Hey guys,
If this isn't the right spot for this, please let me know.
I've read a little bit about D&D and its 'alignment' (no pun intended!) w/ GNS in different threads. IIRC, as written, D&D has been said to be a Gamist's game.
As they are written, where does the Storyteller system and Fasa's SR fall into the GNS classifcations?
What I'm trying to do here is clarify some points in my own brain so that I can further my thoughts on technique, what it is, how to use it, how it's currently used, how it does or does not directly relate to different parts of GNS and some other general flotsam that's floating around in my head these days.
For the record, I think (as in pretty sure, but not 100%) WW and SR are most closely aligned w/ S. Am I off my rocker here?
Thanks.

(edit: typos, doh!)

Hi Lisa,

Bearing in mind that classifying a game system is kind of a one-step-removed inference about playing that game ...

a) The White Wolf games ought to be considered singly and in terms of which books per line, not just via the dice system. For instance, I think first edition Vampire takes a mainly Simulationist approach toward resolution, but a fairly Gamist one toward character creation and improvement - but confusingly, a pretty Narrativist set of rhetoric about one's character. Frankly, I find it kitchen-sinky - almost a house-rules game based on GURPS, with a strong twist towards "GM says" when it comes down to it. I suggest that any particular group needs to Drift its rules to taste (not just can, but has to) in order to get a coherent play experience.

Whereas Werewolf strikes me as more directly Gamist - "furry supers," as its author is reported to have said, although within the context of a pretty strict metaplot over the course of supplement publishing, which makes things potentially more Simulationist-Situation depending on the group's use of that material. Exalted reminds me a lot of Werewolf in this regard.

It's also tricky because most of these games aren't merely a single rulebook, but at least three or four whole books for the "core set" and God knows how many more if you take various splatbooks, settings, and adventures into account. And because most of them went through two editions with significant changes.

b) Shadowrun is also notable for editions changes, so it'd be important to know which one was involved, as well as to know whether adventures were integrated with published metaplot and/or scenarios (which relied highly on GM-Force, a.k.a. railroading for some of us).

Going by early Shadowrun, before most of the current publications were available, I suggest it was mainly Gamist with a fair "underpinning" hybrid Simulationist emphasis. But later versions plus all the supplementary stuff pushed it more and more toward Simulationist/Situation.

None of the above ought to imply that this is how a specific person or group has actually played these games. These are my inferences about the "directions" that groups might be more likely to take, considered across a lot of people. Drift will change everything; given games with this much source material, you'll find groups playing extremely stripped down versions of them, to the extent that my inferences above are totally meaningless.

When talking about actual play and Drift, it's very important to consider what rules/guidelines are being thrown out, just as when discussing AD&D2 or Champions - different groups hardly ever played the same game, even if they owned and were faithfully using the rule books, because which 25% of the rules they ignored varied greatly by group.

That Drift is interesting stuff. I suggest that for both games, the emphasis on combat is a key factor, especially considering the time it takes in play. Two groups playing Vampire might represent very different GNS approaches if one has two or three bang-up combats per session and the other has one every four or five sessions. Typically, "combat" per se isn't that big a variable for talking about play modes, but in this case I think it is, due to the heavy rules-issues combat brings to both games.

Hope this helps or is otherwise interesting.

Best,
Ron

Alright, help me think through this then:
If we’re talking about system separate from the dice rolling mechanics here (which seems to be the case when you said, “The White Wolf games ought to be considered singly and in terms of which books per line, not just via the dice system.” ) then WW games as a whole are catering to all three priorities simultaneously? If this is so, and as you say, “any particular group needs to Drift its rules to taste (not just can, but has to) in order to get a coherent play experience.”…then is system more of a non issue in the System doesn’t Matter/ System Does Matter debate? IOW, since drift must occur for coherent play, aren’t various troupes just now applying whatever techniques (whether they be straight from the rule book or otherwise) to fulfill the CA of the game they wish to play?

As far as product lines in WWGS being different from the other ‘core’ lines, the answer as I see it (just MHO based on observation and actually doing some work over there) is because while editors of different lines may chat about a cohesive ‘world’, authors for the different lines do not. In fact, sometimes authors writing in the same book do not consult each other. The result is a product in which the editor has set forth an outline of what the book is to be about and leaves authors to fill in the blanks. Those blanks may or may not correspond with each other depending on a particular author’s take on the game/book in question, the vigilance of a particular editor in ensuring cohesion, and a few other factors. It’s no wonder that you say that classifying WW material is tricky. It is. The common bond through all of the books is the Storyteller system itself.

Hello,

If we’re talking about system separate from the dice rolling mechanics here (which seems to be the case when you said, “The White Wolf games ought to be considered singly and in terms of which books per line, not just via the dice system.” ) then WW games as a whole are catering to all three priorities simultaneously?

since drift must occur for coherent play, aren’t various troupes just now applying whatever techniques (whether they be straight from the rule book or otherwise) to fulfill the CA of the game they wish to play?

As far as product lines in WWGS being different from the other ‘core’ lines, the answer as I see it (just MHO based on observation and actually doing some work over there) is because while editors of different lines may chat about a cohesive ‘world’, authors for the different lines do not. In fact, sometimes authors writing in the same book do not consult each other. The result is a product in which the editor has set forth an outline of what the book is to be about and leaves authors to fill in the blanks. Those blanks may or may not correspond with each other depending on a particular author’s take on the game/book in question, the vigilance of a particular editor in ensuring cohesion, and a few other factors.

It’s no wonder that you say that classifying WW material is tricky. It is. The common bond through all of the books is the Storyteller system itself.

Yep. I'm going to give this some thought and more comment, probably tommorow.
Danke.

Ron says:

>>Yes. But I don't see how that makes system a non-issue. It strikes me instead that system is shown to be a central issue by this phenomenon; otherwise everyone could have met their separate Creative Agendas by using the same rules/mechanics. Since they couldn't, and therefore had to Drift, then it shows system does matter. Perhaps you are mistaking "system" for "rules in book?" When I say system, I mean, whatever the group does in order to have things happen in play.<<

You know, I re-read this paragraph a dozen times. It made me laugh because maybe we’re getting to the same place just through different routes.
When I say, ‘System doesn’t matter, except when it does,’ what I am really talking about is the rules, written in the book, as they are. Now some games I think are critically tied to their rules as written. No rules means no game (or rather, none of that particular game because by discarding the rules you’ve abandoned that game’s particular flavor). Some examples of this that come to mind would be mini war games, (there’s others, I’m sure, if I think about it.) Yeah, you can port the rules out, but what do you have after that? Not much because at that point you may as well be playing something else. Some games, like WW’s lines, you can freely discard any and all rules, but after that you’re still playing a game that’s recognizably Vampire, for instance. So, in that respect, system does not matter. If it mattered, I wouldn’t be able to throw it away and still play.
NOW! What you’re saying here if I’m reading correctly is that what the assembled group decides *is* the system, not what’s necessarily in the book. If that’s what you’re saying, then I agree wholeheartedly that system doesn’t only matter, but it’s critical to play experience. Although I thought this particular point was really all about CA.
System (rules as written) also matter if a particular group is unwilling to ‘hot rod’ their own play experience by discarding or using other rules as they see fit. In this case, System Matters because if the rules as written encourage antagonistic (or other negative) behaviors, which some games do, then the group is pretty much sunk. By following the rules as written, that group is set up for a social mishap. Not cool.
Am I reading you right, here?

Plus there's the next step that ties these two together.

System matters because you shouldn't HAVE to perform major surgery on the game just to get it to play the way its supposed to. Part of what "system matters" says is that game designers should spend more time paying attention to making a system that delivers the game experience rather than just throwing any old bog standard thing down and relying on players to rewrite it.

Amen to what Ralph said.

Also, I would argue that if you discard and all rules from Vampire, it is often NOT "recognizably Vampire". In fact, this is the biggest problem with most incoherent systems -- when a new player is integrated into a game, chances are very high that the game is NOTHING like that player expects.

I have seen VERY wide divergence in the way Vampire is played. Yes, this happens in all games, but compare to, say, D&D 3E: The rewards system and methodologies in that game mean that most D&D games are reasonably similar, much more so than Vampire. At the very least, there are things you can more responably expect.

In fact, I could argue that the "reboot" of the World of Darkness is because the current people at White Wolf want to focus Vampire a bit more.

Yup.

I suggest we adopt a standard to avoid confusion.

System = very general term indicating "what we do" so that fictional events will take place among our imaginations

Techniques = physical and communicative acts that make up System (rolling dice, announcing actions, whatever)

Rules = text about any aspect of play, very often about Techniques

The point is that System and Techniques are "real" and always present, relative to play-content, whereas rules are merely referenced and may or may not be employed.

When I say "System does matter," what I mean is, "the specific Techniques we employ do affect our enjoyment." When we take that idea to game design, it seems like a no-brainer - provide, in your rules, techniques that work really well for a certain kind of enjoyment.

Best,
Ron

xiombarg said:

>>Also, I would argue that if you discard and all rules from Vampire, it is often NOT "recognizably Vampire". In fact, this is the biggest problem with most incoherent systems -- when a new player is integrated into a game, chances are very high that the game is NOTHING like that player expects. <<

I would argue against the first part of your statement. Here's why: If someone sat down to witness a Vampire game that had 'house rules' instituted, they would still know that the game is Vampire:TM. It's lexicon of terminology for certain splats, events, and actions is very specific. Players are still talking about Primogen and Camarilla, and whatever else even if the conflict resolution system has been completely reworked. The game is still Vampire. If this weren't the case, then V:TM 1st Ed wouldn't be recognizable as Vampire because V:TM revised now has different systems (rules as written). That any edition of Vampire (just as the example here) would be unrecognizable because of a rules change (whether it be canon or house rules) isn't correct from my view.
Now, if you started changing the splats, the powers, the actual vibe of the game but kept the storyteller system intact, I would say *that* game is less recognizable as Vampire. And so in that event, I would say system (rules as written) are far less important than the other aspects of the game. Put another way, system doesn't make the game what it is in most cases. So, it's easy to see why if we're talking about system (rules as written), I would say, 'It Don't Mattah!'

As far as expectations. This should be solved on the social and CA levels. This has very little to do w/ the actual books themselves. This has to do w/ the people sitting down, FTF, playing a particular game and making sure that a new player is fully up to speed on exactly what's going on, how it goes on, and why it's done that way.

Oh! I see Ron as provided a little lexicon so that we can all talk about the same thing. Cool. Thanks!

I would argue against the first part of your statement. Here's why: If someone sat down to witness a Vampire game that had 'house rules' instituted, they would still know that the game is Vampire:TM.

Agreed w/ Ralph on setting clarification.
But that brings up another thought, which ties back in w/ my search for technique truth, as it were.
Does your statement mean that by changing techniques (System) that we have now changed games? How far of a variance is required to actually cause a game change? Can it be said that by following GNS in one particular setting (let's run w/ the Vampire example) that Vampire can now be 3 seperate games?
Help me think this through, please. Because if setting is not what the game *is* and system, as Ron describes it *is*, any setting could be any different number of actual games? I'm not talking about game variants here, I'm talking about totally different and classifiable games.

Edit: clumsy fingers.

Valamir wrote: In the interest of clarity, I would say that the SETTING is recognizable as Vampire: The Masquerade. I've seen some play that is clearly a part of that setting, but which is unrecognizeable as the game. Take most Minds-eye LARPs. Clearly the same setting. But not at all the same game.

The GM wrote: Agreed w/ Ralph on setting clarification.
But that brings up another thought, which ties back in w/ my search for technique truth, as it were.
Does your statement mean that by changing techniques (System) that we have now changed games? How far of a variance is required to actually cause a game change? Can it be said that by following GNS in one particular setting (let's run w/ the Vampire example) that Vampire can now be 3 seperate games?
Help me think this through, please. Because if setting is not what the game *is* and system, as Ron describes it *is*, any setting could be any different number of actual games? I'm not talking about game variants here, I'm talking about totally different and classifiable games.

Edit: clumsy fingers.

Xiombarg says:

>>Lisa, I think the answer is that Vampire is a bunch of pieces that can be turned into three or more different games, which isn't the same as it being three different games. <<

Ok, I'm following you here. So what exactly, in your opinion, makes a game what it is? For instance: What makes a Vampire game? Is it setting? Is it genre? Is it techniques (system)? What is the key element here when you're classifying what a game actually is?

I'm really trying to pin down this technique business. How does it work? Why does it work? How can it be employed? How closely does it relate to any given game/setting? How can players and GMs adopt techniques that further enhance their play experience? Is there a way for troupes to actually create their own techniques? If so, how? etc...

I asked about WW and SR specifically because they have all kinds of 'how to' advice throughout their books. I know what the Rules have to say, but often those types of published Rules leave something out. Sometimes it's that certain something, that if added in for a particular troupe could make the game evolve from 'no go' to a riot of fun.

This stuff has been pretty dense material to really critically think through. Thanks for your view points, it really does give me some perspective.

Lisa, your question comes perilously close to: "What makes a thing that thing and not something else?" I'm tempted to start quoting Plato at you. ;-D

I think, in the context of this discussion, and in the context of GNS, that what makes a game is the combination of Techniques, which includes all of the things you mention. Ralph or Ron, who probably have a better handle on this than I, are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong and/or clarify and expand.

Regardless, there are a lot of threads on "What is a game?" You might want to look at those.

I asked about WW and SR specifically because they have all kinds of 'how to' advice throughout their books. I know what the Rules have to say, but often those types of published Rules leave something out. Sometimes it's that certain something, that if added in for a particular troupe could make the game evolve from 'no go' to a riot of fun.

I've run a Multiverser game set in what is clearly a V:tM world with the serial numbers filed off. The setting is not the game. You could use any of a dozen game engines to play in that setting, and play would be a bit different for each of them.

Parchessi, Sorry, and Trouble are all the same game, aren't they? You have four playing pieces which start in a start area. You must move each of them seven eighths of the way around the board and enter the home area. You can be blocked by someone else on the square on which you would land. In Parchessi you roll dice (usually from a dice cup, strictly speaking, as I recall), and treat each die as a separate entry; it is not possible to roll one, and if you roll boxcars but someone is sitting on the square six space in front of you you cannot move twelve. The dice can be split between two pieces. Sorry has you draw cards; this changes the probable results significantly, and some of the cards have special functions (go backwards instead of forwards, e.g.). One is included in the possible outcomes, and the card can only be used for one playing piece. Trouble has the popomatic dice cube, which guarantees that the dice will roll and keeps them from getting lost between games or falling on the floor in play. It also, as I recall, has the double track, so you can sometimes take the shorter inner track to get around someone on the outer track, or vice versa. So do these techniques make them different games, or just the same game? I tend to think of them as variants of the base game (which is Parchessi in this case), in the same way that we say Bridge and O Heck are Whist variants, and Gin Rummy, Michigan Rummy, and Knock Rummy are all essentially Rummy but with variations.

Now, are you no longer playing AD&D if you don't use the AC Adjustments by Weapon Type table (which it is rumored even Gary doesn't use)? Probably not. Probably there's a certain amount of material you can overlook, because it's the little stuff. If you couldn't buy a short sword, or there weren't any wood elves in this world, or the Drow all worshipped a good goddess instead of the demon queen of spiders, that wouldn't really change the game any. On the other hand, if you had to roll percentile dice to hit, or fighters could learn magic from spell books, or you spent your experience points to increase your skills instead of to go up in levels, these would all be substantial changes to the game. Arguably if you eliminate levels, or alignment, or proficiencies, or any of the basic aspects, you've made it so it's not the same game.

I suppose the test is, if someone came to your house to play the game who had played it before somewhere else, and you said, "In our game X", if there response is most likely to be "Yeah, X is cool" then it's probably still the same game tweaked a little for your preferences; if the response is most likely "But if X, then Y and Z, and that makes no sense at all", then you're not playing the same game.

The point about V:tM seems to be that you can't play it without discarding some of the rules, and everyone discards different rules--which is fine for playing a game with your friends, but very bad for playing a game in which people who play with other groups are likely to play with you, since they'll expect different rules to be enforced.

In a sense, incoherence is measurable by the probability that a new player in your group will say, "we never used that rule".

I think I'm starting to ramble. I'd better stop.

--M. J. Young

Hmm…
Lots of good stuff to consider. Still don’t know if I agree that changing Rules changes the game however. Here’s an example of what we’re doing right now that makes me lean that way.
Our current game is called Hunter. It’s based loosely on Hunter’s Hunter, Sorcerer (of the WW variety, not of the Ron variety) Demon Hunter X using the ST engine for Rules. The type of game that we’re playing has a heavy Narrative emphasis. The question is: Would you sell your soul to the devil to defeat him?
Now, we’re using stock WW rules for things like conflict resolution, order of turns, level of abilities, etc… The character sheets are straight out of the book. What we’ve changed is the way we’re interpreting certain pieces of that puzzle. For instance, we’re using the Humanity rating as a measure of how the premise question is being answered. For instance, if player 1 decides, ‘yeah, I’m gonna bomb the bad guy headquarters, even though I know innocents will be killed’ then that player addressed the premise question, and thus there’s a measurable, real thing that occurs not only in game play, but on his character sheet too. Was Humanity really designed w/ that thought in mind? Probably not, but it’s how we’re using it. The way we’ve chosen to utilize that particular trait doesn’t fall outside of the Rules, however. We’ve just applied technique to that particular Rule.
Now, the setting is completely different from WWGS’ Hunter in any of its variants. We’ve taken setting elements from movies, books, theatre and the like to create something totally different in terms of genre and vibe. We use the splat books strictly for mining ideas about abilities and so forth, but the end product isn’t recognizably Hunter:TR.
So do you call this a Hunter game simply because we use those Rules? Do you call it something else because we changed the setting? Do you call it a different game altogether because we’re applying Technique to think of the Rules in a different light?
See, this Technique stuff can radically change an existing set of Rules. Kind of like changing the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it.
Now, if that last statement is true ( let me know what you think) then could groups begin to really think of their games in different terms (in different techniques) while still keeping a game recognizable?
Yes, I understand that game designers should be thinking about this stuff ahead of time. A lot of times that hasn’t happened. So now how does a group take the technique path that is right for them? Furthermore, how can gamers take a measured approach to creating or compiling their own techniques that works specifically for them?

Yeah, I know, figure that out, box it, sell it, become a gaming Warren Buffett. ;)

The GM wrote: See, this Technique stuff can radically change an existing set of Rules. Kind of like changing the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. Now, if that last statement is true ( let me know what you think) then could groups begin to really think of their games in different terms (in different techniques) while still keeping a game recognizable?

Yes, I understand that game designers should be thinking about this stuff ahead of time. A lot of times that hasn’t happened. So now how does a group take the technique path that is right for them? Furthermore, how can gamers take a measured approach to creating or compiling their own techniques that works specifically for them?

Yeah, I know, figure that out, box it, sell it, become a gaming Warren Buffett. ;)

The GM wrote: So now how does a group take the technique path that is right for them? Furthermore, how can gamers take a measured approach to creating or compiling their own techniques that works specifically for them?

You seem to be caught up with the problem of naming the game, Lisa, which really doesn't matter at all. Who cares what you call the game? Is it Hunter, or isn't it? I don't know. Don't care. What matters is what the differences are, and how that'll affect different people who play. Because you'd agree that, even if we keep all of the setting essentially the same, that different systems would appeal to different people, right? I mean, consider that you can play that setting without a ruleset, or "freeform". That's a system, and one that some people just don't like. Then I could use GURPS Vampire (very easily, I have the books). Some people really don't like GURPS. I can play the original system, but some people don't like how that works.

Now these are gross examples, but even the smallest of changes can have an effect. I'd go so far as to say that every single group that plays every single game out there does so at least slightly differently. So you don't have any clear lines that say, "Here! Here's where it's this game, and here's where it's not any more." But every application of system has an impact on play. So System Does Matter.

I'm not sure where the confusion comes from. To say that System Doesn't Matter means that if you change systems that the experience will be so similar that it doesn't matter that you've made the change. Well, this is just not true. That's not to say that everyone has only one form that they'd prefer to play in or anything, or that all changes are make or break in terms of enjoyment. Only that differences in system have an some effect on how player's percieve the game, and can affect enjoyablility for some players.

Mike

Amen to what Mike said. Name doesn't matter. What you're actually doing matters.

Lisa, it's obvious that you are running a very different game -- setting aside -- from the way, say, I would run Vampire, or even a Hunters Hunted game. And it's a direct effect of the way, say, you're interpreting Humanity. That's a different System, and, as Mike said, shows that System Does Matter in terms of the experience of play.

And, if I came into that game, I would be confused by not using Humanity to enforce the personal horror "oh God I've become a monster" aspect of things, because that's what Humanity is for, IMHO, in White Wolf. So, for me, it would be a different game.

Mike says:

>>You seem to be caught up with the problem of naming the game, Lisa, which really doesn't matter at all. Who cares what you call the game? Is it Hunter, or isn't it? I don't know. Don't care.<<

Not really, except in the academic sort of sense. Our game could just as easily be termed ‘Flash, Matt, Ton and Lisa’s fun emporium.’ That isn’t what I’m terribly concerned w/. What I’m still trying to get at here is the idea of Techniques and the what, when, where, how and why of that particular concept. I’m interested in categorizing said techniques and events in the hopes that by doing so, it’ll not only be easier to explain to players and GMs alike, but also w/ the thought that by being able to categorize techniques, you could then have a way of explaining how to create new techniques for any given game group. This is interesting stuff to me, because from where I stand, Techniques can make or break a game for any particular group. I don’t know that my last sentence can be refuted, really. (Well, I guess it could be. ;) ) It just seems to make sense to me that if techniques are where the rubber meets the road for game experience, then the successful implementation of that idea could lead to great game experiences for any different number of people.


>>What matters is what the differences are, and how that'll affect different people who play.<<

Right. I think that’s what I’m really trying to get at here.

>>But every application of system has an impact on play. So System Does Matter.<<

Sure, but if you’ll read back through the thread, I’ve already addressed this.

Xiombarg says:

>>And it's a direct effect of the way, say, you're interpreting Humanity. That's a different System<<

Ok, so you are saying that by changing the spirit of the law, rather than the letter, you have now changed System? By the Rules, we’ve changed nothing about the function of Humanity, just the way we interpret (insert technique here).
If I’ve interpreted you correctly, that’s a very interesting thought, and one that I’ll have to mull over.
Thanks again, everyone. This is helping me sort my thinkin’ on the matter.

Lisa, The GM wrote:

Xiombarg wrote: And it's a direct effect of the way, say, you're interpreting Humanity. That's a different System

Ok, so you are saying that by changing the spirit of the law, rather than the letter, you have now changed System? By the Rules, we’ve changed nothing about the function of Humanity, just the way we interpret (insert technique here). If I’ve interpreted you correctly, that’s a very interesting thought, and one that I’ll have to mull over.

Now, I don't think that the HERO games we played were typical usage of the system, but I also don't see that we varied significantly from the rules as written.

greyorm wrote: You know, John, I have an interesting parallel to that with my 3E game -- I didn't think it was being played all that differently from the rules as written, either, until a number of items were pointed out to me which made me pause and consider that other folks playing the exact same game (D&D) would balk at the minor alterations to the rules, even to the point that some of them would proclaim it wasn't really D&D anymore, that some essential element of the game had been removed for them.

Hello,

Let's not forget that leaving stuff out is important too.

I played Champions for many years, with many groups and people, much as you're describing, John. Psychological Disadvantages might as well have been called "thematic responsibilities" at the player-level, and we didn't change a single numerical feature of the game ... or did we? What's hardest to hold fixed in the mind, unless you're thinking about it, is what got jettisoned.

My standards for allowable point-spending were extremely restricted. In my final game (3+ years), no character, PC or NPC, could exceed a ratio of 5:4 Active Points to Real Points. Defenses were not permitted over a certain level. Killing Attacks were flatly disallowed. We never used a hex map, and all modifiers based on "how many hexes" became GM's wavey hand. "Agents" (that's "mooks" for you youngsters) were taken out using the two-hit or one-hit principle. I disallowed Damage Reduction. Comeliness was required to start at 14.

It'd probably take me a day or so of dredging, but I think this list would go on for quite a while. The important point, though, is to say that I would have been extremely committed to telling anyone, at the time, that I was playing Champions, exactly right and exactly by the book.

Best,
Ron

Naw, I don't think you're doing the wrong thing by trying to be specific. Clear communication, no matter the business line that you're involved in, is a Good Thing (tm).
I think RPGs suffer greatly from a lack of clarity, and I further think this is bad for the hobby in general. After all, if there was clear communication, would there be mistaken stereotypes about what gaming actually is? Would the general population see gaming in a bad light if it weren't for ambiguous and often faulty marketing campaigns? How much easier would your (and every other game designer's life be) if they weren't fighting an uphill battle when it comes to bad press, propogated by stunning instances of miscommunication about the hobby?
Being clear is the best thing you can do, on so many different levels, from game play to game marketing.
Of course, others may have more to say on this. Just MHO.

Lisa's post above is actually replying to Matthijs in GNS and game success (split), which I was splitting at the time. All will be sorted out eventually.

Best,
Ron

Editing in later: 'K, all set. I'll leave the above two above posts here after all, just as archeological evidence of the kind of community we have here. Many thanks, Lisa!