Quote from: tenbones;898581Maybe so. But ultimately "good" is dumb and boring.

I don't think good is dumb and boring. I think any "side" in a piece of fiction is boring if it lacks conflict. Imagine a victorious Empire where the Emperor finally managed to crush all his enemies. No rebellions, no dissenters. Everyone agrees that the Empire is right and necessary, and Vader wouldn't dare raise his hand against the galaxy's savior.

Zzzzzzz... Maybe as a peculiar short story about the Emperor sitting there shuffling papers and being bored.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;898627The issue is that Mr. Siembeida turned Tolkien into Saturday Morning Evil!  That's the thing.  To make the Coalition a good guy organization, he made Tolkien into something that was beyond silly!

Understood. My take on it remains - "good" is boring. Given the necessity to create "drama", even if you want to chalk it up to "narrativism" or whatever - conflict needs to ensue. The moment you come that conclusion, in whatever capacity, you need to have someone pull the trigger. In the big picture I think we can agree the CS would do exactly that. In the *bigger* picture, having the CS gut Tolkeen makes for better conflict in which to play in considering Tolkeen winning is like the Republic winning in Star Wars - nothing much happens.

I think pointing a finger at Siembieda and minimizing it down to "Well he's a CS fanboy!" is kinda too simplistic (and you might very well be right.) However, much like I'll say below with Emperor Prosek - the means justify the ends. It makes good narrative sense in this context to do this, regardless if he's a CS fanboy or not, imo. It upsets the applecart, and given the fact that Rifts has never really done a new edition, it shook up the status-quo in a dramatic way without crapping on the rest of the world (that's for the PC's to do/not do).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;898627Nothing was meant to be pure good, or pure evil.  Yes, there was some nice Coalition guys, and there were evil Tolkien guys, but neither were ambiguous, or a pure shade of grey (which is just as unrealistic as pure white or black.)  But to actually make Tolkien as bad guys required more work than doing so for the Coalition.

No argument here. My point is that the CS is much more interesting and Tolkeen is boring. Narratively, Kevin could have had Tolkeen become the magical equivalent to the CS - but more militaristic in their approach, and have them both slug it out, fueled by their respective philosophies and let them slug it out. Because conflict is good for gaming. But he took a more decisive approach. Likewise I'd be cool with Tolkeen decimating the CS IF they took that hardline position.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;898627No, he's not.  That's the thing.  He only cares about his 'territory'.  And even then, if it's not Chi-Town, he's not really going to act very quickly.  Which is why New Quebec (silly book notwithstanding) is listed as considering separating from the Coalition.  That and the fact that Chi-Town frowns on Glitter Boy units.  The Emperor doesn't even care about the villages within his territory, unless it was full of D-Bees in which they would make into a nice MDC bonfire.  If you're not Coalition, you are less than nothing.

Don't let your dislike for the autocratic totalitarian megalomaniacal Emperor Prosek make presumptions that these things are mutually exclusive. He most certainly can be the despotic piece of crazytown-shit that wants to conquer the the world *AND* still recognize the big picture for survival. They certainly can co-exist. They just can't co-exist with entities singular/social that would thwart him and his MDC-boot-wearing goosesteppers. Killing all of ones enemies is most certainly one way of dealing with the problem of their existence if one is crazy enough to perceive them as a threat. I'm not saying he's GOOD... I'm saying he sees the landscape.

Simple example - if you were a human villager living in Rifts Modesto California - and the CS invaded Atlantis and mega-nuked the Splugorth into oblivion, you may not realize it, but the world just got a little better. If they nuked Tolkeen along the way to do that, in the big picture the net-gain, for you, would probably still be better. Unfortunate for Tolkeen residents, but overall, much better for everyone else. That kind of disturbing conflict is a hyperbolic ball-of-fun for RPG's.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;898627But they were.  They were willing to help anyone who called on them.  You want into our kingdom for safety?  Sure!  Why not.  Now yes, there were probably some other reasons as to why they said yes, but at least to these immigrants they didn't have to fear getting gunned down because they didn't look right.

Okay... so let me use the example above. Tolkeen was *never* going deal with the Splugorth. Even if they wanted to (among the many other supernatural/interdimensional monstrosities threatening all of humanity) - they, to my recall, did not have anything remotely close the power needed to deal with them. Let's stipulate: The Mechanoids, ARCHIE, The Splugorth, the Vampire Kingdoms, Xiticix, among others, being the largest existential threats to *everyone* - Tolkeen wasn't going to have diplomatic ties with these entities to "sort things out". They would have gotten their collective asses handed to them - actually it would have been worse than that. They'd have been enslaved and killed and tortured and maimed for pleasure - then it would probably have gone downhill from there.

I'm not saying Tolkeen was a *bad* element to have in the game. I'm saying it wasn't going to do squat against these very real threats. To what degree they are threats - that's up to the GM. You could even put the CS itself in that list. Tolkeen wasn't going to take the CS on. So these are the apex predators of the Rifts setting - *at some point* someone's gotta eat. In this case, Kevin made the call with the CS and Tolkeen was on the plate. He *could* have gone after someone else, sure. Maybe it was arbitrary, I think the CS was a good call because it's about Earth, and the CS is probably the only humanocentric organization in any position to make a move. I'm not arguing they're good. I'm just saying it makes sense to me. I'm not even making the claim that the CS *could* deal with these other issues either. I'm just saying that someone in the setting has to try to steal the bacon first. The CS is a logical choice.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;898627If that's the case, then the Coalition's own interests is much more self-serving, and uncaring to the general population outside it's own borders, which often do not extend past the walls of each arcology.

Absofuckinglutly!! They are *totally* self-serving. That's the beauty of it. They're setting themselves UP for a much needed curbing. That's why the conflict posed by them doing this is damn near majestic (especially with Spinachats idea thrown into the mix - with the Tomorrow Legion being an insurgency within the CS!!!!! Jesus it's a great idea - it's a campaign waiting to happen). Kevin upped the ante (regardless of how anyone feels about it) by putting one of his big set-pieces into motion... how that gets resolved? Well that's for campaigns all over the world to figure out for themselves!!!

It's gonna be great!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;898729I don't think good is dumb and boring. I think any "side" in a piece of fiction is boring if it lacks conflict. Imagine a victorious Empire where the Emperor finally managed to crush all his enemies. No rebellions, no dissenters. Everyone agrees that the Empire is right and necessary, and Vader wouldn't dare raise his hand against the galaxy's savior.

Zzzzzzz... Maybe as a peculiar short story about the Emperor sitting there shuffling papers and being bored.

I accept your challenge with your own words, good sir.

IF "conflict" is the necessary ingredient to make a piece of fiction "not boring", WHOM, generally speaking, is more likely to create "conflict" - good or evil people?

That's right. Evil people. So your example with the Empire is a bad one. Because *they're creating conflict*. The Empire is evil by its very nature. You can't have the old mythic tale of "Good triumphing over Evil" - UNLESS Evil has already triumphed over Good. This is precisely why I don't like the modern-era of Star Wars. It presumes the era of the "Good Ol' Days of the Old Republic" were really good. So of course once the Empire takes over it becomes an inevitable quest to destroy it - it's the perfect target.

But a Good Republic... sure you'll get years of relative peace to snooze in. But at some point - conflict will need to arise. One could say "evil people" doing "evil shit" will cause that disruption. But we all know what it really takes - corruption from the inside. The moment the "Good" authority starts doing "not good" things is when the conflict starts - at which point the "Good" authority stops actually being good.

I'm not saying Tolkeen was fully evil or anything remotely like that - I'm saying that it's position as the "good human" city made it and obvious target. And let's face it, it's boring on the big scale. It's perfectly fine to adventure in and around (don't get me wrong). But from the big-picture standpoint its not something I'd base conflict OUT of, *because* it's generally "good". If I did that - they wouldn't be "good".

Quote from: tenbones;898774I accept your challenge with your own words, good sir.

IF "conflict" is the necessary ingredient to make a piece of fiction "not boring", WHOM, generally speaking, is more likely to create "conflict" - good or evil people?

That's right. Evil people.

I'd agree that "evil" is usually more proactive than "good" in fiction. Usually antagonists are the ones who have strong motivations, and go out and do shit. Mr. Freeze wants to save his cryowife. Baron Harkonen wants to destroy House Atredies. Even a goal as hackneyed as "rule the world", at least is a motivation that creates conflict.

QuoteSo your example with the Empire is a bad one. Because *they're creating conflict*. The Empire is evil by its very nature. You can't have the old mythic tale of "Good triumphing over Evil" - UNLESS Evil has already triumphed over Good. This is precisely why I don't like the modern-era of Star Wars. It presumes the era of the "Good Ol' Days of the Old Republic" were really good. So of course once the Empire takes over it becomes an inevitable quest to destroy it - it's the perfect target.

But your assertation also includes that you can't have conflict unless someone, the "good" side, is there to oppose evil. The baddies couldn't be remotely as interesting if no one contested them. The difference between interesting and boring is, IMO, agency. Bad guys are usually shown with more agency, they do shit. Good guys are usually shown as passive. They wait around for the bad guys to do something, and then oppose them.

But, there's nothing saying the good guys can't have that kind of agency. The problem is that when someone is active and another is passive, people seem to tend towards having less sympathy for the actor and more sympathy for the act-ee. Which is where I think a lot of "bad guy backlash" comes from. When the bad guys are finally defeated, it's because the good guys acted and succeeded. (Which, BTW, is where I suspect the "good guy lets the bad guy do himself in", deflecting some of that agency, comes from. See: All the Nolan Batman movies.)

QuoteI'm not saying Tolkeen was fully evil or anything remotely like that - I'm saying that it's position as the "good human" city made it and obvious target. And let's face it, it's boring on the big scale. It's perfectly fine to adventure in and around (don't get me wrong). But from the big-picture standpoint its not something I'd base conflict OUT of, *because* it's generally "good". If I did that - they wouldn't be "good".

Eh. I'm not so sure Tolkeen were ever meant to be "good". From the first Rulebook, it seemed like they were setting Tolkeen and the CS up to clash eventually, and for it to be a murky, grey conflict on both sides.

*Edit*

Ok, I've been doing some reading, and I think I've gotten some of the history of the Federation of Magic confused with Tolkeen's history. So there's that.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;898784I'd agree that "evil" is usually more proactive than "good" in fiction. Usually antagonists are the ones who have strong motivations, and go out and do shit. Mr. Freeze wants to save his cryowife. Baron Harkonen wants to destroy House Atredies. Even a goal as hackneyed as "rule the world", at least is a motivation that creates conflict.

You bet. There's always exceptions to whatever rule is being proposed. <---even that one? Shit I just ate a paradox point.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;898784But your assertation also includes that you can't have conflict unless someone, the "good" side, is there to oppose evil. The baddies couldn't be remotely as interesting if no one contested them. The difference between interesting and boring is, IMO, agency. Bad guys are usually shown with more agency, they do shit. Good guys are usually shown as passive. They wait around for the bad guys to do something, and then oppose them.

Well I generally speaking don't like using "good" and "evil" to describe opposing sides. But sure - you can have "evil" being opposed by "less evil" if you prefer. In fact on the BIG scale - that's exactly what the CS is. Because I'll take the CS any day of the week over the horrors of the Splugorth or the Xiticix etc. They are, for all their whacked-out beliefs, "less evil" than those other guys.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;898784But, there's nothing saying the good guys can't have that kind of agency. The problem is that when someone is active and another is passive, people seem to tend towards having less sympathy for the actor and more sympathy for the act-ee. Which is where I think a lot of "bad guy backlash" comes from. When the bad guys are finally defeated, it's because the good guys acted and succeeded. (Which, BTW, is where I suspect the "good guy lets the bad guy do himself in", deflecting some of that agency, comes from. See: All the Nolan Batman movies.)

Sure it's possible. It's just not set up for that in Rifts. I'll play Devil's Advocate - and bear with me, I'm going off of memory here, so someone can easily correct me - but Tolkeen is given pretty short-shrift compared to CS. Now sure we can say it's Kev fanboying on his own creation. Let's pretend that it was reversed and he started out fanboying on Tolkeen as "the cool kid" among the bad-elements of the setting.

He'd have a *lot* to reconcile in terms of dealing with those bad-apples that *do* exist. That could certainly be done, but then the very nature of Tolkeen would likely be different, darker, than what it was, by necessity. In order to give them agency to actually deal with things that if left to their own devices *would* devour the remnants of humanity, Tolkeen would almost by necessity have to destroy the CS, because I think we can all agree that Prosek sure as hell wasn't going to play ball with them (or more deviously - he'd do it only to stab them in the back). I think conflict between the two would be inevitable. That said - if Tolkeen did do that, it would fundamentally change them.

The writing was on the wall for this kind of situation - because it might have been possible in the early years of Rifts, the philosophical stance of Tolkeen is not one of expansion. The CS was by default ready to bring the fight on. Damn the torpedos and all that. By changing the philosophical stance of Tolkeen to something more pro-active, it would have changed the very nature of this conversation (and that would be a fun campaign to run too!)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;898784Eh. I'm not so sure Tolkeen were ever meant to be "good". From the first Rulebook, it seemed like they were setting Tolkeen and the CS up to clash eventually, and for it to be a murky, grey conflict on both sides.

Yep. It was bound to happen.

Quote from: tenbones;898793Shit I just ate a paradox point.

You're gonna poop a wand of wonder.

Quote from: tenbones;898793But sure - you can have "evil" being opposed by "less evil" if you prefer.

THIS is how I run Rifts and Chaos Earth.

Personally, I feel the Palladium alignment system supports this in play, because its quite possible for Scrupulous (good) person to have better dealings with an Aberrant (evil) person than with an Anarchist (neutral).

Here's a breakdown for people who aren't familiar. I wonder if Savage Rifts will include them?
http://gelvgoldenaxe.proboards.com/thread/23

I backed it. It took me a lot of hemming and hawing, but I did.

Was a big fan of various Palladium games back in the day. Basically what I cut my teeth on rpg-wise.

I have been playing Savage Worlds for a number of years now. Funnily enough, my very first experience with Savage Worlds was pretty bad and I didn't like the system for a a couple years - it was with the author of Savage Rifts at a con. Same con that the guy himself laughed when I told him I played Palladium; "haha...sorry! hahaha."  This was when Palladium announced the big embezzlement thing - but before they crowdfunded for cash.

So I have had some issues with backing this kickstarter. I find it hard to believe that a guy who was a prick and made fun of the company back in the day is now saying he's been a huge fan since the beginning. That bugs me.

However, I am a fan of the Savage Worlds rules. Been playing in an ongoing campaign for 4 or 5 years now. Stopped playing Rifts because after running it for a decade, I just couldn't take the system anymore. It just stopped jiving with me one day. Still have all my books, and I still use them for inspiration for other games. I've used several Rifts monsters in LotFP as one-time freakazoids.

So, I backed it. I don't care that MDC works differently because MDC in Rifts was always shit. In the original Robotech rule book it worked and made sense, but Rifts drove the concept into the shitter. So hardened armor and heavy/AP weapons works great for me. I really like the burn out mechanic for Juicers; it actually gives them a weakness, as the Rifts Juicer is essentially the single best combat class with no equal and no weaknesses. It was really the one class I ever saw abused in a decade of playing the game.

It will be interesting to see what they do with nukes and antimatter bombs. It isn't like they could fuck them up more than Palladium did.

And someone earlier made a point about how Savage Worlds can't handle high powered beings like Splugorth and the Four Horsemen and whatnot. Well, neither could Rifts. Splyncryth himself had what, like 56,000 MDC? If you played in a Rifts game and defeated him then you weren't playing Rifts. You were playing some bullshit. That is not a fair metric at all, since Rifts didn't handle high-MDC beings well at all. Anything with more than 2k MDC was essentially unbeatable because Rifts weapons are far weaker than Rifts armor. Even with the ridiculous burst fire rules which were all but disposed of in the GM's Guide and Ultimate edition.

Oh, by the way, in the SW campaign I've been playing in for several years now, my guy is a dragon. Well, sort of. It is in the Sundered Skies setting and I played a drakin from the very beginning. I'm finally at the final experience tier and in 2 or 3 advances my dude will be a full grown, honest to god, playable and fun, adult dragon. So SW is certainly capable of handling something of that power level.

Quote from: tenbones;898771Don't let your dislike for the autocratic totalitarian megalomaniacal Emperor Prosek make presumptions that these things are mutually exclusive. He most certainly can be the despotic piece of crazytown-shit that wants to conquer the the world *AND* still recognize the big picture for survival. They certainly can co-exist. They just can't co-exist with entities singular/social that would thwart him and his MDC-boot-wearing goosesteppers. Killing all of ones enemies is most certainly one way of dealing with the problem of their existence if one is crazy enough to perceive them as a threat. I'm not saying he's GOOD... I'm saying he sees the landscape.

That's the problem, no he does not.  And I'll explain why below.

Quote from: tenbones;898771Okay... so let me use the example above. Tolkeen was *never* going deal with the Splugorth. Even if they wanted to (among the many other supernatural/interdimensional monstrosities threatening all of humanity) - they, to my recall, did not have anything remotely close the power needed to deal with them. Let's stipulate: The Mechanoids, ARCHIE, The Splugorth, the Vampire Kingdoms, Xiticix, among others, being the largest existential threats to *everyone* - Tolkeen wasn't going to have diplomatic ties with these entities to "sort things out". They would have gotten their collective asses handed to them - actually it would have been worse than that. They'd have been enslaved and killed and tortured and maimed for pleasure - then it would probably have gone downhill from there.

Here's the problem.  ARCHIE was so secret that the Coalition would have been the first to fall if the AI REALLY wanted to do something about it.  The Mechanioids?  Neither nation would have been as prepared, also, Tolkien would have likely survived better, simply because Magic.  If I remember correctly, the Mechaniods have no defense against that.  As for the Splugorth, the Coalition with it's insistence on hating Magic would be literally no threat to Atlantis.  None.

And it's for the same in game, in world, mechanical reasons as to why Tolkien should have won.  Magic, namely, Teleportation Magic.  The CS has again, ZERO defense against it as written at the time of The Siege of Tolkien.  If Tolkien REALLY wanted to win, they'd have teleported magic users and soldiers directly into Chi-Town and that would have been the end of it.

This is the reason I have issues with the whole Coalition actually surviving.  They border on the level of stupidity that should have gotten them killed.  It's nice to have really big guns, but even then, they're denying themselves some of the more powerful ones: Glitters Boys are well known to be the most powerful man sized (10ft, yeah, yeah) portable artillery pieces in the Western world.  But NOPE!  NOT HAVING ANY!  You, Quebec, get rid of them!  NAO!  You have creatures and people with abilities that can bypass all mundane security measures, such as teleportation and ley line 'walking'.  But do they have anything to defend themselves against it?  Nope, don't need it, cuz we!  Are!  Human!

The only way that the CS will survive longer than the 50 (and even then) or so years that they claimed to have, is by Writer's Fiat.  Also known as Plot Protection.

Oh god, now Rifts=Bad because White Room Proofs.  Linear Coalition, Quadratic Tolkeen.  :rolleyes:

Someone call The Gaming Den and get them started on a thread "proving" who wins the Tolkeen Conflict.  We'll check in after they post a few hundred thousand Objectively True and Mutually Exclusive results.  Maybe the nurse who changes my bedpan in 40 years will give a shit.

Jesus, Dude.  You liked Tolkeen.   We get it. Grow the fuck up and get over it instead of trying to prove by every possible means necessary (and failing miserably) that Siembieda and Rifts are everything wrong with gaming.

Quote from: tenbones;898771Understood. My take on it remains - "good" is boring.

No argument here. My point is that the CS is much more interesting and Tolkeen is boring. Narratively, Kevin could have had Tolkeen become the magical equivalent to the CS - but more militaristic in their approach, and have them both slug it out, fueled by their respective philosophies and let them slug it out. Because conflict is good for gaming. But he took a more decisive approach. Likewise I'd be cool with Tolkeen decimating the CS IF they took that hardline position.

If they nuked Tolkeen along the way to do that, in the big picture the net-gain, for you, would probably still be better. Unfortunate for Tolkeen residents, but overall, much better for everyone else. That kind of disturbing conflict is a hyperbolic ball-of-fun for RPG's.

Okay... so let me use the example above. Tolkeen was *never* going deal with the Splugorth.

I'm not saying Tolkeen was a *bad* element to have in the game. I'm saying it wasn't going to do squat against these very real threats. To what degree they are threats - that's up to the GM. You could even put the CS itself in that list.

1: Good isnt boring. Its more challenging. Evil is boring.

2: Tolkeen isnt so much boring as its not as fleshed out as the Coalition was. We know tons about the Coalition and their gadgets. But Tolkeen? Not so much till near the end. and then its over.  Its like in Star Wars. We know alot more about the Empire than the Rebels. The Empires tech is on display alot more than the rebels all the way through the original three movies. I agree that Tolkeen could have been a very interesting magical counterpart to the Coalition. Missed opportunity amongst many many others. Theres so much that will never see light for Rifts.

3 & 4: Not necessarily. Tolkeen keeps the magical threats at bay to some degree much like the CS does with the rest. And the CS was shown to be often out of its league when faced with magic. The CS wasnt going to deal with the Splurgoth either for that reason.

5: We dont really know what Tolkeen was doing. Or not. They could have been as active as the Coalition. But without mention in the books much its hard to say or pin down. Least far as I got in the books it was still a cypher overall. Kind of like TRIAX and the NGR were till they got their own books.

X: Its a moot point at this point. I doubt Palladium will really play up the disaster potential that the loss of Tolkeen really implies. Without that magical stopgap the Coalition should be facing an uphill battle thereafter as magical threats that Tolkeen (probably) handled now filter into SC territory with no checks. Threats the CS will be out of their league to handle.

Who knows. Maybee it was all a set up for the big fall of the Coalition and some new force to stand up and defend. Psi World? Nemo? Archie? The Mechanons? Lazlo?

Back on topic. Whats the latest on the SW Rifts? Seems like its chugging along better than expected. Even if some of the rules decisions might not thrill some.

Quote from: CRKrueger;898888Oh god, now Rifts=Bad because White Room Proofs.  Linear Coalition, Quadratic Tolkeen.  :rolleyes:

Someone call The Gaming Den and get them started on a thread "proving" who wins the Tolkeen Conflict.  We'll check in after they post a few hundred thousand Objectively True and Mutually Exclusive results.  Maybe the nurse who changes my bedpan in 40 years will give a shit.

Jesus, Dude.  You liked Tolkeen.   We get it. Grow the fuck up and get over it instead of trying to prove by every possible means necessary (and failing miserably) that Siembieda and Rifts are everything wrong with gaming.

Actually no.  I much preferred the smaller kingdoms, like Ishpeming, AKA Northern Gun, Ciudad Juarez and the like.  My favourite books were the Mercenaries, Juicer Uprisings, Rifts Underseas and a few others.

The problem is that certain elements break the suspension of disbelief.  I'm willing to take a lot of stuff and bend with it, but one thing I have a hard time accepting is when the internal logic of a setting gets broken to serve some shoehorned metaplot.

The fact is, because I neither liked, nor actually disliked the Coalition or Tolkien, I could take a good long look, without (hopefully) too much bias over the other and see where the setting compromises it's own logic to make something happen that simply is impossible at the time.  I didn't care who won.  Actually, I would have preferred to have that conflict left alone, that way each and every single table could decide when, where and who would win that conflict.  Personally?  I'd have kept it simmering much, much longer than when it happened.

And the other issue I have is on this thread, we have several posters here who claim to be against 'pure' evil to the point of trying to shift goal posts around to make the Coalition, a group of genocidal, and exceedingly short sighted human supremacists, who book burn to keep their lower classes stupid and compliant, as well as the uplifting animals to sentience but do not give them the rights that we accept as sentient, oppress and kill a small segment of the population on the fear that one of them will be some sort of mental god, and who believe that Hitler was onto something, as 'real good guys'.  Despite trying to say, no, they're not. They're just 'the man with the plan'.  All evidence suggested otherwise.

And yes, yes, I actually agree, there's no such thing pure black or white, but in this world of shades of grey some are actually darker and lighter than others.  None are pure evil and none are pure good, but some do come so close it's scary.  What the Nazi's did?  Pretty damn bad.  What the Coalition, who was stated to be using some history books on Hitler, is doing?  Pretty damn bad.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;898905What the Nazi's did?  Pretty damn bad.

Holy shit, dude! I've never heard anyone say what the Nazis did was bad! What a concept.

QuoteWhat the Coalition, who was stated to be using some history books on Hitler, is doing?  Pretty damn bad.

Duh.

Was anyone else here thinking that the KS would have gone higher?  Don't get me wrong, $438,076 is a lot of money.  The initial blast off for this was impressive, then seemed to lose steam fast.

Starting off strong and then quickly losing steam is the modus operandi of Kickstarter projects.  The first few days and the last few days are where the money is made, if at all.  The middle is a slow trickle.

Quote from: Celestial;898979Starting off strong and then quickly losing steam is the modus operandi of Kickstarter projects.  The first few days and the last few days are where the money is made, if at all.  The middle is a slow trickle.

Two other factors that may account for the way it proceeded:

1. I think there was a lot of pent-up demand for this project or something like it, so a higher proportion of interested people were probably backing immediately.
2. Pinnacle didn't go crazy with stretch goals.