If I had to guess, it'd be that Brother Orpheo took issue with some of GM Dave's "funny commentary."

And he wouldn't be alone. Dave's an opinionated individual, and really doesn't have much of a filter with some of what he says, particularly if he's gotten deep into his "wacky radio host" persona. He's likely ticked off a number of people over the years, who honestly don't listen to the show in spite of the informative material that's frequently presented, simply because of his antics. He has his personal prejudices and biases (we all do, so I don't fault him on that count), but they slip into the show more often than some folks would prefer, and he's entirely unapologetic about it; the few times when someone tried to point this out to GM Dave, he took it as personal insult and outright attack on him rather as possible criticism that could lead to improving the show. I made one such attempt, and got called out as directly attacking Dave; likely the only reason I didn't get banned from the boards was that the Lead Moderator (who does most of their work in maintaining the boards) was on my side in that particular incident, and the whole thing wound up getting brushed under the rug and the posts in question deleted by said Lead Moderator.

I still follow the podcast, having done so since the earliest days of when they were a Saga Edition podcast, as I find GM Chris to be both knowledgeable and entertaining without having to go overboard on the "wacky radio host" gimmick that Dave uses, plus the discussions with Jay Little and Sam Stewart have been extremely informative regarding this system. I updated by iTunes review from a 5-star (made prior to them winning an ENnie in 2009) down to a 3-star review, based upon GM Dave pretty much becoming a caricature and almost literally "phoning it in" regarding his behavior and interest in the material when I've heard evidence that he can do a hell of a lot better as the show's co-host. Sadly, it got drowned out by all the 5-star "We luv u guyz!" reviews and I've pretty much been written off as "the Russian judge" simply because I voiced some actual criticisms with the show. To be honest, I find the shows where Dave is replaced by a guest co-host, particularly GM Phil/DarthGM to be far more interesting, since I don't have to mentally filter out Dave's "wacky radio host" style remarks.

There are other podcasts (such as the Sabacc Table for instance) where the none of the hosts play the role of "uninformed pleb" that Dave sometimes adopts for the show in regards to the topic (he's far from uninformed regarding the subject material), done so as to be "funny," and that's something that not everyone appreciates. If one of the hosts of the Sabacc Table is uninformed about part of a topic, it's because they're legitimately uninformed as opposed to Dave's forced attempts at "playing dumb." Unfortunately, things are so entrenched that short of GM Dave stepping down permanently from co-hosting the Order 66 podcast, it won't change. It's their formula, and they're getting enough positive feedback to encourage to stick to formula even if it winds up alienating possible new listeners in the process.

/rant *steps down off soapbox and walks away*

I don't get what all the fuzz is about. Although, then again I'm probably worse... look up Norway a very precise and fitting description, don't let anyone fool you, we are really that bad.

Interesting. I hadn't noticed those tendencies myself, but as I said, I'm relatively new to the podcast.

When I think of Order 66, the main things I think of are the true benefits in information that comes when Sam Stewart or Jay Little is on the show, and how much I've learned from it.

I just don't "get" the show. The few times I have listened, mainly because a designer has been a guest, anything useful is so mired in rambling, "wacky", irritating or offensive nonsense that I end up feeling like I entirely wasted my 3 hours (which feels more like 10).

This episode was a total joke in my opinion. Supposed to open up Starship Combat, one of the topics that is most misunderstood by GM's and Players, it instead was an irritating on air reading of the rules (useless) with a lot of nonsense "tips" and commentary which often ran contrary to the actual rules.

The example of houserules... errr, "play"... was so error filled as to be the opposite of helpful. Would it have killed them to brush up on the actual rules before running them? (In fact, they had JUST READ THEM on air, still getting them wrong.)

In my previous posts I held back because it seemed the love of the show was overwhelming here, and I didn't want to start a flame war. However, I now see there are others who dislike the show for many of the same reasons, so decided to speak my full opinion.

And yeah, I'm right there with Brother Orpheo at feeling the "funny commentary" is often disgusting, and a disservice to the source material and the people who play the games.

My thing is simply the length. I was 28 minutes into the last podcast and nothing of consequence had been said,which was when I decided it was not for me. I had asked for some text based bullet points, or maybe even just a run time minute table of contents, something like "at 2 hrs 20 mins the discussion of rule X begins", something. I didn't hear anything offensive but l also didn't make it through the first half hour.

My thing is simply the length. I was 28 minutes into the last podcast and nothing of consequence had been said,which was when I decided it was not for me. I had asked for some text based bullet points, or maybe even just a run time minute table of contents, something like "at 2 hrs 20 mins the discussion of rule X begins", something. I didn't hear anything offensive but l also didn't make it through the first half hour.

This has been my (limited - 3 attempts) experience with them as well. After 15 minutes, the rambling and inane banter has me tuning them out and paying more attention to more exciting things like the amount of dust on my bookshelf.

I find myself asking "What does GM Dave bring to this podcast" and coming up with "not a thing at all" pretty often. I'm not offended by the things he says (and probably haven't heard the worst of it) but I don't find listening to him worthwhile. GM Chris and GM Phil are both excellent, though. I don't always agree with what GM Chris says (like this episode) but I usually come away thinking my time spent listening to him talk was well spent. GM Dave takes away from that.

I guess I'm "fortunate" enough to have a traffic-riddled commute that lasts more than an hour each way, so cruft in this podcast doesn't bother me so much anymore (but it did at first and man that rubbed me the wrong way!) Now that I've gotten to know the hosts, I come to expect a certain bit of chitchat just like the beginning of a gaming session.

Having produced a podcast in recent history, I have a newfound respect for people that do it repeatedly and still provide value. It's a time-consuming process that I don't think many people appreciate.

Having produced a podcast in recent history, I have a newfound respect for people that do it repeatedly and still provide value. It's a time-consuming process that I don't think many people appreciate.

I assume this is true, and I admire people who put in the energy, which is why I have some trouble criticizing it. But I can't stand the "morning radio" hyuk hyuk style, so now that SkillMonkey is separate, I only listen when they have on a guest of importance. The patience of those guests has been impressive...most impressive...

Donovan, thanks for pointing out The Sabacc Table. I hadn't noticed that podcast and am looking forward to giving it a try.

I started listening to Order 66 a LOT more when I discovered the multiple-speed options on my iPhone's podcast player!

When I listened at regular speed, I really found the digressions, jokes, and lengthy intros to dull my enjoyment of it.

Lately I listen on 1.5x or even 2x speed and I keep my thumb on the "forward 5 sec" button. I find I'm a lot happier listening to it that way.

I tend to skip through the first 20 minutes or so, with announcements, discussions of other podcasts, and so on--especially if I'm listening to one from the past.

As soon as I discovered the double-speed options, it became a lot more manageable to listen to on my commute!

I assume this is true, and I admire people who put in the energy, which is why I have some trouble criticizing it. But I can't stand the "morning radio" hyuk hyuk style, so now that SkillMonkey is separate, I only listen when they have on a guest of importance. The patience of those guests has been impressive...most impressive...

You can appreciate the work and dislike the style all the same, I think a lot of people feel the same.

i sift my way through the episodes looking for the flecks of wisdom that are in there. it's generally pretty safe to skip the first 20 mins. the replies to listener questions are usually the strongest part of the content that dave and chris bring to the table. the guests have been great. as are the listener submitted content like skill monkey, fragments etc.

i cringe at all the boorish misogynistic stuff. i'm not claiming that either of the hosts are misogynists, but the personas that they present sometimes are.

the podcast is a real passion for them and is clearly a significant time investment for them. i appreciate the effort, i personally think they could improve it if they eliminated the boorishness and tightened up the pacing.

the podcast is a real passion for them and is clearly a significant time investment for them. i appreciate the effort, i personally think they could improve it if they eliminated the boorishness and tightened up the pacing.

I agree quite a lot with the part about tightening up the pacing. Back during their Saga Edition version of the podcast, many of the early episodes where just barely over an hour, and the bulk of the non-gaming talk was relegated to "post show," so that folks only there for the game-related topics could simply skip over whatever random banter Chris and Dave engaged in. Sadly that seems to have largely gone the way of the dodo; maybe they'd have less difficulty getting together and recording a show if they cut the non-relevant banter out of the main show and moved it back into post-show.

My thing is simply the length.

They usually kick off the meat of the episode half an hour into it. So I just skip 28 minuets into the podcast and start from there, avoiding all the nonsense (save for the Skill Monkeys - the only good preamble segment).

Donovan, thanks for pointing out The Sabacc Table. I hadn't noticed that podcast and am looking forward to giving it a try.

One thing though is that the focus of The Sabacc Table is Star Wars gaming in general, including the SW:TOR MMO, various app-based games, as well as the product lines that FFG produces. As someone that's more interested in the RPG side of things, the content's pretty light on that aspect, mostly as it seems none of them really do much in the way of table-top RPGs.

tightened up the pacing.

Definitely thought that myself. Tighten up those bumps, cut out all the mouth noise. I know it's a chore because I've done this chore myself, but it's worth it to take the production value to the next level.

I tried listening to the Sabacc Table podcast on others' recommendations here, but its production value is quite low (but the edits are quite good!) and it's still a bunch of chitchat in the beginning. Add to it audio artifacts from the harsh encoding and it's not a pleasant listen to the new folks.

None of these issues are insurmountable, but given my audio engineering background, I am probably making a molehill out of another man's mountain. It's pretty awesome that there are so many community resources for this game, it really adds to the experience and I hope my feedback isn't discouraging to you kind folks producing all of this for us.

uhm... what is all this about misogynistic "stuff" being uttered on this show? I'd like to know, because I cannot recall anything of that nature, so I must have thick skin, bad hearing, alzheimer's, crap values and be void of modern principles... or some people interpret freely (or as we say in psychiatry over here: associate freely), have ultra thin skin... some sort antipathy or unwillingness to listen to, or acknowledge the existence of people with different values, principles and so on ... which is basically, I guess, the same as what GMDave has been accused of in this thread, or so it seems (of course I might be interpreting things too freely). I might be wrong of course. But those accusations leaves a bad, totalitarian and ideologically impaired smell of idiocy, comparable only the the content of the accusations themselves, basically, in my mind, equating the accuser with the accused, leaving no difference between the two sides, both being equally guilty of the same idiocy and ideological and cognitive limitations of their respective "stance" or position.

Granted, there is a lot of wasted time in the podcast, lots of chatter that might be entertaining to some and not to others (boohoo, wasted some of my precious time), if this is a so-called "deal breaker" so be it, but c'mon, be grown ups, be modern human beings not stuck in some rehashed ideological past of religious zeal (however "modern" the values might seem on the surface). If it goes against your ideological convictions and persuasions, sure, don't like it, but what's the point in trying to undermine it just because you're too stuck in your ways to see further than the tip of your nose?

I mean (and I'm probably stepping on toes and kicking in nut sacks now, sorry about that) they're texans... now, I don't know much about that village, since we are about as ignorant over here as texans are rumoured to be, except we are not as crazy about religion and guns, but we have our issues, most certainly.

Jegergryte, I agree, I haven't heard any evidence myself of any of the offensive quality that others referred to earlier.

I've mentioned that I agree the pacing could use tightening, but I'm happy to manage that myself when listening to it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a good podcast which provides a service to our community and lots of useful information.

I'll just hop in and say my two cents, and that is this: I have met Donovan Morningfire and I know him to be a rational, fair and mature human being, I trust that he knows what he is talking about when he's voicing his concerns, and I also trust that they are legitimate and valid.

With that having been said, I will side with the camp who is grateful that the podcast exists, because the interviews with Sam and Jay have been fun and informative. Certainly, the rules questions interviews have been incredibly valuable to me because there are areas where additional clarity was needed and I've gained great insight listening to those.

Could the show be improved? Of course it could. However, it's a solid effort that demosntrates great passion and enthusiasm and it's clearly a labor of love. As far as I know, the hosts do not make any money from it so all that time and effort - and I am also referring here to the additional segments submitted by other community members - is borne of a love for the game. That, I can certainly relate to.

Jegergryte, I agree, I haven't heard any evidence myself of any of the offensive quality that others referred to earlier.

I've mentioned that I agree the pacing could use tightening, but I'm happy to manage that myself when listening to it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a good podcast which provides a service to our community and lots of useful information.

Me too. Sometimes they ramble, but hey, their rambling isn't that bad, you should hear me once I get started.

I sometimes have to re-listen to parts because they ramble on (now I thought about that led zeppelin song!), and sometimes there's gold even there, not pure gold, but gold. Other times, well, not so much gold at all.

I mean, I figure a few people were disappointed with the starship combat example partly because they took the pedagogic way out, covering the basics and so on. I'm sure they watch the forums, at least the d20 ones, but they're busy family guys (hehehe) they can't cover all the forums and all the threads. So I guess they weren't on top of things when it came to the actual issues people have. Also, by covering the basics, they can move on to other stuff later, and if they didn't cover the basics, someone would whine about that.

I'll just hop in and say my two cents, and that is this: I have met Donovan Morningfire and I know him to be a rational, fair and mature human being, I trust that he knows what he is talking about when he's voicing his concerns, and I also trust that they are legitimate and valid.

With that having been said, I will side with the camp who is grateful that the podcast exists, because the interviews with Sam and Jay have been fun and informative. Certainly, the rules questions interviews have been incredibly valuable to me because there are areas where additional clarity was needed and I've gained great insight listening to those.

Could the show be improved? Of course it could. However, it's a solid effort that demosntrates great passion and enthusiasm and it's clearly a labor of love. As far as I know, the hosts do not make any money from it so all that time and effort - and I am also referring here to the additional segments submitted by other community members - is borne of a love for the game. That, I can certainly relate to.

I have never met Dono, but we've discussed, we've had a few disagreements and I've helped him with some stuff and he has helped me with some stuff (he's probably helped me more than I've helped him), I do consider him rational, fair and mature too. That doesn't rule out the possibility for him, or anyone else (I hate to single him out because I like him, so please do not interpret this that way Dono), to be sensitive and (too) easily offended - some people just get offended.

Like me, I get offended when I feel people are stupid or otherwise cognitively impaired in some way, shown through the inability to understand basic social science and the fact that "I think" or "I feel" or "When I experienced that" is not good enough, is not scientific, at best its a "level fallacy" using data from one level of empirical research and applying it to another level of empirical research. For instance arguing against statistical findings based on your own anecodotes (experience), its pointless, its meaningless, its irrelevant, and, above all: its stupid and offends me, because it just doesn't work that way, but most people are too **** stupid to understand this, even when they are atheists and think religion is bull and praise science, they just don't comprehend their own religious zeal and idiocy by not applying correctly, or at all, scientific principles and premisses. It is horribly stupid and moronic, and it offends me. See what you got started now? The irrelevance of a large portion of this post... and when it all comes down to it, I should let those morons apply their own anecdotes as "scientific evidence" to "falsify" statistical findings based on decades of research and surveys continue on their way really, natural selection will win in the end - or so "they" say. Embrace diversity, or something.

Regarding the issue on the d20radio forums, I cannot comment since I know nothing more than has been stated here - and I've learned through research that one source is rarely enough to get an adequate image of the whole event, it's basic science, the higher the N the more reliable the statistics. This also goes for qualitative work, the higher the N the more reliable coinciding findings are, even if its not statistically measured. That said, I'm not saying whatever anyone in that conflict felt wasn't genuine or didn't happen, of course not. They have their experience and it's theirs, but I won't step into that and take a side nor consider it relevant for my own experience.

Also, regarding anything they did before the EotE beta came out, I do not know anything about that, I hated Saga Edition with a passion, worst game ever since ... World of Darkness (I'm talking game mechanics, not necessarily being a camp vampire hippy prancing about wanting to gain the favour of the Prince or whatnot).

I listen to the show regularly, I like it. I just find some of the accusations here - not necessarily the ones from Dono - to be odd and uncharacteristic of the impressions I've got from the show. And this naturally leads me to believe that some people are ... I'll try to be kind, slightly sensitive to the more base aspects of human nature, humour and behaviour. This is fine, but to complain is easily understood as a "better than thou" positioning on the social matrix, therefore such positioning and criticism is particularly hard to utter and receive in a meaningful way that does not lead to unnecessary conflict and name-calling.

I just listened to the episode called "Youuu might be evil", where they discuss the Dark Side of the Force.

In this one instance I did find them going a little overboard with sexist metaphors, comparing the Dark Side repeatedly to a "trashy girl" and a "one-night stand", at point saying "you take the dark girl home"... GMDave referred to Texas (where I live as well) as "here in Mexican land" or something like that.

In these cases I definitely wanted them to get back to the actual discussion and quit with the metaphors.

This one particular episode wouldn't have made too great a first impression if I hadn't listened to many others. Anyway, there was still a lot of good information in the episode and I was just a little embarrassed for them more than offended.

I remember the episode and yeah, they went a bit much on and on about stereotypes and irrelevancies. If that is too offensive I'm slightly surprised - although I shouldn't be, I do recall some very silent and extremely short discussions (in and out of class) on gender and racism at my time at UC Berkeley (there are some really good books on that stuff in existence [Patricia Hill Collins for instance], I wish more people read them). An interesting phenomenon to me, to not be able to discuss it openly and equally, as if its a disease spread by talking about it and trying to figure it out, so you can't talk about it, but neither is it possible to silence it by ignoring it...

Yeah, well. Fair enough, although I don't find those statements sexist or misogynistic (nor racist) - of course I'm not a woman and I'm as white a Scandi as you get, so who am I to talk, I'm a de facto racist misogynist by my very existence according to some writers and researchers on the subject, regardless of my intentions.

Granted a figure of speech is not merely a "figure of speech" it creates ways of thinking, talking and acting, but it does not have to, and taking offence and directing attention towards it isn't making it any better and probably won't (people hate to change). I realise now I've sort of hijacked this and moved it into a different realm of discussion. Sorry.

Yeah, well. Fair enough, although I don't find those statements sexist or misogynistic (nor racist) - of course I'm not a woman and I'm as white a Scandi as you get, so who am I to talk, I'm a de facto racist misogynist by my very existence according to some writers and researchers on the subject, regardless of my intentions.

Why are you focussing on extremes? They don't represent the mainstream, much as you like to play the victim here.

The irony here is that you aren't granting the same level of disregard that you're expecting from others. You expect others to ignore a little misogyny, but you won't ignore it directed at you? Of course you're not defacto-anything, people saying those things are absurd and just as misogynist/racist as the people they claim to be defending. Why pretend they represent anyone's point of view more than a skinhead might represent yours?

As a white male I know I'm privileged. As an atheist though, I glimpse the picture. It's changing now, but for the longest time if you admitted it, well, you might as well be a devil worshipper (oh, the irony). At some point we didn't feel like being talked about in a certain way, but pointing it out meant we were "angry and vicious". This always happens when a minority stops being silent: the majority does a double-take and goes "who are you and where did you come from, and why don't you stay quiet like you used to?", and then people like you figure, well, what's wrong with a little negativity towards those people, it's just a figure of speech, or that's just the way we are in Texas.

Women aren't a minority in numbers, but economically and politically they remain one, and have been since the invention of patriarchy. It's embodied in our language, and much more difficult to change than whether your social club is acceptable. I don't know why we can't take the time to think about what we say and how we say it.

Ah, you misunderstand me, the academic literature I'm referring to is not considered extreme (although it can easily be interpreted that way, particularly the way I present it, so my bad), nor do I see myself as a victim, I am what I am due to history: one of the most privileged people in the world, I'd say among the soon 5 million most privileged people, and the most privileged of that half - something I have no control over. There's no denying that, nor structural flaws in society's treatment of people not male, middle-class+ and white, even here in "egalitarian" and "gender equal" Norway.

See, this is what I'm getting at. You're putting an awful lot into my statements that I cannot see there, but surely freedom of interpretation is as important as reading. All catering to the extremes really, or really its about definition and what level of [insert controversial topic] can be accepted in everyday speech and what cannot. As I said, I do not think its ok, as speech guide thinking and acting. So, a guy from Texas says "here in Mexican land", of course there might be much about the situation there I am not aware of, but why is this wrong? I mean, if you'd care to enlighten me I am sure I could understand, but from my point of view this looks like overreactions and sensationalism. Or using a phrase like "trashy girl"? Would it be different if he'd said "trashy boy" ? And if so why? And if not why? Are no girls or boys trashy? Is "trashy" something we should not talk about, because it describes a type of person we'd rather not want to hear about, because its insulting or demeaning or uncomfortable? Would it have been better with "trashy individual"?

Also, another aspect, I don't mind people reacting, but there is a when and where in my opinion, and who. Reacting on behalf of other people (or a minority if you like labels) does little to help those people and the situation they're in - rather it nourishes those that would react against such change. It's like white middle-class feminists trying to speak for Indian women, it is problematic. Not to say one shouldn't react and make an ideological stand. I just find it oddly reinforcing of what they're trying to pull down, this goes as much for certain brands of feminism as other types of counter-movements. Of course history has shown that it is needed. Much has been done, much needs to be done, and this has shown to work, in some instances.

Patriarchy is a quite recent invention, but I guess you refer to the social organisation that patriarchy was created to describe (yes, I'm pedantic, but I find these things matter if one wishes to speak properly about it). Yes, it is in our language, in our science, culture and history. And try as we might, we will never be rid of it, sure we should think about what we say and how we say things, but equally one should perhaps also consider what it said and what is meant, and how one wishes to interpret it. Of course, if the vision is a language free of anything that can be interpreted insulting or demeaning, well... that's an ideal that's beyond me. I'm all for trying to be nice and considerate, but stupidity cannot be cured by shouting and anger... anger creates anger creates anger creates anger.

EDIT: I'm not calling you stupd Whafrog, not at all, I'm calling people using not so kind phrases stupid really, particularly those that would use them indiscriminately, repeatedly and without consideration.