I'm from a long line of very bad home games that tended to terminate prematurely, even the good ones, and as such I tend to see Living campaigns as the finest expression of the art. Nothing like having the mastermind his-or-her-bad-self telling the story.
Odd. I tend to see Living campaigns as the lowest expression of the art and hobby. Far to competitive. Too much ego. Too many fulfilled stereotypes.
This is an ironic joke, right? This sounds just like something an Indie RPG fanatic anti-RPGA snob stereotype would say.
This personal attack was not directed at me intentionally, but it hit me just the same.
Mainly becuase you phrased things I consider compliments as insults.
First: Living Campaign: In my three years in the (early 90's) RPGA I found it tremendously uncompelling. The games were filled with not fun, and more competition than I could imagine. When Hackmaster came out, becuase I was a huge KODT fan I thought it would be great, but Instead I found I was gaming with people who didn't understand they were playing a satire, and I realized it really wasn't any different than my RPGA experiences. So yes, if somene says "Living campaigns are the highest art form" I'm likely to disagree.
Your claim that someone responding to "It's the highest art form in the hobby" (which is whether you see it or not, a backhanded slam at the artisitc levels of everyone else) with "No I think it's a pretty low art form" as "fanatic" is fairly ironic in itself.
Next: Indie RPG fanatic:
I don't shop at Wal Mart, I go to a small veggie stand down the street from where I live (And pay more for it), I believe the indepenent company is a far better prospect than the behemoths, and yes, that extends to gaming. Spycraft, by the way, is an "Indie game" being as it's owned by three people who have day jobs.
Am I a fanatic? Maybe. I certainly consider the fact that something is an indie game a plus (Though not an automatic win by any means) and the fact that it's owned by one of the wicked Witches (Wotc, White Wolf) as a big strike against it, simply by where I prefer my money be going and supporting. Do I consider this bad? Not at all. I consider it GREAT, and I wish eveyrone where doing it.
The first year WOTC didn't show up at ORigins I considered it a huge BOON for the con. I was so pleased. Mainly becuase the people who only play/buy WOTC stuff when they were there found other things to do. Indy companies (including mine) did quite well that year. Unfortunately, those people didn't come back the next year, which is sad for eveyrone.
RPGA snob: Yes, I hate hate hatey hate RPGA. I find that the RPGA itself is pretty much EVERYThing that is bad about gaming. If i had discovered LSPY when it was still part of hte RPGA I would not have joined. Been there, done that. I'm not a snob. If you want to play RPGA and give your money to a bunch of pretentious ***tards that care about nothing but taking your money, have fun doing it. ME I got tired of being screwed in order to 'compete'. That's not why I roleplay, and I resent your calling someone who thinks the RPGA is a bunch of greedy bastards a snob. You have not had my experiences, nor I yours. Lots of people have a great time playing RPGA. Lots of people go to Wal-mart. Doesn't make it cool.
I was also personally resonsible for a huge revolt when White wolf tried to hammer people into the Camarilla, to the point of scheduling phone confrences with the White Wolf's PR board and getting involved. I consider the cam to be WW's version of RPGA. I detest both of them.
So as an Indy game fanatic, anti rpga snob (and proud of both); I say yeah, Living campaigns aer usually great ideas, but usually don't amount to much. So far, my experience in LSPY had proved the exception that proved the rule, but I'd only been to a very few events.
The events I'd been too really were no different than any other (non-living) convention game, except for having more personal characters. (Which is as it should be)..