Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 410055" data-attributes="member: 5">Seems a bit anti-climactic to have you take it in stride when I considered it quite a turning point for the RPGA and myself.  Quite frankly, I considered the publication of that module as a potential elevation of the maturity level of the LG wing of the RPGA, but the backlash surprised the hell out of me.  The backlash is the main reason I chose to no longer pursue DMing engagements with the RPGA.  LG was, IMHO, the last bastion of solid, old-school role-playing for RPGA play, but I considered the umbrage shown River of Blood as a sign that a large portion of the LG RPGA players weren't interested in mature themed modules.  I had entered into the RPGA, and specifically the LG wing, with the perception that most of the people who wanted a more "role-play intense" environment were doing the same (as far as which wind of the RPGA they chose).  This seems to be the case from those on this board who have been vocal thus far, but it also seems that those who held GH in high regard abandoned the RPGA as having left them in the lurch (chatdemon if you've ever had a chance to tell me I am wrong, or support me, here it is).The feeling I got from that showing of umbrage was that at least some of those who had latched onto LG via the RPGA were simply looking for a "stepped-downed" version of the other RPGA venues rather than being the old-school RPGA players ready to take the next step in role-playing, and move toward deeper subject matter and richer characterizations.  It's a major reason I stepped up my own production of CMG material.  People involved in the RPGA LG (who spoke out), for the most part, seemed to misunderstand what it was you (Erik) were trying to do with the module and I lost interest in swimming against that same tide of discontent (and other obstacles within my own region which seemed so deeply intrenched as to be insurmountable).Let me take on both of those at once.  First of all, I think that Monte is disregarding his own Line of Sight (regarding entering the fray of controversy), mostly because (I believe) he has read far too much of the conjecture surrounding the pending release of BoVD.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but this short-handed comment in not your usual form, and certainly not satisfying to Elder-Basilisk, who I believe is trying to sympathise with your position.Nevertheless, the sealed section of Dragon doesn't give a lot to go on, so I can understand how so many people have built up in their own minds where they belive that BoVD is going.Bottom line for me will be in what hits the stands, not what people think will be forth-coming, so I am neither impressed by the arguments for or against, thus far.What I do know is that there is certainly plenty of room for thoughtful approaches to plots and characterizations that I will be bringing to the table now and in the future.  I hope that what we see in the BoVD includes options that allow, and dare I say, promote, the kind of game that not only tantalizes but inspires and exhibits a purposeful elevation toward a new level both for rules mechanics and role-play situations.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification