Do we have them? And if so, what do you think they are?
RPGPundit
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
To me, it sounds kinda bad, like you're just excusing the game for its failings "because well, the site likes it, you know? So of course everything MUST be cool about it, right?"
Is that what "Darling" means?
Aren't they a type of metal fastener? Or maybe a kind of sparrow.
While I may not like every game that others here like, I don't find many people here to cling to the "high concept, poor execution" games that tend to become RPGnet darlings.
The first obvious contender would be Amber, but it's dead as soon as the name's mentioned, because I know for sure a number of RPG Site users don't connect with it that much, like myself, or OHT if I'm not mistaken. So no, not Amber.
Pendragon seems to be well liked around here.
Likewise, I was surprised to see quite a few widely different users like the latest Gamma World. That's intriguing, and points towards the success of the game to bridge some fundamental differences between playstyles, maybe.
There's no way you can have any sort of consensus on the RPG Site about D&D editions. So none of them.
Mongoose RuneQuest? Randall didn't seem to like the results, there are probably others.
Stars Without Number has the potential to be a consensus on the RPG Site. Who knows, maybe it'll be it?
Call of Cthulhu?
Thinking about it, we do have quite a few anti-darlings, though.
Quote from: Peregrin;432107Thinking about it, we do have quite a few anti-darlings, though.
Like really hated games you mean? Maid FTW. Or is it FTL?
Quote from: Benoist;432109Like really hated games you mean? Maid FTW. Or is it FTL?
Yeah. Sorta. The ones that draw (almost) universal ire.
Maid (which, as someone who's "into" anime/manga, deserves far more scrutiny than most regulars on RPGnet give it). 4e was on/off for a while it seems (though I showed up way after the initial response), but has calmed down a lot. Poison'd. Others I'm probably missing.
That's not to say some of those games don't deserve a healthy dose of "What the hell is this shit?", but for some reason particularly around here the mention of those names set some people off immediately, like Ed with Dogs.
IMHO, a true "darling" in the RPG.net mold is a fad.
Type 1 Darlings: Rogue Trader, Exalted, Savage Worlds, maybe Dresden Files
Type 2: Eoris, Icons, Mongoose Runequest II, Cthulhutech, Wushu, Scion, Cortex/Leverage, Legends of Anglerre
There are two kinds of darlings, IMHO. The above lists are by no means exhaustive.
Type 1 are perennial favourites that people consistently bring up in discussions of their favourite game. These tend to crop up in "What system should I..?" type threads, without regard to their appropriateness to the OP's conditions. They all contain lots of setting information to discuss if one doesn't actually play them, and they are amenable to formulating high-concept games that will never actually be run.
Type 2 are games that are the source of a lot of discussion immediately following their release, then gradually fall off the radar. People discuss them a lot, propose running games with them that they never do, and maybe you see a few PbPs in the appropriate forum. In due time, they are forgotten and no longer discussed.
Personally, I don't consider a game's status as a darling to be particularly indicative of its quality either for good or ill. MRQII is one of my favourite games, and I'm growing more interested in FATE 3.0.
In theRPGsite's case, we don't really have darlings in the same way. Most of the games we talk about and get excited about are perennials. While you occasionally see a game like Stars Without Numbers or Swords and Wizardry come in to extremely positive response overall, we don't tend to get hysterical about them and they usually are very good quality games (as both the above are).
Quote from: Peregrin;432107Thinking about it, we do have quite a few anti-darlings, though.
Yes, definitely. Poison'd, Carcosa, really almost anything involving transgressive sexuality gets a very negative response here.
Yes, but there are people who like Carcosa here, for instance. Spinach Cat did the review and ran it, right? There's myself, and Aos too, for sure... Rob/estar doesn't hate it either. So the answer's not universally negative on the RPG Site. Same thing about 4e, where there are people like AM, Peregrin, Seanchai, etc who really liked the game from day 1. Hence the (mostly past) shitstorms.
Poison'd however... who is the last user to actually have defended Poison'd, besides the Forge-bots, I mean?
Well, I liked it when I came here, anyway. My first impressions were not favorable at launch, and my opinion of it has waned as the R&D team seems unable to make up its mind about what they want the game to be like.
Also, I want to love Gamma World like quite a few others here, but goofy post-apoc just ain't my thing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;432097Do we have them? And if so, what do you think they are?
RPGPundit
My thoughts on Darlings for here?
Traveller
D&D 3.x
Savage Worlds
Gamma World (1e/2e)
Traditional Indie Games (Better Mousetrap, Precis Intermedia etc.)
This place also seems to favor the One True Way as following:
Sandbox
Non-Progressive - Maybe Traditional is a better word, but certain Traditional games are shunned for being 'out there''Swiney''Things Koltar Doesn't Understand' etc. ex. White-Wolf, D&D 4e, WHFRP 3e,
Non-Experimental - i.e. 'Art-games' 'Story-Games' ie.e the often pretentious, heavily themed, choice limited games are right out. The Mod/Owner doesn't even consider them worthy of discussion as RPG's
(As a board-politik side note, I don't think the experimental indie games are RPGs either, but worthy of discussion as such. The sites policy and the RPGPundit remind me of Humpty Dumpty (http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php) in Alice in Wonderland...arg sidetracked!)
Originals - No clones allowed
Surreal/Absurd - I.E. Erol Otus, Gamma World, Palladium,
Yeah, those are the games I think of when I visit this place...
I would say that this is one of the few discussion forums I've been to that doesn't subsume "gonzo" campaigns and settings under "high-concept" campaigns and settings.
Quote from: KrakaJak;432123*snip*
This place also seems to favor the One True Way as following:
Non-Progressive - Maybe Traditional is a better word, but certain Traditional games are shunned for being 'out there''Swiney''Things Koltar Doesn't Understand' etc. ex. White-Wolf, D&D 4e, WHFRP 3e,
*snip*
Surreal/Absurd - I.E. Erol Otus, Gamma World, Palladium,
Yeah, those are the games I think of when I visit this place...
:rotfl:
as for "darlings" (as I understand the trm) I nominate...
Traveller
Savage Worlds
Atomic Highway
Pendragon
CoC
though I rek'n there will be dissenters amongst the ranks.
:)
(what is Pundits definition of a "darling"?)
I take the positive spin on the word darling. When I think of darlings, I think games that get far more attention, and spur more love, enthusiasm, debate and discussion around here than they do on other rpg pages.
So I would say Amber (got it's own forum and had the creator hanging out here!) and Traveller (far more love here, than on other rpg forums I read/drop by).
The different kinds of D&D is more debatable I think as they tend to create a lot of love AND hate, on the rpgsite as well as on other sites.
I would also second Atomic Highway as a new darling. The AH threads have pretty much dried up over on rpg.net, but it's obvious that a lot of people around here (myself included) cares greatly for the game and even more important, plays it. F*ck just reading and talking about it; a true darling should be run and played!
I take offense at the term "darling" for theRPGsite. We should instead use the term "dahlingk" as if the word darling were spoken by a tsarina with a very thick and bad accent.
Quote from: jeff37923;432147I take offense at the term "darling" for theRPGsite. We should instead use the term "dahlingk" as if the word darling were spoken by a tsarina with a very thick and bad accent.
Rpgsite Daleks?
Here's my list of what I perceive as theRPGsite's perennial favorites:
D&D (every edition other than D&D 4e and AD&D 2e, and even those have their stalwart defenders here)
Gamma World (every pre-d20 edition)
Twilight: 2000
Traveller (mostly Classic and Mongoose)
Call of Cthulhu
Palladium games (the exact games vary from poster to poster, but TMNT, Robotech and Rifts all see plenty of love here)
Pendragon
Runequest (mostly RQ2, RQ3 and MRQ2)
Rolemaster
I definitely do not think that Savage Worlds gets a lot of love here. Some posters (like me) love it, but some of the old guard actively dislike it (for whatever reason).
I usually reserve the word "RPGnet darling" for the short-lived sensations that generate a lot of buzz on The Big Purple, only to die a few weeks to months later. I've never seen this sort of raving around here, possibly because (unlike RPGnet) most people here seem to belonmg to regular, stable, active gaming groups.
Quote from: KrakaJak;432123This place also seems to favor the One True Way as following:
Sandbox
Non-Progressive - Maybe Traditional is a better word, but certain Traditional games are shunned for being 'out there''Swiney''Things Koltar Doesn't Understand' etc. ex. White-Wolf, D&D 4e, WHFRP 3e,
Non-Experimental - i.e. 'Art-games' 'Story-Games' ie.e the often pretentious, heavily themed, choice limited games are right out. The Mod/Owner doesn't even consider them worthy of discussion as RPG's
(As a board-politik side note, I don't think the experimental indie games are RPGs either, but worthy of discussion as such. The sites policy and the RPGPundit remind me of Humpty Dumpty (http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php) in Alice in Wonderland...arg sidetracked!)
Originals - No clones allowed
Surreal/Absurd - I.E. Erol Otus, Gamma World, Palladium,
Yeah, those are the games I think of when I visit this place...
I feel this is a fairly accurate representation of theRPGsite's "average" opinion.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;432113Eoris,
This is the proper example of an rpg.net darling. This game got more press/hype/discussioon before it got released (though probably due to the nature of its release) than it has since. That's why the darling phenomenon is so ridiculous.
Exalted is a little different because the focus there is on the metaplot and thus discussion has turned into a soap opera. It's no less a darling though not a fad (ie a flash in the pan).
Quote from: Benoist;432106The first obvious contender would be Amber, but it's dead as soon as the name's mentioned, because I know for sure a number of RPG Site users don't connect with it that much, like myself, or OHT if I'm not mistaken. So no, not Amber.
I love Zelazny's books, but can't get behind diceless games.
I'd like to hear what Pundit's definition/view of an RPGsite Darling is.
When it comes to defining what makes an rpg.net darling, I think Pseudoephedrine and Ghost Whistler have picked out the essentials:
The perennial favourites suggested for every hack and the subject of proposed high concept games that never get run by anyone. (Best. Game. Evar.)
The fads (I've seen the preview! Is it out yet? Have anyone got it? I've got it!) which tie into the consumerist love that pervades rpg.net – which the global recession seems not to have dented at all.
The discussion of metaplot – Ghost Whistler's soap opera analogy – is another defining trait of the darlings that stick around.
Here, while we can get excited about certain games (and sometimes get into abusive arguments in the process) the excitement never gets to the fever pitch you see on rpg.net – I suspect because many of us are too old and cynical.
Which is why I think many rpg.netters will see us as cranky old farts who are too set in their ways to try something new.
But I do get the idea that most people here play regularly. Pundit's taunt that hardly anyone who posts on rpg.net actually plays is obviously an exaggeration – but you do sometimes wonder how they fit in regular gaming sessions with all the time they seem to spend online theorising, and all the hopping from one new bright and shiny product to another.
As DKChannelBoredom says, games should be run and played. Discussion is useful to improve your game, to help someone else with their game, and to raise points you hadn't considered. Good games can arise from collaborative setting discussions on a forum. It's all good fun - but unless it ends at the table and actually playing, then maybe it's just word wank?
Mind you, if the rpg.netters are enjoying their chatter about games they rarely play, why should I bother? If they enjoy it, good luck to them. (And I too, like many here I suspect, have loads of half written notes about games I will never get to run.) In one way I admire their enthusiasm.
Rather more addressing the original question (than my previous rambling post above) I reckon our darlings are obviously, D&D and Traveller. But those two are such a given, do they actually deserve the darling tag?
I agree with DKChannelBoredom that Atomic Highway might be a new darling of the forum, if only because I'm a frothing fanboy and consider it the - Best. Game. Evar. Well...not really, but it is bloody good!
I'd also nominate Two-Fisted Tales, which has given me hours of gaming pleasure (and Pundit loves it, so it's a shoe-in for darling status).
I nominate Starblazer Adventures.
Quote from: Benoist;432106Mongoose RuneQuest? Randall didn't seem to like the results, there are probably others.
While Choasium RQII is still my favorite, I like Mongoose RQ. My comment on MRQII was simply based on my decision to pay $11 for the PDF. I don't think there was enough "great stuff" in the book to really justify breaking my $10 maximum price for for a PDF rule (especially without a printer friendly copy) . It's certainly much better than MRQI, however.
I think I'd be insulted if my RPGs were called Darlings.
Except Tough Justice which is semi serious, educational and much higher concept than you would expect from such a insultingly simple system.
I'll have to agree with a few others who have listed Call of Cthulu. It seems to be on just about everybody's favorites list. Or, at the very least, as many times as it comes up in discussions, I don't think I've seen anyone express downright hatred of it.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;432115Yes, definitely. Poison'd, Carcosa, really almost anything involving transgressive sexuality gets a very negative response here.
I would take that as a good sign, that we are on the whole gamers that represent the societal norm.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;432115Yes, definitely. Poison'd, Carcosa, really almost anything involving transgressive sexuality gets a very negative response here.
Transgressive sexuality...Carcosa...Please, tell me more!
-Hans
Quote from: One Horse Town;432158I love Zelazny's books, but can't get behind diceless games.
Yeah, that's the diceless thing that rubs me the wrong way as well. Not that I actively go "Heresy!" or whatnot, but that just leaves me cold. Doesn't make me want to even try it.
Quote from: RandallS;432181While Choasium RQII is still my favorite, I like Mongoose RQ. My comment on MRQII was simply based on my decision to pay $11 for the PDF. I don't think there was enough "great stuff" in the book to really justify breaking my $10 maximum price for for a PDF rule (especially without a printer friendly copy) . It's certainly much better than MRQI, however.
Ah. So I DID misunderstand. Apologies.
Is there any regular on the RPG Site who doesn't like MRQ2?
Quote from: hanszurcher;432211Transgressive sexuality...Carcosa...Please, tell me more!
-Hans
Here's more... (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14486.phtml)
Quote from: Benoist;432220Is there any regular on the RPG Site who doesn't like MRQ2?
Perhaps I, but that has more to do with the fact I haven't really looked at it, than anything else...
Nothing of mine, Krakkalack. Brett's games get more interest, but even they get a tenth the attention they deserve. The only games that get any real interest here are variations on D&D and Traveller, and Amber. Older games and new takes on them. The prevalent feel here is that most posters here have the games they want, are happily playing them, and aren't particularly interested in anything new.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;432246Nothing of mine, Krakkalack. Brett's games get more interest, but even they get a tenth the attention they deserve. The only games that get any real interest here are variations on D&D and Traveller, and Amber. Older games and new takes on them. The prevalent feel here is that most posters here have the games they want, are happily playing them, and aren't particularly interested in anything new.
-clash
With an exception or two, here and there ;)
Quote from: Sigmund;432252With an exception or two, here and there ;)
Yes indeed! :D
-clash
Clash, you know you can't come out until Outremer is finished, back in the box!
Quote from: CRKrueger;432269Clash, you know you can't come out until Outremer is finished, back in the box!
I concur! I thought we already agreed on this Clash. Back to work, now! :D
The idea of AH being an "RPGSite Darling" tickles me no end. :)
The funny thing is, while threads on it pop up semi-regularly on RPG.net, very little lasts there as a Darling unless it's FATE-based or Exalted.
All of the really positive feedback I've had from folks (and there's been a lot) has been following actual play of the game, and it has done very well through that sort of word-of-mouth.
I've a hunch that it attracts a certain type of gamer, really. I mean, I created it first and foremost to appeal to me and my sensibilities (so, it's vanity press really), but those sensibilities are:
1) Quick chargen.
2) No metaplot.
3) Sketchy/brief setting approach more assumed within the rules and their presentation, with the expectation that you create/flesh out your own setting to taste.
4) Cinematic and brutal.
5) Relatively low page count (humongous tomes appeal less and less to me).
6) Simple and straightforward system.
I didn't expect that its somewhat Old School approach to setting, and trad system combo would appeal to all that many folks. I was glad to be wrong. As folks on the RAD forums have demonstrated, they're the types of folks who a) love to tinker (and see that as normal in tailoring something to their personal tastes), b) love fleshing out their own little slice of PA setting in brief, and c) more frequently get down to business and actually play. They're a great bunch of folks. :)
cheers!
Colin
Quote from: Colin Chapman;432287The idea of AH being an "RPGSite Darling" tickles me no end. :)
Colin
We're all about tough love, me old mucker. ;)
Quote from: hanszurcher;432211Transgressive sexuality...Carcosa...Please, tell me more!
-Hans
Quote from: Sigmund;432221Here's more... (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14486.phtml)
Thanks for the pointer. With the name Carcosa combined with the topic of transgressive sexuality I hoped more for the Bizarro version of Robert W. Chambers'
The King In Yellow as filmed by David Cronenberg, screenplay by William S. Burroughs and J.G. Ballard. Still, I am intrigued. I see
LotFP will also be re-releasing Carcosa in an expanded, deluxe edition this Spring.
I consider
'Darling' to be a bit of a pejorative term. Granted the enthusiasm of some people can reach seemingly unreasonable levels. Then again maybe Exalted is the greatest game ever...:)
-Hans
I would suggest that the definition of "rpgsite darling" would be "a game that is over-hyped or whose qualities and applicable uses are overblown on theRPGsite".
That said, is there any game that would actually be that for this site?
RPGPundit
Then no. I don't think we have any "darlings" in that sense.
No - there are no darlings using that definition. Time to drop this thread and go back to talking about D&D, Traveller, and Amber.
-clash
Quote from: RPGPundit;432097Do we have them? And if so, what do you think they are?
If there are any, they are AD&D, BD&D, and various clones of those systems.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;432471If there are any, they are AD&D, BD&D, and various clones of those systems.
Seanchai
Well, you are a regular here too, mate. I don't think you have an overly enthusiastic opinion of AD&D, for instance.
It's why I think all various iterations of D&D are de facto disqualified as darlings of the RPG Site. You have people being very enthusiastic about any given version of the game here, but you have people who do not like each and every iteration specifically as well. 1989 is a fan of AD&D2 for instance, while TDD or I don't like it at all. You have people who really like 4e like AM, yourself, Thanlis and others, while others really dislike it. Etc.
Gnomemurdered.
Most of the suggested games are successful, traditional, rpg's. Which is a very good sign.
Also, Carcosa is a great book. :p
Quote from: Novastar;432242Perhaps I, but that has more to do with the fact I haven't really looked at it, than anything else...
I haven't looked at it either. I was so underwhelmed by MRQI that I never looked at 2.
Quote from: Benoist;432476Well, you are a regular here too, mate...
Hence my thought about AD&D/BD&D being RPGSite darlings...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;432491Hence my thought about AD&D/BD&D being RPGSite darlings...
Seanchai
Well, no. You are part of the RPS Site too, and you are not overly enthusiastic about AD&D/BD&D. Ergo, these games are not for the RPG Site as a whole, you included, darlings.
Quote from: Benoist;432496Well, no. You are part of the RPS Site too, and you are not overly enthusiastic about AD&D/BD&D. Ergo, these games are not for the RPG Site as a whole, you included, darlings.
I don't think the "darling" qualifier should require absolute consensus. I'm willing to bet that a sizeable contingent of RPGnet posters dislike or don't care about Exalted, or Diaspora, or whatever it is that the hip kids are playing this week.
I for one used to post there regularly for some 3-4 years, and I don't give a shit about Exalted. Never did.
Well then, okay. I thought there had to be unchallenged consensus about it.
So I guess in that case games like Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D, OD&D may apply.
I don't consider the enthusiasm to be overhyped though. I just consider these versions to be the best D&D can give to the RPGdom, and D&D is the single best RPG that was ever conceived. So there.
Quote from: Benoist;432502thought there had to be unchallenged consensus about it.
Why?
Seanchai
Quote from: The Butcher;432500I don't think the "darling" qualifier should require absolute consensus. I'm willing to bet that a sizeable contingent of RPGnet posters dislike or don't care about Exalted, or Diaspora, or whatever it is that the hip kids are playing this week.
I for one used to post there regularly for some 3-4 years, and I don't give a shit about Exalted. Never did.
Yeah, I post on RPG.net semi-regularly and I will not of my own free will play Exalted. It's still a darling.
Quote from: Seanchai;432505Why?
Seanchai
That's just what I imagined the definition of "darling" was. Apparently I'm wrong. It's cool. No problem. :)
Quote from: One Horse Town;432334We're all about tough love, me old mucker. ;)
Dan, you old goat! Hope life's treating you well? :)
Colin
Quote from: Benoist;432502I don't consider the enthusiasm to be overhyped though. I just consider these versions to be the best D&D can give to the RPGdom, and D&D is the single best RPG that was ever conceived. So there.
Neither do I, which is why, when Pundit defined "darling" I removed my suggestions of (some version/clone of) D&D, Traveller, and Amber.
-clash
At least RPGSite doesn't answer the question "I'd like a gritty fantasy game" with "Use Exalted! The normal people rules are great!".
I think its part of the nature of the "darling" phenomenon (as it appears on rpg.net at least) that the fans of the game (at least at the time) are convinced its not just a "darling".
That said, I don't know that we have any darlings here in that same sense.
RPGPundit
The way I see it, "darling" is just a vaguely depreciative label for a popular game.
It is just a label, though. One man's darling is another man's classic.
RPGnet's are somewhat annoying in that they seem to cling to a new one every month, only to abandon it when the next comes up (the "darling of the month" phenomenon). We certainly do not have this over here, where -- as another poster put it -- most people are actually playing games, and for the most part, happy with the ones they own.
When something interesting is released (say, MRQII or Stars Without Number) we may have a thread or two, some discussion, etc. but nothing compared to the mass hysteria which grasps RPGnet.
Quote from: Colin Chapman;432512Dan, you old goat! Hope life's treating you well? :)
Colin
Good enough! :D
Now you've got an underground success on your hands, you need to start pumping out more stuff tut suite!
Quote from: The Butcher;432583When something interesting is released (say, MRQII or Stars Without Number) we may have a thread or two, some discussion, etc. but nothing compared to the mass hysteria which grasps RPGnet.
This may be a factor of population size.
Quote from: two_fishes;432623This may be a factor of population size.
Are you saying our people are bigger? Smaller?
-clash
Yes. People here are, on average, about an inch and a half shorter and 12.5 pounds lighter than the average participant at RPGnet. It is a well-known, scientifically demonstrable fact that there is a direct correlation between body size and a tendency toward fickle behaviour.
Also, there are more people at RPGnet.
Quote from: two_fishes;432623This may be a factor of population size.
I'll agree this is a factor, both in number of threads, and mass hysteria.
Of course, having a population prone to this kind of behavior makes it all the more efficient.
Quote from: Benoist;432220Is there any regular on the RPG Site who doesn't like MRQ2?
I don't hate it. It honestly isn't even on my radar. Nor have I ever heard of anyone ever playing it locally. Though I concede the last point isn't a requirement for RPGnet darlings, either.
Quote from: Novastar;432242Perhaps I, but that has more to do with the fact I haven't really looked at it, than anything else...
Yeah, I have no exposure to it...but the release of Wraith Recon may change that...
(We are talking about RuneQuest II, right?)
Quote from: Colin Chapman;432287The idea of AH being an "RPGSite Darling" tickles me no end. :)
The funny thing is, while threads on it pop up semi-regularly on RPG.net, very little lasts there as a Darling unless it's FATE-based or Exalted.
All of the really positive feedback I've had from folks (and there's been a lot) has been following actual play of the game, and it has done very well through that sort of word-of-mouth.
I've a hunch that it attracts a certain type of gamer, really. I mean, I created it first and foremost to appeal to me and my sensibilities (so, it's vanity press really), but those sensibilities are:
1) Quick chargen.
2) No metaplot.
3) Sketchy/brief setting approach more assumed within the rules and their presentation, with the expectation that you create/flesh out your own setting to taste.
4) Cinematic and brutal.
5) Relatively low page count (humongous tomes appeal less and less to me).
6) Simple and straightforward system.
I didn't expect that its somewhat Old School approach to setting, and trad system combo would appeal to all that many folks. I was glad to be wrong. As folks on the RAD forums have demonstrated, they're the types of folks who a) love to tinker (and see that as normal in tailoring something to their personal tastes), b) love fleshing out their own little slice of PA setting in brief, and c) more frequently get down to business and actually play. They're a great bunch of folks. :)
cheers!
Colin
I picked this up a week or so ago, but have been too busy to dig in yet...but I'm already eyeballing the Irradiated Freaks book, because extra freaky mutations sound awesome.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;432655I picked this up a week or so ago, but have been too busy to dig in yet...but I'm already eyeballing the Irradiated Freaks book, because extra freaky mutations sound awesome.
Oh, they're fun, especially for me rolling* up monstrosities to inflict the characters in my game.
*I mean, choose numbers I like to make terrible, things, like the Mutant Giant Grasshoppers, known only as the Devouring Swarm! Or the Serpent Men of O'ssa)
Quote from: Colin Chapman;432287The idea of AH being an "RPGSite Darling" tickles me no end. :)
The funny thing is, while threads on it pop up semi-regularly on RPG.net, very little lasts there as a Darling unless it's FATE-based or Exalted.
All of the really positive feedback I've had from folks (and there's been a lot) has been following actual play of the game, and it has done very well through that sort of word-of-mouth.
I've a hunch that it attracts a certain type of gamer, really. I mean, I created it first and foremost to appeal to me and my sensibilities (so, it's vanity press really), but those sensibilities are:
1) Quick chargen.
2) No metaplot.
3) Sketchy/brief setting approach more assumed within the rules and their presentation, with the expectation that you create/flesh out your own setting to taste.
4) Cinematic and brutal.
5) Relatively low page count (humongous tomes appeal less and less to me).
6) Simple and straightforward system.
I didn't expect that its somewhat Old School approach to setting, and trad system combo would appeal to all that many folks. I was glad to be wrong. As folks on the RAD forums have demonstrated, they're the types of folks who a) love to tinker (and see that as normal in tailoring something to their personal tastes), b) love fleshing out their own little slice of PA setting in brief, and c) more frequently get down to business and actually play. They're a great bunch of folks. :)
cheers!
Colin
a success in all catagories!
huzza!
Quote from: RPGPundit;432456I would suggest that the definition of "rpgsite darling" would be "a game that is over-hyped or whose qualities and applicable uses are overblown on theRPGsite".
That said, is there any game that would actually be that for this site?
RPGPundit
with this definition I retract my earlier offerings...not much here gets over-hyped.
:)
Quote from: two_fishes;432644Yes. People here are, on average, about an inch and a half shorter and 12.5 pounds lighter than the average participant at RPGnet. It is a well-known, scientifically demonstrable fact that there is a direct correlation between body size and a tendency toward fickle behaviour.
Also, there are more people at RPGnet.
:rotfl:
Very nice
Well, another definition could be "a game that is recently released or not yet released that becomes madly over-reported and talked about completely disproportionately to the number of people who have actually played or even read it, only to fall into the mists of time a few weeks later"; but usually I refer to that definition as "flavour of the month", and the other defintiion I gave more as the "darlings".
And for the record, I have no interest whatsoever in MRQII. So I certainly don't like it, though I couldn't be said to hate it either.
RPGPundit
I concur that by Pundit's clarified definition, we don't have anything that can be termed as a "darling" here. We are too cantankerous a bunch to allow for that kind of delusional enthusiasm.
If defined as games that are generally well regarded by the majority of the posters, I would say we have a number. BD&D (in all of its variations) and Starblazer Adventures come to my mind immediately, but that is probably because I like them.
- TGA
Just consider a post I read about Weapons of the Gods.
"I recommend WotG! It's going to be amazing! It hasn't been released yet, and I haven't read it, but I know it will be the best game ever because of what I've seen on these forums!"
While that's slightly paraphrased, it is almost exactly what someone wrote in a "recommend me a game thread" on the Net. And he was quite serious.
I haven't been around these forums very long yet but so far I haven't noticed any overhyping going on. Even though D&D/d20/Pathfinder/whatever seem to be as popular here as anywhere else, they're not overhyped. Same goes for Call of Cthulhu. (For the record I am not exactly particularly fond of D&D&Co., mildly put, but Cthulhu ranks among my all-time favourites.)
As for MRQII, I am with people like Pundit, Tommy Brownell and Caesar Slaad: I have no interest in the game but certainly don't hate it.
In the sense of darling as over-hyped and the game solution for everything, no we don't have a darling.
When I suggested in the other thread that Stars Without Number was our first darling, I meant it had very good responses from people who had downloaded it and was generating a lot of buzz here for a small press game.
An RPGsite darling would be a whole different animal from an RPG.net darling simply because of who posts here.
Quote from: danbuter;432877Just consider a post I read about Weapons of the Gods.
"I recommend WotG! It's going to be amazing! It hasn't been released yet, and I haven't read it, but I know it will be the best game ever because of what I've seen on these forums!"
While that's slightly paraphrased, it is almost exactly what someone wrote in a "recommend me a game thread" on the Net. And he was quite serious.
I've seen that exact same post about a number of other darlings on that site, for that matter.
RPGPundit
King Tyranno, Wreckall, Lynn Frederiks, maybe SHARK - they're all "darlings", if you know what I mean.
Well...
This might be the most heroic thread-necro of all time. LOL it's wild to see how different the world was then compared to now.
Yes. But we all still hate 4e D&D so theres that I guess.
Quote from: Omega on July 22, 2022, 11:16:31 AM
Yes. But we all still hate 4e D&D so theres that I guess.
There are a few of us latecomers who don't. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 12, 2011, 12:41:38 AM
Do we have them? And if so, what do you think they are?
Probably any RPG that is 1st-gen.
Quote from: tenbones on July 22, 2022, 11:02:33 AM
Well...
This might be the most heroic thread-necro of all time. LOL it's wild to see how different the world was then compared to now.
This is all this Dylan account is doing is spamming the shit out of old threads.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on July 22, 2022, 06:11:02 PM
Quote from: tenbones on July 22, 2022, 11:02:33 AM
Well...
This might be the most heroic thread-necro of all time. LOL it's wild to see how different the world was then compared to now.
This is all this Dylan account is doing is spamming the shit out of old threads.
God you're a bore. I've reinvigorated the discussion here by offering a return to roots. There have been both reunions and reflections on times past. What have you done? You probably hardly play RPGs - that's my guess - and it's made you bitter. So sad.
Quote from: Dylan: King of the Dead on July 22, 2022, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: THE_Leopold on July 22, 2022, 06:11:02 PM
Quote from: tenbones on July 22, 2022, 11:02:33 AM
Well...
This might be the most heroic thread-necro of all time. LOL it's wild to see how different the world was then compared to now.
This is all this Dylan account is doing is spamming the shit out of old threads.
God you're a bore. I've reinvigorated the discussion here by offering a return to roots. There have been both reunions and reflections on times past. What have you done? You probably hardly play RPGs - that's my guess - and it's made you bitter. So sad.
You're a uniter, not a divider.
Quote from: Omega on July 22, 2022, 11:16:31 AM
Yes. But we all still hate 4e D&D so theres that I guess.
I don't hate 4e.
Quote from: Dylan: King of the Dead on July 22, 2022, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: THE_Leopold on July 22, 2022, 06:11:02 PM
Quote from: tenbones on July 22, 2022, 11:02:33 AM
Well...
This might be the most heroic thread-necro of all time. LOL it's wild to see how different the world was then compared to now.
This is all this Dylan account is doing is spamming the shit out of old threads.
God you're a bore. I've reinvigorated the discussion here by offering a return to roots. There have been both reunions and reflections on times past. What have you done? You probably hardly play RPGs - that's my guess - and it's made you bitter. So sad.
You straight up filled two pages of posting to old dead threads to inflate your post count so you could add an image and alter your name.
Your posts were of the minimum word count to br valid with little effort beyond a sentence barely related to the thread topic.
10-1 you are a sock account dead for 5yrs who remebered their login after being banned.
This guy also seems to be using Pundit's photo as a personal avatar, which is not nice to say the least.
At least it looks like Pundit in comparison to the picture that came out when he got doxxed.
Wait we can change our usernames here?