Academic Plague in gaming

[3catcircus]

How many times have you opened up a book and remarked upon how much better things are now that there is some quality control and competition?

The glass appears half full to me.

Thats just it - things *aren't* better - where is the quality control? When I pick up a copy of Player's Guide to Faerun and see the easily-caught-and-fixed-during-preflight mistakes (the labels of the various dwarf sub-races being one of the most glaring examples); when I read reviews of Libris Mortis and Monster Manual III right here on ENWorld and see the rampant niggling mistakes - tell me - where is the quality control?

 

[painandgreed]

No, it wasn't.
Vampire is a very early example of the sort of thing I'm talking about with the academic plague.
In first edition vampires there were essays by Mark Rein-"my dot is proof i'm smart"-Hagen where he ted about how Vampire is all deep and philosophical, how its something far superior to the childish game D&D, and what people are doing when they play Vampire is "storytelling" not "roll playing"... blah blah blah

You read the esssays? And then you actually cared what they said? At worst it was dead weight in the book. I don't think the essays affected game play one way or another.

And what were ALL of the modules in Vampire 1st Ed? DUNGEON CRAWLS.
Sometimes literally.
Where you went around killing things and taking their stuff.

And personally, I don't know anybody who played them. They came out at the very begining and ceased pretty soon afterwards. The real "modules" that everybody used were the city books.

So how was it justifiable?
Where did the "Vampire is superior" thing come in?
Well.. um.. they talk in big words, and they have a superior attitude.. they MUST be intellectuals!

Even though they aren't, at all. There was nothing new or revolutionary about Vampire. Just pretentiousness, just pseudo-intellectualism, just angst (which, if you don't know, is the emotional equivalent of pìssing your pants, there's nothing particularly "sophisticated" intelligent, or difficult about creating angst, its the shallowest and fakest of emotions).

In the newest edition of WoD, btw, there's redo of the same essay, accusing D&D of being "roll playing" while WoD is "storytelling". Its the same old lie.

Superior? I do think that it's different. Differnet people like different things. There are two main differences between the ST system and d20. First, experieince is moved away from combat. It's pretty much set at a steady rate with occational bonus' for the senario. Physical conflict isn't as prominant in advancing the character and this tends to change gameplay. I and other DMs had done the same thing in D&D many years before Vampire by incorporation house rules for experience. Two, money is pretty much of no importance. Your characters can start out as millionaires and technically, by the rules, can't get any richer. Other games such as Shadowrun did this but such characters almost imediatly had to spend the money on equipment. In vampire there was no such need. You're rich and have the nice cars and clothes, but doesn't really help you. This also changes the feel of your typcial mercenary D&D game.

Whatever. I don't know, I'm still trying to get over the irony of somebody being pretentious over the preception of somebody else being pretentious.

 

[Desdichado]

I think it's attitudes like Nisarg's that are part of the problem behind the decline of the gaming industry. It's a tendency to factionalize over styles of gaming (or even product lines within a single company's output) that help fragment the market and keep gaming companies smaller and unable to weather downturns in the market, like the one caused by CCG popularity in the mid-90s.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that its people who actually have identified tastes -- rather than just buying and consuming exactly what everyone else is, or what WotC tells us to -- that are the problem behind the decline of the industry? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Doc_Klueless]

There isn't much support for the Forge's games, but there is a general viewpiont in gaming fandom (at least online) that the Forge is full of really smart people and that the games they are making are really smart.

Actually, the general viewpoint in gaming fandom (at least online) is that the Forge is unknown. Before you starting harping on it, I had only heard of it in passing and never really knew what it really was. Same goes for at least a half dozen of my other online friends (I've mentioned it to them). MOST of my gaming friends don't get online enough (for RPG purposes) to even know what EN World really is, much less the Forge, so I really doubt the Forge is having much impact on RPG-online persons.

In other words: You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Desdichado]

Thank you for providing a good example of Academic Plague. You were trying to say something simple but felt the need to say it in complex forms.

Actually, he did say something simple. He then used the formal titles from logical analysis to show that your attitude was hardly unique; there are official labels for your form of fallacy.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that its people who actually have identified tastes -- rather than just buying and consuming exactly what everyone else is, or what WotC tells us to -- that are the problem behind the decline of the industry? Or am I misunderstanding?

I keep on reading it, and that's what I'm getting out of it, although I'm not sure that's what billd91 meant to say. I don't think that people having identified tastes is bad for the market, although I think that Nisarg's attitude is slightly problematic (although in the long run, it's not really problematic for the market either — he's still just Nisarg, voicing his opinion, which is just one person).

Nick

 

[TheAuldGrump]

They are not complex terms - they are the correct ones to use. Your error/mistake/stupidity/trick (take your pick) is a common one, it has a term for describing it. This is the reason I used the term - to show that it is common enough to get a term. Your statement is rather like insisting that people use the phrase 'the disease that makes you forget stuff' rather than saying 'Alzheimer's'. The term exists, so I use it. I also assumed some people would not have familiarity with the term so I described it as well, letting them know that it is in fact a common error, and more, it is used by politicians, trolls, and con men to 'substantiate' empty arguments. It is a technique of verbal trickery.

And the word 'causality' seems pretty self explanatory.

And your second argument is demonstrably rubbish, nearly every one of the 20 some odd players brought in by WoD that I can name play other games as well, whether D20, Roll & Keep,GURPS, or Savage Worlds. By far the most common of these is D20, but these are all popular with them (and most play several of them). I can name only 3 who only play WoD, and of those two only play the LARP. Shall we ask for a show of hands? I suspect that there are members of this forum who were brought into the hobby by the Storyteller system.

On the flip side I have met people who will only play D20, GURPS, and in one sad case Rolemaster. I have also met a player who insisted that D20 was created by WotC purely to put GURPS out of business.

The Auld Grump

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Actually, the general viewpoint in gaming fandom (at least online) is that the Forge is unknown. Before you starting harping on it, I had only heard of it in passing and never really knew what it really was. Same goes for at least a half dozen of my other online friends (I've mentioned it to them). MOST of my gaming friends don't get online enough (for RPG purposes) to even know what EN World really is, much less the Forge, so I really doubt the Forge is having much impact on RPG-online persons.

In other words: You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I never heard of the Forge until now either (except maybe in passing), and today's the first time I've visited there. Although I'm not sure I'd play any of the games there (as I look through their Free RPGs), I'm not exactly overwhelmed by the pretentiousness of a game like Babewatch the RPG.

Nick

 

[Psion]

Thats just it - things *aren't* better - where is the quality control? When I pick up a copy of Player's Guide to Faerun and see the easily-caught-and-fixed-during-preflight mistakes (the labels of the various dwarf sub-races being one of the most glaring examples); when I read reviews of Libris Mortis and Monster Manual III right here on ENWorld and see the rampant niggling mistakes - tell me - where is the quality control?

You really have no idea, do you?

Take a look at some old 2e brown books. Let's set aside mistakes. The fact of the matter is that they weren't even written to the same standard at all. All products were independantly freelanced. Everyone made things up as they went along, which made using them together a pain. But we couldn't flag this things as mistakes because there were no standards.

The fact that you can even identify mistakes are a sign that explicit standards exist to be compared to, which puts us on inherently better footing than we once were. Considering that, I think it makes "good ole' days" arguments regarding supplements that existed in prior editions laughable.

 

[Faraer]

How would story-based gaming put people off? The appeal of stories is universal, no? And nothing to do with academicness. The appeal of tactical wargames is limited.