Quote from: John MorrowSo what this suggests to me is that the OD&Ds and AD&Ds were similar and similar to each other because material could often be used with little or no translation between them.  3e was a fairly major divergence from those earlier editions because it changed quite a bit -- the attribute range, feats, class abilities, monsters set to CR levels, etc.  So D&D 3e is already a substantially different game, which explains the early edition fan groups and retro rules.  Yet there are also obvious similarities -- the classes, many monsters, characteristics, many spells, etc.  So I guess the next thing to look at is why the changes in 3e didn't break the feel of D&D for the people who do expect 4E to break that feel.

So far, the areas of complaint seem to be:

• Changes to the lethality (particularly at lower levels).
• The introduction of MMORPG concepts into characters and combat.
• Changes in the role of certain character classes in combat.
• An emphasis on rules to resolve traps
• Inclusion of the Tiefling as a core race.

Anything else?  These things seem to either break an important part of the feel of D&D for people or add something that doesn't feel like D&D to people.

Personally, I'm just seeing a replay of the RPG discourse that took place in 1999. "It won't be D&D" was done back then because AC was reversed and they introduced a sorcerer class.

Of course the going wisdom on RPGnet (at that time) was that they should have eliminated classes entirely and somehow made D&D into something like the Fuzion RPG system with merits and flaws to describe character personality. Oh and eliminated hit points entirely.

8 years later and I still chuckle every once in a while!

Quote from: John MorrowSo what this suggests to me is that the OD&Ds and AD&Ds were similar and similar to each other because material could often be used with little or no translation between them.

WTF? How do you get that out of Living campaigns? 1e->2e happened shortly after Living City started and it hadn't had much steam at that point. Certainly nothing like it was by the late-90's. It was all prefab senarios before then. Now you don't even need to attend conventions to be an active part of LG (and the new LFR).

>> Changes to the lethality (particularly at lower levels).
Lowered at the bottom, increased at the top. But both roughly matching the midrange of 3e. That's pretty tweakish methinks.

>> The introduction of MMORPG concepts into characters and combat.
:rolleyes: Give it up.

>> Changes in the role of certain character classes in combat.
Which one?  The Rogue now can have a 'trap disabling' role in combat but other than that?

>> An emphasis on rules to resolve traps
Adding a new type of 'trap' which is more interactive environmental damage, yup. That's biggest one I've seen so far. And the one IMO with the best potential.

>> Inclusion of the Tiefling as a core race.
*snore* Demihuman race line-ups changes are a common feature of version changes. Half-Orcs in, out, halfling in, gnomes in, out, etc.  The really big change was first the raising and then elimination of special demihuman class ceilings and class selections.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo it isn't.

Natural selection refers to environment selecting mutations that are favorable to certain influences, not necessarily mutations that are superior.  Sometimes nature selects for arguably inferior traits, such as dwarfism, or sickle-cell anemia, but that are adaptive under specific circumstances.  The notion that evolution necessarily produces superior results is a common misperception.

James' definition stands.

!i!

Sorry, just couldn't resist having a say even at this point even if this has been brought up already (I have been away for a few days you see).

You can't look at Evolution in terms of D&D because as it evolved it changed and wasn' t D&D any more. A lizard that looses its legs and starts to crawl on its belly is now a snake and not a lizard. It is not a new and improved lizard.
Evolution develops to fill ecological niches.
You can argue that Roleplaying has evoled and diversified. You can't argue that D&D has. You could argue that 4E evolved out of D&D however. It has evolved to fill the latest niche (rather dim 13 year olds who want to kill stuff and use figures and don't like math or talking in funny voices) just as the type of D&D (for me 1st and probably more 2nd edition AD&D) evolved out of the original game where you killed stuff and collected gold. There is very little chance that D&D woudl have become as an important part of my life as it did if the only version that had been around was that first primordial version that  dragged itself out of the water and look its first hesitant steps on land.
The D&D I grew up with had already mastered a few new tricks and evolved into something else.
Gamma World evolved out of D&D and so did Traveller and T&T and everything else (even WoD and who knows if Richard Garfield would have come up with a simple game that people could play at tournaments whilst they were waiting for the main games to start if it hadn't been for D&D ...unlikely)

(as I said I know this harks back to the first page of the thread and I apologise for interrupting what is now probably a discussion about the demise of Ral Partha and why Citadel miniatures have to have such stupid looking swords and huge feet)

Quote from: StuartAwesome! It's got everything GNS has an more!

Not quite - it doesn't pretend to have any theory behind it. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

Some games are much admired, but rarely played. Why is that? Is it some fault in the games, or in the sorts of people attracted to them? I would say the latter: games which purport to be superior, "roleplaying not rollplaying", etc, will attract people who think that most gamers are idiots. If you think that your gaming is an "evolved" experience, a "superior" one, then you'll be constantly disappointed by the gamers around you. So you'll rarely manage to get and keep a game group together.

Quote from: StuartKyle... please stop.  Why do we need this? :confused:

We need words which describe things well.

I'd use the word not as a dismissal, but as "tough love" encouragement. "Stop telling me about how awesome this game is, go get a group and play it, then tell me about how awesome it was in play."

Quote from: StuartIf you weren't looking at the books or character sheets, and instead just watching a group of people playing the game -- would it still be recognizable as D&D? More than the other fantasy themed games?

Now that's an interesting question. As the guy who puts system last out of four, I have to either change my mind about the priorities, or say, "you probably wouldn't be able to tell unless someone makes a rules reference."

For example, I've run my Tiwesdaeg series of campaigns with GURPS, Fate, and now HarnMaster. To be honest there hasn't been much difference between them from the different systems, the particular combination of players has been much more important.

So I don't think, "but if you looked at a group, could you tell it was D&D?" is a particularly useful way to say, "so it is/isn't really D&D." If you can't even tell the difference between people playing Fate and GURPS, you certainly won't be able to tell the difference between D&D3.5 and D&D4. Setting aside people discussing the rules, what happens at the game table is mostly about interaction of the people there.

Quote from: jibbajibbaSorry, just couldn't resist having a say even at this point even if this has been brought up already (I have been away for a few days you see).

You can't look at Evolution in terms of D&D because as it evolved it changed and wasn' t D&D any more. A lizard that looses its legs and starts to crawl on its belly is now a snake and not a lizard. It is not a new and improved lizard.
Evolution develops to fill ecological niches.

er.. there are such things as legless lizards, and they are different from snakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_lizard


Ok, I'm not helping. EVOLUTION!!!!!

Quote from: Abyssal Mawer.. there are such things as legless lizards, and they are different from snakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_lizard


Ok, I'm not helping. EVOLUTION!!!!!

Yes a fair point :-) but David Attenborough claims that they are on an evolutionary path that will end up with them being another thing (not lizards or snakes but something else) and he was just on telly telling me that and he Knows All :-)

Quote from: Abyssal Mawer.. there are such things as legless lizards, and they are different from snakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_lizard

Are you sure they weren't just tortured by PCs?

It makes me think of years and years ago reading Dragon magazine's letters section where people would write in with rules questions. Someone had written in, "how much does a wingless Draconian weigh, and can you fire him from a catapault, also how much does a legless dwarf weigh and can he sit in a human fighter's backpack and fight from it?"

See now, that's D&D. You don't get questions like that in other systems.

And so, I conclude that if D&D4e still generates questions like the weight of wingless lizard-men and can they be fired from catapaults, and the weight of legless dwarves and can they fight from a human fighter's backpack, it will still be "D&D".

QuoteSee now, that's D&D. You don't get questions like that in other systems.

Bullshit, you don't.  What the fuck kind of unimaginative wankers are you playing with?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSome games are much admired, but rarely played.

You mean "Some games are much admired, but not played on the same scale as D&D, Vampire, and Rifts."  And really... none of these games are played on the scale they were about 20 years ago.  Does that mean they're all Merfs or whatever?

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhy is that? Is it some fault in the games, or in the sorts of people attracted to them? I would say the latter: games which purport to be superior, "roleplaying not rollplaying", etc, will attract people who think that most gamers are idiots. If you think that your gaming is an "evolved" experience, a "superior" one, then you'll be constantly disappointed by the gamers around you. So you'll rarely manage to get and keep a game group together.

You included AD&D 1e in your list of games you wanted to apply your new jargon to.  That doesn't sound like what you just described.  Your criteria is:  popular games you like vs games other people like which you don't think are popular.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWe need words which describe things well.

Exactly.

This is just like the time Sett tried to introduce "Thematic Gaming".

Quote from: StuartYou mean "Some games are much admired, but not played on the same scale as D&D, Vampire, and Rifts."  And really... none of these games are played on the scale they were about 20 years ago.  Does that mean they're all Merfs or whatever?



You included AD&D 1e in your list of games you wanted to apply your new jargon to.  That doesn't sound like what you just described.  Your criteria is:  popular games you like vs games other people like which you don't think are popular.



Exactly.

This is just like the time Sett tried to introduce "Thematic Gaming".

Most MARP games are only there because they have a narrow scope, I mean Bunnies and Burrows has a very clever system for stats that lets you compare mice and dogs on the same table, its got some interesting herbalist skills but there is only so long that you will be willing to play a rabbit.
Or they are uncommon and so if you buy a game that only you have the rules to and you run a game no one else will be able to run the next one.

Do we have any examples of MARPs? (I may have missed this on a post some place) and what elements people like about them?

QuoteDo we have any examples of MARPs?

Any game Jimbob has never seen played.

Quote from: J ArcaneBullshit, you don't.  What the fuck kind of unimaginative wankers are you playing with?

I was being humorous. Relax, mate.

Quote from: StuartYou mean "Some games are much admired, but not played on the same scale as D&D, Vampire, and Rifts."

Of course, there are degrees to things.

But there's a certain kind of game which seems to generate lots of lots of discussion compared to how much play it gets. Games as diverse as Sorcerer and Tekumel. In fact, when you talk to the people discussing them the most enthusiastically, they seem to actually avoid play. It's as though they don't want their nice dream disturbed by reality. You invite them to games and they don't come, you invite them to GM and they avoid play by endless discussions of what the play should be like, and so on.

Quote from: StuartYou included AD&D 1e in your list of games you wanted to apply your new jargon to. That doesn't sound like what you just described.

Actually, it does. Some people think things are superior just because they're new, others think things are superior just because they're old. "It's not as good as it was in the old days."

Quote from: StuartThis is just like the time Sett tried to introduce "Thematic Gaming".

Not really. "MARP" describes an actual real thing we can point to - some games are very much admired, widely-discussed, their minutae delved into at great length on mailing lists and forums... yet they're hardly ever played.

That's as far as it goes. Now, me wondering why people praise them so much yet don't play them - that's idle speculation based on irregular and unscientific observations and experiences.

You cannot deny that Sorcerer or AD&D1e are much admired these days, but rarely played. Exactly why that's so is very much up for discussion, and could certainly have different reasons for each game.

I'm just saying that I've seen a number of people praising these games who obviously think their gaming is superior to ours, and that feeling of superiority would make it difficult for them to find and keep a game group.

For example, if you read what people on these forums write, I get the feeling that if I sat down to game with RPGPundit or HinterWelt, for example, and said, "I'd like a game where we have X and Y," they'd nod, think about it, and try to fit it in as best they can. Whereas if I sat down with Narmical or droog, they'd tell me I was wrong to want that, or just shake their heads sadly, get up from the table and walk away. Some gamers have an essentially egalitarian view of the whole thing, and some an essentially elitist view. Some like Narmical seem to think we're just naive but teachable, others like droog seem to think we're hopeless but amusing in a childlike way.

So I think a certain type of gamer - the gamer who thinks they're better than most - is attracted to new games or old, but games which are not very often played.

Again, that's all speculation, and quite arguable - but it's not arguable that there exist games which are much admired but rarely played - just as there exist games which are neither admired nor played (eg my own d4-d4!), or games which are derided but widely-played (eg D&D3.5) or praised and widely-played (umm....? Exalted?)

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn fact, when you talk to the people discussing them the most enthusiastically, they seem to actually avoid play. It's as though they don't want their nice dream disturbed by reality.

I'm just trying to find the perfect system (for us) for Jorune. Most of the folks I know who still talk about this game, are running/playing in active campaigns.

Regards,
David R

Yeah, I'm not sure about Jorune. Like Tekumel and Harn, it's more setting than system. So we're probably looking at something different compared to a MARP system.

I mean, there's a difference between enthusiastic discussion aimed at finding players and just sharing enthusiasm, and enthusiastic discussion aimed at praising the thing. We just seem to get more simple praise for system stuff, and more sheer enthusiasm and finding players for setting stuff.

I dunno, really - it's something we'll have to think about.

I realise this sort of thing isn't kosher for some - people thinking aloud, developing ideas as they go, changing their mind, rather than presenting One Great Truth Which Never Changes - it's something rarely done in internet discussions. But I think it's a good thing to do, and is making best use of the internet as a medium - the fact that you can get so many different people with different ideas.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou cannot deny that Sorcerer or AD&D1e are much admired these days, but rarely played. Exactly why that's so is very much up for discussion, and could certainly have different reasons for each game.

Actually, I can deny that AD&D1E is rarely played. I know three goups who play AD&D. They don't hang out on RPG sites on the internet, and they don't buy games anymore, but they play AD&D.

Thing is, D&D crested an enormous wave of popularity in the early 80s. Tens of millions of kids and teens played the game. Only a fraction are still playing. And of that population, a fraction are not gaming geeks. They haven't walked into a gaming store since they were 19. They don't read or post about RPGs on the internet. But they still have the books. And they still have the friends they played with, or they've met guys at work who play.

Given the seed population you're looking at with D&D's heyday, this fraction of a fraction is still a significant number of people. As crazy as it sounds, there are lots of older, casual D&D players who don't hang out on RGPnet or ENWorld. And they don't hang around game stores looking for groups to join; they already have groups.

I'm not saying AD&D is a better game than 3.x. I'm just pointing out that some of those millions of copies of the 1E PHB are still being used by guys in their late 30s who don't even know 3E exists.