You are your favorite game's only promotional avenue

So, there's this thread where people are talking about a bunch of games that don't use gonzo elements to do their thing. It could be a really interesting thread except that I've never heard of a lot of these games. I want to find out about a lot of these games, and there's a good chance I want to purchase a lot of these games. But that is made hard because there are like two links in the list of dozens of games.

IF YOU DON'T LINK TO GAMES THEN PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

Just dropping the names of games and walking away is unhelpful to you, the thread, and the creators of the games.

The "creators" bit is important. Independent game creators rely on word-of-mouth enthusiasm to get people to get the goods. If you don't link to the game's page, that last part of the transaction doesn't happen, which means that game you like doesn't get sold to other people you might want to play with, which also means the creator doesn't get to move forward whatever their publishing objectives are and that endangers the future of the game.

This is the thing about community. You're not just a customer. We don't advertise for the most part because we rely on earnest people-to-people linking. In the recent past, the indie community was small enough that everyone knew that and were basically linking to their friends' games. It's what made this whole thing fly. But now there are so many players who don't know the creators, they have some idea that the games are made by abstract people who are far away and inaccessible, and with whom their entire interaction is twenty bucks and a perfect bound book.

That's not the whole interaction. The creator wants to help you have a great game. There might be non-obvious implications of the rules you discover and want to discuss with the creator. You can. Email the creator. They might have a forum. They might be here. Whatever. But the other part of that interaction is that you are supporting them. If you don't care about the game, then it doesn't matter. But if you want it to gain popularity so the creator will make another one you like, if you want to get more players for game night, if you think your friends would benefit by knowing about it, link whenever you discuss a game. Everyone will benefit.

«1

Comments

  • I don't know, severly emphasizing the benefits of the community, in order to beg people to link games seems to undermine the whole point of Earnest Word of Mouth Advertising. In the past the community was smaller, and that means less word of mouth advertising went farther, but I fail to see how a historical footnote, is the basis of proscribing future actions?

    I kinda like the way it is right now, because people aren't so gonzo and gushing about a certain game or author, I feel that when you do get a name drop , it is in fact more Earnest and Honest (because I was motivated to drop the name / link / etc due to awesomeness of game rather than some convention of community support, and because I wanted to rather than someone telling or expecting me to.

    I oddly enough find this simular to the concept of source on a graphics thread. If there is interest, it will be asked for anyway. A 'good smaritian' rule to always list source annoys/devalues things for me.
  • Side 1: adding a link is semi-trivial, and doesn't imply obligation on the part of the reader to click it unless they're interested.

    Side 2: If the reader is interested in what they're reading, they'll ask for more information.

    Side 1: I don't want to make someone ask for information. If I provide the link, they can just go get it.

    Side 2: If I'm not willing to ask for information, I'm not really interested.

    Both sides have merits. I think it's important to make those points known. Beyond that, everyone must make their own decision.
  • If you're looking to sell a game, you should make it as easy as possible for people to get information about it.

    If you're looking to have a conversation about a game, you may want to make it easy, but you also may want to say just enough to get other people talking and asking questions.

    If you're just hanging out online shooting the shit and talking about naturalism in RPGs, you may not give a shit about selling a game or having a conversation about it, and so its likely none of the above applies.
  • severly emphasizing the benefits of the community, in order to beg people to link games seems to undermine the whole point of Earnest Word of Mouth Advertising

    No, it's just because sometimes people don't realize how small the community is and that it actually has an impact for someone whose work they respect

    In the past the community was smaller, and that means less word of mouth advertising went farther, but I fail to see how a historical footnote, is the basis of proscribing future actions?

    The technique scales quite nicely. It's how Wikipedia works, after all. And I'm not suggesting proscribing anyone's actions. What am I, vengeful Santa? I'm suggesting that, if you want people to know about this thing you think is cool, you link to the thing.

    People link when they're enthusiastic because they want to give credit for something they think is cool and tell other people about it. Posting in that thread back there is basically burying the names of games so no one will be able to learn more. Combined with the near total lack of description, that thread is almost totally devoid of information. We don't even know which ones the players think are worthy of note, just which ones might, irrespective of the degree of introspection of the poster, fit the criterion of the OP.

    Wolfe,

    How can I know if I might be interested? A link gives me something to think about. A name does not. I'm not going to google 50 games in case one of them might be interesting.

    Here's the deal: if you want to say, "This is an obscure thing that I think is cool," I want to see evidence of that because I love cool things. Evidence is likely in the description of the thing by the creator and in examples of play.

    I generally operate on the assumption that, if someone links to a game, and in particular AP, it's because they think it's worth linking to and that is interesting to me. If they don't, well, the Internet is full of things to look at. If they write something themselves that appeals to my tastes, even better: that gives me even more context.

  • Brand, what I'm saying is that there is often no information about a game. I want to know more! If you like a game and are willing to suggest it, tell the people you're talking about it what it is. Linking is just a really easy way to do that.

    Here's what you do: click "Markdown" below the post field. Then, when you want to link something, put [brackets] around it, type the thing into your Google bar, copy the url it sends you to, and put the url in (parentheses) afterwards.

    Then people will know what you're talking about. And the creator will see you sending people to their blog or whatever, and they'll be thankful, and probably enter into the conversation.

  • Joshua,

    Yep. Of course, being contextual enough to know what people need to have an idea what you're talking about isn't just a marketing tool, its a life skill.
  • Josh,

    If all I give you is a name, then why in the world *would* you be interested? If all I give you is a name, it's likewise pretty apparent that expressing interest in that game isn't my main priority.

    On the other hand, if I'm *talking about* that game, that ought to be enough for you to decide if you're interested. If I haven't dropped a link during the course of the conversation, you can ask for more information. (there's always the Google option too, but I've always thought that was a snarky response to a simple request for information.)

    Brand,

    If I'm looking to sell a game, I'll drop links left and right. If I'm just talkin' about it, maybe not so much. I may be perfectly willing to sell you on the game, but overt selling of something when people aren't looking to buy is frequently considered rude.
  • Observation: I always know when someone is talking about one of my games, because I get a sales spike. Always. It's really easy for me to see that I got some sales, check the back page on my store to see where the traffic came from. What I'm saying is, every time someone posts a link her eto one of my games, I get some sales. It works.
  • edited March 2009
    Oh christ. God help my favorite game. That's horrible news. Why didn't the fucker who wrote my favorite game plan better? Couldn't she have warned me? Or...couldn't I have warned her, or somehow opted-out in some way?? OH JESUS THE WHOLE THING IS CRUMBLING LIKE A HOUSE OF MAD MAD CARDS
  • Hey, I think that's excellent news. Now somebody link to my games, pronto. I need to get my stocks down and money out of the American economy before the dollar hyperinflation kicks in.
  • The reaction here is kinda weird. I don't think Joshua is really lecturing everyone on how they should act in the world. He's just saying it'd be awesome if more people did this.

    Since he started whinging about this I've been more studious in providing links. Not only when talking about games, but when talking about almost anything. Hyperlinks are what the web is for.
  • If all I give you is a name, then why in the world would you be interested? If all I give you is a name, it's likewise pretty apparent that expressing interest in that game isn't my main priority.

    Yep! ... so... why mention it? Why mention it in a thread that's supposed to cover a particular realm of interest? Isn't the whole point of posting about a game that people learn something about it?

    If I'm looking to sell a game, I'll drop links left and right. If I'm just talkin' about it, maybe not so much. I may be perfectly willing to sell you on the game, but overt selling of something when people aren't looking to buy is frequently considered rude.

    Giving context and letting people decide isn't rude or selling. It's telling people what you're talking about, and it's giving a shout out to the person who made something you liked.

    The reaction here is kinda weird. I don't think Joshua is really lecturing everyone on how they should act in the world. He's just saying it'd be awesome if more people did this.

    Aren't you paying attention? I'm proscribing here, Rob!

    Jason, I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but I don't actually understand what you're saying.

    OK, here's what I'm saying:

    If there's something people like and you want to tell other people about it, tell them what you're talking about.

  • Why mention it? The answer to that question will differ based on the purposes of the thread, so it's hard to give it to you. I'll give 'er a shot, though.

    Sometimes, the thread starts out with a generalized survey. "What games do this?" Many of the answers will be games that people are generally familiar with. Links and details aren't always needed. Just naming the game may be enough for the purposes of the thread, as the author goes "Oh yeah, that game does do that" or "It does? Now that I think about it, I guess I can see that." Other times, more information will be needed, and that's when the asking comes in. Sometimes it's a general request ("hey guys, can you tell me why/how you think this game is applicable to this question?") or more specific ("I've never heard of that game. Tell me more.")

    Giving context isn't rude, no. I never suggested it was, though. Making a blatant and obvious attempt to sell a game is a different beast though. Dropping a mention of a game in every thread that you can squeeze it into, along with a link and a gushing endorsement is what I'm talking about. There's a continuum between that and simply giving context. Most people, I think, tend to err on the side of caution. They'll give context as a rule (unless the thread sounds like a survey) but they may not link.

    This is my observation. If it turns out that no one thinks dropping a link with every mention of a game is pushing the envelope of overt selling, then maybe I'll start doing that. I can't speak for anyone else, though.

    Also, I think Jason is specifically addressing the title of this thread, rather than the content. In that context, it's pretty funny. If I *was* the sole avenue of promotion, that'd be pretty sad. No one likes me enough to take my recommendations seriously, after all.
  • Posted By: WolfeIf it turns out that no one thinks dropping a link with every mention of a game is pushing the envelope of overt selling, then maybe I'll start doing that.
    Depends. Are you linking to IPR, RPGNow, or somesuch? Or just to an informational resource, a review, or even the author's official page?

    I don't see how simple linkage to an information page could be construed as some sort of guerrilla sales tactic. Unless the target page is ad-driven, I'm just as likely to link to a resource for a product I dislike as I am for one I like. It's less about supporting the game or the author and more about being inclusive in your writing.

    Joshua seems to be talking about more than that, though. He's specifically mentioning a perceived decline in community-driven support around indie games, presumably both from authors towards their audience as well as the audience making assumptions about the accessibility of the authors. That, to my mind, is a far more interesting subject than whether making linkies on da Intarwebz should be common practice or not (hint: it should).
  • Posted By: Joshua A.C. Newman If you don't care about the game, then it doesn't matter. But if you want it to gain popularity so the creator will make another one you like, if you want to get more players for game night, if you think your friends would benefit by knowing about it, link whenever you discuss a game. Everyone will benefit.
    I really don't think that consumers have a duty to advertise their favourite games. In fact, I'd say that that's a very unhealthy attitude to have as it leads to such abominations as people buying up whole White Wolf lines simply because they like a game and want to support an author. As far as I'm concerned, my relationship with an author is essentially non-existent. I buy the odd game and in return for my money I get a game. That's a relationship with a store but frankly I don't care about game writers. I think that if no new RPGs were produced for a hundred years then this would in no way affect my gaming in the least.
  • Posted By: Jonathan MI really don't think that consumers have a duty to advertise their favourite games. In fact, I'd say that that's a very unhealthy attitude to have as it leads to such abominations as people buying up whole White Wolf lines simply because they like a game and want to support an author.
    That's an interesting viewpoint. I never considered these two phenomena connected in any way. My own opinion is that the rampant consumerism and brand-loyalty many gamers exhibit is damaging to the hobby and needs to be stomped out with extreme prejudice. The only way I know how to do that, in gaming or otherwise, is to support independent "artists" of merit - artists who are more concerned with producing good games and helping people play them than build brand loyalty or appeal to consumer impulses and lifestyles.
    Posted By: Jonathan MI think that if no new RPGs were produced for a hundred years then this would in no way affect my gaming in the least.
    I'd hazard to say that if this were true, it would only be because you are completely uninterested in the progression of RPGs, likely due to being fully satisfied with the games already on your shelf. If that is the case, I'd suggest that you are not the target audience for this thread, as you would be unlikely to purchase any new RPG products regardless of the degree of linkage to them. Not saying that to shut you down or insult you - I'm happy you have managed to find gaming bliss - just to mention that if you don't care about future RPG developments, the whole notion of supporting artists so they can produce will be lost on you.
  • I'm happy to support games. If a game is the kind of thing you like then buy it by all means. If an author or a game then brings out stuff you don't like then don't support them in that decision by buying it. I can see how encouragement would work in those conditions. You're voting with your wallet.

    By contrast, buying everything someone puts out regardless of whether you like what they do or not is a completely inefficient way of sending consumer feedback. Giving someone money on the off-chance that they might then produce something brilliant in the future is irrational. It's like prayer. Hell, if you believe in that I'll give you my paypal address and you can keep sending me money. I haven't ever written a game and have no real interest in doing so but the chances that I will a) start producing games and b) produce the greatest game ever would be massively increased if people started just giving me money.

    Support individual products. Not people.


    As for the second part, it;s not true that I have no interest in the development of game design. It's just that my interests and preferences are so out of synch with the gaming community as a whole that on a game by game basis, it's mostly the case that RPG publishing has nothing to offer me. There are the odd exceptions, I picked up Hot War for example, but there's no guarantee that any new games would be better than what I currently have access to. I think that this is the same position everyone finds themselves in. Game design is not heading towards some kind of omega point of awesomeness. The difference between me and most people is that I have realised that my gaming most likely isn't going to be massively improved by a new game. Most gamers still have faith in this possibility.
  • I'm more likely to click on a link out of curiosity than to google a game and then wade through the masses of free mmos with the same name. I'd appreciate links when possible.
  • Posted By: Jonathan MI really don't think that consumers have a duty to advertise their favourite games.
    I have to agree. I'm not a salesman. I don't care if anyone, anywhere, ever buys anything. I'm not under any kind of obligation to the writer, to the publisher, or even to the retailer to try and promote a game. And like you, all production of new games could stop right this instant and it wouldn't really change anything about my gaming.

    However, links are dead fucking easy to put into a post. If I think directing someone to more information about a particular product would be helpful or interesting or even if it just satisfies some random whim on my part, I have absolutely no problem adding a link. But in those cases, I'd only be doing so because it requires very little effort on my part, not because I am at all interested in being supportive of the author.

    Frankly, any author who needs my support is beyond help. I might be able to spare them some pity, though. ;)
  • edited March 2009
    Reasons to link

    1) It's frakkin' easy!
    2) People will like you
    3) More people will own/play the game you like to play

    Reason not too link

    1) You can't be bothered to link (but you have the time to write 100 indignant words about why you aren't linking).

    I see it as fighting against internet entropy writ large. It's why blogs have links. It's why podcasts have show notes. It's why feeds exist.

    [EDIT] I meant "internet entropy" where I originally wrote "internet empathy". Sorry.
  • edited March 2009
    Posted By: Accounting for Taste
    I don't care if anyone, anywhere, ever buys anything [...] And like you, all production of new games could stop right this instant and it wouldn't really change anything about my gaming.
    I think the indie gaming consumer should be motivated not by a sense of duty, but by a desire to make the creation of games a more fulfilling (and profitable) venture for the designers. Supporting the author can give the author the means and incentive to continue producing his or her products, which benefits the community as a whole.

    Now, granted, you may have no more room on your RPG shelf, and feel that you have no need for new games. And perhaps it's impossible to appeal to the altruistic side of your nature, asking that you promote games for the sake of the players who are still interested in the production of new games. Yet even the egoistic and insular gamer (and here I am invoking an exemplary extremity, not leveling a judgmental accusation) can appreciate that maybe there is a game that has yet to be published that actually would be a worthy addition to the collection and change something his or her gaming. If the designer of your favorite game had jammed his hands in his pockets and slouched off into the gathering dusk, scowling and kicking an empty soup can, seeking fortune elsewhere before penning that magnum opus you play every Saturday afternoon, you'd really be missing out. So linking can be a tiny investment in the grand possibilities of the future!
    Because, hey, you never know. So the minuscule effort of supporting designers, even just by linking to their games, seems worth the great dividends it could provide.
  • Posted By: Dan EisonI think the indie gaming consumer should be motivated not by a sense of duty, but by a desire to make the creation of games a more fulfilling (and profitable) venture for the designers. Supporting the author can give the author the means and incentive to continue producing his or her products, which benefits the community as a whole.
    Yeah, we're going to have to disagree on that one. Finding the means and incentive to continue producing products is a problem and a responsibility for the author, I think, not for the consumers. The consumer's only required role here is to buy the things he or she likes; the consumer should not be expected to be an advocate on the creator's behalf, nor to be an evangelist for "the community," nor even to be an informational resource for other consumers curious about the product.

    If you want to do any of those things, that's fine. Follow your bliss, as my hippie ex-roommate liked to say. You can absolutely choose to be an advocate, an evangelist, a resource, a forward-thinking idealist investing in a designer who might write the best game ever ten years from now, and any other little thing your heart desires...but that is an entirely separate deal from being a consumer, and thinking otherwise can lead to heartbreak for creators, consumers, and fans alike. In other words, choosing to provide that kind of support is a gift, not an obligation.

    And don't get me wrong, it's a lovely gift. I get warm fuzzies seeing people do stuff like that even in situations where I have absolutely no stake in the matter as either a consumer or a creator. It's usually very cool to see people who genuinely love a product expressing that love and encouraging others to share in it. I just don't believe that anyone who buys a product should be expected to give that gift. Nobody's owed anything, so tactics like "don't you want to support the gaming community?" and "don't you realize that the author needs your help to market his product?" seem really out of place in this instance.


    Besides, I've always found that the few times I wanted a link to a product being discussed here, I could just post "hey, do you have a link for that?" and quickly receive one with no fuss. As problems go, this is not the worst one we could have. :D
  • I find the rather heartfelt efforts to promote, (and yes that's what you all are doing ) a certain set of manners when it comes to talking about indie games quite fascinating. There are a huge amount of 'the indie community' and 'indie gaming consumers' and identity and consumer politics going on that are really what is at issue here.

    Quite frankly, the short story is , I don't suscribe to your political view, there are lots like me, and this may or may not be apathy, but you will never know because you don't know me. I'm disagreeing with you but you dont know the motivations and I certainly don't need more pop psycology telling me that i'm a lazy worthless sack of shit for not agreeing with you.

    So let me refute a few other points that amuse me.

    1) It's frakkin' easy! - Its easier not to, invalid point
    2) People will like you - I have already said that I don't suscribe to your political view and these posts make it pretty clear that im not interested in signing up to your political view, becoming popular or singing koombiyah with the indie darling community.
    3) More people will own/play the game you like to play - Will they? There has been precious little evidence that links actual translate into sales, and even if they did. Chances are they won't be by anyone I know, because I don't know anyone on the internet (for varifaction purposes I know someone when i can walk uninvited into their houses, and they just say "hey logos, wazzup" as apposed to the myriad of other responces I would expect form total strangers like you all ). Furthermore if we want some more anecdotyle evidence, I found sea dracula with only a name and no link. I found Kills Puppies for Satan with little, (I beleieve I had the phrase, Lumpley Games" . People are quite able to find things on their own, because otherwise, we all wouldn't have made it here to this point were everyone should advertise for everyone else in order to be a good indie game citizen.
    1) You can't be bothered to link (but you have the time to write 100 indignant words about why you aren't linking) Yeah because I think its important to talk about different views on things. I don't think its important to follow 'good faith' rules on when and how to post links to original material, thus the talking i have been doing. Thanks for the snideness as well. I appreciate it, If I don't get my daily dose of snide I damn well break out.

    For those of you silently screaming about how this is not poltical , or making snide little jokes, defacto dismissing complaints of proscription, all the while telling me how to talk about indie games for the love of god consider this quotey thing.

    My own opinion is that the rampant consumerism and brand-loyalty many gamers exhibit is damaging to the hobby and needs to be stomped out with extreme prejudice. The only way I know how to do that, in gaming or otherwise, is to support independent "artists" of merit - artists who are more concerned with producing good games and helping people play them than build brand loyalty or appeal to consumer


    I don't think that I took that too out of context, quite frankly. People are brands. Lumpley Games is a brand, Your telling me that I should buy stuff, because the artist has made other good stuff, and its important for artists to be supported by virtue of their status as independent or artist or meritful, rather than the virtue of the things they are trying to sell. Your promoting brand loyalty, while calling it 'damaging to the hobby' Its based on the assumptions that the actual hobby, you know that one dominated by wotc, whitewolf and stuff, are somehow badwrongfun and the efforts they go to to spread the hobby (advertising) are 'damaging to the hobby'. Who knows maybe you are right, but it doesn't change the fact that this old song and dance is about as a protectionist, as a labour union singing the national anthem while protecting their jobs. Sorry for not signing up to the union.

    I see it as fighting against internet empathy writ large. It's why blogs have links. It's why podcasts have show notes. It's why feeds exist.


    Yes, because goddamnit, those internet people are doing it wrong, those poor apathetic internet users.

    I think the indie gaming consumer should be motivated not by a sense of duty, but by a desire to make the creation of games a more fulfilling (and profitable) venture for the designers. Supporting the author can give the author the means and incentive to continue producing his or her products, which benefits the community as a whole.

    Ah, so it doesn't benefit me to have an author continue making books, (which may or maynot be trash) rather it benefits the community, because having another successful author (who may or may not be rubbish) is more important than the books succeeding or failing based on their merits (which include their advertising). Quite Frankly, that seems to benefit the community of authors more than anything. Your making this a greater good argument when it is really an author good argument.

    I'm more likely to click on a link out of curiosity than to google a game and then wade through the masses of free mmos with the same name. I'd appreciate links when possible.

    Great, I think we all do, What I really appreciate as Honest and Earnest links, which are not what happens when you have a bunch of yahoos dropping links becuase 'thems there the manners of a indie darling' rather than linking to things they actually like.

    Hey Andy , Can we get the name changed from Story Games: Tabletop Roleplaying to Story Games: Support us because otherwise there will be no story games? Just a suggestion, I think it will go over well.
  • edited March 2009
    Posted By: scottdunphy

    1) You can't be bothered to link (but you have the time to write 100 indignant words about why you aren't linking).
    The Internet is for opinions!

    (And links. Links to opinions also count.)

    Edit: Oops, sorry, forgot to link to some opinions
  • edited March 2009
    Posted By: Logos7I see it as fighting against internet empathy writ large. It's why blogs have links. It's why podcasts have show notes. It's why feeds exist.

    Yes, because goddamnit, those internet people are doing it wrong, those poor apathetic internet users.
    Sorry, I meant to type "internet entropy". That's what I call it when I see someone talk about something I find interesting by they don't provide a link and later I forget to google it. I think that's an inherent danger in the medium and it's not that users are apathetic it's that it takes effort to overcome the entropy.
    Posted By: Logos7Great, I think we all do, What I really appreciate as Honest and Earnest links, which are not what happens when you have a bunch of yahoos dropping links becuase 'thems there the manners of a indie darling' rather than linking to things they actually like.
    I don't want anyone to link to things they don't like. I wouldn't expect anyone to put that kind of effort into linking to something they don't like. I think the original point was, if you like it, please link to it.
    Posted By: Logos7Hey Andy , Can we get the name changed from Story Games: Tabletop Roleplaying to Story Games: Support us because otherwise there will be no story games? Just a suggestion, I think it will go over well.
    Actually, you're kind of right. Not for this site - it's not reasonable to change the nature of discourse in an existing community - but I would very much like to see a forum or community built around Story Games advocacy.
  • edited March 2009
    Posted By: Logos7Lumpley Games is a brand
    I get that. When next I post a link to Lumpley Games alongside an admission to go buy everything Vincent Baker's ever written because OMG-he's-so-great-and-can-do-no-wrong, please call me on it. As I said, if and when I do link to something, I typically do so to benefit the reader, not the link's owner.

    The quote - which you did take out of context - was in reference to the notion that promoting works you enjoy is:
    a very unhealthy attitude ... as it leads to such abominations as people buying up whole White Wolf lines simply because they like a game and want to support an author
    I don't see what obsessive nerd consumerism and fanboi-ism has to do with supporting small-press self-publishing. An equivalent statement would be that grassroots promotion of a local punk band is like buying a $200 Metallica cock ring.
  • I like Sign in Stranger.

    Because I like it, I tend to mention it in discussions about "what games do you like for the way they do X?" In some of those discussions, I take the time and effort to describe how the game works. In others, I don't.

    I try to link to it, especially when I'm lazy in describing it. I haven't visited the site myself in a while, and I don't know what's there right now. I just figure it's a starting point for anyone with a certain level of interest between "I'll google that" and "I'll click that". I don't have the URL memorized or anything, but knowing the company name allows me to google "blackgreengames" and get to the game's page in two clicks. Copy URL. Paste into post. Whole process: 30 seconds. Sometimes I'm too lazy to do that, but not usually.

    I have no idea how many people this makes a difference for. I just view it as if I'm saying, "I encourage you to pursue your mild interest in this thing I like." I only think about the sales aspect after the fact, when hoping that anyone who talks about my game on the internet will link to it. I imagine myself as being more in need of more eyeballs than Emily is, but who knows if that's true.
  • For the record, I'd also advocate people linking free games they like. It's about sharing enthusiasm and giving credit, not pimping. At least, for me.
  • edited March 2009
    I don't mind linking. I don't mind not linking (one can always ask, "Hey, what's that game you're talking about?"*
    I sometimes find one-word replies to questions, that reply being a game name with no explanation, kind of in-bad-taste, but not offensive.*
    I find folks who only post here to talk about a game that they designed, and nothing else, to be really annoying. Luckily, I haven't seen much of that since about last year.

    -Andy

    *EDIT: In both these cases, if someone just drops the name of some eclectic game, especially without context (just dropping the name of a game without explaining why, etc) I get a morbid pleasure in thinking, "If you don't care enough to link to it or talk about it, then I have absolutely no interest in doing the work to follow up on it myself. Your loss."
  • This thread is breaking my brain. What Joshua is trying to say is, post some damn links so you can save me (George Cotronis) the trouble of googling some game that has a single word title, making it impossible to find the game's website (if it exists!) without wading through 200 results.
    Why would anyone get up in arms on this is beyond me.
  • Posted By: northerainWhy would anyone get up in arms on this is beyond me.
    The medium is the message..
  • edited March 2009
    For the record, there are (at least) two things being discussed in this thread:

    1. The merits of linking to games you like in forum conversation
    2. The duties of the community surrounding small-press games

    The OP kind of conflates these, and its rightly pissing off the people who feel they have no duties as consumers beyond paying the cover price.

    I'm not making matters any better: my posts include both merits of linking to games you like, as well as idealistic notions of supporting DIY cottage industries, motivated by deep-rooted political convictions of consumer responsibility*. But really, these are two different things, worthy of two different threads.

    Perhaps we could come to an agreement that "hyperlinks = good" if we disconnected it from the notions of consumer duties and community identity, hm?
    Posted By: Andy
    The medium is the message..
    Yeah, just what we needed: McLuhanisms. They always make everything less controversial.

    * Edit: That is, I've addressed and offered personal views on both topics, sometimes in the same post. Not easy to decode, I realize.
  • edited March 2009
    Posted By: scottdunphyActually, you're kind of right. Not for this site - it's not reasonable to change the nature of discourse in an existing community - but I would very much like to see a forum or community built around Story Games advocacy.
    That's an interesting idea. Especially as Story Games is getting bigger, noisier and more RPG.NET-like.

    G
  • edited March 2009
    I love RPG.net.

    Nothing like the smell of Exalted in the morning, smells like flamewar.

    Also, I am now anti-hyperlink. I will never agree that hyperlinks are good.
  • edited March 2009

    This is freakish.

    Dudes, if you don't want to link, don't.

    If you want to:

    • Have people know what you're talking about
    • Share your enthusiasm for something you like
    • Tell the creator that you like what they made
    • Invite the creator to the discussion

    ... then do!

    It's not shilling. It's not selling. It's certainly not buying all of White Wolf's games (which is a very, very stupid, Internet Asshole-style comparison). It's communicating in the way we do because this is the Web, and the Web is made of links.

  • I thought the web was made of computers. Or people.

    Or monkeys.

    I think its monkeys.
  • I think the points on both sides of this debate have been made, and now we're starting to go downhill. It may be time to take a chill pill, and go talk about something fun now.
  • There's no debate. This has been, without a doubt, the most RPG.net experience I've had on Story Games, ever, and I'm the fourth user on the board.

  • Posted By: Logos7Furthermore if we want some more anecdotyle evidence, I found sea dracula with only a name and no link.
    It may be worth mentioning that I specifically choose names for my games that are very search friendly. Sea Dracula and Panty Explosion are easy to find with Google. Death's Door and Breaking the Ice are not.
  • I would like to proudly note that no one has hyperlinked to RPG.net.
  • edited March 2009
    If you want to go to RPG.net, you'll have to click on this medical model of a bedsore-ridden ass.

    image
  • edited March 2009
    Joshua wins the thread!

    Flawless victory.
  • If you use Firefox at least, you can select any text, right-click, and choose "Search Google for..." for whatever you've selected.
  • Oh, are we linking to other sites now?
    image
  • edited March 2009
    We don't have to because we can Google for things now!

    Case in point:

    image
  • I really like Shock.

    Oops, forgot to link. Thank you Google!
  • I really like Brand.

    I found this while searching for a game called "One Can Have Her" from the thread at the top of the post. I'm not sure, but I think it's probably representative of gameplay.

    Geoduck Jockey

  • The fuck is that? A dick? A snail?

    WTF?
  • It seems I was prophetic. This thread is now vying for Worst Thread Ever.

    Seriously, people. Have some class.
  • Hey, there's something to this thread, and it's only two letters away from "class!"
Sign In or Register to comment.