Well, not really since Luddism is a concept that I'm not really invoking- but I'll be called a Luddite for what I'm about to say anyway.
I hate pod casts, streaming video, and the like exploding upon rpg/greek scene. Yes, I'm looking at you RPG Circus and other similar things. This despite that fact that I find Zachary's blog interesting and fun.
Blogs are easy to quote, the writen word easy to scan. I can read much faster than someone can talk. They can be quickly referenced, and pages searched for a tidbit in but seconds.
In contrast, Pod Casts are slow and I feel like I'm wasting more time than what they are worth. The makers of them have moved too much of their thoughts to this unsearchable and thus in the end forgettable format.
Pod casts are fine for those people (like talk radio or TV personalities) who's primary method of communication is vocal. I wouldn't expect them to step outside their skill set and actually *write*.
But gaming geeks should stick to the written word. These are PnP games- keep to the format.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Looking Back: Elements of Complexity
I've sort of backed into a series on RPG Complexity, backed into as I didn't set out to do a series on it- it just sort of happened. Since it's happened, let's do a reprint of an article I wrote for RPGNet back in 2002. There I defined what makes a game complex.
Should have started with this, but better late than never:
Elements of Complexity
Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for very different purposes.
Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on game design.
It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing is a simple case of different people looking at different specific sub-meanings of a single word.
For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into three elements: Implementation, Mass, and Concept.
Each of which has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll detail below.
Complexity of Implementation
This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:
Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit points.
Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound level and final effects.
In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations (multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole numbers in the second example as well.
Games like Phoenix Command are representative of designs with high Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as GURPS Vehicles or Hero System Character design, systems that call for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.
Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the mastery of the method.
Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation drives the need for complex mechanics.
Complexity of Mass
Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.
Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus.
Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3.
Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is overwhelming in itself.
Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of complexity, as is Rolemaster with its dozens of charts, each of which uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.
Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two reasons come immediately to mind.
First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play with them just to do something different.
A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and use, the greater the satisfaction.
These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they have little in common.
Complexity of Concept
There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take even the greatest of players years to master.
Think Chess.
Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much will it affect."
In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with complex tactical environments like Heavy Gear top the list here.
Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance of individual decisions in a challenging environment.
Just Plain Complex
Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to rate high in others if you rate high in one.
Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game Air War, which pegged very high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of small font rules concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire course of the game.
While any RPG pales in comparison to that wargame, some examples include Hero System and Age of Heroes. A common combination is Mass and Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management (Concept).
Eye of the Beholder
Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it becomes complex.
Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly different from each other.
And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become completely free form.
Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.
Should have started with this, but better late than never:
Elements of Complexity
Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for very different purposes.
Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on game design.
It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing is a simple case of different people looking at different specific sub-meanings of a single word.
For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into three elements: Implementation, Mass, and Concept.
Each of which has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll detail below.
Complexity of Implementation
This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:
Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit points.
Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound level and final effects.
In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations (multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole numbers in the second example as well.
Games like Phoenix Command are representative of designs with high Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as GURPS Vehicles or Hero System Character design, systems that call for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.
Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the mastery of the method.
Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation drives the need for complex mechanics.
Complexity of Mass
Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.
Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus.
Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3.
Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is overwhelming in itself.
Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of complexity, as is Rolemaster with its dozens of charts, each of which uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.
Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two reasons come immediately to mind.
First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play with them just to do something different.
A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and use, the greater the satisfaction.
These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they have little in common.
Complexity of Concept
There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take even the greatest of players years to master.
Think Chess.
Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much will it affect."
In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with complex tactical environments like Heavy Gear top the list here.
Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance of individual decisions in a challenging environment.
Just Plain Complex
Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to rate high in others if you rate high in one.
Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game Air War, which pegged very high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of small font rules concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire course of the game.
While any RPG pales in comparison to that wargame, some examples include Hero System and Age of Heroes. A common combination is Mass and Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management (Concept).
Eye of the Beholder
Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it becomes complex.
Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly different from each other.
And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become completely free form.
Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Groups and Complexity
Last time I spoke about how players in general will move towards a game whose complexity is high enough that the game isn't trivial, but low enough that they can be successful with it (however they define success). For the general market, that means complexity in game design will follow the common bell curve, with the most players running with the game that bests fits the top of that complexity bell curve and very easy/very complex systems found at the ends.
But that's for the general market or an individual player. Groups have a somewhat different relationship with their rules.
While I'm sure there are groups where all the players are masters of their choice of system, IME these are quite rare. Very often only a few of the players have any significant mastery of the rules being used. The others have basic knowledge and it's not uncommon for groups to have one or more players whose gaming sessions consists of making choices- and leaving enacting those choices through the game mechanics up to other players ("ok, you want to attack that goblin- roll the 20 sided die...").
Under such conditions, the choice of game system (and its complexity) isn't an average of all the group members. Rather it's a choice of the most rule focused players in the group. Sometimes it may be selected solely by the GM.
The players making the choice may well be selecting a level of complexity too great for the rest of the group. In that case, expect them to often be seen aiding others in 'proper' tactical choices and mechanics usage up to and including character design. To me, this is the most common type of rpg group (the experience of others may differ).
Or they may select something too simple for their group, resulting in them moving much of their play to the meta-game levels (as per Layers of Design). Another option they have is pressing the group to move to another game system as they grow bored with the simple systems placed before them. If another too simple system is selected, the cycle will repeat.
A somewhat different version of the this last group, is the one where the rules aren't complex enough for *anybody* to last any length of time. Here, expect lots of movement from game system to game system- but it comes from the rule focused players instead of from the group as a whole.
Groups where everyone is on the same page are quite rare from what I can tell.
I don't consider any of these types of groups horrible*, but rather the natural result of a group of people with different abilities working together.
*Well, I do consider the group where the rules aren't complex enough for anyone to be horrible. The common reason for this is someone overthinking their rpg play, using 'Theory' over their real world gaming experiences to make their choices.
Or maybe they're just have a bad case of A.D.D.
But that's for the general market or an individual player. Groups have a somewhat different relationship with their rules.
While I'm sure there are groups where all the players are masters of their choice of system, IME these are quite rare. Very often only a few of the players have any significant mastery of the rules being used. The others have basic knowledge and it's not uncommon for groups to have one or more players whose gaming sessions consists of making choices- and leaving enacting those choices through the game mechanics up to other players ("ok, you want to attack that goblin- roll the 20 sided die...").
Under such conditions, the choice of game system (and its complexity) isn't an average of all the group members. Rather it's a choice of the most rule focused players in the group. Sometimes it may be selected solely by the GM.
The players making the choice may well be selecting a level of complexity too great for the rest of the group. In that case, expect them to often be seen aiding others in 'proper' tactical choices and mechanics usage up to and including character design. To me, this is the most common type of rpg group (the experience of others may differ).
Or they may select something too simple for their group, resulting in them moving much of their play to the meta-game levels (as per Layers of Design). Another option they have is pressing the group to move to another game system as they grow bored with the simple systems placed before them. If another too simple system is selected, the cycle will repeat.
A somewhat different version of the this last group, is the one where the rules aren't complex enough for *anybody* to last any length of time. Here, expect lots of movement from game system to game system- but it comes from the rule focused players instead of from the group as a whole.
Groups where everyone is on the same page are quite rare from what I can tell.
I don't consider any of these types of groups horrible*, but rather the natural result of a group of people with different abilities working together.
*Well, I do consider the group where the rules aren't complex enough for anyone to be horrible. The common reason for this is someone overthinking their rpg play, using 'Theory' over their real world gaming experiences to make their choices.
Or maybe they're just have a bad case of A.D.D.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Equilibrium of Complexity
RPGs run a wide range of mechanical complexity. Covering free-form styles (one could debate if these can be called rpgs at all) to games such as HERO System or GURPS.
Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.
It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.
That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.
How can this be?
If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.
However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.
Again, how can this be?
I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.
Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.
Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).
I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.
When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.
This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.
Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.
What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.
Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.
Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.
Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.
Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.
It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.
That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.
How can this be?
If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.
However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.
Again, how can this be?
I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.
Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.
Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).
I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.
When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.
This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.
Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.
What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.
Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.
Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.
Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The nature of RPG discussion online?
I came across something interesting the other day speaking about the nature of debate on the Internet. The subject was global warming and I'd like to pass on that subject itself as this isn't a science or political blog, what's important here is that the author (Roger Pielke Jr.) is for the most part a supporter of the idea of global warming but objects to certain statements made by other proponents.
That objection resulted in what strikes me as an all too common Internet approach to debate. He describes it as such:
"Here is how it works. The really giant fish -- public intellectuals like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman -- confer authority on the big fish of the liberal blogosphere. They do so by applauding the work of the big fish and saying that they trust them. This is a useful exchange because the big fish amplify the writings of the giant fish in the blogosphere and do the dirty work of taking down their political opponents by playing some gutter politics that the giant fish would rather not be seen playing. This has the effect of establishing the big fish as people to be listened to, not because they are necessarily right about things, but because the giant fish listen to them and the giant fish set political agendas."
Further on...
"But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn't seem to care), as to more effectively attack someone's reputation they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation."
Full article found here.
Pulling this back to the subject of RPGs, the pond is vastly smaller, and so too are the fish. But I've seen much the same result. The GNS debates for example certainly has it's giant fish (Edwards), big fish (Clinton, Vincent), and minnows (the mass of Forge/GNS supporters).
It would seem to me a natural result of how large numbers of people would interact in an enviroment that is effectively uncontrolled (and almost void of people with true standing on the subject). Something to keep in mind I think.
That objection resulted in what strikes me as an all too common Internet approach to debate. He describes it as such:
"Here is how it works. The really giant fish -- public intellectuals like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman -- confer authority on the big fish of the liberal blogosphere. They do so by applauding the work of the big fish and saying that they trust them. This is a useful exchange because the big fish amplify the writings of the giant fish in the blogosphere and do the dirty work of taking down their political opponents by playing some gutter politics that the giant fish would rather not be seen playing. This has the effect of establishing the big fish as people to be listened to, not because they are necessarily right about things, but because the giant fish listen to them and the giant fish set political agendas."
Further on...
"But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn't seem to care), as to more effectively attack someone's reputation they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation."
Full article found here.
Pulling this back to the subject of RPGs, the pond is vastly smaller, and so too are the fish. But I've seen much the same result. The GNS debates for example certainly has it's giant fish (Edwards), big fish (Clinton, Vincent), and minnows (the mass of Forge/GNS supporters).
It would seem to me a natural result of how large numbers of people would interact in an enviroment that is effectively uncontrolled (and almost void of people with true standing on the subject). Something to keep in mind I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
