Failed promises

[Macbeth]

Last night I ran a game where I owned several books, and the players had none. I guess I 'shouldered the economic burden,' but I don't really care. It was Mutants and Masterminds, and I had the core book, Crooks, Foes of FReedom, Freedom City, and Annual #1. Probably over $100 books that I had bought. Do I think this is 'unhealthy?' No, heck no.

I bought books I wanted to read, read them, and ran a game I wanted to play. Everybody enjoyed it, but nobody (with the possible exception of one player) has the money and/or the interest to buy the Core book (or nay other books, for that matter). I don't have a problem with this.

As for hitting a nerve, I think you have. Perhaps it's not the nerve you think, but you have. THe way I see it, RPG players (especially those that have countered your arguement) like to think of gaming as mostly imagination. When you say that it should require books, that gaming is more about ownership of materials then it is just sitting around, sharing a world and having fun, people get a little up tight.

 

[Psion]

Do you think it's healthy for one person in a group to constantly pay for anything?

I think that lacking other facts, that is entirely not enough information to determing if it's "healthy".

Whatever you mean by "healthy" in this conxext.

Frankly, I think I struck a nerve with that one -- and with good reason.

That gamers have found yet another way to assert that the way they have fun is somehow objectively "better"? Not precisely what I call a good reason.

 

[eyebeams]

Last night I ran a game where I owned several books, and the players had none. I guess I 'shouldered the economic burden,' but I don't really care. It was Mutants and Masterminds, and I had the core book, Crooks, Foes of FReedom, Freedom City, and Annual #1. Probably over $100 books that I had bought. Do I think this is 'unhealthy?' No, heck no.

I bought books I wanted to read, read them, and ran a game I wanted to play. Everybody enjoyed it, but nobody (with the possible exception of one player) has the money and/or the interest to buy the Core book (or nay other books, for that matter). I don't have a problem with this.

As for hitting a nerve, I think you have. Perhaps it's not the nerve you think, but you have. THe way I see it, RPG players (especially those that have countered your arguement) like to think of gaming as mostly imagination. When you say that it should require books, that gaming is more about ownership of materials then it is just sitting around, sharing a world and having fun, people get a little up tight.

You are not actually replying to what I am talking about. I'm talking about a very specific situation where pretty much nobody but you buys any of the books ever, not one where your tastes differ so in your group, different folks own different books.

It occurs to me that Kanegruder is the only person on this thread who is actually probably in the situation I'm describing, which I think is categorically dysfunctional for reasons that most of you would find obvious in any other context.

 

[Macbeth]

I'm also the only one in that group with all three core d20 rulebooks, the only one with d20 Modern, the only one with GURPS, the only one with Spycraft, and the only one with a shlew of non-core D&D books. One of the other players has Paranoia XP, but only because I bought it for him as a Christmas present (it's now one of his favorite books). Really, I buy almost all of the books. For this group, I GM most every game. I think it's a helathy group, assuming healthy means "having fun playing RPGs."

I think the problem here is that you think fun must be had in your way. THere are other ways to have fun, and other gamers get along just fine buying as many or as few books as they want, not based on DM demands.

 

[eyebeams]

I think that lacking other facts, that is entirely not enough information to determing if it's "healthy".

Whatever you mean by "healthy" in this conxext.

And I think you're applying reductio ad absurdum ("Dude! How can anybody know anything, maaaan?") to avoid confronting the obvious: If one person is constantly supplying the money and effort for his or her friends, it's not a healthy dynamic.

Then again, there's a larger issue here in that lots of gamers are willing to game with people they otherwise barely tolerate, so perhaps you're missing why "friends" is important. Then again, I think that outside of a few specific exceptions, gaming with someone you wouldn't otherwise socialize with is pretty bad. But if you're willing to play in such bad circumstances anyhow, I can see why at least hoarding all the play tools provides a social edge.

That gamers have found yet another way to assert that the way they have fun is somehow objectively "better"? Not precisely what I call a good reason.

No, I think the idea that buying all the books to lure players so that they don't have to do anything but show up is, according to any reasonable measure of common sense, obviously indicative of a group that is failing in some social aspects.

One exception is, of course, when you're running a game for your kids. But if you have to use the same tactics to run a game for your friends than for your children, you'd probably better ask yourself why, eh?

 

[eyebeams]

I'm also the only one in that group with all three core d20 rulebooks, the only one with d20 Modern, the only one with GURPS, the only one with Spycraft, and the only one with a shlew of non-core D&D books. One of the other players has Paranoia XP, but only because I bought it for him as a Christmas present (it's now one of his favorite books). Really, I buy almost all of the books. For this group, I GM most every game. I think it's a helathy group, assuming healthy means "having fun playing RPGs."

I think the problem here is that you think fun must be had in your way. THere are other ways to have fun, and other gamers get along just fine buying as many or as few books as they want, not based on DM demands.

You are not being oppressed for being different.

You are also still not responding to my original point, as you are not actually gaming under the circumstances I am describing.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Why? Game publishing is a business. As I noted earlier in this thread, faithfully obeying the desires of the fans has led to either crappy products or failed to really affect sales.

Prove it. Give examples. Give us some proof to back up your blanket statements. I ponied up with some examples of why I disliked GWD20, so you do the same.

1) Gamma World's "fanbase" looked pretty miniscule to me. I didn't see a preponderance of GW fanpages before any kind of adaptation. How many of you can name one off the top of your head, without googling? I also note that nobody here has really ever discussed GW's setting, either -- awfully curious for such a "die-hard" fanbase never to talk about anything specific about the game.

I can't name D&D fansites right off the top of my head. What does that prove anyway. Not one single thing. Do the majority of D&D players have a fansite devoted to D&D? Do all the RIFTS players? Do all the V:TM players? This point is just silly. GW is a lot of different things to different people. Setting isn't nearly as important as the rules with GW. Search the boards, there has been a lot of talk of GW during my time here since ENWorld went live (even a few discussion back at Eric Noah's old boards). Granted the amount of GW chatter is as much as D&D or fantasy D20 talk, but that's more of this being primarily a D&D new site and D&D being exponentially more popular.

2) The "old school" vision of Gamma World many of you talk about was a recent invention. Yes, there was a "How Green is My Mutant" article in the Strategic Review. There were, by contrast, several attempts to dee-"Wahoo!" GW in Ares. One I remember offhand: An article on how to use genetic engineering to justify PSH's stats because they didn't make any sense otherwise. But wait -- genetic engineering is supposed to be Bad, and Not Gamma World, right? A pity nobody told the authors back in the 80s.

The point still stands that GW has always had the absurd wahoo elements. No matter what a few fans or articles tried to make GW into otherwise. I have no idea where you're going with that whole genetic engineering point... :\

In reality, Gamma World had a more successful run than most game books -- almost definitely more than Darwin's World, the perrenially-mentioned bridesmaid that "got it right." If SSS could run the books it did, it means that SSS sold enough to justify continued printings, which automatically puts its sales an order of magnitude above anything but a WotC offering.

Prove it. Show us some official numbers. I don't recall hearing word one from S&SS that GW sold out their print run, but I believe that DW2 sold out it's initial print run, plus that doesn't take into account the sales of the pdfs, which I also believe are still pretty brisk.

Kane

 

[billd91]

No, I think the idea that buying all the books to lure players so that they don't have to do anything but show up is, according to any reasonable measure of common sense, obviously indicative of a group that is failing in some social aspects.

If it's a question of buying all the stuff to lure in a bunch of players like some kind of pedophile with candy, then you may be right. But nobody here has made any implication that we're buying the books to lure in players. That's your spin on this and your spin alone.

Some player simply can't afford the same stuff that other people can even though they like to play the same games. End of story. I think it would be far more socially disfunctional to expect everyone to have the same level of financial commitment regardless of financial ability.

 

[Kanegrundar]

It occurs to me that Kanegruder is the only person on this thread who is actually probably in the situation I'm describing, which I think is categorically dysfunctional for reasons that most of you would find obvious in any other context.

You do realize that there a lot of different ways a group can handle the burden of paying the various costs to play the games right? Your way is not the only right way, so stop insulting other peoples' ways of playing the game. Why do care so much? My group, Macbeth's group, The Universe's group all have fun even with only one or two people sholdering the cost of the books. That's the bottom line, having fun.

Kane

 

[Macbeth]

No, I think the idea that buying all the books to lure players so that they don't have to do anything but show up is, according to any reasonable measure of common sense, obviously indicative of a group that is failing in some social aspects.

Personally, I'll let a player put in as much or as little to the game as they want. Gaming is about having fun, and if they have fun by showing up, sitting down, and playing, then so be it. For some of my players, I hang on to chaaracter sheets, so they can't loose them. I'm willing to take the burden from them, so they can just drive to the game, sit down, and have fun.

I'm having fun buying books I like to read and games I like to run. They're having fun showing up and playing a good game.

One of the key points here is that I can buy books and never run them, but still get good use. Even if I buy a book and run it for others, I've still had the fun of reading it. Others got use from it (when I run a game), but I get to sit down and read, which justifies the price to me.