The Forge Archives

Hey there,

Could we get links to all the Standard Rants in one thread? Or would the universe compress to a single point if we did so?

Point this to the right place if it's already out there in cyber-space.

Thanks,
Emily Care

Emily,

This is quick and dirty and probably omits many worthy rants.

Standard Rants:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5564">Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby!
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5223">Mike's Standard Rant #2 - Species/Race/Culture/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2024">Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat Systems
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2051">Mike's Standard Rant #4: Stat/Skill systems
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2695">Mike's Standard Rant #5: The Myth of Opposed Rolls

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701">Vincent's Standard Rant: Power, Credibility and Assent

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6145">Chris's Standard Rant: "Innovative"

Other self-identified rants:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6152">On Innovative: Ranting Against a Rant
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5450">Game Writer's take heed--a bit of a rant.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5262">Annoying style/formatting rant.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3716">Nonstandard Rant: Opposed rolls ARE more random, dammit!

And here are a few that could be construed as rants:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3671">Observable Probability
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3455">Anti-Combat Bias (kinda long)
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2496">Linear Die Roll Modifiers Are Broken (long and math-full)

Julie

Ah, my rants are never that organized.

I spew vitriol about guys playing chicks here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=857&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

And of course, BEEEG HORSESHOE THEORY is where it is.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=617

- J

Hmmm, perhaps this thread should be sticky. Admittedly, most of the stuff comes from a simple search, but it's still nice to be able to access it quickly -- and people new to the Forge might not know these Rants exist.

Quote from: xiombargHmmm, perhaps this thread should be sticky. Admittedly, most of the stuff comes from a simple search, but it's still nice to be able to access it quickly -- and people new to the Forge might not know these Rants exist.

I'd second that. (Ok, not like we can vote or anything).  As someone who was more recently a new person than those who can rant, I'd say the search function is not all that usefull.

The reason is that when one comes looking for info on an issue, there isn't usually a concrete term available, so it's hard to do a search.

Another sorta rant. Maybe it should be a bona fide rant:

Age-old Imponderables

I thought I'd leave you guys with one final rant from me.

Fang Langford

While we're digging up old threads, I wanna remind everybody: in some cases, lots of discussion and thought has come since those threads were written.  Don't assume that specific people still hold the same specific opinions they expressed back then.

-Vincent

Great job, Julie. Thanks! And thanks to all else who have posted theirs.

Good point, Vincent. Any revisions from those who have ranted?

If there's a way to revise over time with new version of the threads, I third the idea of making them a sticky.  There are other threads, like Ron's fabulous five and so on that I'd love to see highlighted somewhere.  Ye olde idea for a glossary was for there to be someplace where links to especially pertinent threads on common topics of discussion were posted.  I'd still love to see that happen. Is this workable for the format of the forum? And what about ongoing changes?

A great benefit of having something like this is that it would make it easier for people new to the forum or returning after an absence to learn what's up.  Hopefully reducing the number of "go look here" response posts.

Regards,
Em Care

Actually, I think it'd be cool if some of the ranters revised their rants and submitted them as articles.

I'd love to see some of these rants as articles; I hadn't seen most of them until I came across this thread, and it was useful to read what had been said. Of course, a lot of the utility of the threads come from the discussions that were had after the initial rants as well, so I imagine a revised set of articles taking the discussions into account would be a nicely concise way of presenting those things.

I suggested this to Mike Holmes in Pm not less than a week before the thread started! I hope he (and Clinton and Ron) takes it to heart.

Aidan

I've pondered it, and, actually, at Chris Lerich's suggestion wrote up an article version of #1.

I'm not really happy with it, however. There are some issues of audience that I'm not satisfied with.

I like the rants to be rants. That is, I think that the rant is a separate way of communcating the ideas that has it's own merit. That's not to say that articles aren't also good. Just that I don't see it as a better format for some of these.

OTOH, who knows. If I ever find myself with a looong stretch with nothing to do...

Mike

Hi guys,

I'm with Mike. I like rants as rants.  When you rant, you're saying, "Here's what I'm thinking, but I'm turning off the brain to mouth brakes, so take this with a grain of salt!"  It's not as formal as an article, its not held to the same standards as an article, and usually is recognized that its open to debate, and not expected to be 100% defense proof.

This is not to say that you shouldn't think about what you have to say before you rant, but to say that you can raise some very interesting points, and explore it through discussion, without necessarily having to be "official" about it.  

What might be a useful thing to investigate is to come back to some of the rant ideas, perhaps after a year or so, and see if anything has changed or not in terms of perspectives of the writers, and anyone else interested in the topic.  

Chris

Sorry I'm a little late but here's my rant ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6031 ) on defining roleplaying games.