So what's this I hear Jim Ward is killing TLG?

[angelius]

hehe.. I personally think that you dont even need one book to play a RPG! That's how I use to play it when I was but a wee lad...couldn't afford the books so we just made it up as we went a long.

Till this day, that style of play still has some nostalgic value to me.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[Troll Lord]

angelius wrote:
hehe.. I personally think that you dont even need one book to play a RPG! That's how I use to play it when I was but a wee lad...couldn't afford the books so we just made it up as we went a long.

Till this day, that style of play still has some nostalgic value to me.

Well we don't want to go crazy!

Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com

[serleran]

It may be too late.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[angelius]

Troll Lord wrote:
Well we don't want to go crazy!

Steve

What can I say the rain makes me a little nostalgic for simpler times!
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[gideon_thorne]

angelius wrote:
hehe.. I personally think that you dont even need one book to play a RPG! That's how I use to play it when I was but a wee lad...couldn't afford the books so we just made it up as we went a long.

Till this day, that style of play still has some nostalgic value to me.

*chuckles* My first group didn't have internet forums to go to in order to answer questions. Hell, I don't think IRC was even around when I first started playing.

So it pretty well forced us to slog it through on our own. Not that a bunch of 7-8 year olds were all that concerned over fine points in mechanics.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

It has begun. The takeover is nigh unstoppable. I just tried to reach Steve with the number provided on the website and it returned me with a this phone has been disconnected.....

And then I realized I needed to dial a 1 first.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[angelius]

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* My first group didn't have internet forums to go to in order to answer questions. Hell, I don't think IRC was even around when I first started playing.

So it pretty well forced us to slog it through on our own. Not that a bunch of 7-8 year olds were all that concerned over fine points in mechanics.

The truth is that I've been searching all these years for a game that had that 'feel', that would bring me back to a time when things were just so 'fantastic' and made me feel that a world opened up to me... (pretty much coincided with the first time I read Dragon magazine).... still can't find it.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[Traveller]

Troll Lord wrote:
What is core to me? Well its more than mechanics as mechanics don't drive my game (ask Mark, he'll tell you); role playing does. So core to me are those core books that give me solid expansion material for the game itself. In this case, we will have four books filled with useful material: PH, MT, CKG and OG&M. These are core books because they generate the attention and support the game the most; that is how I've always viewed them and the ad copy I write, and I write 99% of it, reflects that.

Does any of this make sense?

I don't often pull dictionary definitions, but I'm going to anyway.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:
Main Entry: core

Pronunciation: \ˈkȯr\

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English

Date: 14th century

1 : a central and often foundational part usually distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature : as a : the usually inedible central part of some fruits (as a pineapple); especially : the papery or leathery carpels composing the ripened ovary in a pome fruit (as an apple) b : the portion of a foundry mold that shapes the interior of a hollow casting c : a vertical space (as for elevator shafts, stairways, or plumbing apparatus) in a multistory building d (1) : a mass of iron serving to concentrate and intensify the magnetic field resulting from a current in a surrounding coil (2) : a tiny doughnut-shaped piece of magnetic material (as ferrite) used in computer memories (3) : a computer memory consisting of an array of cores strung on fine wires; broadly : the internal memory of a computer e : the central part of a celestial body (as the earth or sun) usually having different physical properties from the surrounding parts f : a nodule of stone (as flint or obsidian) from which flakes have been struck for making implements g : the conducting wire with its insulation in an electric cable h : an arrangement of a course of studies that combines under basic topics material from subjects conventionally separated and aims to provide a common background for all students i : the place in a nuclear reactor where fission occurs
2 a : a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) b : the essential meaning : gist c : the inmost or most intimate part

3 : a part (as a thin cylinder of material) removed from the interior of a mass especially to determine composition

I quoted the whole thing, but the definition that applies to this discussion is 2a, which states "a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity)". I do not know how you came up with your definition of "core" and I don't know where the book distributers came up with their definition, but the CKG and OGM are NOT core according to the accepted definition. They are neither basic nor are they essential to the play of the game. So why then are they marketed on the website as "core" material when they clearly are not?

Continuing to market these books as core when they are not is deceptive at best.

Now, regarding the four book gift set, I probably was in a bit of a haze when I mentioned it, since I don't even recall mentioning it. Nevertheless, since there is no backing evidence (meaning I can't find the frickin' post), I retract statements that I may or may not have made regarding a multi-book box set encompassing the PHB, M&T, CKG, and OGM. However, such retraction does not change the core (there's that word again) issue here: the deceptive marketing on the TLG website of the CKG and OGM as core, when they are not.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[Sir Ironside]

Traveller wrote:
I quoted the whole thing, but the definition that applies to this discussion is 2a, which states "a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity)". I do not know how you came up with your definition of "core" and I don't know where the book distributers came up with their definition, but the CKG and OGM are NOT core according to the accepted definition. They are neither basic nor are they essential to the play of the game. So why then are they marketed on the website as "core" material when they clearly are not?

Eh... the English language is the Borg of all languages. I mean we have dictionary entrances for Grrl now, amongst other newer English terms (I saw them in a Cracked article but I'm too lazy to look it up.)

Though you won't find the rpg "core" definition, in any dictionary, it doesn't stop the word core to take up a new meaning to a select group of like minded people. In this case the role playing community uses a part of the true meaning of core but spins it off into encapsulating books that supplement the core rules but are not needed to play the game. It is pervasive all over our hobby and has become a acceptable term without anyone really acknowledging it as such.

I mentioned the GURPS line above, but it applies to WoTC's DM II, Players Handbook II, The Traveller stuff and the Runequest stuff from Mongoose games... I could give many more examples that fit the gamers core definition. All these lines have books that compliment the original core books but are not necessary to play the game.
_________________
That is SIR! to you!

[Omote]

angelius wrote:
The truth is that I've been searching all these years for a game that had that 'feel', that would bring me back to a time when things were just so 'fantastic' and made me feel that a world opened up to me...

I say this without any influence from anybody, that Castles & Crusades brought that special feeling back to me. Nothing will ever replace the majesty of first learning that first paper and pencil RPG, but in the eternal quest for doing so, C&C has come the closest. Trollzah. Trollzah.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Omote wrote:
I say this without any influence from anybody, that Castles & Crusades brought that special feeling back to me. Nothing will ever replace the majesty of first learning that first paper and pencil RPG, but in the eternal quest for doing so, C&C has come the closest. Trollzah. Trollzah.

~O

Yep, I'll second this one. While I'm not out for that, "Back in the good old days" nostalgia that has been the stuff of so much debate, that kind of approach sure was/is fun.

[angelius]

I'll have to agree - otherwise I'd would be here in the C&C forums, great game, great feel!
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[gideon_thorne]

Traveller wrote:
2 a : a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) b : the essential meaning : gist c : the inmost or most intimate part

Ok. We'll get into a semantics discussion then. Not the use of the word 'or' in the above sentence 'a basic, essential OR enduring part'. The use of the word 'or' indicates that the definition can use any or all of these words as part of it, but the reader can chose which meaning, whole or in part, to apply.

Now, its been made perfectly clear, on a number of occasions, that the PHB and the M&T are the only ones required for the game. But the odd bloke might want to add other books to their core experience for the system.

There is nothing deceptive about it from TLG. However, there is nothing TLG can do about people who insist on reading motives into these matters that aren't there.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Wasgo]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Now, its been made perfectly clear, on a number of occasions, that the PHB and the M&T are the only ones required for the game. But the odd bloke might want to add other books to their core experience for the system.

There is nothing deceptive about it from TLG. However, there is nothing TLG can do about people who insist on reading motives into these matters that aren't there.

It's less important what you intend to communicate, than what people will perceive as your communication. Poor dictionary semantics asides, people read core as necessary. They aren't going to see the subtle distinctions that are intended just because you say they will.

Similarly, you say it's been made clear, but where on TLG's website under the product section or any obvious section, does it make it clear that the PHB and M&T are all that are required? Or going by the even more limiting proposition, that only the PHB is required? Similarly, where on the books does it say that? You've previously noted that most buyers don't go on forums or cons, so how should the other buyers know what you mean by Core?

[marjasall]

I'm late on this topic (it's my wedding anniversary today), but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, for what it's worth. I read the review, the forums, a blog, etc.

The initial post simply sounded bitter to me. The review, the same. The more I read, the sillier the argument got. Finally when someone "re-wrote" one of Jim's paragraphs in a childish display of "i'm a better writer than you are", I quit reading, closed it up, and dismissed the entire discussion. That act right there spoke volumes about what I was reading.

I haven't seen the product yet, so I have no opinion on whether it's good or not (although I think my own work in it is pretty good ). I anticipate that TL is most likely a fine product considering Jim's 30 years of experience and expertise in the industry. He's no newbie. My guess is that Jim has probably been doing this longer than that guy has walked this earth. But whether the guy who made the initial post thinks TL is good or bad, the remark was just way over-the-top and plain vicious. Fire Jim?? To me it was not an opinion, but an attack. A smear. It should be recognized as such and whacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.
_________________
http://www.marjasall.com

[gideon_thorne]

Wasgo wrote:
It's less important what you intend to communicate, than what people will perceive as your communication. Poor dictionary semantics asides, people read core as necessary. They aren't going to see the subtle distinctions that are intended just because you say they will.

I don't expect people to bother over such subtle distinctions. The point that I've been getting at, repeatedly, is that the vast majority of the people who play rpgs don't care about such things. They buy what they think they need, and ignore the rest.

Quote:
Similarly, you say it's been made clear, but where on TLG's website under the product section or any obvious section, does it make it clear that the PHB and M&T are all that are required? Or going by the even more limiting proposition, that only the PHB is required? Similarly, where on the books does it say that? You've previously noted that most buyers don't go on forums or cons, so how should the other buyers know what you mean by Core?

C&C PHB Page 5, "What Do You Need To Play"

"Unlike many other games, Castles & Crusades only requires this book of rules for those playing the characters.....

And "The Castle Keeper will need the Castle & Crusades Monsters and Treasure rulebook and will find the CKG handy as well. "

Doesn't get any more clear.

_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Wasgo]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I don't expect people to bother over such subtle distinctions. The point that I've been getting at, repeatedly, is that the vast majority of the people who play rpgs don't care about such things. They buy what they think they need, and ignore the rest.

If I look on the website, my sense is that I would need to buy four Core books for C&C, compared to three for D&D and three for Pathfinder. That does matter if I'm deciding to buy a new RPG.

Quote:
C&C PHB Page 5, "What Do You Need To Play"

"Unlike many other games, Castles & Crusades only requires this book of rules for those playing the characters.....

And "The Castle Keeper will need the Castle & Crusades Monsters and Treasure rulebook and will find the CKG handy as well. "

Doesn't get any more clear.

Again, that's presuming a certain level of interest hasn't already been lost. People are not going to flip through the book to learn what is required, when the concept of Core appears to make it quite clear.

marjasall wrote:
Finally when someone "re-wrote" one of Jim's paragraphs in a childish display of "i'm a better writer than you are", I quit reading, closed it up, and dismissed the entire discussion. That act right there spoke volumes about what I was reading.

I believe that only happened because one of the people vehemently defending Mr. Ward kept insisting if you couldn't write better, then you couldn't criticize the clarity of the writing. In my estimation that passage was fairly poorly written.

What I found got lost in both the review and the subsequent discussion is whether or not using the addition actually makes the game more or less fun. It's clear that it isn't a playtest review, given that the reviewer doesn't own Castles and Crusades, so any speculation as to balance is premised on a very assumed understanding of how the game would be played. I'd imagine the reviewer is right in that Ravenloft is a better version of Ravenloft, but that's bound to be a truism. Again, the better question is does it open up new types of games and is it fun?

I fully believe the reviewer that the writing isn't clear, and the mechanics are probably not balanced perfectly. I'd expect that as a CK, I'd have to make modifications as I went along. But if it's a fun product, and it gives me another way to play C&C, it would still be worthing owning. For all his criticisms about balance, he makes it sound like it should be easier to convert and balance a 3.0 D&D or AD&D 2nd Edition product than it would be to correct any perceived flaws in this one. That seems unlikely to me.

[Omote]

Who cares about the term core versus [insert other term]. It's their company they can call the books whatever they want. The funny thing about this conversation here is that everybody who is posting about this topic knows which books they need to run the game and which they don't. So why does it bother people so much arguing this point? Presumably, you're already invested in the game. If you are not interesting in C&C, then you are probably not reading this post anyway. So who cares?

The point has been made. Different game companies use the term core and they mean different things. TLG made it's position clear, and frankly this quote is clear as a bell:

Troll Lord wrote:
So core to me are those core books that give me solid expansion material for the game itself. In this case, we will have four books filled with useful material: PH, MT, CKG and OG&M. These are core books because they generate the attention and support the game the most; that is how I've always viewed them...

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

Uh uh, when I spoke to Steve on the phone he told me SG1 and 2 are core, and that M&T II is core, and Aihrde box set and the Basic box are also... they are core, for the business. Not for the game.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[gideon_thorne]

Wasgo wrote:
If I look on the website, my sense is that I would need to buy four Core books for C&C, compared to three for D&D and three for Pathfinder. That does matter if I'm deciding to buy a new RPG.

Well, I'm not getting the same sense from the website. But then again, I generally don't shop from websites.

Quote:
Again, that's presuming a certain level of interest hasn't already been lost. People are not going to flip through the book to learn what is required, when the concept of Core appears to make it quite clear.

The above section has been in the books since the first printing. Again, it doesn't get any more clear.

And, actually most people do flip through books to see what's required. Just common sense.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Geoffrey]

Quote:
C&C PHB Page 5, "What Do You Need To Play"

"Unlike many other games, Castles & Crusades only requires this book of rules for those playing the characters.....

And "The Castle Keeper will need the Castle & Crusades Monsters and Treasure rulebook and will find the CKG handy as well. "

The Castle Keeper doesn't even need M&T. I think it would be a lot of fun to referee or play in a C&C campaign with only the C&C PHB and James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator.

[Sir Ironside]

Wasgo wrote:
I believe that only happened because one of the people vehemently defending Mr. Ward kept insisting if you couldn't write better, then you couldn't criticize the clarity of the writing. In my estimation that passage was fairly poorly written.

Actually it wasn't a true defender, I'm pretty sure the poster in question didn't even own any C&C stuff but took to task some of the garbage people had thrown out and called them on it. There were two that took up the challenge and one of them was the reviewer.

Later on both rewrites were commented on and most agreed that what they wrote was not any better and actually the reviewers was worse.
_________________
That is SIR! to you!

[Wasgo]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well, I'm not getting the same sense from the website. But then again, I generally don't shop from websites.

Quote:
The above section has been in the books since the first printing. Again, it doesn't get any more clear.

And, actually most people do flip through books to see what's required. Just common sense.

As a player, I can state that until I read the forums, I did find the whole 4 Core Books to be confusing. At first I thought they were expanding the number of 'standard' books from three to four. Especially since the new edition of the PHB came out after Of Gods and Monsters so the website was all I had to reference. As of now there is 1 required book to play, 2 books are necessary for most game purposes, 3 books will be in the standard box set and 4 books are Core. Given that I was confused, I refuse to debate whether or not this can be confusing.

I'd thought I'd reference an earlier quote here:

gideon_thorne wrote:
Hahah. Ya. Pretty common tactic of the more vehement critics of TLG. Posting their complaints elsewhere and often behind closed doors, and not bringing them directly to this forum.

Such moral cowardice is laughable. And generally why I don't take the more vocal and hysterical critics seriously.

I like C&C. I own a few of the books, and more than a few of the PDFs. I hate making any sort of constructive criticism of C&C on this forum. I find certain people's responses, especially yours, to be dismissive and condescending. I can fully appreciate why many people wouldn't want to post any criticism on these forums. In fact, this will be my last post on this topic, as it's very clear there is no intention to have a merit-based discussion. The only purpose that I can see for this topic is to prove how much superior posters here are by slagging on RPG.net and the RPGNow reviewer about how biased and stupid they are.

[gideon_thorne]

Wasgo wrote:
As a player, I can state that until I read the forums, I did find the whole 4 Core Books to be confusing. At first I thought they were expanding the number of 'standard' books from three to four. Especially since the new edition of the PHB came out after Of Gods and Monsters so the website was all I had to reference. As of now there is 1 required book to play, 2 books are necessary for most game purposes, 3 books will be in the standard box set and 4 books are Core. Given that I was confused, I refuse to debate whether or not this can be confusing.

I'd thought I'd reference an earlier quote here:



I like C&C. I own a few of the books, and more than a few of the PDFs. I hate making any sort of constructive criticism of C&C on this forum. I find certain people's responses, especially yours, to be dismissive and condescending. I can fully appreciate why many people wouldn't want to post any criticism on these forums. In fact, this will be my last post on this topic, as it's very clear there is no intention to have a merit-based discussion. The only purpose that I can see for this topic is to prove how much superior posters here are by slagging on RPG.net and the RPGNow reviewer about how biased and stupid they are.

Ah. But I'm not dismissing constructive criticism. Constructive criticism, put forth properly, is entirely welcome here.
Folks have put up their points about the whole 'core' definition, and have been answered, rather reasonably I thought.

Im dismissing the sort of post that was put up over at RPG net, and other places that I've read over the last 5 years that are far from constructive. The kind of posts I am referring too tend to be the sorts that either attack an author, like the one this thread started over, or folks who make up out of whole cloth errant nonsense about C&C, TLG, the staff and so forth.

To such posts, I am quite ready to admit that I will be dismissive and condescending, and will make no apology for it.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

Sir Ironside wrote:
Actually it wasn't a true defender, I'm pretty sure the poster in question didn't even own any C&C stuff but took to task some of the garbage people had thrown out and called them on it. There were two that took up the challenge and one of them was the reviewer.

Later on both rewrites were commented on and most agreed that what they wrote was not any better and actually the reviewers was worse.

Yeah, when I looked at the example given I tried rewriting it. I came up with two ways I thought read better, but not by very much. Certainly not enough for me to call Jim's wording equivalent of a 12 year olds. Plus I have a 13 year old, and he doesn't write that well, and he is well ahead of his age group.

Plus it also occurred to me that with 30 years of experience he was INTENTIONALLY writing at the 6th grade level. After all, look at the age range the game is meant for.

So Jim probably used small words and simple phrasing on purpose, so that 12 year olds would understand it. Makes sense to me, and is certainly something the so called "professionals" over on RPG dot net certainly didn't consider.

That was something my friend pointed out to me, one of the "professionals" over there criticizing Jim, a guy who has been working in the industry for over 30 years, for the top company in the industry, AND started his own business, thinks he is in a position to judge/criticize Jim because he had 3 whole industry credits for, at best, second rate companies within the industry.

So he is an "expert" with 3 whole pieces of work to his credit, criticizing another expert with thousands of pieces of work to his credit. Guess which "expert" I put my money on?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[serleran]

See Jim. Jim writes. Jim writes well. Write, Jim, write.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Sir Osis of Liver]

marjasall wrote:
Fire Jim?? To me it was not an opinion, but an attack. A smear. It should be recognized as such and whacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

First of all, happy anniversary. Second, wow! You read my mind. Well played!

[Treebore]

serleran wrote:
See Jim. Jim writes. Jim writes well. Write, Jim, write.

good one!
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Wolfram_Stout]

Hello,

What I liked about that thread was that in on moment, he was dogging the Tainted Lands because it was a re-hash and therefore did not show any intelligence and imagination (my rough paraphrase), then in the next moment, was dogging that paragraph because it didn't have specific benefits.

Here is the "offending paragraph":


_________________

_________________

_________________
_____

p. 64 Of Gods & Monsters

While the goddess isn't confrontational, she works behind the scenes to get things done. Her clerics are the same way, and work with the rulers of the cities and the country to push forward the cause of magic and the raising of her temples. Clerics of Isis are trained so well that they start out at the second level. Clerics are also able to cast the magic missile spell as if they were wizards matching their clerical levels.


_________________

_________________

_________________
________

They couldn't figure out how a goddess and her priesthood could do that and for what end they would do it for. I was at a lost, because I read the "offending paragraph" and immediately had a feel for the goddess and how her priesthood would function. I don't own the book yet.

It is on my want list for Christmas. At least now it is.

Regards,

Wolfram

[gideon_thorne]

Wolfram_Stout wrote:
Hello,

What I liked about that thread was that in on moment, he was dogging the Tainted Lands because it was a re-hash and therefore did not show any intelligence and imagination (my rough paraphrase), then in the next moment, was dogging that paragraph because it didn't have specific benefits.

Here is the "offending paragraph":


_________________

_________________

_________________
_____

p. 64 Of Gods & Monsters

While the goddess isn't confrontational, she works behind the scenes to get things done. Her clerics are the same way, and work with the rulers of the cities and the country to push forward the cause of magic and the raising of her temples. Clerics of Isis are trained so well that they start out at the second level. Clerics are also able to cast the magic missile spell as if they were wizards matching their clerical levels.


_________________

_________________

_________________
________

They couldn't figure out how a goddess and her priesthood could do that and for what end they would do it for. I was at a lost, because I read the "offending paragraph" and immediately had a feel for the goddess and how her priesthood would function. I don't own the book yet.

It is on my want list for Christmas. At least now it is.

Regards,

Wolfram

*chuckles* That is funny. Clerics start out at 2nd level, yet the chap says that the paragraph doesn't spell out any benefits.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley