Knights & Knaves Alehouse

hellbender wrote:Dwayanu and Eye of the Beholder:
At this point the fundamental group is put together, but not the big picture. Please don't think of this as elitist or snobbish. There is a definite plan to expand and include everyone that would like to participate. Before that there needs to be a clear objective and a mission statement. There has been a lot of positive input in this thread and I think that the group is heading in the right direction.

LOLOLOLOL

Is the list of the non-elite, non-snobbish few public, or do they have to remain silent for the moment so that the sapling can take root in good fertile soil so that it can grow strong?

Talk about Johnny-on-the-spot.

I've already out of the closet and in the open.

Doesn't sound right, does it?

Coleston the Cavalier wrote:I've already out of the closet and in the open.

Doesn't sound right, does it?

Yeah, I wouldn't have chosen to put it that way, myself ...

TheRedPriest wrote:

hellbender wrote:Dwayanu and Eye of the Beholder:
At this point the fundamental group is put together, but not the big picture. Please don't think of this as elitist or snobbish. There is a definite plan to expand and include everyone that would like to participate. Before that there needs to be a clear objective and a mission statement. There has been a lot of positive input in this thread and I think that the group is heading in the right direction.

LOLOLOLOL

Is the list of the non-elite, non-snobbish few public, or do they have to remain silent for the moment so that the sapling can take root in good fertile soil so that it can grow strong?

Well, no, it's not secret. It's also not finished. People currently involved include James Maliszewski, Jeff Rients, Joe Bloch, James Raggi, John Adams, Matthew Stanham, Steve Hill and myself. We also have some participation in a more advisory role from Chris Gonnerman and Dan Proctor (no, they aren't in charge - we want to coordinate with them and all the other retroclone publishers as interested third parties).

There are some other people that have requested to be added, and as we work to build the organization, we'll get more people involved. Frankly, the current group is provisional, and as a non-profit organization, we're likely to evolve and change in terms of membership and structure. The desire was to get a group together who have some interest in the project and could commit time and energy to building a new organization.

Of course we're going to be paying attention from other people - it would be stupid not to. So constructive criticism is and will always be welcome.

Hope that helps.

Victor Raymond

What Victor said so eloquently. While I started the Yahoogroup I have stated within it that I have no desire to lead or hold power. I am happy doing grunt work and working behind the scenes. I have even offered to buy the domain space and I made it clear that I do not want to control the content, that is a group decision. The whole idea is to make a place that everyone can contribute to and get something from. Online, offline, this is irrelevant. People enjoying the game, that is what is important.

This is ridiculous.

Mythmere wrote:RJK used his CU stats for a similar goal, and even with his name recognition only sold 10 copies of Dark Druids.

Literally?

hellbender wrote:The idea is to support this era of gaming, whether your game was made in 1974 or 2008, as long as it has an older feel. People need to be gaming now and enjoying that game.

Though the Encounter Critical RPG was made in 2004, it feels like it was made in 1979.

Geoffrey wrote:

Mythmere wrote:RJK used his CU stats for a similar goal, and even with his name recognition only sold 10 copies of Dark Druids.

Literally?

That was true up until some point just before he did that first module of his - I forget if the number was 10 or 14. He probably sold more after he mentioned it on the boards. We're talking about his CU stats version. There were other issues beside the stats - he was only taking checks, IIRC, no paypal.

My memory for the time and the number is inexact, but basically, yes, literally.

hellbender wrote:People enjoying the game, that is what is important.

Then why the hell this push to politicize the whole thing and have "leaders" and "committees"?

Hey, here's a radical notion: people will play what they will play. The only advocacy group for '74 edition D&D or AD&D is you (the collective "you", not "you" personally) and your group playing it. Play at a comic shop, play at a con, sit in on other games and when it's over if you like the people, invite them to yours.

Doesn't take a legislative branch to figure this out.

I understand what you are saying DungeonDelver.
It's quite possible that our attempt to help a whole new generation discover the joy of AD&D, etc. may fail.

I think the whole "leaders and teams" is more about organizing to get something done rather than trying to divide folks up more.

All that said, why do you feel the need to ridicule our attempt? And why do you need to use profanity in doing so?

The folks in this group have volunteered their time and expertise (and probably much more down the road) in order to share our love of these games with new and young gamers. We're a bunch of people who have come together for a specific purpose. Nobody's in it for recognition or awards. It has the feeling of a habitat for humanity project rather than a corporation board meeting.

But this is just my opinion and I'm not going to argue with folks about it.

Though the Encounter Critical RPG was made in 2004, it feels like it was made in 1979.

What standards EXACTLY are used to determine what makes a game 'old-school' in feel? Is it enough for the publisher to simply declare their game feels right?

Kellri wrote:

Though the Encounter Critical RPG was made in 2004, it feels like it was made in 1979.

What standards EXACTLY are used to determine what makes a game 'old-school' in feel? Is it enough for the publisher to simply declare their game feels right?

This is definitely something to discuss. I suspect it'll get decided more by example than trying to draw a firm line. Frankly, I think drawing a firm line is impossible - some of the ongoing discussions elsewhere, such as on odd74, have demonstrated how impossible that might be. So have some of the discussions here, for that matter.

thedungeondelver wrote:

hellbender wrote:People enjoying the game, that is what is important.

Then why the hell this push to politicize the whole thing and have "leaders" and "committees"?

Hey, here's a radical notion: people will play what they will play. The only advocacy group for '74 edition D&D or AD&D is you (the collective "you", not "you" personally) and your group playing it. Play at a comic shop, play at a con, sit in on other games and when it's over if you like the people, invite them to yours.

Doesn't take a legislative branch to figure this out.

Really? Then why are there so many posts from so many people saying, "I can't find gamers for the games I like, where I live" or "I'm playing stuff online because there's no place for me to game face-to-face"?

What's bothering you about a group that wants to assist gamers in playing these games? Seems like it ought not be threatening at all, but I must be missing something. Every organization - from the Red Cross to Ford Motor Company - needs some sort of people to help make it go. As John's already said, this is a lot more like Habitat for Humanity than Microsoft.

I can't help thinking that this negativity is coming from someplace other than just this idea.