Quote from: jhkimIn 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.  



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.

Yeah -- sorry... *you're* not confusing this; the people who think it's a war are. Sorry... I wasn't clear.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou mean like an "indie press revolution"?

RPGPundit

Heh. Yeah, that would be one.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: 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.

OK, so I'm stuck here.  How do you think it is that story games went outside of the capitalist system to this supposed ugliness which goes beyond free-market competition?  As far as I know, White Wolf didn't get any government grants or legal injunctions against Wizards of the Coast.  

I'm not a fan of the White Wolf or their games, but they haven't done anything outside of good corporate practice.  Pretending like your product is cool is what companies are supposed to do.  It's called advertising.  White Wolf didn't even particularly target D&D -- they just included generally pretentious text and tried to make their products seem cool.  

My point is that whatever Wizards of the Coast did to AD&D in the late nineties, they did to themselves.  There was no one outside forcing them to make sucky linear Ravenloft modules.  That was their own choice.  They did choose to some degree to imitate White Wolf, and it was a mistake -- but that's not something which White Wolf forced on them by beating them with clubs.  Moreover, the fixes they made in 3rd edition were done by largely the same TSR D&D team that they previously had -- like Monte Cook who had joined TSR in 1994.  To the extent that WotC brought in new people, they were story-oriented people like Jonathan Tweet (of whom you can quibble about Everway, but just read his raves about My Life With Master or his stuff in Over the Edge).

QuoteUm, 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.

Umm, hi.  I was a Vampire player.  Worse, a LARP Vampire player.  And let me tell you, there was quite a lot of spitting in the general direction of D&D and the like.  I was one of the people doing it.  D&D was geekier, D&D was all hack-and-slash, D&D was "rollplaying" not "roleplaying", etc., etc.

Then I got older, discovered D&D 3 and NWN, and I got better.  Now I like both, and sometiems I like both at the same time.  

But I think you're fooling yourself if you honestly think there was no cultural conflict going on there.  It may not have been the sort of conspiracy Pundit likes to cast it as, but he's half right in suggesting there was a cultural rift going on there.

Quote from: J ArcaneBut I think you're fooling yourself if you honestly think there was no cultural conflict going on there.  It may not have been the sort of conspiracy Pundit likes to cast it as, but he's half right in suggesting there was a cultural rift going on there.

There's a difference between a "cultural rift" and a "war".  

A "cultural rift" means that, at most, the two shouldn't play together.  (I'm mildly against separatism because I think that people should at least try different styles of RPGs, but not hugely.)  

The "war" metaphor implies that one side or the other will "win".  It's not like dedicated Vampire players will or should say "OK, we surrender -- I guess we'll play D&D now."  -- or vice-versa.

Quote from: jhkimThere's a difference between a "cultural rift" and a "war".  

A "cultural rift" means that, at most, the two shouldn't play together.  (I'm mildly against separatism because I think that people should at least try different styles of RPGs, but not hugely.)  

The "war" metaphor implies that one side or the other will "win".  It's not like dedicated Vampire players will or should say "OK, we surrender -- I guess we'll play D&D now."  -- or vice-versa.

I'm against seperatism myself.  I like games.  I like to try lots of different games.  I recognize that different games are, well, different, and not liable to offer the same thing as another game, which means I may or may not enjoy it.  And hey, any game, no matter how great, will get old after a while.  

But well, people are that way no matter what I think of them.  Not much I can do about that, and it's definitely there.

Some players are determined to stick with one system and one system only for all eternity.  To some extent, I can understand why.  RPGs aren't like vidgames.  There's systems to learn, mythology to grok.  It takes a bit of effort to get the hang of a new game, and not everyone is a quick learner with these things.

Ignoring the fact that more poo could be flung, I just wanted to point this out:

Quote from: J ArcaneIt takes a bit of effort to get the hang of a new game, and not everyone is a quick learner with these things.

Read it again and again. Please. And just ponder the possibility that someone might take offense at this.  In particular, people who have been "spit on" for being "Hack-N-Slash," or "Roll-Players" or even Damaged.

I'm not ascribing any of those views to you, per se.  I get your point. But some who simply prefer one system could take this as a slap at their intelligence.  I sincerely doubt that's how you meant it.  But as I've said elsewhere, things are so tense sometimes that even something like this could be misconstrued.

Quote from: J ArcaneUmm, hi. I was a Vampire player. Worse, a LARP Vampire player. And let me tell you, there was quite a lot of spitting in the general direction of D&D and the like. I was one of the people doing it. D&D was geekier, D&D was all hack-and-slash, D&D was "rollplaying" not "roleplaying", etc., etc.
 
Then I got older, discovered D&D 3 and NWN, and I got better. Now I like both, and sometiems I like both at the same time.
 
But I think you're fooling yourself if you honestly think there was no cultural conflict going on there. It may not have been the sort of conspiracy Pundit likes to cast it as, but he's half right in suggesting there was a cultural rift going on there.

My personal opinion is this. The WW and Vampire "Swine" thought their games were better because, at the time, THEIR GAME WAS BETTER.
 
D&D was total and complete crap by the time Vampire came out. It was a Bloated mess that was barely capable of dungeon crawls let alone anything else. The settings available were either boring or broken. The had been wrecked by mudflation, powercreep and glut. They tried to fix it with more rules, more horrible settings and Dragon Dice.
 
Vampire had, on the other hand, an interesting and unique setting (read not fantasy or Sci-Fi), a unique character concept, and an entertaining meta-plot. It also focused completely away from dungeon crawls. It was the first game I remember you could play in with no combat what so ever and actully roll dice. These were all new concepts to your average RPG fan and even brought non RPG fans into the mix, thus expanding our hobby.
 
So, yes, in 1993 there was a WAR going on. The Storyteller System players were happy to flout that their superior game was a superior game. Even the Pundit himself was playing it back then.
 
It wasn't called "Story-Game" vs. "Traditional Play" back then though. It was "Role-Players" vs. "Roll-Players". To this day, every RPG that comes out discourages "Roll-playing". Even the much touted "Traditional Play" Monarch, D&D3.

Quote from: James J SkachIgnoring the fact that more poo could be flung, I just wanted to point this out:

Read it again and again. Please. And just ponder the possibility that someone might take offense at this.  In particular, people who have been "spit on" for being "Hack-N-Slash," or "Roll-Players" or even Damaged.

I'm not ascribing any of those views to you, per se.  I get your point. But some who simply prefer one system could take this as a slap at their intelligence.  I sincerely doubt that's how you meant it.  But as I've said elsewhere, things are so tense sometimes that even something like this could be misconstrued.

I assure you, I did think about the possibility that it might be an offensive statement to someone.  But I assure you it wasn't at all intended in the sense you seemed to have interpreted.  

Some people really do learn differently than other people.  It has nothing to do with game preference.  There are just as many Vampire players who hold that attitude as D&D players.

I learn systems quickly, it's just a talent of mine.  Though it's one that, in someways, has been waning in me in recent years.  As I've gotten older, I've gotten a lot slower, and a lot more impatient.  I myself have gotten tired of learning new systems.  A new game has to be really good, and real easy to learn to pull me off D&D these days.  I'm even pondering going d20 variant for my own game project.

Any offense implied in the post is entirely an egotistical one, not a generalization of people's gaming tastes.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, they are NOW. Not then.

RPGPundit

Rolemaster Standard System (i.e. 3e) has been in print continuously since 1995 when it unfortunately replaced the vastly superior Rolemaster 2e (which, thankfully, will soon reappear as Rolemaster Classic, although RMSS will remain as well to ensure consumer confusion).

I'm pretty sure that Hogshead was publishing WFRP 1e material throughout most of the 90s.

QuoteSo, yes, in 1993 there was a WAR going on. The Storyteller System players were happy to flout that their superior game was a superior game. Even the Pundit himself was playing it back then.

So this is another decade old rant RPGPundit is rolling out? He's like one of those fabled Jap soilders hiding out in the jungle on a pacific island assuming the war is still going on? Or was a deserter and is too afraid to come out lest he be court martialed?

See there's the rub. Even RPGPundit deep down realises that the actual games themselves from 15-20-25 years ago were basically not particularly good. At best borderline tolerable to most people, and usually way less so than that. If not "Storyteller" wasn't going to by itself force him out of gaming. Not unless WW sent thugs to break into his house, steal all his books, and threaten to come back and break his glasses if he tried to buy replacement books. :pundit:

So why did 3e/D20 revitalize things for him? Because the roll-playing game (if that's how you want to label D&D) was finally improved, if only with a great deal of polish and organization. Which was an influence for many to pull up their socks and go back and provide more polished versions of "old school" along with lots of different ways of helping with more "role-playing" orientated rules or even new ideas (at least newly published in rule form ideas). Because the system you buy does matter, you don't use one set of rules to do all things. So games used the D20/OGL path that WotC provided as something to structure the rules around and go forth from, and others have said "screw that my ideas don't fit inside that particular structure" or "I'm concerned about my IP rights" (I believe that was Gygax's offical story as to why avoided D20???) and they went forth and published their own take on how to do things.

Quote from: James J SkachI assume you mean WW = #1; D&D = #2. The inference I draw from a statement like that is that traditional games are good for nothing more than dungeon crawls. It's the kind of statement that ends up getting hackles up.

I think he's only responding to the dichotomy that the Pundit has constructed.

KoOS

Quote from: James J SkachBut as I've said elsewhere, things are so tense sometimes that even something like this could be misconstrued.

I think anyone so sensitive as to take offense to J Arcane's statement is too sensitive to endure for long in this environment.

KoOS

Quote from: KrakaJakSo, yes, in 1993 there was a WAR going on. The Storyteller System players were happy to flout that their superior game was a superior game. Even the Pundit himself was playing it back then.

People flouting their belief their game system's superior does not a war make.

Even if it was true -- if in some objective way, game X was superior to game Y -- there still wouldn't be a war between players...

In 1993 I was playing GURPS -- it had been *years* since I'd played AD&D and I'd only dabbled in Vampire a year or so earlier... so I don't have a dog in this race, but I still don't see how fandom -- even *loud* fandom -- makes for a war or a revolution.

What's at stake? What's being fought? Am I missing something or is the answer basically, "nothing" and "nothing" respectively?

I guess someone could argue that a loud but small minority might gain undue influence on marketing decisions made by game publishers ("Apparently the marketplace want's story-games. We should make more of them."). By this theory, the "war" would be over correctly representing the gamer market to game publishers... but my not-expert understanding of economics suggests that any mistakes would be quickly self-correcting (the invisible hand would slap down games that weren't actually popular).

That there's a large market for D&D and a substantial, but smaller market for White Wolf products suggests to me that both successfully fulfill real and common gamer preferences.

No war then -- just people driving the market by buying games they like, and a few folks at the margins pleading for a revolution that hasn't come and probably isn't coming...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: KrakaJakIt wasn't called "Story-Game" vs. "Traditional Play" back then though. It was "Role-Players" vs. "Roll-Players". To this day, every RPG that comes out discourages "Roll-playing". Even the much touted "Traditional Play" Monarch, D&D3.

This is such unutterably unbelievable bullshit that I am flabbergasted. The terms "role play" vs. "roll play" did NOT, in fact, originate with Vampire. It originated in AD&D.  It originated with advice for playing AD&D that suggested players not resolve all issues with dice rolls, especially elements of social interaction, and not ignore these elements in the game.

It was Vampire that took these terms and created the LIE that all D&D was just "roll-play". A LIE that the Swine have used every time since then to try to denigrate traditional play, when in fact the kind of preferences they have for resolving social interations with gimmicky mechanics instead of actually ROLEPLAYING it makes them masters of hypocrisy.

RPGPundit