How about rec.games.board.design
Niels L Ellegaard
The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
so how about starting up a new group called
rec.games.board.design
Lorax
I like the idea, I'll vote for it. I hope the charter would
include stating that variants for published games would also be considered
on topic.
"Religion is what happens when spirituality fall into the wrong hands"
-- author unknown --
(if you know who said it first please tell me)
Stephen Glenn
how about starting up a new group called
>rec.games.board.design
This sounds like a great idea, but brings up a question I have always
wondered about - - how does one go about starting a news group?
Stephen Glenn
ste...@stratogems.com
Richard Vickery
Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
>
> The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
> rec.games.board.design
r.g.d has a lot of computer discussion, but invaded is not a
fair description. There is very little board game related
traffic but I don't think this is the fault of the computer
people. Some of the design issues are general and affect
all implementation of games. For this reason, and because I
believe that an r.g.b.d would never be very active, I would
vote against such a move.
Have you ever tried posting any board game related ideas to
r.g.d? I am sure you would get several responses, as they
seem to be the most popular topics, just somewhat infrequent
in their appearance.
Cheers
Richard Vickery
Melissa Diane Binde
Niels L Ellegaard (GNA...@MMF.ruc.dk) wrote:
: The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
: so how about starting up a new group called
: rec.games.board.design
I'd love some group where game design were discussed. I too have been
sorely disappointed by r.g.d.
--
Melissa Binde -- mbi...@terindell.com
Outside the Asylum -- http://www.terindell.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWF seeks .signature. Must be witty, and four lines long or less.
Garth L. Getgen
Having popped into R.G.D., I have to agree that it's too much computer stuff and
not enough game stuff. But if we couldn't get a separate group for SFB with all
the traffic that generates (even before SVC had me start posting his E-mails
here), I very much doubt R.G.B.D. will fly. More power to you, tho, and good
luck!!
Garth L. Getgen
The Maverick
Garth L. Getgen wrote:
>
> But if we couldn't get a separate group for SFB with all
> the traffic that generates (even before SVC had me start posting his E-mails
> here), I very much doubt R.G.B.D. will fly.
You could have EASILY gotten a newsgroup together for SFB if it wasn't
tied to a proposal to rename THIS newsgroup. I wish someone would get
things going so I didn't have to continuously thread through Stephen
Cole's private e-mail being forwarded to a public newsgroup. ;-)
the Mav
--
Cliffhanger Serials, Boardgames, Videogames, and Red Baron I
http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick
The Classic Microgames Museum
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/themav/micind.html
The Macho Women with Guns Homage Page
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/6747
Mike>>Schneider
In article <6imguq$p...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
m...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu (Melissa Diane Binde) wrote:
>Niels L Ellegaard (GNA...@MMF.ruc.dk) wrote:
>: The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>: so how about starting up a new group called
>: rec.games.board.design
>
>I'd love some group where game design were discussed. I too have been
>sorely disappointed by r.g.d.
Usenet administrators everywhere would probably prefer the following
scheme: rec.games.design stays the way it is, and
rec.games.design.computer is created. This is the favored method of
creating a new hierarchical group designed to deal with excess traffic
within an existing group.
The problem with "rec.games.board.design" is that while it suits your
needs, computer game designers are still left a generically-named group to
frequent, and designers interested in non-board and non-computer games
(such as cards and miniatures) will still have to put up with their
presence.
See How To Create A Newsgroup:
http://cs1.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you
must replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.
Covet: To desire that which the owner wickedly withholds.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary
Garth L. Getgen
1) The last two proposals I know of for a SFB group did NOT suggest renaming
THIS group. I'm not even sure you can rename a group once it's created ...
2) We put "SFB" in the header of our messages so non-SFB'ers can more easily
ignore those threads.
3) Please don't E-mail and Post the same message ... I'll read any replies to
my posts, no matter what thread I posted to.
Garth L. Getgen
Mike>>Schneider
>Having popped into R.G.D., I have to agree that it's too much computer
stuff and
>not enough game stuff. But if we couldn't get a separate group for SFB
with all
>the traffic that generates (even before SVC had me start posting his E-mails
>here), I very much doubt R.G.B.D. will fly. More power to you, tho, and good
>luck!!
There is only one reason you "couldn't get" a newsgroup: lack of
properly submitted newsgroup creation proposal. There is a reason why
useless groups such as "alt.angst.shut.the.fuck.up.pinkboy" exist, and
your Star-Fleet-Battle group doesn't.
Seehttp://cs1.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/
RRI1
>>The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>so how about starting up a new group called
>rec.games.board.design
Overall this is probably NOT good idea for several reasons.
1) In order to have a viable group, you have to some level of discussion.
- People are more likely to join in discussions or propose new threads if they
see some activity. If they see no activity, it will be become a ghost town.
Just take a look at rec.games.abstract.
- Once a group becomes a ghost town, very few people will post anything at
all.
- If there are no discussions, the majority of messages, by default, will be
spam.
I think a good minimum is 100 on topic messages a week. (That 15 per day) I
don't think board game design issues will generate anywhere near the 100 on
topic messages level all by itself.
2) What are you going to put your charter? All newsgroups should have one.
Will variants to existing games be allowed? What differentiates the discussion
found in r.g.b.? (If there is very little difference, there isn't any point to
separate group.)
3) I do agree rec.games.design is not a very good group because most of the
discussion not doesn't deal with DESIGN issues (even with computer games) at
all, but IMPLEMENTATION issues. (Which language should I program in?, How do
I incorporate sound and graphics into my game?,etc.)
This is SPECIFICALLY against the rec.games.design charter intended.
I (for one) have no problems with discussing board game design issues here in
r.g.b. A lot of current current threads certainly touch on game design and I
don't see how they would be non-germane to rec.games.board.
I also don't think anyone will complain if you actually START A THREAD in
rec.games.design. If no one is discussing board game, start a thread and see
what happens. If you haven't tried it, you'll more likely find what you are
looking for by starting a board game design thread there (or even over here),
than whining about no board game design discussion in r.g.design.
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
Neal Stangis
Mike>>Schneider (Choo...@pconline.com) jotted down:
MS: Usenet administrators everywhere would probably prefer the following
MS: scheme: rec.games.design stays the way it is, and
MS: rec.games.design.computer is created. This is the favored method of
MS: creating a new hierarchical group designed to deal with excess traffic
MS: within an existing group.
Heres a pointer to the official RFD (Request For Discussion) for the
reorg of rec.games.programmer . Check out and join said discussion on
news.groups . The discussion is all of two days (or so) old.
N
-=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
New email address is Neal...@bigfoot.com Update your address books
Neal Stangis | ME grad student | Vibrations/Noise | Michigan Tech Univ.
http://www.me.mtu.edu/~nrstangi/ -Last modified 04 May 98
finger -l nrst...@harbor.me.mtu.edu to see what's been added
NHL Playoff Tourney: http://www.me.mtu.edu/~nrstangi/nhltourney98.html
Elliot Wilen
In article <6iopds$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Garth L. Getgen <Garth....@att.net> wrote:
>1) The last two proposals I know of for a SFB group did NOT suggest renaming
>THIS group. I'm not even sure you can rename a group once it's created ...
I think someone's getting that proposal confused with the proposals
to create a World in Flames group.
>2) We put "SFB" in the header of our messages so non-SFB'ers can more easily
>ignore those threads.
This is sincerely appreciated. I don't know about Web browsers but trn
(Unix) has no trouble killing all the SFB stuff for me so I don't have
to wade through it.
--Elliot Wilen
--
Please include the word "rabbit" in the subject line when sending me email.
Want to ban UCE? Visit http://www.cauce.org/
Susan Asher
Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
> The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
> so how about starting up a new group called
> rec.games.board.design
Excellent idea. Count me in.
Mike>>Schneider
In article <6iqdbj$tks$1...@maxwell.emf.net>, ell...@emf.emf.net (Elliot
Wilen) wrote:
>In article <6iopds$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Garth L. Getgen <Garth....@att.net> wrote:
>>1) The last two proposals I know of for a SFB group did NOT suggest renaming
>>THIS group. I'm not even sure you can rename a group once it's created ...
>
>I think someone's getting that proposal confused with the proposals
>to create a World in Flames group.
>
>>2) We put "SFB" in the header of our messages so non-SFB'ers can more easily
>>ignore those threads.
>
>This is sincerely appreciated. I don't know about Web browsers but trn
>(Unix) has no trouble killing all the SFB stuff for me so I don't have
>to wade through it.
I'm using YA-Newswatcher on a Mac, and the regional filtering is great
for dealing with the sfb stuff.
Melissa Diane Binde
Susan Asher (rm1...@navix.net) wrote:
: Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
If we're actually serious about this......
I've been watching the newsgroup looking for anyone saying "No, that's a
horrid idea!" I haven't, so Neils and I have been emailing and discussing
leading the process of newsgroup creation.
Email me if you're interested in giving us a hand......
Isaac Kuo
In article <35510F63...@navix.net>,
>> The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>> so how about starting up a new group called
>> rec.games.board.design
> Excellent idea. Count me in.
I disagree. Before rec.games.design was invaded by computer game
design, it was mostly populated by role playing game design. The
amount of board game design discussion has always been a small
part of rec.games.design.
However, there has never been anything discouraging board game
design discussion on rec.games.design, and I've found it an
enjoyable and useful resource. Indeed, there are current postings
on board game design even now.
The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
on rec.games.design is because of lack of interest. There
just have never been many of us who have much to discuss about
board game design.
--
_____ Isaac Kuo k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo
__|_)o(_|__
/___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta...
\=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi
Isaac Kuo
In article <6isp8p$r...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
>: > The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>: > so how about starting up a new group called
>: > rec.games.board.design
>If we're actually serious about this......
>I've been watching the newsgroup looking for anyone saying "No, that's a
>horrid idea!" I haven't, so Neils and I have been emailing and discussing
>leading the process of newsgroup creation.
Let me make my position clear:
No, that's a horrid idea!
There already exists rec.games.design, which already is
perfectly useful for board game design discussion.
If rec.games.board.design were created, it would attempt to
split off board game design discussion into its own group,
which I expect would get extremely little bandwidth. The
board game design discussions in rec.games.design benefit
from the many r.g.d users who aren't specifically interested
in board games. A rec.games.board.design newsgroup wouldn't
have that benefit.
Glenn Kuntz
k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>In article <6isp8p$r...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
>Melissa Diane Binde <m...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>>: Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
>
>>: > The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>>: > so how about starting up a new group called
>>: > rec.games.board.design
>
>If rec.games.board.design were created, it would attempt to
>split off board game design discussion into its own group,
>which I expect would get extremely little bandwidth. The
>board game design discussions in rec.games.design benefit
>from the many r.g.d users who aren't specifically interested
>in board games. A rec.games.board.design newsgroup wouldn't
>have that benefit.
>--
I have no opinion on splitting the group. I have noticed the
numbers domination by programmers, and have corresponded with
quite a few people who have been scared away by these numbers.
I've also noticed that lately, there have been a *lot* of
non-design (e.g. programming & implementation) posts. I agree
that the programmers benefit from boardgame design discussion
threads, but personally, I have yet (from a boardgame designer
perspective) to glean anything from a computer game thread.
Like I said, I have no opinion on a split, but there are some
situations in & about the group that I think ought to be
addressed. This might help this discord situation and
encourage more involvement on boardgame topics.
--
The CROKINOLE Board
http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
Mark Thomas
In article <6isrhg$qho$1...@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, k...@int.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)
wrote:
>In article <35510F63...@navix.net>,
>Susan Asher <rm1...@navix.net> wrote:
>>Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
>
>>> The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>>> so how about starting up a new group called
>>> rec.games.board.design
>
>
>I disagree. Before rec.games.design was invaded by computer game
>design, it was mostly populated by role playing game design. The
>amount of board game design discussion has always been a small
>part of rec.games.design.
>
>However, there has never been anything discouraging board game
>design discussion on rec.games.design, and I've found it an
>enjoyable and useful resource. Indeed, there are current postings
>on board game design even now.
>
>The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
>on rec.games.design is because of lack of interest. There
>just have never been many of us who have much to discuss about
>board game design.
Note: I cross-posted this response to rec.games.design as well.
I have to agree with Isaac's points. Yes there are posts by programmers
seeking non-design information. There are also MAKE MONEY FAST posts. Ignore
them. Better yet, email the original poster (politely) and let them know that
they'd be better off posting in rec.games.programmer. I've done this in
several cases and most times seen the post reappear there within a couple
days.
Additional point: There probably isn't enough traffic to warrant a split.
Splitting a low-bandwidth group will probably result in two even-lower
bandwidth groups that don't have enough followers to achieve critical mass.
As Isaac said, there's nothing to discourage board game design discussion in
r.g.d. In fact I'd love to see some - I personally do computer game
design/programming, but I have an interest in all forms of game design.
If it came to a vote, I would vote against the creation of such a group.
Mark
-----
Mark Thomas thomasS...@clark.net http://www.clark.net/pub/thomas/home.html
Read about my PBEM game: http://www.clark.net/pub/thomas/eldritch.htm
You can't manage creativity. All you can do is give it a place to work.
Remove SPAMGUARD from address when replying.
Geenius at Wrok
On 7 May 1998, Isaac Kuo wrote:
> I disagree. Before rec.games.design was invaded by computer game
> design, it was mostly populated by role playing game design. The
> amount of board game design discussion has always been a small
> part of rec.games.design.
>
> However, there has never been anything discouraging board game
> design discussion on rec.games.design, and I've found it an
> enjoyable and useful resource. Indeed, there are current postings
> on board game design even now.
>
> The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
> on rec.games.design is because of lack of interest.
I would argue that there IS something discouraging board game design
discussion on rec.games.design: the fact that computer game design
discussion predominates. That leads to self-selection among both readers
and posters -- people have no reason to believe that if they post a
non-computer-related message it will be reach the appropriate audience.
There was a newsgroup (there may still be) called alt.building.realestate,
created as a forum for discussion of the real estate development industry.
Very quickly it was taken over by people advertising real estate. Now,
whatever it was intended for, no one in his right mind would post a
message dealing with development expecting others to read it and reply,
nor would anyone read the group expecting to see anything but ads.
Similarly, given its recent history, why would anyone read
rec.games.design expecting to see discussion of anything but computer
games?
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Mark Thomas
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980508095640.25840A-100000@merlin>, Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>I would argue that there IS something discouraging board game design
>discussion on rec.games.design: the fact that computer game design
>discussion predominates. That leads to self-selection among both readers
>and posters -- people have no reason to believe that if they post a
>non-computer-related message it will be reach the appropriate audience.
[crossposted to rec.games.design too]
Anyone who reads the (admittedly difficult to find) FAQ for r.g.d will quickly
see that the group covers all forms of game design. I think the reason
computer oriented games dominate is because that's what people who post
actually post about. If you want discussion of board game design, post
something about board game design and see what develops. You can't expect to
have discussions on subjects you're interested in without contributing to or
starting threads on those subjects.
I think in any news group, particularly one that covers an area as broad as
game design, you're going to have to weed through a bunch of stuff you're not
interested in. I happen to be interested in computer game design and I still
ignore about 50% of the r.g.d posts. I don't mind this, because once in a
while an interesting thread will pop up from a discussion that I'm not
interested in. Crossover ideas between areas of game design should be viewed
as a good thing, not a bad thing IMO.
As for programming posts - just tell em to take it to r.g.programmer
(politely). It usually works.
Melissa Diane Binde
Mark Thomas (thomasS...@clark.net) wrote:
: As Isaac said, there's nothing to discourage board game design discussion in
: r.g.d. In fact I'd love to see some - I personally do computer game
: design/programming, but I have an interest in all forms of game design.
:
: If it came to a vote, I would vote against the creation of such a group.
*shrug* it took me two years to discover rec.games.design because I figured
that if it existed, it would be in the rec.games.board.* hierarchy. When I
found it, I figured that it wasn't for board games, because all of the posts
were about computer games.
I think the name (and location) are ambiguous. I also think that, based on
what I've read here, there isn't that much overlap at all between computer
game design (the main topics seem to be AI, graphic tile design, and
arguments about what programming/debugging environment people use) and board
game design (one recent post about how to print out a board game, for
example).
I agree that there are some people interested in both, but I feel that the
location of the newsgroup discourages boardgame posts (I know I thought they
were off-topic until someone posted their boardgame question) and that the
posts aren't similar enough to insist on keeping the two topics closely wed.
Isaac Kuo
In article <6iuok7$10js$2...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
Glenn Kuntz <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>>If rec.games.board.design were created, it would attempt to
>>split off board game design discussion into its own group,
>>which I expect would get extremely little bandwidth. The
>>board game design discussions in rec.games.design benefit
>>from the many r.g.d users who aren't specifically interested
>>in board games. A rec.games.board.design newsgroup wouldn't
>>have that benefit.
>I have no opinion on splitting the group. I have noticed the
>numbers domination by programmers, and have corresponded with
>quite a few people who have been scared away by these numbers.
I personally haven't, so I'm curious about them.
For one thing, I wonder if they would also be scared off
by noticing rec.games.board.design rarely had any postings
in it.
>I've also noticed that lately, there have been a *lot* of
>non-design (e.g. programming & implementation) posts.
I don't think this is any more or less a problem than it's
been for a while. I admit I'm guilty of a small subthread
which concentrated on a programming detail, due to thread
drift, but programming postings were never a large portion
of rec.games.design bandwidth.
Perhaps you have a very restrictive definiton of what
consists of "design" issues.
There are currently two threads on rec.games.design
specifically about board game design--"Ways to move
in a board game" and "How to print boards". You
might consider the latter to be a non-design issue.
I would argue that even though it's clearly about
implementation, it's also about design, because what
you can design is often governed by what you can
implement. For example, if I were designing a board
game, it might be important whether or not I could
print out the board in color.
>I agree
>that the programmers benefit from boardgame design discussion
>threads, but personally, I have yet (from a boardgame designer
>perspective) to glean anything from a computer game thread.
My point was about the people, not the postings.
Most rec.games.design users would not subscribe to
rec.games.board.design, and would thus never contribute
to any thread on rec.games.board.design.
A similar case exists with the role playing game design
newsgroup. I don't even know what it is named, or even
if there's more than one. I'm just not specifically
interested in rpg design. However, if there's a thread
on rpg design on rec.games.design, I will likely read
some of it and maybe even have something to contribute.
>Like I said, I have no opinion on a split, but there are some
>situations in & about the group that I think ought to be
>addressed. This might help this discord situation and
>encourage more involvement on boardgame topics.
--
R. Maker
Geenius at Wrok wrote:
>
> I would argue that there IS something discouraging board game design
> discussion on rec.games.design: the fact that computer game design
> discussion predominates. That leads to self-selection among both readers
> and posters -- people have no reason to believe that if they post a
> non-computer-related message it will be reach the appropriate audience.
>
> created as a forum for discussion of the real estate development industry.
> Very quickly it was taken over by people advertising real estate. Now,
> whatever it was intended for, no one in his right mind would post a
> message dealing with development expecting others to read it and reply,
> nor would anyone read the group expecting to see anything but ads.
> Similarly, given its recent history, why would anyone read
> rec.games.design expecting to see discussion of anything but computer
> games?
I can't help but think this is a bit of a strawman argument. What level
of traffic was there on alt.building.realestate? Far heavier, I'm sure,
than on rec.games.design, which averages under 30 posts a day.
Admittedly, many are computer related, but some are not. By your
argument, nobody should read rgb expecting to see anything dealing with
games other than SFB, A&A, 18XX, or Settlers, since they make up the
bulk of the postings here.
Ross
Melissa Diane Binde
Isaac Kuo (k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu) shifted random bits and wrote:
> There are currently two threads on rec.games.design
> specifically about board game design--"Ways to move
> in a board game" and "How to print boards".
That is true, Issac, but those threads were also started up very recently.
I've been reading the group on and off for about the last 6-8 months and
haven't seen _any_ other board game posts there. I will grant that, as our
newsserver expires after 1.2 days, it's possible I've managed to miss some,
but I don't htink the two recent threads are representative of the general
traffic of the group.
Geenius at Wrok
On Fri, 8 May 1998, R. Maker wrote:
> Geenius at Wrok wrote:
>
> > There was a newsgroup (there may still be) called alt.building.realestate,
> > created as a forum for discussion of the real estate development industry.
> > Very quickly it was taken over by people advertising real estate. Now,
> > whatever it was intended for, no one in his right mind would post a
> > message dealing with development expecting others to read it and reply,
> > nor would anyone read the group expecting to see anything but ads.
> > Similarly, given its recent history, why would anyone read
> > rec.games.design expecting to see discussion of anything but computer
> > games?
>
> I can't help but think this is a bit of a strawman argument. What level
> of traffic was there on alt.building.realestate? Far heavier, I'm sure,
> than on rec.games.design, which averages under 30 posts a day.
On the contrary, traffic was about half a dozen posts a day. Of course,
once people started using it to advertise, it increased; by the time I
left the group, however, it was still averaging about the same as r.g.d.
> Admittedly, many are computer related, but some are not. By your
> argument, nobody should read rgb expecting to see anything dealing with
> games other than SFB, A&A, 18XX, or Settlers, since they make up the
> bulk of the postings here.
Your volume argument works against you here. In a moderate-traffic
newsgroup (such as r.g.b) or one with higher traffic, probability dictates
that a certain number of posts on alternate topics will be visible to
browsing users. On the other hand, in a low-traffic group like r.g.d, it
may never be apparent that conversation takes place on topics other than
the predominant one, and that very fact may keep more of such conversation
from taking place.
Peter Knutsen
Melissa Diane Binde wrote:
>
> I think the name (and location) are ambiguous. I also think that, based on
> what I've read here, there isn't that much overlap at all between computer
> game design (the main topics seem to be AI, graphic tile design, and
> arguments about what programming/debugging environment people use) and board
> game design (one recent post about how to print out a board game, for
> example).
>
> I agree that there are some people interested in both, but I feel that the
> location of the newsgroup discourages boardgame posts (I know I thought they
> were off-topic until someone posted their boardgame question) and that the
> posts aren't similar enough to insist on keeping the two topics closely wed.
Well, when I first started reading this newsgroup (I knew the name
because
the Fudge RPG was made here) there was a lot of posts about roleplaying
game
design (Real roleplaying that deals with mechanics, not low complexity
online computer games with thousands of players). Now there are maybe 2
posts a months about role playing game design.
I think people who stumble over rec.games.design will read some of the
posts and then assume that the people in here are only interested
in computer games (or board games)
Because of that, I'd favour having three groups, one relating to
roleplaying games design (mechanics), one related to board game design,
and one dealing with the design of computer games. That way, people
won't be afraid of posting, because they'll know their posting is
reaching the people who are interested in the subject.
Remember, I'm talking about total usenet newbies, and there are
millions of those. The rec.games.design FAQ explains in sufficient
detail that this group covers all the three above mentioned topics,
but less than 1% of all newbies who find this channel will ever get
as far as to read the FAQ.
> --
> Melissa Binde -- mbi...@terindell.com
> Outside the Asylum -- http://www.terindell.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SWF seeks .signature. Must be witty, and four lines long or less.
--
Peter Knutsen
PS: I haven't posted anything about role playing game design for a
while,
but I'm translating some material from Danish to English, and I expect
to put it on a website and post a link to it soon (in r.g.d), and ask
for comments & playtesters.
Mike>>Schneider
In article <6iuok7$10js$2...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, Glenn Kuntz
<crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>>In article <6isp8p$r...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
>>Melissa Diane Binde <m...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>>>: Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
>>
>>>: > The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>>>: > so how about starting up a new group called
>>>: > rec.games.board.design
>>
><snip>
>
>>If rec.games.board.design were created, it would attempt to
>>split off board game design discussion into its own group,
>>which I expect would get extremely little bandwidth. The
>>board game design discussions in rec.games.design benefit
>>from the many r.g.d users who aren't specifically interested
>>in board games. A rec.games.board.design newsgroup wouldn't
>>have that benefit.
>>--
>
>I have no opinion on splitting the group. I have noticed the
>numbers domination by programmers, and have corresponded with
>quite a few people who have been scared away by these numbers.
>I've also noticed that lately, there have been a *lot* of
>non-design (e.g. programming & implementation) posts. I agree
>that the programmers benefit from boardgame design discussion
>threads, but personally, I have yet (from a boardgame designer
>perspective) to glean anything from a computer game thread.
Which is precisely why rec.games.design.computer is a better idea for a
new group: it splits off the computer folk while keeping all
non-computerized game designers in the existing group.
>Like I said, I have no opinion on a split, but there are some
>situations in & about the group that I think ought to be
>addressed. This might help this discord situation and
>encourage more involvement on boardgame topics.
>--
>The CROKINOLE Board
>http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike>>Schneider
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980508095640.25840A-100000@merlin>, Geenius at
Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>On 7 May 1998, Isaac Kuo wrote:
>
>> I disagree. Before rec.games.design was invaded by computer game
>> design, it was mostly populated by role playing game design. The
>> amount of board game design discussion has always been a small
>> part of rec.games.design.
>>
>> However, there has never been anything discouraging board game
>> design discussion on rec.games.design, and I've found it an
>> enjoyable and useful resource. Indeed, there are current postings
>> on board game design even now.
>>
>> The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
>> on rec.games.design is because of lack of interest.
>
>I would argue that there IS something discouraging board game design
>discussion on rec.games.design: the fact that computer game design
>discussion predominates. That leads to self-selection among both readers
>and posters -- people have no reason to believe that if they post a
>non-computer-related message it will be reach the appropriate audience.
>
>There was a newsgroup (there may still be) called alt.building.realestate,
>created as a forum for discussion of the real estate development industry.
>Very quickly it was taken over by people advertising real estate.
In this particular case, the existing group is in need of moderation
prohibiting any advertizing. (I don't see that being a problem in gaming.)
>Now,
>whatever it was intended for, no one in his right mind would post a
>message dealing with development expecting others to read it and reply,
>nor would anyone read the group expecting to see anything but ads.
>Similarly, given its recent history, why would anyone read
>rec.games.design expecting to see discussion of anything but computer
>games?
If rec.games.design.computer were created, the computer people would
move over the the new group. They don't want you guys wasting their
bandwidth anymore than you, theirs.
Mike>>Schneider
In article <6ivd69$s...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
m...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu (Melissa Diane Binde) wrote:
>Mark Thomas (thomasS...@clark.net) wrote:
>
>: As Isaac said, there's nothing to discourage board game design discussion in
>: r.g.d. In fact I'd love to see some - I personally do computer game
>: design/programming, but I have an interest in all forms of game design.
>:
>: If it came to a vote, I would vote against the creation of such a group.
>
>*shrug* it took me two years to discover rec.games.design because I figured
>that if it existed, it would be in the rec.games.board.* hierarchy. When I
>found it, I figured that it wasn't for board games, because all of the posts
>were about computer games.
>
>I think the name (and location) are ambiguous. I also think that, based on
>what I've read here, there isn't that much overlap at all between computer
>game design (the main topics seem to be AI, graphic tile design, and
>arguments about what programming/debugging environment people use) and board
>game design (one recent post about how to print out a board game, for
>example).
The various *physical*, *tangible* aspects of board game design
(material componants, preparations, sources, etc.) are also very
applicable to card and role-playing games. Thus, rec.games.board.design is
unduly confining, wheras rec.games.design is correctly titled, but not
too-encompassing once rec.games.design.computer takes away that one major
group of usenet participants who are more interested in ethereal bits and
bytes to the consternation of everyone else.
I have always felt that the best approach to dealing with an (honestly)
"invaded" newsgroup is to not split to a new pasture, but rather to create
a new pasture for those who will be probably happy to participate in its
creation - then move to it on their own.
Mike>>Schneider
In article <6j04mj$3...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
m...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu (Melissa Diane Binde) wrote:
>I will grant that, as our
>newsserver expires after 1.2 days, it's possible I've managed to miss....
Normally your ISP will extend the rollover date of a newsgroup if you
ask them.
Gerry Quinn
Well, I'm one of those computer game designers, but I find nearly
everything on this group interesting. After all, a lot of us are
interested in re-creating boardgame and rpg experiences on the
computer.
There is a particular interest here in a particular sort of computer
game - the online game, where there are multiple participants (some
of which may or may not be artificial), and the computer plays the DM.
Granted we are talking a bit about Tron at the moment, but it seems to
me that the types of computer games usually discussed do have a big
crossover with rpgs in particular.
And whether you like it or not, the computer is ubiquitous now. If I
had an idea for a boardgame ten years ago, I might have made it on
paper and pushed coins around. Now it seems natural to put it on the
screen immediately and start thinking about the AI, if only for
playtesting purposes.
So I for one would prefer this group the way it is - it's just a nice
size too in terms of the volume of posts. Could there be a way of
encouraging more boardgame / rpg designers in?
- Gerry
===========================================================
http://indigo.ie/~gerryq/Brewster/brewster.htm
Brewster Kaleidoscopic Screensaver for Windows 95
The only saver that simulates a real kaleidoscope
===========================================================
Mark Thomas
> Because of that, I'd favour having three groups, one relating to
>roleplaying games design (mechanics), one related to board game design,
>and one dealing with the design of computer games. That way, people
>won't be afraid of posting, because they'll know their posting is
>reaching the people who are interested in the subject.
So, where do I post about my computer version of Advanced Squad Leader? Or my
translation of GemStone mechanics into a pen and paper RPG? Or my RPG that
uses board-game mechanics to resolve combat? It seems to me if you place
somewhat arbitrary divisions along these lines, you end up with crossposting
or items reaching only a fraction of the audience that would be interested.
By its very nature, game design usually involves broad knowledge and
interests. Shouldn't we be encouraging knowledge of broader areas rather than
subdividing?
* No, I'm not *really* working on either of these, they're just examples.
Chris Camfield
On Sat, 09 May 98 09:56:24 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
[chop]
>So I for one would prefer this group the way it is - it's just a nice
>size too in terms of the volume of posts. Could there be a way of
>encouraging more boardgame / rpg designers in?
Drill it into the head of every computer game designer there that
development and design are not the same thing, and when they have a
thought about development, they should migrate over to the programmer
newsgroup?
Chris
PS Sorry if I appear grumpy, but I develop computer games for a living
and I can tell the difference between design and development; so why
can't everyone else? :-)
David Alex Lamb
>In article <199805060254...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
RRI1 <rr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>>so how about starting up a new group called
>>rec.games.board.design
>
>I also don't think anyone will complain if you actually START A THREAD in
>rec.games.design. If no one is discussing board game, start a thread and see
>what happens. If you haven't tried it, you'll more likely find what you are
>looking for by starting a board game design thread there (or even over here),
IMHO the only problem with r.g.d is that people get "scared off" by the
computer game discussions. I've started a mini-FAQ I'll post weekly, which
quotes Travis Casey's paragraph about the sort of discussion that's
appropriate, and points to his full-blown FAQ.
A proposal for r.g.b.d will likely fail unless you can demonstrate significant
existing traffic on the subject, demonstrating that it needs a new group.
Proposing a group for the purpose of *starting* such traffic will get you huge
flamefests and a lot of "NO" votes.
Mark Thomas
> If rec.games.design.computer were created, the computer people would
>move over the the new group. They don't want you guys wasting their
>bandwidth anymore than you, theirs.
[cross-posted to r.g.d]
I don't think they would.
There are two main classes of computer related posts in r.g.d:
1. Posts that belong - These actually deal with design questions rather than
programming questions. These people *might* move over, but they'll probably
stick around to read non-computer related design posts too. I'm mainly
interested in computer game design, and I would read both if r.g.d.c was
created.
2. Posts that don't - These are from people that see games and design in the
newsgroup name and think 'Cool, someone can help me with my game!" They
generally post programming questions. I submit you won't get rid of these, as
they'll still see rec.games.design and think its appropriate.
So, the new group might pull off some of the traffic from r.g.d, but I doubt
the change would be significant, and I doubt it would actually affect the
posts that are most bothersome.
Mark Thomas
>IMHO the only problem with r.g.d is that people get "scared off" by the
>computer game discussions. I've started a mini-FAQ I'll post weekly, which
>quotes Travis Casey's paragraph about the sort of discussion that's
>appropriate, and points to his full-blown FAQ.
Thank you David. If you have the capability to support an automated regular
posting, why not add a monthly posting of the FAQ (I don't think this happens
now - Travis?)
It might also be useful if people posting on specific types of games would
give some indication thereof in the subject line of their posts. COMP: RPG:
CARD: and BOARD: come to mind...
Isaac Kuo
In article <6j04mj$3...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
>> There are currently two threads on rec.games.design
>> specifically about board game design--"Ways to move
>> in a board game" and "How to print boards".
>That is true, Issac, but those threads were also started up very recently.
Since most threads don't last long, that's natural.
>I've been reading the group on and off for about the last 6-8 months and
>haven't seen _any_ other board game posts there.
There have been many threads which included discussion of board
game design (including those long threads about how to learn
about game design and such).
Off the top of my head, I remember a discussion of designing an
unusual lego based game, and of course my own Empire of Florence
thread.
IMO, the main reason there isn't much board game design
discussion is that there just isn't that much to discuss.
I'm very interested in board game design, but I'm not
going to post anything about it if I don't have anything
to say or ask.
>I will grant that, as our
>newsserver expires after 1.2 days, it's possible I've managed to miss some,
>but I don't htink the two recent threads are representative of the general
>traffic of the group.
It isn't, but it demonstrates that there is sporadic traffic.
If rec.games.board.design were created, it would get sporadic
traffic.
What would scare off new users more--a newsgroup with mostly
computer game design postings (but also a lot of generic
game design postings), or a newsgroup with no postings at all?
BTW, I consider it a big mistake to concentrate on just the
new users. The current users important too.
Scott P. Duncan
> The various *physical*, *tangible* aspects of board game design
> (material componants, preparations, sources, etc.) are also very
> applicable to card and role-playing games. Thus, rec.games.board.design is
> unduly confining, wheras rec.games.design is correctly titled, but not
> too-encompassing once rec.games.design.computer takes away that one major
> group of usenet participants who are more interested in ethereal bits and
> bytes to the consternation of everyone else.
> I have always felt that the best approach to dealing with an (honestly)
> "invaded" newsgroup is to not split to a new pasture, but rather to create
> a new pasture for those who will be probably happy to participate in its
> creation - then move to it on their own.
Based on some experience in the past, I don't see the volume for anewsgroup just
on boardgame design. Providing a "computer" (sub)group
(e.g., rec.games.design.computer) would seem to be the best idea to
handle the fact that much in rec.games.design seems to be about
design (and implementation) of computer-based games. It would be
interesting to see the volume in rec.games.design should moving computer
related discussion to another (sub)group occur.
Attempts to start significant threads on games design in rec.games.board
seem no to have produced very lasting discussions most of the time.
Steffan O'Sullivan
Mark Thomas <thomasS...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>It might also be useful if people posting on specific types of games would
>give some indication thereof in the subject line of their posts. COMP: RPG:
>CARD: and BOARD: come to mind...
I pushed for this for many months - I wrote individuals asking them to
please use such subject indicators. It just didn't work - people are
people, and in the heat of the moment, forget that there may be people
who don't know exactly what they are talking about.
As the originator and prime mover of the old FUDGE threads on r.g.d., I
was always welcoming to other discussions, and one thing about the
FUDGE group - we *always* put FUDGE in the subject line so folks could
kill-file us.
But very few other discussions have ever labelled their subjects so,
even after being asked politely for half a year to do so.
I don't think separate groups are called for - instead, why not simply
use a subject cue of NON-COMP to signify non-computer game oriented
post, since they won't put COMP in their headers?
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke
s...@vnet.net | a chain or freed a human soul in this world -
Chapel Hill, NC, USA | and never will."
http://www.io.com/~sos | -Mark Twain
SHedr24734
In article <6j1k8c$gf9$1...@clarknet.clark.net>, thomasS...@clark.net (Mark
Thomas) writes:
>
>By its very nature, game design usually involves broad knowledge and
>interests. Shouldn't we be encouraging knowledge of broader areas rather than
>
>subdividing?
>
>
I agree with this- but I object to the folks who post "I want to learn about
game design, where can I learn programming?" as if programming had anything at
all to do with game design; it has no more to do with game design than
knowledge of 4-color press operations has to do with board games. The only
thing worse than the above are the posts that say "I have the XYZ graphics
engine, what kind of games can I make?" I am by no means relegating programmers
to the back seat, any more than I would relegate the printer to the back seat
because they both determine what *can* be done with the means at hand. They
help set the limits to the design, but that doesn't make them designers. The
better designers, on the other hand, will probably have picked up some
programming/printing knowledge along the way which makes the job easier.
I was under the impression that this board was about design- and there are many
common elements between computer and board and RPG design. Nobody who really
wants to be a true designer would limit themselves to computer games, and if
they were really concerned about learning design as opposed to programming
should have little problem switching between board and RPG and computer game
design.
Mike>>Schneider
In article <6j1krq$gf9$2...@clarknet.clark.net>, thomasS...@clark.net
(Mark Thomas) wrote:
>In article <ChooChoo-090...@m18-1-16.pconline.com>,
Choo...@pconline.com (Mike>>Schneider) wrote:
>
>> If rec.games.design.computer were created, the computer people would
>>move over the the new group. They don't want you guys wasting their
>>bandwidth anymore than you, theirs.
>
>[cross-posted to r.g.d]
>
>I don't think they would.
>
>There are two main classes of computer related posts in r.g.d:
>
>1. Posts that belong - These actually deal with design questions rather than
>programming questions. These people *might* move over, but they'll probably
>stick around to read non-computer related design posts too. I'm mainly
>interested in computer game design, and I would read both if r.g.d.c was
>created.
>
>2. Posts that don't - These are from people that see games and design in the
>newsgroup name and think 'Cool, someone can help me with my game!" They
>generally post programming questions. I submit you won't get rid of these, as
>they'll still see rec.games.design and think its appropriate.
>
>So, the new group might pull off some of the traffic from r.g.d, but I doubt
>the change would be significant, and I doubt it would actually affect the
>posts that are most bothersome.
I think a person heretofore unaware of a usenet group who looks at a
full-group list or uses "game" & "design" as search parameters would be
presented with:
rec.games.design
rec.games.design.computer
....and know where to post. rec.games.board.design, however, wouldn't
do him much good if he wanted to talk about computers, and
"rec.games.design" will still be home to card and RP gamers dealing with a
flood of computer topics.
And, sure, there's going to be guys who wanna post to both, or the
wrong one. Same deal with:
rec.games.board ...and
rec.games.board.marketplace
Most posters intuitively understand where to post their for-sale ad,
but not always, and all it takes is some cheerful finger-pointing, and off
they go to the right group.
David desJardins
Isaac Kuo <k...@int.csc.lsu.edu> writes:
> The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
> just have never been many of us who have much to discuss about
> board game design.
Maybe there aren't a lot of people of Isaac's sort (whatever his term
"us" is supposed to refer to in this context) who have much to say about
board game design. But I do think that there are other Usenet
participants who do have things that they could say, if there were a
forum that encouraged such discussion. Threads on game design in
rec.games.board are consistently more interesting and insightful than
threads on the same subject in rec.games.design. I'd call that the
"real reason" that not much substantial discussion of board games
appears in the latter.
Whether a group like rec.games.board.design would actually attract the
sort of people and discussion that would make for worthwhile discussions
is hard to say. It's probably irrelevant, because I doubt that anyone
seriously has the energy to get this concept to a vote, and if it did
get that far it probably wouldn't attract enough votes. A focused
mailing list would seem a more natural way to try to stimulate such
discussion.
David desJardins
David desJardins
Isaac Kuo <k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu> writes:
>>> The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
>>> on rec.games.design is because of lack of interest. There
>>> just have never been many of us who have much to discuss about
>>> board game design.
>
> about board game design.
Well, then, I think your statement (that there aren't many people who
have much to say about board game design) is false. There are people
who have a lot to say about board game design, and who do enjoy
discussing board game design, but don't contribute to the forums that
exist. (And those that do, contribute much more to rec.games.board than
to rec.games.design.)
> I find the board game design related threads on rec.games.design much
> more interesting than those on rec.games.board.
Isaac posts a lot to rec.games.design, so I'm not surprised that he
finds it interesting. But the fact that not very many other people post
to those threads is (indirect) evidence that there aren't so many people
interested in them.
> What threads on game design on rec.games.board are you
> thinking of? If they're from the last five years or so,
> I'll probably remember them.
I can't reasonably start listing all of the good articles on board game
design in the last five years. I'll take a single illustrative example
of such an article (in rec.games.board), that I happen to have at hand:
message id <ptlEp0...@netcom.com>, "Re: 2038 - Randomness in 18xx",
by Tom Lehmann, dated 02/26/98. It's a solid analysis of what factors
influenced the design of 2038, how it differs from other games of
similar type, why the random factor is included and how it affects the
game, and so on. I can't remember ever seeing an article in
rec.games.design with as much relevance to or information about the
actual design of board games. (Rec.games.design *has* had a few good
postings on how computer games are actually designed, in recent years.)
David desJardins
Isaac Kuo
In article <voh1zu1...@bosco.berkeley.edu>,
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
>Isaac Kuo <k...@int.csc.lsu.edu> writes:
>> The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
>> on rec.games.design is because of lack of interest. There
>> just have never been many of us who have much to discuss about
>> board game design.
>Maybe there aren't a lot of people of Isaac's sort (whatever his term
>"us" is supposed to refer to in this context) who have much to say about
>board game design.
I was referring to all people who ever have anything to discuss
about board game design.
I simply meant to emphasize that I am one of those people
who likes to discuss board game design issues.
>But I do think that there are other Usenet
>participants who do have things that they could say, if there were a
>forum that encouraged such discussion. Threads on game design in
>rec.games.board are consistently more interesting and insightful than
>threads on the same subject in rec.games.design. I'd call that the
>"real reason" that not much substantial discussion of board games
>appears in the latter.
Really? I find the board game design related threads on
rec.games.design much more interesting than those on
rec.games.board. Actually, I haven't seen much game design
discussion on rec.games.board, if one doesn't count the
endless and uninteresting "luck vs chance" definition
argument.
What threads on game design on rec.games.board are you
thinking of? If they're from the last five years or so,
I'll probably remember them.
I don't really count threads which are about house rules
to extend or modify existing games.
>Whether a group like rec.games.board.design would actually attract the
>sort of people and discussion that would make for worthwhile discussions
>is hard to say. It's probably irrelevant, because I doubt that anyone
>seriously has the energy to get this concept to a vote, and if it did
>get that far it probably wouldn't attract enough votes. A focused
>mailing list would seem a more natural way to try to stimulate such
>discussion.
If anyone makes such a mailing list, I'd definitely want to join.
Ralph Boerke
Melissa Diane Binde wrote:
>
> Niels L Ellegaard (GNA...@MMF.ruc.dk) wrote:
> : The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
> : so how about starting up a new group called
> : rec.games.board.design
>
> sorely disappointed by r.g.d.
How about just posting on rec.games.design and 'taking it back'?
--
Ralph Boerke
ta...@kw.igs.net
Axis&Allies http://www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/aanda/index.htm
coming soon - www.worldatwar.com
"Give me Ambiguity or Give me Something Else"
David Alex Lamb
In article <6j1oae$mv5$2...@clarknet.clark.net>,
Mark Thomas <thomasS...@clark.net> wrote:
>Thank you David. If you have the capability to support an automated regular
>posting, why not add a monthly posting of the FAQ
I can regularly auto-post Travis' FAQ if he wants me to, but I'd regard it as
impolite to barge in and do so on my own. I've CC'd him and will see what he
says.
--
http://www.qucis.queensu.ca/home/dalamb/
Ola Hansson
In article <6ivd69$s...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
>
>: As Isaac said, there's nothing to discourage board game design discussion in
>: r.g.d. In fact I'd love to see some - I personally do computer game
>: design/programming, but I have an interest in all forms of game design.
>:
>: If it came to a vote, I would vote against the creation of such a group.
>
>*shrug* it took me two years to discover rec.games.design because I figured
>that if it existed, it would be in the rec.games.board.* hierarchy. When I
>found it, I figured that it wasn't for board games, because all of the posts
>were about computer games.
rec.games.design was one of the first groups I found... I read it for about
a week, and after only seeing discussions about design of _computer_ games,
left it.
Perhaps time to look at it again...
/Ola
--
-------------------------| \ _, "Search for the unicorn in
Ola Mikael Hansson | /*.\___ your heart, believe - and you
-------------------------| ` ( __ )\ shall find true beauty!"
dat9...@ludat.lth.se | (l (l '
Aldin Larice
On Fri, 08 May 1998 11:28:25 GMT, thomasS...@clark.net (Mark
Thomas) wrote:
>In article <6isrhg$qho$1...@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, k...@int.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)
>wrote:
>>In article <35510F63...@navix.net>,
>>Susan Asher <rm1...@navix.net> wrote:
>>>Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
>>
>>>> The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>>>> so how about starting up a new group called
>>>> rec.games.board.design
Just to throw my voice into the fray....
I disagree as well. A few notes on Mr. Ellegaard's argument:
What you're saying is "This place has a lot of people of type A, so
let's make all of the type B people go somewhere else." Sorry, I
don't understand this.
Secondly, I don't think rgd has been "invaded" by computer
programmers. The discussion has been mostly computer-oriented for as
long as I've been here (a good number of months).
And has been pointed out by better folks than I, there's nothing
stopping board game posts here; they just don't get posted. And it's
not like we're stifling it. The FAQ practically screams the fact that
this is not a *computer* game design group, and it gets stressed in
the group often.
So I don't see why we'd want separate newsgroups. Besides the fact
that this isn't an extremely high-traffic group, so splitting it up
would probably kill the resulting groups.
Aldin Larice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All anybody needs to know about prizes is that Mozart never won one."
-- Henry Mitchell
Mel Nicholson
Aldin Larice <jem...@geocities.com> wrote:
>tomasSP...@clark.net (Mark >Thomas) wrote:
>> k...@int.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>>>Susan Asher <rm1...@navix.net> wrote:
>>>>Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The group rec.games.design has been invaded by computerprogrammers,
>>>>> so how about starting up a new group called
>>>>> rec.games.board.design
>
>
>What you're saying is "This place has a lot of people of type A, so
>let's make all of the type B people go somewhere else." Sorry, I
>don't understand this.
>
>Secondly, I don't think rgd has been "invaded" by computer
>programmers. The discussion has been mostly computer-oriented for as
>long as I've been here (a good number of months).
>
a more historical perspective. The group was originally inteded to
talk about the design of GAMES of all type (including computer games)
but spefically *not* to discuss the IMPLEMENTATION of games.
In the early days, there was a lively discussion, which (among other
things) resulted in the creation of SPARF out of the ashes of an older
game RAFL. Soon thereafter game a question about map generation
algorithms...and another...and a question about blitting. (For details
on SPARF, mail mu...@csua.berkeley.edu with the exact subject 'help')
Between the people making all this moise and the people telling them
to shut up, it wasn't worth my while to look for the posts I was
interested in, so I stopped reading (and stopped posting). Likewise
many of the other game designers stopped reading and posting, so
soon the game became a place devoid of interest, and when I checked to
see if the condition had improved, the board was dead.
>And has been pointed out by better folks than I, there's nothing
>stopping board game posts here; they just don't get posted. And it's
>not like we're stifling it. The FAQ practically screams the fact that
>this is not a *computer* game design group, and it gets stressed in
>the group often.
>So I don't see why we'd want separate newsgroups. Besides the fact
>that this isn't an extremely high-traffic group, so splitting it up
>would probably kill the resulting groups.
>
The screaming tone in the FAQ is the result of frustration, and that
low traffic is the result of people giving up with all the noise from
people who wanted to make the next DOOM ripoff babbling ad nauseum.
So yes, the computer gamer noise did stiffle boardgame discussion.
I would support a rec.games.board.design, and I suspect it might
resurrect threads you've never seen in only a few months of time
depth.
Mel
Mike<<Schneider
In article <6j7hat$8fv$1...@news.lth.se>, dat9...@ludat.lth.se (Ola Hansson)
wrote:
>In article <6ivd69$s...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
>Melissa Diane Binde <m...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>>Mark Thomas (thomasS...@clark.net) wrote:
>>
>>: As Isaac said, there's nothing to discourage board game design
discussion in
>>: r.g.d. In fact I'd love to see some - I personally do computer game
>>: design/programming, but I have an interest in all forms of game design.
>>:
>>: If it came to a vote, I would vote against the creation of such a group.
>>
>>*shrug* it took me two years to discover rec.games.design
How do you find newsgroups? My software has a full-group-list command
which will display a list of all groups my provider carries, and it's very
easy to search by keyword.
Isaac Kuo
In article <vohwwbt...@bosco.berkeley.edu>,
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
>Isaac Kuo <k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu> writes:
>>>> The real reason there isn't more board game design discussion
>>>> on rec.games.design is because of lack of interest. There
>>>> just have never been many of us who have much to discuss about
>>>> board game design.
>> about board game design.
>Well, then, I think your statement (that there aren't many people who
>have much to say about board game design) is false. There are people
>who have a lot to say about board game design, and who do enjoy
>discussing board game design, but don't contribute to the forums that
>exist. (And those that do, contribute much more to rec.games.board than
>to rec.games.design.)
I also read rec.games.board and rec.games.design, and come to a
different conclusion. I suspect it's primarily because we have
different ideas about what constitutes game design issues.
>> I find the board game design related threads on rec.games.design much
>> more interesting than those on rec.games.board.
>Isaac posts a lot to rec.games.design, so I'm not surprised that he
>finds it interesting. But the fact that not very many other people post
>to those threads is (indirect) evidence that there aren't so many people
>interested in them.
Not very many other post to any particular computer game design
thread in rec.games.design either.
There have only been a few board game design threads on
rec.games.design which I found to have disappointing responce
(e.g. Classical Fleet Actions in 3 Space).
>> What threads on game design on rec.games.board are you
>> thinking of? If they're from the last five years or so,
>> I'll probably remember them.
>I can't reasonably start listing all of the good articles on board game
>design in the last five years. I'll take a single illustrative example
>of such an article (in rec.games.board), that I happen to have at hand:
>message id <ptlEp0...@netcom.com>, "Re: 2038 - Randomness in 18xx",
>by Tom Lehmann, dated 02/26/98. It's a solid analysis of what factors
>influenced the design of 2038, how it differs from other games of
>similar type, why the random factor is included and how it affects the
>game, and so on. I can't remember ever seeing an article in
>rec.games.design with as much relevance to or information about the
>actual design of board games. (Rec.games.design *has* had a few good
>postings on how computer games are actually designed, in recent years.)
Okay, I missed that specific one, no doubt because I'm not interested
in rail games in general.
I do vaguely remember the subject line, though, and based on that
I assumed it was an analysis of the randomness in those rail games.
There are a lot of threads on randomness in Settlers, which I have
read (and contributed to some of them).
I just never thought of those as board game design issues. There
are a lot of probability questions in rec.games.design (usually
tilted towards paper/dice RPGs), and while I never discourage it,
I alwasy get a feeling it's not what the newsgroup is for.
It just seems too specific to particular existing games, whereas
rec.games.design seems more oriented towards creating new games.
Anyway, I can see that analysis of particular existing board
games is relevant to game design. It just seems to fit more
alongside other discussion of those particular board games
than in some other design-specific group, to me.
Walker Visions
Aldin Larice wrote:
<snippage>
> And has been pointed out by better folks than I, there's nothing
> stopping board game posts here; they just don't get posted. And it's
> not like we're stifling it. The FAQ practically screams the fact that
> this is not a *computer* game design group, and it gets stressed in
> the group often.
>
> So I don't see why we'd want separate newsgroups. Besides the fact
> that this isn't an extremely high-traffic group, so splitting it up
> would probably kill the resulting groups.
Here, here! The main reason I read r.g.d is because it caters to
design, *all* design. Thats a nice broad area and things the programmers
mention sometimes spark an idea in me for a tabletop.
All I design are miniature, role playing and board games but quite
frankly I tend to lurk because unless I have a specific thought or
question to share I dont feel the need to blather just to hear myself
speak (as it were)
Lets not kill things by splitting up and getting multiple groups with 3
posts each.
You want board posts? Put [BOARD] in a heading and post something
germane. There's several of us here, we just arent very vociferous (not
counting this long winded, pointless post of course) : )
Ed Walker
--
Whitey - Dustin McGroyne - Hey You
These and many more are the pseudonyms of Ed Walker
http://www.his.com/visions whi...@his.com
Game Designer - Entrepreneur - Nice Guy
A member site of the Free RPG webring
Melissa Diane Binde
> David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> >Whether a group like rec.games.board.design would actually attract the
> >sort of people and discussion that would make for worthwhile discussions
> >is hard to say. It's probably irrelevant, because I doubt that anyone
> >seriously has the energy to get this concept to a vote, and if it did
> >get that far it probably wouldn't attract enough votes. A focused
> >mailing list would seem a more natural way to try to stimulate such
> >discussion.
>
> If anyone makes such a mailing list, I'd definitely want to join.
I have the energy to push r.g.b.d, but as I said over email a few days ago
to some people, it seems that most of the participants on this thread are
split fairly evening on the issue, so the group vote would fail. The
alternative I offered was a mailing list, which I'm fully willing to host
(even eager to) and willing to try to put the time into keeping it alive.
Personally, I'd like to see the focus as card, board, or strategy game
design -- but all traditional, "real", games, not computer. I think that
rec.games.design serves well for those with interest in the myriad of issues
involved with computer game design, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem
to be serving the needs of other designers right now.
The folks on my distribution list numbered a mere five, and someone pointed
out that was a paltry number to have on a mailing list. But if there
actually is interest by more than just the six of us....
desig...@terindell.com, anyone?
[rec.games.design added to newsgroup list because of mailing list
discussion]
--
Melissa Binde -- bi...@terindell.com
Outside the Asylum -- http://www.terindell.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"USENET is not a right." "USENET is a right, a left, a jab, and a
sharp uppercut to the jaw. The postman hits! You have new mail."
-- Ed Vielmetti & Chip Salzenberg
Tom P.
Melissa,
I would be very interested in participating in a rec.games.board.design
group.
However, I understand the time and energy may not be possible. May I
suggest
to all those interested, our site, Discover Games.
Discover Games is a site devoted to game inventors, retailers, reps, etc.
Our site
currently focuses on board games, few computer.
Feel free to post messages on our board as well as join our mailing list.
We hope to hear from you!
Tom Perris
in...@discovergames.com
http://www.discovergames.com
Melissa Diane Binde <m...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote in article
<6jatg0$5...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>...
Chris Camfield
Melissa, I think a mailing list is a great idea. Probably much easier
than trying to get things to change in rec.games.design (sad but
true).
I think the big question left would be whether RPGs would be included
or not. I *think* there might already be such a list, or something
similar, for RPGs, but I'm not sure.
CC
Aldin Larice
On 11 May 1998 20:01:38 GMT, m...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Mel
Nicholson) wrote:
>Aldin Larice <jem...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>Secondly, I don't think rgd has been "invaded" by computer
>>programmers. The discussion has been mostly computer-oriented for as
>>long as I've been here (a good number of months).
>>
>As the guy who posted the third message on r.g.d, perhaps I can give
>a more historical perspective. The group was originally inteded to
>talk about the design of GAMES of all type (including computer games)
>but spefically *not* to discuss the IMPLEMENTATION of games.
>
>In the early days, there was a lively discussion, which (among other
>things) resulted in the creation of SPARF out of the ashes of an older
>game RAFL. Soon thereafter game a question about map generation
>algorithms...and another...and a question about blitting. (For details
>on SPARF, mail mu...@csua.berkeley.edu with the exact subject 'help')
>
>Between the people making all this moise and the people telling them
>to shut up, it wasn't worth my while to look for the posts I was
>interested in, so I stopped reading (and stopped posting).
Again, I don't understand. Even if there were 100 new posts about
computer games, how would that affect ongoing threads about
non-computer games?
When I first starting reading rec.arts.sf.science, I would jump
directly to the threads that interested me / were in my range of
technical comprehension and ignored most of the rest of the group.
Even if they had been invaded by a slew of spammy posts, I could have
skipped by it and been unaffected. Same thing here; why not just
ignore the computer-related posts?
>Likewise
>many of the other game designers stopped reading and posting, so
>soon the game became a place devoid of interest, and when I checked to
>see if the condition had improved, the board was dead.
>
>>And has been pointed out by better folks than I, there's nothing
>>stopping board game posts here; they just don't get posted. And it's
>>not like we're stifling it. The FAQ practically screams the fact that
>>this is not a *computer* game design group, and it gets stressed in
>>the group often.
>
>>So I don't see why we'd want separate newsgroups. Besides the fact
>>that this isn't an extremely high-traffic group, so splitting it up
>>would probably kill the resulting groups.
>>
>The screaming tone in the FAQ is the result of frustration, and that
>low traffic is the result of people giving up with all the noise from
>people who wanted to make the next DOOM ripoff babbling ad nauseum.
>
>So yes, the computer gamer noise did stiffle boardgame discussion.
>I would support a rec.games.board.design, and I suspect it might
>resurrect threads you've never seen in only a few months of time
>depth.
This is a small- to moderately-sized newsgroup now; splitting it up
into multiple newsgroups would easily kill it, I think. There *is* a
critical mass factor ITO the number of people who'd post.
I also don't consider the dumb computer posts a lot of noise. This
newsgroup is, for the most part, spam-free and lively (at least
according to my experience).
How about this: Prefixes. If you have a post about computer games,
put a [C] at the beginning of your header, if it's about board games,
use a [B], and so forth. How's that sound to y'all? It would be an
easy way to gauge the success of a board/computer group split; the
Board people could easily skip all the computer posts if they wanted
to.
Paul Kinsler
In rec.games.design Aldin Larice <jem...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Again, I don't understand. Even if there were 100 new posts about
> computer games, how would that affect ongoing threads about
> non-computer games?
Easy. You take a quick look at the subject headers, see
most are computer-programming (or whatever), think "sod it"
and mark everything read. It's a very easy habit to get
into if you dont have a lot of spare time to read news.
> How about this: Prefixes. If you have a post about computer games,
> put a [C] at the beginning of your header, if it's about board games,
> use a [B], and so forth. How's that sound to y'all? It would be an
> easy way to gauge the success of a board/computer group split; the
> Board people could easily skip all the computer posts if they wanted
> to.
This is a good solution. But, on rec.art.dance there are a
lot of country and western posts, and the number of ways people
can put CW C+W C/w c&W c & W .... is frankly astonishing.
And difficult to killfile unless you dont mind never seeing a
thread with the letters "c" and "w" in the Subject line ever again.
Prefixes dont always work as well as they should, unfortunately.
--
#Paul.
------------------------------+soluble fish+------------------------------
Inst Microwaves & Photonics, University of Leeds, UK. (ph) +44 113 2332089
"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."
X-No-Archive: yes
Garth L. Getgen
Melissa and friends ... please take my name off your E-mail list. Thanks.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do.
Garth L. Getgen
nathan wagner
In article <<355994ad...@news.gmu.edu>>,
Aldin Larice <jem...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Again, I don't understand. Even if there were 100 new posts about
> computer games, how would that affect ongoing threads about
> non-computer games?
They're off topic. They decrease the signal to noise ratio. They make the
design threads harder to find. They take up bandwidth. They make
intelligent newsfeed selection more difficult.
> This is a small- to moderately-sized newsgroup now; splitting it up
> into multiple newsgroups would easily kill it, I think.
If you're ignoring (not strictly possible, you have to take some action) the
posts you aren't interested in, how is it better to have them all lumped in
the same group, rather than separated into different groups? You seem to be
arguing both a) you can ignore the posts that are on a topic that you aren't
interested in and b) that the group would die without those posts.
I'd much rather see a group with only four posts a day, all on topic.
> I also don't consider the dumb computer posts a lot of noise. This
> newsgroup is, for the most part, spam-free and lively (at least
> according to my experience).
That could be, however if we all started talking about knitting it would still
be lively, but who cares: it wouldn't be the right place to do it.
> How about this: Prefixes. If you have a post about computer games,
> put a [C] at the beginning of your header, if it's about board games,
> use a [B], and so forth. How's that sound to y'all?
It sounds like you've missed the point. The problem isn't that computer
games are discussed, it's that programming is. Computer game *design* is
perfectly on topic and welcome. Computer game programming and
implementation isn't.
--
nathan wagner "People with neckwear always have money."
n...@hydaspes.if.org -- Paul Bond
-- looking for a *NIX sysadmin job within driving distance of Madison WI
resume at http://granicus.if.org/~nw/resume.html
Melissa Diane Binde
Well, right now there aren't any such restrictions. I'm leaving the
specifics up to the list, I don't feel like I should step in and say "I like
only _this_ sort of game so that's what we will discuss."
There are 20 people on the list so far, although discussion has been slow.
I'm going to try the technique of posting discussion questions to see if I
can jumpstart things and get people talking (always a problem, oddly, on
mailing lists....)
--
Melissa Binde -- bi...@terindell.com
Outside the Asylum -- http://www.terindell.com/
Game Design Mailing List -- design-li...@frivolity.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I went to the airport, with my ticket to Los Angeles. I brought
three bags and told the Skycap, "I want this on to go to Seattle,
this one to St. Louis and this one to Chicago."
He said, "I'm sorry sir, but we can't do that."
I said, "Why not? You did it last time." -- Henny Youngman
Thomas C. Perconti
Melissa Diane Binde wrote:
> There are 20 people on the list so far, although discussion has been slow.
> I'm going to try the technique of posting discussion questions to see if I
> can jumpstart things and get people talking (always a problem, oddly, on
> mailing lists....)
>
> --
> Melissa Binde -- bi...@terindell.com
> Outside the Asylum -- http://www.terindell.com/
> Game Design Mailing List -- design-li...@frivolity.com
I'd be interested in joining the list... How do I do that?
--
Tom Perconti (aka SpeedRacer: Lancelot of the Information Superhighway)
SpeedRacer's Pitstop: http://members.tripod.com/~Perconti/