Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyIn the late 90s I was playing Rolemaster Standard, RQ3 (briefly!), Alternity and WFRP...

Ned

Three of which were no longer in production, and one of which was a trial run for D20.

So in other words you, like so many people, had retreated out of what was the vanguard of the market at the time. You had been ghettoized.

That's what I saw. Dozens of my friends leaving gaming forever because it "wasn't fun anymore", or just playing the games they had with decade-old books in their houses without every week but no longer being an active part of the hobby in any way shape or form because the message was clear that they were not being catered to or even wanted.

Shit, I QUIT gaming myself, finally, having felt there wasn't really anything in it anymore and no point in continuing.  That was six months before D&D 3.0 came out.  Thank god that a friend's mention of it and my own idle curiousity got me to check it out (as, believe it or not, at the time I was convinced that  Wizards couldn't possibly do anything good with D&D; I was oh so wrong!).

So technically, I am one of those who was "driven out" of gaming in the mid and late 90s by story-based gaming, and if it hadn't been for D20 I wouldn't be here at all. This is personal.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MarcoIt's true that John is no "Kool Aid drinking" indie-die hard who believes traditional games and gamers are broken. Man, so true. And he's taken the heat for it. Believe me.

That's true, and I know that. Its why once I mentioned that if the whole "indie gaming" movement had looked at him as their Dear Leader and not Ron Edwards the whole thing might have been very different, and we might NOT be at war right now.
But we are.
And as it is, John is an enabler for the Forge-cult crowd.

QuoteThat said, lots of guys who like and play indie games (and I include myself and John as well as many, many others) periodically get hit by the "cross fire" from both "sides" (as we see here, although retracted, I think--and I respect the hell out of that).

Yes, I know that there is a group of "gaming theory" guys who really are "non-combatants" in the war. Guys like you or Levi.
Its too bad for you. But again, this is what happens when you choose to spend a lot of time hanging out with them.
I mean, I know the Crips make the best barbeque on the whole west side, but if you go to them for ribs, you might get caught in the drive-by. That's just the way it is.

QuoteThat, if nothing else, makes a pretty good case that if you consider yourself in a "camp" that you might want to look at where your "camp" is aiming its artilery. Vitriolic blanket accusations aren't good for anyone, including the people making them.

-Marco

Rather than trying to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that it isn't happening, that "no one" on the indie side is "attacking" traditional play, you might be better served by doing some serious cleaning in-house, up to and including starting a seperate movement that intentionally and vocally rejects the bellicose aspects of GNS theory and intellectual elitism/pretentiousness of the current Indie movement.

Unfortunately, I suspect your club would be pretty tiny, since most indie gamers are in it FOR the pretentiousness.

RPGPundit

I never gave up the hobby altogether but I certainly felt very alienated from it during the late 90s.  D&D 3.0 is what got me out of that funk as well.

Quote from: James J SkachMy apologies for derailing this thread with this silly personal disagreement.

This thread was on a rail at one point??

RPGPundit

There were thousands of us who felt "alienated".  It was an exodus.
I mean shit, those six months were the only period of that length in my entire fucking life since I discovered gaming that I didn't game for more than a few weeks.  And in those six months, I didn't game at all. I had given up.

Story-based gaming drove a huge chunk of one whole generation (ours) out of gaming; and pushed a whole other generation (the ones that were 12-13 in 1995) away from ever becoming gamers in the first place by telling them that they weren't wanted, that RPGs were meant to be a "mature" "adult" thing now.

All because of their selfish desires to want to believe that they were doing something "artistic" and "intellectual" to get their mental jollies. The sheer selfishness, the vileness of it, just infuriates me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThree of which were no longer in production, and one of which was a trial run for D20...

Both Rolemaster Standard and WFRP -- if you count 2e -- are 'in production'.

All of those games were bought new in the shops at the time we played them. I don't know much (and care less) about their publishing histories, but I am pretty sure that both RMSS and WFRP (via Hogshead) were "live" games in the late 90s. RQ3 was in all the UK games shops in big, discounty bundles - very tempting (but ultimately disappointing).  

I didn't feel marginalised or ghettoised in the slightest - all my gaming buddies were into these games, they were being played at cons and they were in the shops, new stuff was coming out regularly (well, not RQ3, but there were STACKS of supplements in the shops back then - wished I'd bought a few more of them up, as a matter of fact).

How was Alternity a "trial run for d20" (I assume you mean Alternity)? D&D 3rd had more in common with RM than Alternity. What the hell is the "vanguard of the market"? What do you mean by "an active part of the hobby"? I'm buying, I'm playing - how much more active do you want me to be?

EDIT: Pundit, I think you are over-generalising based on your own experience. In the mid-90s I moved from New Zealand to the UK and had no problems whatsoever hooking up with groups playing "non-story-based" games. I guess it was different in your neck of the woods, but I don't think your experience is even close to universal.

Ned

Quote from: RPGPunditRather than trying to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that it isn't happening, that "no one" on the indie side is "attacking" traditional play, you might be better served by doing some serious cleaning in-house, up to and including starting a seperate movement that intentionally and vocally rejects the bellicose aspects of GNS theory and intellectual elitism/pretentiousness of the current Indie movement.

Unfortunately, I suspect your club would be pretty tiny, since most indie gamers are in it FOR the pretentiousness.

RPGPundit

Um, I think people attack traditional play (and do spin for attacks on traditional play) all over the place and have gotten the heat for saying so repeatedly. I'm pretty committed to calling that out when I see it. You can check my posting on The Forge or Story Games or RPG.net.

I'll also say that I think RPGs are an artistic medium (not high-art or releasing your inner emo or whatever--but artistic and creative). I'm willing to stand behind that. I think there's a solid case for it as long as people don't define art as "that which you take too seriously and use to say you are better than everyone else."

I think that focused games have their place, are RPGs (in so far as there is no dictionary definition of RPG to turn to) and that stuff like Dogs in the Vineyard is a perfectly valid game (I remember morons saying Amber wasn't an RPG because it was diceless).

I like Andy K. A lot.

I've gamed online with Mike Holmes (HeroQuest!). I think he can come down heavy but has interesting stuff to say.

I think the brain-damage thing was surprisingly honest and has been sort of covertly in GNS-dialog since day one. But I find it refreshing instead of just howlingly insulting. If people see it and read it they'll form their own opinions rapidly.

I'd buy Ron Edwards a beer if he'd take it from me and we ever met. I enjoyed my Sorcerer game.

I'm interested in playing these games so long as the people I have to interact with don't go on about how sad those pathetic little guys with their poor little heartbreakers are ... or how incoherent just means like light and not like an actually broken written document.

So, no. No head in sand. At least I don't think so. I find your rants funny and vitriolic--I'm willing to give the 'gonzo' descriptor it's due ... but I don't think Indie game designers are ruining gaming either. Either you count Clash (flyingmice) in that camp which is absurd or you draw distinctions about what an alternative game is that I'm not sure I agree with. Either way, I can't agree with any broad-spectrum indictment.

Hell, my game won an Indie award (and the cover for the latest supplement won a Spectrum award--which is off topic, but I'm super-happy about it!) so I can't be too bitter.

-Marco

Quote from: RPGPunditThis thread was on a rail at one point??

RPGPundit

The third rail!

-Marco (bzzzzzzzzzt)

Quote from: jhkimMoreover, I think the battle analogy is moronic in the larger picture.  The enemy which both White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast need to fight is other activities and anti-roleplaying stigma.  In particular, they need to make tabletop RPGs viable against online MMORPGs and remove the stigma of being a anti-social geek.  It is harmful to the market at a whole to squabble over the tiny share of dedicated role-players, making attacks on how stupid, geeky, or whatever another popular group of gamers are.

I think you're confusing the objectives of game companies and some game fans.

Game companies want to sell more games. There is "war" here -- just like there is in any other retail situation... basic market competition. This is not news -- but it is *interesting* -- and it's where stuff like D20 (game-changing innovations) happens

Some game fans want something different -- they want superiority. This is actually very similar to what you see in some musical tastes: the notion that "I'm better because I listen to / play game X."

The fans want a different game that's more sophisticated/deeper/darker/more-story-oriented/whatever than the games the other guys play.

This can be a niche by itself: these guys are very loyal and easy to market to. They're also somewhat loud (I'm talking about these kinds of fans across a variety of domains -- not just RPGs).

The "war" is often an artifact of the desire to be separate / better.

How can you tell if it's really a war: Check with most D&D fans. Ask if they've even heard of the war. They haven't. They might be aware that other games eixst... and even play them -- but the folks using the "war" or "revolution" langauge are largely talking to themselves.

Cheers,
-E.

If I remember correctly, "traditional gaming" was considered mostly dead by 1990 anyway. The glut of totally incomprehensible mostly un-fun crap that was coming out, AD&D had become a convoluted, tangled mess. Vampire and "Story Based" play reinvigorated the industry. People were excited, playing again and enjoying themselves. Once that wave died down, people were screaming the RPG industry was dead and D20 came out and reinvigorated the industry again. Now that wave of excitement is dying down (although we've still got a few more years!), hopefully something else will come around and reinvigorate again. Otherwise, our favorite games will be relegated as the "Forefathers of the MMO".

Quote from: -E.I think you're confusing the objectives of game companies and some game fans.

Game companies want to sell more games. There is "war" here -- just like there is in any other retail situation... basic market competition. This is not news -- but it is *interesting* -- and it's where stuff like D20 (game-changing innovations) happens

In my experience, the industry professionals generally have nice things to say about each other.  They might not hand each other money, but they're not running negative smear campaigns.  They plug their own games as cool, obviously, but they'll also say that other games are cool too.  

Quote from: -E.How can you tell if it's really a war: Check with most D&D fans. Ask if they've even heard of the war. They haven't. They might be aware that other games eixst... and even play them -- but the folks using the "war" or "revolution" langauge are largely talking to themselves.

Um, yeah.  That's what I said.  I was disagreeing with RPGPundit who was claiming that there was a war.  For that matter, check with most Vampire players and ask if they've heard of a war.  

There are a small minority of people who feel there is a "war" and that they have to purge those who play differently than they do.  However, as you say, they're mostly talking to themselves.  Most gamers are content to play the games they find fun.

Quote from: KrakaJakIf I remember correctly, "traditional gaming" was considered mostly dead by 1990 anyway. The glut of totally incomprehensible mostly un-fun crap that was coming out, AD&D had become a convoluted, tangled mess. Vampire and "Story Based" play reinvigorated the industry. People were excited, playing again and enjoying themselves. Once that wave died down, people were screaming the RPG industry was dead and D20 came out and reinvigorated the industry again. Now that wave of excitement is dying down (although we've still got a few more years!), hopefully something else will come around and reinvigorate again. Otherwise, our favorite games will be relegated as the "Forefathers of the MMO".

I think that's about right, trad gaming was flagging and Vampire gave a much needed shot in the arm.  Personally I'm glad it happened, it invigorated the hobby, much like the hippy commie indie guys are now.

You need new blood from time to time, it's good for all of us.

Quote from: AkrasiaBoth Rolemaster Standard and WFRP -- if you count 2e -- are 'in production'.

Yes, they are NOW. Not then.

RPGPundit

Quote from: -E.I think you're confusing the objectives of game companies and some game fans.

Game companies want to sell more games. There is "war" here -- just like there is in any other retail situation... basic market competition. This is not news -- but it is *interesting* -- and it's where stuff like D20 (game-changing innovations) happens

Yes, basic market competition is a healthy kind of "war".
Its when certain people know they can't win that war, and start up another kind of ideological war, that things get truly ugly.

QuoteHow can you tell if it's really a war: Check with most D&D fans. Ask if they've even heard of the war. They haven't. They might be aware that other games eixst... and even play them -- but the folks using the "war" or "revolution" langauge are largely talking to themselves.
-E.

You mean like an "indie press revolution"?

RPGPundit