RPGA UK Resignations and the formation of "Europa"
Karim C Kronfli
RPGA UK of the following people.
* Ratty
* Mark Smith
* Steve Pennington (Sad)
This represents ALL non Wizards of the Coast staff members of the
Committee.
We are not asking anyone else to resign and would wish anyone who
stays within the RPGA our best wishes for the future.
We will be setting up a complimentary organisation to support gaming
throughout Great Britain and eventually Europe. This is intended to
provide a local focus and local support.
This is formed together with existing volunteers (e.g. Karim C
Kronfli) and new people (e.g. Guy Robinson who brings in his
experience from the FFJDR - a French gaming society).
The reasons are:
* The European office has been dismantled
* The Head of the RPGA UK has been given worldwide responsibility and
is thus no longer a UK resource.
* His assistant has left the RPGA to work for Organised play / DCI,
leaving no full time RPGA staff in the Wizards’ offices in the
UK.
* Polyhedron UK was originally a UK resource. It combined with the
USA, losing most of its UK perspective.
* If Hasbro/Wizards choose to withdraw all support for the RPGA in the
UK, we will still be here, supporting gamers.
We will not be working against the RPGA and will, for example, still
encourage players who wish to take part in RPGA campaigns to become
full members of the worldwide RPGA.
We have offered our services to support GenCon UK should Hasbro wish
it. If so we (the former RPGA UK volunteers) will offer the same
package as last year, but under our new society name of Europa
(European Role-Players Association).
Our aims are:
* To support all role-playing games and related activities.
* To maintain and build up a library of quality scenarios.
* To develop additional services and announce them only once they can
be supported.
* To involve members in the decisions and plans.
To be independent of ties to just one manufacturer.
* We would like to support home play, electronic play, live action,
and all aspects of gaming.
However, we do not want to announce support until we have a package
that we can deliver.
Initially, Europa will not charge for membership. Only once we have a
membership package we can deliver does it make sense to ask for formal
membership and thus ask for payment. Hence no membership cards, for
example.
What we can deliver:
Scenarios, including
* Library
* Sanctioning
* Record of usage
Run a web site, including
* Central event list
* Shop list
* Club list
* Chat room
Convention Support
* Advice
* Desk Support
* Marshalling
* Quiz Support
Scenario Library
* Support DM’s
* DM Sanctioning
* Record of DMing
* Database of DM’s
Contact
* Postal address
* Email Address
You may notice, for example, that membership cards are not offered.
Only once we have a membership package we can deliver does it make
sense to ask for formal membership and thus membership cards.
However, we can’t do this on our own. The new society can only
be built up by the members. Everything is available for discussion.
From here, it’s up to you. What do you want Europa to do (please
don’t just suggest things that cause money to be spent but not
reclaimed).
If you would like to be involved please contact us on
ra...@ukonline.co.uk or ka...@kronfli.demon.co.uk
Karim C Kronfli
To view a clean version please check
http://rpgauk.com/announcement2002-03-11.html
All the best
--
Karim C Kronfli
Please remove NOSPAM from E-mail address. You know what to do!
martin arnold
those so sympathetic in some way?
Martin
"Karim C Kronfli" <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b09dff04.02031...@posting.google.com...
Stephen Pettifer
Karim C Kronfli <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b09dff04.02031...@posting.google.com...
> RPGA UK of the following people.
>
> * Ratty
> * Mark Smith
> * Steve Pennington (Sad)
>
> This represents ALL non Wizards of the Coast staff members of the
> Committee.
>
> We are not asking anyone else to resign and would wish anyone who
> stays within the RPGA our best wishes for the future.
>
> We will be setting up a complimentary organisation to support gaming
> throughout Great Britain and eventually Europe. This is intended to
> provide a local focus and local support.
>
> This is formed together with existing volunteers (e.g. Karim C
> Kronfli) and new people (e.g. Guy Robinson who brings in his
> experience from the FFJDR - a French gaming society).
>
Will the new organisation be an RPGA clone, or will you drop the "levels"
and "scoring" and "winning" stuff. I think if you did you might find
yourselves quite popular, let Wizards have the munchkins, if not, I think it
might be an opportunity missed.
Morgoth's Cat
<ste...@nospamspettifer.freeserve.co.uk> scribed:
Personally, I think if some people want to score, then by all means
let them score...but perhaps it should be the exception...
Best Regards,
Dave
>
>
>
>
morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net
Supernovae & Creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Kharne - graphical AD&D-based RPG for Windows http://www.kharne.net
Karim C Kronfli
>Will the new organisation be an RPGA clone, or will you drop the "levels"
>and "scoring" and "winning" stuff. I think if you did you might find
>yourselves quite popular, let Wizards have the munchkins, if not, I think it
>might be an opportunity missed.
The RPGA in the UK has a successful formula, however many people have
the misconception that it never changed.
We listened and we changed. The scoring and tournaments system was made
non-compulsory, except for rating the GM for GM feedback purposes.
However some people like having the tournament aspect of the hobby and
no-one should be denied any aspect of the hobby that they like.
Therefore I feel games should carry on being scored if the players
agree. Simple, non-divisive and inclusive of all gamers which is the
point of the new society.
Guy Robinson
> Does this then mean that the rpga is now only staffed by wotc people and
> those so sympathetic in some way?
This is something for the RPGA UK to comment on.
However I don't think that either Ian Richards (who now has a
worldwide RPGA role) and the 2nd UK Hasbro employee (who now works in
a DCI role) read this group. I have heard that the volunteers who run
Living Greyhawk in the UK are staying with the RPGA UK, as it is a
game exclusive to the RPGA and can't be played by people other than
paid-up members.
So if you want to contact the RPGA UK, and ask what this means to
them, existing channels for Living Greyhawk might be the best option.
It is probably that they will be seeking people to form a new steering
committee if Hasbro still wants to have one this side of the Atlantic.
--
Guy Robinson
[all standard disclaimers apply]
Nick Brooke
> Personally, I think if some people want to score, then by all means
> let them score...but perhaps it should be the exception...
Who on earth goes to gaming conventions to score? :-)
Cheers, Nick
Killans - First And Last And Always
- Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 0:40:59 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>(in message <uprFVLAb...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
>
>> The RPGA in the UK has a successful formula, however many people have
>> the misconception that it never changed.
>> We listened and we changed. The scoring and tournaments system was made
>> non-compulsory, except for rating the GM for GM feedback purposes.
>>
>> However some people like having the tournament aspect of the hobby and
>> no-one should be denied any aspect of the hobby that they like.
>> Therefore I feel games should carry on being scored if the players
>> agree. Simple, non-divisive and inclusive of all gamers which is the
>> point of the new society.
>
>basically.
And why should it not be? These guys have spent years (so I gather)
running RPGA UK in the way they think best. Why should they suddenly
change their minds about what they think works best?
Mike
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
That's a big *if* I would deem.
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 0:40:59 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>(in message <uprFVLAb...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
>
>> The RPGA in the UK has a successful formula, however many people have
>> the misconception that it never changed.
>> We listened and we changed. The scoring and tournaments system was made
>> non-compulsory, except for rating the GM for GM feedback purposes.
>>
>> However some people like having the tournament aspect of the hobby and
>> no-one should be denied any aspect of the hobby that they like.
>> Therefore I feel games should carry on being scored if the players
>> agree. Simple, non-divisive and inclusive of all gamers which is the
>> point of the new society.
>
> So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
>basically.
>
>
Read what the man said.
If people want to score, let them. If people don't want to score, then
that's fine as well.
Just because your personal bias is against people scoring then it does
not mean that everyone should not score.
Best Regards,
Dave
>--
>
>Professor Yaffle,
>
> Cynicism and Bombast on Demand.
Stephen Pettifer
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
message news:3c8f8c9...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:04:37 +0000, - Professor Yaffle -
> <LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 0:40:59 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
> >(in message <uprFVLAb...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
> >
> >> The RPGA in the UK has a successful formula, however many people have
> >> the misconception that it never changed.
> >> We listened and we changed. The scoring and tournaments system was made
> >> non-compulsory, except for rating the GM for GM feedback purposes.
> >>
> >> However some people like having the tournament aspect of the hobby and
> >> no-one should be denied any aspect of the hobby that they like.
> >> Therefore I feel games should carry on being scored if the players
> >> agree. Simple, non-divisive and inclusive of all gamers which is the
> >> point of the new society.
> >
> > So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
> >basically.
> >
> >
>
> Read what the man said.
>
> If people want to score, let them. If people don't want to score, then
> that's fine as well.
>
> Just because your personal bias is against people scoring then it does
> not mean that everyone should not score.
>
I agree, play and let play
For what it's worth I would like to see no forms to fill in but a feedback
form for the GM/scenario writer (Not a score by the way, but feedback) and
let the competitive types who want levels etc to play their games together.
Couldn't the default game be non-scoring and the people who want to have a
separate strand (like the living greyhawk people ), so you opt into this
level score stuff rather than out.
Maybe I am a minority in finding the RPGA dated and kind of irrelevant to
what I want my gaming experience to be.
Adam Canning
LaaaaA...@mice.com says...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:18:59 +0000, Killans - First And Last And
> Always wrote
> (in message <10160327...@irys.nyx.net>):
>
> > And why should it not be? These guys have spent years (so I gather)
> > running RPGA UK in the way they think best. Why should they suddenly
> > change their minds about what they think works best?
>
> have been an opportunity to start something new and better, without
> the flaws of the RPGA (such as the twat-ranking system).
Like what?
Adam
John Dallman
> Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
> > So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
> > basically.
>
> Read what the man said.
>
> If people want to score, let them. If people don't want to score, then
> that's fine as well.
>
> Just because your personal bias is against people scoring then it does
> not mean that everyone should not score.
Well, over here, the idea of scoring and ranking is regarded as so silly,
and so prone to distort role-playing, that the idea of joining a society
which provides support for it, even if it isn't compulsory, is laughable.
I can't stop you doing it and I don't want to try - but be aware that its
existence means some people will never have anything to do with the
society. I realised that applied to me when I got to "sanctioning" in the
announcement that started this thread.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
Nick Eden
I like to think that some women do.
No evidence yet...
-----------------------------------------------------
Hero Wars Resources
Newly updates with three Heortling Fonts and a Hero Band
http://www.pheasnt.demon.co.uk/HeroWars/HeroWars.html
Morgoth's Cat
<ste...@nospamspettifer.freeserve.co.uk> scribed:
<snip>
>>
><snip>
>
>I agree, play and let play
>For what it's worth I would like to see no forms to fill in but a feedback
>form for the GM/scenario writer (Not a score by the way, but feedback) and
>let the competitive types who want levels etc to play their games together.
>Couldn't the default game be non-scoring and the people who want to have a
>separate strand (like the living greyhawk people ), so you opt into this
>level score stuff rather than out.
That's a good idea...
Best Regards,
Dave
Bigfutrpga
"Rating" scenarios, like is it Hack & Slash, is it Storytelling, is it rated
for a 15+ market or even 18(R) (Kult GM's get your pens out).
Any comments?
Steve
John Dallman
bigfu...@aol.com (Bigfutrpga) wrote:
Well, my contact with pre-written scenarios dates from some AD&D ones over
a decade ago. They tended to have blurbs or introductions that gave you
some clue as to what it was about and in what kind of style. Now, the
"society library of scenarios for people to run at cons" is a pretty alien
concept to me, but don't their authors produce some kind of description or
abstract? It seems a natural part of such a document to me.
Or has the concept of officially checked and rated scenarios come from the
US environment, where I could imagine getting parents sueing you for
mentioning concepts they don't like in a scenario you ran for their kids
while you were in /loco parentis/?
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
Tim Ellis
previously posted
>
>If people want to score, let them. If people don't want to score, then
>that's fine as well.
What if half the game wants to score and the other half don't?
What if I don't want to score the GM - I don't even like picking out my
top ten records, and I know they aren't going to read the score sheet!
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis EMail t...@timellis.demon.co.uk |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tim Ellis
>I realised that applied to me when I got to "sanctioning" in the
>announcement that started this thread.
>
society would be seeking to take out contracts on GM's that did not meet
it's standards...
Karim C Kronfli
>I agree, play and let play
>For what it's worth I would like to see no forms to fill in but a feedback
>form for the GM/scenario writer (Not a score by the way, but feedback) and
>let the competitive types who want levels etc to play their games together.
>Couldn't the default game be non-scoring and the people who want to have a
>separate strand (like the living greyhawk people ), so you opt into this
>level score stuff rather than out.
>Maybe I am a minority in finding the RPGA dated and kind of irrelevant to
>what I want my gaming experience to be.
Not a minority, but for example the younger player I have refereed for
whilst enjoying the role-playing etc still like to do a fair bit of hack
and slash, and they like the levels systems etc.
If it encourages into the hobby, so that they grow within it, then I am
all for it.
The fact that a collection of 20+ year olds have "Grown out of" scoring
etc doesn't change what appeals to younger players.
My experience in this matter is through reffing in a school club
environment and in the old schools competition.
The faces on the kids (girl teams) who got through to the national
finals was worth all the effort.
Guy Robinson
> Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
> message news:3c8f8c9...@news.freeserve.net...
[...]
> > If people want to score, let them. If people don't want to score, then
> > that's fine as well.
> >
> > Just because your personal bias is against people scoring then it does
> > not mean that everyone should not score.
> >
> <snip>
>
> I agree, play and let play
> For what it's worth I would like to see no forms to fill in but a feedback
> form for the GM/scenario writer (Not a score by the way, but feedback) and
> let the competitive types who want levels etc to play their games together.
> Couldn't the default game be non-scoring and the people who want to have a
> separate strand (like the living greyhawk people ), so you opt into this
> level score stuff rather than out.
This is an area that will be discussed and I will be advocating a view
not too distant from your own.
One probable outcome is that the RPGA UK will survive in some form as
a group centred around the Living Greyhawk team and as such will offer
the kind of scored role-playing that some people want to see continue.
The question is: how does this possibility position the new society?
Don't forget that nature of the RPGA UK, as run by its volunteers, has
been changing since the 1997 mass resignations although these
volunteers have regularily let down by WotC/Hasbro. Also remember
that these former RPGA volunteers will not be alone when they form a
new society as a range of people started to prepare for this kind of
eventuality back in 1997.
The former RPGA UK steering committee will not be going it alone by
any means.
Karim C Kronfli
>US environment, where I could imagine getting parents sueing you for
>mentioning concepts they don't like in a scenario you ran for their kids
>while you were in /loco parentis/?
Whilst some people are competent GM's this does not necessarily make
them a talented author of scenarios I count myself within this group.
With one of the aims to encourage more smaller conventions, a library of
scenarios for convention organisers to draw from is a simple and
effective idea it also gives these authors a chance for their work to be
seen and rated outside their direct social circle with feedback
available on the website.
Karim C Kronfli
>
>What if I don't want to score the GM - I don't even like picking out my
>top ten records, and I know they aren't going to read the score sheet!
Then the table isn't scored.
All the GM's I know do read their score sheet as it is a form of
feedback and they can see how they have done compared to how they feel
they have done.
Arthur Boff
> >basically.
>
> And why should it not be? These guys have spent years (so I gather)
> running RPGA UK in the way they think best. Why should they suddenly
> change their minds about what they think works best?
Why would anyone bothering joining the new organisation if it is just like
the RPGA, when the RPGA has more players and more resources?
The new society ought to be offering something different or it will die
because it's trying to fill a niche in the market which is already happily
occupied by the RPGA. It needs to find its own niche.
Wart
Kevin Cowley
<ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote:
>
>>Or has the concept of officially checked and rated scenarios come from the
>>US environment, where I could imagine getting parents sueing you for
>>mentioning concepts they don't like in a scenario you ran for their kids
>>while you were in /loco parentis/?
> Whilst some people are competent GM's this does not necessarily make
> them a talented author of scenarios I count myself within this group.
I'd have to rate myself the same way. I can't write standalone scenarios,
but can happily develop multi-threaded convoluted campaigns. Most of the
scenarios I run stem from a single idea with a lot of blanks. The scenario
concept generally occurs 6 months to several years before I actully run it.
By the time I actually get the players to the scenario, most of the blanks
now lead to other scenarios.
I think the only scenario I've written that could stand alone is a re-write
of a flawed concept developed by someone else. It's written for Rifts and is
online at www.azer.co.uk/html/rftcpg/shwfed.html.
Timothy JW Smith
- Professor Yaffle - wrote:
> So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
> basically.
>
I suspect the main appeal, is that it would not longer just be devoted
to D&D but would additionally seek to support other RPGs.
Personally, I find it amusing that I was told by a RPGA member, the
other weekend ago at Conclave, that members of the "then RPGA" were
wanting to expand their support to other RPGs and that other's might not
like it.
I just wasn't suspecting a breakaway from the RPGA to do this.
Tim
Morgoth's Cat
<tjws...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> scribed:
That is I deem, just the tip of the iceberg....
Morgoth's Cat
<arthu...@merton.ox.ac.uk> scribed:
>> > So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
>> >basically.
>>
>> And why should it not be? These guys have spent years (so I gather)
>> running RPGA UK in the way they think best. Why should they suddenly
>> change their minds about what they think works best?
>
>Why would anyone bothering joining the new organisation if it is just like
>the RPGA, when the RPGA has more players and more resources?
What resources?
>
>The new society ought to be offering something different or it will die
>because it's trying to fill a niche in the market which is already happily
>occupied by the RPGA. It needs to find its own niche.
>
>Wart
>
The question is: will the RPGA survive?
Killans - First And Last And Always
Arthur Boff <arthu...@merton.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
>> >basically.
>>
>> And why should it not be? These guys have spent years (so I gather)
>> running RPGA UK in the way they think best. Why should they suddenly
>> change their minds about what they think works best?
>
>Why would anyone bothering joining the new organisation if it is just like
>the RPGA, when the RPGA has more players and more resources?
Because people believe that the guys who have made the RPGA what it is
for the last x years might be better able to provide what they want
than the people (person?) left holding the fort at RPGA, perhaps?
Mike
Killans - First And Last And Always
Tim Ellis <t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>What if I don't want to score the GM - I don't even like picking out my
>top ten records, and I know they aren't going to read the score sheet!
In all 4 of the RPGA games I've played, the GM has explicitly asked for
feedback on his GMing via the score sheet, even when the players aren't
interested in scoring each other.
Personally, I don't particularly enjoy scoring a GM, since it's hard
to do it fairly, but it seems like a small favour to do in return
for the effort put in by the GM to run the game in the first place,
and I do it to the best of my ability.
Mike
Morgoth's Cat
Last And Always) scribed:
Putting on my GM hat for a moment, I think that feedback on my
performance during the game is essential.
Best Regards,
Dave
Nick Eden
mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet (Morgoth's Cat)
wrote:
>The question is: will the RPGA survive?
>
>Best Regards,
>Dave
Presumably. Not that I've ever understood why it survived in the
first place.
Darrell Impey
<tjws...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> writes
>I suspect the main appeal, is that it would not longer just be devoted
>to D&D but would additionally seek to support other RPGs.
>
>Personally, I find it amusing that I was told by a RPGA member, the
>other weekend ago at Conclave, that members of the "then RPGA" were
>wanting to expand their support to other RPGs and that other's might not
>like it.
>I just wasn't suspecting a breakaway from the RPGA to do this.
>
>Tim
I'm a little confused about this. During the last 8-10 years I've been
involved with the RPGA in the UK there has been NO restriction to
support for D&D only. For example over 50% of the tables run by the RPGA
at Gen Con UK last year were for OTHER systems.
Do you recall who you were speaking to?
--
Darrell
TC
LaaaaA...@mice.com says...
<snip>
> Personally I think a game where I haven't manage to grossly offend
> the sensitivities of at least one player is a failed game.
And I hereby start the queue of people who would not like to play in any
of your games.
The hobby is supposed to be about fun, not feeding the DM's ego, his
ability to 'grossly offend'.
> and 18(r) is only for hardocre porn films available only for sale
> in sex shops... do such scenraios exist in gaming?
Do 'children' take part in role-playing games? (And, yes, such scenarios
do exist.)
Toby
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Adam Canning
LaaaaA...@mice.com says...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:32:07 +0000, Adam Canning wrote
> (in message <MPG.16f9ab7d2...@news.cis.dfn.de>):
>
> > Like what?
> >
> > Adam
>
> Isn't that what we've been discussing for the last couple of weeks?
I haven't seen any constructive suggestions from you. Abolish scoring
being about the only position you appear to hold.
Adam
Adam Canning
LaaaaA...@mice.com says...
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:24:23 +0000, Killans - First And Last And
> Always wrote
> (in message <10161122...@irys.nyx.net>):
>
> > Because people believe that the guys who have made the RPGA what it is
> > for the last x years might be better able to provide what they want
> > than the people (person?) left holding the fort at RPGA, perhaps?
>
> quite endearing. So the people happily enconced in RPGA are going to
> leave the RPGA with its resources and membership and join a new
> association because the guys who used to handle the RPGA admin now
> handle the admin in the new association?
What resources. There have been rumours for months that during the
integration of into Hasbro's games division, as opposed to being a
separate company that the UK RPGA budget has gone missing. It has no paid
staff in this country [Ian being a Global asset apparently].
Much of the Resources and time devoted to the RPGA in this country were
put in by the people who are leaving.
Adam
Arthur Boff
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:48:01 -0000, "Arthur Boff"
> <arthu...@merton.ox.ac.uk> scribed:
>
> >> > So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
> >> >basically.
> >>
> >> And why should it not be? These guys have spent years (so I gather)
> >> running RPGA UK in the way they think best. Why should they suddenly
> >> change their minds about what they think works best?
> >
> >Why would anyone bothering joining the new organisation if it is just
like
> >the RPGA, when the RPGA has more players and more resources?
>
> What resources?
Well, the much-mentioned library of scenarios for a start, plus stuff like
WotC support...
Wart
Arthur Boff
news:MPG.16fb4bd35...@news.cis.dfn.de...
And a damn good position as well. Main reason I never joined the RPGA was
that I didn't like the way they ranked the GMs and players. Horribly,
horribly elitist. I don't like to see roleplaying reduced to a pissing
contest.
Wart
Arthur Boff
> in sex shops... do such scenraios exist in gaming?
I dunno about scenarios, but www.fatalgames.com has the system for 'em...
Wart
Timothy JW Smith
Darrell Impey wrote:
>
> In article <3C90BDD6...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com>, Timothy JW Smith
> <tjws...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> writes
> I'm a little confused about this. During the last 8-10 years I've been
> involved with the RPGA in the UK there has been NO restriction to
> support for D&D only. For example over 50% of the tables run by the RPGA
> at Gen Con UK last year were for OTHER systems.
>
> Do you recall who you were speaking to?
I do and at the same time when I'm told something in confidence (or
semi-confidence), I don't run around saying who told me. Take it for
read that I heard it.
As to the involvement of the RPGA in other games, over they last couple
years, when I've attended cons again, I must confess I've only ever seen
them do D&D (I've played with individual members in other systems, but
they weren't running them).
The last con I was at, Conclave in Glasgow, I'll freely admit, that the
RPGA desk was effectively the DOG board of the con although they seemed
to share it with SJ's MIBs whom were running (from my perspective) their
own games. I personally can't say that, the RPGA members present were
running other games other than D&D, I just don't know.
Tim
Guy Robinson
WotC appears to have been downsized on quite a serious scale. We
won't know how deep the cuts are until the dust settles and we get to
see the practicalities of the future publishing schedules.
The collapse of the Pokemon craze that kept both WotC and D&D alive
has apparently caused Hasbro to do what WotC did to TSR.
As regards the RPGA's library of scenarios, people have noticed that
promised payments have not arrived and that their previous work, over
which they expected to hold the copyright, is being sold at $4 a time
by Hasbro.
This is not to say that there will not be a RPGA in the UK as someone
will envitably want to try and run it, but don't expect Hasbro to be
interested in what they see as unprofitable venture in an
uninteresting foreign country.
James Wallis
Robinson <guy_ro...@my-deja.com> writes
>The collapse of the Pokemon craze that kept both WotC and D&D alive
>has apparently caused Hasbro to do what WotC did to TSR.
A few points:
The Pokemon craze did not "(keep) both WotC and D&D alive"; it turned
WotC from a profitable business into a wildly profitable one. The
company was not and is not dependent on Pokemon money for its solvency.
WotC saved TSR from imminent bankruptcy. Since WotC isn't in that
position, it would not be possible for Hasbro to do the same to them.
I ought to apologise for injecting some facts into your invective, but
I've never been fond of people whose reaction to mass-redundancy is
gloating.
--
James Wallis
Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Posting this from his home address (ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk)
Stuart Kerrigan
I'm part of the Living Greyhawk team for the UK (who ironically enough
aren't exactly the most pro-RPGA-way-of-doing-things group of folk but
are among the few volunteers left).
Yes, most of the games at Conclave were D&D, Living Greyhawk &
Sarbreenar are D&D games, and Living Force is D20, but there was also
Living Rokugan, which (surprisingly) isn't D20 based at all, but
rather the AEG d10 version.
Living Rokugan only got 3 players for the whole weekend, but it looked
like it was fun for those 3 players. ;)
It's also going to be at Conpulsion this weekend, as is Living
Greyhawk and hopefully Living Force.
Stuart
Stuart Kerrigan
away with score sheets. They'd make our life easier in the long run.
;)
Stuart
Adam Canning
LaaaaA...@mice.com says...
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 0:09:33 +0000, Adam Canning wrote
> (in message <MPG.16fb4bd35...@news.cis.dfn.de>):
>
> > I haven't seen any constructive suggestions from you. Abolish scoring
> > being about the only position you appear to hold.
>
> ideas? I certain'y don't think that I am obliged in order to
> criticise this idea to have a full theory of what the ideal
> association would be.
Because you are the one using obscene or insulting language in a public
forum to denigrate the organisations rather than improve it.
Adam
Killans - First And Last And Always
- Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:24:23 +0000, Killans - First And Last And
>Always wrote
>(in message <10161122...@irys.nyx.net>):
>
>> for the last x years might be better able to provide what they want
>> than the people (person?) left holding the fort at RPGA, perhaps?
>
>quite endearing. So the people happily enconced in RPGA are going to
>leave the RPGA with its resources and membership and join a new
>association because the guys who used to handle the RPGA admin now
>handle the admin in the new association?
I have no idea. That's why I phrased it as a question.
At the end of the day, it'll come down to how people perceive the
value of being a member of the new soc versus how people perceive
the value of being a member of whatever's left of the RPGA. Since
we don't yet know what either org is going to be like yet, it;s
impossible to say.
Mike
Killans - First And Last And Always
>(in message <+aOo2JAN...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk>):
>
>> For example over 50% of the tables run by the RPGA
>> at Gen Con UK last year were for OTHER systems.
>
Well, over 50% of the *games* offered by RPGA at last year's GenCon
were non-D&D. I don't know about the number of tables, but that comes
down to how many people wanted to play the games, and there ain't a
lot RPGA can do that.
Christ, this thread is turning me into an apologist for the RPGA, an
organisation I'm not a member of, nor even particularly interested
in.
Mike
Adam Canning
tjws...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com says...
>
>
> Darrell Impey wrote:
> >
> > In article <3C90BDD6...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com>, Timothy JW Smith
> > <tjws...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> writes
> > I'm a little confused about this. During the last 8-10 years I've been
> > involved with the RPGA in the UK there has been NO restriction to
> > support for D&D only. For example over 50% of the tables run by the RPGA
> > at Gen Con UK last year were for OTHER systems.
> >
> > Do you recall who you were speaking to?
>
> RPGA desk was effectively the DOG board of the con although they seemed
> to share it with SJ's MIBs whom were running (from my perspective) their
> own games.
As a Small example some of the stuff I've run for the last few years for
RPGA events
Gen Con UK 2000 Al Qadim Curse of the Green Hand
Gen Con UK 2000 Cyberpunk 2020 Stavros's Bar
Gen Con UK 2000 Feng Shui To Protect and Survive [Twice]
Gen Con UK 2000 Heavy Gear Operation Jungle Drums
Gen Con UK 2000 Paranoia 150 Traitors - How Many Can You Name?
Gen Con UK 2000 7th Sea The Gun of El Varone
Gen Con UK 2000 Team Fun The Ankh-Morpork Job
Gen Con UK 2000 Team Serious One Way Ticket
Gen Con UK 2001 7th Sea Legend of Black Dunbar
Gen Con UK 2001 Call of Cthulhu In whom we trust
Gen Con UK 2001 Conspiracy X High Jinks
Gen Con UK 2001 Cyberpunk 2020 Black Moon
Gen Con UK 2001 Elric Eight ways to Die
Gen Con UK 2001 Feng Shui Where Three Rivers Meet
Excalibur 2001 7th Sea Guns of El Varone
Excalibur 2001 Shadowrun Call me Ishmael 2
Excalibur 2001 Traveller Crosstalk
Conception 2002 Witchcraft Citta di Morte (15+)
Conception 2002 Star Wars Rebel Thieves
I've been suffering from certain personal problems which have reduced the
amount I GM this last year.
Adam
Arthur Boff
news:10161447...@irys.nyx.net...
> At the end of the day, it'll come down to how people perceive the
> value of being a member of the new soc versus how people perceive
> the value of being a member of whatever's left of the RPGA. Since
> we don't yet know what either org is going to be like yet, it;s
> impossible to say.
And if the new soc is very much like the RPGA as it used to be, how many
would really bother to defect?
You can't plan the new society assuming that the old one would suddenly
magically no longer be able to do what it used to do, or that it will change
drastically.
Wart
Morgoth's Cat
<arthu...@merton.ox.ac.uk> scribed:
>"Morgoth's Cat" <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
>message news:3c90d84...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:48:01 -0000, "Arthur Boff"
>> <arthu...@merton.ox.ac.uk> scribed:
>>
>> >> > So the answer is yes, this new society IS going to be an RPGA clone
>> >> >basically.
>> >>
>> >> And why should it not be? These guys have spent years (so I gather)
>> >> running RPGA UK in the way they think best. Why should they suddenly
>> >> change their minds about what they think works best?
>> >
>> >Why would anyone bothering joining the new organisation if it is just
>like
>> >the RPGA, when the RPGA has more players and more resources?
>>
>> What resources?
>
>Well, the much-mentioned library of scenarios for a start, plus stuff like
>WotC support...
>
>Wart
>
>
What library of scenarios? I would reckon that legally WOTC would not
have a leg to stand on if they tried to claim ownership of the
scenarios... [1]
Best Regards,
Dave
[1] As far as Conception goes, we make it clear to our authors that
*they* retain the copyright, and they provide them to us only for
purposes of running at the current Conception, and a rerun at a future
Conception.
Guy Robinson
news:nFPPH4AF...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk...
> In article <f310f0e8.02031...@posting.google.com>, Guy
> Robinson <guy_ro...@my-deja.com> writes
> >The collapse of the Pokemon craze that kept both WotC and D&D alive
> >has apparently caused Hasbro to do what WotC did to TSR.
>
> A few points:
>
> The Pokemon craze did not "(keep) both WotC and D&D alive"; it turned
> WotC from a profitable business into a wildly profitable one. The
> company was not and is not dependent on Pokemon money for its solvency.
Are you suggesting that without Magic and then Pokemon that Hasbro would
have bought Wizards of the Coast? I don't think you considered "The Primal
Order" to be such a valuable property.
The revenue of the Wizards of the Coast part of Hasbro has gone down
dramatically and Hasbro are reacting to it by the mass-redundancy that you
appear to acknowlegde.
Role-playing games simply did not appear to have become a big enough earner
to replace this lost revenue so Hasbro are apparently seeking to cut their
overheads in this area. This, of course, an understatement.
> WotC saved TSR from imminent bankruptcy. Since WotC isn't in that
> position, it would not be possible for Hasbro to do the same to them.
However I was not talking about when WotC buying TSR. I was talking about
when Wizards of the Coast made TSR no more than a product code on the side
of WotC products.
When WotC saved TSR this done with their revenue from CCGs. When this
revenue fell off their role-playing arm was always going to be under stress.
Maybe a successful Harry Potter RPG could have saved it.
> I ought to apologise for injecting some facts into your invective, but
> I've never been fond of people whose reaction to mass-redundancy is
> gloating.
I think you should really calm down before you post, James, but by getting
the wrong end of the stick you have at least have present more information
to the group.
People can find out more by looking at some of the American role-playing
news sites.
Darrell Impey
And Always <mcol...@nyx.net> writes
>In article <01HW.B8B6CD2C0...@news.clara.net>,
>- Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:49:49 +0000, Darrell Impey wrote
>>(in message <+aOo2JAN...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk>):
>>
>>> For example over 50% of the tables run by the RPGA
>>> at Gen Con UK last year were for OTHER systems.
>>
>> :-I unh-hunh.
>
>Well, over 50% of the *games* offered by RPGA at last year's GenCon
>were non-D&D. I don't know about the number of tables, but that comes
>down to how many people wanted to play the games, and there ain't a
>lot RPGA can do that.
OK, I've gone over to last year's web site, and dug out the following
information;
By my count the RPGA ran 43 distinct systems/games.
D&D (2nd + 3rd) covered 10
Alternity accounted for 1
Star Wars (d20) covered 1
Star Wars (unknown system) 1
Titled but no system was 3
Leaving, everything else 27.
The site didn't cover the actual numbers of tables played for each game,
so I can't give precise details on that, and the above information
doesn't allow that some systems had multiple distinct games run (e.g.
Star Wars d20 has three scenarios).
I hope that explains things a little better.
--
Darrell
Karim C Kronfli
>And if the new soc is very much like the RPGA as it used to be, how many
>would really bother to defect?
>
>You can't plan the new society assuming that the old one would suddenly
>magically no longer be able to do what it used to do, or that it will change
>drastically.
Given that over the last several months the only things have happened on
behalf of the RPGA in the UK have been because of the efforts of the
volunteer team, the RPGA from our perspective is left with practically
nothing.
No dedicated staff
No club magazine supplied due to your UK membership.
The Regional Directors and Area Co-ordinators are still there as I am
and we are supporting gaming in our localities but I personally have
been unable to sell RPGA membership actively since GenCon other than the
helping to support the hobby in this country by supporting the volunteer
team here.
Since the money goes to Wizards and we seemed to get very little back
for the members we decided we would cut out the middle man.
We want to be able to deliver what we promise.
And we feel that with a split from WOTC we will be able to do that.
We have already got a lot of support and offers of help from the UK and
abroad.
We already have in the pipeline.
1: A local newsletter with local content initially delivered via the
website.
2: The website equivalent of RPGAUK.COM but for the new society.
3: Convention support for various events this year and next.
And a whole host of other ideas we are working towards solutions for.
--
Karim C Kronfli
Please remove NOSPAM from E-mail address. You know what to do!
Arthur Boff
>
> 1: A local newsletter with local content initially delivered via the
> website.
>
> 2: The website equivalent of RPGAUK.COM but for the new society.
>
> 3: Convention support for various events this year and next.
>
> And a whole host of other ideas we are working towards solutions for.
So it would seem to be the perfect time to jettison the RPGA's flaws.
Fundamentally, I seriously doubt that people would really say "Oh, I don't
want to join Europa because even though the RPGA is effectively dead in the
UK, Europa doesn't use scoring, and I really, really want to be an elitist
weenie."
I do think people will say "Pah! Europa is an RPGA clone, look they even use
scoring. I didn't join the RPGA: I won't join Europa."
On the scoring issue I've only seen people who like it, dislike it, and hate
it with a passion. I'm yet to meet anyone who really loves it, and would
refuse to join an organisation that didn't do it.
Wart
NickTheLemming
>From: "Arthur Boff" arthu...@merton.ox.ac.uk
>Date: 3/16/2002 2:32 AM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <a6v3gc$n2q$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>
>
>> We already have in the pipeline.
>>
>> 1: A local newsletter with local content initially delivered via the
>> website.
>>
>> 2: The website equivalent of RPGAUK.COM but for the new society.
>>
>> 3: Convention support for various events this year and next.
>>
>> And a whole host of other ideas we are working towards solutions for.
>
>So it would seem to be the perfect time to jettison the RPGA's flaws.
>
>Fundamentally, I seriously doubt that people would really say "Oh, I don't
>want to join Europa because even though the RPGA is effectively dead in the
>UK, Europa doesn't use scoring, and I really, really want to be an elitist
>weenie."
>
>I do think people will say "Pah! Europa is an RPGA clone, look they even use
>scoring. I didn't join the RPGA: I won't join Europa."
>
I think that's going to be the main problem; if you set up Europa as simply
something that is seen as a clone by people, then only those that joined the
RPGA will be interested; some will join both groups, others will remain with
RPGA, others will just join Europa. If the people behind Europa want it to be
more than just a pale clone, they need to do something different to RPGA. I
wouldn't bother joining a group that had scoring, for instance, or that paid
more attention to sprogs than to normal members, as was hinted at by Karim.
Best of luck to the people at Europa though; I hope they can get something good
off the ground.
Nick the Lemming
Another Happy VHEMT Volunteer!
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Karim C Kronfli
>>
>>Fundamentally, I seriously doubt that people would really say "Oh, I don't
>>want to join Europa because even though the RPGA is effectively dead in the
>>UK, Europa doesn't use scoring, and I really, really want to be an elitist
>>weenie."
>>
>>I do think people will say "Pah! Europa is an RPGA clone, look they even use
>>scoring. I didn't join the RPGA: I won't join Europa."
>>
>
>I think that's going to be the main problem; if you set up Europa as simply
>something that is seen as a clone by people, then only those that joined the
>RPGA will be interested; some will join both groups, others will remain with
>RPGA, others will just join Europa. If the people behind Europa want it to be
>more than just a pale clone, they need to do something different to RPGA. I
>wouldn't bother joining a group that had scoring, for instance, or that paid
>more attention to sprogs than to normal members, as was hinted at by Karim.
>
>Best of luck to the people at Europa though; I hope they can get something good
>off the ground.
What some people see as flaws others see as strengths.
Before Hasbro took over the RPGA was growing and growing well. We were
able to provide things that the players wanted, we changed the RPGA as
people asked. (Scoring became non-compulsory as an example)
As players realised we were doing good things for the hobby by actually
attending an event and playing the games we ran they saw we were doing
good work.
I sometimes suspect a lot of the more negative comments are from people
who haven't actually taken part in an RPGA game in the last 5 years.
It was bad then, it can't have got any better.
At the end of the day, we have the figures in the database that come
from the scoring of the GM's people are enjoying the games more and more
through initiatives such as scenario management GM's training \
sanctioning. We were doing good work. We plan to carry on that good work
and build on it with fresh ideas from new people who would not or could
not support a society solely funded by 1 manufacturer.
In my opinion, scoring is an aspect of the hobby that mostly younger
players enjoy. As time goes past we grow out of the need to "win" or
hack and slash and concentrate more on the role-playing aspect. However
as Ryan Dancey has put it so eloquently in a posting discussing brand
management, the fact that the experienced gamers and authors want to
play and write the "better" quality games doesn't stop the dungeon
crawls from selling.
In fact They published a number of scenario's specifically marked as
dungeon crawls on the cover and they sold 30% more than equivalent
modules.
In a similar vein, if a scoring system provides something for some
players which will encourage them to play more so they develop to a
point where the don't want\need it anymore then I am all for it.
The vehement anti scoring crowd seem elitist in my view because they
wouldn't want to be associated with people who enjoyed it even if they
weren't forced to do it. Some of these people are actually human, and
can be funny and enjoyable to be with, round a gaming table or over pint
of beer. :-)
We don't want to force people to join, we want to offer services which
will benefit role-players in the long term, which people want to use.
If people can't see past a VOLUNTARY scoring system to the quality of
the game they play which is primarily governed by the scenario and the
GM as well as the other players then might I suggest that they are
possibly being short sighted.
I have played in dozens of scored and unscored convention games since
1993 and I have only had 1 bad gaming experience due to someone who
appeared to be fixated on trying to win.
As far as I am concerned you take from a game what you put into it, if
you go into it with the a negative attitude from the outset, there is
usually very little that can be done about it. People with an open mind
enjoy things more and go with the flow and have fun.
At the end of the day we do this to have fun, pure and simple.
NickTheLemming
>Date: 3/16/2002 11:03 AM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <01HW.B8B939560...@news.clara.net>
>
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:02:41 +0000, NickTheLemming wrote
>(in message <20020316120241...@mb-cl.aol.com>):
>
>> more attention to sprogs than to normal members, as was hinted at by Karim.
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=karim+school+europa&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&
oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=rm80mKAZFFk8EweF%40kronfli.demon.co.uk&rnum=1
That's the first one I can find on a quick search, but I think other messages
from Karim and a couple of others have said pretty much the same thing too. If
that's the way Europa wants to go to get new members, and to get more people
ointo the hobby, then fine; I hope they succeed. It does put me off joining
though.
mrdibley
>
> What some people see as flaws others see as strengths.
> Before Hasbro took over the RPGA was growing and growing well. We were
>snip
> I sometimes suspect a lot of the more negative comments are from people
> who haven't actually taken part in an RPGA game in the last 5 years.
> It was bad then, it can't have got any better.
> snip (too long to leave it all in). Apologies for the long reply below.
If you have a scoring system you will always have someone for whom
winning is more important than sharing the role play experience. This
can have a detrimental effect on the other players involved and (in
the past) has even affected GM's.
The RPGA has often suffered from the accusation that cheating goes on
(tactical voting/GM's checking sheets prior to scoring players/players
scoring mates highest/GM's getting artificially high scores due to
friends on the table etc.)and checking scoring sheets only catches the
most obvious examples. (I have had specific experience of all of the
above I'm afraid). Europa is highly likely to suffer the same
accusation if it proceeds with scoring tournaments.
The scoring system used is extremely subjective and hardly enables a
specific player to be justifiably identified as "the best" at a
particular games system/convention. It can also lead to much negative
discussion/bad feeling if a number of people on the table feel the
scoring was not "fair".
The real down side of scoring though is that sometimes major prizes
are awarded to those people taking part in and winning tournaments.
Given the highly suspect nature of the scoring system used, this has
(at least) three negative effects:
1. It offers a positive enducement to cheat
2. It can put huge pressure on the players and GM's
3. Those people who feel negative towards scoring are penalised (i.e.
can't qualify for the major prize).
The above said, the hobby is big enough to cope with those
players/GM's for whom scoring is important. As long as players and
GM's are aware that the system is not perfect and that people have a
choice to score/not to score does it really matter? (Apart from the
major prize issue, that is).
Finally, I don't think people who object to scoring are "elitest",
Karim - it's just that they feel the negative effect(s) outweigh any
positive benefits.
A Level 3 GM & player who has played within the last 5 years ;-}.
Guy Robinson
> I was also at Conclave two weeks ago and was behind the RPGA desk as
> I'm part of the Living Greyhawk team for the UK (who ironically enough
> aren't exactly the most pro-RPGA-way-of-doing-things group of folk but
> are among the few volunteers left).
[...]
I'm the one guilty of suggesting that the Living Greyhawk team are the
point of contact if people want to talk to existing RPGA UK
volunteers. It does appear to be accurate although someone else has
recently stepped forward.
Sean Connor, who now works as the head of DCI UK (the Hasbro CCG
people) has suggested that he can act as a contact for RPGA UK. He
offered this for some of the prior WotC-related problems that RPGA UK
members have been facing.
His contact details can be found on the RPGA UK web site while the
webmaster (who has resigned from the RPGA UK steering committee)
continues to host it.
Sean is therefore probably the person to contact if someone wants to
volunteer to run the RPGA UK.
I hope that Living Greyhawk continues. I would have been a player
myself if the D&D3 Players Handbook I bought at the Manchester GenCon
was not stuffed full of errata, so I could have designed a
satisfactory character that I was sure was strictly legal in terms of
the rules.
Karim C Kronfli
Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:03:35 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>(in message <y6ryRLAH...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
>
>> Before Hasbro took over the RPGA was growing and growing well. We were
>> able to provide things that the players wanted, we changed the RPGA as
>> people asked. (Scoring became non-compulsory as an example)
>
Did you miss the element about BEFORE Hasbro took over?
>
>
>> I sometimes suspect a lot of the more negative comments are from people
>> who haven't actually taken part in an RPGA game in the last 5 years.
>> It was bad then, it can't have got any better.
>
> Not at all. I have nothing to do with the RPGA because they don't
>offer me anything of interest. I would join an association that
>offered me something that I wanted, the RPGA don't offer me anything
>therefore I don't join.
Fine if you don't want to join a society that actually does something to
improve the hobby for ALL players inclusively then don't join.
We won't miss you.
>
> Plus it's D&D dominated
I have explained how untrue this statement is so many times its no
boring, so unless you stick to facts rather than your personal slant on
things there is no point carrying on with this element of the
discussion.
>and has a lot of bad baggage with it.
This we do appreciate
> I can't actually think of any reason for joining the RPGA so it's not
>as though I'm blinded by hatred to the good things RPGA offer me.
Fine the comment above still stands.
>> At the end of the day, we have the figures in the database that come
>> from the scoring of the GM's people are enjoying the games more and more
>> through initiatives such as scenario management GM's training \
>> sanctioning.
>
> There are a number of assumptions at work in this statement, all of
>which are questionable.
Name them, that is a facetious statement in the extreme.
People score the games depending on how they enjoy them, simple.
Scores have gone up measurably since the introduction of the programmes
I have quoted, hence peoples gaming experiences have improved.
>
>
>> In my opinion, scoring is an aspect of the hobby that mostly younger
>> players enjoy.
>
> Aaah... there you go Nick. Yardape pandering.
And I put to you again, If we don't encourage younger players who will
be members of this hobby in years to come? We were all young once I owe
a lot to role-playing.
>
>
>> management, the fact that the experienced gamers and authors want to
>> play and write the "better" quality games doesn't stop the dungeon
>> crawls from selling.
>
> Yeah, but the fact that dungeon crawls sell isn't a reason for
>building an association around them promoting dungeon crawls and
>geared towards running dungeon crawl adventures with the caveat that
>you don't ONLY run dungeon crawls.
You misinterpret my statement again. We are not based around dungeon
crawls we do however provide support for beginners AS WELL AS
experienced players, which you constantly ignore by your comments.
>
> In fact it's a pretty good reason for starting an association for
>people who want to move on from Dungeon Crawls, especially when the
>majority of players don't play dungeon crawls. Doubly so if you
>consider the fact that there's an existing organisation that DOES
>promote such things and with whom you'd be competing for business.
Circular argument based on flawed logic.
>
> I take it I'm not stretching the metaphore too far.
Yes you are
>
>
>> In fact They published a number of scenario's specifically marked as
>> dungeon crawls on the cover and they sold 30% more than equivalent
>> modules.
>
> So you want to score your games because people like it... oh except
>for the majority of gamers who don't belong to the RPGA and the
>minority of those who don't join the RPGA BECAUSE of scoring?
>
>
>> The vehement anti scoring crowd seem elitist in my view because they
>> wouldn't want to be associated with people who enjoyed it even if they
>> weren't forced to do it. Some of these people are actually human, and
>> can be funny and enjoyable to be with, round a gaming table or over pint
>> of beer. :-)
>
> 'Elitism'... pfft! talk about an ad hominem. If I'm an elitist
>then people who enjoy scoring are over-competitive mongoloids. Deal?
No.
>
> It's not a question of "associating" with people who enjoy scoring
>it's a question of not being sure why one should join an organisation
>designed to appeal to them and their desires and interests with
>minimal allowances for those who refuse to take part in scoring.
Because we are designing it to appeal to ALL gamers inclusively. Why do
you not understand this?
>
> If you want to compete with RPGA then fine go ahead... I think it's
>a profoundly stupid idea and a missed opportuinity but go ahead.
>
> My point is that the expertise you guys have amassed and the break
>with the RPGA gives us an oopportunitry to do right what the RPGA
>does wrong. to create an association that all gamers will have a
>vested interest in joining, rather than one that competes for the
>memberships of the minority who like scoring.
You still don't get it do you.
By being vehemently anti-scoring those potential members are by
definition divisive, and IMHO they can't see the big picture where it
does provide something for some players. The fact that it is voluntary
therefore makes it highly unlikely to detract from the games for people
who don't like scoring.
Being anti anything in this hobby is a negative attitude which I will
have no part of.
We will support ANY aspect of this hobby that people want us to.
To summarise.
1: We will support ANY game system we have the resources for (GM's,
Scenarios & Authors)
2: We will support ANY player who enjoys playing role-playing games for
whatever reason and provide an environment within which they can develop
within the hobby.
At the end of the day the ex RPGA volunteer team has actually achieved
something over the last few years. It is quantifiable by the results in
the database.
Most of the players I know couldn't give a stuff about the kinds of
things you talk about they just want to turn up to a convention or their
club and play a game to have fun.
Strangely enough we actually support them too. Your are completely
focussing on one element of the argument and not recognising any of the
other work the ex RPGA volunteer team has done.
> If it is so voluntary then why not structure the association around
>those who don't want to score (AKA the majority of gamers) and allow
>people to informally score each other. That's fine... I just don't
>see why I would want to join an association that's structured around
>the desires of a minority with different desires and attitudes to me.
Asked and answered
Karim C Kronfli
>winning is more important than sharing the role play experience. This
>can have a detrimental effect on the other players involved and (in
>the past) has even affected GM's.
Agreed, however going on my experience I haven't come across it so
often.
Whilst I accept that other experiences may be different.
>
>The RPGA has often suffered from the accusation that cheating goes on
>(tactical voting/GM's checking sheets prior to scoring players/players
>scoring mates highest/GM's getting artificially high scores due to
>friends on the table etc.)and checking scoring sheets only catches the
>most obvious examples. (I have had specific experience of all of the
>above I'm afraid). Europa is highly likely to suffer the same
>accusation if it proceeds with scoring tournaments.
Granted and whenever it has been brought to our attention it has been
dealt with.
>
>The scoring system used is extremely subjective and hardly enables a
>specific player to be justifiably identified as "the best" at a
>particular games system/convention. It can also lead to much negative
>discussion/bad feeling if a number of people on the table feel the
>scoring was not "fair".
Defining the best player as the player you had the most fun with is a
pretty good start.
>
>The real down side of scoring though is that sometimes major prizes
>are awarded to those people taking part in and winning tournaments.
>Given the highly suspect nature of the scoring system used, this has
>(at least) three negative effects:
>
>1. It offers a positive enducement to cheat
>2. It can put huge pressure on the players and GM's
>3. Those people who feel negative towards scoring are penalised (i.e.
>can't qualify for the major prize).
1: Granted but any major prize is in a multi-round game so most cheating
eliminated in subsequent rounds.
3: They are a self selecting group. They don't want to score so they
don't want to win the prize on offer, simple.
>
>The above said, the hobby is big enough to cope with those
>players/GM's for whom scoring is important. As long as players and
>GM's are aware that the system is not perfect and that people have a
>choice to score/not to score does it really matter? (Apart from the
>major prize issue, that is).
>
>Finally, I don't think people who object to scoring are "elitest",
>Karim - it's just that they feel the negative effect(s) outweigh any
>positive benefits.
>
>A Level 3 GM & player who has played within the last 5 years ;-}.
No I don't think people who object are elitist. Its the vehement ones
whom "wouldn't have anything to do with that kind of player"
What kind of player?
Enjoying the scoring element does not make someone have a GOD complex or
paranoia or a desperate urge to murder people. These people don't
necessarily let it run their lives. They typically can walk away from a
table and leave the game behind.
Adam Canning
LaaaaA...@mice.com says...
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:01:30 +0000, Adam Canning wrote
> (in message <MPG.16fc2af8b...@news.cis.dfn.de>):
>
> > Because you are the one using obscene or insulting language in a public
> > forum to denigrate the organisations rather than improve it.
>
Put up or shut up.
Adam
Stephen Pettifer
Karim C Kronfli <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote in message
<snip>>
>
> At the end of the day the ex RPGA volunteer team has actually achieved
> something over the last few years. It is quantifiable by the results in
> the database.
>
By that I take it you mean the numbers of people, but aren't people put on
it when they take part in a agreed non-scoring game and have no interest
whatsoever in being in the RPGA? That seems to be what happened at
Conception 2002. As I said before, the RPGA has never been for me, but am I
on your database because I played in a session at a convention?
Stephen Pettifer
Karim C Kronfli <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote in message
<snip>
> Enjoying the scoring element does not make someone have a GOD complex or
> paranoia or a desperate urge to murder people. These people don't
> necessarily let it run their lives. They typically can walk away from a
> table and leave the game behind.
I took part in a competitive game at a con a few years ago and the level of
grandstanding and attempting to monopolise the GM's attention was shameless.
I sat and watched 2 players trying to "win" and in so doing ruining the game
for the rest of us, unless of course we joined in the sorry farce. And I
really regret not walking out of it. That experience is not what I would
call role-playing. IMHO competitive play puts off more people than it
attracts, only my opinion but there you go.
Tim Ellis
>
>I haven't seen any constructive suggestions from you. Abolish scoring
>being about the only position you appear to hold.
>
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis EMail t...@timellis.demon.co.uk |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tim Ellis
>On the scoring issue I've only seen people who like it, dislike it, and hate
>it with a passion. I'm yet to meet anyone who really loves it, and would
>refuse to join an organisation that didn't do it.
list, and see the confusion from assorted Americans who could not
conceive how you would run a game at a convention that wasn't scored...
Tim Ellis
posted
>
>Because people believe that the guys who have made the RPGA what it is
>for the last x years might be better able to provide what they want
>than the people (person?) left holding the fort at RPGA, perhaps?
>
main creative element left to start a solo career, arguing that the
majority of fans would recognise that as the main creative force his
work was bound to be superior and contain everything that they enjoyed
about the band.
Peter Jenner was proved wrong when he elected to continue to manage Syd
Barrett.
Roger Waters was proved wrong when Pink Floyd went on to become one of
the top grossing touring bands worldwide in his absence...
A few people on this newsgroup might say "Well if all those people have
left then I'll leave too and join Europa". I suspect that the majority
of RPGA members will say "Why do I need to join another organisation
when I'm in the RPGA", and the majority of non-members will say "I never
wanted to join the RPGA, what makes Europa so different?"
Arthur Boff
> What some people see as flaws others see as strengths.
But you haven't answered my point: on the positive side, folk merely
like scoring. On the negative side, people *hate* it. Especially the
scoring and ranking of players. You will gain more people than you
lose if you dump mandatory scoring of players and GMs, and just retain
something along the lines of an optional feedback form for GMs.
> The vehement anti scoring crowd seem elitist in my view because they
> wouldn't want to be associated with people who enjoyed it even if they
> weren't forced to do it. Some of these people are actually human, and
> can be funny and enjoyable to be with, round a gaming table or over pint
> of beer. :-)
I don't mind playing with someone who scores so long as I have the
right to ignore their opinions. ;)
Everyone wants something different out of roleplaying, and so one
man's 10 out of 10 is another man's 0 out of 10.
Therefore, scoring will improve the games *only from the viewpoint of
people who give a shit about scoring*.
I love roleplaying for many reasons, one reason being that it is a
non-competitive activity. Nobody loses. Nobody wins. Scoring GMs and
players is the absolute antithesis of that ethos and I'll have nothing
to do with the vile, debased practice. ;)
> As far as I am concerned you take from a game what you put into it, if
> you go into it with the a negative attitude from the outset, there is
> usually very little that can be done about it. People with an open mind
> enjoy things more and go with the flow and have fun.
How would scoring affect my enjoyment of the game?
Back to the main point, which is that (and I'm going to shout here):
EUROPA MUST NOT BE AN RPGA CLONE.
Otherwise it will never be bigger than the RPGA was at its peak. And
otherwise I will never join it. It can go on providing what the RPGA
has so far provided, but it must provide something else, something
different to that, otherwise I will not be interested.
Wart
T'n'T Nixon
Adam Canning <da...@dahak.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.16fe95d4...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Personally I'd like to hear a lot more about this "TWAT RANKING" it sounds
fascinating!
--
_________________________________
Butter doesn't set in the sun.
John Dallman
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:03:35 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>
Well, if I may take a guess?
Scoring provides something for a large-scale association of roleplayers
to actually /do/. I've never been personally able to see what such a large
scale association would actually be for but some people are clearly
attracted to the idea.
The people who've recently resigned from the RPGA presumably liked
something about the experience of helping run it, or why would they have
carried on doing it? Since they liked it, it's reasonably natural for them
to want the same kind of experience out of a new organisation.
Since some people like the idea of a national association, scoring
provides an activity to help justify its existence. Note that I'm not
claiming everyone who likes the idea of an association would want scoring;
just that it seems a natural viewpoint for those who've been doing it
without qualms.
Consider how scoring and player-hierarchy systems could be advantageous to
game manufacturers (or perceived by them to be) without being to the
advantage of players?
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
John Dallman
> In article <01HW.B8B991AD0...@news.clara.net>, - Professor
> Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
> And I put to you again, If we don't encourage younger players who will
> be members of this hobby in years to come? We were all young once I owe
> a lot to role-playing.
Were you recruited through the RPGA? I wasn't, and I don't know of anyone
who was. As I've said before, the belief that people who are interested
can't come to it by themselves is highly condescending.
Role-playing is unlikely ever to be "hip"; it's a hobby for outsiders
rather than the fashionable. Battling against this by trying to make it
"easier" or "more competitive" in the hope of increasing sales is surely
an activity for marketing departments, not experienced players like you?
> Because we are designing it to appeal to ALL gamers inclusively. Why do
> you not understand this?
In my case, because I'm a gamer, and I haven't seen anything in your
objectives yet that appeals to me. So the "all gamers" isn't - as yet -
succeeding.
> By being vehemently anti-scoring those potential members are by
> definition divisive,
So it's impossible that our views have any merit, even though we're
gamers, because we disagree with you? Would you like to qualify that
statement? It can be read as being seriously authoritarian.
> and IMHO they can't see the big picture where it does provide something
> for some players.
I can believe that, with no difficulty.
> The fact that it is voluntary therefore makes it highly unlikely
> to detract from the games for people who don't like scoring.
See anecdotes above about people vying for the GM's attention rather than
playing their characters; statements that ""cheating has been much reduced
and suppressed whenever we find out about it"" - so there are still
motives for it to happen, or it would stop naturally - and so on.
To prevent those things from disrupting games, you would seem to need to
divide games into scored and non-scored. Since the scored games require
additional attention and organisation, to some degree, they will seem
"more important" in the structure of the organisation. Which breeds
resentment amongst those who feel that scoring isn't harmless fun, but
actively foolish.
> 1: We will support ANY game system we have the resources for (GM's,
> Scenarios & Authors)
>
> 2: We will support ANY player who enjoys playing role-playing games
> for whatever reason and provide an environment within which they
> can develop within the hobby.
OK. Part of the failures of communication here may be the misunderstanding
of the concept of "support" on my part.
My principal problems with gaming at present are (a) not having enough
free time from work and life in general to do it and (b) not feeling I
have enough plot twists available as yet for the Steampunk-to-
Transcendence campaign I'm planning to start in a few weeks' time. Now, I
doubt Eurolog can do much about (a) and since (b) is a fairly obscure
twist on an minority SF trope, it seems unlikely that Eurolog will have
anything specific for the problem - I'm working on it by reading source
material for other genres and seeing how I can twist it.
As far as I understand your support model, it consists of providing
scenarios that have been quality-checked ("sanctioned") for GMs to run at
conventions. I assume that these come with pre-generated characters? This
doesn't seem very interesting to me because I like to play my own
characters - some of them have been going for upwards of 20 years - and
because I like scenarios to have some element of character-driving rather
than GM-driving. How thoroughly have I misunderstood you?
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
Karim C Kronfli
>> something over the last few years. It is quantifiable by the results in
>> the database.
>>
><snip>
>
>By that I take it you mean the numbers of people, but aren't people put on
>it when they take part in a agreed non-scoring game and have no interest
>whatsoever in being in the RPGA? That seems to be what happened at
>Conception 2002. As I said before, the RPGA has never been for me, but am I
>on your database because I played in a session at a convention?
Yes, they are put in the database for tracking of the empirical data.
The referee scores are almost always on the sheets and the written
feedback if it appears on the form goes into the database too.
However this does not mean you are a member
From this we get.
Number of players.
Relative enjoyment of the scenario and or specific game.
And the comments on the scenario.
The authors can check the feedback from the scenario on the website.
The referees get the feedback right there at the table.
And future convention planners can see what might be a suitable scenario
to run at a future convention.
All useful information for improving the hobby.
Karim C Kronfli
>who was. As I've said before, the belief that people who are interested
>can't come to it by themselves is highly condescending.
I am not saying that we are the only way for people to get into the
hobby, it is just another avenue for new players to get involved.
>
>Role-playing is unlikely ever to be "hip"; it's a hobby for outsiders
>rather than the fashionable. Battling against this by trying to make it
>"easier" or "more competitive" in the hope of increasing sales is surely
>an activity for marketing departments, not experienced players like you?
Why not? Who is not a better advocate for a hobby than the people who
have got the most out of it?
In fact especially since we do not want to show bias towards any
manufacturer?
>
>> Because we are designing it to appeal to ALL gamers inclusively. Why do
>> you not understand this?
>
>In my case, because I'm a gamer, and I haven't seen anything in your
>objectives yet that appeals to me. So the "all gamers" isn't - as yet -
>succeeding.
OK then, what would you like us to do?
I have explained what we have done so far in the last few years which
from what we can tell, given the available data, has improved the hobby.
We have sought to achieve something and actually done that.
If there is a constructive idea of another forum, method by which we can
help improve gaming for yourself, please let me know.
The reason I am on this forum is 3 fold.
1: I like to read and take part in these discussions as an individual.
2: To pass information on to this forum, first as an interested member
then as a representative of first the RPGA and now this new
organisation.
3: To hear peoples opinions about the RPGA as was and now this new
society, take note of the ideas put them forward for consideration so
that policy can be changed.
>So it's impossible that our views have any merit, even though we're
>gamers, because we disagree with you? Would you like to qualify that
>statement? It can be read as being seriously authoritarian.
>
No your views have merit but I just feel that removing the entire
structure would be a negative move rather than the compromise of non
compulsion.
>See anecdotes above about people vying for the GM's attention rather than
>playing their characters; statements that ""cheating has been much reduced
>and suppressed whenever we find out about it"" - so there are still
>motives for it to happen, or it would stop naturally - and so on.
I have similar anecdotes, and the situation usually ends up with the
players in question being marked down because people did not enjoy
playing the game with them!
However in our experience these events are few compared to the
unaffected games.
>
>To prevent those things from disrupting games, you would seem to need to
>divide games into scored and non-scored. Since the scored games require
>additional attention and organisation, to some degree, they will seem
>"more important" in the structure of the organisation. Which breeds
>resentment amongst those who feel that scoring isn't harmless fun, but
>actively foolish.
I can see your point but I disagree.
>
>> 1: We will support ANY game system we have the resources for (GM's,
>> Scenarios & Authors)
>>
>> 2: We will support ANY player who enjoys playing role-playing games
>> for whatever reason and provide an environment within which they
>> can develop within the hobby.
>
>OK. Part of the failures of communication here may be the misunderstanding
>of the concept of "support" on my part.
>
>My principal problems with gaming at present are (a) not having enough
>free time from work and life in general to do it and (b) not feeling I
>have enough plot twists available as yet for the Steampunk-to-
>Transcendence campaign I'm planning to start in a few weeks' time. Now, I
>doubt Eurolog can do much about (a) and since (b) is a fairly obscure
>twist on an minority SF trope, it seems unlikely that Eurolog will have
>anything specific for the problem - I'm working on it by reading source
>material for other genres and seeing how I can twist it.
>
>As far as I understand your support model, it consists of providing
>scenarios that have been quality-checked ("sanctioned") for GMs to run at
>conventions. I assume that these come with pre-generated characters? This
>doesn't seem very interesting to me because I like to play my own
>characters - some of them have been going for upwards of 20 years - and
>because I like scenarios to have some element of character-driving rather
>than GM-driving. How thoroughly have I misunderstood you?
Your missing the GM's training and the convention advice and support
too. Also through the system managers authors can have a contact with
experience in the game system they are interested in to discuss ideas
and get advice. Consider "sanctioning" as advising on what has and
hasn't worked in the past.
However home play is a very personal thing and the question is what kind
of things would you like to see us do in addition to what we can do now?
I have already had several good ideas e-mailed to me as a result of the
announcement and I will hope to be able get them enacted.
At the end of the day we want to be able to deliver that which we
promise, something WOTC has had difficulty doing recently.
John Dallman
(John Dallman) wrote:
> I doubt Eurolog can do much about (a) and since (b) is a fairly obscure
> twist on an minority SF trope, it seems unlikely that Eurolog will have
Apologies to Eurolog; I meant Europa.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
John Dallman
> >Role-playing is unlikely ever to be "hip"; it's a hobby for outsiders
> >rather than the fashionable. Battling against this by trying to make
> >it "easier" or "more competitive" in the hope of increasing sales is
> >surely an activity for marketing departments, not experienced players
> >like you?
>
> Why not? Who is not a better advocate for a hobby than the people who
> have got the most out of it? In fact especially since we do not want to
> show bias towards any manufacturer?
I think you've missed my point. Let's try another example. Have you ever
been a collector of postcards? I'm not, but there are people who love to
do it. I could stand to spend a few minutes flipping through an album to
be polite. If I was a teenager who was shown a way that I could attempt to
get one up on some other teenagers through an easy way of doing postcard
collecting, where the things came on a regular monthly delivery, I might
go for it for a while. But that wouldn't mean I had any real interest in
the subject.
Now are you with me?
> >In my case, because I'm a gamer, and I haven't seen anything in your
> >objectives yet that appeals to me. So the "all gamers" isn't - as yet
> > - succeeding.
>
> OK then, what would you like us to do?
I'm afraid I have no ideas for you. In 13 years of intermittent game
convention organisation, and 22 years of game con attendance, I've never
come across anything for which I felt a large-scale long-lived
organisation was actually necessary, or more effective than a small
organisation that just ran one con, or produce one fanzine or magazine.
This is enough time and enough events that I'm inclined to doubt the
usefulness of such large-scale organisations. Maybe there's some idea out
there which will change my mind, but I have not encountered it.
> I have explained what we have done so far in the last few years which
> from what we can tell, given the available data, has improved the hobby.
> We have sought to achieve something and actually done that.
You believe that you've achieved an improvement for the people who've been
taking part, and they seem to think so too. But the ways in which you've
done that sound very unappealing to me, so I'm quite sceptical that they
will do anything for me and the kind of gaming I do.
> If there is a constructive idea of another forum, method by which we can
> help improve gaming for yourself, please let me know.
Well, I told about the current difficulties I have; can you do anything
about them?
> >So it's impossible that our views have any merit, even though we're
> >gamers, because we disagree with you? Would you like to qualify that
> >statement? It can be read as being seriously authoritarian.
> No your views have merit but I just feel that removing the entire
> structure would be a negative move rather than the compromise of non
> compulsion.
Then we disagree; we can do so in a civilised manner, but it doesn't
recruit me to your organisation, or substantiate your claim that the
society is designed to appeal to all gamers.
> I have similar anecdotes, and the situation usually ends up with the
> players in question being marked down because people did not enjoy
> playing the game with them!
"Marked down" seems a rather minor and inadequate penalty. How about
ejected from the game? Certainly I'd have no compulsion about ejecting
anyone who acted like that from a game I was running, or asking the GM to
do so if I was playing. If they didn't, I'd walk out myself.
> However in our experience these events are few compared to the
> unaffected games.
Unfortunately, when your audience is cynical already, it's hard to tell
how much you're fooling yourself when you believe this. Mud has this
tendency to stick. You also adhere strongly to a viewpoint that I regard
as foolish, so I'm inclined to doubt your judgement.
> >To prevent those things from disrupting games, you would seem to need
> >to divide games into scored and non-scored. Since the scored games
> >require additional attention and organisation, to some degree, they
> >will seem "more important" in the structure of the organisation. Which
> >breeds resentment amongst those who feel that scoring isn't harmless
> >fun, but actively foolish.
> I can see your point but I disagree.
In what way? Do you mean games won't need to be divided? That scored games
won't require additional organisation? That if they do, this won't be
resented?
> Your missing the GM's training and the convention advice and support
> too.
Personally, I have a fairly clear idea of how I like to run cons. It
involves a lower age limit of 18 and an absence of rows of GMs all running
the same scenario. The preferred style is more a large supply of GMs
wanting to run original material. And it's quite possible; not even that
difficult. The advice I had from another organisation, which claimed to be
a national guild of clubs, consisted of "give all our people free
membership and we'll run it for you our way". We declined their offer.
As for GM's training - in what? Just how much experience do these trainers
have? In what kind of game or style of play? I claim about 10,000 hours of
face-to-face roleplaying time, perhaps a third of it GMing, and I reckon
the best way to learn is by doing and observing.
> Also through the system managers authors can have a contact with
> experience in the game system they are interested in to discuss ideas
> and get advice. Consider "sanctioning" as advising on what has and
> hasn't worked in the past.
You mean these "system managers" try to substitute for playtesting? For
authors of scenarios for game systems they aren't familiar with? It's a
deep hole, do you want to keep digging?
You're assuming that I'm interested in pre-written scenarios, for home or
contention play? If so, that's ... quaint. I might have been interested 20
years ago, but I wouldn't have dreamt of sticking to the script even then.
> However home play is a very personal thing and the question is what kind
> of things would you like to see us do in addition to what we can do now?
Like I said, I don't have ideas for you; I haven't felt the need for a
national organisation. Several were tried in the late seventies, and
collapsed under the weight of indifference. I suspect that the same thing
will happen to Europa, given that it doesn't have the external driver that
the RPGA had, but I'm keen to be surprised.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
Karim C Kronfli
Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:30:10 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>(in message <pUXUaUAy...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
>
>>> 3. Those people who feel negative towards scoring are penalised (i.e.
>>> can't qualify for the major prize).
>
>> don't want to win the prize on offer, simple.
>
>seeing the scoring players get prizes paid for with your membership
>money while you get far less?
>
> I suppose you could get round it by having scoring people pay
>more...
Prizes don't get paid for by membership money.
They are donated by manufacturers.
Karim C Kronfli
Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:19:52 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>(in message <Z1ZIyLAI...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
>
>>> At the end of the day the ex RPGA volunteer team has actually achieved
>> something over the last few years. It is quantifiable by the results in
>> the database.
>
>outside the RPGA. There are numerous assumptions behind those
>statistics all or any of which may be flawed :
>
>1 : that the scores actually do measure "fun"
Have you actually read an RPGA scoring sheet?
If not how can you make that kind of statement?
For those who may not have read an RPGA score sheet recently.
The players area for scoring the GM's is separated into 6 elements
1: Roleplaying\Atmosphere
2: Organising play
3: Giving away information to players and NPC's
4: Dealing with unexpected game play.
5: Objectivity
6: NPC's
7: Scenario Knowledge
8: Rules knowledge
Each element is rated 1-5 with a comment under levels 1, 3 & 5 to give
gauging statements.
E.g.
Roleplaying\Atmosphere,
1 = Read the boxes in a monotone.
3 = Read the boxes in a relevant style and continues this style with the
NPC's
5 = Creates a sense of being there (A memorable atmosphere)
I can do a complete listing if people wish.
If someone didn't enjoy the game due to a failing on the GM's part then
these scores will be lower.
How much clearer can we make it?
>2 : that the increases are due to people having more "fun"
See above.
>3 : that the increases are due to DM sanctioning ( I don't know what
>that is but it sounds like the kind of thing that hapopens when the
>pope snuffs it)
We make these conclusions based on, A GM's scores before and after
training\sanctioning, and the comments by the referees who have gone
through the process.
Unless you have been through the system or even have read \ experienced
it how can you possibly comment upon it efficacy?
> I'm saying this is a missed opportunity. You're operating under
>the EXACT same flawed assumptions that the RPGA operated under.
>There's a damn good reason for the fact that the vast majority of
>gamers aren't members of the RPGA and you're ignoring that by
>essentially thinking like the RPGA.
Look, we are the ex volunteers of the RPGA so of course we will use what
we have done so far and successfully as a model.
The only suggestion I have had in this forum so far is get rid of
scoring. Hardly the most constructive addition to the services we can
offer. The important word here is ADDITION.
I am here to comment on and listen to your suggestions.
So make some other suggestion other than just remove scoring for crying
out loud.
>
> I think that the experience and good will and timing would be an
>opportunity to break with the stale old thinking that permeates the
>RPGA and makes it such a complete joke.
>
> The very idea that you create an inclusive organisation by
>pandering to a minority who like scoring and a minority who are too
>inexperienced to know any better is just confused.
So what would you want us to do?
>
> The RPGA caters to a minority of players, a lunatic fringe of
>sorts. Your association aims at exactly those people and it will
>fail for the same reason that the RPGA fails to have a broader
>appeal. Because you're quick to talk of unity and broad appeal but
>you fail to see the hobby as it really is and slate those people who
>are tunred off by scoring (a significant number of players if the
>reaction on here is anything to go by) as elitists and fools.
Here you are getting ridiculous. A lunatic fringe? Now who's being
insulting and to whom?
If you can't get past that one element then there is almost no point
reading your postings.
The vehement anti postings have come from 3 or 4 people. And I have
never called anyone a fool. And those I called elitists were those who
wouldn't want to play with some form of player group "who likes scoring"
when that group contains role-players of all qualities to the same
degree as those who don't "like scoring". You can never tell the quality
of the player through an attitude like that it is only through an actual
game with that person that you gain the true knowledge of their
qualities.
>
> Elitists and fools we may be but we are the majority of gamers and
>it is we that you who should be looking to get to join your
>association.
>
"We are the majority of players? And who granted you the right to speak
for the majority? I would never be so presumptuous to attempt to speak
from that lofty perspective. I can only comment on my personal gaming
experience which has been over 21 years with hundreds of different
players of all age groups over 3 hours games and long term campaigns,
and the experience I have gained being an RPGA member and volunteer and
speaking to hundreds of other members and prospective members and non
members at every convention I go to.
And to summarise, I am asking what else do you want from the new
association.
Karim C Kronfli
>been a collector of postcards? I'm not, but there are people who love to
>do it. I could stand to spend a few minutes flipping through an album to
>be polite. If I was a teenager who was shown a way that I could attempt to
>get one up on some other teenagers through an easy way of doing postcard
>collecting, where the things came on a regular monthly delivery, I might
>go for it for a while. But that wouldn't mean I had any real interest in
>the subject.
>
>Now are you with me?
Not entirely, but that would be true of any new people joining any new
hobby.
>> OK then, what would you like us to do?
>
>I'm afraid I have no ideas for you. In 13 years of intermittent game
>convention organisation, and 22 years of game con attendance, I've never
>come across anything for which I felt a large-scale long-lived
>organisation was actually necessary, or more effective than a small
>organisation that just ran one con, or produce one fanzine or magazine.
Then John, I accept there is probably very little as by your own
admission any group can do for your personal gaming experience,
especially if you have no ideas to contribute.
>You believe that you've achieved an improvement for the people who've been
>taking part, and they seem to think so too. But the ways in which you've
>done that sound very unappealing to me, so I'm quite sceptical that they
>will do anything for me and the kind of gaming I do.
Which ways sound unappealing? All of them? Then there truly is nothing
we can do to please you other than cease to try.
>Well, I told about the current difficulties I have; can you do anything
>about them?
Please summarise them for me once again, I may have lost them in the
other comments.
>Then we disagree; we can do so in a civilised manner, but it doesn't
>recruit me to your organisation, or substantiate your claim that the
>society is designed to appeal to all gamers.
As you said we shall have to disagree. However watch this space.
>
>> I have similar anecdotes, and the situation usually ends up with the
>> players in question being marked down because people did not enjoy
>> playing the game with them!
>
>"Marked down" seems a rather minor and inadequate penalty. How about
>ejected from the game? Certainly I'd have no compulsion about ejecting
>anyone who acted like that from a game I was running, or asking the GM to
>do so if I was playing. If they didn't, I'd walk out myself.
The better GM's will typically take these players in hand during the
game and explain to them the situation.
This is a typical scenario that was presented to me as a player when
another player who purely through their natural personality was
dominating a table it wasn't an overtly malicious or a points scoring
thing just an inexperienced player with a ref who was unaccustomed to
handling that strong a personality.
I had reffed for this particular player myself at the previous GenCon
and I knew how difficult they could be. And the first session was
"challenging" shall we say as the player dominated the refs attention.
During a break I went to the sanctioning team and got them to watch the
second half so they could comment on the situation and discuss it with
the referee afterwards through the sanctioning process.
Sure enough the ref was spoken to by the sanctioning team and they
discussed the situation with him, the ref in question hadn't quite
realised what was going on, but after discussion saw his mistakes and
now is a much better prepared ref for future games.
I repeat this was not a player grandstanding for points it was just
their style of play which had nothing to do with any scoring within the
table itself, as I had seen it previously in a non-scoring event.
>Unfortunately, when your audience is cynical already, it's hard to tell
>how much you're fooling yourself when you believe this. Mud has this
>tendency to stick. You also adhere strongly to a viewpoint that I regard
>as foolish, so I'm inclined to doubt your judgement.
Well if you wish to do that fine but my gaming record is over 21 years
with hundreds of fellow players of all age ranges in almost every game
system.
So I would hope that this experience would count for something.
>In what way? Do you mean games won't need to be divided? That scored games
>won't require additional organisation? That if they do, this won't be
>resented?
They are divided already and they won't need additional resources.
>Personally, I have a fairly clear idea of how I like to run cons. It
>involves a lower age limit of 18 and an absence of rows of GMs all running
>the same scenario. The preferred style is more a large supply of GMs
>wanting to run original material. And it's quite possible; not even that
>difficult. The advice I had from another organisation, which claimed to be
>a national guild of clubs, consisted of "give all our people free
>membership and we'll run it for you our way". We declined their offer.
Fine, I wish we could guarantee several hundred games at GenCon like
that but we find a little more organisation is usually called for.
>
>As for GM's training - in what? Just how much experience do these trainers
>have? In what kind of game or style of play? I claim about 10,000 hours of
>face-to-face roleplaying time, perhaps a third of it GMing, and I reckon
>the best way to learn is by doing and observing.
The GM sanctioning team are some of the most consistently highest
scoring GM's that the RPGA UK had and the new society has. Each has
decades of reffing experience.
Also the initial sanctioning meeting\training session is a sharing of
ideas of what different refs in the group find successful so more ideas
enter the process. Some refs gain a lot from the process some not so
much, but everyone as far as I am aware has gained something.
>
>> Also through the system managers authors can have a contact with
>> experience in the game system they are interested in to discuss ideas
>> and get advice. Consider "sanctioning" as advising on what has and
>> hasn't worked in the past.
>
>You mean these "system managers" try to substitute for playtesting? For
>authors of scenarios for game systems they aren't familiar with? It's a
>deep hole, do you want to keep digging?
There is no substitute for play testing, did I say that?
No If an author wants to try writing for a game system they haven't
written for before its another element of support, it was asked for by
the membership and it was provided.
Not everyone is a great author from day 1 not everyone is a great
referee from day 1 we recognise the fact and give these people support
to improve.
>You're assuming that I'm interested in pre-written scenarios, for home or
>contention play? If so, that's ... quaint. I might have been interested 20
>years ago, but I wouldn't have dreamt of sticking to the script even then.
Fine, that's your thing and as I have said before not everyone is like
you. I am a ref but I don't feel I have the writing talent or the time
to create table top adventures for people. I like running pre-written
scenario's and I know there are other like me.
Karim C Kronfli
>>
>> They are donated by manufacturers.
>
>stuff given to them and none of it ever filters through to
>non-scorers.
It does in the usual way, that there is some prize support also in the
raffle.
How else would you distribute it?
Phil Masters
> Then John, I accept there is probably very little as by your own
> admission any group can do for your personal gaming experience,
> especially if you have no ideas to contribute.
Then I suggest that you drop the PR-speak b*ll*cks about "appealing to
all gamers". You've just admitted that you can't appeal to "all gamers";
persistently claiming that you will is just going to, at best, get you
mercilessly mocked, and at worst, make people actively angry and
antagonistic.
--
Phil Masters * Home Page: http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/
"Battle not with flamers, lest ye become a flamer; and stare not too
deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)
Guy Robinson
news:3C95A015...@philm.demon.co.uk...
> Karim C Kronfli wrote:
> > Then John, I accept there is probably very little as by your own
> > admission any group can do for your personal gaming experience,
> > especially if you have no ideas to contribute.
>
> Then I suggest that you drop the PR-speak b*ll*cks about "appealing to
Phil is correct is that people should pay attention to constructive comments
only. You can't justify a meaning of life to committed nihilists and
attempting to do so will only get that person mocked.
About the last dozen posts on this thread have been about two people having
a moan at someone and generally being negative. Some people will always be
negative - lets move on.
The Mad One
A short comment on the scoring issue...
Why bother scoring players, when their characters should be gaining XP for
taking part in a scenario? This is a fundamental part of D&D and already
represents how succesful a player/character is. If a character dies, you
start all over again - there will still be a record of how long you've been
a member for people to use as a 'personal score' if they really want to.
Personally, I've never been a member of the RPGA but am proud to have been a
continuous member of Dundee University Roleplaying Society (formerly the DU
Wargames Society) since October 4th 1988! (Go DURPS at the Nationals!!!)
BFN
Paul
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:19:52 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>(in message <Z1ZIyLAI...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
>
>>> At the end of the day the ex RPGA volunteer team has actually achieved
>> something over the last few years. It is quantifiable by the results in
>> the database.
>
> Results of questionable worth and essentially meaningless to anyone
>outside the RPGA. There are numerous assumptions behind those
>statistics all or any of which may be flawed :
>
>1 : that the scores actually do measure "fun"
>2 : that the increases are due to people having more "fun"
>3 : that the increases are due to DM sanctioning ( I don't know what
>that is but it sounds like the kind of thing that hapopens when the
>pope snuffs it)
>
>Basically you've got a set of statistics but the philosophical
>assumptions behind those statistics are legion. Do you perform
>double-blind tests? do you use control groups? Has anything other
>than the DM sanctionning changed (such as the wording of the response
>sheets or the institutional attitude towards scoring).
From a personal point of view, my scores before sanctioning were
something like 20% lower than afterwards (averaging 185 before and
220-225 or so afterwards) ...however I recognise myself that my GMings
has vastly improved and others have pointed this out)
>
>
>> Strangely enough we actually support them too. Your are completely
>> focussing on one element of the argument and not recognising any of the
>> other work the ex RPGA volunteer team has done.
>
> I'm saying this is a missed opportunity. You're operating under
>the EXACT same flawed assumptions that the RPGA operated under.
>There's a damn good reason for the fact that the vast majority of
>gamers aren't members of the RPGA and you're ignoring that by
>essentially thinking like the RPGA.
>
> I think that the experience and good will and timing would be an
>opportunity to break with the stale old thinking that permeates the
>RPGA and makes it such a complete joke.
>
> The very idea that you create an inclusive organisation by
>pandering to a minority who like scoring and a minority who are too
>inexperienced to know any better is just confused.
>
> The RPGA caters to a minority of players, a lunatic fringe of
>sorts. Your association aims at exactly those people and it will
>fail for the same reason that the RPGA fails to have a broader
>appeal. Because you're quick to talk of unity and broad appeal but
>you fail to see the hobby as it really is and slate those people who
>are tunred off by scoring (a significant number of players if the
>reaction on here is anything to go by) as elitists and fools.
>
> Elitists and fools we may be but we are the majority of gamers and
>it is we that you who should be looking to get to join your
>association.
The majority of games have never heard of the RPGA or Europa or
Professor Yaffle's Gaming Organisation...
Best Regards,
Dave
>
>--
>
>Professor Yaffle,
>
> Cynicism and Bombast on Demand.
>
morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net
Supernovae & Creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Kharne - graphical AD&D-based RPG for Windows http://www.kharne.net
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 2:56:30 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
>(in message <6GswuuAe...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
>
>> It does in the usual way, that there is some prize support also in the
>> raffle.
>>
>> How else would you distribute it?
>
> But some people don't like raffles and would get pissed off at all
>the resources going into running raffles.
>
> I don't think that there necessarily is a solution. I think that
>scoring will necessarily create a bad feeling between the two groups
>of players.
>
How would you distribute the material donated from the manufacturers
then?
Darrell Impey
Mad One <pdse...@cableinet.co.uk> writes
>Hi all,
>
>A short comment on the scoring issue...
>
>Why bother scoring players, when their characters should be gaining XP for
>taking part in a scenario?
In the majority of RPGA games, the character is not carried forward from
game to game, and as such no xp are awarded to the character.
In the Living games, Force, Greyhawk, etc. the characters do gain
experience from individual games, so that they may participate in
multiple scenarios at different conventions. These are also the games
for which player scoring were dropped some time ago.
--
Darrell
John Dallman
> Then John, I accept there is probably very little as by your own
> admission any group can do for your personal gaming experience,
> especially if you have no ideas to contribute.
Thank you! I think that's more or less what I've been saying.
> Well if you wish to do that fine but my gaming record is over 21 years
> with hundreds of fellow players of all age ranges in almost every game
> system.
>
> So I would hope that this experience would count for something.
We appear to have drawn almost exactly opposite conclusions from similar
amounts of experience. Gamers are like that; claiming to appeal to "all
gamers" will get you into this sort of difficulty.
> >In what way? Do you mean games won't need to be divided? That scored
> >games won't require additional organisation? That if they do, this
> > won't be resented?
>
> They are divided already and they won't need additional resources.
Err, somebody has collect all the data from the scored games, don't they?
> Fine, I wish we could guarantee several hundred games at GenCon like
> that but we find a little more organisation is usually called for.
I could make suggestions about the natural and effective sizes of games
cons, and the reasons why manufacturers are interested in larger ones, but
I doubt that they'd make any impression.
> >As for GM's training - in what? Just how much experience do these
> >trainers have? In what kind of game or style of play?
> The GM sanctioning team are some of the most consistently highest
> scoring GM's that the RPGA UK had and the new society has.
So they're very much in the scoring style, and habituated to it?
> Each has decades of reffing experience.
Kind of hard to have more than two-and-a-half decades worth, isn't it?
> There is no substitute for play testing, did I say that?
No, but what you wrote wasn't all that clear, and I wasn't sure what you
did mean. I'm glad you didn't mean that.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
Morgoth's Cat
(John Dallman) scribed:
There's no such thing as "the scoring style".
Best Regards,
Dave
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:46:49 +0000, Morgoth's Cat wrote
>(in message <3c9627f0...@news.freeserve.net>):
>
>> How would you distribute the material donated from the manufacturers
>> then?
>
> If they can't be distributed evenly and fairly then I'd not want to
>distribute any.
But it is fair. Unless you consider *all* competitions - sporting
events, games of skill etc to be unfair. Do you?
> Or just hold a raffle and the person with the
>winning con ticket number gets the gear.
Not much motivation then is there? So the person who is basically a
'bum on seat' has en equal chance as the person who has roleplayed his
or her heart out?
>
> I very much doubt whether the offer of a prize would make all that
>much difference to anything.
Gencon UK's Open Prize.
Tim Ellis
previously posted
>>
>> I very much doubt whether the offer of a prize would make all that
>>much difference to anything.
>
>Gencon UK's Open Prize.
>
the open...
Mark Threlfall
I have not posted for some time on here but I have been watching this thread
with avid interest. Firstly though I should explain myself. I am not and
never have been a member of the RPGA and have only played in two competitive
roleplaying competitions. The first was at Games Fair in Reading many years
ago and was set up indepentally by a group of people who ran an excelent
game. The players all voted for the top three players in a particular
session. I got to the final and lost it completely, all because of one
simple fact, I had never run AD&D 1st edition and never played a Cleric. The
random character that I received completely threw my chances of winning,
because scoring was mostly based on what you did, and all I did was hit
things and heal people! The winner was a friend who received randomly a
Thief, a character class that he played all the time, he enver played
anything other than Thieves. He did loads, and based upon the scoring method
involved won. I learned something from this experience, it was the
following, if I has recieved the Wizard character I may have stood a chance
of winning. At least thats how I felt at the time. My suspsions on
competitive roleplaying began.
Then the first UK GENCON came about, and I was in the Call of Cthulhu
scenario. Scoring it was said was based on many factors, including "how well
your character is played". This threw me, as the only people who read the
player character bio was the GM and the player who was roleplaying the
particular character. Therefore how were the other five players able to
score my interpretation of a character they only knew through my actions,
manerisms and other acting talent? The GM could have had a good chance to do
so, but of course it would be totally subjective as his interpretation (the
GM was male) may have been different to my own. This however was not much of
a factor as the GM had "read the scenario on the train down".
Another disturbing factor arose very quickly one player and the GM were on
very friendly terms, this player received 80% of all descriptions (The GM
faced the player most of the time). I very quickly worked out only three of
the characters were "Investigator types", and two characters major motives
were romantic, which were played out but ignored by the other players and
not seen as something worth scoring. The GM scroed the player I spoke of
early very highly, infact told everyone he was going too. I came away from
the game thinking that it was all subjective and I did not believe I could
score anyone fairly myself. It was at this time I decided that scoring
roleplaying games was bad.
Then later I found myself reading an old game manual in which it stated
something along the lines of "...in roleplaying games there are not always
winners and losers, in fact winning the game is not an objective"...so what
happened I thought? Since then when at conventions I have played games that
had no hint of competition. I prefer them that way, they are more fun and I
can concentrate on the game, and not the desire to be the best.
Mark Threlfall
"mrdibley" <mrdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2c49e3f.02031...@posting.google.com...
> If you have a scoring system you will always have someone for whom
> winning is more important than sharing the role play experience. This
> can have a detrimental effect on the other players involved and (in
> the past) has even affected GM's.
I know someone in an old group who always played to win, in fact if he did
not believe he was winning (i.e. perceived to be the most important or most
powerful character in the group) he would try hard to end the game.
Competiive roleplaying would be right up his street. For me though, its just
destructive.
> The RPGA has often suffered from the accusation that cheating goes on
> (tactical voting/GM's checking sheets prior to scoring players/players
> scoring mates highest/GM's getting artificially high scores due to
> friends on the table etc.)and checking scoring sheets only catches the
> most obvious examples. (I have had specific experience of all of the
> above I'm afraid). Europa is highly likely to suffer the same
> accusation if it proceeds with scoring tournaments.
Favoritism always reigns during scoring, I was once a member of a large
local RPG Club that introduced scoring (which I disagreed with and said so
often) to vet the quality of the GMs and "guide players" (the arrogance of
the language on the newsletter was amazing). It was interesting to note that
in one session I ran the three players who knew me gave me an average of 8
out of 10, whilst those who did not scored me a 5 out of 10. The former
wanted to make me feel good, the later did not wish me to feel bad, but made
an effort to say, "hey you wondered of the point quite often and did
occassionaly destroy your own atmosphere".
I never marked my players, and often got told I was breaking the rules. The
scoring system lasted exactly one month, wiser heads prevailed.
> The scoring system used is extremely subjective and hardly enables a
> specific player to be justifiably identified as "the best" at a
> particular games system/convention. It can also lead to much negative
> discussion/bad feeling if a number of people on the table feel the
> scoring was not "fair".
There is no best way, I have had a long standing character of my own
creation in a Cyberpunk game that is well known to my players. The character
was used by a friend in another game he ran for different players, and his
interpretation was not mine, but well roleplayed. The charactrers basic
motivations were in place and it came across believeable and most
importantly of all, dangerous without resorting to violence. I would never
play the character in the way my friend did, but it was not badly played.
Mark Threlfall
"Karim C Kronfli" <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote in message
> >The RPGA has often suffered from the accusation that cheating goes on
> >(tactical voting/GM's checking sheets prior to scoring players/players
> >scoring mates highest/GM's getting artificially high scores due to
> >friends on the table etc.)and checking scoring sheets only catches the
> >most obvious examples. (I have had specific experience of all of the
> >above I'm afraid). Europa is highly likely to suffer the same
> >accusation if it proceeds with scoring tournaments.
>
> dealt with.
What type of procedure did you use to prove cheating went on?
> No I don't think people who object are elitist. Its the vehement ones
> whom "wouldn't have anything to do with that kind of player"
> What kind of player?
The kind of player who believes it is more important to "win" at a
roleplaying game than to have fun doing things in your imagination you
cannot do in real life...for example "thwart an evil group of cultists who a
summoning the dread God Baal!".
I have played with someone who likes to win, its bad very bad, if the player
felt he was not winning it ruined the game. It also meant there was a great
deal of attention grabbing, this went on in the scored games I was involved
in often. There was always at least one player constantly jumping in and
trying/succeeding in keeping the other players quiet. The entire idea seemed
to be, get the highest percentage of attention of the GM and win the game. I
did not enjoy it.
That said though...is it actualy elitist to enjoy a game one way more than
another? It is obvious some players like scoring..and some do not...surely
neither are elitist...but its only the former who are trying to get points
to be a recognised higher level player..
> Enjoying the scoring element does not make someone have a GOD complex or
> paranoia or a desperate urge to murder people. These people don't
> necessarily let it run their lives. They typically can walk away from a
> table and leave the game behind.
I am sure many can, but I have had experience of some who cannot. Of course
they never want to murder anyone, but I was once threatened with violence
because my character was better than his. At least it was in his perception.
Mark Threlfall
"Karim C Kronfli" <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote in message
> In article <01HW.B8B991AD0...@news.clara.net>, - Professor
> Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
> >On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:03:35 +0000, Karim C Kronfli wrote
> >(in message <y6ryRLAH...@kronfli.demon.co.uk>):
> > Not at all. I have nothing to do with the RPGA because they don't
> >offer me anything of interest. I would join an association that
> >offered me something that I wanted, the RPGA don't offer me anything
> >therefore I don't join.
>
> Fine if you don't want to join a society that actually does something to
> improve the hobby for ALL players inclusively then don't join.
> We won't miss you.
This is a sweeping generalisation, I am sure the RPGA has improved certain
types of services on offer for the hobby, and it has served as a method of
generating conventions to get people together. But it has NEVER done
anything to "improve the hobby" for me. The only people who have done that
are the GMs I met locally and the players I have met locally, none of which
I ever met with RPGA assistance. In fact in the 20 years I have been part of
this hobby the RPGA has hardly effected me in the slightest. So calm down.
It may be different for other players, but certainly not ALL players.
> >> In my opinion, scoring is an aspect of the hobby that mostly younger
> >> players enjoy.
> >
> > Aaah... there you go Nick. Yardape pandering.
>
> And I put to you again, If we don't encourage younger players who will
> be members of this hobby in years to come? We were all young once I owe
> a lot to role-playing.
Attracting younger players to the hobby is great, but when I got into this
hobby there was no real scoring element beyond experience points and we
hated giving out experience points for roleplaying (though there were
occasions we would warn players not to step out of characrer...after many
weeks of play as it took this length of time to really know when someone was
stepping out of character) because it was subjective. Therefore there were
various experience scoring methods based upon how long it took us to reach
certain "waypoints" in the games. Eventually of course we found games in
which expereince points did not exist and we did not have to worry about
scoring at all, and we also discovered that if players did not progress
evenly those lagging behind would enjoy the game less.
Scoring was a concept that I discovered through the conventions I went to
run by the RPGA, so have poeple who like scoring become used to it by going
to conventions alot, rather than it being something they would have chosen
to do if they progressed through the hobby as I had?
> You still don't get it do you.
>
> By being vehemently anti-scoring those potential members are by
> definition divisive, and IMHO they can't see the big picture where it
> does provide something for some players. The fact that it is voluntary
> therefore makes it highly unlikely to detract from the games for people
> who don't like scoring.
> Being anti anything in this hobby is a negative attitude which I will
> have no part of.
> We will support ANY aspect of this hobby that people want us to.
But only reward those who want to be scored?
> Most of the players I know couldn't give a stuff about the kinds of
> things you talk about they just want to turn up to a convention or their
> club and play a game to have fun.
Ok this is a very good point!
James Wallis
<mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> writes
>How would you distribute the material donated from the manufacturers
>then?
In my experience, manufacturers only donate product if the convention
asks for it. If you're not running tournaments, don't ask for prize
support -- ask for raffle items, door prizes or auction items.
And then tell us how the convention went. Please.
--
James Wallis
Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Posting this from his home address (ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk)
James Wallis
ry.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>"James Wallis" <ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nFPPH4AF...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <f310f0e8.02031...@posting.google.com>, Guy
>> Robinson <guy_ro...@my-deja.com> writes
>> >The collapse of the Pokemon craze that kept both WotC and D&D alive
>> >has apparently caused Hasbro to do what WotC did to TSR.
>>
>> A few points:
>>
>> The Pokemon craze did not "(keep) both WotC and D&D alive"; it turned
>> WotC from a profitable business into a wildly profitable one. The
>> company was not and is not dependent on Pokemon money for its solvency.
>
>Are you suggesting that without Magic and then Pokemon that Hasbro would
>have bought Wizards of the Coast?
No, I didn't suggest anything of the kind. Reread what I wrote.
>The revenue of the Wizards of the Coast part of Hasbro has gone down
>dramatically and Hasbro are reacting to it by the mass-redundancy that you
>appear to acknowlegde.
Not at all: the redundancies seem to have been an internal decision at
WotC, not demanded by Hasbro.
>Role-playing games simply did not appear to have become a big enough earner
>to replace this lost revenue so Hasbro are apparently seeking to cut their
>overheads in this area. This, of course, an understatement.
Whatever kind of statement it is, it's wrong and based on incorrect
information.
>> WotC saved TSR from imminent bankruptcy. Since WotC isn't in that
>> position, it would not be possible for Hasbro to do the same to them.
>
>However I was not talking about when WotC buying TSR. I was talking about
>when Wizards of the Coast made TSR no more than a product code on the side
>of WotC products.
Clearly WotC is far more than a product code. It still has its own
identity, its own staff of around 500 people, and its own offices. Last
week's redundancies have done nothing to change that.
I recommend reading Ryan Dancy's column on the recent layoffs at
http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=view
thread&tid=54 for an informed and interesting perspective on the whole
subject.
Guy Robinson
> I recommend reading Ryan Dancy's column on the recent layoffs at
> http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=view
> thread&tid=54 for an informed and interesting perspective on the whole
> subject.
In a subsequent post I recommended this news site.
We will find out what this news, as it arrives from all the diverse sources
available, means at a later date. It is good to hear that you have such an
upbeat view on Hasbro's role-playing product line and the future of D&D3.
Phil Masters
> Not much motivation then is there? So the person who is basically a
> 'bum on seat' has en equal chance as the person who has roleplayed his
> or her heart out?
Anyone who requires a prize to motivate them to roleplay is... well, not
my sort of roleplayer.
And one person's "bum on seat" is another person's subtle, observant,
non-grandstanding roleplayer. And may be enjoying watching the
grandstanders making twits of themselves, while planning the occasional
quiet, useful, telling input.
Karim C Kronfli
>types of services on offer for the hobby, and it has served as a method of
>generating conventions to get people together. But it has NEVER done
>anything to "improve the hobby" for me. The only people who have done that
>are the GMs I met locally and the players I have met locally, none of which
>I ever met with RPGA assistance. In fact in the 20 years I have been part of
>this hobby the RPGA has hardly effected me in the slightest. So calm down.
>It may be different for other players, but certainly not ALL players.
Yes, I concede the accuracy of my meaning may have been mitigated in
this statement for which I apologise.
To try and increase clarity. I don't want to disenfranchise any
potential player whilst attempting to provide support for any gamer who
might like to take advantage of the services we are trying produce.
It is also our aim to increase the range of services so that they might
appeal to as many gamers as possible.
Is this statement more to peoples liking?
I feel having to write with this kind of accuracy makes me feel more
like a PR person than writing from my heart which I do most of the time.
>Attracting younger players to the hobby is great, but when I got into this
>hobby there was no real scoring element beyond experience points and we
>hated giving out experience points for roleplaying (though there were
>occasions we would warn players not to step out of characrer...after many
>weeks of play as it took this length of time to really know when someone was
>stepping out of character) because it was subjective. Therefore there were
>various experience scoring methods based upon how long it took us to reach
>certain "waypoints" in the games. Eventually of course we found games in
>which expereince points did not exist and we did not have to worry about
>scoring at all, and we also discovered that if players did not progress
>evenly those lagging behind would enjoy the game less.
>
>Scoring was a concept that I discovered through the conventions I went to
>run by the RPGA, so have poeple who like scoring become used to it by going
>to conventions alot, rather than it being something they would have chosen
>to do if they progressed through the hobby as I had?
Possibly, but since convention games lack the ongoing increase of skills
or experience points scoring could give that kind feedback.
I know most GM's score players in weekly games by giving them variable
amounts of additional points for "fun" and or particularly good role-
playing.
The scoring system IMHO partially provides that kind of "reward" through
the GM and the players in an environment where a week on week
improvement cannot be passed on.
However since it has now been dropped except in the situation of a
manufacturer or convention defined "tournament" I think the point is
moot.
>But only reward those who want to be scored?
I am open to suggestions on how else to separate out particular people
to receive prize support as it is highly unlikely any manufacturer will
provide one item per conventioneer.
All the best
Karim C Kronfli
An example is where the GM's scores were all written in the same pen and
same style. Fairly obvious.
Other examples has to be taken as whichever evidence presents itself on
a case by case basis.
>The kind of player who believes it is more important to "win" at a
>roleplaying game than to have fun doing things in your imagination you
>cannot do in real life...for example "thwart an evil group of cultists who a
>summoning the dread God Baal!".
Granted but those who enjoy scoring are as varied a group as those who
aren't. I have had many more poor experiences of poor role-playing where
scoring wasn't involved. IMHO it is up to the GM to control these
players. See my comment on another message regarding how this was
handled at Conception 2001.
>
>I have played with someone who likes to win, its bad very bad, if the player
>felt he was not winning it ruined the game. It also meant there was a great
>deal of attention grabbing, this went on in the scored games I was involved
>in often. There was always at least one player constantly jumping in and
>trying/succeeding in keeping the other players quiet. The entire idea seemed
>to be, get the highest percentage of attention of the GM and win the game. I
>did not enjoy it.
>
>That said though...is it actualy elitist to enjoy a game one way more than
>another? It is obvious some players like scoring..and some do not...surely
>neither are elitist...but its only the former who are trying to get points
>to be a recognised higher level player..
Or to turn it around, they might like to see if other players like
playing with them.
Ultimately the over dominant players usually fall down as they will piss
someone off. And to be honest they probably play like that week by week
anyway, scoring notwithstanding.
>I am sure many can, but I have had experience of some who cannot. Of course
>they never want to murder anyone, but I was once threatened with violence
>because my character was better than his. At least it was in his perception.
Might I therefore suggest this was a player who need more help than
merely playing in a game?
Are we degenerating an aspect of the hobby purely due to some
dysfunctional members of it?
If so we might as well all pack up role-playing now if we can't handle
the fact that it attracts players from an extremely broad personality
pool.