Quote from: kythri;1072307Not the same thing.  DCC uses non-traditional numbered dice (i.e. D3, D5, D7, etc.) - the dice folks here are referring to are things like pictographic dice and other nonsense.

It's effectively the same thing to me. It means that in addition to buying the rules, I'll have to special order a product that costs $30 just to try your game.

Quote from: Daztur;1072408My personal take on the RPG Design Hegelian Dialectic:
-People had trouble with 70's RPG design because it resulted in wildly inconsistent play from table to table, which was a problem for running competitive touraments and for all those people who wrote deeply emotional letters to Dragon magazine about how falling damage wasn't realistic. As a result people made less flexibile and more "realistic" rules.
-People had trouble with 80's RPG design due to cumbersome "realistic" rules bloat. As a result people tried to focus more on the story than on the rules.
-People had trouble with 90's RPG deisgn due to focusing on the "story" often meant being herded through your DM's unpublished novel. As a result people tried to bake the story into the rules so that the story came out from play organically not through a fuckign railroad.
-People had trouble with 2000's RPG design due to *insert any of a 1001 rants about Forge-based design.* As a result people went back to basics.

Of course that's an over-simplification since 90's-style design in D&D goes back to the DL series of modules in the 80's but that's close enough.

The next decade will be a reaction to the OSR or a continuation of it.

Even as a simplification, I don't think this is right. The key is that there are usually multiple trends going on at the same time. As I would put it,

70s design had a lot of D&D imitation, with inconsistent assumptions. I think Runequest was the most influential in setting the pattern for skill-based games, as standards started to arise.

80s design had some heavy rules, but also a lot of variety. It was failing market as the D&D boom faded. There were some rules-heavy games like Champions and GURPS, but also key others like Pendragon, Ghostbusters, Ars Magica, and Star Wars D6.

90s design standardized around Shadowrun and World of Darkness - medium-heavy rules and dice pools. Second ed D&D came out. Most games conformed to a similar pattern, and modules added more story - which was preplotted into acts and scenes. Metaplot for game worlds was introduced.

00s design saw the simultaneous rise of D20 and the reaction of Forge games, both of which were a reaction against the White Wolf story trend. D20 shifted more focus onto system mastery and game play which intensified in 4th edition, while Forge games tried to create alternative story games to the perception of railroading in dramatic games like White Wolf.

10s design saw some the rise of OSR along with more mainstreaming of story games with the introduction of Apocalypse World and the spread of FATE. 5th ed saw more OSR influence into D&D.

Overall, better. The marketplace of ideas has produced many interesting iterations of the original flavor.

It's still the same ice cream, however.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1072403I honestly think the hacks (White hack, black hack, blue hack, and so on) got it right along with Kevin Crawsford's osr rpgs.  Now only if there was a perfect mix of the two...

My preferred mix of ideas in this area is Black Hack, flipped to roll high, with DCs commensurate with levels/power/special abilities (EX: Orcs, lvl 1, DC21; Medusa, lvl 5, DC25; SPECIAL: Gaze turns to stone (fight at disad [eyes averted], or save vs. DC30). Couple that with Dungeon World usage mechanic, and I have a light system I can use for my old fart gaming style.

RE: RPG's "Hegelian Dialectic"
Way to beat a joke to death, guys.  But as long as everyone's having fun, carry on.

Quote from: cranebump;1072778Overall, better. The marketplace of ideas has produced many interesting iterations of the original flavor.

It's still the same ice cream, however.

So you are saying we are in the Age of: TCBY, Coldstone, or Pinkberry? :confused:

These analogies must be forged into blades of pedantic vengeance! :mad: The internet demands acrimony for the acrimony god!

Quote from: cranebump;1072778Overall, better. The marketplace of ideas has produced many interesting iterations of the original flavor.

It's still the same ice cream, however.

Blue Bell, Cookies & Cream for the win!!!

Quote from: Opaopajr;1072781So you are saying we are in the Age of: TCBY, Coldstone, or Pinkberry? :confused:

Between the time when the oceans drank Dairy Queen and the rise of the sons of FroZenYo, there was an age undreamed of. And unto this, Coldstone, destined to wear the jeweled crown of Ice Cream upon a troubled brow. It is I, his chronicler, who alone can tell thee of his saga. Let me tell you of the days of high sugar!

Quote from: Opaopajr;1072781So you are saying we are in the Age of: TCBY, Coldstone, or Pinkberry? :confused:

These analogies must be forged into blades of pedantic vengeance! :mad: The internet demands acrimony for the acrimony god!

Quite true. The acrimony god is constantly thirsty for new angst and gnashing teeth. To the fray!

S&W=vanilla
BECMI=neapolitan
 4th=frozen yogurt
5th=vanilla, with lots of toppings
DW=Vanilla shake
FATE=chocolate

(yeah, I'm just making shit up here...)

Quote from: Haffrung;1072432It's effectively the same thing to me. It means that in addition to buying the rules, I'll have to special order a product that costs $30 just to try your game.

Remember when the "conventional" polyhedral dice were hard to get?

http://20facesoffate.com/throwback-thursday-dice-chits/

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072794Remember when the "conventional" polyhedral dice were hard to get?

http://20facesoffate.com/throwback-thursday-dice-chits/

I honestly don't. In 1979, my Holmes boxed set came with a set. And they were also available in every hobby story in my city that sold D&D.

The DCC dice not only aren't available at any of my FLGS, they're not even available from online retailers in Canada. I'd have to order them from the U.S., which means paying in U.S. dollars, shipping, etc. And of course if my players want a set (because it's a pain to have six guys share one set of dice), they'd have to buy them from online U.S. retailers and pay through the nose as well.

It's just a fucking dumb barrier to play with no good reason besides the whims of Joe Goodman.

Quote from: cranebump;1072779My preferred mix of ideas in this area is Black Hack, flipped to roll high, with DCs commensurate with levels/power/special abilities (EX: Orcs, lvl 1, DC21; Medusa, lvl 5, DC25; SPECIAL: Gaze turns to stone (fight at disad [eyes averted], or save vs. DC30). Couple that with Dungeon World usage mechanic, and I have a light system I can use for my old fart gaming style.

More of a fan of the roll down system myself to be honest.  Then again I always enjoyed percentage dice games like Dark Heresy.

Quote from: Haffrung;1072816I honestly don't. In 1979, my Holmes boxed set came with a set. And they were also available in every hobby story in my city that sold D&D.

The DCC dice not only aren't available at any of my FLGS, they're not even available from online retailers in Canada. I'd have to order them from the U.S., which means paying in U.S. dollars, shipping, etc. And of course if my players want a set (because it's a pain to have six guys share one set of dice), they'd have to buy them from online U.S. retailers and pay through the nose as well.

It's just a fucking dumb barrier to play with no good reason besides the whims of Joe Goodman.

One easy out is to just use the next larger Die from a standard set, and reroll any result that's too high.

Example:  DCC calls for a d3 roll.  Just roll a d4 instead, and reroll any 4s.

Quote from: Haffrung;1072816I honestly don't. In 1979, my Holmes boxed set came with a set. And they were also available in every hobby story in my city that sold D&D.

The DCC dice not only aren't available at any of my FLGS, they're not even available from online retailers in Canada. I'd have to order them from the U.S., which means paying in U.S. dollars, shipping, etc. And of course if my players want a set (because it's a pain to have six guys share one set of dice), they'd have to buy them from online U.S. retailers and pay through the nose as well.

It's just a fucking dumb barrier to play with no good reason besides the whims of Joe Goodman.

It's even worse than FFG Stars Wars imo. At least I can find FFG proprietary dice easily at two LGS in my area. If the DCC dice are that difficult to get their goes any interest I had in the rpg. Sure I can wing it with my regular gaming dice. I really should not have too. Especially not at the whim of Joe Goodman

To answer the question posed by the topic.

I don't think that RPGs are getting either better or worse. But that they are what they are.

The experience comes down to your individual game group. They color the experience you have with the game most of all.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1072106Worse. Most of the recent games I've seen are set to easy and combats are like pillow fights. Even D&D5e makes an overnight rest into a massive restoration of hit points. Too many of these games focus on the assumptions that the PCs must always win.

Question for you, to test a hypothesis of mine: Are the games where combat is easy, or PC victory seems too guaranteed, also prone to having very detailed characters and very time-consuming character creation?

I ask because my hypothesis is that the more investment of time, effort and thought players make in creating their characters, the more peeved they are to have this investment wasted by a too quick or too easy death. One of the design decisions I always admired about the (now) almost-forgotten Palladium game RECON, which was about the Vietnam War, was that it knew PCs were very likely to die quickly and without warning and so made the process of generating new ones as quick and easy as possible as well.