Quote from: RPGPundit on June 13, 2023, 04:15:52 AM
Yeah, that's proof enough that you don't understand D&D, and therefore RPGs. "Lived long enough to know the preference of what you like and don't" just means that you haven't learned much about life, and have no idea what your own limitations are. Instead, you've glorified them.

And your "OneTrueWay-ism" makes you your own worst enemy in your war with the Woke, because you insist on driving away potential allies who agree with you on 90% of things by denigrating those who deviate in the slightest from your "received wisdom."

It's not that people can have different preferences. No, they must have not learned enough about life (though I highly doubt you've lived more than I have) if they don't agree that your ideas are the best things since sliced bread.

How many different systems have you even actually tried? I don't mean read and scoffed at and cast aside... I mean actually sat down and tried for multiple sessions to actually learn whether they were right for you? BECMI, AD&D 1-2e, Palladium, WEG Star Wars, Mekton, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, all the Battletech RPGs, oWoD, nWoD, HERO, GURPS, Amber, Silouette, LUGTrek, 3e, 4E, 5e, M&M2e and 3e... one offs like DreamPark (R. Talsorian), Arcanis or Witchhunter?

What sort of broader life experience do you have that's provided this insight? How many places have you been? How many mountains have you climbed? How many oceans have you splashed in? How many planes have you flown? How many boats have you sailed? How many horses have you ridden? How many different types of animals have you raised? How many things have you built with your own two hands? How many children/godchildren do you have? How many family members have you buried? How many protests or parades have you marched in? Have you ever been in a real fight? Have you ever run headlong into danger without thinking because you saw a stranger's life threatened?

How much life have you actually lived to have this "wisdom" of what is best for one and all in the RPG sphere to say with such pride and arrogance that you know better than everyone who's ever lived that your theories of RPG play are superior to everyone elses?

Your prideful persona, real or invented, is driving away people who'd otherwise be backing you in the pushback against the Woke, but instead want nothing to do with you because you push them away for something as trivial as liking different sorts of games than you do.

This tirade of yours... needing multiple posts just to insult me for liking things you don't... is pathetic. It's not enough to just disagree, you seek to tear down the person presenting a different opinion. That speaks more to the weakness of your position; that all you have are insults in reply, than it does of my "limitations."

I'm going to say some prayers for you. You clearly need them.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on June 13, 2023, 08:47:57 AM
Fully fleshed out characters are best built from the adventures and experiences of the campaign.

I have found this to be true. Front loaded choices result in pre-made builds which are often planned out for many levels. These choices are are made in a black box that has nothing to do with what is happening in the campaign. They also result in hyper specialization to the point of players being frustrated whenever they are unable to engage in that focus for the vast majority of game time. This leads to expectations that the campaign will cater to their builds, and if it doesn't they have difficulty engaging or having fun. When the entire focus of the players is directed towards the mechanical abilities of their characters then everything becomes all about what their characters CAN do, instead of paying attention to what they ARE actually doing in the campaign. The players become so obsessed over what's going on on the character sheet that campaign events become little more than background filler.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 13, 2023, 10:08:17 AM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on June 13, 2023, 08:47:57 AM
Fully fleshed out characters are best built from the adventures and experiences of the campaign.

I have found this to be true. Front loaded choices result in pre-made builds which are often planned out for many levels. These choices are are made in a black box that has nothing to do with what is happening in the campaign. They also result in hyper specialization to the point of players being frustrated whenever they are unable to engage in that focus for the vast majority of game time. This leads to expectations that the campaign will cater to their builds, and if it doesn't they have difficulty engaging or having fun. When the entire focus of the players is directed towards the mechanical abilities of their characters then everything becomes all about what their characters CAN do, instead of paying attention to what they ARE actually doing in the campaign. The players become so obsessed over what's going on on the character sheet that campaign events become little more than background filler.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

See, I think this is directly on point.  There's a fine line between creating character options and limiting character actions.  It's why I've always thought mechanics like "fears" were counterproductive.  Once you create a gate behind which you lock the ability to do something well, you tend to discourage players from attempting to do it at all (unless "built" for it).  And I'd agree wholeheartedly that characters should be defined by play, not built...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 04:05:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM
It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

No, you just have shit taste.  Which is fine.  Lot's of people like Outback Steakhouse, and I'm happy for them, and I hope they enjoy every steak.  But if I want a good steak, I'm not going to them for advice on how to cook one.  Just like I'm not going to any fan of D&D 4e for advice on how to write an immersive TTRPG (how to write a tactical skirmish game might get them a little more of a hearing on my part, but I don't need one of those right now).

I'm just as entitled to my opinion that your taste in games is garbage as you are entitled your opinion that OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory.  Of course, we're both discussing this on an OSR-themed message board...

No, it means that I recognize that different aims or needs call for different tools and approaches. Rather than adhering to the prescriptive methods declared by someone in the internet as inherently superior as the One-True-Way of handling things.

Or pretending that playing a paladin cuz you want to play a paladin, instead of relying entirely on randomly qualifying for one is somehow analogous to children having dessert before they eat their vegetables, or whatever, as Brad implied at one point earlier in this thread. Because gwad forbit someone at a different game table halfway around the world uses the limited amount of play time that they have on this Earth to play the character that they actually want to play, as opposed to the one the dice dictated for them. As prescribed as morally superior, as well as the superior design choice, by someone on the internet.

And no one's denying your right to your opinion. But when you insist on stating your opinion as superior to someone else's, those objecting to those opinions aren't the ones who have a problem with other people having opinions. They're just responding to the tone that YOU set up for the conversation. And even if you personally didn't set that tone initially (as I know you didn't), if you jump in to defend those that did, or to crap on those responding back, you're just contributing to it.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 13, 2023, 04:28:54 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:22:26 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 12, 2023, 10:57:01 AM
Not everyone who is a fan of older systems likes them because they refuse to try anything new.

I've never claimed otherwise.

I have however had people try to explain how I just haven't tried 'proper' OSR play as if I'd never tried Basic or AD&D before.

Every single time without fail any topic involving criticism of old D&D (or praise of it that gets criticized by one of the four, maybe five people tops in these boards who're ever critical of it) at the bare minimum Steven Mitchell has to bring up Chesterton's Fence, like almost every single regular or semi-regular poster in this forum hasn't played older editions of D&D, if not B/X outright (the edition I was introduced into the hobby with), and is proposing changing things without knowing why they're there. Hell, I can't even think of anyone who's posted here recently who hasn't tried older editions of D&D, other than maybe Fheredin and (I think) weirdguy.

It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the argument for why D&D is doing what it's doing and why it's so good at what it does. Otherwise, you're actually just the guy who hates the fence, and wants to tear it down because you think it's only there to oppress you. You're exactly the reason why Chesterton's Fence was thought up.

The first part of this question depends on the edition and the specific component (class selection, ability score generation, ability score values, weapon damage, etc.), which I'm not going to get into in-depth, cuz it would require me to reread every edition and break the entire system down, detail by detail just to "win" an argument on the internet. And I have better things to do, or not do (even playing video games or watching random crap on YT would be more productive).

And the second part of the question presupposes that whatever component is being discussed is already "so good" at whatever it does, which in turn would imply that the fence is necessary, so we shouldn't make any changes to it, making this entire discussion pointless.

Plus the purpose of the "fence" can vary by game regardless, or based on whatever it is that you're trying to get out of it or accomplish. So why the "fence" exists in D&D is largely irrelevant, with few exceptions (depending on how similar its function or purpose is to your own game). Since the purpose the "fence" may have in my own game might be very different, or seek to accomplish different things than what X or Y edition of D&D was trying to accomplish with a similar fence.

Bah! Forgot to add this earlier...

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 13, 2023, 04:32:03 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:19:57 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 04:05:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM
It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

No, you just have shit taste.  Which is fine.  Lot's of people like Outback Steakhouse, and I'm happy for them, and I hope they enjoy every steak.  But if I want a good steak, I'm not going to them for advice on how to cook one.  Just like I'm not going to any fan of D&D 4e for advice on how to write an immersive TTRPG (how to write a tactical skirmish game might get them a little more of a hearing on my part, but I don't need one of those right now).

I'm just as entitled to my opinion that your taste in games is garbage as you are entitled your opinion that OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory.  Of course, we're both discussing this on an OSR-themed message board...

The difference being, I'm saying that the OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory FOR ME. I am not calling your opinions objectively wrong for disagreeing with me. You are, and that's some weak sauce SJW reasoning there; "Eating bugs is objectively the best. If you don't like eating bugs you have shit taste and your opinions about food are invalid."

If your opinion was anything more than personal preference you wouldn't need to resort to name-calling and trying to declare opposing opinions illegitimate; you'd be arguing the merits of your position.

Except his opinion on the value of real D&D vs 4e is objectively proven by the relative catastrophic failure that 4e was compared to LITERALLY EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D. You clearly like the shit game that everyone else thought was garbage, because you are in some way defective as a human being. Given what I know about most other people who loved that edition, and how much that correlated with their hatred of D&D specifically but also the hobby in general, I can guess at  the rest. People who like 4e and hate the OSR are objectively bad humans.

Except that 4e didn't entirely fail on its own merits, but rather on the basis that it failed to meet the expectations of its target audience. Since it diverged too much from other editions of D&D and what most of the player base wanted from the game. A product can be good or have fine qualities, but still fail due to mismanagement, bad marketing strategies or failing to attract the right audience through neglect or pure happenstance.

You also fail to understand the difference between popular opinion, personal experiences and objective reality. The weight of the Bandwagon (fallacy) and your own biased takes on other people do not equate to objective fact, or something that could be extrapolated to people in general.

Stars Without Number (and its ilk) is a massive success, possibly the LARGEST OSR success, and it is heavily innovative and borrows many elements from 4e.
It has randomization as an option, and tries to encourage it through carrot and not stick.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on June 13, 2023, 12:49:11 PM
Stars Without Number (and its ilk) is a massive success, possibly the LARGEST OSR success, and it is heavily innovative and borrows many elements from 4e.
It has randomization as an option, and tries to encourage it through carrot and not stick.

That's because Kevin Crawford is an objectively bad and defective human being. 

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 13, 2023, 01:08:09 PMThat's because Kevin Crawford is an objectively bad and defective human being. 

If we wanna yell sales numbers, everything is a distant #3 behind D&D 5e. Which has options up the ass and boatloads of woke. And increasing its options and woke didn't cause sales numbers to go down. #2 is Pathfinder with its options overloads. Everything else is peanuts in comparison.
Sales matter and are an example of philosophical dominance and superiority, until they are not.
Hell D&D 5e, even right out of the gate with its Players Handbook, had more in common with 3e (and even elements of 4e) than it ever did with OSR content. But because it walked the walk, it was a "Win".

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on June 13, 2023, 01:19:56 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 13, 2023, 01:08:09 PMThat's because Kevin Crawford is an objectively bad and defective human being. 

If we wanna yell sales numbers, everything is a distant #3 behind D&D 5e. Which has options up the ass and boatloads of woke. And increasing its options and woke didn't cause sales numbers to go down. #2 is Pathfinder with its options overloads. Everything else is peanuts in comparison.
Sales matter and are an example of philosophical dominance and superiority, until they are not.
Hell D&D 5e, even right out of the gate with its Players Handbook, had more in common with 3e (and even elements of 4e) than it ever did with OSR content. But because it walked the walk, it was a "Win".

Damn. This means that by Pundit's own logic having more choices is objectively superior, cuz the market is currently dominated by games that emphasize choices. So the Bandwagon has spoken. And it only took us 8 pages of yelling to discover the truth staring us right in the face all along.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 13, 2023, 01:28:01 PMDamn. This means that by Pundit's own logic having more choices is objectively superior, cuz the market is currently dominated by games that emphasize choices. So the Bandwagon has spoken. And it only took us 8 pages of yelling to discover the truth staring us right in the face all along.

It was never about that. This was never in good faith a discussion about the benefits of play types. This was for kings of the trailer park to don their tin crowns and proclaim how smart and sexy they are for using camomile tea during tea party pretend time rather then that awful English breakfast stuff.
And how all the problems in the world can be traced to whatever they didn't like.

I can hype up my own interests. I can say people have shit taste. But even at my most arrogant I wouldn't assume that my preferences make me enlightened.

Pundits "logic" is that he is correct. If you want validation of that fact check in with pundit. Thats it. That's how deep it goes.

Lots of things that are popular are crap. Keep in mind that current D&D whatever the edition will always have the largest market share. This is due to being the most recognized brand and may or may not have anything to do with the quality of the product.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 13, 2023, 04:32:03 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:19:57 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 04:05:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM
It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

No, you just have shit taste.  Which is fine.  Lot's of people like Outback Steakhouse, and I'm happy for them, and I hope they enjoy every steak.  But if I want a good steak, I'm not going to them for advice on how to cook one.  Just like I'm not going to any fan of D&D 4e for advice on how to write an immersive TTRPG (how to write a tactical skirmish game might get them a little more of a hearing on my part, but I don't need one of those right now).

I'm just as entitled to my opinion that your taste in games is garbage as you are entitled your opinion that OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory.  Of course, we're both discussing this on an OSR-themed message board...

The difference being, I'm saying that the OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory FOR ME. I am not calling your opinions objectively wrong for disagreeing with me. You are, and that's some weak sauce SJW reasoning there; "Eating bugs is objectively the best. If you don't like eating bugs you have shit taste and your opinions about food are invalid."

If your opinion was anything more than personal preference you wouldn't need to resort to name-calling and trying to declare opposing opinions illegitimate; you'd be arguing the merits of your position.

Except his opinion on the value of real D&D vs 4e is objectively proven by the relative catastrophic failure that 4e was compared to LITERALLY EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D. You clearly like the shit game that everyone else thought was garbage, because you are in some way defective as a human being. Given what I know about most other people who loved that edition, and how much that correlated with their hatred of D&D specifically but also the hobby in general, I can guess at  the rest. People who like 4e and hate the OSR are objectively bad humans.

Your rant is entertaining but also about as wrong as it gets.  Taste in RPGs is purely subjective.  Everybody has a set of things that makes a game work for them and they're all different.  The first thing I learned as the marketing part of my education is "Not everyone shares your taste.  If you assume they do you will fail."  Lower sales is a business failure, not an indication that the product is inherently objectively terrible.  It just fits the preferences of a smaller group than the other editions did.

Personally, I strongly dislike 4E too.  Not an OSR guy either, I love 1E, but I've never tried the variants – my tastes have run in different directions.  But we get better discussions here because we have folks with a wide variety of perspectives.  Personally attacking people for politely expressing opinions that are different than your is not the way to build a good online community.  As the site owner I would think that would be important to you.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 13, 2023, 02:01:49 PM
Lots of things that are popular are crap. Keep in mind that current D&D whatever the edition will always have the largest market share. This is due to being the most recognized brand and may or may not have anything to do with the quality of the product.

Absolutely agreed. If anything Id argue it's mostly the INVERSE. Rarely does mass appeal come with depth.

But I won't (selectively and in a two faced manner) argue that because something I like is more popular, it's better.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 13, 2023, 12:27:37 PM
Except that 4e didn't entirely fail on its own merits, but rather on the basis that it failed to meet the expectations of its target audience. Since it diverged too much from other editions of D&D and what most of the player base wanted from the game. A product can be good or have fine qualities, but still fail due to mismanagement, bad marketing strategies or failing to attract the right audience through neglect or pure happenstance.

You also fail to understand the difference between popular opinion, personal experiences and objective reality. The weight of the Bandwagon (fallacy) and your own biased takes on other people do not equate to objective fact, or something that could be extrapolated to people in general.

Let's not forget the whole economic collapse at the tail end of 2007 from which the United States didn't fully recover from until 4E was already in the ground.

It also had awful marketing (such as mocking and throwing prior editions under the bus, just like 5e did to 4E... same tactic, just a less popular target), generated unnecessary bad blood (if not for dropping the OGL and pulling back Dragon and Dungeon, Pathfinder was set to Paizo's 4E campaign world for their Dragon and Dungeon magazines... no 3e alternative to capture audiences) and had most of its original creative team canned in the annual Hasbro layoffs (which is how Mearls, who never really grokked or liked 4E ended up in charge of 4E shortly after launch).

It was, frankly, a perfect storm of factors that had nothing to do with the quality of the material in the books... and yet still 4E outsold everything until it stopped having new releases (the last new 4E product was early 2012; Pathfinder only beat it during its active life cycle in spring of 2011... notably coinciding with the gap between the release of Essentials in late 2010 and the first post-essentials product released in April of 2011 between which there were no new 4E products to buy).

In addressing 4E's failure its important to note that, if D&D were owned by any RPG company other than Hasbro, it would have been a monster success... its biggest Achilles Heel was that if failed to make the money the developers promised it would back when they did the edition switch (complete with a planned digital tabletop... seems familiar doesn't it). D&D only survived by cutting the design staff to the marrow, outsourcing/licensing pretty much all the non-core material (the hardback adventure modules), and it really wasn't until the explosive popularity of Stranger Things and Critical Role and a booming economy (basically another perfect storm, but in a good way) that D&D actually turned into Hasbro's golden child.

The idea that 4E was hated and unloved by a majority during its lifetime is just a myth the OSR likes to tell itself to pretend what it likes is actually popular in gaming circles (most who played 4E didn't hate it when they stopped playing, they just moved onto the latest currently supported thing, which has enough 4E in it that only 4E diehards wouldn't want to move on).

In video game terms, roguelikes depend on random character generation while crpgs depend on crafting a character one wants to interact with the game world through. Throwing adventurers against the world benefits from random characters while campaign built around a premise with a story arc calls for characters who are crafted to be capable and interested in perusing and completing the overall objectives.

On the proliferation of options in general, there are human factors involved in how many options one can meaningfully choose between at one time and the satisfaction with a given choice as a function of its immutability.