Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	"Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject:	Tinner's Pompous notions about WotC, FASA,
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:56:32 -0500

Message no. 1 >We are a gaming club. We support roleplaying and wargaming in all it's
forms. We
>do -not- (now) support CCGs. When that decision made, membership dropped
from
>fourty to six people. TELL me that that's not a monopoly.

OK, I will.
It's not.

That's simply a mater of a LOT of people CHOOSING to play one game over
another.
A monopoly is when those players make that switch because they have NO other
choice, due to unfair competition by a single manufacturer.

What WotC has done, and done well is capture gamer attention.
MtG is a phenomenon because they have come up with something new, and they
have managed to hype it.

Let's just suppose FASA ran ... say half as many SR tournaments as WotC does
MtG tournaments.
Do you think that SR sales would improve?
How about if they offered prizes like a complete set of ALL SR sourcebooks
at every one?
And what if they made it possible for us to re-sell our used modules at say
... 2000% profit?

Ya think that might encourage a few players to switch to SR from other
games?

BTW Did you ever think that CHOOSING to eliminate CCG's from your gaming
club was tantamount to suicide?

I'm really curious, why on earth did you choose to alienate that large of a
portion of your membership by excluding a game that popular?
We're the CCG'rs THAT much trouble?
Most of the ones I've met pretty much just sit there, and shout things every
now and then ... kind of like houseplants with vocal cords. ;-)
At our gaming club, we have CCGs, RPGs, Wargames and Boardgames all taking
place in one cafeteria.
Aside from a little goodnatured teasing there are no problems between the
groups, and all but a few of the players move freely between the groups.

IMO choosing to "not support" a group of gamers just encourages them to be
equally elitest.
If you don't support my hobby of choice, why the HELL would I give a damn
about being a part of your club?!?!?

>Second, we have changed. We have adapted. And we are still alive. Unlike
every
>single other roleplaying club in the area. The one local gaming store we
have only
>exists now because they also carry Citadel Games merchandise and White Wolf
(which
>is where we changed to, go figure).

That's not adapting, that giving up and taking the easy way out.
If SR was in danger like you descirbe in our local group, you can be damn
sure that I'd be running open games every weekend, loaning out my books and
recreiting players left and right.
There's no way I just surrender and start looking for another game!

>WotC and Microsoft are more than Evil Empires. Lots of stuff goes into
those
>categories. However, MS (and WotC is on the way) is monopolizing the
industry,
>which is illegal by United States law. But because they have a monopoly (or
>because no one in the Senate cares about silly gamers) they have the money
to make
>sure they stay that way.

You're right that the $$$ WotC has give them a HUGE edge over other
companies, but there is NOTHING stopping those other companies from going
for their own market share.
What has WotC really done to hurt other companies?

AFAIK their whole strategy is simply to enhance their own company.
Purchasing TSR was a great move IMO.
TSR was sliding rapidly into the gutter before the buyout, now I'm actually
thinking of picking up an upcoming AD&D product (The Return of Vecna if
you're interested)

Rather than boycotting WotC (Which probably won't hurt them anyway, since
the people doing the boycott certainly weren't buying many cards in the
first place) why not take a positive action, rather than a negative one?

Write to your favorite non-WotC game company and let them know your
concerns.
Encourage them to produce more of what you like.
I know that everyone on this list is capable of taking 5 minutes and sending
an email to FASMike@***.com and telling him what their favorite SR product
this past year was.
But how many of us do it?

Odds are very few - most would rather bitch about how WotC is busy trying to
"ruin gaming" than actually do something to make gaming better.
WotC has gone out of their way to listen to their fans.
The players wanted the Black Lotus back in MtG - Now there are about 4
variations on it, one of which (Lotus Vale) is better than the original IMO.
The players demanded a national ranking organization, and affiliated
magazine, and the got the DCI and Duelist - within one year of the game's
release!!!
Loooong before they had the "monopolistic" cash flow they have now.
They saw a need, took the risk and made it work.

Not to knock FASA, but they still haven't produced am SR Fanzine that is
worth spending money on.
If Shadowland was of equal quality to The Duelist, I'd be more inclined to
slide some extra cash towards FASA.

This is getting long and pompous, so let me conclude thusly ...

Just because things are one way today, does NOT mean that's how they will
always be.
The giant "monopolies" of today are tomorrow's losers. (Just ask General
Motors, TSR and Avalon Hill for example)
Things NEVER stay the same, and compeitions is good for the industry.
If "Underdog" Steve Jackson had not had TSR to compete with, he'd never have
worked so hard to make all those fun games. Likewise for FASA, WW, and
plenty of others.

Currently Magic and WotC are riding high on a wave of success.
You can choose to feel crushed by that wave, and see only the negative side,
or you can feel pleased that gaming is not regularly advertised during the
HIGHEST RATED cable TV show on the air (South Park)

These are exciting days to be a gamer.
Don't let a bad attitude spoil them for you.
If you want to steal players from WotC, you need to be better than them -
it's a big challenege, but think how good it will feel when you slowly bring
back those "lost sheep" and help a few new converts discover the joy of
RPG's

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"Goldfish have no memory"

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Tinner's Pompous notions about WotC, FASA,
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:14:44 +1000

Message no. 2 Tinner writes:
>BTW Did you ever think that CHOOSING to eliminate CCG's from your gaming
>club was tantamount to suicide?
>
>I'm really curious, why on earth did you choose to alienate that large of a
>portion of your membership by excluding a game that popular?
>We're the CCG'rs THAT much trouble?

Um, a few years ago, when I was still at uni (ah, those were the days...), I
was involved in assisting in the administration of the gaming club at my
uni. We'd got the club off the ground, and got recognition and grants from
the uni council. Then M:TG got released and the craze started in Australia.

We were lucky in that we had several rooms available to us to use, and were
already designating certain rooms for certain activities (mainly so that the
wargamers had space not encroached upon by the roleplayers). We had to
designate a room soley for M:TG, and other card games.

It wasn't the actual playing which made us do this. When the people were
_playing_ the game, they weren't any trouble. They were usually quieter than
the roleplayers. No, it was the incessant trading, and the arguments that
brought out, that caused the problems.

Once we designated a separate room, and enforced the rule, we didn't have a
problem. Certainly the club didn't diminish in popularity: the cardplayers
brought a new influx of members. Nor did the roleplaying and wargaming
groups drop off, because some of those new members picked up roleplaying. We
ended up adding several small M:TG tournaments to our annual list of events,
and when Lasseters Casino in Alice Springs decided to run a M:TG tournament,
they asked us to supply judges for the first year (being in Darwin, we were
the closest, I guess).

But we certainly found that dedicated M:TG players did NOT mix with
roleplayers...

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Tinner's Pompous notions about WotC, FASA,
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:30:02 EST

Message no. 3 In a message dated 98-03-16 00:58:09 EST, bluewizard@*****.COM writes:

> Let's just suppose FASA ran ... say half as many SR tournaments as WotC does
> MtG tournaments.
> Do you think that SR sales would improve?
> How about if they offered prizes like a complete set of ALL SR sourcebooks
> at every one?
> And what if they made it possible for us to re-sell our used modules at say
> ... 2000% profit?

HEY!!! I AM THERE!!! WHERE DO I SIGN UP!!!???!!! :)

> Ya think that might encourage a few players to switch to SR from other
> games?

I don't know, but it would sure make -me- considering playing more...well,
okay, maybe not...but that would be cool...

-K

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Tinner's Pompous notions about WotC, FASA,
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:28:50 -0500

Message no. 4 At 12:56 AM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:

>That's simply a mater of a LOT of people CHOOSING to play one game over
>another.
>A monopoly is when those players make that switch because they have NO other
>choice, due to unfair competition by a single manufacturer.

Let's be clear here. Yes, many many people chose to buy Magic. What that
has done is give Wizards of the Coast an inordinate amount of power in the
industry.

>What WotC has done, and done well is capture gamer attention.
>MtG is a phenomenon because they have come up with something new, and they
>have managed to hype it.

Very true.

>Let's just suppose FASA ran ... say half as many SR tournaments as WotC does
>MtG tournaments.
>Do you think that SR sales would improve?
>How about if they offered prizes like a complete set of ALL SR sourcebooks
>at every one?

Probably true. I think FASA is trying to come up with tournament rules,
but being a small operation, I think they are having a hard time allocating
time to it. I also think that FASA is trying very hard to listen to the
players and their needs. I think they intend to use our feedback to help
create those tournament rules.

>And what if they made it possible for us to re-sell our used modules at say
>... 2000% profit?

Sure that would be cool. But that probably wouldn't be good business
practice.

>BTW Did you ever think that CHOOSING to eliminate CCG's from your gaming
>club was tantamount to suicide?
>
>I'm really curious, why on earth did you choose to alienate that large of a
>portion of your membership by excluding a game that popular?

Well, I for one don't consider CCGers to be "gamers" like a RPGer or even a
wargamer is. It's a different genre of game, closer to Poker (I think)
than to RPGs.

>That's not adapting, that giving up and taking the easy way out.

You're right and wrong. No, it's not adapting. But they didn't take the
easy way out; a difficult decision was made, and they worked through it.

>You're right that the $$$ WotC has give them a HUGE edge over other
>companies, but there is NOTHING stopping those other companies from going
>for their own market share.
>What has WotC really done to hurt other companies?

You forget that there really is only a single pie that we are talking about
here; the market is limited. Yes, there is room for expansion. But you
won't ever get my grandmother to play SR, or MtG for that matter. And as
others have noted, sometimes tragically, the major influx *has* hurt RPGers
and companies. The CCGs have eaten into the RPG piece of the pie.

>AFAIK their whole strategy is simply to enhance their own company.
>Purchasing TSR was a great move IMO.

It probably was a good move for them, and maybe even for the industry
(imagine the PC industry without say, IBM. Things change dramatically).
But my complaint is with their strong-arm business tactics.

>Rather than boycotting WotC (Which probably won't hurt them anyway, since
>the people doing the boycott certainly weren't buying many cards in the
>first place) why not take a positive action, rather than a negative one?
>
>Write to your favorite non-WotC game company and let them know your
>concerns.
>Encourage them to produce more of what you like.
>I know that everyone on this list is capable of taking 5 minutes and sending
>an email to FASAMike@***.com and telling him what their favorite SR product
>this past year was.
>But how many of us do it?

I'm going to address this fuller in another post.

>Odds are very few - most would rather bitch about how WotC is busy trying to
>"ruin gaming" than actually do something to make gaming better.
>WotC has gone out of their way to listen to their fans.
>The players wanted the Black Lotus back in MtG - Now there are about 4
>variations on it, one of which (Lotus Vale) is better than the original IMO.
>The players demanded a national ranking organization, and affiliated
>magazine, and the got the DCI and Duelist - within one year of the game's
>release!!!
>Loooong before they had the "monopolistic" cash flow they have now.
>They saw a need, took the risk and made it work.

FASA has also been very responsive (as much as their money and manpower
allowed) to the needs and desires of their customers. Hell, the big
election was not only a marketing scheme to increase exposure, it was also
a way to increase customer feedback. They did that with HB too (Enemy?
yes or no), if you'll recall. FASA knows that if they make us happy, we
will buy their products.

>Not to knock FASA, but they still haven't produced am SR Fanzine that is
>worth spending money on.
>If Shadowland was of equal quality to The Duelist, I'd be more inclined to
>slide some extra cash towards FASA.

True enough, and this comes from someone that wrote a number of articles
for the magazine. They really need to combine their three fanzines into
one and bring the operation in-house. Focus their fanzine efforts into one
product, instead of three.

I, for one, refuse to buy anything made by Wizards of the Coast, and will
continue to stand by this. It doesn't make a difference to WotC, but 99%
of my gaming dollar is directed at FASA, and I plan on keeping it that way
as long as they keep making great games.

Erik J.

From:	Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Tinner's Pompous notions about WotC, FASA,
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:04:19 +1000

Message no. 5 > Probably true. I think FASA is trying to come up with tournament rules,
> but being a small operation, I think they are having a hard time allocating
> time to it. I also think that FASA is trying very hard to listen to the
> players and their needs. I think they intend to use our feedback to help
> create those tournament rules.

Loki could tell you more about this than I could, but yeah, FASA
DEFINITELY are listening to their players when it comes to the SRTCG.
The SRCARD list in particular...

Damn, I love FASA. I always thought they were a really cool company
(hey, what other company would join a fan-run webring devoted to their
game?) but since my experiences with SRCARD and the SRTCG, I *know*
they're a really cool company. :)

(Now I just have to figure out some way to top Loki's achievement, who
got a card named after him in the next expansion set...)

Lady Jestyr

- I'm in touch with my Inner Klingon... -
| Elle Holmes | jestyr@**********.com | http://jestyr.home.ml.org |
| Shadowrun Webring Ringmaster | GeoCities Leader | RPGA Reviewer |

From:	losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Tinner's Pompous notions about WotC, FASA,
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 19:06:03 -0500

Message no. 6 At 08:04 AM 3/17/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Damn, I love FASA. I always thought they were a really cool company
>(hey, what other company would join a fan-run webring devoted to their
>game?) but since my experiences with SRCARD and the SRTCG, I *know*
>they're a really cool company. :)

I've known they're cool ever since the days of th 800 info number. I loved
that, getting to ask the game designers questions over the phone. I
realize they can't do that any more due to the size of their fan base, but
that's the sort of company I'd like to work for.

losthalo@********.comwhileyouarelisteningyourwillingattentionismakingyoumore
andmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.

the damned."

TMBG

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer