I recall the thread. It wasn't me, but I remember when the person made the interjection, I was kind of pleased.

It's entirely possible my memory of the forums at that time has been coloured by that thread. That it still stands out in my mind is probably a good indication of that, or that there was really was a mythical Pyrite Age in DSF's history and I'm just incorrectly associating it with that thread. I'm not even sure when it happened year wise, my brain seems to think that storing memories chronologically is overrated. I think the forum was brown at the time...

Either way, that thread was very unusual, and mildly disturbing, and I too was glad to see the interjection.

I never spent much time in the Lounge if I could help it, though I remember that thread somehow. That said, my impression was that the cultural norms there were almost totally different from those in the Shadowrun-debate areas of Dumpshock.

~J

I think you're spot on with RAW showing up here with the release of SR4. It used to be used almost solely in discussions about d20 (mostly D&D), and when SR4 came out billed as "easier to learn" etc. and started attracting the new, younger D&D crowd, it ended up getting used over here.

Personally, I find it ridiculous. RAW is just "the rules". If you want to be clear about the fact that you're talking about rules in the book, just say rules. If you're not, you're talking about house rules. And frankly, if you think you're up to joining in from a "I'm quoting the rules" stance, you should know the rules well enough to know when someone is talking about something that's obviously not by the book. If you don't, what business do you have quoting rules in the first place? (I don't mean "you should know the rules perfectly, but still.) But, it is in pretty common usage now, so oh well.

Again, just my opinion. Nothing official here, etc., etc.

Other "forumspeak" abbreviations I can think of include:
AFAIK - as far as I know
IME - in my experience
IMG/C - in my games/campaigns
YMMV - your mileage may vary

Well personally I usually use RAW with just a hint of a muttered curse, to me it stands for unreasoned aherence to the letter of the rules instead of the intent of the rules.

/agree

I still prefer to use 'canon'.

Canon�canon��.

~J

Shhh, or I'll change that to 'a cannon' just for you.

I remember a truly massive thread identified only by the thread title, "Sex!".

That really about sums up my experience of the lounge.

~J

Tisoz's perception of the Lounge lines up pretty well with my own perception of the Lounge. Pretty much every thread I recall with any distinction and detail, I can similarly recall my PMs and warnings from the mods over. It was a dark time in my user profile. A dark, bloody, time.

I liked it. It skated the edge of anarchy; and as such, I encountered there povs and lifestyles I'd never have known otherwise. Much of it was alien to me, yes: but then I've always been one for trying to understand how others think.

Every other Internet board I'd encountered before this, well, it was easier to mean well when you're just a few dozen friends who mostly think in the same ways. Almost invariably the strong differences of opinion that led to real tension were reacted to in one of two ways: either the board drew back and metaphorically or in Internet equivalent closed its doors except to like-minded individuals; or the administrators started getting more and more heavy-handed, to the point where abuse of power threads were virtually a daily occurance. One of the classics I've encountered exceeded a thousand posts -- entirely on topic, and with not one non-administrative member losing their temper (at least, on-board).

Another common outcome seems to be administration-by-peer-pressure/community-sanctioned mocking, but that's virtually universal -- even in the animal world, now that I consider it.

The Lounge was as close to a free-wheeling balance as I'd seen anywhere. Edgy, yes, but I did find its tone singularly appropriate, especially for a Shadowrun board -- life-appropriate, not just in the abstract. There's all too few places like that in the world today. And now, there's one less.

For sure RAW wasn't used here before SR4. I've got an "advantage" here: in that I have a clear skip in my life during which I had no access here. Before, SR4 had only just been released. (Remember the deluge of threads as everyone tried to find out its contents from the privileged few who'd managed to score a copy at GenCon?) At that time, no one was using the term RAW. But when I came back, everyone seemed to be using it.

Is it just me, or does the acronym immediately evoke the WWE? (Which could further narrow which demographic originally coined it and among which it caught on.)

I liked it.

I found it quite interesting to discuss various non-gaming things with a hugely diverse group of people who all had at least Shadowrun in common.

I enjoyed learning about various world events, customs, or idiosyncrasies that I would otherwise never have discovered, and then discussing them with a group of, if not friends, then at least contemporaries.

I was just as happy with the 'trivial bullshit' as I was with the 'important stuff'.

I learned about 911 while cruising Dumpshock in the middle of the night (Oz-time), and followed the progress through the various threads in the Lounge (among other places) with my fellow 'shockers. This is the single most defining moment of all my internet experiences, and I am sad to see the forum gone, and none of the 'replacements' will ever be quite the same.

Arrrgggghhhhh!

I remember Lounge thread either being nice places to discuss perhaps some interesting piece of SR-related news, or a private shouting match between a handful of posters. Overall I don't miss it. The 'problem' with DSF members (and Shadowrun players in general, IMO) is that we tend to be intellectuals who don't back down from philosophical fights. That has a way of getting ugly.

I came to the conclusion that many DSers are GMs who have a bit of a God complex and tend to forget that though they master their own little SR universe, they are interacting with the GMs who are Godlike themself.

It wasn't on these boards.

The original topic was interesting, but the thread has drifted a fair bit. Bring it back inline please. Issues about The Lounge are not exactly Game related (Belong in the Dumpshock Issues forum, at best), plus, we've hashed that out a million times. The Lounge is dead and buried. Let it rest in pieces.

Bull

Interesting timing, Bull.

Would this be a bad time to point out that the drift happened precisely after Caine Hazen moved this thread out of the forum in which it belonged? (in one of only three posts he's made this month?) Almost cause and effect, wouldn't you say?

I set you a challenge:

Move this back to SR4 -- and we'll return at once to the regularly scheduled discussion of whether personal experience is an appropriate measuring stick by which to measure the value of one's contribution to discussions about the RAW.

Fair?

The thread got moved because it wasn't necessarily SR specific. General Gaming is still a valid center for discussion of gaming topics. Caine felt it might be better served here, especially since we know there's a (very) small amount of non-crossover between the SR and SR4 forum.

As for my comment above, that was specifically directed at Lounge discussion, which has been beaten to death. I apologize greatly if my attempting to be diplomatic and not specifically name names or point out exactly what was being discussed was off topic. I'll remedy that now.

Stop posting about the fucking lounge. It's dead and gone and not ever coming back.

Better? Now stop arguing semantics with me. I have better things to do with my time.

Bull

...

I'm gonna let someone else handle this. YOu guys are killing me here. Seriously.

Bull

Seriously. I'm not trying to be a dick (whether I have succeeded in being one or not is a different matter ). I am just trying to get things clear.

I didn't get the impression that there was a general call for a new Lounge in this thread. Merely a discussion of the type of place that it happened to be. Most of the posts do seem to contain something of relevance in relation to either Dumpshock in general, Shadowrun players, or Shadowrun in particular.

I know that the former Lounge is a somewhat touchy subject, but is it that much of a taboo that even the mere mention of it is disallowed?

I think the point Bull is trying to make is this; most of the discussion of the Lounge on this thread has wandered away from gaming talk, and more pointedly seems to be a reminiscence thread about what is missed about life back then. Overall that has nothing to do with gaming, SR or SR4, meaning that this thread would be better served by being out of those areas as well. Being as there is no channel labeled "Lounge Reminiscing" it really has no place at all in these forums.

Or I can put this in mod terms:
Final warning, this thread is about who interprets rules more correctly, or how the rules as written relate to how right you are when you post answers to someones gaming questions. Please move this back on topic or the thread will be shut down.

Thank you.

Bull is having a bad day, and I am very busy, so this is my only post on the topic, and it's in my admin voice: this thread is topic-winding and confusing enough that no matter anyone's goals, it will not help anyone -- admins included -- to try and clarify things here.

If people wish to restart threads discussing the various issues brought up in this thread [one thread per topic, please], I suggest that in most cases the correct forum is Dumpshock News, Bug Reports, Feature Requests, & Discussion

However, be advised that I am on a harsh deadline and at least one other admin is out of town this weekend, so responses wil not be instantaneous.

That's fair enough.

And I apologise for ruffling any feathers.

So, in games, how many people can't help but reflexively ignore (or at least interrupt) boxed text? I can't tell you how many times we've had a decent GM give us a boost on initiative rolls because, while he was somewhere between describing to us in exacting detail the bone-crafted throne the evil Necromancer Queen was sitting on and wrapping up the long-winded list of generic, pre-published, threats and megalomaniacal proclamations aforementioned Necromancer Queen was in the middle of delivering, one of us just said "FIREBALL!" and tossed a d20 for Init.

There's just something a little silly about boxed text. The assumption that, upon entering the Necromancer Queen's chamber (bruised and bloodied and battered after hacking and blasting your way through several levels of Necromancer Queen's dungeon) the entire party will stop, catch their breath, and take a good look at what gems she's wearing, will pause long enough to give a fuck about how ooh-scary-evil her throne is (after killing dozens or hundreds of her undead), or will -- hahahahahhahah -- give the skinny bitch a half second to talk shit to them (nevermind waiting for her to point a bony, ring-encrusted, finger at us and screech "Attack, my minions!").

Screw all that. We're gonna get a glance at those minions, gauge 'em by way of quick head count (so we can decide what spells to cast), and then we're gonna start slingin' dice. Published adventures need to learn that RPGers are, by the time they get their eyes on the prize at the end of a long adventure, far more likely to cut to the chase then get in a Mexican Standoff with the head of Arcology security, share a staredown with that head Tir Ghost, or enjoy a tense and likely-poisoned drink after breaking into the back room of the local Mafia's favorite watering hole.

We see the bad guy, our blood's already up, and we know what we're here to do? It's go time, yo.

GMs that are able to roll with that are great. I know a few, locally, that will give us an initiative bonus, maybe even toss us a whole surprise round, because the bad guy is so arrogant, so condescending, so used to being in total control and being able to finish their sentences and control situations -- that us just starting to whip out guns, swords, or spells while they're in the middle of telling us how close their plans are to fruition will just catch that mo'fo with his pants down.

Conversely, I've had GMs that will blink, shake their head, and ignore what we're saying -- then, head down, squinting until they're almost glaring at their page, will speed up their reading and raise their voice to be heard over the rest of us. They'll speed read and talk like a friggin' auctioneer to finish that sacred three paragraphs of italicized or bolded text, because the ancient rituals say that a GM can't possibly leave boxed text hangin'. They live in fear that Boxedtextia, spirit of vengeance, will swoop down and curse their dice if they don't stubbornly ignore their players and kowtow to the writers, or something.

If you ask me, even more than particular gaming experience, the ability to improvise and listen to your players are some of the most important abilities any good GM (or player, for that matter), can ever have. The GM runs the adventure, not the other way around.

But won't you be doing the absolutely coolest thing, "a pause"?

~J

Pauses are most valuable when all the players know that paper messages discussing precedents based on RAW and alternate interpretations of RAW at other tables are flying back and forth between a few players and the GMs; and that a few almost insultingly-railroading pieces of boxed text may be gettting a reread and reconsideration as a result, perhaps by some other GM who wasn't responsible for the initial writing of the scenario.

Boxed text does have its place. Most players do like some level of understanding and consistency as to how this part of the game universe is intended to function. Players who refuse to acknowledge it utterly are setting themselves up for a fall.

However, when you've written it, it's hard to see boxed text -- or, indeed, the entire adventure -- in any way other than the one you'd already decided to set down in writing. How do you tell a pair of writers that perhaps a piece of writing which hadn't taken the PCs' memories into account really needed some playtesting and consequent editing, diplomatically: and still have him understand it? How do you tell a writer, diplomatically, that it was the boxed text itself which derailed the players in the first place?

toturi // the SR bookninja of RAW-Fu // strikes again // hahaha

[Edited for SR-appropriateness]

Boxed text and "two-authors thought is should go such and such a way" are the primary reasons that I usually don't try and run published modules. They're great for one-shots, quick games with characters you don't care about, beer and pretzels, or just for idea mining, but running them in an ongoing campaign is just tedious. If you take the time to read up on it enough that you can account for player action and change it on the fly as needed, and it still fits what you're doing, they can be okay.