TRPG General Chat

@nitsua60 yeah, hopefully the other players involved will be able to move onward

12:57 AM

@WrongOnTheInternet It's always a little thrilling to find an excellent question which probably can't ever be answered.

1:17 AM

@eimyr to be fair, even Atwood points out that there is a measure of laziness to using SE. Let me find the blog post about it

and my google fu is failing me this evening.

@BESW That's why I came here with it; I figured it was at least worth asking, even if the answer is "We can't know currently". Also, thank you.

Speaking of questions that will never be answered, I need to read Misspent Youth.

1:56 AM

@WrongOnTheInternet I think you buried the lede. Your comment about people reached seems to be the motive behind the question.

All the specific thing you ask for in the question proper are just ways you can think of to gauge that overarching curiosity about how many people are served by OSR products, right?

@BESW That's mostly correct. I'm also looking for patterns (like does a prolific author/publisher sell significantly more, does price play a role in number of people reached, etc.), things I expect the most thorough answers would cover at least to a slight degree.

Unrelated, what the hell is all this about?
http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/q/6080/5834

Nevermind, forget I asked.

@WrongOnTheInternet I roughly summarised my understanding here a few days ago.

We've moved forward since then, I think.

Ah.

Further discussion, if any, should be kept to the Not A Bar for the sake of General Chat happiness.

2:12 AM

Nah, I'm just happy to get a decent explanation.

@WrongOnTheInternet An edit that explains more about what you hope to learn might be useful.

As a general rule, Stack questions are better when they say what we're hoping to learn, rather than ask for the specific things we think will help us learn it.

Hmm... I know there's been a few blog postings about general income RPG publishers bring in (James Raggi quoted he makes something like 5 figures in profit, but invests most of it back into projects and Sine Nomine chimed into the same discussion with vaguer results), but those aren't quite units sold, especially because these publishers often split profits differently with authors or are the authors themselves.

@BESW Will do, thanks for the advice.

Ryan Macklin posted some interesting K&T stats a while back.

But as much as K&T is emulating the aesthetic of the same era as OSR, it's doing so on the narrative level rather than the mechanical. So it's not OSR in any commonly understood way.

[digs for link in case it's useful anyway]

I'm guessing the raw numbers of product sold is going to be different between OSR, storygames, and other niche areas of indie RPG publishers. Not to say I haven't bought a sizeable amount from all of the above.

Katanas & Trenchcoats sales, first month.

And keep in mind K&T was an April Fool's joke.

2:21 AM

@BESW Feel like Rob Donoghue's twitter has talked at least to some degree about this, maybe even when Ryan was talking about K&T sales?

@waxeagle Alas, this is a Twitter not on my feed.

@BESW he's a worthwhile follow

so, any mod who isn't too busy right now or feels like it later, I would like to get this room unfrozen at some point chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/19060/trogdors-gm-room

Ah, yes, I have his blog on my RSS feed.

not looking to pressure anyone at the moment

2:22 AM

@trogdor done

ty XD

very prompt XD

then again I said it as you were already doing stuff in here, I should not be too surprised

anyway, thank you very much good sir

@trogdor yup :)

@eimyr Were you the one who was interested in more analysis of "describing D&D in terms of what drives player choices"? Because here, have a thing.

@BESW Dang, that's ~600 units over the course of a month? How well known is Ryan Macklin, or did it do this well just due to word of mouth? Either way, very impressive.

@WrongOnTheInternet Yes to both. He's been in RPGs for a long time, associated with major big-name stuff.

And K&T is just awesome.

He wrote Mythender, and was instrumental in lots of Pathfinder stuff and Leverage, and has been a major player in Evil Hat with Dresden Files, Fate Core, Don't Lose Your Mind, Pilgrims of the Flying Temple...

2:31 AM

@BESW I really liked Don't Lose Your Mind. Wasn't particularly well suited to the groups I ran it for, but still. Mythender looked kinda cool, but also like something that wasn't going to get played longform in any group I was in, and didn't appeal that strongly to me either. Most of the rest I've heard of but haven't read or played (sans Pathfinder, which is well known because it's Pathfinder).

IgneusJotunn

@WrongOnTheInternet Both of them have really cool mechanics. The dice moving dicepools feel very strange when you first start using them.

Let's just say he's worked for three of the biggest names in RPGs that aren't White Wolf or Wizards, each of them catering to a different niche in the community and each on at least one major brand project. When he publishes something, a broad cross-section of the RPG world says "Hey, I've heard of him."

@IgneusJotunn I kinda have a love/hate relationship with weird new mechanics. Love in that I have three bricks of dice specifically dedicated to DRYH; hate in that I think they kind of overcomplicate things in an unneccessary way often.

@BESW So he's well known, or at least his work is. Explains the impressive numbers he's pulling as an indie publisher.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of dice pools but I'm also a big fan of stupidly simple and intuitive dice mechanics that get out of the way fast.

DRYH was a little too complex for my tastes; the strategy was important for the tension, but I think it had a few too many moving parts for the level of immersion it was trying for.

two of my favorite games eschew dice entirely for other kinds of randomization

2:36 AM

Which are those?

IgneusJotunn

@WrongOnTheInternet I kind of think DRYH and Mythender are both overcomplicating things in a neccessary fashion actually. Both have a sense of parts of your character not being entirely under your control, and that was actually a true thing in-character.

Dread and Do:PotFT

Still haven't played Dread. It's kinda hard when half your group is on Skype.

yeah, that definitely presents a significant challenge

Pilgrims is possible but not ideal; the ratios of the tokens in the bag are sorta supposed to shift as you go.

2:39 AM

@BESW right, I think the time we played on the stack we just used the dice roller which was definitely less than ideal.

it was better IRL with a shifting ratio

@IgneusJotunn Is it over-complicated if it's necessary? I'm more talking about the fact that I feel like I need to go out and do a whole lot of setup with game materials alone than I'm talking about how the unique bits interact in play.

@IgneusJotunn I like mechanics that serve the desired gameplay a lot (hence the love for Dread)

Like, if I could just say "Let's summon a game of DRYH" and all the pieces were there, I wouldn't worry about it at all. The fact that I need to get two bowls, three different sets of dice, a bunch of pennies or pokerchips, and a bag of multicolored d6's for what's likely to be a 2 hour long game is what bothers me.

IgneusJotunn

@WrongOnTheInternet Given that I played both on R20, I don't know how much trouble it is to set up on a regular basis. once I had the room ready, it was always sitting there.

btw, I don't mean to take an especially strong stance here. Sorry if my word choice is coming across that way.

@waxeagle Have you played A Penny For My Thoughts?

nitsua60

2:46 AM

@BESW is that the one where you're trying to recover memories, and a bowl of pennies is the mechanic? (Or am I remembering something else and/or totally incorrectly?)

Yup, that's it.

@BESW no I haven't

is it on drivethru?

Yup. I'd be interested to get your opinion on it.

The only randomisation mechanic is: everyone writes a sense trigger on a piece of paper and they're put into a bowl. When you're going to start remembering something in your past, you draw a sense trigger from the bowl and that's what starts your memory.

The rest of it is, when you come to an important choice your character made, you can't remember it: you have to ask two other participants what you did, and choose which one of them is right.

You give a penny to the person who remembered rightly, and your memory scene is over when you run out of pennies.

@IgneusJotunn Nah, I'm just stating personal preference also. I don't see it as an objective design flaw (or at least, as objective as design gets).

As much as DRYH was a lot more of a pain to physically set up than any other system I'm currently using, it was nothing compared to any map-and-minis games I used to play.

2:56 AM

@BESW interesting, that sounds fun. I'll have to pick that up and try it with my group. (seems like it might work well online too)

Hmm.

In my experience, the tactile and almost LARP-like effect of APFMT was very defining. But it could be done online, yeah.

yeah, that makes sense, just thinking about how flaky my RL group is :)

@BESW I don't know how my 4E DM does it. I grew a distaste for running minis based games some time ago (although I don't mind playing them).

(The game's structure is that of an experimental therapy session using light psychic connections so amnesiacs can help each other recover their memories. The manual is presented as an in-game prop: the instruction guide for the therapy session.)

@WrongOnTheInternet I loved setting up 4e games for about a year before I started to burn out.

But then, I was using some non-standard props.

@BESW Yeah, I think I can see the appeal of "look at this set piece combat guys!". I just tend to burn out on these things fast; like within one or two weeks fast.

3:02 AM

I used Crayola window markers on a laminated grid--colourful, fast, non-smearing, easy cleanup--and Gnome Stew print-and-fold minis so I could quickly and cheaply create custom minis for each session.

That let me put most of my energy and time into making interesting and narrative-pushing mechanics for the setpiece.

@BESW Alright, that's actually pretty cool. Sounds like the kind of thing my OD&D DM does for his handouts.

I'm extremely lazy when GMing though, to the extent that I want to keep my descriptions to one or two sentences and I'll typically look up rules conflicts after the session and just make a short ruling at the table without looking in a book.

That second bit is the only way I can tolerate running more rules-heavy systems, like Mutants & Masterminds.

Yeah, my style has changed drastically since my D&D days.

@BESW How's your style now?

Hmm. Well, in D&D --especially 4e-- I was often mashing mechanics against mechanics for the sake of mechanics. Now I'm more interested in finding the simplest mechanic that does a good job supporting the narrative.

On the other hand, I do a lot fewer voices for NPCs.

I gravitate toward systems that are simple to remember and/or forgiving of mechanical mistakes, but unlike in my D&D days I'm less likely to have whole scenes or sessions where I just ignore mechanics entirely outside of conflicts.

I spend less time overall on prep, but that's mostly because the mechanics are less demanding: I think I'm still spending about the same amount of time on narrative prep.

And I'm a lot more inclined to ask players for help mid-session, on figuring out a ruling or deciding what comes next or anything, really.

@BESW When you say narrative prep, what do you mean? Character prep (this is what the person would do in this situation), choice prep (options A, B, and C, if they choose D, I can wing it), situation prep?

3:16 AM

Yes to all.

Mostly setting up what the conflict is when the PCs arrive and why it's important for them to engage with it.

That means defining NPCs in terms of what they want and how they plan to get it and how they relate to each other, so that they can move dynamically in response to whatever the PCs do.

....I also practice descriptions.

Ah, cool. Do you use any specific tools with prep, like timelines?

Not really. I'll stat up the NPCs and the environs and maybe write a few paragraphs about what's going on to help cement it in my head.

I used to have tons of notes. These days I'm more.... "Here's a list of phrases to remind me of awesome things that could happen."

@BESW I've tended towards using more (very short-hand) tools when prepping non-sandbox games, since I don't trust myself not to subconsciously influence my players toward a certain end.

I've lately been getting better at not having any real ideas about how a scene or adventure will play out.

It's a weird mental discipline, to create a beginning and a variety of middles but stop before I think of endings.

But it means that, eg, in DRYH we finished with a PC ripping us between multiple timelines before finally forcing another PC to endlessly re-live the most humiliating moments of her life. My ideas paled in comparison to that, and I'm glad I was able to get out of the way for it.

@BESW Hmm... I suppose I like being able to write something, and then have the hypothetical ability to point to it after players finish playing and say "See here? This tool guaranteed your choices mattered!". I don't think your method is actually any worse than my preference here, it's just a mental hangup I have.

3:28 AM

Yeah... for me, I'm happiest when I have to throw out all my prep halfway through because my players have done something three times as awesome as I would have had them do.

@BESW See, that sounds really cool. When I write adventures for a non-sandbox game, I tend to write a spectrum of potential endings (they saved everyone, no one died best case scenario vs. the world is now on fire, all of it is on fire, everyone is on fire)

Although now that I'm thinking about it, I think It's most important not to feel attachment to any particular path, no matter the prep used.

Yes, exactly.

Like, in our last adventure: My idea was that we'd do a simple "race to the MacGuffin" quest with a villain and her ghost lackey trying to get there first.

Sandbox prep has been totally different for me though. My players are walking balls of entropy and screw up the world in ways I didn't even know were possible.

It's awesome.

Instead, the second session ended with one of the PCs replaced the villain (shapeshifted to look like the missing PC). She was going to guide the PCs into a trap set by her ghost lackey. The third session had the ghost lackey get free of the villain's control and become the major villain of the story instead, with the shapeshifted villain stuck pretending to be the PC until she could figure out how to work this to her advantage.

@BESW I'm sure there's something written out there about Chaos Theory and Adventure Prep.

3:32 AM

We went straight to the MacGuffin and had a Tron-style struggle between a PC and the ghost for control of an artificial intelligence (who I'd originally planned to have be dead on arrival) while the shapeshifting villain simultaneously tried to regain control over the ghost.

user61230

@Emrakul ...your banned tag list is a lot more stringent than mine.

So the front page is hiding everything. Clever.

I've got 8 posts on the Active Questions page.

@BESW See, that sounds like one of those cool climaxes that sounds like it could have been planned, but isn't.

user61230

3:34 AM

@BESW I think something might not have loaded... I refreshed and now have three.

@Emrakul Out of curiosity, what tags do you ignore?

user61230

This is my blacklist.

@WrongOnTheInternet ...then we went to the ship's engine and the PCs did a series of fact-collecting rolls (the winner of each round made up a fact, and then they all rolled to see who got to put the facts together and say what was going on) and told me why it wasn't working: it was infested by enormous crystalline termites that were sucking its energy to give themselves superpowers.

@Emrakul Dear lord. Uh, you see questions mostly relevant to your interests now, right?

@BESW I like the "roll to make up facts" significantly better than "roll to know facts".

2

user61230

@WrongOnTheInternet Yeah! It's pretty effective, actually. I just blacklist systems I can't really help with.

3:40 AM

@Emrakul If only there was a "basic rules question" tag, I'd be all set.

user61230

@WrongOnTheInternet huddles in a corner meta tag... meta tag.... can't... no.... shivers

@Emrakul Eheheh. Would be nice for blocking purposes, at least.

3:55 AM

@Emrakul what systems do you work with, if I may ask?

user61230

@Shalvenay Fate, Microscope, Burning Wheel, freeform, and LARPs.

@Emrakul ah, an interesting spectrum.

I personally would like to do GURPS, Burning Wheel, and possibly Traveller (although that system could get somewhat awkward for me due to my EVE-colored space combat glasses) to add to my D&D and Fate experience

perhaps DW as well, although I'm not sure how well that system would handle the kinds of things I'd be inclined to throw at it

nitsua60

4:12 AM

@Emrakul TIL wildcards work in tags!

Wildcard tags are awesome.

Lord_Gareth

4:46 AM

Sweet zombies, we're at $995 already

I don't think I understood the forces I was unleashing

Heheh.

Most Kickstarters do slow down significantly after the first blush, so don't expect it to continue at that rate.

wildcard tags?

Lord_Gareth

@BESW - I don't need it to do much. I'm just $505 short of the goal. That's all I need and all I hope for. I don't care if it takes literally the rest of the time as long as we get there.

@trogdor If I block [*dnd*], it blocks every tag with "dnd" in it, regardless of what comes before or after.

oh

cool

4:50 AM

If I favourite [*fate*], it highlights (or would/will, that feature's not working now) every tag that says "fate" it it.

I think maybe blocking 5E and Pathfinder might help me actually find stuff I would be able to answer

XD

not that literally everything else fits in that category, but those are two pretty big categories that simply do not

how do I go about blocking a tag?

ah nevermind

found it

5:21 AM

hello

hi

... I didn't know Maid even had a tag on this site

@Forrestfire ...somebody just had to create it. :P

man, that game

I've played it once and it was fun enough but I would not actively choose to play that game

@Forrestfire nor would I.

5:42 AM

I don't think I would want to play it too often

but as far as not actively choosing to play it,... I would have to actually try it once XD

It's... really something.

honestly I'm not sure what words to even use to describe it

user61230

That's not a roleplaying game I will ever play.

all I have tried is the random character gen

user61230

I love thinking about the way it's built and run, but I would never actually play it.

and yeah, I would rather wave some of the flavor and rules

but with those things stripped out I think I would enjoy it

5:46 AM

It's interesting to see what's tagged and what's not.

that being said, I might just like Lady Blackbird better for similar situations, IE any session where we would end up playing maid might be more enjoyable and better spent with Lady Blackbird

@Emrakul -- btw -- re: RPed combat, I was given 30 minutes on the wall clock as a rule of thumb for how long a fight scene should take, tops -- does that sound about right to you?

@trogdor that...sounds sensible, at least.

I mean, they are not excessively similar, but on the off days we don't continue our main campaign, a one shot of Lady Blackbird is great for still actually doing an RPG

@trogdor yeah, LB's probably the other system I should try

LB is probably my favorite game out of all the ones that are not our current main one

though Great Ork Gods is very close behind it

5:52 AM

hey, out of curiosity, does anyone chatting in here currently know 4e well?

Great Ork Gods requires a certain state of mind at the time of play though

uh, I used to know it scary well

I might still remember something helpful?

I guess the first question: I'm fairly sure the answer here is no, but is there any way at all to get an extra feat from something other than race?

but I have not played it in a few years, so no guarantees

um,.. maybe with a boon? but I don't think so

oh, I totally forgot about boons. I should check those for other built components

there may have been very rare paragon paths that gave a specific feat

but nothing that gave you an extra blank slot for one you could choose that I specifically recall

5:56 AM

Currently, I'm trying to figure out a way to either squeeze in an extra feat or to get an arcane implement (swordmage's, specifically) onto an invoker without invoking the awful hybrid classes rules

mm hybrid classes

I steered clear of those

not enough optimization available in them for my tastes

I believe there are some backgrounds or themes which grant feats from limited lists.

I'm trying to combine Mark of Storm, Covenant Shifting (gith invoker-only feat that ups forced movement by 1 square), and fighter multiclassing into Polearm Momentum

to apply a "slide 2 and prone" to everything I do

the fastest way I've found comes online at level 6, and hybrids either Swordmage or Fighter (multiclassing the other)

buuuut the game starts at 4, and this is the sort of build that is functionally useless until the puzzle pieces come together :/

mmm

I made a pure fighter build that did similar things

three variants even

XD

I could do it as a fighter, but Invoker has this wonderful level 1 at-will that goes "pick three creatures and attack them at range"

with a Lightning Weapon, I can proc mark of storm with it

and then rearrange the battlefield while debuffing

6:00 AM

one was polearms, then a better optimized one with hammer and shield, then another I figured out that was better optimized with flails

XD

nice

That fighter push build was insane. Just about everything he did pushed between 3 and 8 squares, proned, slowed, and marked.

depending on what level he was, and what attack he was using

nice

that's pretty awesome.

but he also only attacked one person at a time, maybe sometimes two, and at melee instead of at a range

At some point I want to use my favorite 4e build, one I saw on the WotC boards a while back, but that one is also the sort of build that doesn't work at all until it falls into place

6:04 AM

That's a common problem, yeah.

was a halfling who used some Kord boon stuff to be able to reliably use Acrobatics checks to knock down walls

there are some strange and broken builds in 4E

also has the problem of likely no longer being findable

RIP WotC boards

It's slightly mitigated by being able to change one choice (power, feat, etc) each level.

lol

6:04 AM

But only slightly.

I'm pretty sure the WotC boards have been cloned a couple of places.

I should look into that

In my 4e game, we occasionally rebuilt a PC from the ground up with a new class and all-new choices, but it was the same character in the story.

nice

Troggy's warlock-with-paladin-multiclass, for example, eventually fulfilled his oath to his fey warlock sponsor and became a paladin-with-multiclass-warlock.

(Both of which are hilariously trolltastic when you combine Divine Challenge with Eyebite.)

And the push-fighter changed from polearm to hammer-and-shield because he was a member of the royal guard and they changed their signature weapons while he was out adventuring.

(There was also a kobold rogue/ranger who had a near-death experience and became a monk.)

6:25 AM

On reflection the bugbear slayer should probably have turned into a starlock or something after his encounter with raw untempered knowledge of Things beyond the multiverse, but he just turned pink.

and my DM has introduced a fun houserule that's sure to make things *interesting* build-wise:
> "Excessive Refluffing": You can change a keyword of each power if you want to refluff how your character is doing the thing, except for "implement" and "weapon"

user61230

@Shalvenay As a hard and fast rule, I would disagree with that, honestly.

user61230

The relevant question to ask is: "Why are we doing this combat?"

@Emrakul nods continue

@Forrestfire hmm. That could easily lead to awesomeness, ridiculous imbalance, or both.

user61230

6:31 AM

@Shalvenay If you're doing a combat just to get it over with because it's a step impeding the continuation of plot, then yeah. Minimizing how long it takes is a Good Plan.

user61230

On the other hand, that's usually not the only reason to engage in combat... and when combat becomes something more - more about character interactions, more about how the team works together to overcome obstacles, more about why they're all there, more about information... more about anything, then pressuring that to end is Probably Not A Good Idea.

@Emrakul nods

user61230

Unless, of course, it's stalling, in which case it's probably a good idea to move to something more interesting.

One of the things my group's been actively working to figure out is how to make conflicts matter more--which means creating situations where the stakes are high, and skipping stuff where the stakes are low.

@Emrakul yeah -- I think part of the problem I ran into is I was in an environment where 1v1 stuff predominated -- team combat was/is exceptionally rare for me in that environs

user61230

6:34 AM

@Shalvenay A not-insignificant subsection of players find that fun.

@Emrakul yeah -- I don't mind either situation (1v1 or team vs team) -- but the former tends to have fewer...threads woven into it if you will

user61230

Agreed.

user61230

It's also worth noting that what I just said appeals to a specific play style (namely, the one I like).

user61230

If the players at the table are in to combat that doesn't necessarily have plot relevance, then, go for it, y'know?

I had a group some years back which need to fight something once a session. Anything. If I didn't give them something to fight, they'd start stabbing each other.

2

6:39 AM

@Emrakul Yeah -- I think most of the players I'm dealing with see combat purely as a plot-tool

Give 'em a quick little combat, and they'd happily spend the rest of the session negotiating with politicians and feeding lizards.

7:06 AM

Hmm... I'm trying to think of the best way to write up guidelines for houseruling a system for a person relatively new to GMing and houseruling in general.

@WrongOnTheInternet "If there's a rule you try and it doesn't work, or there's a thing you think should be a rule but isn't, make up a rule and try it. If it works, keep it."

That's actually pretty good. I'd just add "If you have the time to test it, and your group doesn't mind constantly changing houserules".

And also, "talk to your group about the houserules you're writing and explain your reasoning. See if they agree."

"If they don't, ask why, and arrive at a compromise."

because ttrpgs are a representative democracy, not a monarchy

I'd like to agree, but those bits are definitely going to change from group to group.

I think open communication is a best practice regardless of a given group's balance of power though.

Sure. That's still something I would definitely add to the guidelines for someone relatively new to DMing

it's a huge deal to set that expectation early, and overall leads to far more functional gaming groups than the alternative

(in my experience and observations)

7:15 AM

Oooh boy, I love drive-by downvoting!

?

Aye.

@Forrestfire Someone just downvoted this question and WOTI doesn't really like it when folks do that without leaving comments.

Maybe they think it doesn't show any research effort.

@Forrestfire I agree with you pretty much entirely here.

I think most people here do.

There are some good posts for it on RPG.SE that could save you a lot of effort, I think.

@BESW They didn't leave a comment, so I'm just imagining the angriest person. "I HATE ECONOMICS!" they shout, as their computer explodes and their hair catches fire.

7:20 AM

Heh.

hrm

I'm... actually not sure about my vote here.

on one hand; it's an interesting question I would love to see the answer to

one the other hand, it's really broad

I'd say if you think it's too broad, VTC and leave a comment explaining your reasoning. You're not alone in that thought, I'll say that.

what's VTC in this context?

Vote To Close.

ah

7:23 AM

@WrongOnTheInternet lol

There's a big difference between voting to close and downvoting.

Downvoting says "this question is not useful or the querent needs to do more research first."

how do I vote to close?

A vote to close says "This question isn't appropriate for our format as is". Downvoting says "This is generally a poor question, either lacking in research effort, unclear in what it means, or generally very low quality".

I might not have enough rep for that

Hmm. [pokes around]

7:24 AM

There should be a button between "edit" and "flag", just before the comments section underneath the text of the question proper.

Share, Edit, Flag

You need 316 more rep, yeah.

I see.

Oh really? It's a 3K rep privilege? Weird.

"Use your downvotes whenever you encounter an egregiously sloppy, no-effort-expended post, or an answer that is clearly and perhaps dangerously incorrect."

7:26 AM

Ah, you left a comment anyway, good.

Voting to close is for "questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site."

I didn't think the question was overly broad when asking it, my reasoning being that the modules, let alone the settings, put out by the OSR are small enough in number that accurate data could potentially be gained, and with the reasoning that I was only asking for one or two ballpark numbers, as opposed to some complicated numerical analysis of every bit.

I don't see how it's more broad than, say, my question about 14 years of RPG publishing history.

Neither is asking for nitty-gritty details, but for an overview of the state of a particular segment of the industry.

@WrongOnTheInternet having just reread it, I had missed the request for ballpark numbers, but I think that it still reads as ballpark numbers not being the question itself but sort of a "consolation prize" if there's no hard numbers to be had

@Forrestfire It is, but the hard numbers are just two averages (four if you count the request for major publishers only); the average modules sold, and the average campaign settings sold.

7:32 AM

I might consider rewording the question

give us a list of separate headers instead of a block of text, expansions on what the full question is actually asking (since it's really a couple little (well, big) questions in a single post)

Some tidying up would go a long way toward clarity.

@Forrestfire I can do that.

/me removes comment, adds new comment

... right, this chat doesn't do that

We tend to narrate with brackets.

[provides example]

noted

7:40 AM

SHOUT WITH ASTERISKS, DOUBLE ASTERISKS

hrm

okay, rereading it, I think the question as a whole still has issues

like... It's going "what are the sales figures for this entire industry?" Then "if not that, what about the major parts of it?" and finally "if not that, then why not? Can we estimate?"

but the problem is that it's difficult to be able to actually get from one of those steps to the next--it requires disproving the idea of findable numbers for this

if there are numbers for question A, then B and C are irrelevant

if there are numbers for B, then C is irrelevant

C can't be answered without knowing that both A and B are questions that cannot be answered

A and B are both relevant, since the sales numbers for the entire subset of the industry and the major publishers of the industry are certain to be different.

And actually finding whether or not A and B can be answered in the first place requires proving C.

fair point about A and B. It's mostly C that's causing the issue. I think the question is really broad because a good answer would involve either researching a relatively large amount of sales figures or proving without a doubt that said figures do not exist

which is just awkward.

It doesn't require disproving in the case of stack exchange; it merely requires stating "hey, this is the most information I can find that's available, and that's still not enough for even a semi-accurate reading". If that statement isn't true, someone will come along with hard(er) numbers that they can cite.

@Lord_Gareth [kermitflail greeting]

7:46 AM

Which would be an answer, but not a good answer, in my opinion

since it doesn't fully answer the question

I might be looking at it wrong

either as a result of an outlook issue (I tend to try not to answer questions on stack exchange unless I am absolutely sure I'm correct, with sources to back it up, or it's a subjective one and I have Opinions(TM)), or because it's 3am and I'm incoherent

@Forrestfire I have a comment below that clarifies that point. That should also be added in the question proper. Thanks for pointing it out.

If someone can't find information for a good answer, then the question will sit answerless and that's okay.

fair enough

in any case

after the rewording, I'm tossing on an upvote

The Stack is explicitly okay with asking questions that can't be answered.

I want to see the answer to it

7:48 AM

@Forrestfire Hey, thanks for sticking around and helping me improve the question. I appreciate it.

@Shalvenay It's so hard to really prove something can't be answered, that a supported and cited proof of unanswerability would actually be a really great answer.

@BESW I'd say that's a general rule -- "this does not have an answer" is a valid answer on any Stack

someone post up a question about d20 Modern's wealth scores and initial chargen

and trick rpg.stackexchange into solving the Knapsack Problem

(I really enjoy the Wealth Bonus mechanics, but god it is a chore in character building)

@Forrestfire Give a general solution? Or do you mean solve it in polynomial time?

it was more of a joke about d20 Modern's character generation having said problem in the first place

7:53 AM

@Forrestfire If your RPG system of choice has an NP-complete problem as part of regular character generation, you're going to have a bad time.

4

XD

systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/modern/…

for reference.

it's not super hard to work out by hand

but it's still annoying how the order you buy things in matters

it gets frustrating and hilarious when someone ends up with a high enough wealth score at the start to require spreadsheets to be broken out to track the starting gear purchases

Oh my.

(I made a horrible mistake in that game. Started with a wealth bonus of +46)

@Forrestfire I wonder if the system wouldn't have been better served by allocating wealth slots at chargen, and using the purchasing mechanics only during continued play? Like, you get an item, this burns X number of wealth slots, period. But when you're buying stuff during play, you use that mechanic.

I'm glad I play in a system where the most complicated wealth gets is a stress track and a skill.

7:57 AM

it was totally in-character. I had Profession (1%)

@WrongOnTheInternet yeah, that's how I'd handle it. Wealth bonuses run exceptionally well in play, but Knapsacks at you in chargen. iirc, Exalted handled it something like this?

never played Exalted so my information is secondhand