Quote from: Necrozius;921836There are some neat things in there but after reading the game mechanics I must say that after being exposed to many other RPGs, including the more recent WoD, I don't like them anymore.

The new WoD games "feel" more elegant and streamlined.

I think that's true in general, though.  Systems are generally a lot less clunky and heterogeneous today than they were in the 1990s.  Gamers don't seem to have the same tolerance for fiddly idiosyncratic mechanics.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;921824You've never been in the LARP scene in Roanoke, Virginia, have you? The ST's often did use Humanity as a sadistic psychological weapon against the players. I've got lots of horror stories I can share.

Sounds more like a case of you having the misfortune of playing with assholes rather than anything to do with the intent of the game. In any case, it was a couple of years before LARP rules were even out for Vampire, so they aren't really relevant to the intent of the game in its earliest days.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;921822As I said before, this just amounted to a marketing ploy by WW at the time (back in 2004).

Ad hoc to the rescue!
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/8/Ad-Hoc-Rescue
Ad Hoc Rescue
  ad hoc

(also known as: making stuff up*, MSU fallacy*)

Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary.  As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up.

Fans come up with all sorts of crazy ad hoc reasons why some show/game/other thing they like got cancelled.  I have seen someone seriously claim that Fox Network executives were conspiring to lower Firefly's ratings so they could have an excuse to cancel it.  Network executives were conspiring to kill a show that they had just spent millions to have developed so they could cancel it because reasons.  Yeah, that makes sense.  I have also seen someone seriously claim that Bleach was sabotaged by Shonen Jump because the editors hated Kubo personally.  I'll let you in on a little secret that's not actually a secret at all.  These things almost always get cancelled for one simple reason.  They aren't making enough money any more.  Firefly was cancelled because not enough people were watching it.  Bleach was cancelled because it was rock bottom in the Jump rankings.  oWoD was cancelled because people weren't buying it any more.  That's the reality.

Quote from: yosemitemike;921879I have seen someone seriously claim that Fox Network executives were conspiring to lower Firefly's ratings so they could have an excuse to cancel it.  Network executives were conspiring to kill a show that they had just spent millions to have developed so they could cancel it because reasons.[...] These things almost always get cancelled for one simple reason.  They aren't making enough money any more.  Firefly was cancelled because not enough people were watching it.

Actually, there's a fair bit of convincing evidence that Fox, while not exactly conspiring to sabotage Firefly, were certainly neglecting it into oblivion.  They were, in fact, doing things that are known to tank a show's ratings like moving it to the Friday night slot, showing episodes out of order, etc.  Whedon is on record as saying that they did this because the show didn't fit their conception of Fox's brand, which was young, hip, modern and sexy.  Networks treat shows like the WWE treats talent: they pump some, drop others, they try to find the thing that people will latch on to (like Buffy, the only reason Firefly got greenlit in the first place).  There's actually no hard and fast line for "not making enough money any more"; that's a judgement call.  Somebody made the decision to drop Firefly, and while lack of ratings was certainly the main motive, Fox verifiably did fail to support the show. Networks do in fact set shows up to fail sometimes; often there's legal contracts involved that are worth a lot more than an hour of air time.  DC Comics and the Wonder Woman license is an excellent example of this.

It's just as much a fallacy to assume that business decisions are always made with a razor sharp focus on the bottom line, especially in media; egos, power games and legal maneuvering have as much to do with it.

Quote from: yosemitemike;921879Fans come up with all sorts of crazy ad hoc reasons why some show/game/other thing they like got cancelled.  I have seen someone seriously claim that Fox Network executives were conspiring to lower Firefly's ratings so they could have an excuse to cancel it.  Network executives were conspiring to kill a show that they had just spent millions to have developed so they could cancel it because reasons.  Yeah, that makes sense.  I have also seen someone seriously claim that Bleach was sabotaged by Shonen Jump because the editors hated Kubo personally.  I'll let you in on a little secret that's not actually a secret at all.  These things almost always get cancelled for one simple reason.  They aren't making enough money any more.  Firefly was cancelled because not enough people were watching it.  Bleach was cancelled because it was rock bottom in the Jump rankings.  oWoD was cancelled because people weren't buying it any more.  That's the reality.

It's actually pretty common for executives in movies and TV to sabotage programs that were initiated by their predecessor, so it really isn't a underpants-on-head-crazy as you make it out to be. Corporate politics aren't exactly rational.

However in this case, the fans are wrong. Gail Berman was president of Fox Entertainment at the time, and she made the decision to cancel. She had also been an executive producer on both Buffy and Angel, so she wasn't exactly gunning for Whedon. It was just a particularly expensive show, so there was no way it could be kept on without strong ratings.

Quote from: Baulderstone;921904It was just a particularly expensive show, so there was no way it could be kept on without strong ratings.

Why was that?  The CGI?  The sets?  The cast were largely D-grade sitcom actors so it wasn't salaries, and location shoots didn't seem like they'd be that expensive given that every planet looks like the Mojave.

Quote from: yosemitemike;921879Ad hoc to the rescue!
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/8/Ad-Hoc-Rescue
Ad Hoc Rescue
  ad hoc

(also known as: making stuff up*, MSU fallacy*)

 

You're the one making stuff up. I bought three new, original Vampire books last year.

If Firefly got canceled today, Netflix would have snapped it up I'm sure.

Quote from: daniel_ream;921893Somebody made the decision to drop Firefly, and while lack of ratings was certainly the main motive, Fox verifiably did fail to support the show. Networks do in fact set shows up to fail sometimes; often there's legal contracts involved that are worth a lot more than an hour of air time.  DC Comics and the Wonder Woman license is an excellent example of this.

I find it very difficult to believe that a company spent millions of dollars getting a show on the air so that they could plot to sabotage it and take it off the air.  It might be plausible if there was some big money licensing contract involved but that wasn't the case with Firefly.  What does "verifiably failed to support" even mean?  They spent millions making the show and getting it to air.  How much did that huge ship interior set cost to make?  The show cost $2 million per episode to make.  That's a lot of money to chuck at something you are failing to support.  It aired in that waiting for X-Files to start Friday night slot they liked to put all their new shows in.  While it was there, it did well.  When they moved it to Sunday, the audience didn't follow.  The show was very expensive to make and just never found an audience while it was on the air.  People were just not interested in space cowboys at the time.

Quote from: daniel_ream;921893It's just as much a fallacy to assume that business decisions are always made with a razor sharp focus on the bottom line, especially in media; egos, power games and legal maneuvering have as much to do with it.

When the situation is easily explained by a combination of low ratings and high costs, I see no need to invoke those other things as explanations.

Quote from: Baulderstone;921904It's actually pretty common for executives in movies and TV to sabotage programs that were initiated by their predecessor, so it really isn't a underpants-on-head-crazy as you make it out to be. Corporate politics aren't exactly rational.

Underpants-on-head crazy is going considerably farther than I did.  It's not craziness.  It's garden variety rationalization.  This was great but it got cancelled.  There must be some nefarious explanation.  It couldn't be because lots of other people just didn't like it that much because it's great.  It must be something else.  I have watched fans try to rationalize why it was anything other but other people just not liking the thing all that much for years.  I have seen it in properties ranging from Star Trek:ToS to oWoD to Firefly to Star Trek:Enterprise to Space:Above and Beyond to Earth 2 to any number of other things.  If the property gets a revival, the fans like to give themselves a lot of credit for bringing it back with their tireless efforts on its behalf.  The Browncoat types love to pat each other on the back about how their tireless fandom and effort got us the Serenity movie.  The reality is that the Serenity movie was made because of how well Firefly sold on home video.  It found enough of an audience on home video to make a cinematic release (not not a new TV series) worthwhile.  Serenity was a flop at the box office though so it's unlikely that any more will be made except maybe as crowdfunded projects.  People still don't want to see the space western thing all that much apparently.  Yes, Serenity was a flop even if some of the Browncoat types really want to pretend otherwise.  I like Firefly but a certain segment of the Firefly fandom is just flat out in denial.
 

Quote from: Baulderstone;921904However in this case, the fans are wrong. Gail Berman was president of Fox Entertainment at the time, and she made the decision to cancel. She had also been an executive producer on both Buffy and Angel, so she wasn't exactly gunning for Whedon. It was just a particularly expensive show, so there was no way it could be kept on without strong ratings.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Quote from: Baulderstone;921904It was just a particularly expensive show, so there was no way it could be kept on without strong ratings.

Quote from: yosemitemike;921920The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Insufficient RoI is the final reason for canceling, now explain why there was the airing of episodes out of order and the move to Friday Night of an expensive show which would 100% guarantee it wouldn't make enough money to justify continuation.

I'll take self-fulfilling prophecies for $1000, Alex.

The simplest answer is someone wanted it axed, and guaranteed it would be.

Quote from: yosemitemike;921920I find it very difficult to believe that a company spent millions of dollars getting a show on the air so that they could plot to sabotage it and take it off the air.

*Sigh* I haven't the time  - or the inclination, frankly - to explain to you how TV production gets done right now.  But the Friday and Sunday time slots have been considered The Death Slot for decades.  Fox is practically the trope namer for the Friday Night Death Slot.  You can find it hard to believe all you like, but Fox actually has a multi-decade history of doing just that.

Firefly never had the ratings the fans think it did, but a significant part of that is that Fox did things that networks typically do if they're trying to kill a show. Networks don't just toss shows out into the ether and pray for ratings; they push some shows and bury others.  They understand the sunk cost fallacy better than most.

Am I the only one on this planet who doesn't like Firefly? In my opinion it is highly overrated (like nearly all of Whedon's works), so I really don't care as to why it was cancelled. Let's get back on topic.

Joss Whedon is a talentless hack and shameless Marvel fanboy who can fornicate himself with an iron stick, at least in my opinion.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;921931Am I the only one on this planet who doesn't like Firefly? In my opinion it is highly overrated (like nearly all of Whedon's works), so I really don't care as to why it was cancelled. Let's get back on topic.

Joss Whedon is a talentless hack and shameless Marvel fanboy who can fornicate himself with an iron stick, at least in my opinion.

Seconded.  I don't like Joss Whedon's works at all.  My geek buddies look at me like I've grown an extra head when I tell them that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;921926The simplest answer is someone wanted it axed, and guaranteed it would be.

I think the simplest explanation is that they just panicked.  They had a very expensive show with an unusual and risky premise that was not getting very good ratings.  Someone panicked and pulled the plug.  Ironically, the early cancellation is the main reason why Firefly cost so much per episode.  They made this big, expensive set and then only used it for half a season.  If they had gotten 5 seasons worth of episodes out of it, the cost per episode would have been far lower.  Would it have found an audience if they had left it on Friday night and let it run longer?  It's hard to say.  Judging by Serenity's performance at the box office, I would say probably not.  

Quote from: daniel_ream;921929*Sigh* I haven't the time  - or the inclination, frankly - to explain to you how TV production gets done right now.  But the Friday and Sunday time slots have been considered The Death Slot for decades.  Fox is practically the trope namer for the Friday Night Death Slot.  You can find it hard to believe all you like, but Fox actually has a multi-decade history of doing just that.

They have a long history of trying out unusual series and premiering them before X-Files to catch that waiting for X-Files to come on crowd.  X-Files, by the way, was very successful on Friday nights.  It was where they put the oddball shows like The Adventures of Brisco County Jr, Space:Above and Beyond or Harsh Realm to try to find an audience for them.  They tried some pretty odd and risky shows in this time slot and a lot of them didn't work out.  They took some risks with the shows in that time slot and firefly was probably the biggest risk of all because of how expensive it was.  They kept trying to find something that would be successful in that time slot and finally just gave up.  That doesn't mean they were paying for show after show to be made just so they could kill them and then pay for another one to be made.  I think it's far more likely that the really wanted to find something that would succeed in that time slot and just failed to do it.  They hoped all of those shows would succeed but they didn't.

Quote from: daniel_ream;921929Firefly never had the ratings the fans think it did, but a significant part of that is that Fox did things that networks typically do if they're trying to kill a show. Networks don't just toss shows out into the ether and pray for ratings; they push some shows and bury others.  They understand the sunk cost fallacy better than most.

Why do networks even need to to try kill their own programming that they control?  Why not just decide not to air the thing?  It has happened with lots and lots of series over the decades. Lots of series have been cancelled before they even aired one episode.  I find it difficult to believe that networks are paying for a show to be made, putting that show on the air and then engaging in elaborate subterfuge to kill it rather than just cancelling it or simply not airing it in the first place.

Quote from: yosemitemike;921936Why do networks even need to to try kill their own programming that they control?  Why not just decide not to air the thing?  It has happened with lots and lots of series over the decades. Lots of series have been cancelled before they even aired one episode.  I find it difficult to believe that networks are paying for a show to be made, putting that show on the air and then engaging in elaborate subterfuge to kill it rather than just cancelling it or simply not airing it in the first place.

Politics and legal requirements.  Sometimes you can't just axe something, it has to underperform.  It's a contract.  You order X amount of shows, and whether you buy any more can be contracted based on performance.  You deliberately bury a show because if it dips under a line, you can kill it because the contract says so, or you can kill it no matter what the politics are.