Quote from: J ArcaneIn a consumerist society, the greatest sin is not to spend.

I'm happy to be a sinner.

Quote from: SigmundI'm happy to be a sinner.

And that is exactly how They want you.

!i!

The "dying rpg hobby" is a myth perpetuated by internet tools that expect to make enough money from rpgs to avoid having a real job.

The actual grunt work in rpgs is done by GMs. Wthout GMs, it's all computer gaming. I am a gifted and talented GM. I can run games, teach games, assemble and guide groups, procre or prepare excellent snacks--the whole package. But there's no mechanism available to pay me enough to run games that I don't have to work. That's why the actual playing of the games--the most important part of the hobby--is the least important part of the "industry." There's no actual money in it. And that won't change, because GMs typically are the ones who get most out of this particular form of gaming and would lose the most if it ever did--somehow--go away. Which it won't. But it will only continue because GMs love to run games so much that they will continue to run them for free, and they can't be blamed for getting what they can at the lowest cost possible. That's just common sense.

I support the flgs because the proprietor is one of my best friends, and because he has established an outstanding shop. Lots of open tables, good comaraderie, and an inviting atmosphere. I buy products strictly according to what I'm willing to pay for the utility or novelty of a particular product. I don't support "the industry." Most of my favorite designers have jobs. And I'm definately not here to support some tool's dream of going full time in a hobby.

That sounded nastier than I wanted it too, but I'm achingly sick of this horseshit, and to some exent it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who aren't interested in innovating.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd that is exactly how They want you.

!i!

And that's how I want them.

Quote from: stu2000The "dying rpg hobby" is a myth perpetuated by internet tools that expect to make enough money from rpgs to avoid having a real job.

That sounded nastier than I wanted it too, but I'm achingly sick of this horseshit, and to some exent it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who aren't interested in innovating.

I agree that the hobby is not dying.  It's just changing.

The gamer pool has shrunk, but there are still gamers out there playing.  The hobby still has enough gamers where it's no where close to dying or being dead.  That happened with the wargaming hobby and it is still around (I think it's picked up a bit recently, though I am not 100% sure).

The way games are being sold is changing.  Games are being purchased online instead of through game stores at a discount.  It's just different competition.

Game companies were having problems because of the economy (along with everyone else) and there being way too many game companies out there (Many of which were fly by night D20 companies) and that is slowly but surely working itself out.

Nope, the hobby isn't dying.  It's just changing.  Maybe those crying "it's dying" are doing so because they are resistant to change.

I think it was Bruce Baugh who suggested it was theft if not everyone in the group bought the book, not John Wick, though Wick may have said it too I suppose.

Anyway, it's a ludicrous claim that defeats itself, absurd.

As for the hobby/industry, they are not the same thing.  The hobby is not dependent on the industry, if anything I am not especially persuaded the industry is even particularly good for the hobby, I think anyway it's fairly irrelevant to much of it.

Ultimately, any hobby which can be played for twenty years on a single initial outlay cannot form the basis of an industry based on the consumer needing to buy further product, which is why much of the industry chases the collector/reader base.  They buy books, people actually gaming buy too but not as much I suspect.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI dunno if Wick said anything like that but if he did it was probably around the time of this thread, when the concept of "freeloading gamers" was being advanced by some people.

That's the one, it starts in post five.  Bruce's argument is that people who play a game but do not buy the books for it, even if they have no need for it, are freeloaders and essentially thieves.

It's fuckwitted, in my group people buy books if it's worth buying them, simple as that.  Bruce is arguing we have a moral duty to buy even if we don't actually need the books, he's wrong.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's the one, it starts in post five.  Bruce's argument is that people who play a game but do not buy the books for it, even if they have no need for it, are freeloaders and essentially thieves.

It's fuckwitted, in my group people buy books if it's worth buying them, simple as that.  Bruce is arguing we have a moral duty to buy even if we don't actually need the books, he's wrong.

QFT. I sat there reading Baugh's bullshit, and I was like, "man, what"? But then I remembered that this is the guy who completely fucked up Gamma World. I was expecting too much from him, apparently.

Herein I give you Atsuku Nare's Two Laws of Gamebooks: *

Law the First: The best roleplaying games need as few books as possible. One is ideal. Examples: Warhammer FRP first edition, D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

Law the Second: If the game is enjoyable, people playing it will buy their own copies of the rules. If they don't, something sucks (which can be the DM or players, or more often, the game itself).

Saying people who don't purchase gamebooks are stealing is... well, Balbinus said it best, as he often does, and I don't think I could say it better. One of the reasons I got into RPGs is that one person with one book can entertain several people for a long period - the cost/value ratio is incredibly high. To think someone might consider pen & paper RPGs similar to the client software for online RPGs (where every computer has to have its own) is absurd.

AN


* Laws do not come with any warranty, expressed or implied. YMMV, IMO.

Quote from: BalbinusI think it was Bruce Baugh who suggested it was theft if not everyone in the group bought the book, not John Wick, though Wick may have said it too I suppose.

Wick has waxed hyperbolic on so many topics I may have conflated his reputation with Bruce's assertion.  In the absence of any actual evidence, I'll have to retract my previous statement and give Wick a pass on the "theft" comment.

Sorry John!

!i!

Quote from: Atsuku NareHerein I give you Atsuku Nare's Two Laws of Gamebooks: *

Law the First: The best roleplaying games need as few books as possible. One is ideal. Examples: Warhammer FRP first edition, D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

Law the Second: If the game is enjoyable, people playing it will buy their own copies of the rules. If they don't, something sucks (which can be the DM or players, or more often, the game itself).

Saying people who don't purchase gamebooks are stealing is... well, Balbinus said it best, as he often does, and I don't think I could say it better. One of the reasons I got into RPGs is that one person with one book can entertain several people for a long period - the cost/value ratio is incredibly high. To think someone might consider pen & paper RPGs similar to the client software for online RPGs (where every computer has to have its own) is absurd.

AN


* Laws do not come with any warranty, expressed or implied. YMMV, IMO.

but for the second rule, if the game's light or intuitive enough, players may not feel the need to buy the books.  

overall i agree with you, tho

I think you guys are being a bit too harsh on Bruce.  He does not say that someone who doesn't buy a book for a game he's playing is a 'thief' at all.  Here's exactly what he said:

Most of my colleagues and I use "freeloader" for a specific set of circumstances: you're playing regularly in a game that uses some readily available sourcebook for sale and you don't buy it, and you are not in dire poverty.

If you're playing heavily tweaked rules or homebrew, published books may or may not matter. If you're playing a long out-of-print game, it may not be readily obtainable. And if you're just trying out a game and unsure whether it'll be your thing, it makes sense to play a session or few before purchasing.

It's only when you keep using something that you really can buy and simply choose not to that we think you're a freeloader.

To me, there's a big difference between 'freeloader' and 'thief'.

The implication's the same, however.

Not to me.  But there you go.

Surely the word "thief" implies a more malicious intent than "freeloader," but either way BB is saying in so many words that some people that are currently using his products don't deserve to be.
In other words, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  Would you elaborate?