Rainbow Crystal Utopia

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not that I disagree that there are negative aspects to social media and children probably shouldn't be in it, but that should be the parents' responsibility.
I think you're strongly overestimating parents. I mean, did your parents always know where you were, what you were doing and were they able to control your access to ubiquitous devices:grin:?
 
I think you're strongly overestimating parents. I mean, did your parents always know where you were, what you were doing and were they able to control your access to ubiquitous devices:grin:?

No, but my parents failed at being parents in many ways (other than being providers; they handled that part well at least) and so do many other people's parents (not that I expect them to track and micromanage their children 24/7). But handing that responsibility over to the state never ends well.
 
I think you're strongly overestimating parents. I mean, did your parents always know where you were, what you were doing and were they able to control your access to ubiquitous devices:grin:?
At least we had to be a bit sneaky/clever about it. Now it's a breeze to watch porn at the dinner table without anyone noticing.
 
At least we had to be a bit sneaky/clever about it. Now it's a breeze to watch porn at the dinner table without anyone noticing.
It's your reactions to it that are more likely to be noticed:thumbsup:!

No, but my parents failed at being parents in many ways (other than being providers; they handled that part well at least) and so do many other people's parents (not that I expect them to track and micromanage their children 24/7).
So do you expect today's parents to do much better?
But handing that responsibility over to the state never ends well.
But I'm not talking about "handing that responsibility over to the state", I'm saying "tell the state to pull its own part of the weight". You know, like how kids' parents should teach them not to go for alcohol and drugs before their bodies and brains are fully mature, but we still have laws against selling alcohol to minors (or, in the USA, to below-21 year olds) and forbidding, ahem, tempting them to participate in certain other activities:angel:.
 
[mod]I know this thread is a bit borderline anyway because of the content we're talking about, but I can't see the "government regulation of social media" tangent going anywhere good. If you want to carry that discussion on it's best taken to IM I'm afraid[/mod]
 
[mod]I know this thread is a bit borderline anyway because of the content we're talking about, but I can't see the "government regulation of social media" tangent going anywhere good. If you want to carry that discussion on it's best taken to IM I'm afraid[/mod]
Sure. And just to clarify, that was a joke...well, mostly:thumbsup:!
 
Again you are being disingenuous. The Good Syma'arian was a product designed to exploit a current divisive political topic. If you had a history of publishing products that were social commentary that would be par for the course. But you don't have such a history.

In addition, you have participated extensively in the hobby and industry often commenting on what was happening on a variety of topics related to the hobby and industry. I find it hard to believe that you didn't know this product would provoke a reaction from the staff of Onebookshelf or its customers when you posted it. A reaction beyond its merits as an RPG product.

And it doesn't help that the whole "Oops" attitude displayed by your reply has been used countless other times in other contexts with similar situations. You are not a novice but an experienced publisher with over a decade of experience. An individual who has successfully created and promoted multiple successful products. Who is known to have a specific style and voice when it comes to the writing and presentation of these products.

In short, you have been "Publishing and Promoting like a Fucking Boss" so sorry I don't buy your explanation.

After twisting yourself into a logical pretzel, I hope you found a good chiropractor. Lol.
 
Or we could just compare your frontpage with his for what I'm talking about.

View attachment 47016

View attachment 47017

Maybe you can't be bothered sorting out a landing page which is fair enough. But I'd be extremely surprised if something more like the second wouldn't sell more copies of your work, on top of which you'd be keeping 100% of the profits. I assume you're using the exclusivity agreement with Drivethru? If so, not much that can be done about it. Or don't do anything obviously. It's no skin off my nose.

How did you get so much fuchsia on either side of the screen? I primarily use my blog for blogging. Anyway, from an aesthetic and content perspective, I prefer mine. But there are doubtless plenty of opinions on both sides.
 
How did you get so much fuchsia on either side of the screen? I primarily use my blog for blogging. Anyway, from an aesthetic and content perspective, I prefer mine. But there are doubtless plenty of opinions on both sides.
Might be a desktop thing? Do you access it from a phone or laptop primarily?
 
Sorry, man, but having read both your material and Grimm's, and in a pretty similar genre at that...you can reject it all you like, but the assertion remains true:thumbsup:!


TMI, dude, really TMI:shade:!

Well, strongly disagree. It's a free country... for now.
 
Machinations of the Space Princess is a brilliant game. Agents of S.W.I.N.G. is one of the few RPGs I wish I'd written myself. The Islands of Purple Putresence is a great sandbox module, but is also the peak of Venger's output, imho. I don't want to split hairs, but Grim Jim's work is streets ahead in terms of concept and execution. Also, he seems to manage to keep his ouvre on DTRPG on a pretty reliable basis.

If you're not streets ahead, you're streets behind. See you at the next laser-lotus meeting, hoss!
 
A true radical provocateur shouldn't be surprised when their provocations evoke a response.

I don't think W.S. Burroughs or the Butthole Surfers gave two shits if a bookstore or radio station didn't carry their art.

But then both were very talented and had a strong streak of irony and humour in their work that saved it from being merely adolescent nonsense.

I was surprised with the speed. One hour after release, it was removed. And if I never mentioned these take-downs on social media, no one would ever know it was happening.

My humor may not be to your taste, but my fans would disagree with you.
 
I will leave it to others to decide whether what I said is inconsistent, illogical, and/or doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Your reply was in response to Venger's claim that he admitted that he had violated the TOC in hindsight, rather than knowingly violated the rule per se. To which you essentially replied that because he intended to provoke a reaction that you didn't buy that explanation. Problem with that logic is that just because Venger made a product intended to provoke a reaction it doesn't necessarily follow that he knew that he was specifically violating a specific rule. His aim was to comment on a particular political issue going on at the time and rile up the opposition, not to break the rules specifically.

Breaking the rules could just have happened incidentally. And given the wealth of cautionary tales involving children getting hurt found in literature, and particularly the type of folklore and fiction that RPGs typically take inspiration from, it's not unreasonable to assume that he didn't know publishing an adventure involving children getting hurt was in violation of the TOC. And in fact violating the TOC hurts his aim, cuz if action was taken against him (like it was) he would have wanted to prove political bias. But by technically violating the TOC he hurt that claim, which actually works against him rather than in favor of his aim.

Basically every argument I've seen against Venger so far (other than the trite "It's a private company, it can do what it wants!") amounts to "you were trying to provoke a reaction, therefore you got what you deserved". Hence, my first post in this thread "Venger likes to wear short skirts". Which is to say, these are all just "victim blaming" arguments (to the extent he can be argued to be a victim) aided by the fact that you don't like "victim" or what he did, so it's OK to blame and deride him, rather than truly solid rational arguments.
 
Your reply was in response to Venger's claim that he admitted that he had violated the TOC in hindsight, rather than knowingly violated the rule per se. To which you essentially replied that because he intended to provoke a reaction that you didn't buy that explanation. Problem with that logic is that just because Venger made a product intended to provoke a reaction it doesn't necessarily follow that he knew that he was specifically violating a specific rule. His aim was to comment on a particular political issue going on at the time and rile up the opposition, not to break the rules specifically.

Breaking the rules could just have happened incidentally. And given the wealth of cautionary tales involving children getting hurt found in literature, and particularly the type of folklore and fiction that RPGs typically take inspiration from, it's not unreasonable to assume that he didn't know publishing an adventure involving children getting hurt was in violation of the TOC. And in fact violating the TOC hurts his aim, cuz if action was taken against him (like it was) he would have wanted to prove political bias. But by technically violating the TOC he hurt that claim, which actually works against him rather than in favor of his aim.

Basically every argument I've seen against Venger so far (other than the trite "It's a private company, it can do what it wants!") amounts to "you were trying to provoke a reaction, therefore you got what you deserved". Hence, my first post in this thread "Venger likes to wear short skirts". Which is to say, these are all just "victim blaming" arguments (to the extent he can be argued to be a victim) aided by the fact that you don't like "victim" or what he did, so it's OK to blame and deride him, rather than truly solid rational arguments.
I did not claim that he knowingly violated a specific rule. I claimed that he knew his product would provoke some type of divisive reaction. That it was taken down should have not been a surprise or unexpected given his experience and past actions.

He has a specific approach to marketing that I am commenting on. What I dislike here are not his creative choices or what he does personally. What I dislike is that he is playing the victim card in a way that is consistent with what other people do when using this style of marketing. That by doing this he is being deceptive and manipulating his audience in a negative way. That is the judgment call I am making and why I responded.

It is natural to question my motives here. Anybody following what I do know that the type of stuff Venger is interested in creatively is not my cup of tea. That the way I market is very different than how he markets. Given the current climate of social discourse, there is probably little I can do to dispel such questions. The one thing I can reply in response, I have consistently over the decades been a strong proponent of letting a thousand flowers bloom. Along with doing my part ensuing that the foundation for that garden exists in the open content, I release that can be used without prior approval or creative control.

But it doesn't mean I am passive. While I reject "pruning" any of the flowers that bloom. I will give my opinion especially when there is some form of deception going on including in the area of marketing.

To clear the problem I have with Venger's comments is not in the type of content he likes to write about. Nor it is the fact he markets it in a provocative way. The problem I have is his claim that he is surprised when things work out to the point where people don't want to carry his products. Especially in the light of his experience.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from.
 
I've been the audience for Venger's products in the past... but I'll full on admit that his inconsistencies do put me off... far too much whining for someone who has chosen the moniker 'Satanis'.
It's like naming yourself 'Pissy McPoopypants' and then wondering why people snicker and don't invite you to their fancy dress balls.
 
Last edited:
Two things can be true at the same time.

Venger can use provocative topics to boost sales.

DTRPG can make decisions based on the author and their political views, and comb through every Venger product looking for an excuse to pull it.
 
Your reply was in response to Venger's claim that he admitted that he had violated the TOC in hindsight, rather than knowingly violated the rule per se. To which you essentially replied that because he intended to provoke a reaction that you didn't buy that explanation. Problem with that logic is that just because Venger made a product intended to provoke a reaction it doesn't necessarily follow that he knew that he was specifically violating a specific rule. His aim was to comment on a particular political issue going on at the time and rile up the opposition, not to break the rules specifically.

Breaking the rules could just have happened incidentally. And given the wealth of cautionary tales involving children getting hurt found in literature, and particularly the type of folklore and fiction that RPGs typically take inspiration from, it's not unreasonable to assume that he didn't know publishing an adventure involving children getting hurt was in violation of the TOC. And in fact violating the TOC hurts his aim, cuz if action was taken against him (like it was) he would have wanted to prove political bias. But by technically violating the TOC he hurt that claim, which actually works against him rather than in favor of his aim.

Basically every argument I've seen against Venger so far (other than the trite "It's a private company, it can do what it wants!") amounts to "you were trying to provoke a reaction, therefore you got what you deserved". Hence, my first post in this thread "Venger likes to wear short skirts". Which is to say, these are all just "victim blaming" arguments (to the extent he can be argued to be a victim) aided by the fact that you don't like "victim" or what he did, so it's OK to blame and deride him, rather than truly solid rational arguments.
I have a publisher account on dtrpg, and the ToS is like a few paragraphs. That Venger didn't bother to read it is not surprising, but also does nothing to make this anyone's fault but his own.

Calling criticism of Venger "victim blaming" is misleading, because he's no more a victim than some dope who's too busy looking at his cel phone to see the open manhole he's about to fall into.
 
Venger Satanis Venger Satanis I’ve bought a few of your books and particularly liked AWLAFB which helped me get out of a creative slump. As someone who is almost certainly in your target audience I want to reiterate what others are saying in the thread and advise you to change course regardless of whether you are a innocent casualty of the culture war or executing a calculated marketing ploy.
 
Regardless, my creative tentacles are temporarily tied. DTRPG won't let me put out another provocative, controversial product for awhile. Everything I self-publish, for the time being, has to be vetted by them.

And it's not so much surprise (though, the one-hour takedown did catch me off-guard) or whining / complaining as much as it is a combination of voicing my displeasure with various practices and protocols while also letting people know what happened. If a tree falls in the forest and no one posts about it on social media, did it even happen?
 
Regardless, my creative tentacles are temporarily tied. DTRPG won't let me put out another provocative, controversial product for awhile. Everything I self-publish, for the time being, has to be vetted by them.

And it's not so much surprise (though, the one-hour takedown did catch me off-guard) or whining / complaining as much as it is a combination of voicing my displeasure with various practices and protocols while also letting people know what happened. If a tree falls in the forest and no one posts about it on social media, did it even happen?
Dude. You're specifically making Culture War commentary using adventures, and you're coming from an opposing viewpoint. What did you think was going to happen? You're provoking this argument, and no one thinks you're naive enough to get surprised by any of this.

Is the point that DTRPG is not applying its rules evenly and is instead censoring based on the Culture War opinions of the staff? We knew that a few Jim Desboroughs ago and so did you.

If your point was to get them to hit a new low by pre-censoring all your content, congratulations. Now a lot of your stuff is going to get yanked where it wouldn't have previously.

If all of this really was a total surprise then here's the takeaway...leave the Up to the Minute, current news cycle commentary to the YouTubers, and go back to you doing you.
 
Unfortunately, for Venger, the "controversy" is the content. I hear Venger's output described as "controversial", rather than "good". Wouldn't you rather sell products on the strength of their quality? I know I would. But, if you strip away the sledgehammer-subtle commentary, and the pop culture references (which, let's be honest, are so overused that they've become a crutch), what you're left with is one uninspired door/monster/treasure encounter after another. Are there any original and memorable NPCs? Any original motivations, storylines, or plot hooks? I'm not trying to be an asshole here (inb4 "we know, it just comes naturally to some people"), but let's be honest. This content just isn't very strong. It won't go down in history, even for its manufactured controversy, which is also rather tepid and unoriginal. Venger obviously has what a great many lack: the will and persistence to see a produxt through, from concept to completion. Now he just needs to work on making his own mark, creatively. If the extent of your unique vision is constant callbacks to other people's work, well, then, enjoy being the "Scary Movie" franchise of RPGs (that is not a compliment), I guess. One man's opinion, spoken without tears.

To put the worst possible spin on it, Venger started his writing career straight up plagiarizing (Google "Venger Satanis Cthulhu cult plagiarism", and see for yourself*), and his recent habit of jamming every pop culture reference he can think of into a book and calling it his own work is, frankly, not too far removed from that.

Lest anyone think I'm picking on Venger for his views, let me say this: Alexander Macris, Gabor Lux, James Raggi, Grim Jim, hell even RPGPundit (who everyone knows I'm not a fan of) have all demonstrated talent, and a capacity for original, creative thought. I have deep disagreements with each of these men about various things, but there is no denying the quality of their work. I just don't see that same level of originality, quality and creativity with Venger. And while I'm not trying to kick him in the dick here, if he's gonna come in here trying to act the victim, I'm gonna tell him ro climb down off the cross, 'cuz we need the wood.

*Before some kitten-wristed, fanny-pack sportin', tucked-in t-shirt wearin' Melvins start soiling their britches about "doxxing", Venger has his real name and location on his Kickstarter profile. To call pointing to a site that has info he has willingly, publicly, and repeatedly shared "doxxing" is as disingenuous as Venger calling himself a "victim" after intentionally getting his products pulled from drivethrurpg - again.
 
*Before some kitten-wristed, fanny-pack sportin', tucked-in t-shirt wearin' Melvins start soiling their britches about "doxxing", Venger has his real name and location on his Kickstarter profile. To call pointing to a site that has info he has willingly, publicly, and repeatedly shared "doxxing" is as disingenuous as Venger calling himself a "victim" after intentionally getting his products pulled from drivethrurpg - again.
That strikes me as a strawman because don't think that Venger has any issue with his real name being out there in the first place. It's listed as an alt name on RPGGeek. I will say that there has been doxxing of Venger elsewhere (if you know what I'm talking about you know what I'm talking about that). Nobody has crossed that line yet, but I just want to be clear that if anybody does repeat any of that particular stuff I'll be coming down on it like a ton of bricks. We're talking a potentially bannable offense there.
 
Yeah, I have no desire to plumb those depths. Just wanted to make clear what my reasoning was.

Edit: and I mentioned it because Venger has previously accused Tenkar of "doxxing" for using his name, so no, not a "strawman".
 
Last edited:
Updated Publisher Conduct Guidelines

The relevant section.

Hostile Marketing: Our policy regarding potentially offensive content (see Product Standards Guidelines) reported by customers is to deactivate such titles while they are being reviewed. Publishers who deliberately court controversy by making public declarations or accusations of censorship resulting from this process in order to draw attention to their products will be considered to use hostile marketing.

Publishers who direct or support public accusations of impropriety or censorship toward OneBookShelf when their controversial titles are rejected or removed from our marketplace will also be considered to use hostile marketing.

This behavior will not be tolerated. We have adopted a strict one-warning policy for those who engage in hostile marketing: The first incident will prompt a warning, and after a second incident, their accounts will be removed from our site permanently and immediately.
 
Updated Publisher Conduct Guidelines

The relevant section.

Hostile Marketing: Our policy regarding potentially offensive content (see Product Standards Guidelines) reported by customers is to deactivate such titles while they are being reviewed. Publishers who deliberately court controversy by making public declarations or accusations of censorship resulting from this process in order to draw attention to their products will be considered to use hostile marketing.

Publishers who direct or support public accusations of impropriety or censorship toward OneBookShelf when their controversial titles are rejected or removed from our marketplace will also be considered to use hostile marketing.

This behavior will not be tolerated. We have adopted a strict one-warning policy for those who engage in hostile marketing: The first incident will prompt a warning, and after a second incident, their accounts will be removed from our site permanently and immediately.
And they say one man can't make a difference. Well done Venger!
 
Let me be clear: though it may be controversial, even harsh, I stand by my assertion that anyone who tucks in their t-shirt is a f***in' Melvin.
 
Let me be clear: though it may be controversial, even harsh, I stand by my assertion that anyone who tucks in their t-shirt is a f***in' Melvin.
I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.
3388.jpg
 
Looking it over, there's stuff that I actually raise an eyebrow at way more than "if you attack our business as part of your marketing we won't do business with you" which pretty much any business would put their foot down on you.

Some of it has been there for years.

Publishers may not review their own titles or those of other publishers.

This is and always has been stupid. Flattering though it is that Drivethru seems to think I'm a business rival of Cubicle 7, I'm afraid to say that isn't in fact the case.

But more importantly, it really screws over niches like LARP. Almost all the people that would review LARP are also publishers and we're generally at most two people removed from playing in each other's games.

Also, the wording of this is really mealy mouthed.

We expect fair treatment on the pricing of your titles. Please price your titles as low on our marketplace as you do anywhere else; we understand that short-term sales on backlist titles can vary between stores temporarily (for up to a week or so), but having titles constantly reduced elsewhere for cheaper, or pricing them differently upon initial release, does not constitute fair treatment in our view. Likewise, including extra content for no extra cost in alternate versions made available only elsewhere is not fair treatment.

Well chaps, the reason this happens is that you take a much larger cut than your nearest rival Itch.io. So in fact, most of this supposedly unfair pricing is people making the same money from you as you do from them. I don't consider you charging the same as a bricks and mortar distributor "fair treatment" considering your lack of overheads.

All that said, what can you do? They have a right to put down whatever conditions they want to do business with them and I can either agree or not as I see fit. I have neither the motivation nor the required skills to try and set up a new storefront (if you do, employ me to deal with LARP yo). So I'm not going to portray myself as a victim for disliking parts of a voluntary agreement I choose to sign up for.
 
Yeah but this is the exact attention Venger wants.

OBS is not a monopoly by any definition. Lulu, IPR, Gumroad, itch, or just emailing pdfs/snail mailing books to people who PayPal/Venmo/CashApp you are all options. Just because OBS is the most popular, doesn't make them a monopoly. And the policy doesn't prohibit Venger from discussing the issue, only from accusing OBS of censorship while they investigate whether the title violates their ToS.
 
Venger has a target on his back. He said there were only six downloads and many reports. I did a search the other day and found things that violate their TOS but I doubt some of them were reported because they don’t make waves they way he does. Expressing an opinion on a forum might not get OBS to do anything but it could get some “customers” reading those opinions to do things.

I think he should just cut the shit and make his political points very subtle in his works, it at all, but it looks like he wants to do scorched earth. Good luck.

The thing about people reporting political content or trying to take someone down for political reasons is that usually the side going after Venger is the only one motivated enough to do it. The other side of the culture war normally doesn't care that people or products with different political takes simply exist. You might see them complaining about it or dissecting a particular product over at the Site, for example, pointing out all the woke stuff in it, but no one normally goes out of their way to report it over some technical violation or something they found objectionable in it. Cuz the complain is that woke stuff is silly or BS, and maybe about looking down on woke people, not "OMG! How dare this even exist in a digital shelf space somewhere? We need to take this down—someone find a technical violation, quick!"

So assuming that stuff you found is of that political blend that's probably why no one's reported it and no one likely will.
 
The thing about people reporting political content or trying to take someone down for political reasons is that usually the side going after Venger is the only one motivated enough to do it. The other side of the culture war normally doesn't care that people or products with different political takes simply exist. You might see them complaining about it or dissecting a particular product over at the Site, for example, pointing out all the woke stuff in it, but no one normally goes out of their way to report it over some technical violation or something they found objectionable in it. Cuz the complain is that woke stuff is silly or BS, and maybe about looking down on woke people, not "OMG! How dare this even exist in a digital shelf space somewhere? We need to take this down—someone find a technical violation, quick!"

So assuming that stuff you found is of that political blend that's probably why no one's reported it and no one likely will.
There was one game that got pulled because Erik Tenkar complained about it containing an explicitly anti-police message, which it did.
 
K, there's prolly no way this thread was ever not going to be about politics, but I think with the OBS tangent taken out that's even more obvious. Venger, you've been posting here for years, but the last few threads you've started have all crossed the "No Politics" rule, and this latest book was clearly a politically-motivated endevour. If this is going to be typical of your approach to gaming going forward, The Pub isn't going to be the right venue to reach your audience. I know you have a convention and stuff coming up, surely there's lot's to interact with your fans or potential customers about here without involving The Pub in whatever piece of the Culture War you've decided to take on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top