Warning: Long Boring Post Ahead!

I've been aware of this site for a bit now, but never really read more than a review here and there as far as I can remember. (would be a pisser if I actually registered and posted something months ago. ) But with the site's recent problems being reported elsewhere leading me to the RPGPundit's blog (and all the fascinating stuff in there... I've had insomnia lately and I was up literally all night reading that thing), I got curious about the site itself and have been reading the board every day since it returned.

I'm really confused about the crusade against the "swine" here. Well, I get it actually (I'm the same way about heavy metal although some would call me the "swine" of metal as well), I just don't know where I stand concerning it.

I'm an old gamer from way back (started at age , but largely dropped out of things in 92 after I finished high school. Main games played were AD&D, Marvel Super Heroes, and Champions but Star Frontiers, Bureau 13, GURPS, Justifiers, and a million others were played during that time too. But we were all kids and keeping our attention span locked on any one game was difficult.

I kept up with buying books (D&D and GURPS mostly) through the mid-90s as I always intended to find a group, but never really put heavy effort into it - my excuse was that Magic and Vampire had taken all the players and I had no interest in either (wasn't interested in playing cards or monsters, and too many non-gamers were playing!) so what was the point? I finally gave up any hope for playing RPGs in 2000 with D&D 3.0 because I thought it was crap after buying the core books.

In 03 I wanted to get back in, bad, but going to the store all I found were super-expensive books. Not interested. I decided to write my own game since nothing on the shelves served my interests. Not a smart thing to do, writing a game, when you haven't played in forever. I came up with what I think was a serviceable generic system but it lacked flash or anything more distinct than the intended low price tag for a (low production value) print product. Even tried going to the Forge with it and got smacked down really hard, haha. But that fizzled and died as absolutely nobody thought the ideas were particularly exciting.

Fast forward to my move to Finland...

From April 06 - May 07 I hosted and DMed a weekly game of AD&D 1E. I decided if I was going to start gaming again, I would use something familiar to me, and really start again, at my beginning. Started with five players, had nine people showing up every week to play for a stretch of a few months, ended up with six. During those couple times when not enough people could make it, we played things like Zombies! or Dogs in the Vineyard instead. I did one adventure where the players each played their normal PCs in the game world AND at the same time played PCs using Over the Edge with the plane-hopping villains using Al-Amarja as a "neutral ground" and I thought that would be a great way to introduce some campaign plot information.

I even have a 1E-style module coming out using OSRIC that's... uh... 8 months late now first due to my inability to get things done, and now just waiting on artwork.

My next campaign is going to be supers using the HERO system, but after some disastrous first tries I've found using games like Capes, Hearts & Souls, and With Great Power as inspiration for character creation and Disadvantages makes it go far more smoothly. (article on this forthcoming...) I've got six players with characters made and we're just trying to juggle schedules right now. I am going to run an adventure straight out of Sex & Sorcerer in this game. But in play it will be HERO as written, hex-map on the table and everything.

So that's my play history. As far as attitudes...

I hate WotC and d20. I think "dominance" is bad for any hobby, and I think concern for an industry harms a hobby. Besides, it's not really D&D as I knew it so I rejects it! This coincides with my growing dislike and distrust of anything "businessy," "powerful," or "concerned with money" as I grow older, which leads to...

I think the growing indie movement is spectacular and will end up with its tendrils in absolutely everything RPG-related below the D&D level. Oh, I wouldn't care for playing too many of the games from the look of them, too much meta-gaming in play and short-term gaming with not enough "what would my guy really do in this situation?" and long term campaign possibilities. But I find games like Sorcerer and Dogs are excellent resources for informing play of "normal" games, and as Forge attitudes merge with more old-school attitudes in those that have no prior interest in either (and more games are made by people inspired by but not a part of the Forge clique), I think the results will be more palatable to the current critics.

I'll agree that the "indie" movement has been claimed by "weird-thinkers" out to change things, but I think this is natural and normal and not at all a threat to anybody (unless you have a financial interest in the way things were). D&D could be make illegal tomorrow and I'd still be able to find players the day after that - a new school of RPG thought certainly won't stop me. I've grown from the "Oh noes Vampire stole all the gamers!" days. There's no point for an independent movement to make the sort of things that have been published the past thirty years, and their work in getting their games made and to market is inspiring. Whether or not the games are any good is completely irrelevant to this point. It disempowers big companies - always a good thing. Of course they're turning into an establishment of their own, which will necessitate another movement to take it down.

As to gaming theory, I think the ideas behind theory are indisputably positive (define what it is you enjoy most, and play/design games that emphasize that) and theory discussion is excellent mental exercise, but I've found current gaming theory resembles "feeling around in the dark" more than representing any sort of reality. Which only means that there needs to be more work (by different people) put into developing working theory, not that the idea of game theory should be abandoned.

Even things like the "brain damage" comments by Edwards don't bother me. Whether used to make a point or if he really believes it as he says he does, it's irrelevant to me. My first reaction (and I found out about it while my AD&D campaign was still running) was to wonder, Is he right? Self-examination is never a bad thing. (Answer I came up with: No.) And even if he would think I'm a knuckle-dragging, brain-damaged, unstoryful piece of shit... so what? He could kick my door down, shoot me in the leg, and fuck my wife and it wouldn't stop me from getting value out of Sorcerer for my needs (not the author's intentions for it!), or investigating the next story-oriented RPG from his camp if it sounds interesting. I don't play RPGs to satisfy some clique, you know?

And to finish this up by stealing from an ongoing thread here - didn't want to make a first post on this one specific point... Of course the idea for a game writer is to make games that are "better" or "more fun"... putting a whole bunch of creative effort into "no better" or "no more fun" seems pretty fuckin' dumb. If their idea of "better" or "more fun" is fundamentally different than what RPGs have traditionally been... well... makes sense that their games don't resemble traditional RPGs then. If they think they've succeeded in their "better/more fun" goal, I think it's worth a look instead of condemnation for even attempting to do it in the first place. And realizing that "Forge Game" doesn't mean any one thing any more than "traditional RPG" does probably helps too.

... and I'm wishing somebody would be willing to run a LBB Traveller game in English around here because it's the one classic game I've never played.

So, yeah. Hi, everyone.

Welcome Aboard!

And if I had a valid passport and a plane ticket, I'd be more than happy to run Classic Traveller in english for you.

Welcome to theRPGsite, JimLotFP!

Hi there! Welcome aboard.

Are your criticisms of 3.x along the lines of Dragonsfoot groupthink?
Or do you have any idiosyncratic reasons for disliking it?

Quote from: SettembriniAre your criticisms of 3.x along the lines of Dragonsfoot groupthink?
Or do you have any idiosyncratic reasons for disliking it?

I didn't start inhabiting Dragonsfoot until I had already begun planning my 1E game so my dislike of 3.x was well-established before that.

My reasons for disliking it... it complicated everything. CRs and Feat Trees and this and that and the other thing... As far as I could tell, DMing on the fly would be a big pain in the ass (not that HERO will be easier on-the-fly but it's an entirely different game that gets to define its own terms). It seemed to be a re-imagining of D&D seeking to "fix" everything that was "wrong" with it, with the "D&D" name only there for market visibility or some claptrap like that. Again, totally fine with me for a new game but it there it was with the Dungeons and Dragons name on it.

If 3.x had actually looked like Hackmaster (with the funny bits removed, naturally) or Castles and Crusades I'd have no problem with it because those games feel like they want to snuggle with older editions instead of distancing themselves.

Well, my position on this, is that if you hate a game that you don't even play, based on how many people do like it  and play it, then you represent exactly what's wrong with the hobby and you should consider quitting entirely. Your'e making it suck. Whether you consciously admit this or not, you should at least consider why you would hate and oppose the people doing something you have nothing to do with.  

Before you ask, or jump up with a "goctha" I will point out that I have fully considered these  questions myself.

What I hate is the stealth marketing and the smug motherfucking losers who show up to tell us how innovative their dice pools and scene framing are, despite the fact that they rarely game outside of a demo or a tryout or a convention. Some of these guys game as seldom as once or twice yearly. Unless you are someone mainly trying to sell mediocre sorcerer supplements, this is an unsustainable way to participate in this hobby in a meaningful way, and everyone knows it. In any case, I game weekly. I bring a lot of new people--including very young people-- into gaming, and I don't like seeing my friends treated like shit because they "enjoyed the wrong game" either.

So welcome to the site in any case. But if you showed up here to talk about how much you hate WOTC or D20 or whatever, there's better places for you to do that.

EDIT: to JimLot
Okay, I see where you are coming from.

Well, Jim, as much as I'm continually disappointed to hear it said, you may be surprised to find that there's about as many 3.x haters on this site as there are on any of the main RPG forums, save of course, ENWorld and Wizards, for obvious reasons.

I'm not one of them however, and I think your view on it's "complexity" likely has more to do with it being different than actually any more complex than previous editions, you've just had a good number of years to learn the ins and outs of the older systems.  Stripped of familiarity and nostalgia, the games are no less complex than the present edition, the complexity just presents itself in different ways.

But hey, you've got plenty of friends here on the issue, including Pundit himself.

I hate WotC also. For not letting D&D died! Not giving a chance to vanishing of the RPG hobby. Bad and evil WotC! Shame on you!

I'm right there with you on D&D3 myself. It is more complex in many ways at its most basic level.

 In 1E class and race defined nearly all.

In 2E Class and Proficiencies and race defined nearly all (and assumed attribute checks).


 In 3E you've got class, feats, skills, races, half-race templates,  and prestige classes to worry about.  (Not to mention the multi-classing to anything you want.) So yeah. It is a bit more complex for doing the things it did before.

There are ADVANTAGES to that for some people. Fighters now keep pace with Wizards, Rogues get more scary and different ways to be played. Wizards can vary a lot more. It did open up different avenues of play and "balance" (sort of).

It gives structure for a lot of things  people were doing anyway as house rules. (Want to play a Half Drow Half Demon? before you were on your own, NOW you have rules for it.)

Sadly what makes it great in many ways for many people also makes it not what I'd play a D&D game for--If I play D&D these days I go all the way back to Red Book Basic D&D and play that. Because if I want options like D&D3 offers, I've got many, far superior systems for MY kind of play out there. If I want to dungeoncrawl and do what D&D does well. Basic/Expert/Masters etc D&D does everything I want.

I think part of the problem is there were already systems out there that did what D&D3E does now. With fewer "do it out way" style restrictions, and fewer legacy aspects of the system that impediment improvement. Now many companies have jumped on OGL, and come up with some great solutions for ditching those heritage bits (True 20 for example, Castles and Crusades).

I played OD&D, D&D, AD&D, and 2E AD&D, and even played 3E for a while. I've  put my time in with that line long enough to know what I wanted for a "D&D" game, and 3E wasn't it. I am glad many people like it, but it wasn't what I wanted. (True20, is FAR closer to what I wanted than 3E. Something that says here is a tight little core, go make up the fun setting specific stuff that foes with it. Without telling me there are Battle-Raging Barbarians, or Martial Art Monks, or strange Hippy Religious Druids as a default.)

Quote from: J ArcaneI think your view on it's "complexity" likely has more to do with it being different than actually any more complex than previous editions, you've just had a good number of years to learn the ins and outs of the older systems.  Stripped of familiarity and nostalgia, the games are no less complex than the present edition, the complexity just presents itself in different ways.

I agree with you. 100%. I have no doubt that d20 works. Too many people play it too often to think it's incompetently written or broken on some fundamental level. I just see no reason to subject myself to new complexity in unfamiliar territory when I want to play Dungeons & Dragons.

Quote from: AlnagI hate WotC also. For not letting D&D died! Not giving a chance to vanishing of the RPG hobby. Bad and evil WotC! Shame on you!

Out of Print does not equal dead. WotC could disappear tomorrow and the RPG hobby wouldn't. Every single publisher (including the Forge folk) could retire tomorrow and the RPG hobby would continue on. Of the 10 people who played in my AD&D campaign, only one mentioned ever owning a WotC product (hey, I own one, the Guillotine card game) and to my knowledge none had ever played any edition of D&D before. Half had never played any RPG before. I don't need a market leader to game.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhat I hate is the stealth marketing and the smug motherfucking losers who show up to tell us how innovative their dice pools and scene framing are, despite the fact that they rarely game outside of a demo or a tryout or a convention. Some of these guys game as seldom as once or twice yearly.

I don't doubt there are a bunch of hacks that make games without being an active roleplayer (like I tried) but I suspect that's just the wanna-bes and not the real doers at the Forge. "Actual Play" is still one of their mantras, right?

QuoteI agree with you. 100%. I have no doubt that d20 works. Too many people play it too often to think it's incompetently written or broken on some fundamental level. I just see no reason to subject myself to new complexity in unfamiliar territory when I want to play Dungeons & Dragons.

Well, I must say I'm pleased to hear you put it that way.  That's a much more reasonable position than I often hear taken on the subject.  so at least, in this case, I am quite happy to simply accept our variant tastes.

Welcome to therpgsite!

What ever happened to the game you were making?  Did you abandon it because of the Forge?

Quote from: JimLotFPOut of Print does not equal dead. WotC could disappear tomorrow and the RPG hobby wouldn't. Every single publisher (including the Forge folk) could retire tomorrow and the RPG hobby would continue on. Of the 10 people who played in my AD&D campaign, only one mentioned ever owning a WotC product (hey, I own one, the Guillotine card game) and to my knowledge none had ever played any edition of D&D before. Half had never played any RPG before. I don't need a market leader to game.

It would be nice, if it would be true. But the fact is, that unsupported hobby does not bring new players, and because there are still some players leaving it, the groups would fall apart as soon as there would be no one coming in. Prosperity of the whole hobby depends pretty much on the big players like WotC or WW. Like it or not.

It doesn't matter if you own WotC product or not. Neither have I any WW product yet (McWoD is comming), but that doesn't say anything importance of WW for the hobby. (Yes Pundit, I know, they are swines... but that's not a topic right now).

D&D is brining the new people to the hobby in such amounts no other RPG product can imagine. That is why D&D important.

It is alright and fine with me, if you like AD&D 1e more than current edition of D&D. It fine with me if somebody likes Over the Edge, Conspiracy X or Mountain Witch. What I do not understand is the hate? Why hate somebody for creating a product, you don't like? Should I hate several hudreds petty publishers for products I do not and will not buy? Hardly.

So what is your issue with WotC? You want them to produce a product you would like? And how it goes together with not caring for them to disappear tommorow?

To conclude... you do need to buy from market leader to game. But unless you want to end alone not having enough players to play with, you should probably think twice, if you really wish market leader and only product with such a strong brand to disappear.

Also I am not impressed by this trendy hate of yours, which really sounds similar to linux geek hate of windows and microsoft and amd geek hate of intel and such. What did WotC did to you? Steal you a candy?

Quote from: joewolzWhat ever happened to the game you were making?  Did you abandon it because of the Forge?

Not really. After being initially offended (how dare anyone denigrate my great work of genius!), I thought about it and decided the criticism directed at the thing was correct. (it didn't receive an enthusiastic response elsewhere either, so it's not just "Forge didn't like it so I fail.")

I do have other ideas for mechanics, but not really a game to frame around them. So for now my RPG publishing will be limited to the OSRIC adventure, the HERO article when I figure out the venue for that, and shorter-term projects like that. I have a tendency to bite off more than I can chew just to find out how big a bite I'm able to take... need to reign that in a bit.

Quote from: AlnagIt would be nice, if it would be true. But the fact is, that unsupported hobby does not bring new players, and because there are still some players leaving it, the groups would fall apart as soon as there would be no one coming in. Prosperity of the whole hobby depends pretty much on the big players like WotC or WW. Like it or not.

This hobby was created from nothing by some nutty guys in Nowhere, Wisconsin. I was introduced to the hobby by mother who wanted an excuse to paint the little lead figures... so she took me to this dingy hobby shop and bought me Endless Quest books thinking the figures went with them. My first real purchases came after I realized other stuff was needed so I bought stuff from that place and another local hobby shop that kept their D&D stuff under lock and key. Yeah, it was in Toys R Us and KB and stuff like that, but I didn't know it yet. (funny thing, as soon as she realized I was getting really into it, my mother made me watch Mazes and Monsters.)

All the people I played with when I got started were people that didn't know what D&D was - I introduced them. You should have seen our first sessions, none of us had a CLUE because none of us had ever played before and none of us knew what role-playing was supposed to be like. Most of the people I played with in high school had never played RPGs before - I introduced them. Half the people I've played with here in Finland have never played RPGs before - I introduced them. During the 90s when I didn't play, it's because I didn't try making new players and expected existing gamers to fall in my lap.

There is no reason to believe my enjoyment in gaming is tied to the well-being of any company.

Quote from: AlnagAlso I am not impressed by this trendy hate of yours, which really sounds similar to linux geek hate of windows and microsoft and amd geek hate of intel and such. What did WotC did to you? Steal you a candy?

I also champion bands such as Hammers of Misfortune, The Gates of Slumber, Dawnbringer, and Upwards of Endtime over newer Iron Maiden, Slayer, or Dragonforce. Your point?