|
I feel this deep and abiding anxiety about folks saying “yes, it is good and natural that those with resources will continue to prosper, while those without must suffer and scrape for crumbs.” Like, there are absolutely social and economic hierarchies at play in this industry, different people have different reach, different impact on the community. And here’s the thing, Evil Hat was able to prosper because it had a $200,000 injection of cash when it started, and was able to leverage that money in ways that let them profit and expand. But not everyone has that kind of money. No way in hell is any game that I ever kickstart going to hit six figures. I’d be very luck to hit five, tbh. And reducing this notion to “sour grapes” is insultingly reductive. It’s not sour grapes to see systems of inequity used to allow certain people to prosper and others pushed further and further. (Which isn’t even going into the demographics of those people who are allowed to prosper.) Sadly, I don’t have any solutions to this problem. The only thing that might actually break the existing status quo would be for TTRPG consumers to actually start caring about the quality of the writing and ludology of the games that they purchase, rather than just being attracted to big names and flashy art, two things which are prohibitively expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Meinberg posted:The only thing that might actually break the existing status quo would be for TTRPG consumers to actually start caring about the quality of the writing and ludology of the games that they purchase, rather than just being attracted to big names and flashy art, two things which are prohibitively expensive. For better or worse production value in TTRPGs (and board games) is a thing. Are there TTRPG enthusiasts out there who could definitely have fun with their friends with a well-written word doc and some excel spread sheets with tables? I'm sure of it! I'm one of them. Is that something that a TTRPG consumer will feel motivated to buy in the same volume and at the same price point as a big-name game? My anecdotal experience says "no." Of course, it's a gradient ranging from word docs to hardback RPG supplements with full-color art every other page, with price increasing as you go up the scale. I think your opinion that the DnD/OPP/White Wolf/Evil Hat TTRPG consumers of the world don't care about quality of writing or gameplay is a bit spurious. Well-organized, easy to understand, entertaining, and interesting writing must drive those products. That's valuable. If you add in accessible, fun, and easy to learn mechanics, you've got a great product. That also adds value to a TTRPG. If you wrap those things into an aesthetically pleasing product with excellent art, layout, and production values, you've got a commercial success. To your main point, though, on iniquity - it's not a bug, it's a feature of the commercial/capitalistic economic system within which TTRPGs (and video game developers, and software developers, restaurant owners, etc) exist. Capitalism/consumer-oriented solutions create winners and losers by design, and people with more money and resources and social standing can perpetuate that into more money and resources and social standing. My personal take is the solution is social and political, and agnostic to the hobby - creating safety nets that help artists and writers (and everyone else scraping for crumbs) have medical care, food, housing, and a dignified quality of life irrespective of their commercial success. nacon fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Mar 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
I’m a big fan of social safety nets and a UBI but like, no amount of socialism is going to make the masses prefer some ZineQuest rando over Lord of the Rings
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:I’m a big fan of social safety nets and a UBI but like, no amount of socialism is going to make the masses prefer some ZineQuest rando over Lord of the Rings I agree. The idea is that randos can take risks on their personal projects without becoming destitute if they fail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:I’m a big fan of social safety nets and a UBI but like, no amount of socialism is going to make the masses prefer some ZineQuest rando over Lord of the Rings The thesis is that we might have more Lords of the Rings if the years of work it takes to be any good at writing didn't involve flirting with starvation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
nacon posted:I agree. The idea is that randos can take risks on their personal projects without becoming destitute if they fail. I’m 100% in favor of this, to be clear. I just think that randos being able to take risks more often and more comfortably won’t prevent the problem of a few big names taking up most of the space, especially in a space like ttrpg which does seem like an oversaturated market
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
nacon posted:I think your opinion that the DnD/OPP/White Wolf/Evil Hat TTRPG consumers of the world don't care about quality of writing or gameplay is a bit spurious. Well-organized, easy to understand, entertaining, and interesting writing must drive those products. That's valuable. If you add in accessible, fun, and easy to learn mechanics, you've got a great product. That also adds value to a TTRPG. If you wrap those things into an aesthetically pleasing product with excellent art, layout, and production values, you've got a commercial success. This seems like a mindbogglingly profound misunderstanding of the mechanisms of capitalism in general and the TTRPG market in specific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:This seems like a mindbogglingly profound misunderstanding of the mechanisms of capitalism in general and the TTRPG market in specific. One can pay writers, editors and artists to make a product that is more appealing to consumers, market that product heavily, sell more of that product, and repeat when you have access to capital?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:I’m 100% in favor of this, to be clear. I just think that randos being able to take risks more often and more comfortably won’t prevent the problem of a few big names taking up most of the space, especially in a space like ttrpg which does seem like an oversaturated market I would make the argument that a few big names taking up most of the space is only a problem under the construct of a system that requires people to try and ruthlessly carve out space around the big names, or work with the big names to make enough money to survive. I tend to care less about the stuff that is being created or if it is being played, as much as the people creating it being able to live and do what they want, without fear of being destitute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
nacon posted:One can pay writers, editors and artists to make a product that is more appealing to consumers, market that product heavily, sell more of that product, and repeat when you have access to capital? You're statements strongly imply that you believe that a.) People make rational purchasing decisions and b.) Psuedo-monopolies have motivation to provide the best product. Both of those implications are ludicrous. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:You're statements strongly imply that you believe that people Appealing ≠ rational. You're reading things into the argument that aren't there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
nacon posted:One can pay writers, editors and artists to make a product that is more appealing to consumers, market that product heavily, sell more of that product, and repeat when you have access to capital? The issue being that that isn't what you said: nacon posted:I think your opinion that the DnD/OPP/White Wolf/Evil Hat TTRPG consumers of the world don't care about quality of writing or gameplay is a bit spurious. Well-organized, easy to understand, entertaining, and interesting writing must drive those products. That's valuable. If you add in accessible, fun, and easy to learn mechanics, you've got a great product. That also adds value to a TTRPG. If you wrap those things into an aesthetically pleasing product with excellent art, layout, and production values, you've got a commercial success. If that's the benchmark for "driving products" that you want to use, then D&D has failed ("well-organized" - three separate books, two with godawful organization, to play the game; "easy to understand" - where were you when 3.5 was the biggest game on Earth?; "entertaining, and interesting writing" - ymmv but "forgotten realms is interesting" is a take I have not seen in a long time). Vampire et al have failed across every edition ("well-organized, easy to understand" - fifteen metaplot books later...; "entertaining, and interesting writing" - without even digging deep, if writing off IRL human rights crises as a vampire plot is entertaining and interesting writing then I've got bad news for you). Had to actually go check the Evil Hat publishing catalog because it's been a while, and most of what's in there are things people are supporting getting the attention. Not to say they're free of it, FATE as one of the most misunderstood systems in the hobby is demonstration enough, but EH is publishing the bigger of the "indie games", as meaningless a term as that is nowadays. "Accessible, fun, and easy to learn mechanics" is huge YMMV territory but in my personal experience with the mentioned studios' games White Wolf never managed it, and the only time WotC did they got enough community backlash that we got 5e. (And, again, FATE is a mystery box of a system for a lot of folks.) Yet they're still the top and "appealing". It's solely marketing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:You're statements strongly imply that you believe that people I'm not trying to imply consumers adhere to some meritocracy of 'best product always wins'. More to the point that the big players in the TTRPG industry can consistently provide something that's good enough for their customers, generally in line with what they've come to expect so far, and can get that product into their customers hands more easily (and grow their products more easily.) Brand perception is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
nacon posted:I think your opinion that the DnD/OPP/White Wolf/Evil Hat TTRPG consumers of the world don't care about quality of writing or gameplay is a bit spurious. How to say you've never actually played D&D without saying you've never actually played D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Cthulhutech had some of the most dogshit rules ever made for a game and a setting that barely hung together and adventures where you were supposed to have your players get drugged and raped and impregnated, but it had snazzy art and an elevator pitch of "cthulhus versus robots!!!!!" so it sold well enough to fund eight whole books, there is absolutely no evidence that the TRPG hobby gives the slightest poo poo about the quality of writing or gameplay when it comes to what does and doesn't sell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:How to say you've never actually played D&D without saying you've never actually played D&D. Having really bad faith takes about RPG consumers isn't helping your argument here. It's just making you come off as even more petty and spiteful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Appealing ≠ rational. You're reading things into the argument that aren't there. This is the statement I'm arguing against. nacon posted:Well-organized, easy to understand, entertaining, and interesting writing must drive those products. I wouldn't describe any of the (between 7 and 10) editions of D&D as being well-organized or easy to understand, except maybe Basic, without Expert. e: I'm not as familliar with WoD, but the older versions I've played were also very much not well-organized or easy to understand. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Having really bad faith takes about RPG consumers isn't helping your argument here. It's just making you come off as even more petty and spiteful. You're not really someone in a position to be wagging fingers about being petty and spiteful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Having really bad faith takes about RPG consumers isn't helping your argument here. It's just making you come off as even more petty and spiteful. What's the bad faith take? Quality and sales volume have no correlation. Why should the conclusion drawn from that be "quality really matters for selling rpgs"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Cthulhutech had some of the most dogshit rules ever made for a game and a setting that barely hung together and adventures where you were supposed to have your players get drugged and raped and impregnated, but it had snazzy art and an elevator pitch of "cthulhus versus robots!!!!!" so it sold well enough to fund eight whole books, there is absolutely no evidence that the TRPG hobby gives the slightest poo poo about the quality of writing or gameplay when it comes to what does and doesn't sell. At this point, you seem to just be bitter about human nature and how people decide to purchase things. Unless you've got a plan to change human thought processes, it may be best to take a step back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:At this point, you seem to just be bitter about human nature and how people decide to purchase things. Unless you've got a plan to change human thought processes, it may be best to take a step back. I don't really see how it's "bitter" of me to point out that there's no real compelling evidence that "quality of gameplay" is a driving factor in what games do and do not succeed. Should I have used Rifts as an example maybe? It's the industry thread, and it seems to me that if someone wants to talk about what drives the industry that maybe it would be more useful to not make statements that are pretty apparently not the case. D&D does not occupy the dominant position in TRPGs because it has the best, most refined gameplay and the highest quality of writing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Sorry, is it relevant for me to continue to argue from example using D&D which is both the largest market player and which has never used kickstarter or should we be constraining this discussion to kickstarter?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
It feels bitter based of the fact that your posts feel pretty angry about failings of the game industry. Your other posts indicate you've got an active business stake in the industry, and if this is your mindset, you're going to burnout/burn down. If I can digress for a bit, my background is a pharmacist. I'm highly trained in a narrow field, and I'm regularly interacting and advising the general public who don't know poo poo from a shingle in the topic. Its not rpg industry, but I am used to people who don't actually know what's good. What I've also found, is you've got to come to people where they are. The colleagues who rail against people not making the top level healthy choices are ineffective and frustrated. You're better off if you get people to make the better choice they can handle today, and put in place the actions, knowledge, and trust that lays the groundwork for better choices tomorrow. And while the pharmacy industry is also hosed (US healthcare!) the times I've spent wallowing on industry-wide structural issues have been incredibly bad for my mental health. If I'm not interested in doing the corporate ladder climbing (I'm not) to change those issues, spending on my mental time on those issues outside my control is the way to madness. So I see these conversations about how all these consumers are wrong, and, well, tough poo poo. The public don't owe any creator anything, particularly for an optional luxury product such a game. I'm all for improving peoples taste, but the onus is on the people advocating for the public to have better tastes to teach and uplift them. Anything else, tough poo poo. Welcome to the world as it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
If we're going to stick to Kickstarter then let me use Lancer so nobody can say I'm just lashing out at games I want to bash. I think Lancer is a pretty cool game, but if you set me down and put a gun to my head and demanded I tell you why Lancer raised $400,000 on Kickstarter compared to plenty of other two-person indie RPGs my answers would probably be along the lines of: 1). Lancer had a two+ year extended open playtesting period, during which it was able to generate a significant amount of hype and word of mouth as a community formed around it. The creators were in a position where they could afford to spend that much time letting their game go unpublished without suffering undue financial distress, in other words their immediate finances weren't being unduly impacted by allowing such an extended period of non-publication. 2). One of the creators, Tom, is internet famous (and even maybe outside-just-the-internet famous for certain values) for reasons beyond RPGs, namely his ongoing webcomic Kill 6 Billion Demons. That brings a degree of immediate name recognition and associated hype with it. There's a side benefit here which is that Tom, as a professional artist, is able to handle a lot of (though not all of) the art duties himself. 3). Speaking of art, while Tom did a good chunk of it he didn't do all of it, but what he could do was leverage his professional contacts in the field of comic artists and ask if they wanted to do some work on his new upcoming RPG, which is also a big attention-getter. Now artists, like everyone, love to get paid and I don't think any of the people who were hired to do work on Lancer would turn their noses up if someone else emailed them to ask about doing some work for them, but it's not unreasonable to assume that when it comes to deciding which commissions you can squeeze into your schedule that you're probably going to be more likely to give the nod to someone you already know on a friendly basis. None of this is to take away from the work that the creators put into the game or its writing, but in terms of "why specifically did this game blow up big the way it did compared to plenty of other games" then I would have to give the nod to the fact that it's a huge book full of gorgeous artwork with "from the guy who made that webcomic you like" as an additional driving factor. I think the exact same game with the exact same writing and the exact same gameplay would have had a hard time breaking out as big as it did if it wasn't for those factors behind it, if it did not have all that super cool art or a big glossy hardback and nobody knew any of the creators. Now you could perhaps argue that the quality of Lancer's gameplay and writing have helped it to have a longer tail than it might have, that without that to keep people hooked and engaged that it would have constituted much more of a flash in the pan, but again looking at a number of popular and successful RPGs with long tails I don't really feel like there's any sort of measurable quality of gameplay that correlates into popularity or longevity. So nacon made two points, one of which I agree with and one of which I don't at all. Production value is absolutely a huge driving factor in TRPG success, on Kickstarter and off of it. A game can see success where others would not by virtue of having superior production value, which is something that it's not always easy or even possible for creators to bring to the table regardless of the quality of their gameplay or writing, because that quality production value costs a lot of money. So from the outset, having that advantage puts your game in a much better position. Quality of gameplay or writing, by contrast, seem to be a lot less important to the success of a game as a project, and the hobby is full of examples of big name games with a reputation for jank gameplay, bad writing, or both. PharmerBoy posted:So I see these conversations about how all these consumers are wrong, and, well, tough poo poo. The public don't owe any creator anything, particularly for an optional luxury product such a game. I'm all for improving peoples taste, but the onus is on the people advocating for the public to have better tastes to teach and uplift them. Anything else, tough poo poo. Welcome to the world as it is. At no point have I tried to argue that the public owes any creator anything, and frankly this whole spiel of yours comes across as way more bitter than anything I've said here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
I will never understand discouraging dwelling on unchangeable things for the sake of mental health, then turning around and using aggressive dominant language like “tough poo poo”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
I think it's also worth pointing out that there's some weird assumptions here about "trying to convert people away from D&D by yelling at them" and by and large the indie RPG scene has given up on trying to convert people away from D&D altogether, the idea that you can encourage D&D fans to branch out and try other games with some particular combination of big-name shoutouts, handy comparisons, bundle sales, etc hasn't really panned out. That's also not a "bitter" thing, it's just a basic observation. None of this stuff that's being discussed, crowdfunding et al, has anything to do with D&D or competing with it, that ship's sailed, the only reason D&D even came up here is because it was mentioned as a game whose success is a product of its quality of writing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
nacon posted:
Quality of writing or gameplay is only ever prioritized if it serves the primary goal of driving sales. Example: the WW/OPP storyteller system is horrendously cumbersome to play with and even though it's been fixed multiple times (in Trinity, in the nWoD games), the oWoD 20th anniversary line prioritizes nostalgia, backwards compatibility, expensive art, and bloated wordcount over using any of the more functional systems developed by White Wolf in the 2000s. The risk that the legacy fanbase might backlash against bug fixes to dice probability curves was deemed to be too big a risk to company profits to attempt. Even within a company, different designers prioritize quality of design to varying extents and even the ones who prioritize quality of game design may not have the mandate from the higher ups or license holders to put those priorities into practice. For example: Mage the Awakening 2e was very likely able to overhaul its systems in favor of better gameplay because the license-holder didn't care about the property at all and Onyx Path itself wasn't interested in kickstarting Awakening at all. D&D 5e is another well-known example. Its mechanics are carefully worded to obfuscate any contribution from 4e (healing surges became hit dice; and at-will, encounter, daily powers were reworded to only refer to what kinds of rest they would require). Martial classes like Fighter and Warlord got merged and had their powerset reduced to one page. Sorcerers lost all of their distinct abilities. All of this signalled to the revanchist elements of the fanbase that they were being courted as customers to the exclusion of others. Indie isn't free of this either, although fans of indie games are probably more tolerant of original systems than the average grog. Hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Octavo posted:D&D 5e is another well-known example. Its mechanics are carefully worded to obfuscate any contribution from 4e (healing surges became hit dice; and at-will, encounter, daily powers were reworded to only refer to what kinds of rest they would require). Martial classes like Fighter and Warlord got merged and had their powerset reduced to one page. Sorcerers lost all of their distinct abilities. All of this signalled to the revanchist elements of the fanbase that they were being courted as customers to the exclusion of others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Nothing makes me want to take up the sword of edition warrioring than when D&D 5e players discuss things that were just made worse in 5e to appease grogs, like how certain classes are much stronger or weaker depending on how many short rests the GM gives the group, a problem that only exists if you have a problem with Encounter refresh. Why? Do you think the current crop of 5E players had any input to the design whatsoever?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
This is me with my mod hat on. Settle down, people. The TG as an Industry Thread is not going to resolve the inherent imbalances and unfairness of capitalism. A basic aspect of that unfairness is that people with more resources have advantages in the market unrelated to the quality of their products. This argument seems to have gotten kicked off from a discussion of small indie game developers wishing larger indie game developers would not wield their advantages; there was debate about what those advantages are and whether some of them really are advantages, the question of whether the RPG marketplace is a zero-sum game, and several other points I've already forgotten about. Good and bad points were made on all sides. I don't think we will reach a happy resolution to these questions here, though, and I'm getting reports due to some of the more direct inter-user sniping. What I would like to see is less anger-posting. I know that these issues drive passions and are important, vital to some folks in the thread whose livelihoods pivot on these questions, etc. and I'd like everyone to be sympathetic to that even if you disagree on one point or another. Cut some slack, take a breath, wrap up your argument with some kind of summation or closing statement, and tomorrow (monday) I'll ask the thread to move on. Fair?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Why? Do you think the current crop of 5E players had any input to the design whatsoever? The crop of 5E players who took part in the playtest did. That's why Fighter got kneecapped instead of Battlemaster's features being standard as they always should have been. Sorcerer was also far more interesting before it got punted back to "worse wizard".
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
It's not unfair to say that the majority of 5E's playerbase didn't have anything to do with the state of the game and weren't involved in all the lovely "edition war as culture war" nonsense that surrounded its development, but also Octavo is absolutely right that a huge amount of 5E's development at the time was an attempt to signal to people that the game was "theirs" again, including things like Mike Mearls reaching out to some of the most toxic elements of the hobby for a stamp of approval. That's also another ship that's long since sailed, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
I would make the point that a majority of 5e's growth in popularity via streaming, doesn't stem from people who participated in the initial playtest. But people who picked it up because of streamers and the like making it popular. Like I bet if they ever actually design or release a 6e the people participating in the playtest and people with the largest platforms posting about it now vs then would lead to a pretty dramatically different game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Dexo posted:I would make the point that a majority of 5e's growth in popularity via streaming, doesn't stem from people who participated in the initial playtest. But people who picked it up because of streamers and the like making it popular. No. The playtest doesn't matter. The people in charge matter. 5e didn't come out the way it did because that's what the playtesters said. It came out that way because Mearls was in charge and that's what he wanted. He was buddies with Zak S and RPGpundit and other shitlords in that vein, so he made changes that appealed to him and to people like that. Whether 6e would be any different depends on who is in charge. We don't know what Mearls is up to, but he's sure not fired yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No. The playtest doesn't matter. The people in charge matter. The thing is.. nobody outside of the Internet RPG Sphere knows or cares about Zak or Pundit or even knows who Mike Mearls is. Most don't even know of RPGNet. Rpg irl has generally just been WHATEVER EDITION OF DND IN PRINT WITH GENERIC FANTASY MURDERHOBO TIME. Online or fan publication talk of other games has never mattered. Quality has never mattered. DnD is the name brand always recognized generally easy to find game everyone plays. Its pretty much been this way since the beginning with very few exceptions. (It doesn't mean money can't be made but the super dirty secret is like one's Steam library the vast majority of Tradgames products aren't ever played. Its why hex n chit games tend to have a SOLITAIRE SUITABILITY rating on them. And a ton of modern boardgames now bake in solo. To at least give folks the aspiration of playing the new 100+ dollar thing they probably won't. Especially now when videogames are way easier and no need to read or setup.) It sucks but you can't force people to change especially when its clear many won't even compromise or communicate. They want THING X no deviations allowed. Basically if you hobby game and are available Fri-Sun and play Magic, 40k, or in print DnD you have access to a good 70% of all active and open gaming pretty much. (Regional deviance and the odd Street Team types may change this. Until the store closes or the Street Team moves away/company pulls a Privateer Press anyhow.) If there is a solution to any of this id love to hear it. Can't make people change their consumer loves nor make them give a drat about internet outrages valid or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:If we're going to stick to Kickstarter then let me use Lancer so nobody can say I'm just lashing out at games I want to bash. I think Lancer is a pretty cool game, but if you set me down and put a gun to my head and demanded I tell you why Lancer raised $400,000 on Kickstarter compared to plenty of other two-person indie RPGs my answers would probably be along the lines of:
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Did Comp/con get created before Lancer was released, was it part of the Kickstarter? I know that is a big easer for the game at large and I actually know of at least one live Lancer campaign in my friend group. (By comparison: two 5E games, one Scion game) Jumping in a little early but C/C development was active in the Discord long before the Kickstarter, let alone the final game, if my memory isn't horribly failing me. Kai has access to check actual dates, but it was brought on board well after it was already up and running.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
We change the way that the community works by changing the way we work, and by speaking of our methodology and our ideology widely. Getting people to accept the value of game design is an inherently revolutionary act, and society -at least in the US- has been indoctrinated into resisting revolutionary acts at all costs. Only those who have been pushed to the bottom and broken upon the wheels of systemic violence have learned to embrace the revolution. But that doesn't mean that is the only way to spread knowledge and spread the seed of revolution in the hearts of the people. We have to be loud, we have to be heard, we have to move the needle and convince the world that better things are possible. This is not an easy thing, and I already see people pushing back against the idea of improving conditions. Now, you might consider me somewhat melodramatic for conflating capitalism and the dominance of 5e, but they are both rooted in an acceptance of unacceptable status quo. If we can move people on one of those things, it becomes easier to move them on others. There is just too much inertia, but bringing forth better things, showing the wonders of what might be, can be a lever to get the ball rolling. I just ask that people be open minded, that people think, that people care, and that those in this community and in others start to accept that they have responsibilities in every thing they do in order to make the world a better place.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
I think trying to change the industry by deriding the vast majority of its consumers/participants as idiots not interested in good quality design or writing is a non-starter, regardless of where you're coming from. There, that's my conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
The conclusion is not that the audience lacks the ability to discern quality - the conclusion is that capital has an undue and overwhelming influence that should be curtailed wherever possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 01:37
|
|
