Sigh- I miss this group.
gleichman
DougL
Scooter got a fair number of replies in fairly short order to his
posts. And they all seemed civil enough.
People are obviously still checking the group.
DougL
On Oct 16, 5:33 pm, "gleichman" <fox1_217NoS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :)
Irina Rempt
> Well, post something!
>
> Scooter got a fair number of replies in fairly short order to his
> posts. And they all seemed civil enough.
>
> People are obviously still checking the group.
I've recently subscribed again but I haven't dared post anything (though
we have a very good campaign going) because the last time I tried, in
2003, I ran away screaming because someone who I won't name insulted
someone I have a high opinion of. I wanted to gauge the atmosphere first.
Also, if I do write about my current campaign I'll probably have to use a
few technical terms, and I've been flamed quite enough here for *that*.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 08-Sep-2006
Mary K. Kuhner
for two of his regular gaming group and their two teenaged sons.
It's been really interesting hearing how the different parties approach
identical situations!
Would be nice to have a place to talk about this again.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
gleichman
things others said. The one exception was my series of reviews and as I
recall Warren Dew once stated that they were the cause of the fall of this
group. And I don't think I could successfully argue otherwise.
But this is a start of a thread, so it's another exception.
Who's still here watching r.g.f.a and what have you been up to lately?
"DougL" <lamper...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161094478.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gleichman
"Irina Rempt" <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote in message
news:4535182f$0$330$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> I've recently subscribed again but I haven't dared post anything (though
> we have a very good campaign going) because the last time I tried, in
> 2003, I ran away screaming because someone who I won't name insulted
> someone I have a high opinion of. I wanted to gauge the atmosphere first.
Unmoderated areas of the Internet simply aren't safe. Moderated ones are,
but tend to be bland and a victim of group-think. Right now I imagine all
the trolls and the like are busy elsewhere in areas with more traffic.
Perhaps they won't notice.
But even if they don't, nothing good lasts forever.
> Also, if I do write about my current campaign I'll probably have to use a
> few technical terms, and I've been flamed quite enough here for *that*.
I think the Forge has made everything we did back in the day look basic and
concise. I know I wouldn't object to any of the old terms.
gleichman
"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:eh3b55$kvp$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
I would love to see it. One has a few choices with respect to a "place to
talk" these days.
1. We could of course use this newsgroup. It's open and unmoderated and that
comes with advantages and disadvantages. The worse being that trolling here
(I guess I must include myself as one of the trolls) drove you away in the
first place and the choice that it would occur again is all present.
2. r.g.f.moderated is a dead group, but the offer is there for someone else
to take it over.
3. Once could base it around a blog. The primary issue here is that a blog
has horrid threading where you have to look through everything to find a new
comment and it heavily reflects the owner. John Kim's blog is an example. I
don't find such places very useful except as a pulpit for the owner.
4. There's free forum software. We could make our own. This might be
something that I could look into if there was interest.
Any other ideas?
Irina Rempt
> "Mary K. Kuhner" <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:eh3b55$kvp$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>> Would be nice to have a place to talk about this again.
>
> I would love to see it. One has a few choices with respect to a "place
> to talk" these days.
>
> 1. We could of course use this newsgroup. It's open and unmoderated and
> that comes with advantages and disadvantages. The worse being that
> trolling here (I guess I must include myself as one of the trolls) drove
> you away in the first place and the choice that it would occur again is
> all present.
Erm, yes.
> 2. r.g.f.moderated is a dead group, but the offer is there for someone
> else to take it over.
Last (and only) time I was there I inadvertently used a technical term
developed here (I think it was something completely innocuous) and the
moderators edited it out with [jargon deleted]. In other words, it
carries a taint for me and I wouldn't feel comfortable even if the
moderators were people I knew and trusted (and even if one of the
moderators were myself!)
> 3. Once could base it around a blog. The primary issue here is that a
> blog has horrid threading where you have to look through everything to
> find a new comment and it heavily reflects the owner. John Kim's blog is
> an example. I don't find such places very useful except as a pulpit for
> the owner.
Yes, agreed. Well, perhaps not a pulpit, but a place of one's own, yes;
it's not public enough.
> 4. There's free forum software. We could make our own. This might be
> something that I could look into if there was interest.
Hatesss web forums, we do. I briefly looked into RPG-net but bounced hard
on the interface.
> Any other ideas?
Well, I want the old rgfa back. I realise that it can't be as good as it
was in, say, 1998, but we might just try.
gleichman
> Last (and only) time I was there I inadvertently used a technical term
> developed here (I think it was something completely innocuous) and the
> moderators edited it out with [jargon deleted]. In other words, it
> carries a taint for me and I wouldn't feel comfortable even if the
> moderators were people I knew and trusted (and even if one of the
> moderators were myself!)
I can understand that.
> Hatesss web forums, we do. I briefly looked into RPG-net but bounced hard
> on the interface.
What if someone else took ownership of it?
> Well, I want the old rgfa back. I realise that it can't be as good as it
> was in, say, 1998, but we might just try.
I'm certainly not opposed.
I recently returned online for a visit (it's John Morrow's fault) and one of
things I noticed is that nearly all the original r.f.g.a people were missing
from all the places I visited (John Kim and John Morrow being the
exceptions). And none of the sites now days hold a candle to rgfa. The Forge
is a joke as its always been, RPGNet is over-posted with a signal to noise
ratio worse than anything rgf.misc ever saw. And so on.
The best exchanges I ever had were here. So I wouldn't mind trying again. I
even promise to be nicer :)
Mary K. Kuhner
Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>gleichman wrote:
>> 2. r.g.f.moderated is a dead group, but the offer is there for someone
>> else to take it over.
>Last (and only) time I was there I inadvertently used a technical term
>developed here (I think it was something completely innocuous) and the
>moderators edited it out with [jargon deleted]. In other words, it
>carries a taint for me and I wouldn't feel comfortable even if the
>moderators were people I knew and trusted (and even if one of the
>moderators were myself!)
Interestingly, I had the same experience except that the article
was outright rejected; two or three in a row, in fact. So definitely
not safe space. I don't feel I was particularly out of line, except
that I used a jargon word.
I think resuming moderation of a dead moderated group is pretty
difficult, technically speaking; unless we have someone with a lot
of energy available to work on the problem, I wouldn't go this way.
I don't find blogs or web fora very helpful in this context. I belong
to a highly specialized web forum that works, but it starts to show
stress at about 20 active users. Bigger ones are generally very
unsatisfactory to me. No killfiles, no quick way to skip messages,
and everything seems rapidly to descend to lowest common denominator.
I'd be willing to give rgfa another try; maybe enough time has passed
to let things cool down. Rec.arts.sf.composition shows that you can
have a viable unmoderated group, though it takes significant care
and attention.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
gleichman
> I don't find blogs or web fora very helpful in this context. I belong
> to a highly specialized web forum that works, but it starts to show
> stress at about 20 active users. Bigger ones are generally very
> unsatisfactory to me. No killfiles, no quick way to skip messages,
> and everything seems rapidly to descend to lowest common denominator.
I doubt that we'd get more than 20 users, well active ones anyway.
At least some of the software includes ignore lists, but I agree that Usenet
is actually the better interface. I've always considered the web forums to
be clumsy to say the least.
> I'd be willing to give rgfa another try; maybe enough time has passed
> to let things cool down. Rec.arts.sf.composition shows that you can
> have a viable unmoderated group, though it takes significant care
> and attention.
Let's give it a try then. If things get out of hand we can explore other
options at that point. Given how inactive this group has been, I think we'll
fly below the radar for a while. Killfiles should be able to handle what
does come our way.
Gary Johnson
> My husband is currently running _Shackled City_ for me, and separately
> for two of his regular gaming group and their two teenaged sons. It's
> been really interesting hearing how the different parties approach
> identical situations!
I've been playing a Shackled City campaign now for over a year - we've
almost finished the series - so there's another point of
comparison/divergence (DM and players). That said, your situation (same
DM, different players) sounds more interesting to discuss.
> Would be nice to have a place to talk about this again.
Wouldn't here do?
Cheers,
Gary Johnson
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://members.optusnet.com.au/xmen_campaign
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm
Irina Rempt
> "Irina Rempt" <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote in message
> news:4535580f$0$324$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Hatesss web forums, we do. I briefly looked into RPG-net but bounced
>> hard on the interface.
>
> What if someone else took ownership of it?
Whoever *owns* the web forums doesn't change the *interface*. I hate
reading web-based conversation: threading is all wrong, it doesn't mark
read properly, it doesn't have killfile functionality and in most cases
I'm stuck with design and layout aimed at thirteen-year-olds. I've
stopped reading some things that I liked the content of (the Gutenberg
forums, for instance) because I couldn't get used to it.
David Meadows
> gleichman wrote:
> > 2. r.g.f.moderated is a dead group, but the offer is there for someone
> > else to take it over.
>
> Last (and only) time I was there I inadvertently used a technical term
> developed here (I think it was something completely innocuous) and the
> moderators edited it out with [jargon deleted]. In other words, it
> carries a taint for me and I wouldn't feel comfortable even if the
> moderators were people I knew and trusted (and even if one of the
> moderators were myself!)
Moderating horror stories: on a writers' forum a moderator edited my post
about author Michael Moorcock to read Michael Moor****. I'd have screamed if
I wasn't laughing so hard.
Yes, I miss this place too. I check it regularly, but as I was always more
of a reader than a poster I haven't wanted to be the first to open a new
topic here.
--
David Meadows
"I lost her under the floorboards for three weeks!"
-- Grandfather Yun, HEROES issue 38
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts
Stephen McIlvenna
"gleichman" <fox1_21...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lc6dnSw4cres_KjY...@comcast.com...
>
> "Mary K. Kuhner" <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:eh3mii$tj$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
>
> At least some of the software includes ignore lists, but I agree that
> Usenet is actually the better interface. I've always considered the web
> forums to be clumsy to say the least.
>
>> I'd be willing to give rgfa another try; maybe enough time has passed
>> to let things cool down. Rec.arts.sf.composition shows that you can
>> have a viable unmoderated group, though it takes significant care
>> and attention.
>
> Let's give it a try then. If things get out of hand we can explore other
> options at that point. Given how inactive this group has been, I think
> we'll fly below the radar for a while. Killfiles should be able to handle
> what does come our way.
>
If it's of any encouragement, I'll speak up and add a new voice. I confess
to being a deep-lurker when the newsgroup was at its peak. I had really only
known one group of players and we had never given a moment's thought to our
style of play or gaming preferences. The conversations here really helped me
to recognise why some of our games fell flat or why the same old arguments
kept coming up (clashes between my preference for 'story' and another
player's love of 'game', as I would later understand).
I didn't post anything at the time. Partly because I wouldn't have valued my
own opinion, but also because my internet access was through my place of
employment (browsing was possible, posting discouraged). I may not have much
wisdom to add, but I would be keen to help see this group resurface.
Stephen
http://www.btinternet.com/~s.mci/
DougL
> I was never one for starting threads, I always found my interest sparked by
> things others said. The one exception was my series of reviews and as I
> recall Warren Dew once stated that they were the cause of the fall of this
> group. And I don't think I could successfully argue otherwise.
>
> But this is a start of a thread, so it's another exception.
>
> Who's still here watching r.g.f.a and what have you been up to lately?
Hmm, since the last time this group was active I got married. Starting
Friday I'm co-chairing a con with my wife (Con*Stellation XXV in
Huntsville AL, see our web site, come if you like).
I've been running (and occassionally playing) D&D3.x since it came out.
Works reasonably well "out of the box" as long as you don't let in
anything but core.
I ran BESM prior to that for a space opera, worked reasonably well
although I think that was despite the system rather than because of the
system.
Currently in progress homebrew uses D20+skill vs. DC or opponent's roll
for basic success/failure (special effects on some results); followed
by an additional #d6 for actual result. The skill/result's roll split
is intended to parallel the to hit/damage roll split that most systems
have. #d6 is determined by attribute.
Intent is for high skill and high ability to "feel" different and for
both to matter.
Details can follow if anyone wants to talk about skill vs. ability.
Alternately we could discuss magic systems, I'm worried that the one I
have in mind will be unfun, but it's what fits the world.
DougL
> "DougL" <lampert.d...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1161094478.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Well, post something!
>
> > Scooter got a fair number of replies in fairly short order to his
> > posts. And they all seemed civil enough.
>
> > People are obviously still checking the group.
>
> > DougL
>
> > On Oct 16, 5:33 pm, "gleichman" <fox1_217NoS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> :)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
gleichman
DougL wrote:
> Currently in progress homebrew uses D20+skill vs. DC or opponent's roll
> for basic success/failure (special effects on some results); followed
> by an additional #d6 for actual result. The skill/result's roll split
> is intended to parallel the to hit/damage roll split that most systems
> have. #d6 is determined by attribute.
Have you looked at True20? It sounds similar to what you're doing and
has made something of splash for those looking for something easier
than D&D.
Peter Knutsen
> I was never one for starting threads, I always found my interest sparked by
> things others said. The one exception was my series of reviews and as I
> recall Warren Dew once stated that they were the cause of the fall of this
> group. And I don't think I could successfully argue otherwise.
>
> But this is a start of a thread, so it's another exception.
>
> Who's still here watching r.g.f.a and what have you been up to lately?
Early this year, I decided to officially take a break from design work
on Sagatafl, and begin working on a system specific to modern era
campaigns with quite a lot of expected "physical action", especially
combat. Work is progressing nicely, on this system which is perhaps more
of a Gamist/Simulationist hybrid, whereas Sagatafl is a pure
Simulationist system.
Of course, the only way for a game designer to ever completely stop
working on a system is if he dismisses it as not interesting to use (or
even to toy with). Recently I've done some more work on the Sagatafl
magic item creation system, but now I only have cleaning up (after some
reformatting of the document) and proofreading to do, before I can
return to my newer design and start implementing some more of my ideas
for character "types" and other mechanics.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
DougL
First try at a reply disappeared, so this may be a double post. Sorry.
Hmm, I haven't (yet) looked at it, but other mentions of T20 make it
sound pretty close to some of my houserules.
I'll try to remember to look at it after the con.
DougL
sNOm...@sonic.net
> I'd be willing to give rgfa another try; maybe enough time has passed
> to let things cool down.
I wasn't very Usenet-active for a while, and didn't see the melt-down;
it was just veeeery quiet here when I came back.
What was it that happened?
> Rec.arts.sf.composition shows that you can have a viable unmoderated
> group, though it takes significant care and attention.
It's not the only NG that's successfully fighting off spammers / etc...
I'm not sure I've read the *entire* rgfa charter, but it appears that
the NG as-used doesn't much look like the NG as-chartered. This is a
Bad Thing (tm) because it gives netcops much MUCH less traction with
ISP's to keeps spammers and trolls off-group.
Technically, it *appears* that "r.g.f.a classic" content belongs over
on .misc; that might be one option to keep in mind. Another might be
to newgroup r.g.f.discuss or some such, with a clear charter and some
folks willing to play netcop in the hardball leagues.
--
Steve Saunders
to de-spam me, de-capitalize me
Beowulf Bolt
>
> "Mary K. Kuhner" <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:eh3mii$tj$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> > passed to let things cool down. Rec.arts.sf.composition shows that
> > you can have a viable unmoderated group, though it takes significant
> > care and attention.
>
> Let's give it a try then. If things get out of hand we can explore
> other options at that point. Given how inactive this group has been, I
> think we'll fly below the radar for a while. Killfiles should be able
> to handle what does come our way.
And the other advantage of using RGFA is that there probably is a
surprising number of the old regulars who still subscribe to the
newsgroup, so there would be a ready-made audience with which to
interact.
(Mind you the same might be said about the trolls, but one hopes that
they aren't as motivated.)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beowulf Bolt
>
> Who's still here watching r.g.f.a and what have you been up to lately?
I'm into the fifth and final 'book' of an Amber campaign, using a
Tarot-based plot mechanic to allow characters some influence on events.
Working really well, though of course I still have the big hump of the
climax to the campaign ahead of me.
I never would have though in my days of arguing with David Berkman
(Theatrix) that I would one day be running such a strongly story-based
campaign. <laugh>
psychohist
The one exception was my series of reviews and as I
recall Warren Dew once stated that they were the cause
of the fall of this group.
I don't remember saying this, and it certainly doesn't reflect my
current belief. I do think that the reviews drew a lot of new people
who weren't fully acculturated to the group, but I also think they got
brought some much needed traffic here at a time when the group was
becoming somewhat moribund.
I personally enjoyed the reviews and the subsequent discussion a lot.
If I were to blame one thing for the apparent death of the group, it
would be the autoposting of a FAQ that was outdated and that didn't
properly reflect everyones' points of view.
I'd love to have the group back, though. I've definitely been missing
it too.
I'm still running my Laratoa campaign, though we're presently down to
two regular players. A significant amount of additional time has
passed, though it's not really generational yet.
psychohist
ability to edit my posts. Now I'll have to suffer the embarassment of
replying to my own post.
One thought I'd had on how the group wound down was that perhaps we'd
discovered most of what was to be discovered about roleplaying gaming
theory, and there wasn't that much more to talk about. I don't
necessarily think this is true; I'm just entertaining it as a
possibility.
And to fill out my own situation: I also play online roleplaying
games; I'm presently playing World of Warcraft regularly with my wife.
While I recognize many in this group don't consider computerized games
to be real roleplaying, it seems to fulfill my "playing as a player"
requirement enough that I can maintain my interest in gamesmastering my
own campaign.
Irina Rempt
> I'm still running my Laratoa campaign, though we're presently down to
> two regular players. A significant amount of additional time has
> passed, though it's not really generational yet.
I forgot to say that my campaign *is* now generational: the PCs are the
daughter of a PC in the first campaign and the daughter of two PCs in the
second one.
gleichman
news:1161204658....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> gleichman wrote:
>
> The one exception was my series of reviews and as I
> recall Warren Dew once stated that they were the cause
> of the fall of this group.
>
> I don't remember saying this, and it certainly doesn't reflect my
> current belief. I do think that the reviews drew a lot of new people
> who weren't fully acculturated to the group, but I also think they got
> brought some much needed traffic here at a time when the group was
> becoming somewhat moribund.
True enough. But with the traffic came a good number of trolls, so many that
I grew disgusted and just gave up.
> I personally enjoyed the reviews and the subsequent discussion a lot.
> If I were to blame one thing for the apparent death of the group, it
> would be the autoposting of a FAQ that was outdated and that didn't
> properly reflect everyones' points of view.
I would agree that likely played it's own part. It was like waving a red
flag daring people to take a swipe at us.
At the time it was Jargon filled and cutting edge. Now (compared to the
Forge), it's concise and simple in its aims. I doubt it would attract as
much fire. But I'd still like to see it revised.
Mary K. Kuhner
>> I'd be willing to give rgfa another try; maybe enough time has passed
>> to let things cool down.
>I wasn't very Usenet-active for a while, and didn't see the melt-down;
>it was just veeeery quiet here when I came back.
>What was it that happened?
Everyone will have their own views on this. From my perspective,
the level of personal attack going on became so high that it
was no longer a viable place to post anything personally revealing
or important--and then, why post at all? I was on the receiving
end of a lot of "Your play style shows that you are mentally ill
and sexually deviant" and the newsgroup did not seem to be able
to manage the problems that led to this. We lost the sort of
consensus that allows effective netcopping and it just stopped
working.
>> Rec.arts.sf.composition shows that you can have a viable unmoderated
>> group, though it takes significant care and attention.
>It's not the only NG that's successfully fighting off spammers / etc...
.advocacy's problem was definitely not spammers, and the trolls
were the local variety, not just interlopers. The whole
tone of the discussion went downhill, I think.
>Technically, it *appears* that "r.g.f.a classic" content belongs over
>on .misc; that might be one option to keep in mind. Another might be
>to newgroup r.g.f.discuss or some such, with a clear charter and some
>folks willing to play netcop in the hardball leagues.
I'm not willing to read rgf.misc. The signal to noise is too low.
I'd support a new newsgroup if it seemed likely to improve over
the one we have, but honestly, I doubt charter matters that much
anymore. ISPs don't enforce content; we're lucky if they go after
overt spammers anymore. I think we're just as well off with the
group we have, and an advantage is that it's apparently still in the
.newsrc of a lot of its previous members.
We should find some way to kill the FAQ as it has probably outlived
its usefulness.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Erol K. Bayburt
<fox1_21...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Who's still here watching r.g.f.a and what have you been up to lately?
Hello.
I haven't been doing much gaming, lately. I've mostly been trying to
write stories and teach myself how to draw (on computer w CorelDraw).
And tinkering with house rules and campaign backgrounds, but that
isn't really gaming; its more like what rec.arts.sf.composition calls
"cat vacuuming."
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Jeff Heikkinen
> gleichman wrote:
>
> > "Irina Rempt" <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote in message
> > news:4535580f$0$324$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> >> Hatesss web forums, we do. I briefly looked into RPG-net but bounced
> >> hard on the interface.
> >
> > What if someone else took ownership of it?
>
> Whoever *owns* the web forums doesn't change the *interface*. I hate
> reading web-based conversation: threading is all wrong, it doesn't mark
> read properly, it doesn't have killfile functionality and in most cases
> I'm stuck with design and layout aimed at thirteen-year-olds. I've
> stopped reading some things that I liked the content of (the Gutenberg
> forums, for instance) because I couldn't get used to it.
It's starting to come along. Some of them thread, though I have yet to
see an interface for this that was as simple or intuitive as even
mediocre Usenet clients. And some of them have a killfile of sorts,
though usually you can still see *that* someone you've chosen to ignore
has posted, just not what they've said. Whether that's a feature or a
bug is a matter of individual judgement, I suppose. I would say Web
board software is still a ways away from being a decent substitute for a
newsgroup, but it's not as far off as it once was.
sNOm...@sonic.net
> > What was it that happened?
>
> I was on the receiving end of a lot of "Your play style shows
> that you are mentally ill and sexually deviant"
<boggle>
Your play style, of course, jack-all about YOU... except, maybe,
that you're pickier than most of us in that you don't play with
lots of others, any more.
FWIW, Mary -- You were one of the 2-3 people whose posts were
*the* core of why I read r.g.f.a (when I read regularly). Not
that I always agreed with you, of course, but you were always
interesting and often insightful.
> and the newsgroup did not seem to be able
> to manage the problems that led to this.
Well, no. My experience of usenet is that (unmoderated)
newsgroups can seldom "manage" anything at all...
> We lost the sort of consensus that allows effective netcopping
> and it just stopped working.
By "netcopping" do you mean group consensus & social pressure
keeping flames & trolls to a minimum? That *seems* to be what
you're talking about...
> >> Rec.arts.sf.composition shows that you can have a viable unmoderated
> >> group, though it takes significant care and attention.
> >It's not the only NG that's successfully fighting off spammers / etc...
> .advocacy's problem was definitely not spammers, and the trolls
> were the local variety, not just interlopers. The whole
> tone of the discussion went downhill, I think.
I see... given that .advocacy is chartered for flame-ish sorts of
topics, there isn't much chance of appeal to outside authority.
> >Technically, it *appears* that "r.g.f.a classic" content belongs over
> >on .misc; that might be one option to keep in mind. Another might be
> >to newgroup r.g.f.discuss or some such, with a clear charter and some
> >folks willing to play netcop in the hardball leagues.
>
> I'm not willing to read rgf.misc. The signal to noise is too low.
Well, that /is/ a killer. S:N loss doesn't yield sustainable groups.
> I'd support a new newsgroup if it seemed likely to improve over
> the one we have, but honestly, I doubt charter matters that much
> anymore. ISPs don't enforce content; we're lucky if they go after
> overt spammers anymore.
Please note that *IF* you have a distinct charter, and *IF* you both
netcop it rigorously (in the sense of reporting charter violations to
the ISP of the violator, and not allowing violating posts to either
remain unchallenged, or generate much discussion (except for that on
the issue of charter-violations & netcopping)), you CAN get a largely
on-topic NG. It takes a really dedicated team of netcops, though;
skilled at tracking the OP's originating IP/ISP and NSP, and numerous
enough to generate so many complaints to "abuse@..." / etc that the
ISP's will shut down TOS/AUP - violating accounts.
> I think we're just as well off with the group we have,
> and an advantage is that it's apparently still in the
> .newsrc of a lot of its previous members.
It's certainly well-worth another stab, IMHO.
> We should find some way to kill the FAQ as it has probably outlived
> its usefulness.
FAQ's are informal, and relatively-easily changed/
updated.
There's actually a formal process around charters, and they're
MUCH harder to change.
Jens Egon Nyborg
> I suppose. I would say Web
> board software is still a ways away from being a decent substitute for a
> newsgroup, but it's not as far off as it once was.
What about a mailing list, iff we give up on rgfa, that is.
@
>
> I was never one for starting threads, I always found my interest sparked by
>
> But this is a start of a thread, so it's another exception.
>
Good grief..... it's been, probably, a decade since I was an
(ir-)regular poster, but I'm around. What've I been up to lately? Still
playing Amber, running a 7th Sea game, etc. Watching what works and what
doesn't work in games (for me, and for the game as a whole), etc.
Scott
gleichman
gleichman wrote:
> Who's still here watching r.g.f.a and what have you been up to lately?
heh, I need to answer my own question.
My games have kept on going. Currently we're playing Shadowrun using
HERO System after trying (again, and failing again with) the original
3rd edition rules. We tend to rotate campaigns between this and
Deadlands- The Weird West, our re-imagined Marvel Superheros game
(using HERO System), and Age of Heroes.
We're have five players (two couples and one single) not counting my
twins. Their 17 and I'm amazing they still want to play with us
although it is easy for their girlfriends to steal them from a game.
Currently re-formatting Age of Heroes so that I can send it to lulu.com
and get a hardback copy for my players. Will be cool.
Del Rio
Beowulf Bolt <abd.al...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> And the other advantage of using RGFA is that there probably is a
>surprising number of the old regulars who still subscribe to the
>newsgroup, so there would be a ready-made audience with which to
>interact.
>
> (Mind you the same might be said about the trolls, but one hopes that
>they aren't as motivated.)
I seldom read this newsgroup even in the heyday of the
frp.* groups. This is looking like the aftermath of an
nuclear apocalypse, with the survivors peeking out from
their hiding places to see if the sky has stopped
glowing orange.
I'm tempted to google for whatever I missed. ;-)
--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
gleichman
Del Rio wrote:
> I'm tempted to google for whatever I missed. ;-)
Compared to what I encountered afterwards in various web based forums,
it was a cake walk. But there was some bad stuff. Mary basically nailed
it in her post.
Chuk Goodin
>Okay, so one of the things I've gotten used to on web forums is the
>ability to edit my posts. Now I'll have to suffer the embarassment of
>replying to my own post.
That is one of the few features of web forums that I like better than
usenet. (Actually, the only other thing I can think of is that web forums
seem to have a lot more posters and active discussion than most of the
newsgroups I read these days...)
>And to fill out my own situation: I also play online roleplaying
>games; I'm presently playing World of Warcraft regularly with my wife.
>While I recognize many in this group don't consider computerized games
>to be real roleplaying, it seems to fulfill my "playing as a player"
>requirement enough that I can maintain my interest in gamesmastering my
>own campaign.
I do a little bit of online gaming, and while I don't think they are in
themselves roleplaying, you can certainly use them for that. (Email isn't
roleplaying, but you can use it for that. Sitting around a table talking
to others with dice isn't roleplaying, but you can use it for that. Same
thing with MMORPGs -- you can role-play in them if you like, although when
a friend of mine and I did it we were usually looked at with amused
tolerance.)
--
chuk
David Alex Lamb
Mailing lists have even less navigation assistance than Web boards.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
David Alex Lamb
<sNOm...@sonic.net> wrote:
>There's actually a formal process around charters, and they're
>MUCH harder to change.
Ultimately, charters are more or less irrelevant. "It's not in the charter"
wars wind up with majority opinion deciding what is relevant.
Jens Egon Nyborg
> In article <QDKZg.36$ph6...@news.get2net.dk>,
> Jens Egon Nyborg <jens.e...@spamtrap.mars> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I suppose. I would say Web
>>>board software is still a ways away from being a decent substitute for a
>>>newsgroup, but it's not as far off as it once was.
>>
>>What about a mailing list, iff we give up on rgfa, that is.
>
>
> Mailing lists have even less navigation assistance than Web boards.
Surely your newsreader can handle mailing lists? Otherwise we might try
a newsgroup on a dedicated news server.
But lets cross that bridge *if* we get to it.
Mary K. Kuhner
>> We lost the sort of consensus that allows effective netcopping
>> and it just stopped working.
>By "netcopping" do you mean group consensus & social pressure
>keeping flames & trolls to a minimum? That *seems* to be what
>you're talking about...
Not so much stopping flames/trolls as controlling the second and
third order effects.
A newsgroup can go on quite well with a few flamers, trollers, or
spammers if (almost) no one responds, quotes the offending posts,
or reacts to them by becoming more flame-ridden or trollish
themselves. There is a level at which the unwanted material
will destroy the group anyway but it's fairly high. However,
if that group consensus fails, the newsgroup can instantly become
unpleasant to hang out in. You can't killfile effectively
because everyone is quoting the offending material. You can't
even kill whole threads effectively because the bad-spirited
style will creep into new threads. People get angry and mean,
and it's a mess. You attract posters who like a high-flame
environment and drive off ones who like a low-flame environment.
Eventually you get a self-sustaining change in the group makeup,
or--as in this case--a dead group, as the flamers apparently did
not have the material to sustain a discussion on their own.
You can also get newsgroup disasters if the response to any
"Hey, let's not engage with this person, he's a troll" is a
lengthy inflammatory discussion about the correctness of
this policy. It does too much harm to discussion of on-topic
material. The consensus has to be in place and fairly well
accepted--a few dissenters can be accomodated but not, in my
experience, very many. Ten people who bitch about each
instance of on-group netcopping will stop the whole thing in its
tracks. Five may be too many. RASFC has only one, and that's
been pretty scary sometimes.
It's like making up a gaming group. You don't need 100%
unquestioning obedience to the GM but a too-high friction
level, where every decision has to be debated and tempers
get involved, probably won't fly.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
sNOm...@sonic.net
> In article <4537226e$0$34560$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> <sNOm...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >There's actually a formal process around charters, and they're
> >MUCH harder to change.
> Ultimately, charters are more or less irrelevant. "It's not in the charter"
> wars wind up with majority opinion deciding what is relevant.
Not necessarily...
The thing is, a "chartered newsgroup" where the "Not in charter"
material is very-clear (no binaries; no re-posts within a given
time-frame; no commercial/FS posts, etc) instead of very fuzzy
(discussions about rpg's) DOES permit of appeal to outside
authority.
Rigorous netcopping of such NG's does manage to keep them largely
spam-free (where "netcopping" means figuring out originating IP &
ISP, and complaining (to "abuse@" etc) about TOS/AUP violations.
If it's an inside job (where the locals are were-flamers and
trolls), it's much harder to enforce...
DougL
Having glanced at it, it's basic action resolution is the D&D/D20/OGL
mechanism of D20+skill+ability, which is DEFINITELY NOT what I want.
Scaling problems between high ability and high skill and the two acting
in the same way are the two things I'm trying to avoid.
Dice pools where one of skill and ability influences number of dice and
the other TN; or two separate rolls as proposed above, one skill
influenced and one ability influenced are the ways I'm thinking of, and
dice pools have problems with statistics.
To be blunt, I've completely given up on Skill+Ability, if there's EVER
a spot where the two are simply added the system probably isn't doing
what I want, I'd rather just go with generic traits where Strong +4 and
Brain Surgeon +4 are both single traits with the same cost than have
the two add.
DougL
David Alex Lamb
<sNOm...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, David Alex Lamb wrote:
>
>Rigorous netcopping of such NG's does manage to keep them largely
>spam-free (where "netcopping" means figuring out originating IP &
>ISP, and complaining (to "abuse@" etc) about TOS/AUP violations.
You're right. What I said often happens, I think, but it's not universal.
Rupert Boleyn
> Well, post something!
>
> Scooter got a fair number of replies in fairly short order to his
> posts. And they all seemed civil enough.
>
> People are obviously still checking the group.
Well, I wasn't until I added it to my new newreader's list of subscribed
groups on a whim. At first, seeing Brians' posts I assumed the feed had
glitched and thrown up a bunch of posts from years ago. :)
Rupert Boleyn
> And some of them have a killfile of sorts,
> though usually you can still see *that* someone you've chosen to ignore
> has posted, just not what they've said. Whether that's a feature or a
> bug is a matter of individual judgement, I suppose.
That drives me nuts. I'm not fond of killfiles anyway, but ones that then
fail to hide the poster's existence from me are worse than none at all.
Rupert Boleyn
>> Who's still here watching r.g.f.a and what have you been up to lately?
I've just finished playing in a some-years long D&D3.x game that ran from
1st to 24th level.
I'm running a Traveller (New Era, for those who care) game, using the
GURPS 4th edition rules. The 4th edition has turned me into a bit of a
fanboi, though this will undoubtedly fade at some point.
For my other group (the one that's just finished up the D&D game) I've
just started running an Artesia: Adventures in the Known world game.
There's only been one session of play so far, and we are still feeling our
way through the system - it's simple enough at its core, but there are
some complex interactions that we've yet to see in play that I think might
bite us if we're not careful.