Quote from: GoOrangeSo yes, I believe every rule is meant to be followed as written. The joke isn't the rule itself - it's a rule and needs to be followed. The joke is that you must follow the rule, which can be rather silly at times.

No offense to Mark, but I call shenanigans on the whole "Whatever the players want to do is fine" triteness. That's one of the most hackneyed lines from a game producer you'll ever hear, on par with an athlete talking about "Giving 110%". Either you meant that part of the book to be a joke or you didn't, please don't feed us this "however you want to interpret it" tripe.

As it says in the introduction to the HM PHB, we meant HM4E as a spoof and a parody of AD&D, but one that's a playable game in itself.  I don't know how much clearer I can make it.    It's a game - play it however you want.

Quote from: GoOrangeLastly, the whole "I can't say much" speech gets tiresome. You can't win in this situation. Whatever you do say will draw the ire of some fans, so instead of clamming up and taking the easy way out, why not try openness and honesty, with real answers as to what has been talked about and what directions are being discussed. Throw in a disclaimer that everything you say is subject to change at a later date but at least say something.

I think sticking my head under the blanket might be the "easy way out" at this point...  

I'll be as open and honest as I can, but if I ever say I can't tell you something (whether it's because it's not finished or we don't want to give away our cool new rules) then I just can't tell you yet.  In the future, when things are more finished, sure.  Just not yet.

Quote from: The_ShadowI'm sure Lorraine Williams thought the same thing circa 1993.

If she had, she would have been right. It was TSR's future that was uncertain, not D&D's.

RPGPundit

I have to say a "Basic Hackmaster" would be really cool, but I'd probably only be interested if the rules were still like D&D's, and not "vague generic fantasy system #3458".

Although, as it happens, "Forward... to Adventure!" is registered as #3458 on the list of generic fantasy systems; so if you guys happen to be interested...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf she had, she would have been right. It was TSR's future that was uncertain, not D&D's.

RPGPundit

Yea I gotta agree. I would not be surprised to find out there are more people playing AD&D than any other single game (besides D&D3.5 itself, that is).

Just guessing, and it would be counter to my own desires.

Quote from: Mark PlemmonsAs it says in the introduction to the HM PHB, we meant HM4E as a spoof and a parody of AD&D, but one that's a playable game in itself.  I don't know how much clearer I can make it.    It's a game - play it however you want.

OK, let me go at it from another direction. Plenty of people seem to NOT get the fact that HM4e was a spoof or parody of AD&D. Was/is the HM design team aware of how much discord the parody and satire caused (at least on the internet)? That is, were Jolly and Co. aware that many people seemed to be taking those parodic/satirical elements far too seriously? When I say "far too seriously," I mean to the point that multiple flame wars developed over those elements quite regularly. I could give a shit how someone plays the game at their own table, but when I get tired of reading the message boards a company sets up for their game due to the incessant rants about what is or isn't sanctioned or non-sanctioned, I figure it's worthwhile to bring it up.

Yes, I realize that the parody and satire are pretty plainly disclaimered right there in the core books. I for one, totally get the parody and satire, like it, and realize I can easily ignore it or use it as a way to play a "double immersive" game of people playing HM players like those in KoDT. But a lot of those folks bashing others over unsanctioned games and other "non-canon" stuff were entirely serious in their ire. Was the D-Team aware of this, or did they simply assume it was all just people playing along with the joke? Some people take what's written in a rulebook dead-fucking-seriously. Look at the arguments over canon that erupt when it's a game that doesn't contain parody and satire. My point is that I believe that this inability of some to understand parody and satire causes a fracturing of the fan base for HM, at least online. I mean, you can say we can play the game any way we want, but you're preaching to the choir here. WE get that. It's those who DON'T get it that we're talking about.

I promise to stop beating this dead horse. I just thought it was worth one more try.

Quote from: Mark PlemmonsI think sticking my head under the blanket might be the "easy way out" at this point...  

Don't read too much into my abundance of negativity, and don't take anything too personally. I'm honestly glad to have to have game producers stop by and answer questions and talk about their stuff, and you're no exception. Also, a few of my comments are general sentiments directed at the industry in general and not you or Kenzer specifically.

Still, tell us all your secret plans NOW!

Quote from: Mark PlemmonsI think sticking my head under the blanket might be the "easy way out" at this point...  

I'll be as open and honest as I can, but if I ever say I can't tell you something (whether it's because it's not finished or we don't want to give away our cool new rules) then I just can't tell you yet.  In the future, when things are more finished, sure.  Just not yet.

Lets give this guy the benefit of the doubt here, I mean sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes an AD&D parody is just an AD&D parody, but it does seem a little funnier when people try to make it into more than it really is.

From the times that I've met the Kenzer guys at either Gen*Con and Origins - I don't believe they will ever likely be in danger of becoming "Swine-Types".

 Pundit, you really need to visit one of those two conventions, preferably Gen Con.


- Ed C.

QuoteOK, let me go at it from another direction. Plenty of people seem to NOT get the fact that HM4e was a spoof or parody of AD&D. Was/is the HM design team aware of how much discord the parody and satire caused (at least on the internet)? That is, were Jolly and Co. aware that many people seemed to be taking those parodic/satirical elements far too seriously? When I say "far too seriously," I mean to the point that multiple flame wars developed over those elements quite regularly. I could give a shit how someone plays the game at their own table, but when I get tired of reading the message boards a company sets up for their game due to the incessant rants about what is or isn't sanctioned or non-sanctioned, I figure it's worthwhile to bring it up.

As a supporting statement, over on RPGnet, as I remember it, daring refer to Hackmaster as a parody was effectively an instant flamewar, as certain people would flip the fuck out and take it as some kind of insult against their preciosu game.  

It was really sort of ridiculous.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWas/is the HM design team aware of how much discord the parody and satire caused (at least on the internet)? That is, were Jolly and Co. aware that many people seemed to be taking those parodic/satirical elements far too seriously? When I say "far too seriously," I mean to the point that multiple flame wars developed over those elements quite regularly.

Yes. On the forums Jolly and Dave have said they're aware of it. I'm pretty sure problems that arose in the HMA were what tipped them off to 'em. I can't find the post, but it was somewhere in the General Talk area of the K&C forums... or the Hackmaster section. Fuck, I'm no help. But to answer your question, yes - they're aware. I remember this because it's what gave me hope for 5th edition and the HMA.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWas the D-Team aware of this, or did they simply assume it was all just people playing along with the joke?

This is really the main difficulty when it comes to discussing how HM should be played, and yes, we're aware of the differences in play styles - and that the game brought it on itself.  

Let me start off with a comparison.  

I'm a devotee of the Sherlock Holmes stories, both by A.C. Doyle and the many pastiches, parodies and tributes that have been published by other writers in the last 100 years or so.  (Though I don't belong to the Baker Street Irregulars or any of the other established societies for SH fans.)

Over the decades, it became fashionable among many fans to call ACD the "literary agent" for Watson, and set specific timelines for events in the stories, resolve inconsistencies, and so on, always sticking to the claim that Sherlock Holmes really existed.  Now, 99.9% of these people don't actually believe that SH existed and that Doyle was just the go-between for Watson and his publisher.  However, if you ask them outright, they'll stick to the "lie" because it's more enjoyable, even though they don't actually believe.  It's tongue-in-cheek acting on a massive scale, and is often referred to as "playing the game."

The HackMaster books, as written, play off this same seeming need for constantly being "in character."  We even have our own "Watson" in the form of "Gary Jackson" as the writer of the HM books (as well as other relevant characters from Knights of the Dinner Table.)  

So, you might ask a HM player if all the rules are perfect and any errors are actually designed that way to take advantage of the player doing so-and-so, or whatever.  Such a player might respond that he DOES believe that and swear to it constantly, even though in his mind he really knows that the books weren't written by the fictional Gary Jackson or that the rules are truly 100% perfect.  Like the Sherlock Holmes fans, he's "playing the game."

And this is where the difficulty lies - are you talking to someone who's "playing the game" or someone from that 0.1% of gamers who truly do believe that the rules are infallible?  If they don't ''break character," there's no way to tell.  And "playing the game" can be so enjoyable that it may lead to miscommunications or flame wars between those who are in on the joke, and those who aren't.  This is especially prone to happen on the internet, where every nut has a voice, and where tone of voice and facial expressions (except for smilies and such) are absent.

Heck, one of us KenzerCo staffers might say something "in character" to another HM player at a convention, while both of us are "playing the game."  This eventually shows up on the internet like "Dave (or Mark, or Jolly, or Steve, or Brian) said this so it must be true." and so on.

Did I ever expect someone to stay in character 101% of the time?  No, I can't say I saw that coming...    

Now that is an interesting explanation and analogy. I'd never really thought of it in that way before.

The whole meta-game concept of you're not playing a character in a Hack-and-Slash fantasy world, you're playing a player who's playing a character in a fantasy world just blows my mind. It's an abomination! I like it!

Mark - thats very similiar to the joke/scam idea that a local radio talk show Host Jerry Galvin used to do. Each night he was on he would have a ridiculous premise for the night's 2-3 hour show. If you didn't tune in during the first 5 or 6 minutes - then you wouldn't know what the joke was.

He also had a secret word or phrase that callers would have to work into what they said during a call to him - this was a way for him and other listeners to know that they were in on the joke.

His version of "playing the Game"

 Maybe you need a similiar word or acronym so its easy to tell who is playing the game and who is taking it too seriously.

- Ed C.

Koltar, you seem to be the only one that can consistently pull me out of lurker-hood.

"Talk Talk with Jerry Galvin" was the first and only show I ever heard on the radio that was so funny I had to pull off the road and laugh helplessly until I was so exhausted that I could drive again. Thanks for reminding me of it.:chestram:

I now depart again.

Quote from: JDCorleyKoltar, you seem to be the only one that can consistently pull me out of lurker-hood.

"Talk Talk with Jerry Galvin" was the first and only show I ever heard on the radio that was so funny I had to pull off the road and laugh helplessly until I was so exhausted that I could drive again. Thanks for reminding me of it.:chestram:

I now depart again.

Jerry Galvin was a heck of a nice guy. When his show was just local - I was a teenager and visited the radio studio a couple of times.  For awhile, I was a pretty consistent caller to the show.

Last I knew, he still lives locally. His brother is pretty active in radio and democrat politics locally.


- Ed C.