|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 22, 2016 11:25:27 GMT -5
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. I'm curious about the context of that quote. I'm very familiar with Steve Jackson Games, and I'm sure they'd be the first to agree that volume in RPGs today is peanuts compared to its heyday. They have moved to a mostly-PDF model of supporting GURPS, with only the Basic Set guaranteed to always be in print. This is the reality of today's market. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 22, 2016 12:03:25 GMT -5
I used to get reports on sales with my royalty checks and I can guarantee that the market these days as opposed to TSR's heyday, at least, is peanuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 22, 2016 13:12:14 GMT -5
The Internet changed everything, back in the 80's publishers controlled the market. I always joke that I wrote for my trashcan, but I wrote for the small group of friends that I had, lots of people did this. Once the Internet opened up, many of these people found each other and it was a really great time! We got to write for a much larger audience, this audience was still our peers, but that didn't matter. We wrote fiction, we critiqued each others work, we enjoyed writing and we enjoyed reading. Technology changed, as it always did, but we didn't. We utilized BBSs, such as this one, and catalogers would put them on the web. Some catalogers were picky, some weren't. Some writers of content were serious and always wanted to improve, while others would just get really mad. You can see talent. I wrote and cataloged and edited for talented people, and we compiled netbooks, they were never sold, they were not seen as products. We had professionals in our groups, they would have fun writing just for fun too, they would catalog, and they would support the talented. Some individuals were contacted by publishers and they transitioned from amateur to pro, but that wasn't the point. There was really really good fiction writers, amateurs that had no interest in being pro, they didn't want this to be a job, they wanted it simply because it brought them joy.
Amateurs, that is the key word. Today we have blogs, I maintain a blog because it brings me joy. The stuff that I post is not up to par, when I was writing and editing fiction it could take months of fine tuning before I got sick of the piece and published it. Blog posts can be 1-3 drafts and that is it. Sometimes I don't even bother polishing it until after it's already been published. Blog's provide instant gratification, the work is not complete. The topics that we create in one sitting are not worthy of being called products, and it irritates me to see some dude want money for his work, even if it is only a couple of bucks, it is still insulting. Amateur writing is meant to be free, there were, and are writers with a lot more talent and style that never earned a dime, and didn't want to. Even writers like Clive Barker and Steven King would participate, the point behind Internet publishing is freedom. It is doing your part to perpetuate this art, and sharing your work with others. These aren't products. Products are the collected work of many many people, not just the person writing.
I know that I am making a big deal out of a little thing, but I'm offended. I've seen many writers who were much better share their work; This is the 'spirit' of the Internet. Corporate ideals are not to be idolized, or emulated. Not here. Okay, I'll step off of my soap box now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 13:18:23 GMT -5
I liked the OSR better when it was a bunch of blogs posting really good free stuff all the time ... it seemed like a competition then to see who could be more awesome ... it was actually fun to read a bloglist ... not like today where everyone is thinking to hard about having fun or bombarding you with ads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 14:14:44 GMT -5
it irritates me to see some dude want money for his work, even if it is only a couple of bucks, it is still insulting. Amateur writing is meant to be free, I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. A person is free to ask for money for their "amateur" writing. The rest of the universe is just as free to say "no," however. You can ASK for anything you want. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 22, 2016 14:28:16 GMT -5
it irritates me to see some dude want money for his work, even if it is only a couple of bucks, it is still insulting. Amateur writing is meant to be free, I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. A person is free to ask for money for their "amateur" writing. The rest of the universe is just as free to say "no," however. You can ASK for anything you want. Amateur means "for the love of it." But amateur garage band musicians go out and play gigs for money and some even progress to larger deals. The idea that a novice or aspiring writer might want to do what he or she does best and make money for it is acceptable. Writing is an investment of time and endeavor like anything else. Try to get your dentistry for free, for instance, just because a doc loved dentistry enough to go to school and study on his own. Art for arts sake has its limits and those are described by each individual according to their circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 22, 2016 14:48:45 GMT -5
it irritates me to see some dude want money for his work, even if it is only a couple of bucks, it is still insulting. Amateur writing is meant to be free, I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. A person is free to ask for money for their "amateur" writing. The rest of the universe is just as free to say "no," however. You can ASK for anything you want. I missed that line and I agree with @gronanofsimmerya and robkuntz on this part of it. No one is suddenly a "bad" person because they ask to be paid for something. No one is forcing anyone to buy what they don't want. When something costs money, then it is up to me to decide if "for me" it is worth what is being charged. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 22, 2016 17:50:45 GMT -5
I am showing my true colors here. I'm not saying that it is morally wrong to profit, I am just saying that it offends my personal code that states that the internet is designed as a place to freely exchange ideas. I know that I am an Internet dinosaur, but I watched Usenet fall due to spam. The bots are still blasting the servers long after the people have left. The same is happening with the WWW, but on a grander scale. Worse, now the bots can target us as individuals if we let them, and that terrifies me. We have to promote ourselves, that is what we do. I am angry because blogs have gone silent. I hate that I have to weed through so much data just to get to some decent content, that may or may not even be there. We set up open networks to network and then they turn into the monsters that we tried to get away from in the first place. It's annoying.
BTW: I'm a discontent, I can't help it. I can edit that out of my blog posts, but message boards thrive on raw data. You can't hide what you are with raw data. That is what makes them a lot more useful to networking than blogs ever will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 22, 2016 18:07:08 GMT -5
I am showing my true colors here. I'm not saying that it is morally wrong to profit, I am just saying that it offends my personal code that states that the internet is designed as a place to freely exchange ideas. I know that I am an Internet dinosaur, but I watched Usenet fall due to spam. The bots are still blasting the servers long after the people have left. The same is happening with the WWW, but on a grander scale. Worse, now the bots can target us as individuals if we let them, and that terrifies me. We have to promote ourselves, that is what we do. I am angry because blogs have gone silent. I hate that I have to weed through so much data just to get to some decent content, that may or may not even be there. We set up open networks to network and then they turn into the monsters that we tried to get away from in the first place. It's annoying. BTW: I'm a discontent, I can't help it. I can edit that out of my blog posts, but message boards thrive on raw data. You can't hide what you are with raw data. That is what makes them a lot more useful to networking than blogs ever will be. That's because the Internet turned most everything into a village. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 19:44:52 GMT -5
I am showing my true colors here. I'm not saying that it is morally wrong to profit, I am just saying that it offends my personal code that states that the internet is designed as a place to freely exchange ideas. I know that I am an Internet dinosaur, but I watched Usenet fall due to spam. The bots are still blasting the servers long after the people have left. The same is happening with the WWW, but on a grander scale. Worse, now the bots can target us as individuals if we let them, and that terrifies me. We have to promote ourselves, that is what we do. I am angry because blogs have gone silent. I hate that I have to weed through so much data just to get to some decent content, that may or may not even be there. We set up open networks to network and then they turn into the monsters that we tried to get away from in the first place. It's annoying. BTW: I'm a discontent, I can't help it. I can edit that out of my blog posts, but message boards thrive on raw data. You can't hide what you are with raw data. That is what makes them a lot more useful to networking than blogs ever will be. I'm old enough to remember the frothing and foaming about "The INTERNET must be free!" Ducky. Who's supposed to pay for all the hardware and software? It doesn't happen by magic. It offends my personal code to see people insist that they get something for nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 22, 2016 23:58:13 GMT -5
The internet is a place to exchange ideas freely, but it is not limited to that. Take this forum for instance, proboards provides it and thousands of others for free, I don't have to pay a dime to host this place. However, proboards does show ads and across all the forums and all the millions of users enough people click on those ads to pay for all of this. Some people are retired and when they blog (and etc.) they may need to make a little money to pay for their internet connection so that they have access to post on that blog. There are a lot of people in a lot of situations and I assume that if someone is trying to make a little money, perhaps they really need that little bit of money. I am 60 and down the road about 7.5 years I hope to retire and then, depending on the economy, inflation and a host of other things, I might be there person who needs to make a few bucks here and there to stay online. It is great when people can put information out there for free, but not everyone is able to do that and as I said, if they are trying to make a few bucks, maybe they really need to. Most of us pay for our internet connections and unless you are really lucky that may cost you close to $500+/-/year to have enough speed to make it usable, and not everyone comes by that $ $500+/-/year all that easy.
I am much more concerned about ISP's saying pay us a fee or we will throttle traffic to your site.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 23, 2016 3:11:00 GMT -5
TANSTAFL
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 23, 2016 3:22:33 GMT -5
I'll drop the money issue. I will answer your question @gronanofsimmerya we do, and we pay for way more then that. We all have different views on money, and we always have. I got enough crap off of my chest, now, lets talk about gaming  As far as accountability, this thread has helped me better understand my audience, and identify that they are not new players, but advanced players. As a blogger it is my responsibly to practice what I preach. This makes things a lot more difficult, but I like difficult. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 17:19:04 GMT -5
"You can't HANDLE difficult!"  |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 23, 2016 19:46:27 GMT -5
See this blog post here, the first of a series. From the The Disoriented Ranger.I am curious as to how much of this resonates with the DMs on the forum. Bitd with my first group that I played every week during the school year for four years, I did not encounter any of what is the this essay. Of course there were no published settings, no personal computer and a lot of the other things mentioned in the article so the environment was different. Some parts do resonate currently and I may comment later on some of those things. Right now I am looking for your thoughts. (I will say that I don't use plots and a player action can not destroy the reason for my game, if the story is created through play instead of being in place and the players need to cooperate with a story it solves a lot of problems IMO.) Edit: Fixed the link! I think the author is conflating a lot of issues and thinking that his situation is one experienced by the general hobby. Because of the internet every niche has an audience and every person can flit from niche to niche based on his interests at the time. The biggest thing to remember is that because of digital technology and the Internet has dramatically lowered costs of communications, distribution, and production of creative works. The consequences of this are 1) we hear everybody story ranging from positive experiences to the negative 2) Lower barriers make it that much easier for people to switch attention from one entertainment to another. Overall I feel it is a wash, the good stuff endures not because people use it all the time but they come back to it time and time again. A person may not find a group this year but then next year hears another and find it easier to pick up where they left off. 3) Many niches are experiencing renaissance because people can collaborate on ideas and more importantly multiple things are tried. It only takes one to work to keep it alive. 4) Easier communication mean that it easier for people to hook not just over the internet but locally as well. That my take on it. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 23, 2016 22:28:38 GMT -5
My own observation is that the diversity of material in the OSR is due to the Open Gaming License and the easy of distribution via the Internet. The good stuff is blogged about and word of it spreads around. That how I get most of my sales for the Majestic Wilderlands (released in 2009), Blackmarsh (released in 2010), and Scourge of the Demon Wolf (released in 2012). Every time it get mentioned somewhere, I see a handful of sales. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Jan 10, 2021 18:12:50 GMT -5
This thread is from 2016 so a lot of you have not seen it. Comments!
|
|
|
|
Post by Shroompunk Warlord on Jan 11, 2021 20:39:12 GMT -5
I've only read part 1 of the blog post and he does identify that there's a lot more work on the DM side, and players who don't appreciate that work-- or the other players' work-- suck both in the sense that they are a miserable chore to have to deal with, and also in the sense that they suck the joy and the life out of everything they touch.
If that's their opening play, at the beginning of the first session of the "campaign", that is them telling you in clear, unambiguous terms what they think of you, your friends, and your game.
This isn't even a "plotline" versus "sandbox" argument: this is about contempt, and about how allowing contempt to rest without retaliation invites more contempt.
Screw that guy.
I've been that guy before. I don't even know why I was that guy before. I regret being that guy. But what I know, from being that guy and looking over the screen at that guy, is that the only ways to handle it are (absolutely no more than once) asking them nicely to play along or telling them to get their stuff, get out, and get bent.
A big part of why I developed my playstyle the way I have, is that when I was that guy I was in a group full of those guys. If they wanted to kill my magical princess in the first session, screw it, that's the adventure we're going on now. Because, as appears to be the consensus here, telling a story should be emergent gameplay in a roleplaying game, not the focus. (As a bonus, you can totally play all those narrative-driven "storygames" just like traditional games, if you're willing to let go.)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Jan 12, 2021 0:14:43 GMT -5
I've only read part 1 of the blog post and he does identify that there's a lot more work on the DM side, and players who don't appreciate that work-- or the other players' work-- suck both in the sense that they are a miserable chore to have to deal with, and also in the sense that they suck the joy and the life out of everything they touch. If that's their opening play, at the beginning of the first session of the "campaign", that is them telling you in clear, unambiguous terms what they think of you, your friends, and your game. This isn't even a "plotline" versus "sandbox" argument: this is about contempt, and about how allowing contempt to rest without retaliation invites more contempt. Screw that guy.I've been that guy before. I don't even know why I was that guy before. I regret being that guy. But what I know, from being that guy and looking over the screen at that guy, is that the only ways to handle it are (absolutely no more than once) asking them nicely to play along or telling them to get their stuff, get out, and get bent. A big part of why I developed my playstyle the way I have, is that when I was that guy I was in a group full of those guys. If they wanted to kill my magical princess in the first session, screw it, that's the adventure we're going on now. Because, as appears to be the consensus here, telling a story should be emergent gameplay in a roleplaying game, not the focus. (As a bonus, you can totally play all those narrative-driven "storygames" just like traditional games, if you're willing to let go.) How do you define "storygames?" |
|
|
|
Post by Shroompunk Warlord on Jan 12, 2021 5:10:41 GMT -5
How do you define "storygames?"
I try not to, if I can avoid it. Generally, I'm just saying Cortex Prime because it's my favorite and because it's the one that's easiest to play as close to a rules-lite early D&D, but FATE Freeport can be very close to an old school game if the players want it to be. Just depends on how you define an "Aspect" or "Asset" or what-have-you.
I literally got into Fate, in the first place, because I wanted a system I could play Planescape in where your Beliefs actually mattered, mechanically.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Jan 12, 2021 11:29:14 GMT -5
How do you define "storygames?"
I try not to, if I can avoid it. Generally, I'm just saying Cortex Prime because it's my favorite and because it's the one that's easiest to play as close to a rules-lite early D&D, but FATE Freeport can be very close to an old school game if the players want it to be. Just depends on how you define an "Aspect" or "Asset" or what-have-you.
I literally got into Fate, in the first place, because I wanted a system I could play Planescape in where your Beliefs actually mattered, mechanically.
OK, because the term "storygames" only has one meaning for me, it means a prescripted scenario from which the players are not allowed to deviate because the outcome was determined before the game started, all directions lead to the same place. IMO "storygames" is just a synonym for "railroad." Either way it denotes a game that I have no interest in playing. I am only interested in playing games that are as open as possible, where all decisions by the player matter instead of being iirrelevant. Story IMO is told about the adventure after the adventure has been played and experienced first hand, not before. Once the second game is started, then the game has history and that history has consequences, but those do not determine all future player choices as long as the player character is still alive. OD&D is about testing the player, those versions which are about testing the stats the character has are no longer old school and those versions I am not that interested in. I will play them to hang out with friends, but I will not run them. Now pre Wotc, the battle between old school and new school took place and new school won the battle with AD&D for the majority of the fan base. Those who run AD&D and later TSR versions in an old school manner are a tiny minority, most run those games either partially or wholly new school. That tiny minority has two choices, they can promote the old school play model or to avoid persecution, they can just remain quite and be part of the main stream. |
|
|
|
Post by Shroompunk Warlord on Jan 12, 2021 17:40:24 GMT -5
See, and no criticism intended, but that's why I try to avoid defining it for myself and try to avoid using it whenever I can-- everyone who "hates storygames" is using their own idiosyncratic definition, and it always means specifically whatever kind of game they specifically don't like. Your definition at least makes some kind of sense. I basically agree with everything you hate about "storygames", except that's what the entire hobby was like when I started playing-- with people who weren't family-- and it includes most of what a lot of people consider "traditional" roleplaying these days. Notably, a lot of games I like... and that I run the way you describe real roleplaying, are usually derided as "storygames" because they consider narrative and/or psychological factors to be mechanically relevant. Which is what I wanted them for! I'm less about "player skill" than you are, since I'm more interested in superheroics and melodramatics, but we seem to end up in a very similar place in terms of what an adventure or a campaign should look like and how players should expect (and be expected) to interact with them. Unfortunately, a lot of DMs think their job as DM is to buy the pre-packaged module and run it as-written and then design their own adventures in the same format, just like Organized Play but at home. Unfortunately, a lot of players expect this and feel entitled to this, and recoil in disgust from the absolute freedom they claim is the best part of tabletop roleplaying. And, most unfortunately, this has been the way of things for so much of the hobby for so long that I don't think most people can conceive of a game that isn't a train ride through a wax museum. The player in the first blog post, who killed the princess in the first session? He wasn't even looking for freedom to do what he pleases-- he just wanted to see what would happen to the DM's toy trains when he derailed them. He would have been completely lost if the DM had just rolled with it, let the PCs go in a different direction, and then started slowly ramping up the displays of the king's displeasure until that became the problem the PCs had to deal with.
edit: So, to actually answer your question (sorry!) the reason I bring this up in relation to Cortex Prime is that it's a really modular system: part of any Cortex game is first picking out "trait sets". Like, in D&D your ability scores would be one trait set, your class functions (like AC/HP, melee, ranged, stealth, thief skills, being nonhuman, different kinds of magic) would be one trait set, maybe proficiencies if you want them, plus any special equipment. D&D combines them the way D&D does.
In Cortex, you can absolutely design a game whose trait sets are Attributes (STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA), Roles (Defense, Melee, Ranged, Scout, Thieving, Elf/Dwarf/Hobbit, Mage/Priest), maybe Proficiencies if you want them, plus any special equipment you own. Cortex combines them the way Cortex does, but you can do hit dice and hit points if you want. (It's in the core rulebook.) You can have a house rule, barely more than a social contract, that Distinctions and Assets and Complications have to be strictly physical unless they're caused by magic, or not, and you can define Plot Points (or Hero Dice) as "extra effort" or "heroic will" and thus can only be spent on things the PC has some kind of control of.
I'm still working on a level mechanic... but if that's not precisely low-level D&D, it's as close as Barbarians of Lemuria.
Or you can pull Proficiencies out, replace it with Beliefs that are rated based on how much you believe them and when you act in accordance with your belief, they bolster your actions. For Planescape.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Jan 12, 2021 21:05:31 GMT -5
See, and no criticism intended, but that's why I try to avoid defining it for myself and try to avoid using it whenever I can-- everyone who "hates storygames" is using their own idiosyncratic definition, and it always means specifically whatever kind of game they specifically don't like. Your definition at least makes some kind of sense. I basically agree with everything you hate about "storygames", except that's what the entire hobby was like when I started playing-- with people who weren't family-- and it includes most of what a lot of people consider "traditional" roleplaying these days. Notably, a lot of games I like... and that I run the way you describe real roleplaying, are usually derided as "storygames" because they consider narrative and/or psychological factors to be mechanically relevant. Which is what I wanted them for! I'm less about "player skill" than you are, since I'm more interested in superheroics and melodramatics, but we seem to end up in a very similar place in terms of what an adventure or a campaign should look like and how players should expect (and be expected) to interact with them. Unfortunately, a lot of DMs think their job as DM is to buy the pre-packaged module and run it as-written and then design their own adventures in the same format, just like Organized Play but at home. Unfortunately, a lot of players expect this and feel entitled to this, and recoil in disgust from the absolute freedom they claim is the best part of tabletop roleplaying. And, most unfortunately, this has been the way of things for so much of the hobby for so long that I don't think most people can conceive of a game that isn't a train ride through a wax museum. The player in the first blog post, who killed the princess in the first session? He wasn't even looking for freedom to do what he pleases-- he just wanted to see what would happen to the DM's toy trains when he derailed them. He would have been completely lost if the DM had just rolled with it, let the PCs go in a different direction, and then started slowly ramping up the displays of the king's displeasure until that became the problem the PCs had to deal with.
edit: So, to actually answer your question (sorry!) the reason I bring this up in relation to Cortex Prime is that it's a really modular system: part of any Cortex game is first picking out "trait sets". Like, in D&D your ability scores would be one trait set, your class functions (like AC/HP, melee, ranged, stealth, thief skills, being nonhuman, different kinds of magic) would be one trait set, maybe proficiencies if you want them, plus any special equipment. D&D combines them the way D&D does.
In Cortex, you can absolutely design a game whose trait sets are Attributes (STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA), Roles (Defense, Melee, Ranged, Scout, Thieving, Elf/Dwarf/Hobbit, Mage/Priest), maybe Proficiencies if you want them, plus any special equipment you own. Cortex combines them the way Cortex does, but you can do hit dice and hit points if you want. (It's in the core rulebook.) You can have a house rule, barely more than a social contract, that Distinctions and Assets and Complications have to be strictly physical unless they're caused by magic, or not, and you can define Plot Points (or Hero Dice) as "extra effort" or "heroic will" and thus can only be spent on things the PC has some kind of control of.
I'm still working on a level mechanic... but if that's not precisely low-level D&D, it's as close as Barbarians of Lemuria.
Or you can pull Proficiencies out, replace it with Beliefs that are rated based on how much you believe them and when you act in accordance with your belief, they bolster your actions. For Planescape.
Yeah, the interaction between players and referee,which some call narrative, is the heart of the game and the entire reason people originally fell in love with open-ended fantasy adventure games. We have several other "old school" forums and a very vocal contingent on each of them don't like the open-ended part, are fanatical about using pre-packaged modules and consider the way that I play to be heresy and that is the real reason I was banned other places. But I refuse to bow down and worship false gods. They consider what they do to be traditional and THE ONE TRUE WAY TO PLAY and they consider the freedom of the way that Arneson, Gygax, Hargrave and others refereed to be heresy and worthy of burning at the stake. I can hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth right now of those folks if they played in the original Blackmoor or Arduin. Aside from that very vocal contingent, the rest play somewhat more open-ended but still genuflect to pre-packaged modules, because they fear what happens when you don't toe the line to the official ONE TRUE WAY TO PLAY. Both TSR from AD&D on and WOTC and pretty much all other RPG companies are completely committed to pre-packaged modules, as THE ONE TRUE WAY TO PLAY. And most "grognards" and "old school" players fall into that camp. I quite realize that I represent a niche of a niche of a niche. That is why they make the claim that 90% of the support for OD&D on the Internet comes from me. I disagree, I think they is much more than my small contributions out there. After all up till now I have not published anything, other than my blog and this forum. I might be the loudest voice on this tiny forum, but far from the only voice. I once opined that anyone could play like Arneson and others did and the reply came back from a highly prominent "grognard" that it was impossible to do that and one the reasons he gave is that you would have to be a genius to do that. I beg to differ, I do not sell the gaming community that short. I think almost anyone who has the desire to referee is capable of creating and running a campaign world without ever using a pre-packaged module. The biggest barrier to doing so is the loud chorus preaching that it is impossible. Perhaps if they could shut up and stop discouraging people and disparaging other peoples efforts at running games without pre-packaged modules, we would see a creative explosion that would dwarf what has been done over the last 15 years. The most evil people in the world are the people who spend their time telling other people something cannot be done. These same people come unglued when someone else ignores them and does it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jan 17, 2021 21:04:47 GMT -5
This thread was before my time and it is going to take a while to read through it. I am through the first two pages and it is well worth the read IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Editor on Feb 6, 2021 0:05:38 GMT -5
My own observation is that the diversity of material in the OSR is due to the Open Gaming License and the easy of distribution via the Internet. The good stuff is blogged about and word of it spreads around. That how I get most of my sales for the Majestic Wilderlands (released in 2009), Blackmarsh (released in 2010), and Scourge of the Demon Wolf (released in 2012). Every time it get mentioned somewhere, I see a handful of sales. I think you can give credit for there being a lot of product for sale to the Open Gaming License, but that is a separate issue from the diversity of material. All that was necessary was that we went from T$R to a less litigious company. You pretty much knew that you could do pretty much anything writing on a blog as long as you weren't charging for it. The OGL just added money to the equation. But I agree with Kuntz and others that the OGL mostly just tells you what the IP that you cannot use is. The vast majority of the stuff they are giving you a "license" to use is public domain to begin with as far as the ideas and terms go, the non-public domain part is the specific presentation. So I think the blog blossomed because of the non-litigious viewpoint and not because of the OGL. The OGL has to some extent killed the blogs, because more people are trying to make money and fewer are doing it for free. Not saying there is a good or bad here, just observing what is really going on. |
|
|
|
Post by youngbuck on Feb 20, 2021 18:51:41 GMT -5
See this blog post here, the first of a series. From the The Disoriented Ranger.I am curious as to how much of this resonates with the DMs on the forum. Bitd with my first group that I played every week during the school year for four years, I did not encounter any of what is the this essay. Of course there were no published settings, no personal computer and a lot of the other things mentioned in the article so the environment was different. Some parts do resonate currently and I may comment later on some of those things. Right now I am looking for your thoughts. (I will say that I don't use plots and a player action can not destroy the reason for my game, if the story is created through play instead of being in place and the players need to cooperate with a story it solves a lot of problems IMO.) Much ado about nothing. For Pete's sake, grab some pencils and some paper, create a map, put in minimal story boosts, get some dice and start playing. All of this "introspective" science of what and how and when and why is utterly boring. If you've got an imagination, let it loose, don't cripple it with over-analyzation as this author does. This sounds like good advice to me. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid, usually gets the job done in my limited experience. |
|
|
|
Post by xizallian on Jun 30, 2021 18:08:20 GMT -5
See this blog post here, the first of a series. From the The Disoriented Ranger.I am curious as to how much of this resonates with the DMs on the forum. Bitd with my first group that I played every week during the school year for four years, I did not encounter any of what is the this essay. Of course there were no published settings, no personal computer and a lot of the other things mentioned in the article so the environment was different. Some parts do resonate currently and I may comment later on some of those things. Right now I am looking for your thoughts. (I will say that I don't use plots and a player action can not destroy the reason for my game, if the story is created through play instead of being in place and the players need to cooperate with a story it solves a lot of problems IMO.) Much ado about nothing. For Pete's sake, grab some pencils and some paper, create a map, put in minimal story boosts, get some dice and start playing. All of this "introspective" science of what and how and when and why is utterly boring. If you've got an imagination, let it loose, don't cripple it with over-analyzation as this author does. I think Rob nailed it here, over-analyzing things has caused more trouble in the world than it ever helped. |
|
|
|
Post by Morose on Aug 6, 2021 1:10:46 GMT -5
See this blog post here, the first of a series. From the The Disoriented Ranger.I am curious as to how much of this resonates with the DMs on the forum. Bitd with my first group that I played every week during the school year for four years, I did not encounter any of what is the this essay. Of course there were no published settings, no personal computer and a lot of the other things mentioned in the article so the environment was different. Some parts do resonate currently and I may comment later on some of those things. Right now I am looking for your thoughts. (I will say that I don't use plots and a player action can not destroy the reason for my game, if the story is created through play instead of being in place and the players need to cooperate with a story it solves a lot of problems IMO.) Edit: Fixed the link! From the link Mistake number one, paying $150 for new 5e books, if you don't have the original game there are close approximations available for free. Mistake number two, spending months preparing a setting, instead of getting your players together and game on, build it as you play. Life is too short for months of prep, unless you are independently wealthy and prep is your passion. Mistake number three, builds a campaign around a fragile princess that needs protection. Where is your imagination? Mistake number four, imitating The Neverending Story, unless of course you are five. Mistake number five, did the players say they wanted to learn new rules? Did they have a choice? Mistake number six, "testing them on the side" and "working problems through the forums," what exactly did you pay $150 for? For $150, the rules had better have been tested and problems resolved before it was sold. On the other hand with free rules, you just take care of those things on the fly yourself, no sweat! Mistake number seven, months of preparation and transition, wow, just wow! Should I look at the rest of the article? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 6, 2021 1:13:57 GMT -5
See this blog post here, the first of a series. From the The Disoriented Ranger.I am curious as to how much of this resonates with the DMs on the forum. Bitd with my first group that I played every week during the school year for four years, I did not encounter any of what is the this essay. Of course there were no published settings, no personal computer and a lot of the other things mentioned in the article so the environment was different. Some parts do resonate currently and I may comment later on some of those things. Right now I am looking for your thoughts. (I will say that I don't use plots and a player action can not destroy the reason for my game, if the story is created through play instead of being in place and the players need to cooperate with a story it solves a lot of problems IMO.) Edit: Fixed the link! From the link Mistake number one, paying $150 for new 5e books, if you don't have the original game there are close approximations available for free. Mistake number two, spending months preparing a setting, instead of getting your players together and game on, build it as you play. Life is too short for months of prep, unless you are independently wealthy and prep is your passion. Mistake number three, builds a campaign around a fragile princess that needs protection. Where is your imagination? Mistake number four, imitating The Neverending Story, unless of course you are five. Mistake number five, did the players say they wanted to learn new rules? Did they have a choice? Mistake number six, "testing them on the side" and "working problems through the forums," what exactly did you pay $150 for? For $150, the rules had better have been tested and problems resolved before it was sold. On the other hand with free rules, you just take care of those things on the fly yourself, no sweat! Mistake number seven, months of preparation and transition, wow, just wow! Should I look at the rest of the article? Seems like a bad idea. I see that you are very sandbox oriented, that's most of the posters here, you will fit in nicely |
|
|
|
Post by Morose on Aug 6, 2021 1:20:47 GMT -5
From the link Mistake number one, paying $150 for new 5e books, if you don't have the original game there are close approximations available for free. Mistake number two, spending months preparing a setting, instead of getting your players together and game on, build it as you play. Life is too short for months of prep, unless you are independently wealthy and prep is your passion. Mistake number three, builds a campaign around a fragile princess that needs protection. Where is your imagination? Mistake number four, imitating The Neverending Story, unless of course you are five. Mistake number five, did the players say they wanted to learn new rules? Did they have a choice? Mistake number six, "testing them on the side" and "working problems through the forums," what exactly did you pay $150 for? For $150, the rules had better have been tested and problems resolved before it was sold. On the other hand with free rules, you just take care of those things on the fly yourself, no sweat! Mistake number seven, months of preparation and transition, wow, just wow! Should I look at the rest of the article? Seems like a bad idea. I see that you are very sandbox oriented, that's most of the posters here, you will fit in nicely What is wrong with sandboxes? |
|
