Only infraweb noobs will have learned anything at all, because the frontlines have been in place for years now.

However. Our heroes are also perfectly capable of awesomeness. They just need the red cloth removed that some individuals, inadvertently or not so inadvertently, will dangle in front of them over and over again. Perhaps because said individuals know that the best critique of all is coming up with viable alternatives.

Yup.  That's pretty much as fucked up and backwards as I previously concluded.

Wow.  It's amazing the kind of mental contortions you must have gone through to believe that.

J Arcane, given you're the biggest crank on the board, bar not even Pundy, your analysis re. the relief of other people's crankiness tends to carry little weight.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityJ Arcane, given you're the biggest crank on the board, bar not even Pundy, your analysis re. the relief of other people's crankiness tends to carry little weight.

So then you deny that Pundit is more than happy to leap into any and every thread and somehow twist it into an excuse to rant about his own personal ideology?

EDIT:  Or that he has an entire forum dedicated to rehashing old conflicts and paranoid rants?

Or that by and large every thread he starts on this forum is purely inflammatory from post one?

Seriously man, fuck you.  

The worst kind of apologism is that which blames everyone else for it's faults.

You know, Settembrini my old cabbage, if you want me out of your playroom you only have to ask.

Quote from: TonyLBJames, this is fine advice ... basically "Be humble, be positive," yes?

What sort of saturation do you think you'd need, in terms of some people being humble and positive, and some people being arrogant and negative, before you reached a critical mass where the arrogant, negative people would be outweighed by the humble, positive ones?

'cause I worry about the idea that the arrogant, negative people will always piss people off ... and that those pissed off people will then read the humble, positive people in a way that they perceive as arrogant and negative (and, quite possibly, pretentious and dishonest).

Do you need 90% saturation of humble, positive folks?  99%?  100%?

Tony, I think that there is no saturation level that is sufficient.

Because no matter how many people are humble and positive, they cannot solve the problem simply by being humble and positive.   Humble, positive people who go along with, and even act as apologists for, "Brain Damage" -- they go into the 'problem' bin, not the 'solution' bin.   Humble, positive people who adopt Ron's value-laden terminology -- they too are part of the problem and not the solution.  

*THIS* is what has poisoned the well:  well-meaning people who have given their (mostly passive) support to Ron's theories.  But that groundswell of passive support combined with the active support of a smaller but more vocal group -- that has built Ron's theories into the juggernaut of rpg theory discussion.  Given that Ron's theories have a firm basis in papered-over One True Way-ism, it shouldn't be a surprise that this has driven off a lot of people who might otherwise be interested in the topic.