TSR's code of ethics
Mad Hatter
This code of ethics has been copied from TSR's home site
(http://www.tsrinc.com).
I just thought there are a few interesting points there.
note: my comments are marked with an asterisk (*).
-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-
This is TSR, Inc.'s Code Of Ethics. It is intended for use by those
seeking to be published by TSR, whether the work in question is fiction
or game material. It is not intended as an example of what you can or
cannot do in your own campaign. However, anything posted to a licensed
TSR online site is subject to adhering to the principles
herein - gross violations of the CoE will be rejected or asked to be
modified.
TSR CODE OF ETHICS
TSR, Inc. , as a publisher of books, games, and game related products,
recognizes the social responsibilities that a company such as TSR must
assume. TSR has developed this CODE OF ETHICS for use in maintaining
good taste, while providing beneficial products within all of its
publishing and licensing endeavors.
In developing each of its products, TSR strives to achieve peak
entertainment value by providing consumers with a tool for developing
social interaction skills and problem-solving capabilities by fostering
group cooperation and the desire to learn. Every TSR product is designed
to be enjoyed and is not intended to present a style of living for the
players of TSR games.
To this end, the company has pledged itself to conscientiously adhere to
the following principles:
1: GOOD VERSUS EVIL
Evil shall never be portrayed in an attractive light and shall be used
only as a foe to illustrate a moral issue. All product shall focus on
the struggle of good versus injustice and evil, casting the protagonist
as an agent of right.
Archetypes (heroes, villains, etc. ) shall be used only to illustrate a
moral issue. Satanic symbology, rituals, and phrases shall not appear in
TSR products.
* Lankhmar: Thieves, and the kind that steal, and go work worf evil
people, and do other immoral stuff, are the heros of the story, and TSR
even rewarded this with a campaign setting (best one, though, IMHO).
2: NOT FOR DUPLICATION
TSR products are intended to be fictional entertainment, and shall not
present explicit details and methods of crime, weapon construction, drug
use, magic, science, or technologies that could be reasonably duplicated
and misused in real life situations. These categories are only to be
described for story drama and effect/results in the
game or story.
* Ho-hum. I've heard the "do not try this at home" line a million
times...
3: AGENTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Agents of law enforcement (constables, policemen, judges, government
officials, and respected institutions) should not be depicted in such
away as to create disrespect for current established authorities/social
values.
When such an agent is depicted as corrupt, the example must be expressed
as an exception and the culprit should ultimately be brought to justice.
* Just like Lankhmar, right? Or Artemis Entreri?
4: CRIME AND CRIMINALS
Crimes shall not be presented in such ways as to promote distrust of law
enforcement agents/agencies or to inspire others with the desire to
imitate criminals. Crime should be depicted as a sordid and unpleasant
activity. Criminals should not be presented in glamorous circumstances.
Player character thieves are constantly encouraged to act towards the
common good.
* Fafhrd, Greymouser, Ferret (from Crypt of the Shadow King), Regis (who
tricked and stole from many innocent people). If all this is true why
was the main issue of the Complete Handbook of Thieves on how to steal,
equipment for use with thieves, how to construct a guild, and that
Player Characters can & should build guilds when they reach name level?
5: MONSTERS
Monsters in TSR's game systems can have good or evil goals. As foes of
the protagonists, evil monsters should be able to be clearly defeated in
some fashion. TSR recognizes the ability of an evil creature to change
its ways and become beneficial, and does not exclude this possibility in
the writing of this code.
* goody goody, is for kids
6: PROFANITY
Profanity, obscenity, smut, and vulgarity will not be used.
7: DRAMA AND HORROR
The use of drama or horror is acceptable in product development.
However, the detailing of sordid vices or excessive gore shall be
avoided. Horror, defined as the presence of uncertainty and fear in the
tale, shall be permitted and should be implied, rather than graphically
detailed.
* Okay, I can live with 6 & 7.
8: VIOLENCE AND GORE
All lurid scenes of excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes,
depravity, lust, filth, sadism, or masochism, presented in text or
graphically, are unacceptable. Scenes of unnecessary violence, extreme
brutality, physical agony, and gore, including but not limited to
extreme graphic or descriptive scenes presenting cannibalism,
decapitation, evisceration, amputation, or other gory injuries, should
be avoided.
* Right. Like the Dark Elf Trilogy, where such scenes are frequent and
quite well depicted. Or when Mist the dragon was described, graphically,
as eatting a horse (Azure Bonds), or the actions of the priesthood of
helm in the Maztican trilogy.
9: SEXUAL THEMES
Sexual themes of all types should be avoided. Rape and graphic lust
should never be portrayed or discussed. Explicit sexual activity should
not be portrayed. The concept of love or affection for another is not
considered part of this definition.
Right, like the drow priestesses, huh?
10: NUDITY
Nudity is only acceptable, graphically, when done in a manner that
complies with good taste and social standards. Degrading or salacious
depiction is unacceptable. Graphic display of reproductive organs, or
any facsimiles will not be permitted.
* What can I say, that I haven't said before?
11: AFFLICTION
Disparaging graphic or textual references to physical afflictions,
handicaps and deformities are unacceptable. Reference to actual
afflictions or handicaps is acceptable only when portrayed or depicted
in a manner that favorably educates the consumer on the affliction and
in no way promotes disrespect.
* Get me some solvent, this is getting sticky!
12: MATTERS OF RACE
Human and other non-monster character races and nationalities should not
be depicted as inferior to other races. All races and nationalities
shall be fairly portrayed.
Right, like the Elven antagonism, which isn't punished anywhere? Or
where half elves are portrayed as dirty bastards, or the theme of the
prism pentad (wipe out all races but the halflings?) Or perhaps the
gully dwarves, the barbarians, etc.?
13: SLAVERY
Slavery is not to be depicted in a favorable light; it should only be
represented as a cruel and inhuman institution to be abolished.
* Okay, I can deal with that.
14: RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY
The use of religion in TSR products is to assist in clarifying the
struggle between good and evil. Actual current religions are not to be
depicted, ridiculed, or attacked in any way that promotes disrespect.
Ancient or mythological religions, such as those prevalent in ancient
Grecian, Roman and Norse societies, may be portrayed in their historic
roles (in compliance with this Code of Ethics. ) Any depiction of any
fantasy religion is not intended as a presentation of an alternative
form of worship.
* Budhism appears, too, in Legends and Lore. Is that a "cult" that is
frowned upon and discouraged, or are they just sucking up to the
christian for excluding Christianity from the practiced religions of
AD&D?
15: MAGIC, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY
Fantasy literature is distinguished by the presence of magic,
super-science or artificial technology that exceeds natural law. The
devices are to be portrayed as fictional and used for dramatic effect.
They should not appear to be drawn from reality. Actual rituals (spells,
incantations, sacrifices, etc. ), weapon designs, illegal devices, and
other activities of criminal or distasteful nature shall not be
presented or provided as reference.
* Sacrifice??? Zaknafein being sacrificed to Lloth, Maztica, etc.
16: NARCOTICS AND ALCOHOL
Narcotic and alcohol abuse shall not be presented, except as dangerous
habits. Such abuse should be dealt with by focusing on the harmful
aspects.
* Right, that is why dwarves are depicted as drunkards (dwarven holy
water = ale).
17: THE CONCEPT OF SELF IN ROLE PLAYING GAMES
The distinction between players and player characters shall be strictly
observed.
It is standard TSR policy to not use 'you' in its advertising or
role playing games to suggest that the users of the game systems are
actually taking part in the adventure. It should always be clear that
the player's imaginary character is taking part in whatever imaginary
action happens during game play. For example, 'you' don't attack the
orcs--'your character' Hrothgar attacks the orcs.
* Still sucking up to them, eh?
18: LIVE ACTION ROLE-PLAYING
It is TSR policy to not support any live action role-playing game
system, no matter how nonviolent the style of gaming is said to be. TSR
recognizes the physical dangers of live action role-playing that
promotes its participants to do more than simply imagine in their minds
what their characters are doing, and does not wish any game to be
harmful.
* Besides, you can't get the same millage out of LARP.
19: HISTORICAL PRESENTATIONS
While TSR may depict certain historical situations, institutions, or
attitudes in a game product, it should not be construed that TSR
condones these practices.
* Really??? Marco VOLO? The Maztican campaign???? (Couldn't even change
the name, Aztec, anybody?)
PLAGIARISM It has come to our attention that some freelance writers are
committing plagiarism (literary theft), which is a punishable crime.
Your contract now reflects this (see page 3, no. 3; page 4, no. 5; and
page 6, no. 12).
However, TSR feels it is necessary to underscore these sections of the
contract in an effort to clarify this important issue.
Right. Just like Ravenloft was plagerized from Dracula!! The entire I,
Strahd Journal was taken nearly word for word from Dracula, right down
to where Tatyana jumped from the castle (which was how Dracula's bride
commited suicide).
Marco VOLO??? mAZTICa???
I rest my case. The Code of Ethics is a sham, and hypocritical.
Any flames will be processed, and used for a barbeque.
Any debate is looked forward to.
Please understand that this reminder is not addressed to any one
individual. It is included in your contract in an
effort to heighten your awareness of the severity of plagiarism.
If you have any questions regarding your contract, please do not
hesitate to contact TSR, Inc. Your cooperation
and understanding in this matter is appreciated.
AD&D, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, DRAGON, DUNGEON, POLYHEDRON, and RPGA
are
registered trademarks of TSR, Inc. Copyright 1995. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be freely distributed in its original, unaltered form.
TSR trademarks and copyrights TSR, Inc. All rights
reserved.
--
I haven't lost my mind - It's backed up on tape somewhere...
Rob Sanders
>This code of ethics has been copied from TSR's home site
>(http://www.tsrinc.com).
>I just thought there are a few interesting points there.
>
>note: my comments are marked with an asterisk (*).
*snip*
>
>18: LIVE ACTION ROLE-PLAYING
>
>It is TSR policy to not support any live action role-playing game
>system, no matter how nonviolent the style of gaming is said to be. TSR
>recognizes the physical dangers of live action role-playing that
>promotes its participants to do more than simply imagine in their minds
>what their characters are doing, and does not wish any game to be
>harmful.
>
>* Besides, you can't get the same millage out of LARP.
I agree with some of you observations and disagree with some of them,
but I found this one point of the CoE amusing. "The physical dangers
of live-action role-playing" - *rofl* I don't know why TSR doesn't
support live-action gaming, but this *can't* be it. I am an active
member of the International Fantasy Gaming Society, and from
experience I can tell you it's no more dangerous (possibly less
dangerous) than a backyard football game. I heard rumors at point
that TSR was working on their own LARP, but I didn't hear what
happened to it.
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
Ross W. Maker
Mad Hatter wrote (and quoted):
<a lot of stuff snipped in the name of brevity>
OK, you don't like the Code of Ethics. So don't write for TSR. But to
blast them as hypocrites using examples written before the present
statement is like damning a drunk who joins AA. If there is any
hypocrisy here, it is yours. Clearly, they decided there was a problem
and decided to do something about it. That's their right.
Ross W. Maker
Rob Sanders
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:24:24 -0500, "Ross W. Maker"
<rma...@citilink.com> wrote:
>Rob Sanders wrote:
>> I agree with some of you observations and disagree with some of them,
>> but I found this one point of the CoE amusing. "The physical dangers
>> of live-action role-playing" - *rofl* I don't know why TSR doesn't
>> support live-action gaming, but this *can't* be it. I am an active
>> member of the International Fantasy Gaming Society, and from
>> experience I can tell you it's no more dangerous (possibly less
>> dangerous) than a backyard football game. I heard rumors at point
>> that TSR was working on their own LARP, but I didn't hear what
>> happened to it.
>
>Probably killed by for same reason that they included this section in
>the CoE. To wit, they don't want to get sued by the survivors the next
>time some LARPing kid runs out into the street without looking and gets
>run over by a semi. Or falls off the cliff he was climbing and smashes
>his skull. Or whatever. Yes, the chance of injury or death in LARPs is
>small, but it is not non-existent. Any decent PI lawyer could make a
>good case on an incident like this, so TSR is NOT being paranoid. After
>all, if a little old lady with four cup-holders in her car can collect
>big time off McDonald's for spilling her coffee which she balanced in
>her lap, you can't trust the common sense of the jury.
True.....but the IFGS (I don't know about other LARPs) has insurance
against this sort of thing, which only costs the players about $2 a
game. Point about the McDonald's coffee incident is well-taken,
though - I still shake my head every time I go through a drive-thru
and see those little "WARNING: coffee is served HOT" signs *sigh*
I guess any further activity on this thread should be posted in
r.g.f.live-action, eh?
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
Sean K Reynolds
TSR should be releasing a revised Code Of Ethics (to be called the
Standards For Content) later today.
--
Sean K Reynolds a.k.a. Veggie Boy skr...@netcom.com skr...@aol.com
"The Carson/Johnson Law of Human Behavior: 80% of all questions that begin
with the word `why' can be answered with the simple sentence `people are
stupid.'" - Kevin Carson and Nick Johnson
Ross W. Maker
Rob Sanders wrote:
> I agree with some of you observations and disagree with some of them,
> but I found this one point of the CoE amusing. "The physical dangers
> of live-action role-playing" - *rofl* I don't know why TSR doesn't
> support live-action gaming, but this *can't* be it. I am an active
> member of the International Fantasy Gaming Society, and from
> experience I can tell you it's no more dangerous (possibly less
> dangerous) than a backyard football game. I heard rumors at point
> that TSR was working on their own LARP, but I didn't hear what
> happened to it.
Probably killed by for same reason that they included this section in
the CoE. To wit, they don't want to get sued by the survivors the next
time some LARPing kid runs out into the street without looking and gets
run over by a semi. Or falls off the cliff he was climbing and smashes
his skull. Or whatever. Yes, the chance of injury or death in LARPs is
small, but it is not non-existent. Any decent PI lawyer could make a
good case on an incident like this, so TSR is NOT being paranoid. After
all, if a little old lady with four cup-holders in her car can collect
big time off McDonald's for spilling her coffee which she balanced in
her lap, you can't trust the common sense of the jury.
Ross W. Maker
NUELOW
Mad Hatter wrote:
>>
I rest my case. The Code of Ethics is a sham, and hypocritical.
Any flames will be processed, and used for a barbeque.
<<
This isn't a flame, just a suggestion:
Get a clue.
Or a dictionary.
There appear to be several of the elements of the CoE that went over your
head.
Steve Miller
Fenyx3204
> I don't know why TSR doesn't
> support live-action gaming, but this *can't* be it.
The reason is really very simple: D&D has gotten bad press in the past,
and a large amount of it has focused on those people who took the D&D game
and did LARPing with it -- the Egbert case being nationally prominent
here. TSR, wisely IMO, took the stance of discouraging this type of play
because (for awhile) it threatened the entire hobby with negative PR.
Justin Bacon
A.F.Stassen
Mad Hatter wrote:
> This code of ethics has been copied from TSR's home site
> (http://www.tsrinc.com).
> I just thought there are a few interesting points there.
>
>
lots of text
> However, TSR feels it is necessary to underscore these sections of the
>
> contract in an effort to clarify this important issue.
>
> Right. Just like Ravenloft was plagerized from Dracula!! The entire I,
>
> Strahd Journal was taken nearly word for word from Dracula, right down
>
> to where Tatyana jumped from the castle (which was how Dracula's bride
>
> commited suicide).
> Marco VOLO??? mAZTICa???
>
> I rest my case. The Code of Ethics is a sham, and hypocritical.
>
> Any flames will be processed, and used for a barbeque.
>
> Any debate is looked forward to.
>
> Please understand that this reminder is not addressed to any one
> individual. It is included in your contract in an
> effort to heighten your awareness of the severity of plagiarism.
>
> If you have any questions regarding your contract, please do not
> hesitate to contact TSR, Inc. Your cooperation
> and understanding in this matter is appreciated.
It still suprises me that they don't have warnings on the boxsets that
the glossy paper could be bad for your health. I agree that The Code of
Ethics is hypocritical, but I have seen American babytoys with warning
that they are dangerous for children under 6 years.
First kill 90% of your lawyer, than kill everyone who sues companies and
other people for a living and than complain about hypocritical codes.
AIken
MLMartin98
The Mad Hatter wrote:
<<<Right. Just like Ravenloft was plagerized from Dracula!! The entire I,
Strahd Journal was taken nearly word for word from Dracula, right down
to where Tatyana jumped from the castle (which was how Dracula's bride
commited suicide).>>
I beg your pardon? If you're referring to the original novel, there's
no mention of Dracula's bride. The history and myths surrounding Vlad
Tepes do tell of his wife jumping off of the castle into the river--when
they were besieged by the Turks.
I think you're thinking of Coppola's 'revision'--which the original
module (which is the source for all of the good stuff in Elrod's novel)
predated by 10 years and the campaign setting by 2. (I've always had this
sneaking suspicion that, given the similarities between the two works,
Coppola knew a little bit about Ravenloft.)
<<Marco VOLO??? mAZTICa???>>
There's a difference between historical parallelism and plagiarism; the
latter is, as the Code of Ethics states, 'literary theft' of something
someone else has created.
<<I rest my case. The Code of Ethics is a sham, and hypocritical.>>
It's also nonexistent. The Code of Ethics was revised about two weeks
ago and is just waiting for in-house review and approval before it can be
released to the public. It's been renamed (Standards for Conduct, now),
loosened, and will take into account the differences between settings (the
same rules will _not_ apply to the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, and any
new Dark Sun material, for example).
Matthew Martin, mlmar...@aol.com
Jay Robinson
In article <skreynEC...@netcom.com>,
I have just read these and I am pleased. I like the part about evil winning over good
sometimes for the sake of a story. I never liked the old, "Good must always have a way to win."
Ryan P Arndt
Mad Hatter wrote:
> 12: MATTERS OF RACE
>
> Human and other non-monster character races and nationalities should not
> be depicted as inferior to other races. All races and nationalities
> shall be fairly portrayed.
>
> Right, like the Elven antagonism, which isn't punished anywhere? Or
> where half elves are portrayed as dirty bastards, or the theme of the
> prism pentad (wipe out all races but the halflings?) Or perhaps the
> gully dwarves, the barbarians, etc.?
>However, if you look closely at the text, you will realise that the
purpose of this is NOT to make the races look inferior. In DragonLance,
the Half Elves and Gully Dwarfs are considered outcasts by their more
arrogant kin, and characters like Tanis and Bupu attempt to break these
stereotypes and live "normal" lives in society.
Tanis was not treated as he was because he was a half elf, but because he
was an illegitimate child of a rape victim. The purpose of this is not to
portray him as a lower life form, but to promote tolerance of people from
other races as people.
> * Budhism appears, too, in Legends and Lore. Is that a "cult" that is
> frowned upon and discouraged, or are they just sucking up to the
> christian for excluding Christianity from the practiced religions of
> AD&D?
>Legends and Lore was an attempt to allow people to translate earthly
religions into AD&D. Christianity was possibly excluded because most of
TSR's target market are white males, and would probably have had more
exposure to Christianity than other religions.
> 16: NARCOTICS AND ALCOHOL
>
> Narcotic and alcohol abuse shall not be presented, except as dangerous
> habits. Such abuse should be dealt with by focusing on the harmful
> aspects.
> Dwarfs are not portrayed (AFAIK) as alcoholics, but as people who enjoy a
quiet beer and can handle a few drinks. Alcoholism is portrayed in a very
negative light- look at Caramon in Time of the Twins.
> 17: THE CONCEPT OF SELF IN ROLE PLAYING GAMES
>
> The distinction between players and player characters shall be strictly
> observed.
>
> It is standard TSR policy to not use 'you' in its advertising or
> role playing games to suggest that the users of the game systems are
> actually taking part in the adventure. It should always be clear that
> the player's imaginary character is taking part in whatever imaginary
> action happens during game play. For example, 'you' don't attack the
> orcs--'your character' Hrothgar attacks the orcs.
>
> * Still sucking up to them, eh?
> What does this mean???? The intention of an RPG has never been to
actually transport you into another world and be a super-hero. It is just
a pity that that is exactly what happened in the D&D cartoon.
> 19: HISTORICAL PRESENTATIONS
>
> While TSR may depict certain historical situations, institutions, or
> attitudes in a game product, it should not be construed that TSR
> condones these practices.
>
> * Really??? Marco VOLO? The Maztican campaign???? (Couldn't even change
> the name, Aztec, anybody?)
>Well, they are nowhere near as bad as Games Workshop! But it would be
impossible to create a world history without some parallels to real world
history or mythology. Wars always happen for the same reasons, Crusades
will be fought. Empire will rise and fall, and Cultures will come and go.
>>
> Right. Just like Ravenloft was plagerized from Dracula!! The entire I,
> Strahd Journal was taken nearly word for word from Dracula, right down
> to where Tatyana jumped from the castle (which was how Dracula's bride
> commited suicide).
> Marco VOLO??? mAZTICa???
>Dracula's bride makes no appearance in the novel, but that has already
been dealt with by someone else.
Bob Baldwin
NUELOW wrote:
>
> Mad Hatter wrote:
>
> >>
> I rest my case. The Code of Ethics is a sham, and hypocritical.
>
> Any flames will be processed, and used for a barbeque.
> <<
>
>
> Get a clue.
>
> Or a dictionary.
>
> There appear to be several of the elements of the CoE that went over your
> head.
>
> Steve Miller
Hot air does that. But, since the COE (actually the animated dead
corpse of the old Comics Code Authority) has finally been dispelled by
the High Priests of WOTC, who cares? Let the COE sink back into the
Abyss where it came from.
Bob Baldwin
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
Bryan J. Maloney
It's just the old Comics Code.
DC didn't go under when they started Vertigo or Paradox--WoTC should
consider the same as supplements for AD&D--a Vertigo and/or Paradox-like
subline.
--
To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
NUELOW
Bob Baldwin wrote:
>> Hot air does that. But, since the COE (actually the animated dead
corpse of the old Comics Code Authority) has finally been dispelled by
the High Priests of WOTC, who cares? <<
Good question. I guess only the guy who seems to be somewhat behind the
curve can answer that one.
Steve Miller
Aaron Wallace
Ryan P Arndt <earn...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au> wrote in article
<33B49F...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au>...
> Mad Hatter wrote:
>
> > 12: MATTERS OF RACE
> >
> > Human and other non-monster character races and nationalities should
not
> > be depicted as inferior to other races. All races and nationalities
> > shall be fairly portrayed.
Well this just sucks, It's only a GAME. Why are you trying to apply
modern day problems to a game that is fantasy. Just because a book says
something doesn't mean you have to play it that way.
Guidelines for enjoying a game is all that it is. What's the fun if every
race was equal how do you play a character that attains HERO status when
everyone has the same chances and abilities as everyone else.
Now if you want to compare it to Modern day problems then There are
inferior people compared to others. Look at the Olympians They are
superior in athletics to most everyone!
Anyway enough of my babbling I always lose the point after awhile.
Ryan P Arndt
Aaron Wallace wrote:
>
> Ryan P Arndt <earn...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au> wrote in article
> <33B49F...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au>...
> > Mad Hatter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Human and other non-monster character races and nationalities should
> not
> > > be depicted as inferior to other races. All races and nationalities
> > > shall be fairly portrayed.
>
> modern day problems to a game that is fantasy.
The Code of Ethics is there to warn people who plan on writing for TSR
that they will not publish anything that is racist, sexist, vulgar,
satanic, or excessively violent. But if you want to play a campaign that
is any of these, GO FOR IT.
J. McGuire
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
>
> TSR should be releasing a revised Code Of Ethics (to be called the
> Standards For Content) later today.
Haven't seen it yet. Is it still cribbed from the old Comics Code?
-- Jean
Wintertree Software | Remember to remove the spambot-blocker
http://www.io.com/~wtsoft | from my address before replying via email
THE BIG NEWS: Wintertree now takes credit cards! Plus, we just moved to
New Hampshire and redecorated the website! -- stop by for the details.
J. McGuire
Ross W. Maker wrote:
>
> Yes, the chance of injury or death in LARPs is
> small, but it is not non-existent. Any decent PI lawyer could make a
> good case on an incident like this, so TSR is NOT being paranoid. After
> all, if a little old lady with four cup-holders in her car can collect
> big time off McDonald's for spilling her coffee which she balanced in
> her lap, you can't trust the common sense of the jury.
But coffee is served at GenCon.... (true, it's generally not hot enough
to warm an orphaned bacterium, let alone burn anyone or anything, but
it's the thought that counts)
If publishing ads for LARPs would open up TSR to liability suits, what
could come of ACTUAL COFFEE -- a product *known* to be highly dangerous,
and with ample legal precedent supporting the rights of people stupid
enough to dump it in their laps to soak the coffee-seller for more money
than most honest people will ever see in one place -- openly available
in the TSR offices, at their conventions, and in other places under
their control?
The argument "Well, it's the convention services people who are actually
selling the coffee" works just as well as "the IFGS is actually running
the LARP".
J. McGuire
Fenyx3204 wrote:
> The reason is really very simple: D&D has gotten bad press in the past,
> and a large amount of it has focused on those people who took the D&D game
> and did LARPing with it -- the Egbert case being nationally prominent
> here.
Interestingly enough, Dallas Egbert was *not* a regular D&D player --
he'd apparently played only a handful of times, and wasn't particularly
enthused about it -- and to the best of my knowledge, if anyone *was*
actually doing anything at all in the campus steam tunnels (besides the
usual serial killings and such that feature in every campus rumor) he
did not participate.
Michael 'Mr. Mad' Morris
Aaron Wallace wrote:
> Well this just sucks, It's only a GAME. Why are you trying to apply
> modern day problems to a game that is fantasy. Just because a book says
> something doesn't mean you have to play it that way.
> Guidelines for enjoying a game is all that it is. What's the fun if every
> race was equal how do you play a character that attains HERO status when
> everyone has the same chances and abilities as everyone else.
>
> Now if you want to compare it to Modern day problems then There are
> inferior people compared to others. Look at the Olympians They are
> superior in athletics to most everyone!
Olypmpians are also representatives of almost every major nation in the
world, and certainly every race. The Ethics rule is against depicting a
*race* inferior to another. As to *individuals*, there is BOUND to be
LOTS of variety, even within a race.
Fun place Earth... 6 billion people, no two exactly alike (Identical
twins excepted) ;)
>
> Anyway enough of my babbling I always lose the point after awhile.
You lost that one for sure :)
--
_ Michael "Mr Mad" Morris
/ \//\ E-Mail Address mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
\ //// Homepage index http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
\M /
\/
Ross W. Maker
J. McGuire wrote:
> But coffee is served at GenCon.... (true, it's generally not hot enough
> to warm an orphaned bacterium, let alone burn anyone or anything, but
> it's the thought that counts)
>
> If publishing ads for LARPs would open up TSR to liability suits, what
> could come of ACTUAL COFFEE -- a product *known* to be highly dangerous,
> and with ample legal precedent supporting the rights of people stupid
> enough to dump it in their laps to soak the coffee-seller for more money
> than most honest people will ever see in one place -- openly available
> in the TSR offices, at their conventions, and in other places under
> their control?
>
> The argument "Well, it's the convention services people who are actually
> selling the coffee" works just as well as "the IFGS is actually running
> the LARP".
I think what the CoE was getting at was that TSR disapproved of poorly
organized and uninsured LARPing. "Look, we are NOT telling you to go
out and act this stuff out. If you do, it's at your own risk." Simply
saying that was considered legal cover. Whether or not it was is
another matter, but then the lameness of the TSR legal department is
legendary. (Who else would engage a personal injury firm to do a
contract/copyright suit?) Seriously, I think it wasn't IFGS or SCA that
worried them. They felt they needed protection from the parents of some
overly exuberant yougsters who might get carried away with the idea.
Ross W. Maker
Jeff Harris
In article <33B6F8...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com>, "J. McGuire"
<jmcg...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com> wrote:
> Interestingly enough, Dallas Egbert was *not* a regular D&D player --
> he'd apparently played only a handful of times, and wasn't particularly
> enthused about it -- and to the best of my knowledge, if anyone *was*
> actually doing anything at all in the campus steam tunnels (besides the
> usual serial killings and such that feature in every campus rumor) he
> did not participate.
>
Actual as far as anyone can tell Dallas never played D&D. The only reason
The D&D connection was made was that when Dallas went to the tunnels to
commit suicide he left a map so his body could be found. When it was found
some one remarked that it looked like a D&D map. Thats it, thats the whole
connection. Of course theres more to that story but I don't want to waste
bandwidth on it.
Jeff
Sean K Reynolds
J. McGuire (jmcg...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com) wrote:
>Sean K Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> TSR should be releasing a revised Code Of Ethics (to be called the
>> Standards For Content) later today.
>Haven't seen it yet. Is it still cribbed from the old Comics Code?
You be the judge. It's in the Info section of TSR's site.
--
Sean K Reynolds a.k.a. Veggie Boy skr...@netcom.com skr...@aol.com
In the desert/I saw a creature, naked, bestial
Who, squatting upon the ground, held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it. I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter - bitter," he answered; "But I like it
Because it is bitter/And because it is my heart." - Stephen Crane
Fenyx3204
> Interestingly enough, Dallas Egbert was *not* a regular D&D player --
> he'd apparently played only a handful of times, and wasn't particularly
> enthused about it -- and to the best of my knowledge, if anyone *was*
> actually doing anything at all in the campus steam tunnels (besides the
> usual serial killings and such that feature in every campus rumor) he
> did not participate.
You know that, I know that -- the entire NG knows RPGs aren't REALLY
Satan-spawn -- and TSR's Code of Ethics wasn't *for* us, it was designed
to minimize the bad press which they had received in the past.
Case in point, LARPing is far too easy to "expose" as "possession".
Justin Bacon
WorldWeaver
In article <33B7E7...@citilink.com>,
The underlying problem is the U.S. legal system, which basically allows
anyone to sue anybody over anything. The central tenet of U.S. liability
law is that no individual is responsible for his own actions, only those
of others. If I drive up into the Sierras, aim my car at the edge of a
precipice, and jam the gas, it ain't my fault. But the automobile
manufacturer is responsible for providing me with the car, CalTrans is
responsible for providing the roadway I drove to the cliff on and not
building guardrails out of neutronium to keep me from killing myself, the
National Weather Service is responsible for the atmosphere through which
my car plunges after I go off the edge, and the Forest Service must
accept liability for the tree my car hits an instant before I reach the
ground below. Oh, and of course the car manufacturer is responsible
again if the gas tank goes blooey.
But, under U.S. law, I am absolutely *not* responsible, in *any* way,
for what happens after I aim my car at a cliff and punch the accelerator.
Somewhere, somehow, there should have been a Good Fairy to save me!
As long as U.S. liability idiocy continues, we'll see Codes of Ethics
as companies engineer their products (including role-playing games) for
three year-olds, and probably LARPing will have to be done in rubber
rooms with padding and toy blocks, all so some court tapping its jury
pool from the Planet of the Apes doesn't rule that TSR is liable for some
kid killing someone with a d20.
--
WorldWeaver
Dungeon Master of NexGaea
Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/4571
email:b...@succeed.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Rob Sanders
>I think what the CoE was getting at was that TSR disapproved of poorly
>organized and uninsured LARPing. "Look, we are NOT telling you to go
>out and act this stuff out. If you do, it's at your own risk." Simply
I certainly agree with this....they certainly didn't want "Mazes and
Monsters" to become the public view of TSR.
>saying that was considered legal cover. Whether or not it was is
>another matter, but then the lameness of the TSR legal department is
>legendary. (Who else would engage a personal injury firm to do a
>contract/copyright suit?) Seriously, I think it wasn't IFGS or SCA that
>worried them. They felt they needed protection from the parents of some
>overly exuberant yougsters who might get carried away with the idea.
Agreed again. I guess I just can't figure why there was something on
LARPing in their "Code of Ethics" -- maybe in their writers'
guidelines or something, but it sure doesn't belong in a CoE :)
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
Bryan J. Maloney
> The underlying problem is the U.S. legal system, which basically allows
> anyone to sue anybody over anything. The central tenet of U.S. liability
> law is that no individual is responsible for his own actions, only those
So, you've never actually studied liability law, have you? While US law
preserves the right to sue, it does not guarantee the right to win every
suit. The problem is that frivolous cases are given hearing too often.
Tell me, how do you determine which people are full citizens and which
ones do not have the right to bring lawsuits? Access to redress by tort
has been the mark of full citizenship under the English system of common
law since Henry FitzEmpress (Henry II of England). US civil law is a
descendant of this system--and some states explicitly have it in their
legal codes that, unless otherwise decided by court or legislation,
English common law is the law of the land.
How do you decide who is and is not a full citizen?
Chaos Harlequin
Jay Robinson <Azm...@netcom.ca> penned the following words:
> I have just read these and I am pleased. I like the part about evil winning over good
>sometimes for the sake of a story. I never liked the old, "Good must always have a way to win."
Agreed. These are far and away better than the old Code of Ethics.
/---------------------------Joshua Hall-Bachner---------------------------\
| part...@servtech.com http://www.servtech.com/public/particle/ |
| "We all have our idiosyncracies -- maybe thinning hair, or gum disease."|
\---- Kowanko, "Will You Come To?" ------ Thank You, And Goodnight. ------/
WorldWeaver
In article <bjm10-01079...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> In article <8677185...@dejanews.com>, WorldWeaver <b...@succeed.net> wrote:
>
> > The underlying problem is the U.S. legal system, which basically allows
> > anyone to sue anybody over anything. The central tenet of U.S. liability
> > law is that no individual is responsible for his own actions, only those
>
> So, you've never actually studied liability law, have you? While US law
> preserves the right to sue, it does not guarantee the right to win every
> suit.
Ah, but in many cases the goal is not to "win". It is to force an
opponent into bankruptcy, or threaten him, or to make his life
uncomfortable. For instance, the thugs use liability law all the time to
intimidate homeowners. Don't fight back if someone breaks into your
home--he might sue you if you distract him and he stubs his toe. Make
sure those rapists and murderers in state prison have their
air-conditioning, weight rooms, and cable TV, and half a dozen other
creature comforts that working people have to earn for themselves, or
they might consider themselves abused and sue--and win!
And be sure your RPG has a disclaimer, so that some four-time loser
can't buy a D&D book, run amok, and then sue WotC and claim that "D&D
made me crazy!". The losers and criminals make it big off such lawsuits,
and the rest of us who work for a living pay higher prices for everything
(add 15% or so to the price of a hammer, to make up for lost profits
because someone sues Black and Decker and says, "WAAAA! That hurt! You
should have WARNED me that hitting myself in the head with a hammer would
hurt!"; the jury says "KA-CHING, $2 million for the plaintiff.")
Now, I'm not saying that people should NEVER be allowed to sue. If
someone is truly wronged, or if a company is deliberately negligent and
someone comes to harm through little or no fault of their own as a result
of this negligence, they have every right to seek compensation. My
complaint is that the concept of personal responsibility has been
completely abrogated. That's where the right-wing drumbeat of "D&D
FORCED ME TO ___________________" (fill in the blank with some horrible
deed) comes from.
Sooner or later, someone is going to sue WotC/TSR because some loser
figures out that he can buy a bunch of D&D books, go out and commit some
terrible crime, and then wail about how "D&D warped my mind!" Could they
win? Well, if they can stuff the jury box with enough morons (like that
ones that gave a gazillion bucks to a burglar who tripped and fell over
something while breaking into a woman's house to rob and rape her!) they
can get whatever verdict they want.
Everyone who works for a living pays for this abusive system in the
form of higher taxes, higher prices, more paperwork and bureaucracy, and
less freedom.
Brandon Myres
Fenyx3204 (feny...@aol.com) wrote:
: Satan-spawn -- and TSR's Code of Ethics wasn't *for* us, it was designed
: to minimize the bad press which they had received in the past.
But it's such a...well...WUSSY solution to the problem of bad press.
Why not hire the people who make all those feel-good commercials for
environment-destroying corporations such as Dow? Put spin-doctoring to
work for the cause of good instead of going on the defensive and virtually
admitting to being wrong.
Even if they didn't go to the extreme of making TV commercials (which
was way out of their budget anyway) they could have used more subtle ways
to turn the tide of bad press rather than creating some bullshit code of
ethics.
: Case in point, LARPing is far too easy to "expose" as "possession".
Yeah, maby on the 700 Club, but not on real TV. It's not even juicy
enough for the tabloids.
Ryan P Arndt
Jeff Harris wrote:
> Actual as far as anyone can tell Dallas never played D&D. The only reason
> The D&D connection was made was that when Dallas went to the tunnels to
> commit suicide he left a map so his body could be found. When it was found
> some one remarked that it looked like a D&D map. Thats it, thats the whole
> connection. Of course theres more to that story but I don't want to waste
> bandwidth on it.
> He was also involved in Live Role Play- and the connection between Role
Play in general was made and the media though D&D. This and that infamous
41 Minutes report a few years ago are the reasons TSR's CoE discourages
LARP.
Fenyx3204
> Even if they didn't go to the extreme of making TV commercials (which
> was way out of their budget anyway) they could have used more subtle
ways
> to turn the tide of bad press rather than creating some bullshit code of
> ethics.
Such as?
TSR's technique worked for many years. The instances of D&D "exposes"
being brought to national attention diminished and largely disappeared
during the '80s.
>: Case in point, LARPing is far too easy to "expose" as "possession".
> Yeah, maby on the 700 Club, but not on real TV. It's not even juicy
> enough for the tabloids.
Vampire has recently brought LARPing back into style -- and almost
simultaneously local news stations across the country started doing
exposes on this "sub-culture" (some stories were neutral, others were
negative -- largely depending on whether or not it was sweeps month).
The easiest way to avoid dealing with LARP-related bad press is to simply
not support LARP-related activities. Why should TSR fight a battle they
don't have to?
Justin Bacon
Bryan J. Maloney
> intimidate homeowners. Don't fight back if someone breaks into your
> home--he might sue you if you distract him and he stubs his toe. Make
Countersue. You have the right, and at my economic level, I have the same
access to legal aid as he would.
> because someone sues Black and Decker and says, "WAAAA! That hurt! You
> should have WARNED me that hitting myself in the head with a hammer would
> hurt!"; the jury says "KA-CHING, $2 million for the plaintiff.")
And the judge reduces the award by 99% or more--that's the part that never
makes it into the news...
> complaint is that the concept of personal responsibility has been
> completely abrogated. That's where the right-wing drumbeat of "D&D
This is true--but the recourse to the courts is merely a symptom, not a cause.
gri...@grfn.org
In article <19970707191...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
feny...@aol.com (Fenyx3204) wrote:
>
> > Even if they didn't go to the extreme of making TV commercials (which
> > was way out of their budget anyway) they could have used more subtle
> ways
> > to turn the tide of bad press rather than creating some bullshit code of
> > ethics.
>
> Such as?
Buying the right people would go a long way.
> TSR's technique worked for many years. The instances of D&D "exposes"
> being brought to national attention diminished and largely disappeared
> during the '80s.
Yeah, but to this day it has a bad name thanks to all of the virtually
uncombatted bad impressions.
> >: Case in point, LARPing is far too easy to "expose" as "possession".
>
> > Yeah, maby on the 700 Club, but not on real TV. It's not even juicy
> > enough for the tabloids.
>
> Vampire has recently brought LARPing back into style -- and almost
> simultaneously local news stations across the country started doing
> exposes on this "sub-culture" (some stories were neutral, others were
> negative -- largely depending on whether or not it was sweeps month).
Yes. I was talking about the specific example. "LARP possession"? The
only major network show that this would be appropriate for would be
Unsolved Mysteries--and from what little I've seen they wouldn't sink
this low.
> The easiest way to avoid dealing with LARP-related bad press is to simply
> not support LARP-related activities. Why should TSR fight a battle they
> don't have to?
Because it can make the difference between a keeping and losing
customers. The first to go are the people who were only buying TSR
products because they (in this hypothetical example) supported LARPing.
The second (and in real life, the much more devastating) loss is the
long-term effect that uncombatted bad press leaves on the psyche of the
general populace.
TSR never would have run into financial difficulties if they had taken a
tough stand against the lies that were being spread about their products
instead of letting it slide.
ThresholdMURPE
In article <8684330...@dejanews.com>, gri...@grfn.org wrote:
>TSR never would have run into financial difficulties if they had taken a
>tough stand against the lies that were being spread about their products
>instead of letting it slide.
This is probably true. However, since when has modern T$R had ANY CLUE about
public relations? We are talking about the company that jumped on some of its
most loyal customers like rabid dogs just because they put some of their house
materials on the net!
T$R felt Public Relations meant kowtowing to everyone's demands, getting rid
of Demons and Devils, and paying lip service to "we dont like evil players."
Well the fact is that no matter how many demands you bow down to, there are
going to be more demands, and more groups with newer gripes. T$R started down
a slippery slope of appeasement (hmmm WWII similarities anyone?) and
eventually it broke them.
Perhaps if they had stood up for their game and relied on their best argument:
"This is a game! This is imagination and creativity!" then we would have seen
meteoric growth of the game instead of a slow but steady decline.
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
Guilds: fighter/mage/thief/cleric/psion/bard/alchemist/shapeshifter
Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
http://www.athens.net/~aristotle/threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
telnet://mud.chelmsford.com -or- telnet mud.chelmsford.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rob Sanders
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>In article <8684330...@dejanews.com>, gri...@grfn.org wrote:
>>TSR never would have run into financial difficulties if they had taken a
>>tough stand against the lies that were being spread about their products
>>instead of letting it slide.
>
>This is probably true. However, since when has modern T$R had ANY CLUE about
>public relations? We are talking about the company that jumped on some of its
>most loyal customers like rabid dogs just because they put some of their house
>materials on the net!
*sigh* This is a blatant misrepresentation of facts. Any site that
could have considered to have been "jumped on like rabid dogs" had
flagrant copyright violations (artwork, scanned modules, that sort of
thing). I will agree that TSR has not been a public relations genius,
though.
>T$R felt Public Relations meant kowtowing to everyone's demands, getting rid
>of Demons and Devils, and paying lip service to "we dont like evil players."
That is good PR IMO....it doesn't affect your game, but that's one
less target for those who want to tear your game down. I doubt very
seriously if anyone demanded that TSR remove demons & devils from
AD&D. Rather, the anti-D&D crowd pointed to the fact that demons &
devils were in the game and said "Aha! Look at this!" That's gone
now, and all the while demons & devils continue their wretched little
existences in campaigns everywhere.
>Well the fact is that no matter how many demands you bow down to, there are
>going to be more demands, and more groups with newer gripes. T$R started down
>a slippery slope of appeasement (hmmm WWII similarities anyone?) and
>eventually it broke them.
>
>Perhaps if they had stood up for their game and relied on their best argument:
>"This is a game! This is imagination and creativity!" then we would have seen
>meteoric growth of the game instead of a slow but steady decline.
Do you have any numbers at all to back that statement? I freely admit
that I don't have any numbers that show an increase in PHB sales, but
I have yet to see you prove a decrease.
-----------
Rob Sanders
(remove .antispam from my email address to reply)
"Voom? Mate, this parrot wouldn't 'voom' if you put four million volts through it."
ThresholdMURPE
In article <33c4fdb2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
robsa...@mindspring.com.no.spam (Rob Sanders) wrote:
>That is good PR IMO....it doesn't affect your game, but that's one
>less target for those who want to tear your game down. I doubt very
>seriously if anyone demanded that TSR remove demons & devils from
>AD&D.
First of all, there were in fact a lot of religious groups that did exactly
that. Second, history has shown that it was in fact NOT a good PR move. T$R
alienated a huge percentage of its most loyal and mature gamers. Removing the
demons and devils was part of the move to an "ages 10 and up" game.
>>Perhaps if they had stood up for their game and relied on their best
>>argument: "This is a game! This is imagination and creativity!" then we
>>would have seen meteoric growth of the game instead of a slow but steady
>>decline.
>
>Do you have any numbers at all to back that statement? I freely admit
>that I don't have any numbers that show an increase in PHB sales, but
>I have yet to see you prove a decrease.
Um, T$R effectively went out of business. In the law, we call this "res ipsa
loquitor" or "the thing speaks for itself."
Rob Sanders
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>In article <33c4fdb2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
> robsa...@mindspring.com.no.spam (Rob Sanders) wrote:
>>That is good PR IMO....it doesn't affect your game, but that's one
>>less target for those who want to tear your game down. I doubt very
>>seriously if anyone demanded that TSR remove demons & devils from
>>AD&D.
>
>First of all, there were in fact a lot of religious groups that did exactly
Who?
>that. Second, history has shown that it was in fact NOT a good PR move. T$R
>alienated a huge percentage of its most loyal and mature gamers. Removing the
>demons and devils was part of the move to an "ages 10 and up" game.
You're back up to huge now, eh? Show me some numbers. Tell me just
how huge "huge" is. The mature gamers I play with were not alienated
by the change.
If 2nd edition is a move to "ages 10 and up," then why did the AD&D1
books say the exact same thing?
>>>Perhaps if they had stood up for their game and relied on their best
>>>argument: "This is a game! This is imagination and creativity!" then we
>>>would have seen meteoric growth of the game instead of a slow but steady
>>>decline.
>>
>>Do you have any numbers at all to back that statement? I freely admit
>>that I don't have any numbers that show an increase in PHB sales, but
>>I have yet to see you prove a decrease.
>
>Um, T$R effectively went out of business. In the law, we call this "res ipsa
>loquitor" or "the thing speaks for itself."
No, that just means TSR ran out of money. By all indications, they
were _not_ brought down by the AD&D line, but by a combination of
things, not the least of which were the novel lines.
NUELOW
Rob Sanders wrote:
>> The mature gamers I play with were not alienated
by the change. <<
That must be because you play with actual mature players. Mature people
can generally recognise a cosmetic change for what it is... and that's
what the renaming of "demons" and "devils" amounted to.
Steve Miller
Lawrence R. Mead
NUELOW (nue...@aol.com) wrote:
Hmmm. I think there was more than a cosmetic change. In addition to name
changes, most of the devils, demons, and daemons dissappered entirely
from the core monster manual too; the singular (and most interesting)
are missing as well, such as Demogorgon, Orcus, Asmodeus, et al. (oddly
the same happened to Tiamat and Bahamut the singular dragons). Thus,
one must purchase additional volumes to learn about these. Additionally,
the recognizable demons were considerably changed in power as well. The
former 'Balor' [nee Type VI demon, nee Balrog ] now wields a *vorpal*
sword, greatly enhancing its power.
While for newcomers these are not perhaps the problem that it is for
someone who had played for decades, and yes you had to choose what to
include and what to leave out in the MC, it is at best annoying to not
find familiar beasties present.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
E. Filson
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) writes:
>T$R
>alienated a huge percentage of its most loyal and mature gamers. Removing the
>demons and devils was part of the move to an "ages 10 and up" game.
If they were so mature, why did they urinate in their pants over a name
change? If they were so loyal, why didn't they shrug and simply use the
old names (hey, even you claim to ignore EGG's demands in another
thread... why do differently for others)?
dek
Patrick M. Berry
In article <5q1rs1$9...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) writes:
> Second, history has shown that it was in fact NOT a good PR move. T$R
> alienated a huge percentage of its most loyal and mature gamers.
I'd really love to see your factual basis for this statement. First of
all, exactly what constitutes a "huge percentage," and how was it measured?
Second, how do you determine which gamers are the most loyal and mature?
(Actually, since you're claiming that this sector of the market instantly
abandoned TSR the moment the demons and devils were eliminated, they would
seem to be the *least* loyal gamers. And possibly the least mature, if
you consider petty spitefulness to be a sign of immaturity.)
> >Do you have any numbers at all to back that statement? I freely admit
> >that I don't have any numbers that show an increase in PHB sales, but
> >I have yet to see you prove a decrease.
>
> Um, T$R effectively went out of business. In the law, we call this "res ipsa
> loquitor" or "the thing speaks for itself."
In logic, we call this "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," and it's a fallacy.
You're claiming that because B follows A, B must be caused by A. By that
reasoning, the WotC buyout caused the collision that damaged space station
Mir.
It *is* true that TSR (a) removed the demons and devils and (b) nearly went
bankrupt, but you have not offered *any* evidence of a causal relationship
between the two events. Do you have any?
Greg Volz
Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote in article
<5q32a0$m0t$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>...
: In article <5q1rs1$9...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, thre...@athens.net
(ThresholdMURPE) writes:
:
: > Second, history has shown that it was in fact NOT a good PR move. T$R
: > alienated a huge percentage of its most loyal and mature gamers.
:
:
:
: It *is* true that TSR (a) removed the demons and devils and (b) nearly
went
: bankrupt, but you have not offered *any* evidence of a causal
relationship
: between the two events. Do you have any?
I think that it was all a plot by the demons and devils because they were
getting too much PR. And when can a demon or devil really do it's nastiest
work? Definitely not in the open. They needed to be hidden so they could
corrupt from the inside.
I think it's time for my Stelazine and Lithium and I think Threshold should
take some too.
bye bye now.
Greg
Fenyx3204
>> > Even if they didn't go to the extreme of making TV commercials (which
>> > was way out of their budget anyway) they could have used more subtle
>> ways
>> > to turn the tide of bad press rather than creating some bullshit code
of
>> > ethics.
>>
>> Such as?
> Buying the right people would go a long way.
Who are these mysterious people who must be bought? The religious leaders
ranting about the game? Sweeps-obsessed station owners and networks? Who?
> Yeah, but to this day it has a bad name thanks to all of the virtually
> uncombatted bad impressions.
TSR did a lot of PR repair on this very issue (the Code of Ethics being
*part* of that PR) -- and they succeeded. Yeah, there's still bad
impressions. There were bad impressions of Rock 'n Roll in the '70s (and
even today). I'm not going to lose my hair over it, though.
> Yes. I was talking about the specific example. "LARP possession"? The
> only major network show that this would be appropriate for would be
> Unsolved Mysteries--and from what little I've seen they wouldn't sink
> this low.
Possession aside (and why on earth do you think major networks are the
only people who count? the mind boggles at the number of people who watch
the 700 Club and take it seriously), tabloid news shows (which are on the
rise, not the decline) come to mind as those who would grab hold of
anti-RPG stories. After all, it's something most people don't know a lot
about -- so it's relatively easy to run a scare-hype story with
mysteriously frightening commercials.
> Because it can make the difference between a keeping and losing
> customers. The first to go are the people who were only buying TSR
> products because they (in this hypothetical example) supported LARPing.
> The second (and in real life, the much more devastating) loss is the
> long-term effect that uncombatted bad press leaves on the psyche of the
> general populace.
TSR has never sold a LARP game. Ever. No, really, they never did. They
never lost any LARP customers because their games aren't LARPs.
And, to go back again, rock 'n roll never collapsed in on itself because
of the "bad impression left on the psyche". D&D ain't hurtin'.
> TSR never would have run into financial difficulties if they had taken a
> tough stand against the lies that were being spread about their products
> instead of letting it slide.
TSR never would have had financial difficulties if they hadn't mismanaged
their product lines. Bad press had nothing to do with it. Head over to
r.g.f.industry or at least read the posts on the subject here before
putting forth yet another (erroneous) theory on why TSR failed.
Justin Bacon
J. McGuire
E. Filson wrote:
>
> If they were so mature, why did they urinate in their pants over a name
> change? If they were so loyal, why didn't they shrug and simply use the
> old names (hey, even you claim to ignore EGG's demands in another
> thread... why do differently for others)?
We didn't "urinate in [our] pants" over over a name change, and we *did*
just keep using the old names. However, though I can't speak for anyone
else, I for one was disappointed, and somewhat angered, at TSR's
willingness to let a small group of radicals dictate their policies, and
even more so in their insistance at the time that they really weren't
knuckling under to the hysterical fringe. It was the fact that TSR was
more than willing to change a part, any part, of the game in a futile
attempt at appeasing the unappeasable that bothered me, and still does.
This is especially the case because it didn't do a thing to placate the
hystericals. Since most of them have never actually opened a D&D
rulebook anyway, TSR could have renamed demons to jellybeans and the
hystericals wouldn't have changed their tone one bit.
-- Jean
Wintertree Software | Remember to remove the spambot-blocker
http://www.io.com/~wtsoft | from my address before replying via email
THE BIG NEWS: Wintertree now takes credit cards! Plus, we just moved to
New Hampshire and redecorated the website! -- stop by for the details.
E. Filson
"J. McGuire" <jmcg...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com> writes:
>However, though I can't speak for anyone
>else, I for one was disappointed, and somewhat angered, at TSR's
>willingness to let a small group of radicals dictate their policies, and
>even more so in their insistance at the time that they really weren't
>knuckling under to the hysterical fringe. It was the fact that TSR was
>more than willing to change a part, any part, of the game in a futile
>attempt at appeasing the unappeasable that bothered me, and still does.
Well, I was disappointed too, more by the reduction in the number of
demons and devils. But the name change didn't affect me it all. In
truth, I used the name change since it (somewhat) reduced the
islamic-judeochristian connotations which came along with the silly
demonology used. I still use my MMII and players continue to laugh at
some of the pictures in the PS MC. Hell, I didn't buy the 2nd ed. monster
manual (or whatever it's called) until 2.5 years ago.
Nonetheless, I saw the name change for what it was and shrugged.
As far as it not stopping the hystericals, I just don't know. I haven't
seen as much villification of AD&D in recent years, but don't really watch
for such things. But at least we haven't seen a sequel to that television
move "Monsters and Mazes." :-)
dek
ThresholdMURPE
In article <19970710214...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
feny...@aol.com (Fenyx3204) wrote:
>TSR did a lot of PR repair on this very issue (the Code of Ethics being
>*part* of that PR) -- and they succeeded. Yeah, there's still bad
>impressions. There were bad impressions of Rock 'n Roll in the '70s (and
>even today). I'm not going to lose my hair over it, though.
How in the hell did they succeed? The company went belly up. That sounds like
failure to me.
>TSR never would have had financial difficulties if they hadn't mismanaged
>their product lines. Bad press had nothing to do with it
<heavy sarcasm>
Oh yeah. Alienating large portions of your consumer base doesn't affect your
company. Laugh.
</heavy sarcasm>
ThresholdMURPE
In article <33c57831...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
robsa...@mindspring.antispam.com (Rob Sanders) wrote:
>thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>If 2nd edition is a move to "ages 10 and up," then why did the AD&D1
>books say the exact same thing?
Why do you keep inventing this piece of information. Go get the original 1st
edition PH and DMs guide. No such age statements exist.
-Aristotle@Threshold
ThresholdMURPE
In article <efilson....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
efi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (E. Filson) wrote:
>thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) writes:
>
>>T$R
the
>>demons and devils was part of the move to an "ages 10 and up" game.
>
>change? If they were so loyal, why didn't they shrug and simply use the
>old names (hey, even you claim to ignore EGG's demands in another
>thread... why do differently for others)?
Urinated in their pants? Nice mature, intelligent, well reasoned response.
Not. The University of Iowa must be proud to have you. (laugh)
The pathetic kowtowing to the pressure of groups that would NEVER purchase a
single AD&D product no matter what you call the demons and devils was an
insult to the people that actually play the game.
As for why the loyal players didn't just grin and bear it: 1) Being loyal
doesn't mean you accept whatever crap T$R crams down the commercial pipeline.
2) Even loyal players could only take so much of T$R's alterting design to
cater to a dumbed down group of consumers.
Dave
E. Filson <efi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote in article
<efilson....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>...
| thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) writes:
|
| >T$R
| >alienated a huge percentage of its most loyal and mature gamers.
Removing the
| >demons and devils was part of the move to an "ages 10 and up" game.
|
| If they were so mature, why did they urinate in their pants over a name
| change? If they were so loyal, why didn't they shrug and simply use the
| old names (hey, even you claim to ignore EGG's demands in another
| thread... why do differently for others)?
Of course, you forget that we have a lot of people complaining about Gygax
and what's considered "Official" AD&D in all of those threads about his old
Dragon columns.. If TSR changes the names of demons and devils, then those
who stood by the old names would not be playing "Official" AD&D.
Apparently it is important to some people (but certainly not to me) that
what they're playing be construed as "Offical".
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Rob Sanders
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>>
>The pathetic kowtowing to the pressure of groups that would NEVER purchase a
>single AD&D product no matter what you call the demons and devils was an
But they could and did produce a _lot_ of negative publicity about the
game.
>insult to the people that actually play the game.
Didn't insult me or anyone I game with. Disappointed, maybe, but
that's a loooong way from insulted.
>As for why the loyal players didn't just grin and bear it: 1) Being loyal
>doesn't mean you accept whatever crap T$R crams down the commercial pipeline.
>2) Even loyal players could only take so much of T$R's alterting design to
>cater to a dumbed down group of consumers.
1) Now you're changing the subject. We're not talking about the
alleged crap that TSR now produces, we're talking about changing
demons and devils.
2) Define "dumbed down." I think that once again we have one of your
broad, sweeping statements that are based only your own prejudices.
Prediction of Threshold's reply: an attempt to prove that "loyal
players could only take so much" by saying something about TSR's
financial difficulties.
-----------
Rob Sanders
(replace "antispam" with "mindspring" to reply via email)
Rob Sanders
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>In article <19970710214...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> feny...@aol.com (Fenyx3204) wrote:
>
>>TSR did a lot of PR repair on this very issue (the Code of Ethics being
>>*part* of that PR) -- and they succeeded. Yeah, there's still bad
>>impressions. There were bad impressions of Rock 'n Roll in the '70s (and
>>even today). I'm not going to lose my hair over it, though.
>
>How in the hell did they succeed? The company went belly up. That sounds like
>failure to me.
He didn't say they succeeded as a business, they largely succeeded at
killing the negative publicity.
>>TSR never would have had financial difficulties if they hadn't mismanaged
>>their product lines. Bad press had nothing to do with it
>
><heavy sarcasm>
>Oh yeah. Alienating large portions of your consumer base doesn't affect your
>company. Laugh.
></heavy sarcasm>
<heavy sarcasm>
Witty response, oh Threshold of the mystical, undefined large portions
and huge percentages.
</heavy sarcasm>
Rob Sanders
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
But it's plastered all over the Unearthed Arcana and the MM II, which
_are_ 1st edition.
E. Filson
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) writes:
><heavy sarcasm>
>Oh yeah. Alienating large portions of your consumer base doesn't affect your
>company. Laugh.
></heavy sarcasm>
This has to be *at least* the twelfth time you've claimed that the numbers
of alienated customers are "large" or "huge". I'd like to join those
asking you to cite your sources. Put up or shut up as the cliche goes
(and please no whining about 1st amendment *again*).
dek
Alan D Kohler
In article <33C55F...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com>, jmcg...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com
says...
>
>E. Filson wrote:
>>
>> If they were so mature, why did they urinate in their pants over a name
>> change? If they were so loyal, why didn't they shrug and simply use the
>> old names (hey, even you claim to ignore EGG's demands in another
>> thread... why do differently for others)?
>
>else, I for one was disappointed, and somewhat angered, at TSR's
>willingness to let a small group of radicals dictate their policies, and
>even more so in their insistance at the time that they really weren't
>knuckling under to the hysterical fringe. It was the fact that TSR was
>more than willing to change a part, any part, of the game in a futile
>attempt at appeasing the unappeasable that bothered me, and still does.
>
>hystericals. Since most of them have never actually opened a D&D
>rulebook anyway, TSR could have renamed demons to jellybeans and the
>hystericals wouldn't have changed their tone one bit.
Though I don't exactly agree with the COE, nor do I have any sort of
information about its effectiveness, I think there is a small slice of the AD&D
population that benefited from it: those still under the roofs of their
parents. The name change is going to nothing to alter the position of the
extreme right religous nuts, but it will help young players with naive parents
that take what the nuts say to heart to actually CONVINCE them that there
aren't actually references to demonology in AD&D.
Of course, you and I know that planescape feinds are the same thing, but you &
I also know that there is no actual demon worship going on here.
--
SPAM FILTER NOTICE - REMOVE "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And
I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it."
Jack Handly, Deep Thoughts
Alan D Kohler
In article <5q3rc9$4...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, thre...@athens.net says...
>
>In article <33c57831...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
> robsa...@mindspring.antispam.com (Rob Sanders) wrote:
>>thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>>If 2nd edition is a move to "ages 10 and up," then why did the AD&D1
>>books say the exact same thing?
>
>Why do you keep inventing this piece of information. Go get the original 1st
>edition PH and DMs guide. No such age statements exist.
Once again: the newer printings DO have that on the cover. I've got one
sitting right here. Would you like me to scan the cover and email it to you?
gri...@grfn.org
>
> Who are these mysterious people who must be bought? The religious leaders
> ranting about the game? Sweeps-obsessed station owners and networks? Who?
The religious leaders are just fringe--not worth the time in most cases.
Station owners? Please. Networks...now you're talking.
But you just keep on living in your happy little world where such deals
don't exist.
> TSR did a lot of PR repair on this very issue (the Code of Ethics being
> *part* of that PR) -- and they succeeded. Yeah, there's still bad
What strange new definition of "sucessful PR repair" is this? I'm sorry,
but far too many people I talk too still think "D&D" is for freaks only.
> impressions. There were bad impressions of Rock 'n Roll in the '70s (and
> even today). I'm not going to lose my hair over it, though.
Maby if TSR had even half the audience that Rock 'n Roll does (or did in
the '70s for that matter) this would be relevant.
> > Yes. I was talking about the specific example. "LARP possession"? The
> > only major network show that this would be appropriate for would be
> > Unsolved Mysteries--and from what little I've seen they wouldn't sink
> > this low.
>
> Possession aside (and why on earth do you think major networks are the
> only people who count? the mind boggles at the number of people who watch
The people who take the 700 Club seriously are NOTHING compared to the
people who tune in for prime time TV on their favorite major network
affiliate every night.
> > Because it can make the difference between a keeping and losing
> > customers. The first to go are the people who were only buying TSR
> > products because they (in this hypothetical example) supported LARPing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > The second (and in real life, the much more devastating) loss is the
> > long-term effect that uncombatted bad press leaves on the psyche of the
> > general populace.
>
> TSR has never sold a LARP game. Ever. No, really, they never did. They
> never lost any LARP customers because their games aren't LARPs.
Keep working on your reading comprehension skills.
> And, to go back again, rock 'n roll never collapsed in on itself because
> of the "bad impression left on the psyche". D&D ain't hurtin'.
Neither has Microsoft for that matter.
> > TSR never would have run into financial difficulties if they had taken a
> > tough stand against the lies that were being spread about their products
> > instead of letting it slide.
>
> TSR never would have had financial difficulties if they hadn't mismanaged
> their product lines. Bad press had nothing to do with it. Head over to
It's all about money. More players = more money. More money means that
the product lines can be managed the way they were without bankrupting
the company.
ThresholdMURPE
In article <33c577ed...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
robsa...@antispam.com (Rob Sanders) wrote:
>thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>>Why do you keep inventing this piece of information. Go get the original 1st
>>edition PH and DMs guide. No such age statements exist.
>
>_are_ 1st edition.
>
Okay. Maybe I should say this slower:
Go
get
the
original
1st
edition
Players Handbook
and
DMs GUide.
No
such
age
statement
exists.
Thank you for reading for content.
-Aristotle@Threshold
ThresholdMURPE
In article <33c77a47...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
>>like failure to me.
>
>He didn't say they succeeded as a business, they largely succeeded at
>killing the negative publicity.
They succeeded? Then why do the SAME GROUPS still consider AD&D to be a
satanic game? They didn't kill ANY of the negative publicity. Here is a number
for you Rob: Amount of negative publicity killed: 0.
Happy?
>><heavy sarcasm>
>>Oh yeah. Alienating large portions of your consumer base doesn't affect your
>>company. Laugh.
>></heavy sarcasm>
>
><heavy sarcasm>
>Witty response, oh Threshold of the mystical, undefined large portions
>and huge percentages.
></heavy sarcasm>
Rob, *chuckle*. That made no sense. Laugh.
-Aristotle@Threshold
ThresholdMURPE
>of alienated customers are "large" or "huge". I'd like to join those
>asking you to cite your sources. Put up or shut up as the cliche goes
>(and please no whining about 1st amendment *again*).
>
>dek
Hey Dekhead, the company went belly up. Think losing customers had anything to
do with it? Very likely. Duh. Take some economics. Less customers = less
sales.
Read the newsgroup man. Notice how many people say such acts of T$R alienated
them. Pay attention and it isn't that difficult to see reality.
NUELOW
Aristotle wrote:
>> Hey Dekhead, the company went belly up. Think losing customers had
anything to
do with it? Very likely. Duh. Take some economics. Less customers = less
sales. <<
Hey, asshole, have you noticed that sales are down across the RPG field?
With your immense inside track and all the figures you apparently have
access to, you must then know that every company around is being run by
evil corporate dicks, huh?
Steve Miller
Patrick M. Berry
> The pathetic kowtowing to the pressure of groups that would NEVER purchase a
> single AD&D product no matter what you call the demons and devils was an
> insult to the people that actually play the game.
Please don't pretend to speak for anyone but yourself. I've been playing
the game since 1978, and I wasn't insulted by the action you refer to.
> As for why the loyal players didn't just grin and bear it: 1) Being loyal
> doesn't mean you accept whatever crap T$R crams down the commercial pipeline.
> 2) Even loyal players could only take so much of T$R's alterting design to
> cater to a dumbed down group of consumers.
In other words: 1) Players who don't agree with you aren't loyal; they just
take whatever crap TSR gives them. 2) Players who don't agree with you are
dumb.
If you display that kind of contempt and intolerance for opinions that
differ from yours, why do you expect anyone to respect *your* opinion?
Patrick M. Berry
> >TSR did a lot of PR repair on this very issue (the Code of Ethics being
> >*part* of that PR) -- and they succeeded. Yeah, there's still bad
> >impressions. There were bad impressions of Rock 'n Roll in the '70s (and
> >even today). I'm not going to lose my hair over it, though.
>
> How in the hell did they succeed? The company went belly up. That sounds like
> failure to me.
Your reasoning, apparently, is that since TSR went broke, everything they
ever did must have been a mistake. Unfortunately for your theory, that
includes publishing the materials that included the demons and devils in
the first place.
No? You're only saying that *some* of TSR's actions were mistakes? Fine.
Then explain to us, please, how you determine *which ones*.
> <heavy sarcasm>
> Oh yeah. Alienating large portions of your consumer base doesn't affect your
> company. Laugh.
> </heavy sarcasm>
This would be an effective argument *if* you had ever established that
TSR *did* alienate a large portion of its consumer base. But you have
entirely failed to do this. Repeating the claim over and over does not
make it true. If you want to be taken seriously, present some evidence
to back up your claim.
Patrick M. Berry
In article <33C55F...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com>, "J. McGuire" <jmcg...@wtsoft.REMOVE.ME.com> writes:
> E. Filson wrote:
> >
> > If they were so mature, why did they urinate in their pants over a name
> > change? If they were so loyal, why didn't they shrug and simply use the
> > old names (hey, even you claim to ignore EGG's demands in another
> > thread... why do differently for others)?
>
> We didn't "urinate in [our] pants" over over a name change, and we *did*
> just keep using the old names. However, though I can't speak for anyone
> else, I for one was disappointed, and somewhat angered, at TSR's
> willingness to let a small group of radicals dictate their policies, and
> even more so in their insistance at the time that they really weren't
> knuckling under to the hysterical fringe. It was the fact that TSR was
> more than willing to change a part, any part, of the game in a futile
> attempt at appeasing the unappeasable that bothered me, and still does.
ThresholdMURPE, are you listening? Jean feels the same way you do about
the removal of demons and devils from AD&D materials. But she doesn't
waste her time on insults and epithets. Instead, she writes a clear,
coherent, and *polite* explanation of *why* she feels that way. Her
response is presented not as an attack on TSR, but as a sober analysis of
why the action in question was not ultimately in the best interests of
the company.
TSR employees who read her response may or may not agree with what she
has to say, but there's a good chance that they'll give her comment
serious consideration. Why? Because she's treating them with respect,
while still expressing her anger and dissatisfaction with what the
company once did. She's expressing her opinion -- but she's doing it
in a courteous and mature way, without resorting to the use of "T$R" or
other childish tactics. She doesn't make vague, grandiose claims about
TSR's market share and then fail to provide any numbers to back them up.
And notice that she's careful to state that she doesn't speak for
anyone but herself.
You could learn a lot from this lady, Threshold. She knows how to be
taken seriously. When people say "grow up," this is what they mean.
Roger Christie
ThresholdMURPE wrote:
>
> Hey Dekhead, the company went belly up. Think losing customers had anything to
> do with it? Very likely. Duh. Take some economics. Less customers = less
> sales.
>
> them. Pay attention and it isn't that difficult to see reality.
You think just maybe there being a plethora of better, more
intersting games on the market had something to do
with it?
Fenyx3204
thre...@athens.net wrote:
> How in the hell did they succeed? The company went belly up. That sounds
like
> failure to me.
You know, I really enjoyed hearing that TSR had been sold to WotC . . .
until I met you. Do you know how *sick* I have gotten of hearing "nothing
TSR has done [since 1st edition/Gygax left/whatever] was successful
because they went belly-up"?
How many times do you need to be told that the failure had nothing to do
with the xD&D product line? That 1st editioners/frustrated gamers/netter
outrage did not noticeably effect product sales? That the problems TSR
faced were managerial and related to non-D&D product lines?
How was TSR successful (at defeating negative publicity against D&D)? The
fact that the negative publicity *went away*.
> Oh yeah. Alienating large portions of your consumer base doesn't affect
your
> company. Laugh.
Is it large or huge? What "large portions" are we talking about? 1st
edition players are as rare as the hills (although as plentiful as weeds
in this particular newsgroup). Boycotting netters? How many are we talking
here? Is this despite the on-line poll stating just how few people
*actually* boycotted TSR?
In addition, I don't have numbers, but I do have reliable sources which
tell me that the xD&D core rule sales numbers weren't declining (I am
unclear as to whether they were holding steady or rising).
To me this fact seem to indicate that TSR's "downfall" has nothing to do
with a failure of the xD&D line. What do they indicate to you?
OTOH, what facts do *you* have to back up your preposterous claims? Any? I
don't actually expect any. I expect vituperative bile, bland assertions,
and illogical attacks. But, please, surprise me.
Justin Bacon
Fenyx3204
thre...@athens.net wrote:
> Hey Dekhead, the company went belly up. Think losing customers had
anything
> to do with it? Very likely. Duh. Take some economics. Less customers =
less
> sales.
Once again you have posted assertion without fact. There are, in fact,
many reasons why companies fail. They all have to do with lack of money,
but that's about the only constant.
Less customers = less sales. Yes, if you fail to adjust yourself to less
customers you will fails as a business.
But, if you are manufacturing more products and your customers stay a
constant -- you fail.
If you're doing fine but then one day decide to buy Porsches for every
single one of your employees, you're probably going to be in trouble if
you're in the role-playing business.
If you try to expand your market, but those new products fail to attract
customers or if you fail to enter that market correctly -- you may fail if
you overextend.
It is this last one which befell TSR. Their customer base (as far as I
know) was not shrinking. In fact, it may have been growing -- I dunno.
(see previous post) However, they kept sinking capital into projects dead
in the water -- Amazing Engine, Buck Rogers, the failed/returned novels,
etc.
Did losing customers have anything to do with TSR's fall? Doesn't look
that way.
> Read the newsgroup man. Notice how many people say such acts of T$R
> alienated them. Pay attention and it isn't that difficult to see
reality.
I've seen a number of such people. Again you seem to think this NG is the
center of the role-playing world. I've also seen one person say over and
over and over again how this mysterious alienation-factor put the nails in
TSR's coffin.
I have yet to see the facts behind this claim.
Justin Bacon
Tim Breen
> With your immense inside track and all the figures you apparently have
> access to, you must then know that every company around is being run by
> evil corporate dicks, huh?
Evil Corporate Dick seeks cushy employment running FRP gaming company.
Requirements:
Position must offer enourmous salary plus incentive bonuses, the
opportunity to completely redesign game rules, settings and supplements
in order to alienate the largest possible audience, and access to the
executive sauna.
Applicant willing to quit gaming in order to further these goals.
Please reply in email, or send offers to:
ECD Wanted
1313 Munnygrubber Lane
$eattle, WA 02BAG0D
Sincere replies from principles only, please.
-- Tim
Personal: http://personalweb.lightside.com/Pfiles/breen1.html
Gaming: http://www.rpga.org/Home.html
To subscribe to the RPGA-Talk mailing list, send a blank message to
requ...@lists.consultantalliance.com with a subject of "subscribe
RPGA-Talk" (no quotes).
Fenyx3204
ber...@aur.alcatel.com (Patrick M. Berry) wrote:
> No? You're only saying that *some* of TSR's actions were mistakes?
Fine.
> Then explain to us, please, how you determine *which ones*.
Heck, I thought that was obvious. Whichever action he didn't like, happens
to be arguing against, or wants to disprove are the ones which "did the
deed".
Justin Bacon
E. Filson
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) writes:
>In article <efilson....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> efi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (E. Filson) wrote:
>>This has to be *at least* the twelfth time you've claimed that the numbers
>>of alienated customers are "large" or "huge". I'd like to join those
>>asking you to cite your sources. Put up or shut up as the cliche goes
>>(and please no whining about 1st amendment *again*).
>>
>>dek
>Hey Dekhead, the company went belly up. Think losing customers had anything to
>do with it? Very likely. Duh. Take some economics. Less customers = less
>sales.
Poor Threshold :-( resorting to name calling. I asked for a citation
there, sir, where is it? Do conceive of yourself as some all-truth
speaking diety?
>Pay attention and it isn't that difficult to see reality.
You have my attention, cite your source (and please, not an "It's so
obvious, why can't you see it?", the common currency of demagogues).
dek
Ryan P Arndt
ThresholdMURPE wrote:
>
> They succeeded? Then why do the SAME GROUPS still consider AD&D to be a
> satanic game? They didn't kill ANY of the negative publicity. Here is a number
> for you Rob: Amount of negative publicity killed: 0.
>
> Happy?
still consider AD&D to be satanic, but the media no longer consider this
newsworthy. They failed to change the views of their opponents (not that
that would have been possible anyway) but succeeded in stopping them
spreading anti-TSR publicity in the mainstream media.
Taraqual
>>thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>>If 2nd edition is a move to "ages 10 and up," then why did the AD&D1
>>books say the exact same thing?
>
>Why do you keep inventing this piece of information. Go get the original
1st
>edition PH and DMs guide. No such age statements exist.
>
>
Wow, we must be inventing it. After all, my 1st ed Player's and
DMG (not to mention UA, Deities and Demigods, and OA) all have
the statement "ages 10 and up." Must be my imagination, yes?
D&D of any kind has always been marketed so that kids get
into it as well. Yes, Gygax's writing is pretty challenging, even
for a B.A. in English (which I am, and it's not challenging
'cause it's too intelligent, it's challenging because it is UNCLEAR and
CLUTTERED). 1st edition is mostly being played by a slightly older
crowd mostly because you're the ones who remember it. But your
constant insistence that 2nd edition is a "kid's game" is getting
really aggravating. It's game kids can play, and it's a game adults
can play. Get over yourself, Aristotle.
Taraqual
"Knowledge is just opinion that you trust
enough to act upon." Orson Scott Card,
_Children of the Mind_
Ryan P Arndt
J. McGuire wrote:
> We didn't "urinate in [our] pants" over over a name change, and we *did*
> just keep using the old names. However, though I can't speak for anyone
> else, I for one was disappointed, and somewhat angered, at TSR's
> willingness to let a small group of radicals dictate their policies, and
> even more so in their insistance at the time that they really weren't
> knuckling under to the hysterical fringe. It was the fact that TSR was
> more than willing to change a part, any part, of the game in a futile
> attempt at appeasing the unappeasable that bothered me, and still does.
>The problem is that this "small group of radicals" could very easily have
grown to include most Christains. Only a couple of weeks ago the Southern
Baptists (sp?) decided to boycott Disney because Ellen is a lesbian. I
don't know exactly how big this church is in the US, but if all the
followers of a major religion suddenly boycott your product then you have
a major hole in your market.
True, most of the gamers I know are not Christian, and probably wouldn't
care if church leaders suddenly said "Don't go near Dungeons and
Dragons." But then you have the parents of young gamers worried about
Satanism, and won't let there kids play. You get people blockading shops
which sell D&D, or at least telling people not to shop there "because the
owner is a Satanist..."
This is obviously the worst case scenario, but the threat to TSR, there
sales, and the retailers, was very real. TSR handled it very well to
avoid it escallating inot anything like what I just described.
> This is especially the case because it didn't do a thing to placate the
> hystericals. Since most of them have never actually opened a D&D
> rulebook anyway, TSR could have renamed demons to jellybeans and the
> hystericals wouldn't have changed their tone one bit.
>Are you trying to imply that walking Jellybeans are less Satanic than the
word "devil"?
Jeremy Reaban
Actually, I think the potential effect of the religious right on
sales of AD&D is the opposite what the standard line is. Controversy is
good for sales. For some good examples, look in the music industry. Take 2
live crew - there music isn't very good, and weren't really big sellers.
But then came the controversy, and boom, their albums went platinum. The
same could be said of the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie - I read it, and
thought it was boring and not particulary interesting. But thanks to the
bounty on his head, a fairly unknown author was catipulted into the
spotlight and into higher book sales.
Anyway, I don't think it's that big a deal these days. For instance,
there's an amazingly evil RPG for the Sony Playstation, called Tecmo's
Deception. In the game, you play the role of a Prince, who's made a deal
with the Devil to get revenge on your character's brother (who murdered
your father, and framed you for it). In the game, you have to kill various
good people, and sacrifice them to the devil. And what happens to your
character's fiance is downright disturbing. Yet, this game was never
mentioned by the RR, nor was it brought up in the Senate's commitee on
violence in video and computer games.
Ryan P Arndt <earn...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au> wrote in article
<33C8E4...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au>...
<snip>
Ryan P Arndt
Jeremy Reaban wrote:
>
> Actually, I think the potential effect of the religious right on
> sales of AD&D is the opposite what the standard line is. Controversy is
> good for sales. For some good examples, look in the music industry. Take 2
> live crew - there music isn't very good, and weren't really big sellers.
> But then came the controversy, and boom, their albums went platinum. The
> same could be said of the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie - I read it, and
> thought it was boring and not particulary interesting. But thanks to the
> bounty on his head, a fairly unknown author was catipulted into the
> spotlight and into higher book sales.
another, and most of the publicity around Salman Rushdie was "A group of
Islamic Fundamentalists want him dead." No one pays any attention to a
person or persons denouncing someone everyone does.
For example: Gun control. When a madman kills a couple of dozen people
with an Assault Rifle, some people call for gun control and, in the case
of Australia and the UK, get it. The media is able to push for it and the
government able to deliver because the majority of people are not gun
owners. However when a similar number of people are killed in a bus or
plane crash the thought of banning busses or planes never enters anyone's
mind.
The same would be true about D&D. It is played by a relatively small
section of the community: mostly by males aged 12-20 (The so-called
"impressionable" age group). Brewing up a storm and trying to ban D&D
would be far easier then trying to ban Scrabble or Chess.
Rob Alexander
In article <5q59u0$h...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, ThresholdMURPE
<thre...@athens.net> writes
>Go
>get
>the
>original
>1st
>edition
>and
>DMs GUide.
>No
>such
>age
>statement
>exists.
However, the later version of the 1st Edition PHB and DMG, the ones with
the new covers, do contain the statement in question. Both were produced
long before the 2nd Edition Game.
--
Rob Alexander Remove NOSPAM to reply
Wise man say: Better to light a candle,
than to curse the dark.
Patrick M. Berry
In article <5q5a8v$h...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) writes:
> In article <efilson....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> efi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (E. Filson) wrote:
> >This has to be *at least* the twelfth time you've claimed that the numbers
> >of alienated customers are "large" or "huge". I'd like to join those
> >asking you to cite your sources. Put up or shut up as the cliche goes
> >(and please no whining about 1st amendment *again*).
> >
> >dek
>
> Hey Dekhead, the company went belly up. Think losing customers had anything to
> do with it? Very likely. Duh. Take some economics. Less customers = less
> sales.
First of all, are you prepared to back up your assertion with some sales
figures for TSR for the period in question?
Second, fewer customers does not necessarily mean lower sales volume.
If TSR loses a third of its customers, but the remaining ones double
their orders, TSR will end up selling more product.
Third, your arguments would carry more weight if you could bring
yourself to refrain from name-calling. "Dekhead," is particularly
damaging to your credibility, since it isn't even clever. Simply
tacking "head" onto your opponent's name is the sort of insult normally
associated with second-grade schoolchildren.
> Read the newsgroup man. Notice how many people say such acts of T$R alienated
> them. Pay attention and it isn't that difficult to see reality.
First, newsgroups are not reality. They are the opinions of a small,
non-representative fraction of the population. Basing your assessments
on what you see here is self-delusion, pure and simple.
Second, it's easy for people to *say* that TSR's actions alienated them.
But that isn't proof that they actually altered their purchasing habits
as a result. If you want to convince anyone, you'll provide some
verifiable sales figures to back up your claim.
Third, quite a few people are also saying that TSR's actions did *not*
alienate them. If you're going to cite the newsgroup as your evidence,
you should recognize *all* of the posts on this subject, not just the
ones that happen to agree with you.
Patrick M. Berry
>The problem is that this "small group of radicals" could very easily have
> grown to include most Christains. Only a couple of weeks ago the Southern
> Baptists (sp?) decided to boycott Disney because Ellen is a lesbian. I
> don't know exactly how big this church is in the US, but if all the
> followers of a major religion suddenly boycott your product then you have
> a major hole in your market.
The danger isn't a boycott -- it's a wave of hysteria that turns into a
witch hunt. We're witnessing exactly that phenomenon right now in the
U.S. The tobacco industry, which sells a legal product to customers who
choose to buy it, is under attack by people whose clear goal is to
drive the tobacco companies into bankruptcy. In order to do this, they
first had to demonize the tobacco companies in the eyes of the public so
that no one would dare to defend them.
Now, I know I'm going to get angry e-mail from people who don't like
tobacco, but they're missing the point. I don't like it either; I
don't smoke, and I hate inhaling other people's smoke. But tobacco is
not the greatest menace facing the country today; it isn't nearly as
dangerous as alcohol, or automobiles, or fatty fast-food hamburgers.
But none of that matters, because the people behind the anti-tobacco
crusade have skillfully engineered a public climate so hostile to
tobacco -- out of all proportion to the actual risks involved -- that
no one dares object to the crusade against it.
The key tactic in the anti-tobacco campaign was to portray it as a
menace to children. This is exactly what happened to the comic-book
publishers in the 1950s, and the anti-D&D crusaders tried to use it
again to attack TSR. Once people are convinced that you're out to
harm their children, emotion takes over. Rational debate is no longer
possible. If you let matters reach that point, you've already lost.
TSR acted to head off that threat. It may be fashionable to attack
them for their "cowardice" in "caving in" to the people behind the
anti-D&D crusade, but TSR and AD&D still exist as a result. If the
crusade has succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-D&D hysteria
(which was certainly their goal), TSR would have been destroyed --
along with most of the gaming industry.
By way of contrast, the U.S. tobacco industry waited until it was too
late, and now there's no hope for them. They're doomed.
Patrick M. Berry
In article <01bc8f5a$f745b2e0$6d6803d0@jer>, "Jeremy Reaban" <j...@XXXinlink.com> writes:
> Actually, I think the potential effect of the religious right on
> sales of AD&D is the opposite what the standard line is. Controversy is
> good for sales. For some good examples, look in the music industry. Take 2
> live crew - there music isn't very good, and weren't really big sellers.
> But then came the controversy, and boom, their albums went platinum. The
> same could be said of the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie - I read it, and
> thought it was boring and not particulary interesting. But thanks to the
> bounty on his head, a fairly unknown author was catipulted into the
> spotlight and into higher book sales.
Not in his native country, or among those who shared the religious
background of those who banned his book and sentenced him to death.
Only among foreigners and infidels did his book become widely read.
For TSR, what does that translate into? Currently, non-US sales make
up only 10-20% of TSR's sales. If US sales plummet, the company is
dead, regardless of what people in other countries do. If a wave of
religious hysteria against TSR occurred, it would most definitely *not*
be good for sales in the country, and that's all that matters.
Aardy R. DeVarque
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>In article <efilson....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> efi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (E. Filson) wrote:
>>This has to be *at least* the twelfth time you've claimed that the numbers
>>of alienated customers are "large" or "huge". I'd like to join those
>>asking you to cite your sources. Put up or shut up as the cliche goes
>>(and please no whining about 1st amendment *again*).
>>
>>dek
>
>Hey Dekhead, the company went belly up. Think losing customers had anything to
>do with it? Very likely. Duh. Take some economics. Less customers = less
>sales.
TSR's AD&D sales were depressed about the same amount as *every* RPG company
(in fact, Sean posted here not too long ago that TSR's AD&D sales had
*risen* quite a bit over the last four years). If you have proof otherwise,
I'd like to see it. But of course, all you have is proof by assertion,
which is no proof at all.
In fact, AD&D products still managed to fly off shelves and end up on "top
sellers for the month" lists *during the time that TSR was not shipping
anything*!
Yep, TSR alienated so many of their customers so much that those customers
kept on buying AD&D products long after TSR completely stopped shipping
them. There goes the argument that TSR's money problems were directly
linked to lack of sales of modules & sourcebooks.
TSR got burned _bad_ by returnable merchandise that may have been regionally
popular only (From what I've heard, Spellfire & Dragon Dice sell better than
M:tG in some regional markets), or for which they overestimated the market
of.
TSR got burned by new games failing to take off into the stratosphere.
TSR got burned by not-so-hot money management by the administration.
TSR was not hurting for an AD&D customer base, by all reports I've seen.
(Possibly in part due to being one of the few companies specifically
targeting the introductory crowd, but that's only conjecture on my part.)
>Read the newsgroup man. Notice how many people say such acts of T$R alienated
>them. Pay attention and it isn't that difficult to see reality.
Alienated != convinced them to boycott TSR.
I'd estimate, from the number of "I'm never buying from TSR/cutting back my
buying" comments that gave the net.policy or CoE as a reason, and factoring
in the gaming groups of those people, that TSR lost maybe 50-150 customers.
Out of quite a few *thousand* AD&D customers. A fractional percentage;
barely a blip on TSR-marketing's monitors.
Unless, of course, you have proof otherwise, which you quite obviously
don't.
Aristotle, YHL. HAND. Now help everyone else have a nice day as well and
shut the hell up about TSR's failings and get back to discussing how fun the
game can be. *Those* posts from you are actually quite enjoyable to read,
and are probably the only reason more of the group hasn't killfiled you
already.
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Aardy R. DeVarque
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
> robsa...@mindspring.antispam.com (Rob Sanders) wrote:
>>thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>>If 2nd edition is a move to "ages 10 and up," then why did the AD&D1
>>books say the exact same thing?
>
It was on most of the supplemental books, and was included on the reprints
of the PH & DMG.
In any case, if AD&D1 simply was not for pre-teens, how come so many of us
got started playing while under the age of 12? I started at age 9-10
myself, and that's considered *late* in some circles.
(Hint: it helps to argue about the correct subjects; in this case, there's a
world of difference between "target audience" and "recommended player age".
If you had stuck with the former, then you would have had grist for the ol'
discussion mill, especially considering Mr. Adkison's comments along those
lines). However, since you tried to use the latter to prove the former, you
merely shot yourself in the foot and did more to disprove your point than
anything else.)
Aardy
F=S+T
David R. Henry
Aardy R. DeVarque writes:
>>Rob, *chuckle*. That made no sense. Laugh.
>
>Figures that you wouldn't get it. You're not anywhere *near* living up to
>your namesake, Aristotle. Try "Sophist" instead and you'll be a bit closer.
C'mon, Beloved-Of-Kate. Calling HIM a Sophist is a disservice to sophism.
Y'know it as well as I.
--
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Lion Clan Technomonarchist
What was the question? --Kate Bush
David R. Henry
Aardy R. DeVarque writes:
>Aristotle, YHL. HAND. Now help everyone else have a nice day as well and
>shut the hell up about TSR's failings and get back to discussing how fun the
>game can be.
Foul! What about those of us who think the best way of having fun with AD&D
is talking about TSR's failings?
WorldWeaver
In article <5qdisg$3qb$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>,
ber...@aur.alcatel.com wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> TSR acted to head off that threat. It may be fashionable to attack
> them for their "cowardice" in "caving in" to the people behind the
> anti-D&D crusade, but TSR and AD&D still exist as a result. If the
> crusade has succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-D&D hysteria
> (which was certainly their goal), TSR would have been destroyed --
> along with most of the gaming industry.
I agree. It's sad, but true. However, I'm not so sure it will be true
for much longer. In the coming years as more and more people move
online, suppressing *anything*, including RPGs, will become increasingly
difficult. When anyone can publish, shutting down a couple of big
publishers will be a useless gesture.
> By way of contrast, the U.S. tobacco industry waited until it was too
> late, and now there's no hope for them. They're doomed.
Actually, I think they'll do fine. They'll lose some money, but they
will just market their products outside the U.S. (where American tobacco
is in great demand).
--
WorldWeaver
Dungeon Master of NexGaea
Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/4571
email:b...@succeed.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Aardy R. DeVarque
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote:
>In article <33c77a47...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
>>>like failure to me.
>>
>>killing the negative publicity.
>They succeeded? Then why do the SAME GROUPS still consider AD&D to be a
>satanic game? They didn't kill ANY of the negative publicity. Here is a number
>for you Rob: Amount of negative publicity killed: 0.
Has anyone read any recent (say, within the last "5+" years or so, to quote
Aristotle) articles in the NYT that quote Pat Pulling and/or BADD? No?
Gee--TSR must've done *something* right...
'Sides, with TSR keeping a low profile on AD&D, M:tG & V:tM have become the
Satanic Influences of choice in the media. That counts for more than you
might think-- without active vilification in the press, it's a little easier
to convince "the normals" that playing AD&D isn't such a bad habit after
all.
>Happy?
Yes, quite. Nice to see you thrive on your consistency.
>>><heavy sarcasm>
>>>Oh yeah. Alienating large portions of your consumer base doesn't affect your
>>>company. Laugh.
>>></heavy sarcasm>
>>
>><heavy sarcasm>
>>Witty response, oh Threshold of the mystical, undefined large portions
>>and huge percentages.
>></heavy sarcasm>
>
>Rob, *chuckle*. That made no sense. Laugh.
Figures that you wouldn't get it. You're not anywhere *near* living up to
your namesake, Aristotle. Try "Sophist" instead and you'll be a bit closer.
Quick clue: Clarify "large portions" and provide some evidence for that
clarification besides proof by assertion, since assertion isn't enough to
prove *ANYTHING*. No proof? Then there's no reason to believe your
conclusions that rely on such evidence. You thus have no leg to stand on
and you have once again lost.
No one, aside from the denizens of your own personal pipe dream, believes
that TSR's Code of Ethics alienated a statistically significant portion of
TSR's entire active customer base...that is, unless you have some hard
evidence to the contrary.
Triaxm'l
> Quick clue: Clarify "large portions" and provide some evidence for that
> clarification besides proof by assertion, since assertion isn't enough to
> prove *ANYTHING*. No proof? Then there's no reason to believe your
> conclusions that rely on such evidence. You thus have no leg to stand on
> and you have once again lost.
>
> No one, aside from the denizens of your own personal pipe dream, believes
> that TSR's Code of Ethics alienated a statistically significant portion
of
> TSR's entire active customer base...that is, unless you have some hard
> evidence to the contrary.
I have a minor point of view to insert here, about TSR's COE affecting my
purchases. It didn't and still doesn't. I had never even heard of it before
about a week ago. I think that most gamers that weren't on this NG had even
heard about it before this arguement came up. What does this mean? Most
people buy products based on what they see, not by what someone has told
them.
That's why TSR added the nicer looking graphics, and better looking
interiors. Not because they wanted to increase the cost of anything. That's
the last thing on their minds. They want gamers to notice their games and
then buy their products.
Patrick M. Berry
In article <8689408...@dejanews.com>, WorldWeaver <b...@succeed.net> writes:
> In article <5qdisg$3qb$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>,
> ber...@aur.alcatel.com wrote:
> > [snipped]
> >
> > TSR acted to head off that threat. It may be fashionable to attack
> > them for their "cowardice" in "caving in" to the people behind the
> > anti-D&D crusade, but TSR and AD&D still exist as a result. If the
> > crusade has succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-D&D hysteria
> > (which was certainly their goal), TSR would have been destroyed --
> > along with most of the gaming industry.
>
> I agree. It's sad, but true. However, I'm not so sure it will be true
> for much longer. In the coming years as more and more people move
> online, suppressing *anything*, including RPGs, will become increasingly
> difficult. When anyone can publish, shutting down a couple of big
> publishers will be a useless gesture.
You and I know that, but the Bible-thumpers don't. We're talking about
the people who gave us the CDA, and are now busily developing other
bills to replace it. These people don't understand that they can't
control the Net.
And I'd rather not find out what would happen to AD&D if TSR is shut
down. Let's not go there.
> > By way of contrast, the U.S. tobacco industry waited until it was too
> > late, and now there's no hope for them. They're doomed.
>
> Actually, I think they'll do fine. They'll lose some money, but they
> will just market their products outside the U.S. (where American tobacco
> is in great demand).
As soon as the sale of tobacco products is banned in the U.S., I expect
that the crusaders will begin lobbying to ban their manufacture . . .
and then the growing of tobacco. Eventually, there will be no American
tobacco. Unless the political climate changes, which is always possible.
Aardy R. DeVarque
dhe...@plains.NoDak.edu (David R. Henry) wrote:
>Aardy R. DeVarque writes:
>
>>Aristotle, YHL. HAND. Now help everyone else have a nice day as well and
>>shut the hell up about TSR's failings and get back to discussing how fun the
>>game can be.
>
>Foul! What about those of us who think the best way of having fun with AD&D
>is talking about TSR's failings?
That's what rec.games.frp.industry is there for. :)
Now *AD&D's* failings, that's another matter. rgfd or rgf.advocacy,
depending on focus.
Aardy R. DeVarque
dhe...@plains.NoDak.edu (David R. Henry) wrote:
>Aardy R. DeVarque writes:
>
>>>Rob, *chuckle*. That made no sense. Laugh.
>>
>>Figures that you wouldn't get it. You're not anywhere *near* living up to
>>your namesake, Aristotle. Try "Sophist" instead and you'll be a bit closer.
>
>C'mon, Beloved-Of-Kate. Calling HIM a Sophist is a disservice to sophism.
>Y'know it as well as I.
Fine. Let's just boil it down to this:
"I drank WHAT?!" -- So-crates@ThresholdBURP
Roger Christie
Gee. What a shame. As someone who was addicted to tobacco for a
good 15 years I can't say my heart is broken.
What a shame that we won't be spending billions of dollars
on caring for people with smoking related illnesses.
Robert Baldwin
Aardy R. DeVarque wrote:
>
> Has anyone read any recent (say, within the last "5+" years or so, to quote
> Aristotle) articles in the NYT that quote Pat Pulling and/or BADD? No?
> Gee--TSR must've done *something* right...
>
Well, IMO there is no reason to suppose that TSR's actions, or lack
thereof, have caused the lack of recent negative media attention. More
likely it's just the fact that that story's been done already. There is
no "new controversy" for a reporter/feature writer to stir up. Also, as
time goes by the various frp's become more widely played, at least in
the college crowds. A reporter may not have played himself, but iif his
roommate/friend/classmate played (and seemed halfway sane) then the
reporter is more likely to dismiss gamers as dweebs and geeks but not
automatically satanic cultists. I think the simple passage of time has
had more influence on the media than TSR.
><snip>
> No one, aside from the denizens of your own personal pipe dream, believes
> that TSR's Code of Ethics alienated a statistically significant portion of
> TSR's entire active customer base...that is, unless you have some hard
> evidence to the contrary.
Well, I don't think that the CofE *per se* alienated people, as most
people were unaware it existed.
But I *do* think it had the effect of causing the products TSR produced
to have a pallid and simplistic nature. So I _can_ say that several
people I know feel that the content of TSR products went downhill at a
time corresponding to the enactment of the CofE (C/E for short?) and
that the changes they complain about the most relate to attempting to
transform *D&D from an adult level game to a mass market game "suitable
for ages 10 and up". The introduction of that phrase on the DMG/PHB was
not without reason. Adults buying a game for themselves will very
likely ignore that kind on statement. But that lable is all important
to the buyers for companies like Waldenbooks, B. Dalton, Toys 'R' Us,
etc.
So, to the extent that the content of products was altered to suit a
marketing strategy the marketing stratagy ("10 and up", name changes for
Demons & Devils, the C/E, etc.) can be said to have caused the changes.
And if the changes were negative ("alienating") in their effect, then
the marketing stratagey can be said to have had a negative effect. As
to whether the marketing streatagey *also* had an offsetting positive
impact for TSR's sales figures can best be answered by their TSR's new
owners.
>
> Aardy R. DeVarque
> Feudalism: Serf & Turf
--
BB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"4 out of 5 victims of UCE recommend new .spam.kill.";
check out the free sample in my _return to_ line.
Gregory Bernath
In article <33CD29...@rio.spamkiller.com>,
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.spamkiller.com> wrote:
>Well, I don't think that the CofE *per se* alienated people, as most
>people were unaware it existed.
>But I *do* think it had the effect of causing the products TSR produced
>to have a pallid and simplistic nature.
Seriously? I don't see that. I own most of the 1st edition material, and
a good chunk of 2nd, and I don't see any significant difference over
time in terms of "feel" of the modules. They've always been fairly
simple good vs. bad contests. None of the earlier stuff mentions/glorifies
addiction, evil, homosexuality, cuss words, sex or any of those other
things the Code of Ethics says to avoid.
I guess what I'm asking is "Can someone give me some specific examples
on just how the Code of Ethics changed module design?"
--
Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
Patrick M. Berry
In article <33D053...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au>, Ryan P Arndt <earn...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au> writes:
> Patrick M. Berry wrote:
>
> > You and I know that, but the Bible-thumpers don't. We're talking about
> > the people who gave us the CDA, and are now busily developing other
> > bills to replace it. These people don't understand that they can't
> > control the Net.
> >
> > And I'd rather not find out what would happen to AD&D if TSR is shut
> > down. Let's not go there.
>
> that when TSR was on the verge of bankruptcy, WotC stepped in and bought
> it, and hopefully will continue to do TSR's work on the future of AD&D.
That's not the same thing at all. TSR's failure was caused by internal
problems, which WotC should be able to fix. If TSR were forced into
bankruptcy by an anti-RPG crusade and possibly anti-RPG legislation, any
company that tried to take over publishing AD&D would simply become the
next target. Under those circumstances, I don't think anyone would be
interested.
> The American Tobacco giants will NEVER fold. Even if there product become
> illegal, there will always be a market (either legal or illegal)
> somewhere in the world.
Sure, but if the crusaders try to ban tobacco, the tobacco companies
will probably just relocate to other countries, where they won't be
constantly hassled and sued. However, the U.S. tobacco farmers will be
wiped out.
Ryan P Arndt
Patrick M. Berry wrote:
> You and I know that, but the Bible-thumpers don't. We're talking about
> the people who gave us the CDA, and are now busily developing other
> bills to replace it. These people don't understand that they can't
> control the Net.
>
> And I'd rather not find out what would happen to AD&D if TSR is shut
> down. Let's not go there.
>That's quite simple. As we have seen in recent months, AD&D is so popular
that when TSR was on the verge of bankruptcy, WotC stepped in and bought
it, and hopefully will continue to do TSR's work on the future of AD&D.
Had there been no WotC, the rights to produce AD&D would have been sold
to another company, and they would do what WotC is planning now.
>
> As soon as the sale of tobacco products is banned in the U.S., I expect
> that the crusaders will begin lobbying to ban their manufacture . . .
> and then the growing of tobacco. Eventually, there will be no American
> tobacco. Unless the political climate changes, which is always possible.
This is something which really bugs me. Haven't legislators learnt that
prohibition simply does not work. There was alcohol in the US in the
1920s, Cannabis worldwide since the 60s-70s, and coccaine and herion are
all illegal. This, like the CDA and pushes for the banning of RPGs in the
1980s, simply do not solve the problem of demand.
The American Tobacco giants will NEVER fold. Even if there product become
illegal, there will always be a market (either legal or illegal)
somewhere in the world. As long as there is money to be made, the product
will be produced and marketed. If anything, these drugs should be legal,
as this allows an extent of control on the distribution. (eg, sales tax
and restrictions on the sale to minors).
(Sorry about the off-topic rant: just something I feel strongly about)
Ryan P Arndt
Gregory Bernath wrote:
> Seriously? I don't see that. I own most of the 1st edition material, and
> a good chunk of 2nd, and I don't see any significant difference over
> time in terms of "feel" of the modules. They've always been fairly
> simple good vs. bad contests. None of the earlier stuff mentions/glorifies
> addiction, evil, homosexuality, cuss words, sex or any of those other
> things the Code of Ethics says to avoid.
>
> I guess what I'm asking is "Can someone give me some specific examples
> on just how the Code of Ethics changed module design?"
> It never did. The Code of Ethics is there as a guide to assist people in
designing something for publication by TSR. In other words, TSR do not
want to publish anything which is unnecessarily provocative of offensive
to any part of the community, and wish to discourage people from putting
potentially offensive material in their stories, Dragon Articles, or
Modules.
This does not prevent such material being included if it is relevant. So
if a module was to have the PCs chasing a rapist of brutal murderer,
there would be nothing wrong with a fairly vivid discription of one of
the survivors in order to set the atmosphere and create the desire to
capture the bastard. There is nothing wrong with aknowledging the
prescence in society of lawlessness, drugs, corruption, or occult
practices, so long as they are shown in a negative light, and not
encouraged as a possible lifestyle of AD&D players.
Ryan P Arndt
Patrick M. Berry wrote:
>
> In article <33D053...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au>, Ryan P Arndt <earn...@alpha7.curtin.edu.au> writes:
> >
> > > You and I know that, but the Bible-thumpers don't. We're talking about
> > > the people who gave us the CDA, and are now busily developing other
> > > bills to replace it. These people don't understand that they can't
> > > control the Net.
> > >
> > > And I'd rather not find out what would happen to AD&D if TSR is shut
> > > down. Let's not go there.
> >
> > That's quite simple. As we have seen in recent months, AD&D is so popular
> > that when TSR was on the verge of bankruptcy, WotC stepped in and bought
> > it, and hopefully will continue to do TSR's work on the future of AD&D.
>
> problems, which WotC should be able to fix. If TSR were forced into
> bankruptcy by an anti-RPG crusade and possibly anti-RPG legislation, any
> company that tried to take over publishing AD&D would simply become the
> next target. Under those circumstances, I don't think anyone would be
> interested.
this ever happen? What happened to your US Bill of Rights?? Doesn't that
allow freedom of religion and expression: effectively making any anti-RPG
legislation illegal? Wouldn't that make the whole "Satanic" argument
futile because Americas are allowed to worship the devil if they want?
After all, Americans are allowed to own AK-47s, and I'd have thought that
would be repealed a long time before freedom of speach and religion.
> Sure, but if the crusaders try to ban tobacco, the tobacco companies
> will probably just relocate to other countries, where they won't be
> constantly hassled and sued. However, the U.S. tobacco farmers will be
> wiped out.
I'm not sure exactly what the situation is in the USA, but aren't there
people growing cannabis and opium there? While the tobacco industry will
be removed from the public spotlight, there will still be people who
think that it is worth the risk of a heavy fine or imprisonment to grow,
process, and sell tobacco, just as there will be those who believ it is
worth the risk to buy and smoke tobacco.
Tim Breen
> I'm not sure exactly what the situation is in the USA, but aren't there
> people growing cannabis and opium there?
Yes, but it's illegal, like owning an AK-47. <g>
> While the tobacco industry will
> be removed from the public spotlight, there will still be people who
> think that it is worth the risk of a heavy fine or imprisonment to grow,
> process, and sell tobacco, just as there will be those who believ it is
> worth the risk to buy and smoke tobacco.
Wherever there are laws, there will always be criminals. So what?
-- Tim
Personal: http://personalweb.lightside.com/Pfiles/breen1.html
Gaming: http://www.rpga.org/Home.html
To subscribe to the RPGA-Talk mailing list, send a blank message to
requ...@lists.consultantalliance.com with a subject of "subscribe
RPGA-Talk" (no quotes).