Quote from: lukeYou know, silly little games like Magic the Gathering and Legend of the Five Rings.

Wow, you really think a lot of yourself, don't you? Ah well, at least you haven't claimed that you're a genius on the level of Ginsberg or Kerouac yet.. or have you?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, well over here we have a little something called convictions. So we'll call shit like it is, not try to claim that anything hip that comes along was really our idea and skip from one flash-in-the-pan theory-fad to another like cheap pseudointellectual-sluts.

RPGPundit

Sure, but unless you're going to kill the Forgers, the point of participating in a discourse directed at them is to get them to stop doing that, not just fling poo at them. I hate the faddism of the Forge, and so, whenever I talk to someone following the latest theory-fad, I try and bring them to an understanding that shows how vacuous that shit is, rather than just shouting a more verbose version of "Your dad gives ass to mouth for a nickel and I got a fistful of quarters."

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSure, but unless you're going to kill the Forgers, the point of participating in a discourse directed at them is to get them to stop doing that, not just fling poo at them. I hate the faddism of the Forge, and so, whenever I talk to someone following the latest theory-fad, I try and bring them to an understanding that shows how vacuous that shit is, rather than just shouting a more verbose version of "Your dad gives ass to mouth for a nickel and I got a fistful of quarters."

Actually, my point in participating in such a discourse is to help make it impossible for them to be able to fool others or get their agenda across.
I don't buy the idea that the Forgers are ignorant people doing what they do because they don't realize its not good or something like that. I think its pretty clear that they're true believers. So any real attempt to convince them will be futile.
That means you can engage them in witty banter, or you can actually make a point of ripping them a new one so that they can't fool others about what their real motives are.

RPGPundit

Naw. There's probably a hard core of turdlets inside the big soft mushy mass, but a lot of folks seem to stumble into being Forge-theorist types because they think that's what thinking about RPGs is. You sluice those folks off by making arguments filled with appealing rhetoric, and the most appealing kind of rhetoric is going to be the kind that works on the concerns they already have, but outdoes their prior understanding.

This is the point Pierce, Settembrini and I have all mentioned in relation to RPG theory - real academic theory about games and literature is far more interesting and useful than the stuff getting bantered about on the internet as "theory". I think that's a good point to make because it outdoes and shows up the Forge theories, rather than ceding anything to them.

It's a bit like science, ideally. Lee Smolin wouldn't get anywhere by calling the string theorists sons of bitches, but if he comes up with a theory that explains everything the string theorists want to explain, but more elegantly and more usefully, then the intellectually honest string theorists will switch over, and the intellectually dishonest ones will end up looking like electric alchemists.

The trick is that it's not that there's some uncommitted mass of scientists waiting for the outcome of this debate to make up their minds. So long as string theory is the only option, they'll go with it, and call themselves "string theorists" and read string theory journals and publish papers about it. But that doesn't mean they're never going to change their minds, and in fact, it makes it all the more urgent to change their minds.

Don't worry about Ron Edwards never coming around. Just worry about everyone else - even Luke Crane and Vincent Baker and whoever else is Capitalising Words this week.

Quote from: RPGPunditWow, you really think a lot of yourself, don't you?

You're the one who asked, Pundie!

It might interest some to know that WotC brand manager Scott Rouse has expressed interest in having WotC enter the ennies next year.

Quote from: jcombosTime will tell, but I think we're approaching escape velocity. Even though the game has been out for a while, it still feels like we're building momentum instead of holding steady or declining like you might expect.

It doesn't seem like that as a consumer. It seems like you're dead in the water. I stopped by your site last (because of the YouTube review) and nothing there changed that perception.

Seanchai

Quote from: lukeWe've been down this path before, haven't we Mr Prussian?

I dunno, but I definitely don't agree with Consonant Dude.

Seanchai

Quote from: PGivertyI don't understand what this means.

I created a new thread here.

Seanchai

Quote from: J ArcaneWhereas I remain baffled as to what the hell is so great about Ptolus that I'd pay such a hideously steep price for what amounts to an overblown gazeteer of some guy's made up city.  

Who the hell gives a shit about production values if what's actually there is just Rote Overdetailed Setting #235?

I'm sure it's great for the collector guys who pretty much just buy this shit to look pretty on a shelf and show it off to their RPGnet friends, but I didn't see any evidence of actual substance there, or anything I haven't seen waaaay too many times by now.

This pretty much convinces me that you haven't actually looked at the book. Damn, Ptolus is fantastic. I can see saying "it's not my cup of tea," but saying there is no "evidence of actual substance" or that it's "Rote Overdetailed Setting #235" is utter bullshit, a sign, perhaps of hating a book for its price without actually reading it. And, oh yeah, I have the City State, old and new versions, love 'em both, but any comparisons between it and Ptolus are superficial, at best.

I edited this post to be a bit less incendiary.

Oh, I'll just delete this as it was just stoking a snarkfest further up the thread...

Quote from: RPGPunditWizards shouldn't be "required" to participate. All WoTC products should be automatically included in the considerations.  To do otherwise is to ignore the reality of Wizards' place in the hobby.

RPGPundit

How would you "require" them to participate? Make the judges buy all WotC books to look at? Ain't gonna happen. Not everybody has a job where they can afford to do that. Or simply place them in categories by default, circumventing the judging, and giving them even more of an unfair advantage? Believe me, I was badly disappointed when WotC decided not to enter, starting back when I was a judge myself. But there's no easy way to "require" their participation.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt might interest some to know that WotC brand manager Scott Rouse has expressed interest in having WotC enter the ennies next year.

That is interesting. It's about damned time.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHow would you "require" them to participate? Make the judges buy all WotC books to look at? Ain't gonna happen. Not everybody has a job where they can afford to do that. Or simply place them in categories by default, circumventing the judging, and giving them even more of an unfair advantage? Believe me, I was badly disappointed when WotC decided not to enter, starting back when I was a judge myself. But there's no easy way to "require" their participation.

That's ENworld's problem to resolve, if they want to be taken seriously, not WoTC's.

RPGPundit

Quote from: mearlsThe only thing I really noticed was Ptolus's absence from the d20 list. I'd be really, really interested in someone trying to explain to me how *any* of the products on that list are better than Ptolus. I'm not even close to seeing it.

I've long ago given up on trying to fathom the minds of the judges.  Even after getting access to the Judges' Forum, I still don't get it.
At this point all I can say is that the judges were chosen by the fans for some reason, and that if fandom doesn't like their decisions, they choose different judges next year.