Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tom B1" data-source="post: 7828639" data-attributes="member: 6879023">To be a bit progressive, as you say you are below, should you and others encourage elitism in the gaming community? Making of games and products only for those with lots of disposable cash? That's exclusionary. (Really, just speaking to a point that it isn't obvious what is the 'right' or 'good' option in many of these cases and it can be sliced a lot of ways)As a gamer, I find nobody is doing what the original TSR modules did: For $8, with a PHB at $12 and a DMG at $18, I could have an adventure module that usually lasted multiple sessions and took characters up a level or 2. And most of them were fairly generic and relocatable. And their production (maps, art) were sufficient for use in the ways modules are used - maps to be gamed on or drawn to be gamed on, text to be readable, just enough art to illustrate key points. One way or another - a one way tour through a product that may well not be revisited (unlike PHB/DMG). So now what do I get? $50-70 hardcovers with complete campaign arcs, tightly coupled to a location and a particular overarching arc that I may or may not like and whose individual adventures I may or may not like. Most don't usually fit in a home brew world easily, the layout and paper choice makes pages sometimes hard to read and hard to justify annotating with a pencil.... and maps are often not done in simple line art for use in the game or for redrawing. And $8 then is not $70 now. $8 then was about 2 weeks allowance for an early teenager who did chores. My 12 year old step daughter now gets $15 on a good week $10-12 otherwise and so that'd be 4-5 weeks allowance for her to get a hardcover adventure path. I'm an old school D&D player - not nostalgic for the obscure, pointlessly-divergent mechanics and the clunky tables.... but the old school gave us Sandbox Gaming - a setting, some factions and some interesting NPCs and enemy groups, and then off you went - including going in ways fairly different than the modules suggested (join the Caves and help them take the Keep or wait until they try and rip off the Vault and the Castellan's Room, rob the moneychanger in Hommlet and join the Temple's forces, or whatever). Most new games are 3-act or scripted arc on a railroad. That robs players of true agency although that is useful for GMs who don't want to do the design work or aren't comfortable with Apocalypse World style reactive game mastering.Turning our hobby into a have/have not in a big way with $200-600 kickstarters and $70-100 hardcovers and core book boxed sets at $130+... maybe not the best idea for opening up the games to new players and definitely leaving out a lot of demographics that could use a bit of constructive fantasy with good role models...I have a friend who is in a band in the US. They tour. They sell their own music. They'll never be the Beatles, but they can easily make a modest living at it. They say  people who complain about the music consumer market now are just people who don't want to get out and tour and provide experiences. I think art has to be a thing you want to do if you're to really follow it. I think there isn't an obligation for society to support whatever thing you decide to pursue. That's a choice and the choice can be not to (by individual).I'm progressive, but mostly in terms of helping the least advantaged to have better opportunities, not those who made life choices that pretty much guarantee that. Art can't have a value assigned by some odd sense of universalism. It's too subjective. And we just don't have enough wealth to do all the important things we need to be doing (mental health resourcing, dental care, protection of children, education without massive class sizes, healthy eating/exercise education for kids, etc) so we'd better be careful about rewarding life choices people make to go into less secure employment - that was a choice they made. They could have pursued other courses. I have a friend who competes in Art Battles (speed painting competitions) - He could easily crank out a $500-750 painting in 2-3 hours and it would be amazing. He's won several. He has chosen to step away from video game computer art to teaching art classes with paintbrushes and so on to interested people because that's more rewarding, but not monetarily. He made that choice. I'll support him when I can but that's because I like his art and I like him. If it was done through some tax (such as the bogus tax on all blank media to feed the music industry), I'd have an entirely different view of that support and it wouldn't be favourable. People choose their paths. We can't and probably shouldn't try to make them all equivalent. Some highly paid jobs are miserable experiences so people surrender some enjoyment and satisfaction for money. Others go the other route. You can't make that across the board equivalent and trying might be worse than not. I think Patreons are a brilliant approach. But with so many people out there wanting to get into creative endeavours, it is hard to draw in enough to make the bills get paid. Better have a part time plan B just like some of us did in university to pay for school. Good discussion, but I think art will always be a commodity. It used to sponsored by nobles and similar rich merchants and religious figures. Even MIchelangelo had to satisfy his patrons. That didn't stop great art being made nor will it in the future.</blockquote>

Verification