|
Dr Nick posted:Role playing games don't tell stories, swine scum. This is a TVTroper who has learned the wrong lesson about writing from Scott Pilgrim.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
Zak S posted:I have always thought WOTC should just print everything from all eras repackaged and organized like the comic book companies are trying to do now. Potential fanbase is probably not a limited resource in a way that somebody can reasonably quantify. WotC's budget at any one time (development, publishing, marketing, or otherwise), on the other hand, is a limited resource, and that is where the angry edition warriors have a point. Barring the development of a cost-justified print-on-demand or .pdf-distribution system, WotC is unlikely to have the resources to make new copies of every one of their products continually available, particularly core rulebooks that would be necessary to support. Certainly there are theoretical market conditions that could converge to motivate WotC to do multi-edition support, but they are unlikely to exist. There would need to be: (1) very low to negative cross-elasticity of demand between editions (meaning that the goods do not substitute for one another, possibly due to having largely separate markets); (2) labor costs low enough to provide for mutatis mutandis cross-edition splats/mods; (3) as addressed above, sustainably low publication overhead. The market for any future WotC product consists of its potential buyers. Committed edition warriors ("grogs") are not potential buyers; they will not stray from the one true path. The market for one given (A)D&D Xe core/splats/mods gameline therefore consists of edition-uncommitted gamers (whether indifferent, actively novelty-seeking, or otherwise), game collector/fanatics and newbies. Of those three groups, only one is likely to actively consume multiple gamelines. It is an empirical question what submarket or aggregation of submarkets is the largest, out of: grogs of a particular edition, newbs, uncommitted gamers, or collectors. I do not know the answer to the question. I suspect that it is the group of everybody but grogs, counting each edition's grogs as separate groups. Considering that for the untapped, potentially huge market of newbs, any edition they see first will do, there is no commercial advantage for WotC to spend its limited resources on intrabrand competition. That is to say, my condition (1) above does not now exist, nor is it likely to. Therefore, WotC will probably act as though its resources are limited, because it derives minimal benefit from supporting many editions at once. (Maybe there are constellations of editions for which this is not true; again, empirical question for which I have no data. But for my assumption that there are more newbs + don't-give-a-fucks than there are grogs for each edition, I don't think there would be.) EDIT: tl;dr WotC won't/can't/shouldn't produce several competing product lines, because it is unlikely to make them any money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Dr Nick posted:I can't imagine … buying modules for 1e not realizing they wont work in 3e or some dumb poo poo. I can, because I've done it. When I was a kid, AD&D and BECMI had new product simultaneously on the shelves at Waldenbooks. As a kid who played Basic, I remember at least once blowing money on a module, then getting it home, reading through it, and saying to myself, "what the gently caress is a ranger?" I started young with the swearing. EDIT: run-on sentence
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
General question: How is "grognard" pronounced in English? The French pronunciation, according to https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard , is /ɡʁɔ.ɲaʁ/, more or less "graw-NYAR". English Wiktionary lacks a pronunciation, and my Shorter OED doesn't have the word. We usually call them "grogs". Are people saying /ɡʁɔ.'ɲaʁ/, /'ɡrɔn.yard/, /'ɡrɔg.nard/, or something else?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:
Beats me but it sounds dangerous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Half of people commenting disagreed with me. Therefore the silent majority is firmly on my side.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/douching.cfm#d 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:So why exactly does it matter if a mechanic is associated or disassociated again? They turn you into a storygamer.Which is bad because http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Which mechanics does the Alexandrian define as associated? Damned if I'm going to dig through his word salad to find out his unique definition that somehow includes HP and levels and attack bonuses and ability scores and everything about D&D. I think he's got it pretty well pared down so that only Vancian casting is an associated mechanic. Everything else is dissociated, but the things that are dissociated that don't lead to caster supremacy are acceptably dissociated (e.g. everything about chargen).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Even Vancian casting is pretty goddamn disassociated because the effects are tied irrevocably to disassociated mechanics like level and damage dice and saving throws and aaaarrggghhhh The Alexandrian posted:But this generalization can be misleading when taken too literally. All mechanics are both metagamed and abstracted: They exist outside of the character’s world and they are only rough approximations of that world. It's related to spellcasting, so it is dissociated but acceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just imagine how much less aggravating this all would be if he'd just say "I don't like games that are to meta-gamey". But then he'd be admitting he's only making a subjective aesthetic judgment. e: I am not accusing him of being disingenuous, only of being too dense to realize that he is not the final arbiter of elfgames taste.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Also the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private citizens or property. I can tell anyone I like to shut up and kick them out of my business if I don't like what they say. Nuh uh. I can disagree with you but if you disagree with me that's censorship, Tipper.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Tendales posted:I'm super disappointed. I mean, shutting down the thread just because the shitlords MIGHT infest it in the future shows a... well, to be honest, a pretty realistic lack of faith in humanity. Posters manifesting a terminal case of point-missing had appeared by the end of page 2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
I think you're both right to an extent. It's almost as if … the answer were somewhere in the middle?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
Gau posted:This is the only advice that I could give anyone. Cons are notoriously unsafe places for women. If you must go, go with friends you trust, stay in public places, and don't drink. I don't like the suggestion that women must behave any differently from men in order to protect themselves from crime. It's the essence of male privilege that a woman has to recruit a coterie of bodyguards, watch where she walks, and remain completely sober to do an activity that men can do alone, drunk, and anywhere. Con organizers could be made to understand that certain behaviors by male con attendees (and not just the specifically criminal behaviors) are unacceptable, and could be convinced to implement measures to prevent them. RPG cons are not the only trade/hobby cons that exist. I wonder, have cons with a higher proportion of women in attendance, or a higher absolute number of woman attendees, produced any object lessons in this area? In other words, does any con, RPG or not, do rape/molestation prevention right? edit: This summarizes the cause of the problem: Angry Diplomat posted:Incidentally, the answer to "why are there so many predators at X" is usually, "because we make it really easy for them to thrive there." The issue then becomes how we make it difficult for predators to thrive at cons, and in the hobby. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Dr Nick posted:This is adorable. I hope someday he patches things up with his little brother 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Zak S asked Google Plus a (loaded) question. And answered it himself with a full-on attack of the free play of ideas. I've got to hand it to Zak, this is verging on some Mille Plateaux poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Triple-Kan posted:It's even more impressive when you consider that we're all just the sock puppet accounts of three people. I'm just waiting for those dingbats to realize that one of those "people" is a sock for one of the other two.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
It doesn't surprise me that the dude from GWAR is writing for LotFP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 22:39
|
|