From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp reorg
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:58:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr6.125854.16777
 <1992Apr1.072757.6533@access.digex.com> <1992Apr2.180132.12586@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr2.180132.12586@cbnews.cb.att.com>, vjg@cbnews.cb.att.com (vincent.j.guinto) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.072757.6533@access.digex.com> rlb@access.digex.com (Richard L. Butler) writes:
>>smith@ctron.com writes:
>>>rlb@access.digex.com (Richard L. Butler) writes:
>>>>[exchange between myself and another poster deleted]
>>>
>>>[larry smith expostulates wildly]
>>>
>>>How is this different from the genre splits that have been proposed a thousand
>>>times before?
>>>
>>Well, if you've READ Loren's proposal, how can you come to the conclusion that
>>Loren's charter for rec.games.frp.dnd constitutes part of a genre split (in
>>general)?  Loren is NOT proposing genre-based subgroups of r.g.frp.  He is
>>proposing ONE subgroup that will deal with rules-specific questions for all
>>versions of D&D;  there is NO intent to split out ALL D&D-related discussion,
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>only that which has to do with the worlds, adventure modules, and rules-or-
>>mechanics of the assorted D&D systems.  If his reasons for suggesting this are
>>not clear to ANYBODY who is taking part in this discussion, they can not
>>possibly have been reading r.g.frp recently.
> 
> Why do I fear that whenever someone mentions, in rec.games.frp after the
> split, anything relating to *dnd, someone (or probably several someones)
> will shout out, "Back to your r.g.f.dnd ghetto, you *&#)!* munchkin!"
> 
> My dislike over rec.games.frp.dnd is that it seems unequal and unfair to
> single out a specific game for special treatment. Some people view having
> a separate group for *dnd as positive; these people are likely to want
> other games to have their own groups too. Others view it as negative to
> split out a single game into its own group, and are afraid that other
> games will be split out similarly. (Okay, OKAY, it's what, THREE games
> that share about 70% commonality in background, mechanics, flavor, etc.,
> etc. I don't view that as much of a distinction.)
> 
> I wonder how many of the r.g.f.dnd supporters really, really want to 
> give *dnd a home of its own, and how many just want to get that trash 
> out of "their" newsgroup.
> 
> How can rec.games.frp be a common, all-genre, all-system newsgroup if
> you single out one game for special treatment and exclusion? Why is it
> okay to take out all *dnd rule questions from the group, but leave the
> GURPS disad discussions, Shadowrun combat questions, the occasional
> Champions "how do I build a cheap energy projector" posts, etc.?
> 
> I disagree with the volume argument, simply because it is not being
> applied uniformly. People support giving *dnd its own group because
> of the volume of postings, and then go on to advocate things like
> r.g.f.forsale, which would take maybe ten postings week out of r.g.f.
> The sum total postings that ALL the new groups together (except .dnd)
> will take out of r.g.f. is small. Volume doesn't seem to be the issue
> driving much of this split.

	No, it isn't driving most of the rest. But, if one is to try to 
reduce the postings to rec.games.frp to something readable, splitting off 
*dnd is the most logical option. The others are split off because they 
aren't of interest to most people. *dnd is split off because it's of 
interest to a lot of people-enough that it's getting LOTS and LOTS of postings.

> 
>>My other reason for capitulation is that some people suggested a rec.games.-
>>frp.srun newsgroup - EXACTLY the kind of single-group/single-game naming that
>>we should be avoiding (.dnd is NOT about a single game...).  Rather than see
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Are the distinctions between D&D, AD&D v1, and AD&D v2 so great that you
> can honestly call them three distinct and unique games? I view them more
> as variants of the same game, since they have so much in common.
> 
> I advocated r.g.f.rulings earlier. Several people responded with some very
> pointed and rational arguments against such a group, and I ended up 
> agreeing with them. But I really, REALLY dislike singling out one group
> of players (and one group of r.g.f readers) and shunting them aside into
> their own little niche. Either shunt aside NOBODY, or shunt aside
> EVERYONE.
> 
> Obviously, I prefer discussion groups with as wide as possible scopes.
> I would take r.g.f alone without r.g.f.dnd anyday. I would accept
> r.g.f.fantasy before I would take r.g.f.dnd. I would accept r.g.f.rulings
> (even with the problems it would cause) over r.g.f.dnd.
> 
> I am in favor of the other groups (.announce, .library, .stories,
> .forsale, whatever) because they treat all players of all games equally.
> 

	-Allen
Newsgroups: news.groups