The Gaming Den

Prak wrote:It used to be that the two biggest games were Dungeons and Dragons and World of Darkness, two mighty kingdoms, if you will. One may have been presided over by the Pontiff Gygax, and the other by the Monarch Rein*Hagen, and other games were merely baronies that were fed by those, or were tiny bandit kingdoms that were mere annoyances to them. Now, White Wolf has collapsed, and only lives on in the form of a pretender last scion, and Dungeons and Dragons is not even a shadow of it's former glory, with what amounts to an evil, incompetent vizier sitting in it's crumbling throne, while mercenary generals do all its real work.

What about the Free Republic of GURPS? It's mostly barren land today, but once it was a thing.

I think GURPS is China in this analogy, off doing its own thing.

Seeing the present as fallen from the glories of yesteryear is common in far more than RPGs. It's sort of true here in that there's far less money in tabletop gaming (judging by the number of people employed) than there was a decade or two ago, and I'm guessing the talent followed the money.

But ... I have a library of gaming material which mostly satisfies me, the internet is willing to chip in with maps and ideas far better than it could have a couple of decades ago, and there are enough gamers around that if my group broke up I could sort something out.

The gaming Dark Ages aren't all bad. IIRC there were a bunch of innovations in the real Dark Ages relating to agriculture which set the scene for slow expansion in the Middle Ages. Perhaps a new age will begin someday, maybe with a useful and affordable app-based game, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

Prak wrote:I think GURPS is China in this analogy, off doing its own thing.

More of a Mongolia to Munchkin's China, but yes.

SJGames is putting out 2-3 high quality PDFs for GURPS a month and turning the best selling PDFs into books on an irregular basis. I don't think GURPS is more than marginally profitable, but SJGames is making mad money from Munchkin and can afford to support GURPS on a sentimental basis.

The player base for GURPS is probably a distant 5th to the remains of White Wolf and D&D, but I think I'd rather be a GURPS freelance writer associated with SJGames than a core D&D staff member.

Prak wrote:It used to be that the two biggest games were Dungeons and Dragons and World of Darkness, two mighty kingdoms, if you will. One may have been presided over by the Pontiff Gygax, and the other by the Monarch Rein*Hagen, and other games were merely baronies that were fed by those, or were tiny bandit kingdoms that were mere annoyances to them. Now, White Wolf has collapsed, and only lives on in the form of a pretender last scion, and Dungeons and Dragons is not even a shadow of it's former glory, with what amounts to an evil, incompetent vizier sitting in it's crumbling throne, while mercenary generals do all its real work.

mlangsdorf wrote:

Prak wrote:I think GURPS is China in this analogy, off doing its own thing.

More of a Mongolia to Munchkin's China, but yes.

Hm, I think Munchkin was more like Chinese privateers or something. Connected to the empire off doing its own thing, but profiting off of making fun of the big empires.

I was 12, there was one LGS in the county with complete control over price jacking, and I got $5 a week in allowance.

Needless to say, saving up for AD&D books was a grueling task. They were only slightly increased in price from average.

The dice and figurines were ridiculously overpriced though.

I find it hard to relate to the idea that the dark ages is today due to the fact that most rulesets released nowadays tend to have faster, simpler, more coherent, and easier to understand rules, than those of 20 years ago. And the best example of this is Shadowrun, which even in its "updated" incarnation still reeks of 80's shitty design sensibilities, with wonky math, dysfunctional sub-systems, and numerics nightmare that leads to awfully slow combat mini-game. Any game from similar niche designed in the last 10 years or so (Leverage, Technoir, Corporation, you name it) is infinitely faster, easier to learn, and more coherent as a whole than Shadowrun.

Whether you like the systems available doesn't mean you're not in the dark ages.

It's not a matter of like or dislike, it's a matter of speed of play, easiness of learning, and coherence. Those are objective qualities that put Shadowrun to shame when compared to most games released in the last decade or so.

I.e: I don't like D&D 3e, yet I find it light-years ahead of any Shadowrun edition, and a pretty good design by itself.

Silva, if society collapsed to the point were clubbing a person over the head with a rock and eating them was a legitimate survival strategy, that would be faster, easier, and, in some ways, more coherent, than capitalism. That wouldn't mean we had not entered a dark age.

And If said society had just enough resources to feed and provide comfort to every citizen (instead of only 10% of its numbers) than that would mean the dark age was the capitalist one.

But really, this analogy is shitty. Let's get back to gaming examples, shall we ?

silva wrote:It's not a matter of like or dislike, it's a matter of speed of play, easiness of learning, and coherence.

I.e: I don't like D&D 3e, yet I find it light-years ahead of any Shadowrun edition, and a pretty good design by itself.

Yet, I'll bet if that was said by anyone else, you would argue that those are all completely subjective, and any measures we showed indicating this, would merely be OUR (evil/bad/wrong) OPINION.

That said, some of the latest games that are coming out (or going to), are indeed going for a shorter or faster rate of play. Through the Breach w/level ups every session, Edge of Empire-ish, Shadow of the Demon Lord's alleged 11 session campaigns. Otherwise other popular stuff I've seen, seems to be rehash of older games, or rulesets that weren't particularly good to begin with (Titansgrave using DA-RPG mechanics).

Lastly, that admittance about 3e on your part, really just seems like you're saying so you think people will like you better (or be more willing to listen to you anyway).

Ary, that goes to D&D4e and 5e too. I may not like what they try to do, but they succeed in doing it pretty well (though to be honest I'm on a 5e campaign right now and I'm really enjoying the game).

About my criteria for judging games, I would say the most important thing is: What does this game tries to accomplish ? Does it succeed ? This gives the process a fair dose of subjectivity indeed. Followed by.. how simple, agile and coherent is this game in accomplishing those goals ? Most designs from the 80's fail in the very first question as they don't even know what they want to accomplish (again, see Shadowrun) while most designs from.nowadays have clear goals and communicate them better to the players.

If anything, it seems to me it's the people arguing the dark ages is today that is judging based on the fact they dislike what today's games try to do, instead of judging all games according to their own goals. In fact, Ghremdal and Smirnoriffico comments only corroborate this impression, because after saying "the dark ages is now" they follow it with "what good games are out there?" and "maybe I'm not exposed to enough games". This indicates they don't get to know many games outside the ones they are already familiar and comfortable with, which is well and good but do not help in giving a fair judgement to new games. Its like asking someone who only watches 60's western spaghettis what they think of nowadays movies.

I like how it doesn't occur to you to ask if what games are trying to do is even a good idea.

Whipstitch wrote:I like how it doesn't occur to you to ask if what games are trying to do is even a good idea.

It is pretty cute.

Whipstitch wrote:I like how it doesn't occur to you to ask if what games are trying to do is even a good idea.

I like how it doesn't occur to you that what games are trying to do now encompass everything ever seen in the hobby and more, from the old-school revival to 80's granular simulationism to 00's story-games to 10's new school mix of old and new, and everything between. It's the most eclectic era design wise, due to the easiness of publishing and sharing creations, crowdfunding tools, social networks, you name it.

But hey, just because the current implementation of your favorite concept (lemme guess... D&D 3e ?) is not to your liking (lemme guess... Pathfinder ?), then we are living in the dark ages. So, who is trying to have an fair and impartial assessment here, and who is judging with a totally partial and personal bias here ?

silva wrote:

Whipstitch wrote:I like how it doesn't occur to you to ask if what games are trying to do is even a good idea.

I like how it doesn't occur to you that what games are trying to do now encompass everything ever seen in the hobby and more, from the old-school revival to 80's granular simulationism to 00's story-games to 10's new school mix of old and new, and everything between. It's the most eclectic era design wise, due to the easiness of publishing and sharing creations, crowdfunding tools, social networks, you name it.

But hey, just because the current implementation of your favorite concept (lemme guess... D&D 3e ?) is not to your liking (lemme guess... Pathfinder ?), then we are living in the dark ages. So, who is trying to have an fair and impartial assessment here, and who is judging with a totally partial and personal bias here ?

Silva, you are really really really dumb. The fact that some games are trying to do everything does not mean that all the games should be judged based on what they are trying to do.

If someone asks, "Is Racial Holy War a good game?" should we judge Racial Holy War based on what it is trying to do? Or should we use our own separate standards to determine both 1) is what Racial Holy War is trying to do a good thing for a game to do? and 2) If yes, does it do a good job?

Now, explain, aside from your personal beliefs about the answer to 1), why should we treat shitty rules lite games that add literally nothing to the hobby any differently?

Kaelik, I understand your point. See, I hated the mid 2000's videogame period that was dominated by Call of Duties and its clones. It was one of the most creatively sterile periods the videogame industry ever faced. BUT the current tabletop rpg scene has nothing to do with that, because as much as it have its share of "Call of Duty" clones, it also has a myriad of offerings catering to a multitude of tastes and styles:

- Want D&D-like class/level-based tactical games ? We have Pathfinder, D&D Next, 13th Age, Dragon Age RPG, Numenera, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Legend, etc.

- Want highly granular "simulationism" ? Take a look at Runequest 6, Gurps 4th, BRP 3e, OpenQuest, Blade of the Iron Throne, etc.

- Want light-crunch narrativism? Sure, we have FATE, Primetime Adventures, Barbarians of Lemuria, Heroquest 2, Dungeon World/Apocalypse World, etc.

- Want med-crunch narrativism ? Torchbearer, MouseGuard, The One Ring, Warhammer 3, Fantasy Flight Star Wars, Tenra Bansho Zero, Savage Worlds, etc.

- Want diceless ? Nobilis 3e, Chuubo Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine, Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, etc.

- Want Vampire-like urban fantasy ? Dresden Files, WoD 20th Anniversary, Monsterhearts, Urban Shadows, The Strange, besides Vampire 4e and Unknown Armies 3e coming up soon.

- Want Shadowrun-like heists and action ? Shadowrun 4/5, Leverage, Corporation, Technoir, Sixth World, Blades in the Dark, etc.

- Want Supers ? Icons, Scion, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Truth and Justice, With Great Power, etc.

- Want old-school grognardia ? There is a fuckton of offerings out there going from pure clones to surprisingly useful stuff like Vornhein, to completely acid-trippy shit like A Red and Pleasant Land and Anomalous Subsurface Environment.

.
.
.
Sigh. Got my point ? If you dont have a game thats representative of your favorite style nowadays, chances are one never existed in the first place. Also notice how I didnt include a fuckton of fanmade/self-published games like Frank Trollman or TheRPGPundit creations.

silva wrote:Kaelik, I understand your point. See, I hated the mid 2000's videogame period that was dominated by Call of Duties and its clones. It was one of the most creatively sterile periods the videogame industry ever faced. BUT the current tabletop rpg scene has nothing to do with that, because as much as it have its share of "Call of Duty" clones, it also has a myriad of offerings catering to a multitude of tastes and styles:

...

Sigh. Got my point ? If you dont have a game thats representative of your favorite style nowadays, chances are one never existed in the first place. Also notice how I didnt include a fuckton of fanmade/self-published games like Frank Trollman or TheRPGPundit creations.

You clearly didn't get my point. Racial Holy War is not a bad game because if it was the only game things would be "creatively sterile" or because it opposes my personal tastes. It is bad because it is a game by and for white supremacists, and those people are objectively bad, and they shouldn't have a game, or exist.

It doesn't matter whether there are lots of games trying to do lots of things, whatever the games are trying to do, you first have to ask 1) Is the thing they are trying to do a good thing for a game to try to do, and 2) Do they do a good job of it.

And you don't get to skip question one because something else trying to do something else passes 1, and it "takes all kinds." Because it doesn't take all kinds. It doesn't take any white supremacists. And for the same reason, but to a different degree, it doesn't take any shitty no rules Apocalypse Worlds, or shitty "old school" dm fapping games, amongst other things.

Kaelik wrote:You clearly didn't get my point. Racial Holy War is not a bad game because if it was the only game things would be "creatively sterile" or because it opposes my personal tastes. It is bad because it is a game by and for white supremacists, and those people are objectively bad, and they shouldn't have a game, or exist.

I disagree. If someone wants to create Racial Holy War: the roleplaying game so what ? There is already Racial Holy War: the Movie and Racial Holy War: the music and Racial Holy War: the TV Show. Whats the problem with that ? We live in a world where any individual is free to choose what to consume. If you dont like it, simply dont play it.

But most important, your analogy makes no sense because all games I cited have fairly average thematics. So there is no point in bringing Racial Holy Wars to the discussion.

If Racial Holy War the RPG really was merely an extension of a media franchise, that would make it all the MORE important to condemn it.

Silva, I feel like you might be unaware that Racial Holy War is not just a hypothetical invective, but rather an actual game that actually exists about playing a white supremacist and killing people of color and non-christians. The... "hilarious" thing about it is that all the minorities are actually better than the white supremacist protagonists because they get real abiliites.

Oh, so that's the famous RaHoWa ? I didn't know that. Thanks.

Anyway, I still don't see the point in bringing that to the discussion, as the kind of morally questionable games represented by RaHoWa comprises a tiny part of the whole.

The point is points are:

• Relativism is wrong. When you say that things are good if they succeed at their goals, you are wrong. If something succeeds at bad goals it is bad. RaHoWa is the most obvious example because (hopefully) we can all agree that its goals (of starting a race war between whites and blacks) is a bad goal to have.
• You are a shit weasel and need to shut the fuck up.

-Username17