Updating the Desperation Morale site (help needed on a couple things)

[Pitman]

Mark
Why wouldn't they qualify?
Thanks Dave

They are not developed, playtested published products. They are essentially on-line map kits.

 

[FMFCB]

Mark
I understand your reasons for disqualifying them. As I was one of the players/playtesters they did get limited playtesting/development and have been offered for limited sale. Some offered for sale did come with scenarios and counters not downloadable from the web site.
It's your call but I think they should rate minor mention.
Thanks
Dave

 

[RandyT0001]

They are not developed, playtested published products. They are essentially on-line map kits.

At the Point, A.S.L.U.G., etc. were different?

 

[Pitman]

At the Point, A.S.L.U.G., etc. were different?

first, those are newsletters. Second, the scenarios there were playtested, developed and published.

 

[Mister T]

Two remarks:
- being poorly playtested has not been a criteria for exclusion, otherwise some CH (for instance) stuff would have failed to pass the bar;
- as little as i know of these products, they nevertheless seem to have an ASL content slightly higher than dice, which are often mentioned in your compendium.

Of course, since it is your site, you are free to include/exclude whatever suits you.

 

[bprobst]

Mark has the curious notion that if it doesn't exist on paper then it hasn't been "published". He's had this notion for at least 25 years now, I doubt that he's going to change his mind any time soon.

I'd also note that the evidence for "development" and "playtesting" of the Lone Canuck downloads is at least as great, if not greater, than the majority of CH products that take up space on Mark's website. I don't personally see any real difference between a Lone Canuck free download of map+rules etc. for a particular scenario/CG/whatever and a CH offering of same for the low, low price of $80.

Still, it's Mark's site, he has his own peculiarities, and if you don't like it you can stop paying for it. Oh, wait ....

 

[witchbottles]

Mark has the curious notion that if it doesn't exist on paper then it hasn't been "published". He's had this notion for at least 25 years now, I doubt that he's going to change his mind any time soon.

I'd also note that the evidence for "development" and "playtesting" of the Lone Canuck downloads is at least as great, if not greater, than the majority of CH products that take up space on Mark's website. I don't personally see any real difference between a Lone Canuck free download of map+rules etc. for a particular scenario/CG/whatever and a CH offering of same for the low, low price of $80.

Still, it's Mark's site, he has his own peculiarities, and if you don't like it you can stop paying for it. Oh, wait ....

If you are not amused at either a perusal of an article on Mark's site, or at a lack of such an article on a product, you are welcome to do as any viewer can do, and comment accordingly on the site page(s) itself. Whether or not he believes something must exist in a printed wood derivative form or not to be "published" notwithstanding, - all I can say is I can explain the concept of free will to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are just as welcome to create your own website if desired and offer such articles as a review of any items Mark excludes from his own site.

Mark's marbles = Mark's rules. Nothing wrong with that, it's called Freedom of Speech.

 

[esprcorn]

Not including the ASL for Fun packs is yet another level of bullheadedness... They are tremendous products which pretty much anyone would fork over cash for. Instead, because they're free and available online, they don't 'qualify'.... In fact they are as well playtested as most ASL detritus of their size. They're fun and very polished products.

http://www.lonecanuckpublishing.ca/ASL for Fun.htm

 

[Pitman]

Two remarks:
- being poorly playtested has not been a criteria for exclusion, otherwise some CH (for instance) stuff would have failed to pass the bar;
- as little as i know of these products, they nevertheless seem to have an ASL content slightly higher than dice, which are often mentioned in your compendium.

Of course, since it is your site, you are free to include/exclude whatever suits you.

I never said anything about the word "poorly."

 

[Pitman]

Mark has the curious notion that if it doesn't exist on paper then it hasn't been "published". He's had this notion for at least 25 years now, I doubt that he's going to change his mind any time soon.

I'd also note that the evidence for "development" and "playtesting" of the Lone Canuck downloads is at least as great, if not greater, than the majority of CH products that take up space on Mark's website. I don't personally see any real difference between a Lone Canuck free download of map+rules etc. for a particular scenario/CG/whatever and a CH offering of same for the low, low price of $80.

Still, it's Mark's site, he has his own peculiarities, and if you don't like it you can stop paying for it. Oh, wait ....

I do not have such a "notion," curious or otherwise. There are digital only items in the compendium. However, I do have a strict policy on what digital-only items are allowed in the website, because it is too easy to throw something together on-line and pretend that it is a finished product.

Re Lone Canuck, the fact that these things are explicitly described as "for fun only" is clear evidence, even leaving aside everything else, that they are not finished products.

 

[Pitman]

Not including the ASL for Fun packs is yet another level of bullheadedness... They are tremendous products which pretty much anyone would fork over cash for. Instead, because they're free and available online, they don't 'qualify'.... In fact they are as well playtested as most ASL detritus of their size. They're fun and very polished products.

http://www.lonecanuckpublishing.ca/ASL for Fun.htm

Prove to me that one of George Kelln's "for fun" HASLs was playtested as much as, say Pegasus Bridge.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Prove to me that one of George Kelln's "for fun" HASLs was playtested as much as, say Pegasus Bridge.

If that is the standard, you'd have to delete half the entries on your site. But of course, you would be foolish to actually say what the standard is, since it only reveals how arbitrary your decisions are. Being a site owner gives you the ability to be as arbitrary as you want, but at least be honest about it.

 

[witchbottles]

I never said anything about the word "poorly."

Correct. You said they were not playtested. "...They are not developed, playtested published products. They are essentially on-line map kits.

Pitman, Yesterday at 10:36 AM..."

Nothing there about good, fair or poor playtesting, only no playtesting at all, which is false.

"...Re Lone Canuck, the fact that these things are explicitly described as "for fun only" is clear evidence, even leaving aside everything else, that they are not finished products.

Pitman, 45 minutes ago..."

So using the same criteria, one might infer that Banzai, being made explicitly for fun only, or perhaps the ASL Mannual 98 , being made explicitly for fun only, need not appear on DM either. Yet they both do.

"...Prove to me that one of George Kelln's "for fun" HASLs was playtested as much as, say Pegasus Bridge.

Pitman, 46 minutes ago..."

Well, as much as I find myself in disagreement with much of anything Dorosh has to say at all, he is correct in this instance. I doubt that AP 3 scenarios even got as much play testing as PB did. I'd hazard an educated guess that around 85% or more of what has been featured in a DM article of review since Peg Bridge was not play-tested as long as PB was.


Like I said above, your marbles = your rules, got no qualms about it.(That's Free Speech).But please don't try to convince me that your decisions are anything more than purely yours alone, on whatever sliding scale you prefer to use at the time. I have the same right of Free Speech, and so does Bruce Probst or Mike Dorosh, or any other reader of DMs website articles of review.

 

[Kijug]

Version 2 of these:
BFP3: Blood & Jungle v2
BFP4: Crucible of Steel v2

 

[Pitman]

Version 2 of these:
BFP3: Blood & Jungle v2
BFP4: Crucible of Steel v2

Well, they are not out yet, but I also don't do entries for products that are just reprints.

 

[Philippe D.]

Concerning the VaeVictis scenario, I bought the last two issues (the one with a Dieppe solo game, and the one after). The first had an ASL scenario (on Dieppe, go figure); the second had none.

I should be able to check on both issues to get specifics, if Robin hasn't already. But then, I won't be able to help with previous issues - I had not bought a VV in years.

 

[bprobst]

it is too easy to throw something together on-line and pretend that it is a finished product.

As easy as just deciding that you know the development history of a particular product, without talking to anyone involved? I still don't get how someone publishing something online that they've (theoretically) done virtually no work for is any different to CH publishing something in their in-house printer after (theoretically) having done virtually no work for. Writing text for scenarios, laying out scenario cards, doing counter layouts, etc. is the same amount of effort regardless of, and separate to, the amount of work involved in research, design and playtesting.

Let's assume, for instance, that you're correct that the Lone Canuck "Just for Fun" stuff has had no development etc., as you assert. Aside from the format and price, how are they different to most CH products, which again you may reasonably assume have also had no development etc. (CH don't claim that there's been any, don't credit any playtesters, etc.) You throw one product into the (virtual) trash and give the other a lavish write-up on your site. I'm just not following your logic. (Given the choice of the two products to play, I know which one is more likely to provide a better gaming experience! -- and certainly which one is better value-for-money.)

It's your site, you can list or not list whatever items you damn well choose. I'm not going to stop reading your write-ups. You should accept, however, that your approach is inconsistent. You make an unresearched assumption about one company's practices, you make exactly the same assumption about a different company's practices, and yet the products from the two companies are treated differently, apparently only because one is a physical product and the other isn't -- even though you say that doesn't matter. The evidence of what you do doesn't match what you say.

 

[Dasvadonya]

Digital Only?.....I have two ASL for Fun products, printed maps, scenarios. Counters are included in both as well.

Mark can say whatever he wants on his circa 1999 website. But it's just his opinion, no better than anyone else.

 

[witchbottles]

Digital Only?.....I have two ASL for Fun products, printed maps, scenarios. Counters are included in both as well.

Mark can say whatever he wants on his circa 1999 website. But it's just his opinion, no better than anyone else.

Wow, too obviously a puppet for MD himself...

Really, Michael, you don't need to make sock-puppet accounts for support of this particular inference.

 

[esprcorn]

Wow, too obviously a puppet for MD himself...

Really, Michael, you don't need to make sock-puppet accounts for support of this particular inference.

What are you ranting about? He's making the same point you are.