Adventure Game vs Roleplaying Game

[Admin Pete]

I seem to remember comments about this before, but I cannot remember where or by whom. My memory is not as sharp as it once was.

I ran across this (Planet Eris (OD&D House Rules) on Roll 20 the other day, not sure now how I got there, but this paragraph struck me and I needed to post about it. The words in bold print are there in the original.

Planet Eris is played as an adventure game, not a role-playing game. The difference being that player decisions and knowledge of the fictional world play a larger role than what stats and skills your character possesses. Your character is a ticket to enter the fantastical world of Eris in order to explore its many mysteries, conquer its challenges, or even build your own kingdom. The Planet Eris campaign is the ultimate open-world game, where players can do nearly anything they think of. You stand before the city gates of the Last Outpost. What do you do?

Most people call D&D and other similar games, Roleplaying games, robkuntz IIRC prefers Fantasy Roleplaying Game. I think it is telling that the designation "roleplaying game" has been devalued to the point that someone feels the need to say their game is "played as an adventure game, not a role-playing game." Here are a couple of more snippets from the post:

Planet Eris is a game of Dungeons & Dragons that utilizes the simplified and flexible rules of the original 1974 edition of the game (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and Wilderness & Underworld). Additional rules sources that are drawn upon ...
The goal of these modifications is to create a game that minimizes time spent resolving actions. No prior knowledge of the game is necessary. No books are necessary. The Dungeon Master will provide everything you need to play.

Now while I have found learning how to do this in a pbp has a learning curve, this is how I have always played D&D in face to face games, as a Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration. I think that is true of many of us. But apparently role-playing game has come to mean something else in the main stream module driven world, to the point that people are feeling the need to distance themselves from the term roleplaying in order to make it clear what their game is about.

So comments are welcome, is what we do no longer to be called a Roleplaying Game or even a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, but instead (and in order to make the distinction clear) should we now refer to OD&D and truly old school gaming as an Adventure Game or Fantasy Adventure Game or possibly even Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration?

[mormonyoyoman]

This is exactly how I have always described rolegaming - a word I began using when computer games and video games stole the term "Roleplaying Game" for limited games of performing according to a script.

But, yes, "Roleplaying Game" and "rpg" have been corrupted; it's no longer possible to discuss rpg-products outside of our circle - and get more than blank stares. This may be why Rob's groundbreaking book isn't selling as it should. The very ones (the unimaginative "think for me, Big Brother" people) who most need to read it, can't even conceive of the basic concept of creating.

[ripx187]

To me, Role-playing always meant that you took on a role of a fictional character which you play. You may not act it out or do voices, but you do try to figure out what this person would do in a situation. It is a chance to step outside of ourselves and explore different lines of thinking. Once the computer became the DM this changed. Role-playing to the computer only meant that you could improve a character a little at a time, and this replaced the definition. 


In the original definition of player controlled Role-playing, we did improve but that was the game; taking a nobody and seeing if we can't turn him into an epic hero. We had to learn how to play the game. We can't play a 1st level fighter like we can at 10th level. I think that the modern term for early level old-school gaming is "Incompetent", but they don't get it. It isn't the character that is incompetent, it is the player. Modern players want to go into a den of trolls with their 1st level character and kill everything, so the rules were adjusted to do just that. Most people think that this is fun . . . I don't, but then again, I'm not most people. 


As a player, I like to play the gaming piece given to me, in the modern game folks want to play a preconceived character. So preconceived that the player knows exactly what he must do to qualify for specific upgrades. Me? I'm pleased if I can keep my dude alive to 5th level, but now that isn't good enough, and worse! If I play the game with others who are racing along, I am holding them back.


Modern Role-playing is so complex, it is all about improving your character and not about actually playing them. It got to the point that players have to be bribed to play negative aspects. If you decide that your character is afraid of birds, then you get 3 extra powers. Not only do they get these 3 extra powers but typically the DM has to remind them that they are afraid of birds until it is forgotten completely. Me, if my character has a bad experience with birds and I developed a phobia, I get nothing but the fun of playing a paranoid character.

As a player, I do shy away from RPG games, because I don't feel that they have anything to do with playing a role. An adventure game, I would play though! I could play that how I wanted. 

[True Black Raven]

PD, you make a good point and I think you have it right, that the term RPG/Roleplaying Game has been so corrupted as a term as to be meaningless when used in reference to old school gaming and to OD&D. That term is at this time completely co-opted by new school module driven gaming. The term Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration describes what OD&D was originally intended to be and was and is. I think that Planet Eris ref CountingWizard, whoever he is has it right and if you are playing old school OD&D it is time to stop using the term RPG or Roleplaying Game to describe what you are doing.

I like the term Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration (FAGE) or Fantasy Adventure Exploration Game (FAEG) or Fantasy Exploration Adventure Game (FEAG), depending on what we think of the acronyms.  Hmm maybe we need more suggestions.

[True Black Raven]

ripx187 have an exalt, you obviously want to play OD&D!

[True Black Raven]

I did some acronym searching in Google, since we don't want to use an existing acronym, that would be counter productive. So that in mind I have a suggestion Arneson Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration (AFAGE) pronounced to rhyme with UH Page. We of course could only use Arneson informally, but on products it would just say AFAGE compatible.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 2, 2018 12:34:09 GMT -5 True Black Raven said:

PD, you make a good point and I think you have it right, that the term RPG/Roleplaying Game has been so corrupted as a term as to be meaningless when used in reference to old school gaming and to OD&D. That term is at this time completely co-opted by new school module driven gaming. The term Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration describes what OD&D was originally intended to be and was and is. I think that Planet Eris ref CountingWizard, whoever he is has it right and if you are playing old school OD&D it is time to stop using the term RPG or Roleplaying Game to describe what you are doing.

I like the term Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration (FAGE) or Fantasy Adventure Exploration Game (FAEG) or Fantasy Exploration Adventure Game (FEAG), depending on what we think of the acronyms.  Hmm maybe we need more suggestions.

You are correct, but I'll likely just call it Fantasy Adventure Role Playing (FARP); as I am not allowing the New Schoolers co-op Role Playing. 

[True Black Raven]

Jun 2, 2018 13:51:40 GMT -5 Hexenritter Verlag said:

Jun 2, 2018 12:34:09 GMT -5 True Black Raven said:

PD, you make a good point and I think you have it right, that the term RPG/Roleplaying Game has been so corrupted as a term as to be meaningless when used in reference to old school gaming and to OD&D. That term is at this time completely co-opted by new school module driven gaming. The term Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration describes what OD&D was originally intended to be and was and is. I think that Planet Eris ref CountingWizard, whoever he is has it right and if you are playing old school OD&D it is time to stop using the term RPG or Roleplaying Game to describe what you are doing.

I like the term Fantasy Adventure Game of Exploration (FAGE) or Fantasy Adventure Exploration Game (FAEG) or Fantasy Exploration Adventure Game (FEAG), depending on what we think of the acronyms.  Hmm maybe we need more suggestions.

You are correct, but I'll likely just call it Fantasy Adventure Role Playing (FARP); as I am not allowing the New Schoolers co-op Role Playing. 

I like that, what do other people think about it.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Thanks True Black Raven, I am just contrarian - especially to allowing others to dictate things to me.

[robkuntz]

Jun 2, 2018 6:54:19 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Most people call D&D and other similar games, Roleplaying games, robkuntz IIRC prefers Fantasy Roleplaying Game. I think it is telling that the designation "roleplaying game" has been devalued to the point that someone feels the need to say their game is "played as an adventure game, not a role-playing game."

Actually I have referred to it as many things:  FRP (Fantasy Role Playing ala D&D, roughly 1972-1975); by its, latter, assigned, approved nomenclature and typing "FRPG" (roughly 1975 to present) which is what D&D is often commercially referred to as.

However.  If one studies DATG closely you will note some distinctions from my list of what qualities Arneson's system exhibits.  Role Playing is only one of the 26 qualities.  BUT yet it is commercially extolled as the foremost one by way of its current typing (RPG).

In reality there is so much more than just RP going on in a "RP" game.

I prefer Conceptual Games these days; this due to the infinite latitude that Arneson's system exhibits beyond the lone RP quality as I have noted.

[Jakob Grimm]

Jun 2, 2018 17:09:02 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

However.  If one studies DATG closely you will note some distinctions from my list of what qualities Arneson's system exhibits.  Role Playing is only one of the 26 qualities.  BUT yet it is commercially extolled as the foremost one by way of its current typing (RPG).

In reality there is so much more than just RP going on in a "RP" game.

I prefer Conceptual Games these days; this due to the infinite latitude that Arneson's system exhibits beyond the lone RP quality as I have noted.

Hmm, I don't blog myself and I am just talking out of my hat here, but how would you feel about someone(s) with a blog writing about each of those 26 qualities over say a 26 month period?

Didn't mormonyoyoman , direct us to go back and study DATG. Seems there is a consensus from a number of members that there is so much there that it requires multiple readings and study to even begin to grok the contents. Unlike all the fluff out there that one reading gives you all there is to get.

[robkuntz]

Jun 2, 2018 17:48:32 GMT -5 Jakob Grimm said:

Jun 2, 2018 17:09:02 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

However.  If one studies DATG closely you will note some distinctions from my list of what qualities Arneson's system exhibits.  Role Playing is only one of the 26 qualities.  BUT yet it is commercially extolled as the foremost one by way of its current typing (RPG).

In reality there is so much more than just RP going on in a "RP" game.

I prefer Conceptual Games these days; this due to the infinite latitude that Arneson's system exhibits beyond the lone RP quality as I have noted.

Hmm, I don't blog myself and I am just talking out of my hat here, but how would you feel about someone(s) with a blog writing about each of those 26 qualities over say a 26 month period?

Didn't mormonyoyoman , direct us to go back and study DATG. Seems there is a consensus from a number of members that there is so much there that it requires multiple readings and study to even begin to grok the contents. Unlike all the fluff out there that one reading gives you all there is to get.

With DATG I present a general overview of Arneson's systems architecture amid specific historical events and a solid and specific qualities-list derived from its interactions as a system to date. Essentially what I describe is what we all take for granted as we play (the strings and pulleys we do not see and only sense if we stop to engage them with inquiry):  an infinitely mutable and evolvable system state which has a beginning Initial Condition.  Amazingly all of this is woven together as an ongoing and evolving conceptual state with no ending point.  We are perforce, then, at the root level of where imagination meets and merges with the material (immaterial thought merges with mechanistic principle), or, in system terms, and because of the distinct properties of these two polarities, OPEN and CLOSED.  Arneson merged these.  It broke 2000 years (at the least) of design and play theory when he did so.

Now I have been updating with further descriptions and diagrams, plus examples, for an expanded publication.  When that might be available is uncertain--6 months is an estimate.  In between I would not mind questions, but I would not be able to find the time to expand it with online content and which might duplicate my efforts currently underway.

One must also understand and really appreciate that what Arneson created had never been created before.  So describing it, to date, has been a chore as no lexicon exists to fully access through it as to what the hell this system is.  So I had to start from scratch by first isolating its systems qualities to tell me what IT WASN'T.  This has allowed me to better understand Arneson's thought process and the variable system latitudes, all of which can then be used in creating the lexicon.  One MUST have a coherent language to describe any NEW system.

In my estimation, so far, I term it a Conceptual Systemic Play Environ (copyrighted phrase, RJ Kuntz 2014, A New Ethos in Game Design).  Children call it PLAY.  There is some overlap between the two, but there is no solid link on either the PLAY Theory side or the GAME Theory side that can 100% describe it. Why?  Because such a complex systems organization never before existed before Arneson created it, that's why.  And that's where I stand.

Now back to the original topic!

[Keyone1234]

Thank you robkuntz for the elucidation and it is a given that no one here expects you to give away the contents of your book for free although we can not speak for the rest of the world.  So as you said, back on topic. 

Do you agree and, if so, to what extent do you agree with the premise above that the phrase role-playing game has been subjected to such violence, misuse and corruption that it is nearly meaningless to call something an RPG and have anyone have a real picture of what that originally meant in terms of OD&D, Blackmoor and Arneson? If that is the situation, then does it follow that someone should create a completely new word to take the place of role-playing in reference to OD&D, Blackmoor and Arneson and all games existing and yet to be written that make use of the conceptual engine devised by Arneson. Maybe that is one of the new words that are needed for the new vocabulary for that coherent language of which you speak.

[mormonyoyoman]

For now, I'm sticking with "rolegaming" as it merges the two most visible traits of what we're creating while playing. And I doubt I shall live to see its potential realized enough to provide a simpler noun.

What Rob has successfully proved is that Dave Arneson may have begun to create a game, but created a system of creating systems - which has applications that business, psychoanalysis, and war (or "defense," if you prefer) are trying to use in planning and strategy.

Which puts nonexistent limits on the Arneson creation. When it took this long for only one person to create it, and this long for another lone person to recognize it (and attempt to communicate his findings to the rest of us) it's going to be a long time before we find all its possible uses. There is a real possibility that we can rewire our thinking to simulate and test anything that we've been unable to imagine so far.

Because the universe(?) is/are not only stranger than we imagine, it's currently stranger than we CAN imagine.

That limit may vanish, because one young man was bored and wanted to play a serious game of Let’s Pretend.

Does this sound grandiose to you?

[robkuntz]

Jun 2, 2018 19:57:12 GMT -5 Keyone1234 said:

Thank you robkuntz for the elucidation and it is a given that no one here expects you to give away the contents of your book for free although we can not speak for the rest of the world.  So as you said, back on topic. 

Do you agree and, if so, to what extent do you agree with the premise above that the phrase role-playing game has been subjected to such violence, misuse and corruption that it is nearly meaningless to call something an RPG and have anyone have a real picture of what that originally meant in terms of OD&D, Blackmoor and Arneson? If that is the situation, then does it follow that someone should create a completely new word to take the place of role-playing in reference to OD&D, Blackmoor and Arneson and all games existing and yet to be written that make use of the conceptual engine devised by Arneson. Maybe that is one of the new words that are needed for the new vocabulary for that coherent language of which you speak.

Yes.  That is the case in answer to all of your questions and inferences.  From my preface to A New Ethos in Game Design:


When one looks at the phrase by which we both comprehend and communicate to others what we play, that is, a Role Playing Game—or more specifically, a Fantasy Role Playing Game, as I am in this sense equating the fantastic to all such RPG vehicles that operate by use of our imaginations—they perceive its whole meaning, that is, as a symbol of what we do. But if one were to separate those words and was then asked to describe how each of these is realized, or how they might even differ from their base meanings or functionality, within a RPG, then that would be another matter entirely. The latter route is what I have tasked myself with in undertaking this work.

From the commentaries in the same ms:

C33: Upon examining thousands upon thousands of games occurring in the past over a thousand years one will not find a “game” type that corresponds to Classic D&D. Yet we label it a “game” none-the-less. By contrast, if we walk outside today and view a group of children playing, we immediately and intuitively note that their immersive systems of play in specific ways correspond to Classic D&D. Yet we shrug and call it a “game.” Even when armed with the knowledge that when parts of these past game and play systems have been all thrust together into a conceptual systems environment wherein their functions take upon new and extended meanings and usage according to a synthesized system of play that has never before been seen, experienced or wholly understood, we persist in terming it a “game.”



Perhaps this phenomenon can be understood in three ways: 1) When the original multi-dimensional concept was replaced by its mechanistic game part thereafter its persistent returned value when used was, on the main, solely entertainment; and since dice are involved in its processes, then Dice + Entertainment = game; 2) That Classic D&D was called a game since it was referred to as a game by its original publisher in 1974, this because existing hobby or book stores of the time had no sections demarked as ‘Fantastic Conceptual Environs’ (with supplemental alternate realities) where it could have been placed; and 3) That TSR did not understand what the hell it was that they had been vested with by Arneson, this as is partially recognized by the tussle to even immediately type it with its current signification, an RPG.



I’m betting on all three with a double nod to the last.


From my chapter in New Ethos',  Blackmoor, Greyhawk and Kalibruhn Interludes: At the Crossroads of Granularity & Ongoing Systemization
:

There has occurred a conflation of the once separate and distinct mechanical game utility and the conceptual game environs by way of converging them under rigid rules and isolated, linear formats. They are two distinct game foci differentiated by their own rules and laws and that intimately cross-communicate with each other, but in neither case is one the other. This has resulted in the conceptual territory being formalized as a sampled back-drop, much like a theatre set's trappings, removed from primary sight by demoting its once elevated status to a motif-laden semblance of itself, this while it is subordinated to a predominant, foregrounded mechanical structure. R.I.P. Fantasy…



Arneson never named what it was even though he created it and his players thought they were crazy playing whatever they termed for communication purposes. TSR finally did so for commercial reasons.  We (the LGTSA members, 1972 onward) called it FRP, which is closer to my Conceptual Games stance, I feel.  What we are dealing with here is the the summoning and sustaining of Fantasy. That has always been my take. 

Thus I feel that the system being evolvable (even by leaping to differently organized dimensional stratifications where RP would not predominate nor might it even exist), that it is OK for describing its RPG part as RP which we now engage in.  But even Arneson proved, as did University of Chicago Professors (1974), that its infinite conceptual base is just not cemented to the RP concept alone, that by stepping it in different conceptual directions that we achieve different self-organized views of its application ranges.  Right now, in as much as it has settled due to commercial needs leagued with entertainment wants, call it want one wishes.  However, and in my estimation based on experience and research, it is but a single strand of a greater picture Arneson intentionally or unintentionally revealed.

But I have already taken a stance on the corruption of Arneson's initial condition strand of this infinite concept as first played by the MMSA and then by us in 1972.  In fact it was this corruption that finally prompted me to seriously start my research around 2007.

ALL New Ethos in Game Design text © 2014-2018 Robert J. Kuntz

[robkuntz]

Jun 3, 2018 0:26:05 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

For now, I'm sticking with "rolegaming" as it merges the two most visible traits of what we're creating while playing. And I doubt I shall live to see its potential realized enough to provide a simpler noun.

What Rob has successfully proved is that Dave Arneson may have begun to create a game, but created a system of creating systems - which has applications that business, psychoanalysis, and war (or "defense," if you prefer) are trying to use in planning and strategy.

Which puts nonexistent limits on the Arneson creation. When it took this long for only one person to create it, and this long for another lone person to recognize it (and attempt to communicate his findings to the rest of us) it's going to be a long time before we find all its possible uses. There is a real possibility that we can rewire our thinking to simulate and test anything that we've been unable to imagine so far.

Because the universe(?) is/are not only stranger than we imagine, it's currently stranger than we CAN imagine.

That limit may vanish, because one young man was bored and wanted to play a serious game of Let’s Pretend.

Does this sound grandiose to you?

A refreshing way of stating what Arneson did.  Bravo!

[Admin Pete]

Jun 3, 2018 0:26:05 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Because the universe(?) is/are not only stranger than we imagine, it's currently stranger than we CAN imagine.

I was reading material by some physicists the other day and they were discussing the structure of the universe, black holes and what happens at the event horizon and a possible way that we can get information from inside the event horizon when two black holes are colliding and they came to the same conclusion that there are things about the universe that are stranger than we can currently imagine. So mormonyoyoman you are in good company indeed!

[Admin Pete]

Jun 3, 2018 4:39:43 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Jun 3, 2018 0:26:05 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

For now, I'm sticking with "rolegaming" as it merges the two most visible traits of what we're creating while playing. And I doubt I shall live to see its potential realized enough to provide a simpler noun.

What Rob has successfully proved is that Dave Arneson may have begun to create a game, but created a system of creating systems - which has applications that business, psychoanalysis, and war (or "defense," if you prefer) are trying to use in planning and strategy.

Which puts nonexistent limits on the Arneson creation. When it took this long for only one person to create it, and this long for another lone person to recognize it (and attempt to communicate his findings to the rest of us) it's going to be a long time before we find all its possible uses. There is a real possibility that we can rewire our thinking to simulate and test anything that we've been unable to imagine so far.

Because the universe(?) is/are not only stranger than we imagine, it's currently stranger than we CAN imagine.

That limit may vanish, because one young man was bored and wanted to play a serious game of Let’s Pretend.

Does this sound grandiose to you?

A refreshing way of stating what Arneson did.  Bravo!

Not grandiose to me and I'll add a Bravo and an Exalt!

[Keyone1234]

Jun 3, 2018 4:36:22 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Arneson never named what it was even though he created it and his players thought they were crazy playing whatever they termed for communication purposes. TSR finally did so for commercial reasons.  We (the LGTSA members, 1972 onward) called it FRP, which is closer to my Conceptual Games stance, I feel.  What we are dealing with here is the the summoning and sustaining of Fantasy. That has always been my take. 

Thus I feel that the system being evolvable (even by leaping to differently organized dimensional stratifications where RP would not predominate nor might it even exist), that it is OK for describing its RPG part as RP which we now engage in.  But even Arneson proved, as did University of Chicago Professors (1974), that its infinite conceptual base is just not cemented to the RP concept alone, that by stepping it in different conceptual directions that we achieve different self-organized views of its application ranges.  Right now, in as much as it has settled due to commercial needs leagued with entertainment wants, call it want one wishes.  However, and in my estimation based on experience and research, it is but a single strand of a greater picture Arneson intentionally or unintentionally revealed.

But I have already taken a stance on the corruption of Arneson's initial condition strand of this infinite concept as first played by the MMSA and then by us in 1972.  In fact it was this corruption that finally prompted me to seriously start my research around 2007.

ALL New Ethos in Game Design text © 2014-2018 Robert J. Kuntz

I have made several searches using Google for the University of Chicago Professors (1974) and have not found anything that seems to match. Is this something you can elaborate on or point me in the right direction?

Have you seen any one doing anything with other possible strands? An enigmatic yes would be fine if the reveal is in your book.

[robkuntz]

Jun 3, 2018 9:18:04 GMT -5 Keyone1234 said:

Jun 3, 2018 4:36:22 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Arneson never named what it was even though he created it and his players thought they were crazy playing whatever they termed for communication purposes. TSR finally did so for commercial reasons.  We (the LGTSA members, 1972 onward) called it FRP, which is closer to my Conceptual Games stance, I feel.  What we are dealing with here is the the summoning and sustaining of Fantasy. That has always been my take. 

Thus I feel that the system being evolvable (even by leaping to differently organized dimensional stratifications where RP would not predominate nor might it even exist), that it is OK for describing its RPG part as RP which we now engage in.  But even Arneson proved, as did University of Chicago Professors (1974), that its infinite conceptual base is just not cemented to the RP concept alone, that by stepping it in different conceptual directions that we achieve different self-organized views of its application ranges.  Right now, in as much as it has settled due to commercial needs leagued with entertainment wants, call it want one wishes.  However, and in my estimation based on experience and research, it is but a single strand of a greater picture Arneson intentionally or unintentionally revealed.

But I have already taken a stance on the corruption of Arneson's initial condition strand of this infinite concept as first played by the MMSA and then by us in 1972.  In fact it was this corruption that finally prompted me to seriously start my research around 2007.

ALL New Ethos in Game Design text © 2014-2018 Robert J. Kuntz

I have made several searches using Google for the University of Chicago Professors (1974) and have not found anything that seems to match. Is this something you can elaborate on or point me in the right direction?

Have you seen any one doing anything with other possible strands? An enigmatic yes would be fine if the reveal is in your book.

Yes.  Arneson used part of his own system to help teach Japanese students English.

As far as the professors, they sent us their letter which Gary read to the assembled staff, me included; and then it was filed away.  Presumed now to be lost because the section of his files from that time were lost with his removal from TSR and the ransacking of his file cabinet by people (or person in my estimation) unknown; but his copy of his Guidon Games Chainmaii survived, but I will not relay the story on the latter reasons (somewhat karmic) on how it was recovered.  Other means are being used to track those professors.

[robkuntz]

BTW. The shady deals in this industry and hobby continue out of view and have for some time.

[Jakob Grimm]

Jun 3, 2018 10:11:31 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

BTW. The shady deals in this industry and hobby continue out of view and have for some time.

Shady deals are one of those things that seem to be like death and taxes.

[mormonyoyoman]

Jun 4, 2018 13:57:19 GMT -5 Jakob Grimm said:

Jun 3, 2018 10:11:31 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

BTW. The shady deals in this industry and hobby continue out of view and have for some time.

Shady deals are one of those things that seem to be like death and taxes.

And reality shows.

[Jakob Grimm]

Jun 4, 2018 15:11:09 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Jun 4, 2018 13:57:19 GMT -5 Jakob Grimm said:

Shady deals are one of those things that seem to be like death and taxes.

And reality shows.

Those are what people refer to as a fate worse than death.

[mormonyoyoman]

My wife watches "reality" cooking shows with foul-mouthed/foul-spirited chef judges. These I refer to as Death Worse Than Fate.

I should hush before Evil Hat makes that a rolegame supplement.

[Admin Pete]

Jun 4, 2018 16:57:03 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

My wife watches "reality" cooking shows with foul-mouthed/foul-spirited chef judges. These I refer to as Death Worse Than Fate.

I should hush before Evil Hat makes that a rolegame supplement.

My wife watches those shows too, she says they are really nice on the cooking show where the competitors are kids.

[mormonyoyoman]

She is the target audience for Evil Hat's "Death Worser Than FATE" cooking RPG game with FUDGE dice.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 5, 2018 18:32:34 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Jun 4, 2018 16:57:03 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

My wife watches "reality" cooking shows with foul-mouthed/foul-spirited chef judges. These I refer to as Death Worse Than Fate.

I should hush before Evil Hat makes that a rolegame supplement.

My wife watches those shows too, she says they are really nice on the cooking show where the competitors are kids.

I like that show "Master Chef Kids Edition".