Quote from: C.W.RichesonI'm not doubting you, but do you have any links to other threads or articles or anything that discuss this?  Because I'd love to read more.

I have private email correspondence and as an unpleasant incident in the distant past taught me, such correspondence should stay private

Quote from: pigames.netThere is a link to it on his main page.

I don't think I've ever visited any page of his site other than the old REIGN page. I followed production through his periodic forum updates.

Quote from: HalfjackAnd why not here?  I should think that'd be obvious -- it's no fun talking about things that you love here because it's a guarantee that someone will wander by and shit on it.  Why would anyone want to talk about things they like in that environment?

Because it just might help to clarify at least some misconceptions about the game? After all, occasionally you'll see some folks virulently opposed to RPGs about which they really know next to nothing, based on expectations and hearsay: you might think of it as the reverse of the Darling phenomenon.

Quote from: HalfjackAs to the question of why some games get slobbered on?  Is it possible that they are excellent games?  We're having a lot of fun, which seems to me to be an adequate metric.  No?

Nobody's arguing with you. The question is a legitimate one, though. Some games do seem to get slobbered on more than others, in disproportion to how well they've sold. If they're that wonderful, why hasn't that translated into more sales, rather than just internet praise?

Quote from: HalfjackAnd why not here?  I should think that'd be obvious -- it's no fun talking about things that you love here because it's a guarantee that someone will wander by and shit on it.  Why would anyone want to talk about things they like in that environment?

I don't think that's any more true here than anywhere else.

I heard Fred Hicks chewed a stick of gum and that's what made Spirit of the Century an RPG.net Darling.  He did it at the same time the game was released, too, so there's no doubt the gum chewing was the cause.

More publishers should chew gum.

QuoteAs to the question of why some games get slobbered on? Is it possible that they are excellent games? We're having a lot of fun, which seems to me to be an adequate metric. No?

Because in many cases they aren't actually having as much fun as they let on to the public.  

And I don't mean in the silly Forge sense of them somehow fooling themselves into thinking they are havinf fun when they aren't, I mean in the sense of the aren't actually playing the games, and when they do, they don't have fun, but rather than pushing against the tide, they just go silent and we never hear about it.  Which is why so many past darlings have just kind of disappeared after a few months at max of post-release hype.  

Some of us have no doubt also been burned by the darling effect in the past, convinced by the seeming glowing praise for the game, and then winding up disappointed.  For me, the game that taught me to ignore RPGnet hype wave was Cartoon Action Hour, a game that was hyped to all hell before it's release, and which I bought and discovered than in actuality it was just a bad BESM clone that wasn't even worth the doscounted price I paid for it.  And of course, the buzz pretty much died completely within a month of me buying the thing.

For my own part personally, and I'm betting some of the folks here have similar attitudes, overhype in general is a major pet peeve of mine.

I think the interesting question isn't how do games become darlings, but what impact do all those darlings have on the RPG "industry" as a whole?

Take a look at the Origins Awards. There's so much frothing at the mouth and nerd rage over them among "industry" people because the awards are one of the few ego strokes available to them. The other big ego booster is online praise. RPGs don't really pay any money, unless you work for WotC or WW. For a lot of people, good reviews and a good rep are the next best thing.

So, you have RPG.net and the games it semi-randomly picks as the best games ever. EN World does the same thing with d20 stuff (Castles & Crusades; that huge Green Ronin gods book that came out 5 or 6 years ago). As others have noted, most of the darlings are good reads, but maybe not very good games or useful supplements.

IMO, the darling cycle is a self-sustaining thing. A game pops up as a darling, designers and publishers try to emulate it to catch the praise. And so on, and so forth.

(FWIW, I think that a game that becomes a darling has significantly less chance of becoming a sustainable, commercial venture. RPG.net, and to a lesser extent EN World, are so far down the long tail that appealing to their audiences is economic suicide.)

Quote from: J ArcaneBecause in many cases they aren't actually having as much fun as they let on to the public.  

I have way more fun then I let on, but even though I do post here, (I've got what I would consider a sizeable post count by any other definition.) I don't feel quite as compelled to post as some of the people on rpg.net.

I don't mean this as a slam, but chatting on rpg.net is a hobby for some people. I think that's a viable hobby, but it's not quite the same as gaming, or discussing things directly applicable to a gaming session.

So what you get are people discussing games as a hobby. Some games, like Exalted, are good for talking about. Exalted is a fun game to play, and I love it, but I also know that the amount of mythology, alternate canon, alternate worlds, builds, new charm trees, new exalt types, and new artifacts, plus the discussion on the different Exalts... well, even if all the big dawgs of rpg.net Exalted played once a week, in totally different games, all that stuff isn't getting used.

It's more compelling to talk about, then, for some people then it is to play. Even if they are extremely compelled to play it, they are more compelled to craft myth out of it.

So that's one reason behind 'darlings'. I, personally, find Exalted threads a ton of fun to read, but my games don't resemble what's written in 99% of them at all.

The other reason is, when you hang out as a hobby, any new games are new subjects to discuss. The ones that offer a new look, even if that appearance is divorced from how the game plays, offers a totally new conversation piece. This is because the concept behind the game is rather divorced from the actual content. It might be crap, but if the premise inspires, and it looked good in the promos, certain hangout-posters are going to get really excited.

Now, some of those games are really good. Some of them arn't my cup of tea, and some of them I don't know at all. But that's not important. What's important is that they've inspired discussion. It's divorced from play.

It's like how Kiero, on rpg.net, keeps wanting to discuss D&D. Dude hates D&D, but there's something about it he keeps wanting to talk about. What is it? I don't know. But he's compelled to talk about something, and I guess you can only talk about Wushu so much.

My point was just that all the hype can be highly misleading, and wind up leading a lot of people to pick up a game that either isn't nearly as great as advertised, or isn't actually any good for what it's being advertised for.  

The latter is a problem especially because once a new darling takes the spotlight, suddenly it gets suggested for fucking EVERYTHING, doesn't matter what it is, or whether the game in question actually supports a subject out of the box or not, it gets hyped up as if it does.

Why particular games become RPGnet darlings (or darlings elsewhere) - no idea.  I suspect if I or someone else had a real, objective answer to it we could bottle it and sell it to designers.  

As for why folks discuss it on RPGnet and ask questions perhaps (or definitely) better asked at the publisher's site, the snarky answer is ... who knows?  Why do people make irrational decisions would be another way of putting it.  

In less snarky thinking ('cause Brett well knows I like PIG stuff ...  ) there's probably a variety of reasons.  One being that's where RPGnetters hang out.  It's home to them, and it's where they make a hobby of discussing games (as has been suggested previously).  I often pick-up a strong vibe that folks don't actually want an authoritative answer on a question - they want an argument and / or speculation.

There's probably something to the idea that some folks don't want to register to a dozen or more individual boards.  

Dunno.  Consider I once recently saw a post where someone was asking (in a true quest for knowledge) why a publisher had chosen a particular business model.  When I suggested that the question was best mailed to the publisher (and provided the contact links which were well-displayed at the publishers site), the response was a (friendly) gee I never thought of that.  Fair enough, but I remain mystified.

I'm equally mystified why so many folks spout off with hate against a system, especially when someone else notes that they really like the system.  Actually, I do know ... it's called insecurity.  

Quote from: J ArcaneMy point was just that all the hype can be highly misleading, and wind up leading a lot of people to pick up a game that either isn't nearly as great as advertised. . .

I always think of Dread: The Second Book of Pandemonium when pressed for an example of this. It had a very cool premise (i.e., society's scum offered a chance at redemption by fighting demons), though no mechanics or even advice that supported it past rules for combat (which could have been supplanted from any other system, given their completely generic nature).

The thing is, you'd never have known this by reading the hype. The hype made it out to a be a fully realized premise with rich mechanical support and a mind-blowing secret that would change the way you thought about horror! In truth, while the mechanics weren't bad they certainly didn't do any more to support the premise than any other game on the market did -- and that secret? Jesus was a fucking alien! Seriously, that was it.

It has easily been my most disappointing RPG purchase in the last seven years. It wasn't a horrible game, mind you, it just wasn't what it was being billed as by the vast majority of its fanbase (i.e., friends and associates of the creator). In fact, I prefer the demo/playtest rules -- while they still fail to support the premise of people fighting for redemption mechanically, they at least don't have the "Christianity is a lie!" baggage attached to it.

[Edit: In fact, if anybody ever wants a copy of the original D:TFBoP playtest rules, let me know. The author gave me permission to disseminate them a while back.]

Quote from: J ArcaneThe latter is a problem especially because once a new darling takes the spotlight, suddenly it gets suggested for fucking EVERYTHING, doesn't matter what it is, or whether the game in question actually supports a subject out of the box or not, it gets hyped up as if it does.

i remember when savage worlds was the darling for that.  got tiring, real quick.  i may use CT/MT or BRP/CoC for everything, or as my "go-to" systems. but that's because i'm comfortable with it.  it isn't for everyone, and may require a dose of handwavium to do things properly.  to suggest "game x" for whatever you're playing is just, well, weak.  

it's just a bigger social contruct at rpg.net, more prone to "me too!" bits of high-school-ism, like cliques and the like.  one of the reasons i left there, for here.  :blahblah:

Quote from: beeberi remember when savage worlds was the darling for that.  got tiring, real quick.  i may use CT/MT or BRP/CoC for everything, or as my "go-to" systems. but that's because i'm comfortable with it.  it isn't for everyone, and may require a dose of handwavium to do things properly.  to suggest "game x" for whatever you're playing is just, well, weak.

As bad as that was, the more recent spate of "Wushu for everything" was twice as annoying.

At least with Savage Worlds, I could see some credibility in the claim.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAs bad as that was, the more recent spate of "Wushu for everything" was twice as annoying.

At least with Savage Worlds, I could see some credibility in the claim.

no shit!  especially once i printed out the freebie for wushu and saw what it entailed.  i doubt they could work with that

Quote from: beeberno shit!  especially once i printed out the freebie for wushu and saw what it entailed.  i doubt they could work with that

Well, I think one of the real problems is that people regularly, continually confuse what works for them with what works for other people.  

Wushu, for instance, may work famously well for everything ... for people who like the style of rules and play that it puts forth.  For others, Wushu doesn't work for a blessed thing - it's a train wreck in the making.

To me, it's like flavors of ice cream.  If you like chocolate, and I prefer vanilla, no amount of posturing by either of us is liable to change our preferences.  However, it's highly likely that continued trying will infuriate one or both of us.

Like I said earlier, I'm continually mystified by the ... :

[1] "I like System X."
[2] "System X sucks.  It's System Y or nothing"
[1] "System Y?  You ..."

or

[1] "System X is awesome.  I can use it for anything."
[2] "System X doesn't work for me (for y genre, or whatever)"
[1] "What?  How could you say that?  It works perfectly ... "

Given one of the biggest problems in humans is that they (we) tend to assume by default that everyone else processes and thinks the same way that we do, I shouldn't be surprised.