TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Kai Tave posted:

even before all the weird poo poo about him and Morke playing chicken with Rich Thomas over Exalted came out.

Is there a quick summary of that? That's a slice of Exalted drama I somehow missed.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 18:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 18:27

Warthur: May 2, 2004

The Wyzard posted:

I think it's easy, when one spends a lot of time on the internet and internet forums, to overestimate their importance in the grand scheme of things. I doubt that even 5% of the people who purchased Beast, for example, have ever partaken of any of the forum shouting about its various problems (which are real, although sometimes overstated.) The accusations against Matt could have repercussions rather beyond whether he keeps posting on big purple. Silence is his best friend right now.

By way of counterpoint I think it is likely that Beast has a somewhat higher proportion of forum-aware customers than, say, Vampire, Werewolf, or Mage do in either WoD or CoD flavours.

Rich regularly talks about how one of the biggest problems Onyx Path has is letting people know they even exist, and so far as I'm aware Beast has hardly any presence in brick and mortar stores; people who go for Beast are going to be a tiny subset of the market, to wit:

People who are into RPGs...
...who like WoD/CoD...
...who are aware of Onyx Path's existence and current activities...
...who buy via DriveThru...
...and who dig down into the mid-to-lower tier CoD lines rather than sticking to the big guns.

I would characterise those as tending to be hardcore gamers who are aware of Beast thanks to generally keeping their finger on the post, and therefore correspondingly much more likely to be aware of forum drama. I suspect outside of the limited demographic I outlined above there barely anyone has even *heard* of Beast. It's not so much made a splash as it's sunk without trace.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 21:03

Warthur: May 2, 2004

The Wyzard posted:

I am profoundly uncomfortable with this being used as fodder for a reinterpretation of Beast as some kind of manifesto for real-world monstrousness. There are people who worked on that book that I know to be of unimpeachable moral character and good intentions. It...did not come out right, let's put it that way. I hate seeing all the writers get dragged through the mud because of a project that simply wasn't up to the quality of Demon, which is a loving gem of a game, and doesn't get enough love. I guess I wish I saw more people out there talking about games they love and fewer people carrying a grudge against a game they don't like, albeit for reasons that are not mere nonsense.

I don't think anyone has said that Beast is an overt "manifesto for real-world monstrousness". It transparently isn't and obviously given all the hands involved couldn't have been.

The two things I have seen people suggesting, both of which seem much more credible and each of which is entirely compatible with the other, are that:

a) Beast may on some level reflect some sort of abuser's self-justification from the point of view of Matt. Yes, whatever happened we are told happened 18 years ago - but we've also been told that Matt's been batting around the concept for over a decade before the original pitch was made so there isn't as much of a gulf of time there as has been made out to be. And regardless of how long ago you may have done something you feel guilt over, the psychological impulse to self-justify is a strong one - I suspect most abusers who do it don't even consciously realise that it's what they are doing. That isn't the same thing as a "manifesto for real-world monstrousness"; it's not a conscious and overt declaration that abuse is great. But at the same time can you put your hand on your heart and say that, had Matt done what he is accused of, his feelings about that would play no part, conscious and deliberate or unconscious and inadvertent, in a subsequent project he oversaw with strong abuse themes? I can't.

b) Even if you discount a) wholly, absolutely, and entirely, authorial intent is not magic. Regardless of the thinking behind Beast, we are now in a world where these accusations against Matt has been made and at least a segment of the Beast audience has been made aware of them. That knowledge can affect people's perception of the game even if what happened had absolutely nothing to do with the development of Beast, in the same way it's become unavoidably and inadvertently creepy to hear the various pop music classics Phil Spector produced knowing that the dude went on to kill someone.

I know in the conversation over on RPG.net people have tried to minimise Matt's role in the project, talking up the number of authors involved and talking about how as a developer he had all sorts of external and internal considerations to take into account of, but regardless of whether or not he really had an auteur-like level of control over the project (and I can fully expect he probably didn't), a) he was still in a position to leave his fingerprints all over it, and b) he was still given a sort of auteur-like reception whenever he talked about it publicly. If you asked on the RPG.net forums "Who's the one person I should make a point of talking to about Beast?" before this all came out, odds are most people would have answered "Matt". Backtracking by hyping the number of other hands involved is shutting the door after the horse has bolted to a large extent.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 23:30

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Precambrian posted:

The second is the Jeepers Creepers reaction, where we have to ask why there's a culture where these blinking warning signs were aggressively dismissed and ignored, in spite of the fact that there was fire behind the smoke.

Worse yet - a culture where the guy can get busted for sexually abusing a child actor during the filming of Clownhouse, spend 15 months in jail, return to the movie industry, and then put out material stuffed with warning sings like Jeepers Creepers (or, for that matter, the even more alarming Powder, which is so festooned with red flags that not even the pure joy of the Powder 2 parody trailer can quite exorcise it).

# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 23:47

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Hidingo Kojimba posted:

Well, sure didn�t take long for people to start using the rape of a teenager as a weapon to try and settle scores with people for other moderation decisions they didn�t like. No siree bob.

The rape of a teenager by a (now-ex)moderator that the other moderators are willing to accept as a continued member of the community (because whether or not they have qualms about keeping him as a forum member, the fact is that if they stay in a moderator post they are effectively standing by the site owner's decision there) seems like precisely the sort of thing which ought to put a spotlight on the moderation. The scrutiny might not be comfortable, but you know what happens when people given positions of authority get to brush away all scrutiny by saying "Oh, it was just that one bad apple, there's nothing more to see here!"? More abuse happens.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 10:38

Warthur: May 2, 2004

sexpig by night posted:

It's also kinda really hosed to say that going 'looking back that makes this project he worked on that was very troubling in some parts feel even grosser' is the same moral level as 'doxxing and death threats'. That's a really lovely way to try to cudgel people into not saying 'this weird abusive rear end in a top hat was a major contributor to a game that's kinda just about being a weird abusive rear end in a top hat and actually being noble for it and holy poo poo is that disturbing'.

Pretty much. Doxxing and death threats are lovely and pulling that poo poo over a game is petulant and childish beyond belief, and I have no sympathy for anyone who'd do that and every sympathy for anyone who was subjected to it. That doesn't put a magic protection field on the product itself that shields it from legitimate critique. And if there's aspects of Promethean or Demon or Changeling 20th which now seem a bit off in the light of this, then that means we should talk about those too, it doesn't mean we should shut up about Beast.

Dave Brookshaw posted:

The game produced was, uh.. not really the game outlined. Many inexperienced people got way carried away, the more experienced writers (like me!) were busy on other things and only had short sections. The game stopped being about the cycle of abuse in a negative way and started glorifying its characters as section after section was written by people assuming that someone else would cover the whole Non-Aspirational part of non-aspirational characters. And then it got hastily reskinned as a band-aid during the kickstarter.

OK, let's dig into this. As the main (and sole credited) developer on the project and the man who is credited with the pitch, is it fair to say that Matt had a responsibility to shepherd the project, oversee the Big Picture aspect, and make sure that dang Non-Aspirational aspect got in there?

If that is true, then isn't it fair to question how his past deeds as raised by the victim play into that?

If that isn't true, and he really didn't have all that power over the text, why did he get the auteur treatment whenever people discussed Beast prior to this? Why are we only getting the denials of Beast being Matt's baby now that these accusations have come out?

And if Matt wasn't responsible for how Beast turned out, who exactly carries the can?

And if the answer is "nobody, it was a massive systemic failure on OP's part and no one person in the entire chain was in a position to stop it", why should I continue to be an OP customer? Why should I continue to back OP Kickstarters? Why should I not start insisting on waiting until a book is actually done and people have reviewed it so that I can be reassured that I'd get what I was expecting, rather than a trainwreck that drifted way off the intended track? Where was White Wolf in all this, given that they have approvals oversight on all this stuff?

Ferrinus posted:

I can see why rpg.net doesn�t want to set the precedent of banning posters for irl crimes those posters have committed the moment those crimes come to light. I�d happily do so to anyone who frequented a circle-of-friends irc channel I moderate or some equivalent private space, but a public forum? It�s not the wrong thing to do, necessarily, but immediately puts a lot more on the shoulders of the mod team and adds a lot to the forum�s general remit.

RPG.net isn't a public space though. It's a privately owned and operated business, not some sort of gamer co-operative or a mandated government elfgame discussion space.

Warthur fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Oct 25, 2017

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 19:07

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Levi Kornelsen posted:

Eminently true.

It *does,* however, mean that when you're dumping on the game and how it was made, you're in close position with an existing practice of doxxing and death threats, directed largely at people who were just working a job. Which means that being precise about what you're going after is called for.

Ignoring that and dropping the widest, biggest load of poo poo you can find instead?

That means you're giving cover to aforementioned doxxers and death-threateners, mixed right in there with whatever useful critique is being delivered.

Is this cover we're apparently giving to doxxers and death threat dipshits anything like the cover you're giving to Matt when you stutter out weasel words about Beast having dozens of contributors when exactly one of them - Matt - got the auteur treatment in discussions of the game until this revelation happened?

# ¿ Oct 26, 2017 17:51

Warthur: May 2, 2004

PST posted:

This is turning into attacking rpg.net mods for not acting quite as quick as people want(as in 48 hours rather than 24 or 12 or 0). Let's ignore frog God's bullshit and paizo trying to hide problems and all the other lovely companies because perfect is the enemy of good etc.

The last couple of pages just read like a flashback to rpgsite and pundit et al circle jerking on how the rpg.net mods are all evil and need destroying.

Frog God and Paizo's poo poo didn't have any new developments to talk about to be honest, and most of this page has been ragging on Matt/Beast.

Believe it or not there's a big wide space of water between the criticism you've had here and the roasting and hooting you'd get in Pundit's horrible Gamergate echo chamber.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2017 00:00

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Kavak posted:

Has Matt McFarland said anything about the accusation that made him leave RPG.net and Onyx Path? Because his blog is still being updated and totally mum on the subject.

http://blackhatmatt.blogspot.com/

..."Danger Lurks In Vans" seems like an especially clueless title for a post, given the circumstances.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2017 11:40

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Ettin posted:

Was it Keep on the Shadowfell? Because I ran that and it's Not Great.

Slight necro here but more anecdata: attempting to play Keep on the Shadowfell more or less killed 4E stone dead in my gaming circles. A brief abortive attempt was made at a homebrew campaign, but because it used the unerrata'd encounter maths it wasn't that much better so we gave up entirely.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2017 20:31

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Kurieg posted:

All the changes that RPPR have issues with were pushed in by WWP. I wouldn't be surprised if OPP shies away from pushing out any more 20th anniversary books because of the bad optics.

My guess is they will complete anything they promised via Kickstarter, but that's it.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2018 17:27

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Libertad! posted:

Strangely I am not surprised that a White Wolf book has regressive views, but what the hell happened with Hagen? Did he go Full Fash, or is it more "I'd much rather live in a white ethnostate than a Cultural Marxist dictatorship" cryptosignalling? Either way's bad, but this sounds like a hell of a story behind it.

I will note that in Vampire 1E he cites at least one actual fascist in the recommended authors section and generally seems to be on a hardline anti-Communist kick - right down to the Soviets and not Nazi Germany being cited in the opening fiction as being the height of human evil.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2018 17:49

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Terrible Opinions posted:

Which actual fascist?

Mercea Eliade. Romanian Iron Guard propagandist.

Oh, also Ayn Rand.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2018 18:43

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Kurieg posted:

I think my main problem with BHM and RPG.net is that he got to play Moderator in the Beast Kickstarter thread where everyone was telling him that the book was hella rapey, and he got to tell people not to talk about how rapey his book was.

Yeah, I have to say I'm not thrilled with a major hub of RPG discussion (with a genuinely plum URL) having a significant moderation presence from a particular publisher. Doesn't matter which publisher it is (well, OK, it does because it'd be hella worse if it was the Lamentations of the Flame Princess dude), it leads to situations like this.

On top of that, Cessna, "I'm trying to deliver what our users say they want" only works if users feel like they can say something. Generally, in my experience, when people have pointed out this type of conflict of interest on RPG.net they get angry redtext aimed at them. Under such circumstances, how do you seriously expect people to raise the issue? Given that you, yourself, note that the moderators sometimes project a rather authoritarian image, can you really blame people for saying to themselves "Well, I could PM or start a trouble ticket, but then I'd just flag myself as a dissident and I don't think it's worth the risk of the poo poo I'd catch or the extra scrutiny they'd put me under."

The fact that none of the RPG.net mods or ex-mods on this thread have dared touch the subject since Kurieg brought it up kind of speaks volumes.

Cessna posted:

That's why we have so many silly things built up - because, yes, someone DID post "hey, Tangency, I'm bleeding profusely, should I get help" so we had to say "please don't ask for medical advice" in the rules.

That seems particularly pointless because if someone's in a medical emergency, and their thinking is fuzzy enough that they're contemplating posting on an RPG forum about it rather than getting help, are they going to stop to comb through the rules before they start a thread?

Hell, do you comb the rules every time you start a thread, even under relaxed, non-urgent circumstances? If the answer's "yes" then that is conscientious but, I'd suggest. more conscientious than it's really reasonable to expect most people to be when the rules have gotten to this level of bloat.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2018 17:39

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Cessna posted:

I've come to realize that there is no possible way to satisfy everyone. There are thousands of people over there, each with their own view of how things should be. As such, there's only so much I can really respond to productively over here. If you want to hold some sort of comprehensive review - Everything Wrong With Rpg.net - you are of course welcome to do so, but I can't realistically promise to fix everything. No one can. It's unrealistic to think that you'll make the site what you want - no one gets that, not even me.

If you want to bring up problems over there, please do. This won't make you a "dissident." Bluntly, we don't have time or the inclination to make up some sort of Sulla-esque proscription list.

So I made the comment you are replying to about a very specific issue, and it took further badgering for you to finally actually engage with the issue in any meaningful sense (demonstrably incorrect though it is - OPP people lock and moderate OPP-related threads all the friggin' time). Read the above quote back to yourself: it's a classic non-answer and full-on evasion.

How do you expect people to believe you take this poo poo seriously when you parrot the same lines over and over again? Do you have a script you're using to compose your replies?

# ¿ Feb 1, 2018 19:18

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Cessna posted:

I don't think I can give an answer that will make you happy, so I'll step out. Have a good day.

Called it.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2018 19:25

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Cessna posted:

So, with that in mind. Yes, I'm open to feedback. I can't promise that we'll change everything, because as I said, we have to try to balance a lot of concerns. How do we get meaningful feedback without it turning into endless theoretical debates?

Well, step one is to not slam all the way from "Everything is always up for debate" to "We are not going to discuss mod decisions ever".

There's a happy middle to be found there. And an unwillingness to engage with and attempt to explain to people mod decisions is perhaps one of the biggest ways the mods present an authoritarian front. Generally, authority which is not willing to be held to account and explain its decisions is not authority you want to trust.

Usually when someone is rules lawyering, sealioning, or generally arguing in bad faith it becomes evident. Not in a "I can prove this mathematically" way but in a "We all know this poo poo when we see it" instinctive sort of way. Why not engage in discussion until such a point as it descends into nitpicking and then say "This is nitpicking, we can pick this up if there is a substantive point here but as it stands there isn't one."

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 00:27

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Cessna posted:

Absolutely. And it is hard to find a good balance between hearing people out and burning out the staff.

Modest proposal: regular staff turnover, provided there's recruitment from the user base, could be a good thing. It'd mean the moderation wouldn't get ossified as a result of longer-standing mods still holding onto policies that were developed for the forum culture of 10-15 years ago instead of the forum culture as it exists today.

Perhaps if mods took sabbaticals on occasion, divested of their mod powers and access and posting as regular users for a while, they'd get to refamiliarise themselves with how stuff looks from a regular user's point of view, which is invaluable.

Rand Brittain posted:

Usually if you put in somebody who isn't a game publisher in as a moderator they wind up becoming one later.

Usually when people of integrity find themselves in a conflict of interest they recuse themselves or resign from a position to resolve it.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 00:38

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Of all the Rule 2 interpretations the rule against describing a game industry professional's actions as unprofessional is the one I bemoan the most. It is a term entirely fitting, say, GMS's Far West debacle. And giving industry professionals this protected status means that stories that are clearly in the public interest become difficult to discuss on an important forum for the hobby.

I get that there's a big overlap between RPG.net users and industry professionals, and it wants to be friendly to those professionals. But the friendliness has hit a point where RPG.net is compromised as a result. The moderation policy serves the interests of professionals above that of customers.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 12:07

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Cessna posted:

Edit: I've done this for a few things from this thread already. I think a blanket "never moderate a thread on any game you've ever worked on" is a slam-dunk rule we should have had written out formally for years, and I think a more proactive explanation of how to handle harassment claims - and an avenue for handling them - is also an obvious change.

I'd extend that to "any game by a publisher you're currently doing work for", to be honest. Because even if Designer A only works on Game 1 and never touches Game 2, if Publisher X publishes both games and pays Designer A for their work on Game 1 it looks incredibly dodgy to have Designer A moderating threads about Game 2. Especially if harsh criticisms suddenly get silenced as a result of that.

The guiding principle should be that not only must you avoid conflicts of interest, but you must also avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. Even if Designer A's feelings about Game 2 in the above example are as objective and fair as they could possibly be, it still looks dodgy as hell.

moths posted:

Also everybody over there really, really needs to understand that neither 1) an accusation of wrongdoing or 2) criticism taken personally constitutes a personal attack.

Also this.

It seems to be generally understood that arguing against an idea is legit. Fine.

It also seems to be understood that attacking someone's personal characteristics and identity is out of bounds. Wonderful, fantastic, great job.

Somehow the hazy middle ground seems to be when it comes to someone's actions, and it seems like the idea has taken root that condemning someone's actions is too close to a personal attack. Which is nonsense.

As for criticising people's work, there's some pretty serious double standards going on there to be honest. People are allowed to rag on FATAL to an extent that they'd never be allowed to on, say, a particularly controversial Exalted product.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 18:07

Warthur: May 2, 2004

(...in retrospect, this policy does explain the thing that Changeling 20th seems to have going where it regards criticism of art as being a force of Banality - rather than, as I'd characterise it, a sword and shield against the creeping forces of Banality, slapping down the mediocre so that works of genuine Glamour and merit can shine forth without being overgrown by weeds or crowded out by bandwagon-hoppers.)

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 18:11

Warthur: May 2, 2004

And more particularly, what about saying that they are a garbage designer?

Being in the position of being able to say that each and every product a person has written is garbage but not being able to arrive at the logical conclusion is cobblers.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2018 18:08

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Under all circumstances? Say the designer in question's running a Kickstarter and you've had enough experience of their products and behaviour to come to the conclusion that they are not trustworthy. Are you really doing anyone a favour by soft-pedalling your objections by avoiding the phrase "Designer X is untrustworthy"?

# ¿ Feb 5, 2018 18:36

Warthur: May 2, 2004

inklesspen posted:

It's certainly possible: "Alice Anderson previously wrote Swordfinder 2, Dungeon Goblins, and Magick & Mayhem, all of which were garbage games (here are some links explaining why). Based on this track record, I would advise against backing Alice's new kickstarter for Swordfinder 4.13."

I feel like it gets a little bit weasely to have to put down every little bit of it without being able to actually state the obvious conclusion. But on the other hand, assuming you have time to break down the argument, it does help make your point stronger.

The weaselness is exactly what I find objectionable. And whilst in terms of pure logic setting down your evidence is sensible, in terms of convincing rhetoric putting down your evidence and then clearly stating your conclusion is preferable.

And it avoids getting into the dance of "So, basically what you are saying is that Alice Anderson is a garbage designer?" "Oh, well you can reach that conclusion from my post but I would certainly never directly say as much..."

# ¿ Feb 6, 2018 13:08

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Enola Gay-For-Pay posted:

His "apology" is my absolute favorite stupid thing, as it is mostly about how sorry he is for being so loving sexy.

As I think I said on RPG.net at the time, we've been subjected to a lot of non-apologies over the course of the whole #MeToo thing, but Suleiman's is the first I've ever seen which reads like it should have the Careless Whisper sax solo playing in the background.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2018 13:00

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Ettin posted:

Hey folks! I was planning to reboot this thread today and I'd appreciate it if you could drop the RPGnet argument before then, thanks.

Give Rand an RPG.net-style thread ban and you've got a deal, because the past two pages have made it clear that Rand can't step away from Operation Defend RPG.net and the rest of us can't stop razzing him for it.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2018 08:34

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Haystack posted:

White Wolf is two kids in a trenchcoat trying to get into an Underworld screening.

It amuses me how whereas the old White Wolf brought that lawsuit against Underworld for plagiarism (and apparently got an out-of-court settlement), nuWW just sticks shots from Underworld into the trailer for their documentary about the WoD games. I guess that makes it canon now.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2018 22:51

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Sampatrick posted:

I don't know that I would use D&D 5e as a good comparison - it has had quite a few supplements and adventures at this point and has had an absolutely massive volume of sale compared to pretty much every other RPG out there right now.

Plus you have the associated videogames, fiction, boardgames etc. which are churned out well in excess of WW/OP's tie-in offerings. 5E as a tabletop RPG is only one component of a vastly larger franchise, whereas the WoD's non-RPG offerings are an ancillary appendage.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 00:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 18:27

Warthur: May 2, 2004

Idran posted:

Increasingly live play fans too, I'd bet.

Plus good ol' word of mouth.

The thing is, the industry needs the hobby but the hobby really doesn't need the industry. In general, outside of D&D and (when it was in its prime) World of Darkness few RPGs actually mint new roleplayers - other roleplayers have nearly always done the legwork there (with podcasts and actual play streams doing a fantastic job these days). If every single RPG company shuttered tomorrow, hobbyists would step up to replace most of them really quickly - especially since most small press publishers are basically hobbyists anyway.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 08:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future