The real discussion should be about the reviewers, the game is just the catalyst, the 5e players that MIGHT play it are irrelevant.

IMHO the discussion should be centered around the practices on reviewing RPGs.

Quote from: SHARK on March 09, 2023, 02:16:40 PM

...I will probably cycle back around, hopefully somehow, and get Kelsey to send me an extra three or four core game books!

Shark,

Ever since I started gaming in the early '80s, I found the best way for me to get dialed in on a game system is to have a separate GM copy that I underline/highlight/index the crap out of. I believe it is 50% practical and 50% psychological. Folks laugh when I tell them I feel more control as GM when I've "marked my territory" in a copy of the core book.

Since I'm sharing deep secret's here, - Hey it's YOUR quonset hut, though - Mind if I sit on this foot locker? Thanks.

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. Since I'm sharing deep secrets, Back in '95 or so when I started my longest running WEG d6 Star Wars campaign, I was initially kinda intimidated by all the splatbooks and expanded universe lore. So, I read ALL OF IT. That helped a little. I discovered the REAL problem was that following and adhering to a pre-existing timeline and established lore made a lot of larger galactic events anticlimactic, and/or made the players feel that their characters were overshadowed by the main cast of the movies and books.

I sat back, pondered briefly and fixed bayonets on that shit. I set my game in what later became the the "Rise of the Empire" era (I called it "Imperial Ascendance" which I still believe is a more elegant title). Next, I changed something pivotal to the saga's plot which created am opportunity for the player characters to step in and fill the void: Alderaan was destroyed a few years before "A New Hope" and Obi-Wan was tracked down and killed by persons unknown. I added a "Coalition of Confererate Worlds" based loosely on Imperial Japan in WWII and had them as a separatist group breaking away from the Republic (you can imagine how stoked I was when there were "separatists" in Star Wars movies just a few years later). The characters now had an opportunity to become the galaxy's biggest heroes, maybe even find out about Luke someday and get him mixed up in the story on different terms. But most importantly, I had "marked my territory" and created a more controllable (to me) environment where I could help my players tell great stories via their characters, without being overshadowed by canon.

Good grief, devil dog. I went off into the weeds there. Good talk. Let's have another again soon.

Semper Fi, bro.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 03:59:00 PM
The real discussion should be about the reviewers, the game is just the catalyst, the 5e players that MIGHT play it are irrelevant.

IMHO the discussion should be centered around the practices on reviewing RPGs.

I think this is true only in the cases where no freely available version is offered, to review oneself. Anyone else's opinion in such cases where a free version is available is...inconsequential? Irrelevant? So, in the case of Shadowdark: if someone is not availing themselves of the quickstart, and only relying on others' opinions, that's their choice, and no one else should care. Maybe a separate thread on reviewers is warranted.

Quote from: rhialto on March 09, 2023, 04:08:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 03:59:00 PM
The real discussion should be about the reviewers, the game is just the catalyst, the 5e players that MIGHT play it are irrelevant.

IMHO the discussion should be centered around the practices on reviewing RPGs.

I think this is true only in the cases where no freely available version is offered, to review oneself. Anyone else's opinion in such cases where a free version is available is...inconsequential? Irrelevant? So, in the case of Shadowdark: if someone is not availing themselves of the quickstart, and only relying on others' opinions, that's their choice, and no one else should care. Maybe a separate thread on reviewers is warranted.

Your scope is too narrow, you're still centered on Shadowdark, I'm talking more generally:

For instance, getting a free copy (when no one else is getting it) of the whole printed book is common practice. Should it be? Wouldn't buying the book be more impartial?

Another example, we learned that QB charges for "reviewing" a product... I'm sure there must be others, shouldn't this be a red flag on said reviewer?

One more, reviewing the products of people you are connected to, be it professional, friendship or whatever.

That's what I'm talking about, not about Kelsey, her sexuality (who fucking cares?), her possible future players or her game in any way shape or form. Sure, that was the catalyst, but IMHO the discussion needs to go to the ethics in game journalism.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM

Quote from: rhialto on March 09, 2023, 04:08:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 03:59:00 PM
The real discussion should be about the reviewers, the game is just the catalyst, the 5e players that MIGHT play it are irrelevant.

IMHO the discussion should be centered around the practices on reviewing RPGs.

I think this is true only in the cases where no freely available version is offered, to review oneself. Anyone else's opinion in such cases where a free version is available is...inconsequential? Irrelevant? So, in the case of Shadowdark: if someone is not availing themselves of the quickstart, and only relying on others' opinions, that's their choice, and no one else should care. Maybe a separate thread on reviewers is warranted.

Your scope is too narrow, you're still centered on Shadowdark, I'm talking more generally:

For instance, getting a free copy (when no one else is getting it) of the whole printed book is common practice. Should it be? Wouldn't buying the book be more impartial?

Another example, we learned that QB charges for "reviewing" a product... I'm sure there must be others, shouldn't this be a red flag on said reviewer?

One more, reviewing the products of people you are connected to, be it professional, friendship or whatever.

That's what I'm talking about, not about Kelsey, her sexuality (who fucking cares?), her possible future players or her game in any way shape or form. Sure, that was the catalyst, but IMHO the discussion needs to go to the ethics in game journalism.

Right: I'm suggesting that all those points, since they don't pertain to Shadowdark, should be discussed elsewhere.  And they're all worth discussing.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM
...IMHO the discussion needs to go to the ethics in game journalism.

GeekyBugle,

I agree that objectivity is essential for consumers to be able to trust a review of a product. Lord knows, we've seen abuses in other entertainment formats by "access media" who simp to maintain their connection and exclusivity. We've seen it with WotC and 5E (I'm thinking of YouTube channels like Draven Swiftbow and Dungeon Dudes, for example, perhaps Nerd Immersion, Ginny Di and Bob World Builder, too).

You've mentioned free physical copies of core books as a concern. I know Pundit stated that he requires a physical review copy to ensure that what he reviews is what ends up in the consumer's hands.

As Rhialto stated, maybe a new thread is in order? One where we discuss and try to create a "Best Practices" structure for what may create an objective reviewing environment where there is less concern about access media and pay-to-play review access for OSR products specifically. What are your thoughts?

Quote from: Feratu on March 09, 2023, 04:31:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM
...IMHO the discussion needs to go to the ethics in game journalism.

GeekyBugle,

I agree that objectivity is essential for consumers to be able to trust a review of a product. Lord knows, we've seen abuses in other entertainment formats by "access media" who simp to maintain their connection and exclusivity. We've seen it with WotC and 5E (I'm thinking of YouTube channels like Draven Swiftbow and Dungeon Dudes, for example, perhaps Nerd Immersion, Ginny Di and Bob World Builder, too).

You've mentioned free physical copies of core books as a concern. I know Pundit stated that he requires a physical review copy to ensure that what he reviews is what ends up in the consumer's hands.

As Rhialto stated, maybe a new thread is in order? One where we discuss and try to create a "Best Practices" structure for what may create an objective reviewing environment where there is less concern about access media and pay-to-play review access for OSR products specifically. What are your thoughts?

Shark! beat you to it 

Quote from: Feratu on March 09, 2023, 03:24:49 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 09, 2023, 01:18:54 PM
...Knowing more about Kelsey, what do you think about Pundit's claim that she has given no real thought to how 5E players will integrate into OSR culture, that could mean that 5E players "INVADE" the OSR with toxicity?

My response to the first part of the question would be to reject the premise that it is somehow Kelsey's responsibility to police anyone's choices or behavior as it pertains to integrating into the OSR.

...

Quote from: Feratu on March 09, 2023, 03:24:49 PM
We had another saying in the 'Corps: "Every group has it's 10%." Troublemakers (we called 'em shitbirds). In the case of WotC evacuees, people dishonestly and opportunistically agitating for MORE! MORE! MORE! bipoc, queer and female representation and accommodation. Well, surprise, shitbirds - we've got plenty of that already. Which leads to my final point.

Another saying we had in the 'Corps... It was closely related to leadership by example, and that is: "Good leaders model desired behavior." By not making a fuss about her preferences, and just being a traditional OSR gamer and enthusiast, Kelsey is modeling desired behavior, and leading by example - just by doing what she's doing, in the way she's doing it.

Will the 10% learn from her example? Some won't. There are always going to be intellectually dishonest people, opportunists seeking new opportunities to grift on perceived victimization of themselves and others. Either way, it's an opportunity to change some minds and add new fans to the OSR and I'm hopeful. I hope that answers your question, jhkim.

Thanks, Feratu. Yes, that totally answers my question. It seems like you and S'mon are mostly on the same page, and I generally agree with what you both have said.

I should say I'm not an OSR gamer. I played some D&D back in the 1980s, and I'm running 5E at the moment, but I'm not even primarily a D&D gamer -- I'm more often doing Call of Cthulhu, Amber, PbtA, or other games. I've read some OSR stuff, though, and I'd be curious to try it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:32:43 PM

Quote from: Feratu on March 09, 2023, 04:31:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM
...IMHO the discussion needs to go to the ethics in game journalism.

GeekyBugle,

I agree that objectivity is essential for consumers to be able to trust a review of a product. Lord knows, we've seen abuses in other entertainment formats by "access media" who simp to maintain their connection and exclusivity. We've seen it with WotC and 5E (I'm thinking of YouTube channels like Draven Swiftbow and Dungeon Dudes, for example, perhaps Nerd Immersion, Ginny Di and Bob World Builder, too).

You've mentioned free physical copies of core books as a concern. I know Pundit stated that he requires a physical review copy to ensure that what he reviews is what ends up in the consumer's hands.

As Rhialto stated, maybe a new thread is in order? One where we discuss and try to create a "Best Practices" structure for what may create an objective reviewing environment where there is less concern about access media and pay-to-play review access for OSR products specifically. What are your thoughts?

Shark! beat you to it 

lol yep I just popped in to edit my post and say that. You also beat me to THAT.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM
Another example, we learned that QB charges for "reviewing" a product... I'm sure there must be others, shouldn't this be a red flag on said reviewer?

I've never listened to QB before.  If he only does paid reviews, has he ever been critical of something he's reviewed?  Has he ever not recommended or given a poor score to something?  If he has, then I'm not so sure there is a problem as he's shown he's willing to criticize/be impartial despite being paid.  If he's only ever given positive reviews then yeah, maybe there should be a flag there.

Quote from: S'mon on March 09, 2023, 02:45:19 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 09, 2023, 02:36:58 PM
Why the fuck is it ON KELSEY to worry a damned thing about "What 5E gamers!" do, or don't do?

Yeah, that was my immediate reaction too. It seems an incredibly heavy burden to give someone, the responsibility of maintaining the Purity of the OSR.

I think the OSR has already proved that it can look after itself. It is exceptionally resistant to political subversion - ofc Kelsey shows no sign of trying to subvert it, but we have seen some attempts. Its decentralised nature is anathema to the Wokesters' tactics, which derive from Gramsci & Alinsky, and are aimed at bureaucracies and large corporations. They can't even subvert any OSR bulletin boards that I can think of. They're reduced to making their own venues - which of course sink without trace.

Sure, but if Simps are going to start complaining every time we tell 5e newbs not to tread on us, that won't make it any easier. Because I raised perfectly valid subjects, and yet there's still tons of people in or around the OSR White Knighting about this.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 10, 2023, 01:09:27 PM
Sure, but if Simps are going to start complaining every time we tell 5e newbs not to tread on us, that won't make it any easier. Because I raised perfectly valid subjects, and yet there's still tons of people in or around the OSR White Knighting about this.

IMO:
On the one hand, you were genuinely obnoxious. To Professor Dungeon Master at least as much as to Arcane Library/Kelsey.
On the other hand, the reaction was certainly extreme. And yes, all the White Knighting was for Kelsey, not Prof DM. There's certainly a m/f double standard. For good evolutionary reasons, but it definitely exists.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM

Quote from: rhialto on March 09, 2023, 04:08:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 03:59:00 PM
The real discussion should be about the reviewers, the game is just the catalyst, the 5e players that MIGHT play it are irrelevant.

IMHO the discussion should be centered around the practices on reviewing RPGs.

I think this is true only in the cases where no freely available version is offered, to review oneself. Anyone else's opinion in such cases where a free version is available is...inconsequential? Irrelevant? So, in the case of Shadowdark: if someone is not availing themselves of the quickstart, and only relying on others' opinions, that's their choice, and no one else should care. Maybe a separate thread on reviewers is warranted.

For instance, getting a free copy (when no one else is getting it) of the whole printed book is common practice. Should it be? Wouldn't buying the book be more impartial?

I don't know, but I do know buying your own copy is an investment. Maybe you'd think more of the game, or less in the case it blew goats nuts. Then you'd feel cheated out of x dollars.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on March 10, 2023, 01:37:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM

Quote from: rhialto on March 09, 2023, 04:08:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 03:59:00 PM
The real discussion should be about the reviewers, the game is just the catalyst, the 5e players that MIGHT play it are irrelevant.

IMHO the discussion should be centered around the practices on reviewing RPGs.

I think this is true only in the cases where no freely available version is offered, to review oneself. Anyone else's opinion in such cases where a free version is available is...inconsequential? Irrelevant? So, in the case of Shadowdark: if someone is not availing themselves of the quickstart, and only relying on others' opinions, that's their choice, and no one else should care. Maybe a separate thread on reviewers is warranted.

For instance, getting a free copy (when no one else is getting it) of the whole printed book is common practice. Should it be? Wouldn't buying the book be more impartial?

I don't know, but I do know buying your own copy is an investment. Maybe you'd think more of the game, or less in the case it blew goats nuts. Then you'd feel cheated out of x dollars.

We took that discussion to a new thread about it, will answer there.

Quote from: rgalex on March 10, 2023, 11:58:36 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 04:17:05 PM
Another example, we learned that QB charges for "reviewing" a product... I'm sure there must be others, shouldn't this be a red flag on said reviewer?

I've never listened to QB before.  If he only does paid reviews, has he ever been critical of something he's reviewed?  Has he ever not recommended or given a poor score to something?  If he has, then I'm not so sure there is a problem as he's shown he's willing to criticize/be impartial despite being paid.  If he's only ever given positive reviews then yeah, maybe there should be a flag there.

Theres only 1 negative review i can think he did and it was of Dark Albion. Even yhen it was kinda lukewarm and in his early days. I heard he deleted a few videos of positive reviews of ACKS and Maze of the Blue Medusa but i never saw them i just heard from some people i know who had.