Quote from: estar;1076405And the pot called the kettle black.

So you're saying he's right?  Even with accusing him of doing the same?

Quote from: Shasarak;1076411In what world is the OGL a disaster?

I mean in this world everyone says that 5e is a success so is it just a hypothetical lunch being eaten by the OGL?

In my opinion a real disaster would have been WotC shuttering the DnD department without having an OGL to save DnD.

Because it proved that Gamers HATE change.  They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better.  Not that D&D is miserable, just a generalized hyperbolic.  How many people live in almost squalor, complain all the time, but never do anything about it because of all these easily solved reasons?  Most of them don't want change, because they KNOW what they have, it's a sure thing, whereas trying something new is a gamble.  And we're not gamblers by nature.

5e is a success because it's a step backwards.  There is literally nothing new in that edition.  Everything is taken from a previous one and mashed together.  All the problem of previous games (which some of you either don't see as an issue, or have workarounds so ingrained that you don't realize it), like healing magic being mandatory, and magic spells in general being the best combat tactic from the word go, are still there.  Nothing is innovative about.

And we're just happy with that.  I admit, I like 5e because it goes back to a familiar formula that I know, but I'm not so blind to think that it's some sort of progress or evolution of D&D.  Because if it was, Paizo wouldn't be trying to figure out how to make a competitor, they'd just shovel out Pathfinder 1e stuff in perpetuity because they would have a built in audience who hate change and will do ANYTHING to stay the same, or as close to it as possible.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better.  

Sounds like Projection to me.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3207[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446So you're saying he's right?  Even with accusing him of doing the same?

Rather it reflects my viewpoint that every niche of the hobby is nuanced. That he has no basis for criticizing zealotry on the basis that the niche is about an older edition of D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446Because it proved that Gamers HATE change.  They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better.

Man you must pity those poor chess aficionado who have to stuck with the same edition for 500 years or if you talking about the modern tournament format roughly 200 years. Regular Chess is just so broken compared to 3D Chess. It a pity that Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana, and the rest are holed up in the misery they have.

Don't be an idiot, games play as well today as they did back in the day.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035To ignore the storytelling aspect of RPGs I believe is to render them as flat and lifeless as the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place.

Quote from: Haffrung;1076385Stories are generated naturally by RPGs. But that's a world of difference from setting out to create a coherent, dramatic narrative as the aim of an RPG session or campaign. The structure of RPG games - the very fact they are games - renders many of the essential elements of a novel or movie virtually impossible to recreate.

Never mind RPGs, stories are generated naturally by "the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place."

Quote from: S'mon;1076454Sounds like Projection to me.

Conveniently ignore that I did not say that D&D in itself was misery.  Hit a nerve, did I?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076369Some of them are too bloody vocal, and try to drag everybody else kicking and screaming back to their little hole. It's like Gollum trying to get ahold of his 'precious' and keep it all to himself.

And their right to speak should be addressed how?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076495Hit a nerve, did I?

Yes, you are quite irritating!

Quote from: S'mon;1076508Yes, you are quite irritating!

Since 2015.

I don't personally understand how anyone who creates their own content can be miserable; regardless of game system.  The act of writing is very much a mental reset, and the solitude involved while writing causes the fake concerns of the world to shrink into proper perspective.

Create more, and find out how much less you care about shit like this.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1076505And their right to speak should be addressed how?

You deal with it like you deal with any other kind of useless noise. You tune them out.

Freedom of speech isn't the right to be heard. And it certainly does not give them the right to dictate to the owners of the game how it should ultimately be. And that is exactly what the grognards are trying to do.

There reaches a point where the owners have to end the debate and make an actual decision on what is ultimately the best course of action to take for their aims with their property.

I have a family emergency to take care of. I will try to get back and answer all the replies that people have made to my posts as soon as I can.

Quote from: nDervish;1076465Never mind RPGs, stories are generated naturally by "the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place."

Wargames at that time didn't really have storytelling aspects. The majority of them were historical re-enactment. It wasn't until the rise of Chainmail that fantasy elements were introduced as an option.

So no. Wargames of that era largely didn't generate any kinds of stories of note.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076353I gave my definition earlier. Grognards are anti-change, anti growth. They want everything about the game they fixate on to remain absolutely unchanging....

Here's the real question, has something truly better actually come along?

And with the creeping changes that have gone into various D&D editions over the years, there is no turning back the clock for these people.

Because D&D is very much its own roleplaying genre. But expectations have changed over the years. Can D&D really go back to the basic races of Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Elf anymore? No. The new fanbase wouldn't stand for it.

When I was young, Orcs were for the killing. But nowadays if WOTC tried to tell the current fanbase that they won't be able to play a half-Orc paladin snowflake from fantasy seattle Faerun, from the 6e corebooks. They'll set the WOTC boards on fire with fan outrage!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446...Because it proved that Gamers HATE change.  ...Most of them don't want change, because they KNOW what they have, it's a sure thing, whereas trying something new is a gamble.  And we're not gamblers by nature.

5e is a success because it's a step backwards.  There is literally nothing new in that edition.  Everything is taken from a previous one and mashed together.  All the problem of previous games (which some of you either don't see as an issue, or have workarounds so ingrained that you don't realize it), like healing magic being mandatory, and magic spells in general being the best combat tactic from the word go, are still there.  Nothing is innovative about.

And we're just happy with that.  I admit, I like 5e because it goes back to a familiar formula that I know, but I'm not so blind to think that it's some sort of progress or evolution of D&D. ..

Now here lies the rub, D&D/WOTC is in a trap because to make the kind of sweeping changes to fix such issues is a HUGE risk.

Forget 4e - 4e was just a bad misstep. Because D&D is only really competing against itself. No one else can match it anymore. Too much of a juggernaut. Hell all they had to do to fix the 4e fiasco, and put the hurt on pathfinder, was to literally not be 4e anymore! (By slapping together stuff that worked from past editions!)

For D&D "6e" to actually fix those issues in a way that does not turn off the fanbase; the edition will have to be seen as being "Better" than the ones before it. And that is a High Fucking Bar.

And it gets worse. Define system progress for D&D. One players bug is another's feature!

Some players feel that having low level monsters always being a threat to PC's helps with game world verisimilitude. Others want mo-mo-mo-mo... More! monsters in their fantasy game and could care less about setting verisimilitude. It's high fantasy adventure Whoot!

Which player mind set does D&D cater to in 6e? (Probably MORE!)

Could D&D survive with a reduction in monsters? A reduction in core PC races? To achieve greater verisimilitude? How do you sell that?

Right now D&D doesn't. It walks a middle ground. And it more or less works.

IMHO it works because the as the D&D genre has gotten evermore kitchen sink gonzo fantasy, it's core players have followed along.

And new payers don't know any different. How do you sell something (like Runequest)  that a particular individual might like better?

When everyone else they know plays D&D, and D&D is good enough.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446Because it proved that Gamers HATE change.  They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better.  Not that D&D is miserable, just a generalized hyperbolic.  How many people live in almost squalor, complain all the time, but never do anything about it because of all these easily solved reasons?  Most of them don't want change, because they KNOW what they have, it's a sure thing, whereas trying something new is a gamble.  And we're not gamblers by nature.

Gamers must like gambling by definition, well DnD Gamers at least I cant speak for those Story Gamers, because everything in the game uses a d20 randomiser.  Just taking your character into the Dungeon is a gamble.  Rolling your hit points is a gamble.  Want to get some sweet sweet info dump from those pesky NPCs?  Well roll those dice!

Quote5e is a success because it's a step backwards.  There is literally nothing new in that edition.  Everything is taken from a previous one and mashed together.  All the problem of previous games (which some of you either don't see as an issue, or have workarounds so ingrained that you don't realize it), like healing magic being mandatory, and magic spells in general being the best combat tactic from the word go, are still there.  Nothing is innovative about.

And we're just happy with that.  I admit, I like 5e because it goes back to a familiar formula that I know, but I'm not so blind to think that it's some sort of progress or evolution of D&D.  Because if it was, Paizo wouldn't be trying to figure out how to make a competitor, they'd just shovel out Pathfinder 1e stuff in perpetuity because they would have a built in audience who hate change and will do ANYTHING to stay the same, or as close to it as possible.

There is a familiar DnD formula that just seems to resonant with Gamers in a way that other games just dont.  Maybe it is because it allows you to play out those archetypal zero to hero stories in a way that allows different Gamers to grab the bits they like.  I dont know why exactly.  TSR went broke trying to make another game that matched the success of DnD.  WotC almost did the same trying to "evolve" the game.  Lets see if Paizo can find that magic formula without straying too far into the New Coke territory.  Its such a young hobby in many ways.

Quote from: S'mon;1076443The 1e AD&D grognards I know mostly love 5e, because in pre-UA 1e low level monsters were viable at high levels, and 5e goes back to that. Liking non-viability I guess is a 3e D&D grognard thing?

I cant speak for other people but the ADnD Fighter attracting all the "Agro" from a large group of Orcs overbearing him and then the Wizard using Fireball on everyone (including the Fighter) was a thing when I played.

You can kill so many Orcs with a well placed Fireball that they just are not worth using.  Your milage of course may vary.