|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 20, 2016 5:24:04 GMT -5
But non corporate platforms are growing our hobby as they have always been doing; they still exist even outside the OSR mini corporations now extant for mere proliferation of "product". This platform here, this forum, is indeed an example of that as are many others far and wide, and not counting the clubs, meet ups and conventions small to large, the various online or print magazines, some brick and mortar game stores, of what remain, electronic mailing lists, Reddit, et al. I do not believe this is political, but what you suggest is some massive organization that would bring, supposedly, all of the various above-mentioned entities together or at least for a different fulcrum point? What I see is that you have not convincingly bulleted why that would be desirable or better or more meaningful than the current self-organized processes to date, and as I noted in the sparse samples above. Answering this question would perhaps move the bar of responses away from the superficial. Why will that be important and different compared to what is already apparent? Thanks! This I can work with  First of all, I agree with your assessments, but only to a point. Yes, those things exist, but they are in decline (imo) and are basically an American phenomenon. And although we have a very active anglophone scene (lots of DIY, zines, all the things you say), I got the impression that it's hard for newcomers to find orientation. Hard to a point where the level of investment doesn't seem worth the effort and that's to a huge degree due to the lack of proper connections to main stream media (signaling points of entry). One effect of this that corporations get better and better in monetizing and railroading what should be (again, imo) free in its access and development (very much what you say, I think). Another one is that the only public traction the hobby gets are attacks and scandals (I'm not sure you are aware of the whole gamergate Shoot that's hurting our hobby, but the link is one of the more recent examples). Here is couple of more observations: - I've moved to Leipzig, Germany about a year ago. The city has a very big and lively rpg and LARP community. When I offered to DM, I got in contact with the local club. In between a year they lost the possibility to have a place during the famous book fair (change of politics made it too expensive). Actually, all public relations came to a halt and it had been sheer luck that they can still offer a place to play. They are in desperate need of a concept like I offer in Part 3. - Although I have no problem of getting and keeping them, I hear many people complain about problems of finding and/or keeping groups. Campaigns are shorter, people have less time. I see this happening all over the place and believe it's a trend strongly related to aspects of consumerism that entail (but are not limited to) separation through individualization. Different work schedules, social circles spanning digitally across the whole world (and less and less locally), an abundance of media and games an other forms of entertainment. to counter those movements, I propose to use some of the same strategies (basically offering connectors). - Another problem I see very often occurring (and which you might not be aware of, given your standing in the scene) is that DMs often have a hard time getting accepted on a group level to begin with. This is connected to the lack of support from publishers (no proper DM tools in games, no explanations how to make the game your own and so on ...) and goes as far as reducing the DM to a "service provider" not unlike an entertainment system. I believe common technological and social trends enforce this kind of thinking and try to propose ideas to change that. - Another aspect of the DM dilemma described above, is the idea getting louder that DMs are entitled to some kind of compensation. I believe it tackles the problem from the wrong side, as it is true that people are trained today to see worth in stuff they payed for (capitalist consumerism), but I genuinely believe that it's important and should be possible to change our perception of what DMs do and are by other means (basically establishing other forms of recognition). - The only movements I see right now, are those towards monetisation, to be honest. All those zines and games and modules ... as soon as they get some traction, they go corporate. Take the current OSR as an example: the popular stuff is the stuff you have to pay for and the efforts of those just interested in making and sharing, are often overlooked. Quality isn't the issue, either. It's payed advertisement, greed and a general lack of concern toward our hobby about anything but who's willing to pay. Again, what I propose are ways to counter those developments. All those problems are real. Or at least I encounter them very often. The explanations and solutions I propose might not be perfect or for everyone, but it's what I got from my experience and my research. And alternatives are rare, as far as I'm aware of. What never did is proposing some sort of "massive organisation". Maybe it's better described as a hub, of sorts. Code of conduct, academic discourse, connectors and multiplicators with mass media, a platform for shared worlds, players, groups, public access to general information about the game, public relations in general ... there's a lot of stuff lacking right now. Sure, examples of it here and there, but in decline. Anyway, I hope this helps. It is a complex and demanding issue with many things to consider and examples to make But I firmly believe that something must be done about those developments or we'll go the way of the dodo (as books do, for instance). |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 20, 2016 7:30:16 GMT -5
"Code of conduct, academic discourse, connectors and multiplicators with mass media, a platform for shared worlds, players, groups, public access to general information about the game, public relations in general ... there's a lot of stuff lacking right now."
Well, excuse me for saying this, but the extent of what you propose certainly smacks of a large organizational endeavor as it intersects many areas and very much creates conditions for heavy developmental strain within many of the locales mentioned, such as, "a platform for shared worlds". This is rather a grandiose ideal you are projecting, a hub for an industry/hobby (for you cannot divorce the two in the ultimate sense of being inclusive of the their cross-pollination, however one rates the degree of such by relation).
The decline you sense is indeed in progress but has been so for many years. It's the diffusion brought about by a mainly consumeristic short-term model. All such models eventually fail. We saw TSR succumb to it and WotC has had its ups and downs, and are only sustained by their major brands, as RPG is not a major factor for their income stream in the PnP market. Their future is in branding their IP for online and CRPG purposes, an initiative forwarded by their parent company, Hasbro, through the promulgation of all of their longstanding brands.
I speak only for what I sense in America at this point, but that decline must come about to open the way for the future reorganization which, IMO, will be a reset of the original philosophy and a move back to Open Form and the move to unrestricted development of convergent models not extant. That is already starting to show its teeth in small ways (mostly among the Indies) while the entrenched mainstream model is still extant in D&D and in whatever edition.
The idea that the consumer model should then be organized into a hub will actually work, IMO, to push the antithesis of the original philosophy of decentralization. Why? Because the original philosophy must regrow to at least a parity before that move could gain traction, or else the current market philosophy will be maintained and promoted instead. So what is indeed happening in forums such as this one is paramount to that reorganization and in incrementally moving away from extant models and market positions. Thus I cannot concur with your observations or for your timing in such an enterprise as you suggest. It is a far-ranging ideal with some potential no doubt; and given its application in small and focused stages might well work to promote/grow the move back to a wider understanding of Arneson's original concept and what many are missing in it. But as a broad brushed application as you've suggested I see no expansion, at this time, for that purpose and it appears as a reinforcement of the current market oriented stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 20, 2016 8:21:52 GMT -5
"Code of conduct, academic discourse, connectors and multiplicators with mass media, a platform for shared worlds, players, groups, public access to general information about the game, public relations in general ... there's a lot of stuff lacking right now." Well, excuse me for saying this, but the extent of what you propose certainly smacks of a large organizational endeavor as it intersects many areas and very much creates conditions for heavy developmental strain within many of the locales mentioned, such as, "a platform for shared worlds". This is rather a grandiose ideal you are projecting, a hub for an industry/hobby (for you cannot divorce the two in the ultimate sense of being inclusive of the their cross-pollination, however one rates the degree of such by relation). The decline you sense is indeed in progress but has been so for many years. It's the diffusion brought about by a mainly consumeristic short-term model. All such models eventually fail. We saw TSR succumb to it and WotC has had its ups and downs, and are only sustained by their major brands, as RPG is not a major factor for their income stream in the PnP market. Their future is in branding their IP for online and CRPG purposes, an initiative forwarded by their parent company, Hasbro, through the promulgation of all of their longstanding brands. I speak only for what I sense in America at this point, but that decline must come about to open the way for the future reorganization which, IMO, will be a reset of the original philosophy and a move back to Open Form and the move to unrestricted development of convergent models not extant. That is already starting to show its teeth in small ways (mostly among the Indies) while the entrenched mainstream model is still extant in D&D and in whatever edition. The idea that the consumer model should then be organized into a hub will actually work, IMO, to push the antithesis of the original philosophy of decentralization. Why? Because the original philosophy must regrow to at least a parity before that move could gain traction, or else the current market philosophy will be maintained and promoted instead. So what is indeed happening in forums such as this one is paramount to that reorganization and in incrementally moving away from extant models and market positions. Thus I cannot concur with your observations or for your timing in such an enterprise as you suggest. It is a far-ranging ideal with some potential no doubt; and given its application in small and focused stages might well work to promote/grow the move back to a wider understanding of Arneson's original concept and what many are missing in it. But as a broad brushed application as you've suggested I see no expansion, at this time, for that purpose and it appears as a reinforcement of the current market oriented stance. Thank you very much, Mr. Kuntz. I love this answer and appreciate the perspective. I didn't really factor in that it might be useful to start a process like this way earlier (as a fourth wave OSR blogger I'm pretty well exposed to most of those initial ideas, but I agree, they are not common). It's also an interesting idea that the process of decline is a necessary impulse for that change. I thought something like that got started with the OSR, but recent developments seem to illustrate your point. It might be too early. That's some good food for thought right there and I will take it into account when I get a chance to realize (or discuss) some of those ideas in the future. I know that what I propose are pretty broad strokes and in their entirety not really supposed to work for "everyone". That's totally fine. I will see if I can get something like this done here in Leipzig and go from there. Especially the shared world concept and the DM tutorship, I think. There is also some interest online to get something like this started. We'll see how that goes. Small steps |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 20, 2016 9:16:59 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, I've been asked a couple of times now why you guys keep making this political (this being on public display and all). But writing something like "I read this carefully" and then ignoring that I quote Kant as a base of my proposal in the very beginning or that this is clearly arguing a DIY ethos (like you guys did in the very beginning of the hobby, actually), just to be able to say it's communism? That's making politics, maybe even tribalism. The difference between making politics or having a constructive argument? All right, I've said my piece. Keep making this about me or political and I will just ignore it. I condensed this and I do take exception to the idea that we as a group are making this political. As I read it one poster used the above terminology and as Mighty Darci indicated in a different thread we do have our resident grumpy curmudgeons but when you get to know them you will find out they have a heart of gold. As for having read Kant, that is fairly rare in this country as a whole these days; however, I believe that particular poster has likely read Kant. I think that we as a group are having a constructive argument/discussion and I do not think it is fair to portray it otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 20, 2016 10:00:33 GMT -5
I don't take this all personal. Nobody should, really (if so, I'm honestly sorry). It's a discussion between people that don't know a lot about each other, so it's not uncommon for things to get tense. But I believe you, Admin Pete, when you say those are all nice and sophisticated people. I think we are getting somewhere and it's all good. But I appreciate what you are doing here. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 20, 2016 10:35:05 GMT -5
I don't take this all personal. Nobody should, really (if so, I'm honestly sorry). It's a discussion between people that don't know a lot about each other, so it's not uncommon for things to get tense. But I believe you, Admin Pete , when you say those are all nice and sophisticated people. I think we are getting somewhere and it's all good. But I appreciate what you are doing here. Thanks! Good people that you would enjoy gaming with, yes! I cannot speak for all of us as being "sophisticated". As I grew up out in the countryside on a farm, I personally (in the world I grew up in) would view being "sophisticated" as an insult; however, I am not implying that you or anyone else intend it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 20, 2016 12:08:13 GMT -5
I don't take this all personal. Nobody should, really (if so, I'm honestly sorry). It's a discussion between people that don't know a lot about each other, so it's not uncommon for things to get tense. But I believe you, Admin Pete , when you say those are all nice and sophisticated people. I think we are getting somewhere and it's all good. But I appreciate what you are doing here. Thanks! Good people that you would enjoy gaming with, yes! I cannot speak for all of us as being "sophisticated". As I grew up out in the countryside on a farm, I personally (in the world I grew up in) would view being "sophisticated" as an insult; however, I am not implying that you or anyone else intend it that way. Reason has no social boundaries. The studious or riotous application of it, however, is another matter entirely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 13:14:05 GMT -5
But writing something like "I read this carefully" and then ignoring that I quote Kant as a base of my proposal in the very beginning or that this is clearly arguing a DIY ethos (like you guys did in the very beginning of the hobby, actually), just to be able to say it's communism? That's making politics, No. It's calling out a bad idea as a bad idea. I don't care if you claim to quote Kant, Hume, Plato, or Beethoven; your "controlling organization" of "non commercial" status makes me instantly think of Trotsky's criticism of Marxist-Leninism. "Code of conduct, academic discourse, connectors and multiplicators with mass media, a platform for shared worlds, players, groups, public access to general information about the game, public relations in general ... there's a lot of stuff lacking right now." Good. It's lacking because NOBODY WANTS IT. "Academic discourse" in this context is preposterous and fatuous and should be treated as such, for starters. Furthermore, the notion that a "central organization" will foster do-it-yourselfism is just plain silly; it doesn't even deserve the use of the word "nugatory." Bureaucracy does not foster originality. Small decentralized groups such as this do far more in the long run. You're proposing something that would be like the "Lecture to the Crowd" in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' -- "You are all individuals!" "WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" And as for your repeated claim that people have trouble getting or keeping players, I will continue to insist that this is a matter of common courtesy. Many informal social groups meet entirely successfully based on nothing more than keeping commitments. A silly idea does not suddenly deserve consideration just because the person who had the idea references a supposed academic citation. Absurdity is absurdity and should be called out as such. Your idea is neither useful (in that it will not produce what you claim it will produce) nor desirable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 13:19:35 GMT -5
And as for "people making this political"....
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Oct 20, 2016 14:30:01 GMT -5
And as for "people making this political".... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." @gronanofsimmerya, I have crossed swords with you elsewhere, but I think I owe you an apology, I am beginning to like and appreciate you. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 20, 2016 15:13:43 GMT -5
Good. It's lacking because NOBODY WANTS IT. "Academic discourse" in this context is preposterous and fatuous and should be treated as such, for starters. I must respectfully agree with @gronanofsimmerya here. In the anglo-US culture that I know, the proposal of getting "academic discourse" going about RPGs sounds pretty un-useful. Here is why I think so: I am not totally sure what The Disoriented Ranger means by academic discourse. My guess is that it's one of two things (if I'm wrong, I'm wrong): 1) thoughtful talk and experience-sharing with varying levels of formality, which things are already present in large quantities here and on a number of other forums and even blogs, not to mention non-public forums such as private mailing lists, conversations between friends, etc. Also, I still cannot see how the stuff proposed would encourage such thoughtful talk. I agree that thoughtful talk is positive, but I don't see how this can add to it. (In this case, I wouldn't agree with the notion that "nobody wants it", but I don't think this is the sense that @gronanofsimmerya is referring to) 2) a jargon-filled puddle of useless chatter and writing dedicated to the prevention and destruction of actual learning. I think this is CLOSER to what @gronanofsimmerya means, but I do not know. This is my first thought when someone says "academic discourse" (I say this as an academic / former academic). While there are some dedicated teachers at all levels of formal education, even a few in the "ivory towers" of the famous schools with large graduate programs (and please see Admin Pete's post here, especially the last paragraph, for something I quite agree with)..."academic discourse" means more or less what it means to me to an awful lot of people. Further, the tone and vocabulary of it are so poisoned -- even if only by association with anti-life, anti-learning attitudes -- that even in the best possible circumstances, getting "academic discourse" going about RPGs would serve no purpose except to turn off a bunch of people who might otherwise have liked the game. I understand that you did not mean "useless chatter", The Disoriented Ranger, and I am not implying that you did. But when you say "Code of conduct, academic discourse..." I feel dizzy, even though I know you didn't mean that (but I'm still not quite sure what you meant). Everything I know as "academic discourse" is the opposite of everything good I have learned from this board and others like it. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 20, 2016 15:32:34 GMT -5
- The only movements I see right now, are those towards monetisation, to be honest. All those zines and games and modules ... as soon as they get some traction, they go corporate. Take the current OSR as an example: the popular stuff is the stuff you have to pay for and the efforts of those just interested in making and sharing, are often overlooked. In no way am I an expert on the work-products of people associated with the OSR, but I must say that, while I have downloaded a few paid items (usually a pittance for what must have required more than a solid chunk of work), I have found that there are many skilled people offering up their work as PDFs or posts on / through forums -- more work than I could ever read, use, adapt, or be inspired by. For free. Errata documents, house rules, worlds, new games with weird core mechanics (have you seen this over at Dragonsfoot? Threw me for a loop!), unbelievable mounds of material. I understand that there may be some outfits that try to "go commercial", but I don't really see the harm. If you ignored every paid thing on principle, you'd still have more than you could ever shake ten sticks at. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 20, 2016 16:34:50 GMT -5
The Laws of the Internet state that if you notice that a resource isn't there, and you want it to be, then you have to put it there. Others have tried this approach and have failed. I agree with you on many points, and I know that you have honorable intent, The Disoriented Ranger but the fact is that if the Sad DM can't recognize his mistakes and errors and seek to fix them, he isn't a good DM. There are limitations placed upon us by our personalities, and stubbornness can only get you so far. Then you have corporate lies. Wizards of the Coast would have you believe that if they hadn't so gallantly purchased the Dungeons & Dragons brand, than it would had disappeared forever and all of the children in the world would cry. D&D has name recognition going for it, which is kind of funny considering that it is a generic product to begin with, but whatever. We can see this. We can't force WotC to publish productive and valuable material by asking them too, the market has to dictate this. WotC's war on piracy was a disaster, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and this is the way that it is now. The OSR formed from this very idea, Screw The Man! Well, now some of the founding fathers of the OSR are now The Man. The OSR as a body is already fractured, most of the OSR posts are ads for products that we don't need, and even if some of them are actually useful, you can't find them because the bulk of it isn't the hard stuff, it is all the easy stuff, content which we like to create ourselves. We've got ourselves another Videogame Crash, ATARI didn't lock out competitors, but I doubt that a Corporate NINTENDO is ever going to come along to fix this. I think that 5e is a step in the right direction, but it is still off the mark. We don't want rules, we want options. The new users are going to figure this stuff out on their own. I think that every one of us has gotten to the point where we hit a wall, where we find the limitations of the system and we are on our own. You just have to figure out how to get around it. That is how we became advanced users. If we take this away, then the hobby becomes stagnant. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 20, 2016 16:55:20 GMT -5
The Laws of the Internet state that if you notice that a resource isn't there, and you want it to be, then you have to put it there. Others have tried this approach and have failed. I agree with you on many points, and I know that you have honorable intent, The Disoriented Ranger but the fact is that if the Sad DM can't recognize his mistakes and errors and seek to fix them, he isn't a good DM. There are limitations placed upon us by our personalities, and stubbornness can only get you so far. Then you have corporate lies. Wizards of the Coast would have you believe that if they hadn't so gallantly purchased the Dungeons & Dragons brand, than it would had disappeared forever and all of the children in the world would cry. D&D has name recognition going for it, which is kind of funny considering that it is a generic product to begin with, but whatever. We can see this. We can't force WotC to publish productive and valuable material by asking them too, the market has to dictate this. WotC's war on piracy was a disaster, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and this is the way that it is now. The OSR formed from this very idea, Screw The Man! Well, now some of the founding fathers of the OSR are now The Man. The OSR as a body is already fractured, most of the OSR posts are ads for products that we don't need, and even if some of them are actually useful, you can't find them because the bulk of it isn't the hard stuff, it is all the easy stuff, content which we like to create ourselves. We've got ourselves another Videogame Crash, ATARI didn't lock out competitors, but I doubt that a Corporate NINTENDO is ever going to come along to fix this. I think that 5e is a step in the right direction, but it is still off the mark. We don't want rules, we want options. The new users are going to figure this stuff out on their own. I think that every one of us has gotten to the point where we hit a wall, where we find the limitations of the system and we are on our own. You just have to figure out how to get around it. That is how we became advanced users. If we take this away, then the hobby becomes stagnant. Well put. I warned about some of the things you note some 6 years ago: lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.fr/2010/07/from-desktop-my-final-stance-on-osr.htmlThe marketing model that TSR employed 1977 onward is being retread to death and with that so are the players options within a closed system environment that the model is constructed around. This is the real problem that I have been writing on and studying for solutions now for the past 8 years+. There are huge consequences from this marketing model that are directly related to much of the diffusion that now exists in RPGs and the disconsolate view of them being just entertainment vehicles (especially D&D), quite the opposite of what was realized by the founders, like myself, 1971-1976. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 20, 2016 18:20:02 GMT -5
Actually, I remember this post robkuntz and I remember silently thinking that you were wrong. James Raggi was a great guy, he'd go out of his way to help people out, I remember having trouble with the whole HEX Crawl thing, and he really helped me figure it out. He was a very active and productive member of our community, and now he's gone. Well, he isn't gone, he just doesn't seem to participate anymore. Same for all of the talking heads of that movement. A few are still around, but its all ads. I wanted to believe in him, I really did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 23:52:37 GMT -5
Good. It's lacking because NOBODY WANTS IT. "Academic discourse" in this context is preposterous and fatuous and should be treated as such, for starters. I must respectfully agree with @gronanofsimmerya here. In the anglo-US culture that I know, the proposal of getting "academic discourse" going about RPGs sounds pretty un-useful. For me, it is because there IS such a thing as OVERTHINKING. I dropped out of this hobby for almost 15 years and drifted back in around 2003 or 2004. People on many Internet fora talk about RPGs using the same sort of language and analysis as you see in a college freshman literature essay. Such an approach is neither useful nor enjoyable. Personally I think it's because people are overeducated and underemployed and so they turn their academic yearnings into inappropriate directions. Just like a few years ago somebody started to make a fuss about "Is model railroading an artform." Fortunately for my digestion, the entire hobby answered with "who cares" and the question has stayed well and truly dead, a stake in its heart, its head cut off, the eyes shown shut, the mouth filled with garlic, the head buried face down at a crossroads at midnight on a moonless night, the body burned, and the ashes sprinkled on running water. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 21, 2016 1:16:26 GMT -5
Actually, I remember this post robkuntz and I remember silently thinking that you were wrong. James Raggi was a great guy, he'd go out of his way to help people out, I remember having trouble with the whole HEX Crawl thing, and he really helped me figure it out. He was a very active and productive member of our community, and now he's gone. Well, he isn't gone, he just doesn't seem to participate anymore. Same for all of the talking heads of that movement. A few are still around, but its all ads. I wanted to believe in him, I really did. Far from being wrong, I was spot on. But i had seen several of the play's ACTS before while at TSR. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 21, 2016 1:42:50 GMT -5
I must respectfully agree with @gronanofsimmerya here. In the anglo-US culture that I know, the proposal of getting "academic discourse" going about RPGs sounds pretty un-useful. For me, it is because there IS such a thing as OVERTHINKING. I dropped out of this hobby for almost 15 years and drifted back in around 2003 or 2004. People on many Internet fora talk about RPGs using the same sort of language and analysis as you see in a college freshman literature essay. Such an approach is neither useful nor enjoyable. Personally I think it's because people are overeducated and underemployed and so they turn their academic yearnings into inappropriate directions. Just like a few years ago somebody started to make a fuss about "Is model railroading an artform." Fortunately for my digestion, the entire hobby answered with "who cares" and the question has stayed well and truly dead, a stake in its heart, its head cut off, the eyes shown shut, the mouth filled with garlic, the head buried face down at a crossroads at midnight on a moonless night, the body burned, and the ashes sprinkled on running water. But don't forget that it "hurt" being ignored. That's why they've created "safe spaces" everywhere, including at train stations... I believe that the "shared world" angle might be revitalized (unlike and like that society for creating Living Greyhawk) as a way of creative engagement. Arneson did it with his group and so did Gary and I. It would stir the pot in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 21, 2016 2:28:28 GMT -5
I already answered that, hengest, and you are wrong on both accounts (although I like 1, that's how it should be). With "academic discourse" I mean the actual thing: rpgs being a matter of research in a way that goes beyond one guy every 2 years. There are several fields of study possible, like social studies, anthropology, history, literature, psychology and so on (and I offered links to this further above), but I'll raise you one and add that you already can study game design for computer games for 28 years now! You don't have to like it and this is not about the quality of universities in America or elsewhere, I just stated a lack of it and the general use it could have (which could than lead to fringe benefits and so on ...). You don't want that? Fine. Ignore it. As for "code of conduct". You seem surprised and yet it's also nothing new but something that the early rule books already had (DM authority, how to solve conflicts at the table): AD&D 1e DMG, page 110; D&D Rules Cyclopedia, page 144; B1: In Search of the Unknown, page 6 or the first chapter in the 3e DMG ... I'm sure there is more like that and I don't believe it's such a strange idea to provide a set like it for groups to agree upon. A quite successful example for this is the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but it was something referenced quite often and helped formulating a base people could agree upon. That's what I'm talking about. But this is getting repetitive and more and more aggressive. As I said before, we don't have to agree (although I think we do agree a lot, actually). I agree, for example, that the OSR produced and produces more great material as any sane human being could ever use. And yes, most of it is really very cheap, considered the time, effort and usability they offer. I think what I miss most here is that the people who concentrate now on publishing, stopped blogging almost entirely (mostly reduced to announcements). It somehow took the drive and focus out of the movement. Still, lots of good stuff and heaven for collectors like myself. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 21, 2016 2:51:07 GMT -5
We had academic discourse 30-40 years ago. It almost killed us.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 21, 2016 3:13:13 GMT -5
We had academic discourse 30-40 years ago. It almost killed us. No, we hadn't. That was an attack. All of those accusations have been proven wrong and those kind of witch hunts get more and more unlikely the more that little research that is already done gets solidified. Although they still happen (see that gamer white male terrorist scandal I linked here at the end and above somewhere). That something like this can still happen today should give a gamer pause, I think. I mean, the propaganda that first person shooters make killers out of players keeps coming up and people still believe it although studies dismissed it very clearly (not one, but several studies). Without something like that to rely upon, you leave a huge opening for abuse like that. The Satanic Panic and recent events have shown as much. Why ignore it? Are there other solutions for a problem like that? Edit: Oh yeah, an active club scene and public relations could have helped against smear campaigns like that. But that had been dismissed here, too, right? A code of conduct with a clear stance against sexism, maybe? Way to obvious to even care, right? Common sense, isn't it? Now they struggle to create "safe places" for women in gaming and the hobby is yet again smeared ... |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 21, 2016 3:36:09 GMT -5
Learning never stops. D&D was a design that had never before been put forward in the history of play and games. The question in this case is a recurring one. What is it? That also begs: can its conceptual base be expanded beyond its initial state? Design is relevant to what parts of academic discourse that touch upon it either as an explainable and/or expandable system. That has been my course as a designer for almost 9 years and while incorporating 40+ years of design experience. The difficulty lies in making such observations useful in a general way; and when academia goes that direction they are more likely to advance real scholarship, which is useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Oct 21, 2016 16:01:31 GMT -5
But this is getting repetitive and more and more aggressive. As I said before, we don't have to agree (although I think we do agree a lot, actually). I have to say I am not seeing the "more and more aggressive," assertive but not aggressive. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 21, 2016 18:18:19 GMT -5
We had academic discourse 30-40 years ago. It almost killed us. No, we hadn't. That was an attack. All of those accusations have been proven wrong and those kind of witch hunts get more and more unlikely the more that little research that is already done gets solidified. Although they still happen (see that gamer white male terrorist scandal I linked here at the end and above somewhere). That something like this can still happen today should give a gamer pause, I think. I mean, the propaganda that first person shooters make killers out of players keeps coming up and people still believe it although studies dismissed it very clearly (not one, but several studies). Without something like that to rely upon, you leave a huge opening for abuse like that. The Satanic Panic and recent events have shown as much. Why ignore it? Are there other solutions for a problem like that? Edit: Oh yeah, an active club scene and public relations could have helped against smear campaigns like that. But that had been dismissed here, too, right? A code of conduct with a clear stance against sexism, maybe? Way to obvious to even care, right? Common sense, isn't it? Now they struggle to create "safe places" for women in gaming and the hobby is yet again smeared ... I think that you are getting distracted. I've been thinking about everything that you have to say and I think that you've kind of nailed it. A code of conduct for socially retarded nerds is out of the question, we don't comply to social norms. Organizing games is a local thing, we can't influence that either. The real issue may be with the OSR, it has spiraled out of control. It has no head, no quality control, but it is now a Brand Name. It has unwittingly and unintentionally adapted the same marketing plan as WotC, well HASBRO really, it markets to new users, but the products are low quality and don't really fit the needs of the people who keep buying them. New users probably don't even know what an OSR is! As it stands, it appears to be a bunch of hack selling juvenile crap to their friends. Who is publishing this stuff? I bet you that I could write utter nonsense, create rules that constantly conflict, and just rehash concepts from Forgotten Realms. I can have it full of misspellings, ignore grammar, and steal artwork from coloring books and it would be published. Give a few copies to people with instructions to lie about how good it is, and then see what people have to say about it. I bet that they would say nothing at all. The publisher don't care, and the consumers buy so much stuff that I bet that they don't even read half of it, it just sits there in a folder on their hard-drive taking up space. I will go one step further, I bet that you could take the exact same text, with different stolen art from a different coloring book and resell it again and again, and nobody would care. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 23:45:11 GMT -5
Rip, I see where you're heading here. I kind of disagree about the OSR being "a brand name." RPGs are a fringe hobby, and the OSR is a tiny fringe of a tiny fringe of that fringe hobby. I think I only know one or two people who know what the OSR even is out of a pool of about fifty or sixty friends involved in RPGs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 22, 2016 1:44:32 GMT -5
@gronanofsimmerya you may be right. A lot of the blogs that I read are OSR, it could just be me. On Google+, the Dungeons & Dragons group has 12,132 subscribers, this is a public forum, you don't need to be a member to see the content, so we really don't know the true numbers of how many people are on it. The OSR group has 4,650, again, you don't need to be a member. It could just be an illusion that these products are selling. I am just over-exposed and sensitive to such matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 22, 2016 2:40:17 GMT -5
Ih his video interview several years ago James Raggi is noted for saying that the OSR "is all about product". From my upcoming book, A New Ethos in Game Design, from the chapter "Images of Fantasy & Fact": One OSR publisher summed up what the industry was (at least from his OSR POV, a smaller version of what mainstay publishers have projected for years): “The OSR is all about product.” Think about that. Not about specific products; not about new ideas, thus products with these attached to them that would add vitality to the hobby; but just products. He might as well have admitted that it is in fact an assembly line for images; for that is what our hobby-cum-industry has been for many years. It has not been about discovering new Fantasy, or in empowering you to do so with new ideas. It’s all about consuming the image. Which leads me to my next example. Example #4 (Werewolves! Get your werewolves! On Google+ 2012): I could have chosen from literally hundreds of such examples that I have been exposed to since being on Google+. In fact I had to remove a particular blog from my stream that was a broker for this tripe, and that was sending images and contracted descriptions of the products to which they attach, at a clip of sometimes 4 posts per day. But this one was so endearing as it brought back memories of my days at the Milwaukee Braves baseball games and of those hot dog hucksters who were always close by for your consuming pleasure. The actual quote from the post went like this: Title: “Werewolves!” “Hey! It’s a game with werewolves! You know you like werewolves! Check it out!” Both an image and an appropriate link to the publisher’s site were attached. Short and simple in the sales sense. Note the assumptive, “You know you like werewolves!” Not meant to be anything but a driver to the site? In part. That’s what marketing and sales is largely about, to get you (or them) in the door. That produces a sense of being there; and being there in American consumerism is half of the sales solution. The other half becomes problematical and especially on the Internet where there is no-one live to keep you in a suspended state of being sold. That is why some sites have now included live-chat “CSRs” (i.e., they are actually sales professionals there to close you as you have indicated by arriving at their site that you are a buyer in buy mode). ... Extracted text copyright Robert J. Kuntz 2014-2016. All rights reserved. Edit: Fixed your name, Admin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 3:33:59 GMT -5
@gronanofsimmerya you may be right. A lot of the blogs that I read are OSR, it could just be me. On Google+, the Dungeons & Dragons group has 12,132 subscribers, this is a public forum, you don't need to be a member to see the content, so we really don't know the true numbers of how many people are on it. The OSR group has 4,650, again, you don't need to be a member. It could just be an illusion that these products are selling. I am just over-exposed and sensitive to such matters. I'm sure they're selling, but the question is "how much." Either White Wolf or SJG recentlysaid that their print runs ran in the 3000 to 5000 numbers. Compared to the boom of the hobby in the early 80s, that's peanuts. As I've said many times before, "you can make tens and tens of dollars in the RPG industry." A thousand sales in terms of the US population is nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 22, 2016 5:18:12 GMT -5
Quality and not quantity except when you can achieve both, of course, which is the cat's meow. Production states that we accept less quality for more quantity and filter the dross on our own. The practical side of pre-mass consumerism in the US states that quality and quantity are one and the same. This will always be an issue to the above average consumer but never for the average publisher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Oct 22, 2016 10:21:57 GMT -5
Can someone translate that into standard English. I have a decent vocabulary, but I cannot follow that. Demoiselle, more people need to follow George Orwell's rules of writing: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. More people need to read Politics and the English Language, full stop. By reading the whole thing one understands that Orwell's rules do not exist for their own sake, nor for the sake of correctness, but to address a real failing in communication and thought. (Good thread, this, by the way. I shall refrain from gabbling in response to everything I've agreed with but I shall be liberally Exalting people for a few minutes after hitting 'Create Post'.) |
|
First of all, I agree with your assessments, but only to a point. Yes, those things exist, but they are in decline (imo) and are basically an American phenomenon. And although we have a very active anglophone scene (lots of DIY, zines, all the things you say), I got the impression that it's hard for newcomers to find orientation. Hard to a point where the level of investment doesn't seem worth the effort and that's to a huge degree due to the lack of proper connections to main stream media (signaling points of entry). One effect of this that corporations get better and better in monetizing and railroading what should be (again, imo) free in its access and development (very much what you say, I think). Another one is that the only public traction the hobby gets are attacks and scandals (I'm not sure you are aware of the whole gamergate Shoot that's hurting our hobby, but the link is one of the more recent examples). Here is couple of more observations:
