TheRPGSite

(I probably shouldn't start this thread, as I prophesy it will engender all sorts of acrimony, but Jeff Rients asked my opinion on the matter and I can hardly refuse the creator of the Retro-Stupid-Pretentious model of RPG categorization now, could I?)

Prefatory Remark (aka Covering my Rear)
I want to a few things clear before I move on address the contentious topic of what I mean when I argue that 4e is "not D&D."

1. I most emphatically reject the use of the term "evolution" in reference to RPG design. "Evolution" since Darwin has been colloquially understood to mean "better" or at least "better suited to its environment/purpose/niche" and I don't think such a concept has much meaning in the context of RPGs. When most people use the term "evolution" in the discussion of RPG design they either mean A) "I like the newer version better" or B) "The newer version is different than previous editions." Option A has nothing to do with evolution and Option B is better served by the less ambiguous term "change."

There are people who actually think that RPGs and their rules conform to something like the principles of natural selection and that they do evolve in a quasi-Darwinian sense, with newer editions usually being better suited to their purposes than earlier ones. I think such an idea is nonsensical, but if you disagree with me, chances are you're going to find this post really frustrating. I apologize in advance for that and I hope that you'll not vent your frustration on me for holding to a different perspective.

As a final clarification on this, let me say that I see change in game design to be a bit like change in language. A really superb example of what I mean is the Greek word "agathos." In ancient Greek, it unambiguously meant "good," as in something beneficial, superior, and desirable. Its neuter form, "agathon," was used by Plato in his dialogs to mean "the Good," as in the principle of goodness from which all other things derived their goodness. In modern Greek, "agathos" means "kindly" and can even, in certain contexts, mean a silly, air-headed person -- a ninny. Did the meaning of "agathos" evolve? Is the new meaning somehow better than the old one? I see discussion of evolution in game design as comparable.

2. Prior to the release of the Brown Box in 1974, there was no Dungeons & Dragons. Consequently, there can be no sense of what "D&D" is separate from the way D&D is presented at its debut in those three little books. Discussions of "D&D" in ignorance of the original material is pointless posturing, like trying to discuss what society in the Middle Ages was like without reference to actual medieval social practices. What we think of as "D&D" began at a certain point in the past, before which there was no "D&D" at all and without which there could have been no subsequent history to point to as somehow more determinative of what "D&D" is.

The pride of place I will thus give Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), or OD&D, does not mean that I'm discounting how the game changed over time or that I will ignore the history of D&D post-1977 (when the Monster Manual first appeared, ushering in the beginning of the AD&D era). Rather, what it means is that I think it foolish and a waste of time to try and define "D&D" without the context provided by OD&D. For me, OD&D is the most important statement of what D&D was supposed to be and what its creator saw it as being. Everything after it is, to one degree or another, an expansion of, reaction to, or commentary on OD&D and, as such, it must be the touchstone of any such discussion of the "essence" of D&D.

(More to come but I didn't want this post to be too long)

About your premise of including early 1e AD&D in "it's D&D" I find myself chuckling. Looking at those samples that are a subset of the 4e Rogue, versions of the Rogue/Thief that have pretty much been there since 1e AD&D. Via the power of the internet went back and some 1e characters again....and some OD&D ones too. 4e looked closer to OD&D I thought. ;)  And that's what we are looking at here, right? Not the actual rules on how things play in the game. Just sort of an outline of a character sheet.

Oh, and you could always play the beefy combat Thief, with the better armour at the cost of skills, and the higher Str to hit better, again at the cost of skills (assuming you didn't roll even across the board stats). *shrug*  It actually looks a lot like it, only it's got some other Skills too.

P.S.  And for some reason mid-range Int never did seem to play out to result in a PC's inability to see you were screwed if you stuck around. Funny that. Maybe because it would have been kind of silly?  ;)

Excellent start!  Thank you for taking the time to do this up right and proper.  If I follow you and the published OD&D text is the uttermost boundary, then under this discussion pre-publication Greyhawk and Blackmoor activities are not directly relevant.  Is this because you simply want to draw a bright line focusing on published texts only, or are you making some other distinction?

EDIT to add:

blakkie, there are plenty of OD&D fans who see the Thief as a first step onto the slippery slope of skill-based systems.  Keep in mind that the original Supplements were initially intended as separate examples of how to differentiate your own campaign.

Quote from: jrientsExcellent start!  Thank you for taking the time to do this up right and proper.  If I follow you and the published OD&D text is the uttermost boundary, then under this discussion pre-publication Greyhawk and Blackmoor activities are not directly relevant.  Is this because you simply want to draw a bright line focusing on published texts only, or are you making some other distinction?

I think anecdotal evidence based on actual play is very important. Goodness knows I've often turned to the old timers to ask them how they interpreted this rule or that one and Gygax is very accessible these days, so it's a simple matter of asking him directly the whys and wherefores of things that are unclear now.

However, the text of D&D has to be the starting point. That's the thing everyone had in common and the touchstone, as I keep calling it, of all the various interpretations and approaches that eventually started to coalesce into "D&D."

The other factor is that giving too much weight to anecdotal evidence can result in even more confusion and acrimony. I can't tell you how many times discussions get derailed by someone's saying "But that's not how we did it" as if that were somehow determinative of what was intended by the creators.

Again, I don't want to discount actual play and "folk traditions" but they need to be understood in light of a normative text and that's OD&D (to start -- other texts assert their claims in time).

Quote from: James Maliszewski1. I most emphatically reject the use of the term "evolution" in reference to RPG design. "Evolution" since Darwin has been colloquially understood to mean "better" or at least "better suited to its environment/purpose/niche" and I don't think such a concept has much meaning in the context of RPGs.

I disagree.  The heart of evolution is mutation and natural selection, which determines whether the mutation is superior or inferior to the original form and whether the mutation replaces the original form.  The mutation of a role-playing systems is the modification of rules while the natural selection is whether the game sells and is used or not.  In the natural world, mutations are often random and better resemble the homebrew rules and even interpretation mistakes that happen as individual groups play the game, but the purposeful redesign of the rules also qualifies as a form of mutation for the purpose of this analogy.  So I don't think it's unwarranted to talk about this in term of evolution.

But to take the analogy a bit further, I think the real evolution-like question concerning 4E is not whether it's an evolution of earlier editions of D&D but whether 4E (or any other edition of the game carrying the D&D trademark) is not simply a new species of game or even a new genus but whether it represents a new family, order, class, phylum, or even kingdom of game.

Quote from: John MorrowBut to take the analogy a bit further, I think the real evolution-like question concerning 4E is not whether it's an evolution of earlier editions of D&D but whether 4E (or any other edition of the game carrying the D&D trademark) is not simply a new species of game or even a new genus but whether it represents a new family, order, class, phylum, or even kingdom of game.

This is why I should never use metaphors. :p

I concede your point in the general sense, but I leave it to others to develop this line of discussion, as it's not really the main thrust of what I want to say. I mentioned it primarily because I often see the word "evolution" bandied about as if the mere fact that Edition Y postdates Edition X means that it is necessarily superior.

Quote from: John MorrowI disagree.  The heart of evolution is mutation and natural selection, which determines whether the mutation is superior or inferior to the original form and whether the mutation replaces the original form.

With all due respect, that is a misunderstanding of evolution.  A mutation is either adaptive or maladaptive to a given environment, not inherently inferior or superior.

Quote from: John MorrowThe heart of evolution is mutation and natural selection, which determines whether the mutation is superior or inferior to the original form and whether the mutation replaces the original form.

No 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!

Quote from: James MaliszewskiI think anecdotal evidence based on actual play is very important. Goodness knows I've often turned to the old timers to ask them how they interpreted this rule or that one and Gygax is very accessible these days, so it's a simple matter of asking him directly the whys and wherefores of things that are unclear now.

However, the text of D&D has to be the starting point. That's the thing everyone had in common and the touchstone, as I keep calling it, of all the various interpretations and approaches that eventually started to coalesce into "D&D."

The other factor is that giving too much weight to anecdotal evidence can result in even more confusion and acrimony. I can't tell you how many times discussions get derailed by someone's saying "But that's not how we did it" as if that were somehow determinative of what was intended by the creators.

Again, I don't want to discount actual play and "folk traditions" but they need to be understood in light of a normative text and that's OD&D (to start -- other texts assert their claims in time).

I think this where you may encounter some difficulty.

Seperating the text of D&D from the social phenomena that arose around it would be akin to excising those medieval customs you mentioned in your opening post. The letter of the law versus it's actual implementation, as it were. I think the changing identity of Dungeons & Dragons was as much a result of player input as the ruleset and authorial intent were. And by 'player input' I'm talking about the interactive nature of the hobby, from scenario writing and differing playstyles to houseruling, homebrewing and like.

It's a difficult subject to tackle, and is one of the reasons why every "What Does D&D Mean to You?" thread I've seen quickly spawns a thousand different replies. ;)

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaJames' definition stands.

Who'd have thought I'd hit upon the right answer simply through metaphor? :D Guess all that schooling actually did me some good.

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect, that is a misunderstanding of evolution.  A mutation is either adaptive or maladaptive to a given environment, not inherently inferior or superior.

Fair enough, but I was trying to keep it simple.  I had considered raising the issue of the game market -- that is the environment -- changing, but that only complicated the analogy even further.  Of course that may explain why the nature of D&D might change dramatically -- to adapt to a different environment.

Quote from: DrewI think the changing identity of Dungeons & Dragons was as much a result of player input as the ruleset and authorial intent were. And by 'player input' I'm talking about the interactive nature of hobby, from scenario writing and differing playstyles to houseruling, homebrewing and like.

No question and I plan on getting to that in due course. Right now, to do this right, I want to focus solely on the starting text of OD&D and what it says and implies about "D&D" before moving on to how the hobby as a whole reacted to it. It's a complicated mess and I make no claims to having a definitive answer that will convince everyone, only a coherent answer that will at least put certain positions on a better historical/philosophical basis.

Hmm, that sounded far more pretentious than I meant it ... Oh well.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiThis is why I should never use metaphors. :p

I concede your point in the general sense, but I leave it to others to develop this line of discussion, as it's not really the main thrust of what I want to say. I mentioned it primarily because I often see the word "evolution" bandied about as if the mere fact that Edition Y postdates Edition X means that it is necessarily superior.

Quite so, and that's due to the odd fact that at least in the anglophone world RPGs, which are products of culture, are to a very large extent played by people with a science/tech background. Their ideas about how culture works are about as useful as my ideas about computers.

On the actual topic, OTOH: Given the way it's phrased, how does one avoid ending up stating that 4E is not OD&D, which is both true and, well, obvious? Or that all post-White Box editions are so many falls from grace?

In other words, I don't think a return-to-origins primitivism is the antidote to a sterile evolutionism. That opposition mirrors cultural debates last heard of circa 1910 but not so often since, and with good reason.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiThis is why I should never use metaphors. :p

I concede your point in the general sense, but I leave it to others to develop this line of discussion, as it's not really the main thrust of what I want to say. I mentioned it primarily because I often see the word "evolution" bandied about as if the mere fact that Edition Y postdates Edition X means that it is necessarily superior.

When I used the term 'evoloution' in the previous thread I was not implying superiority, rather an adaptive reaction that flourishes within it's environment. Examples I can think of include unified resoloution mechanics, power-like abilities (or feats), an emphasis on point-buy character generation, and so on.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiNo question and I plan on getting to that in due course. Right now, to do this right, I want to focus solely on the starting text of OD&D and what it says and implies about "D&D" before moving on to how the hobby as a whole reacted to it. It's a complicated mess and I make no claims to having a definitive answer that will convince everyone, only a coherent answer that will at least put certain positions on a better historical/philosophical basis.

Hmm, that sounded far more pretentious than I meant it ... Oh well.

Sounds good to me. :)

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNatural 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.

And I would argue that the role-playing market selects systems that are favorable to what the market wants to purchase and play just as natural selection selects that which can survive and reproduce.  That D&D 4E may contain "arguably inferior traits" such as the MMORPG-influenced combat roles or Tieflings as a core race is irrelevant to whether the system, as a whole, is superior in the sense of sales and number of people who play it than earlier editions.  And the question of whether D&D 4E is really D&D or not is like asking whether ants and wasps (both members of the order Hymenoptera) are essentially the thing (looking at the similarities) or entirely different things (looking at the differences), not whether they evolved or evolved from a common ancestor or each other.

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!

You see, that's why I disagree with the disavowal of the word evolution in this discussion. Because there is a very strong argument that as a whole, D&D has attempted to change and has changed due to the pressures of the gaming zeitgeist. Shoot, almost everyone can agree that 4e is drawing upon MMOs, a strong influence on gaming culture at this moment.

But I'm afraid I'm just another eddy pulling this boat off course :o . Please continue Mr. M. I am also intersted in your thoughts.

This thread is silly.

Primary Sources
So what does OD&D say that D&D is?

For starters, the cover of Volume 1 of the Brown Box is subtitled "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures" (italics mine). The meaning of this subtitle might not be immediately clear, so there may be some grounds for quibbling. For me, though, the most significant bits are those I italicized.

Fantastic: I take this to mean first "ahistorical" (with reference to the word "wargames" that follows) and then to mean "magical." The foreword (or "forward" as it says in the text) to Volume I uses "fantastic" as a clear synonym for "magical" several times.

Medieval: I take this to be a reference to the European Middle Ages, again with reference to the word "wargames" that follows. This is corroborated in the foreword where it talks about wargamers interested in "the medieval period." In that context, it's pretty clear to me what we're talking about.

Wargames: This is the tricky one. What exactly is meant by "wargames" in this context? The three little books provide very little explanation of this term, which they use throughout. D&D is consistently referred to as "wargame" and terms such as "units" and other similar jargon can be found in the text. The simplest explanation, of course, is that, having arisen out of wargaming, D&D was still seen as an adjunct to that hobby rather than a distinct hobby of its own. There's a lot of merit to this interpretation and, I think, more than a grain of truth, but that only pushes the question back one step further: what is wargaming in this context and in what sense is D&D a wargame?

From what I have gathered, D&D, as a concept, is an expansion of wargames where individual leaders and special units were treated differently from massed troops. D&D's "older brother," Chainmail treats heroes and wizards differently from other units. It's only a small step from there to personalizing heroes and wizards and using them alone as the basis for fantastic battles. If I'm correct, this slide from the Chainmail approach to that used in D&D was gradual enough that, initially at least, no one thought twice about differentiating it from wargaming "proper." "Roleplaying" as a distinct hobby wasn't yet on the radar and early roleplayers just saw what they were doing as an extension of wargaming.

There's another factor at work here too and that's that D&D, like wargaming, gives pride of place to combat. Wargaming is, after all, a simulation of battle on the tabletop and, if D&D at this stage still self-identifies as  a "wargame," it's little wonder that combat is an essential part of its self-identification. Of course, combat can and does occur on multiple levels in wargames, both tactical and strategic. From the first, D&D combat included both tactical and strategic elements and I believe both remain important part of the game's "DNA."

Campaigns: This is a wargames-derived term (itself derived from actual military usage), but OD&D explains the meaning of the term by inference: "While it is possible to play a single game, unrelated to any other game events past or future, it is the campaign for which these rules are designed." D&D was thus not intended to be a game of "one-shots." Its designers conceived of the rules to enable continuity between sessions. This is, I would argue, another important parts of the game's essence.

(As an aside, it's worth noting that, while OD&D and all its supplements continue to include the phrase "Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures," the text itself says, "Miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing." This is important too and it shows that, however much the game still self-identifies as a wargame, it has already moved away from its roots.)

(More to come as I have time)

All the pretentious postuiring at the beginning of this thread does nothing to change the fact that Dungeons & Dragons 4e is still Dungeons and Dragons 4e. It has plenty in common with whats accepted as D&D to still make it Dungeons and Dragons.

Everything else is blathering ridiculousnous, intended to make the writers sound smart, but has only made you seem stupid.

Quote from: KrakaJak...does nothing to change the fact that Dungeons & Dragons 4e is still Dungeons and Dragons 4e. It has plenty in common with whats accepted as D&D to still make it Dungeons and Dragons.

This I agree with.

QuoteEverything else is blathering ridiculousnous, intended to make the writers sound smart, but has only made you seem stupid.

This I don't. I find the whole subject fascinating.

Quote from: John MorrowI had considered raising the issue of the game market -- that is the environment -- changing, but that only complicated the analogy even further.

And what would complicate things further still was that in 99/00 WotC presented a changed game market which may not actually have been the case.

James, this may be a quibble but your view of the relationship between wargames, especially Chainmail, and D&D is the one that's been dominant since Gygax wrote the OD&D text. It may be what he thought OD&D was, but it elides the roots of D&D through Arneson and Weseley. May I humbly suggest a look at what I've gathered here (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/tag/immersion+wargaming)?  Arneson places Chainmail much more on the periphery of the development of D&D; by his account, it was just an off-the-shelf adjunct, a combat system which was slotted into the already-extant single-character concept, and which was quickly replaced by Arneson's armor class + hit points method.

Rob MacDougal's blog (which I link from there) is also important--he provides a more complete narrative, even though I think his emphasis is a bit misleading. Notably he connects Weseley with 50's & 60's-era operations research. The reason I think this is important is that even as a hobby, wargaming has long meant more than just gaming about war. It's been about using games to model and analyze politics and conflict in a broad sense. Thus 1971 saw the publication of The Origins of World War II, about pre-war diplomacy. And Weseley and Arneson were running games where players vied for control of a fictional Latin American republic.

More generally I think that wargaming was a the center of an explosion of "new games" that broke out of the abstract models and tried to incorporate representative mechanics in some form or other. Eon Games, although postdating OD&D, is a good example of this. Working from this idea, D&D wasn't a wargame because it was about fighting (in fact the combat portion of the game is pretty poor) but because it was an innovative, representational game with a neat dynamic of multiplayer gaming, single-unit control, and exploration of an environment created and managed by a GM.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWorking from this idea, D&D wasn't a wargame because it was about fighting (in fact the combat portion of the game is pretty poor) but because it was an innovative, representational game with a neat dynamic of multiplayer gaming, single-unit control, and exploration of an environment created and managed by a GM.

This is a keen insight. Thank you for it. I'll definitely look over the link you provided, since I'm always interested in additional perspectives on the roots of the hobby. And, honestly, anything that can give me a better sense of what wargaming was like in the late 60s/early 70s is a big help to me, since I wasn't involved in the hobby until 1979/1980 myself and so I'm relying mostly on what I've read or that gamers slightly older than myself have imparted to me.

Thanks again.

Thanks Elliot, you saved me some serious typing!

Quote from: James MaliszewskiThis is a keen insight. Thank you for it. I'll definitely look over the link you provided, since I'm always interested in additional perspectives on the roots of the hobby. And, honestly, anything that can give me a better sense of what wargaming was like in the late 60s/early 70s is a big help to me, since I wasn't involved in the hobby until 1979/1980 myself and so I'm relying mostly on what I've read or that gamers slightly older than myself have imparted to me.

Thanks again.

And I didn't get into D&D until the mid 90s and it was a Black Box with a big red dragon on the cover.

Why the fuck should I care about OD&D/WhiteBox except as a historical curiosity?  Why should something that isn't at all a part of my mental image of what D&D is have anything to do with judging a game to be "not D&D"?

Your argument is a load of horse bollocks, and little more than the usual subjective taste being presented as objective principle.  Stop that, it's silly.

Quote from: J ArcaneYour argument is a load of horse bollocks, and little more than the usual subjective taste being presented as objective principle.  Stop that, it's silly.

In point of fact, I haven't presented an argument at all yet. Jeff Rients asked me to do so after a comment I made elsewhere, but I felt it important to frame my argument in terms of some history so that even those who disagree with me vehemently might at least understand why I argue as I do.

Now, if you're uninterested in either my argument (once I present it) or in my explanation for why I argue it, so be it, but I think it's a bit premature to assume that I'll do any of the things that agitate you so.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiIn point of fact, I haven't presented an argument at all yet. Jeff Rients asked me to do so after a comment I made elsewhere, but I felt it important to frame my argument in terms of some history so that even those who disagree with me vehemently might at least understand why I argue as I do.

Now, if you're uninterested in either my argument (once I present it) or in my explanation for why I argue it, so be it, but I think it's a bit premature to assume that I'll do any of the things that agitate you so.

Except that you've already made it pretty clear what you think elsewhere.  It's like watching a movie where you already know the "twist" ending, and you're left wondering what all the point of all this rambling is.

I think the essay is fascinating so far. Keep going. The important thing isn't that it convinces everyone, but that it raises questions and presents its own consistent viewpoint, I think.

BTW, Elliot, don´t forget the Diplomacy [PBM] scene of the siyties and seventies!

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's like watching a movie where you already know the "twist" ending, and you're left wondering what all the point of all this rambling is.

Why would you watch a movie you don't like whose ending you already know? If your point is that you already know what I'm going to say, disagree with it, and think I'm an idiot for holding such an opinion, what difference does it make to you? Jeff asked me to explain myself and so I have slowly begun to do so. Apparently, some people seem to find my approach interesting, including some people who know they won't agree with my conclusions. That's the way interesting discussion happen in my experience.

But if this is all just a waste of time for everyone concerned, I can certainly forget about it. It's not like I enjoy listening to myself talk -- oh wait, of course I do.

Quote from: JimLotFPI think the essay is fascinating so far. Keep going. The important thing isn't that it convinces everyone, but that it raises questions and presents its own consistent viewpoint, I think.

Well yes, but it's not as if this is the first OD&D discussion we've had on this board.

Even as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityEven as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

In that case, I shall move on.

Thanks for your time.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell yes, but it's not as if this is the first OD&D discussion we've had on this board.

Even as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

What's being said is nothing new to me (although I hope to get some new insights as he goes along)... but it's the form that fascinates me. When he's done, I anticipate a cohesive essay that can be discussed as a whole. I don't understand the criticism of the undertaking, although the discussion and disagreement of the facts presented are worthwhile, and hopefully get integrated in any subsequent drafts.

I´d like to know James analysis of his dimensions of D&Dness.
When we have those, we can argue which of those are essential, and which are not.

And I really would like to know James take on this!

So don´t be spoilsports, his contributions could well warrant a referencable thread.

I´m all eyes.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiIn that case, I shall move on.

Thanks for your time.

Dear god, everyone's a primadonna these days!

Except for me.

:rimshot:

Let's hear it already.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell yes, but it's not as if this is the first OD&D discussion we've had on this board.

Even as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

I just don't see much purpose in spending so much time and effort on what amounts to IF game$="OD&D" THEN gamevalue$="GOOD" ELSE gamevalue$="BAD".

If anything, the approach taken so far in this thread makes it all the more silly for the very reason I pointed out.  OD&D isn't culturally relevant for all parties involved, so basing ones judgement on "what is D&D" solely on how closely it clings to that model is sort of meaningless.

Sett, I thought about mentioning Diplomacy but I didn't want to get distracted by the fact that it has armies and navies bumping into each other almost continuously from an early stage. Notwithstanding, yes, it's a "wargame" more in the broad sense of representationalism, analytic approach, and innovative mechanics than in either the narrow hex & counter or lead-pushing senses.

I haven't read the thread that this one splits off of, but as far as examining the "not D&D" question is concerned, I don't see how it could possibly legitimize or delegitimize a given game. But it could be a good analysis of how styles & tastes change and a rejoinder to the sometimes-heard claims that the current incarnations of the game are "essentially" the same as earlier versions (and therefore people are being babies for disliking the newer stuff or whatever).

EDIT: while I'm here another key innovation of D&D was of course campaign continuity, as was pointed out above.

Quote from: blakkieAbout your premise of including early 1e AD&D in "it's D&D" I find myself chuckling. Looking at those samples that are a subset of the 4e Rogue, versions of the Rogue/Thief that have pretty much been there since 1e AD&D. Via the power of the internet went back and looke at some 1e character sheets again....and some OD&D ones too. 4e looked closer to OD&D I thought. ;)  And that's what we are looking at here, right? Not the actual rules on how things play in the game. Just sort of an outline of a character sheet.

Oh, and you could always play the beefy combat Thief, with the better armour at the cost of skills, and the higher Str to hit better, again at the cost of skills (assuming you didn't roll even across the board stats). *shrug*  It actually looks a lot like it, only it's got some other Skills too.

P.S.  And for some reason mid-range Int never did seem to play out to result in a PC's inability to see you were screwed if you stuck around. Funny that. Maybe because it would have been kind of silly?  You don't need some sort of towering intellect to stay in the back and realize when something rips the Fighter's head off in one swat you should run. ;)

I reworded this post because I went back and realized it said something very different than what I intended.

I think Diplomacy is a hobby unto itself, it definitely isn´t wargaming as you were talking about. But it had continous play and communities, via the fanzines, that drew heavily on SciFi and Tolkien subculture.

I´m sure there´s also overlap, people who straddled both groups.

And then there´s the huge part of role assumption and in-character talk in Dippy. When played FtF, it also has some qualities of conference gamey-Braunstein experiences, only without Referee and cery slick rules that left nearly no question unanswered.

Possibly over here Diplomacy is more tightly tied to wargames (or maybe it's just me) because Avalon Hill licensed it in the US and sold it within their wargame line as opposed to their Sports or Leisure Game (Acquire, etc.) line. It was covered in The General, and really I think almost anybody who played AH/SPI games also knew Dippy pretty well, though possibly not the other way around.

But we're digressing and I'm interested in what James has to say next.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, it is.

Boo-hoo. Two people make the same correction. You agree with one correction, but disagree with another.  Which is it?

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniAnd then there´s the huge part of role assumption and in-character talk in Dippy.

I notice that as of this fine election day in Germany a certain fellow Diplomacy player of mine is in for some serious IC talk the next couple of weeks. In his case the line between IC and RL is totally blurred, so he'll be in his element. :haw:

Let's assume that D&D4e will be "not D&D". I'm not sure how you can judge the qualities of something which hasn't been published yet, but let's take that as given.

What does it mean to say, "D&D4e is not D&D"?

If I can come up with a definition of "car" that does not includes SUVs, and say, "an SUV is not a car", it has a practical result in that I then go on to say, "it's a light truck, so it handles differently and you should have a special licence for it." So at times, definitions provide us practical and useful results, even if those definitions are somewhat counter-intuitive - I mean, an SUV looks like a car.

What is the practical and useful result of defining D&D4e as "not D&D"?

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat is the practical and useful result of defining D&D4e as "not D&D"?

The flame wars it engenders ? The practicality and usefulness of which I leave up to the gentle reader.

Regards,
David R

QuoteIf I can come up with a definition of "car" that does not includes SUVs, and say, "an SUV is not a car", it has a practical result in that I then go on to say, "it's a light truck, so it handles differently and you should have a special licence for it." So at times, definitions provide us practical and useful results, even if those definitions are somewhat counter-intuitive - I mean, an SUV looks like a car.

Amusingly enough, the term and concept of the "SUV" was devised in a roughly similar manner.  It was a way for the automakers to produce a passenger vehicle that would not be held to the same MPG efficiency standards as normal cars.

I don't see the point here. Each edition of D&D is it's own game reusing and remaking elements of earlier games. Hell in one way OD&D is just an expansion of Chainmail's man to man and fantasy rules. In the end D&D(tm) is what Wizards defines it to be. Wizard gets to do that because they own the trademark and the brand.

It doesn't erase the older editions nor change what they were. Each edition of D&D was built to appeal to the audience of the time. Sometimes the owners hit a home run sometimes not. Sometimes a new edition has enough elements that it appeals to old and new fans.

It is useful to talk about the changes from edition to edition. About what made each edition appealing. How a newer edition may (or not) appeal to older generations of players

D20 is interesting in that there is now a legal avenue to make a game that appeals to older generation even when a new edition of D&D is published.

Also the current edition D&D has the status of being THE role-playing game. The continued status of the brand as such is also an interesting topic of discussion.

To paraphrase what I wrote above, I think the point is "defensive", against arguments that are based on claims that D&D is essentially the same as it always was.

Quote from: David RThe flame wars it engenders ? The practicality and usefulness of which I leave up to the gentle reader.

Regards,
David R

Welcome and thanks for bringing another fine, dry log for our fire, gentle poster!

:verkill:

:win:

Quote from: estarEach edition of D&D was built to appeal to the audience of the time.

Is this true, really? OD&D seems like it was cooked up in a lab by madmen who really weren't giving much thought to the outside world. :) And the language in the original AD&D rulebooks seems to indicate that the hardcovers were meant to resist what people all over the place were doing to D&D (not that it worked, haha)...

I do think D&D after Gygax left was built to appeal to the audience...

Quote from: estarIn the end D&D(tm) is what Wizards defines it to be. Wizard gets to do that because they own the trademark and the brand.

More accurately:  

Wizards is legally able to publish whatever game they like with the D&D(tm) name because they own the trademark and the brand.

The fantasy obsession of the late70s/early 80s and its impact on D&D is not to be underestimated.

For example, here's the album cover of Rick James' 1982 "Throwin Down" album:

(Image seems to be blocked: click below)
http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/145789.jpg

Fuck. That seems not to render. Here's a better one:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1046/1440763423_28bd8b7830.jpg

He is dressed as Conan the barbarian.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBoo-hoo. Two people make the same correction. You agree with one correction, but disagree with another.  Which is it?

The two corrections were not identical.  I was essentially using "superior" and "inferior" to mean what jrients referred to as "adaptive" or "maladaptive" and that was essentially a terminology correction, which was fair enough.  To be honest, when the meaning of those words isn't otherwise defined, I'm not sure why anyone would think of any other definition instead because in terms of survival, what's adaptive is superior and what's maladaptive is inferior.

Your reply, on the other hand, not only claims that my use of "superior" and "inferior" is wrong but you go on to make your own assertions of superiority and inferiority seem just as vague as my claim.  What's inferior about dwarfism as a mutation?  Since you don't like my definitions of superior and inferior, what exactly is the one you are using and why is it better than mine?  

Of course I could interpret your use of "inferior" and "superior" in such a way that your statements make sense but it's a lot more fun to interpret those words in a way that your statements look stupid and ill informed, isn't it?

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe fantasy obsession of the late70s/early 80s and its impact on D&D is not to be underestimated.

See my thread on Dragon's Lair (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9220) as evidence of this as well.

A given mutation does not have to be beneficial to ensure it's continuance, it only has to be insufficiently disadvantageous towards the continuance of it's host's genes.

I may be born ugly, or stupid, or sickly, but so long as I can still find someone to bone and pop out a couple of my spawn, my shitty genes will still pass on to the next generation.

Evolution is a lot more messy and complex a process than simply "the best genes win".

Okay, if you haven't seen it yet, watch the introduction of Idiocracy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA

"Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence..."

Such a funny movie. :haw:

Don't encourage Morrow to post on non-gaming topics. If we only reply to his gaming posts he'll make more of them.

I want to hear his thoughts on gaming. I am not really interested in his understanding of evolution, what a "conservative" is or is not, his views on the NATO intervention in Kosovo, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

But what he reckons about roleplaying games, I'm very interested in.

He also doesn't so often do that line-by-line refutation thing when talking about roleplaying stuff, which really pisses everyone off.

Morrow has an addiction to politics. It's time for us to stage an intervention and stop being his tambourine men.

On topic: of course D&D4e will still be D&D. It's like saying "New Coke" was not Coke. Of course it was fucking Coke, it was just a Coke that people didn't like so much, and regular Coke drinkers definitely hated it. But it was still Coke. The worst that could happen with D&D4e is that it'd be D&D's New Coke.

It'll still be D&D, though. It'll still have several 3-18 ranging stats, character classes, levels, hit points, armour class, spells with levels, dungeons with monsters to slay and treasure to take. It'll be D&D in every meaningful sense. Certainly you can argue that it's not "truly" D&D because so much has changed, but that's like the argument that I'm not truly me of seven years ago because almost every cell in my body has been replaced over that time, and in the words of the great Squashenegger in that philosophical epic Sixth Day, "If I'm not me, then who am I?" I'm me, and Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition will be Dungeons & Dragons.

I'm confused about where this is going (and I am quite fond of James M, and have had him on my LJ friends list for years). So he hopefully he wont take too much offense.

But this is my point:
Very few people other than perhaps a historian here and there is going to go back to OD&D or these much much earlier versions. So why does it matter what the game used to be? Yes, Dragonsfoot community notwithstanding (1). We've gone on from comparing "do I like this rule or dislike this rule" in whatever new edition to "does this new rule accurately reflect the way the game was being played in 1978?"

Which seems like a moot point. I'm not a time traveller or a nostalgiast-- I *know* at least how 1e and Basic played. I'd rather play and run Palladium Fantasy or Earthdawn than either of those. But I like D&D3.X even better than PF or ED.    

I've run across many, many people who "still have their books" (meaning their AD&D1e or 2e books) but gave up gaming, either after college or when the group moved away. Thats a very common story. I have even been successful luring a few of these guys back into my own campaigns. But I very very rarely run across or here about 1e or even 2e campaigns still being played in the wild. In fact.. never. And I'm an "out" gamer in an extremely geeky environment at work. I have miniatures on my monitor. I run into people all the time who say "I *used* to play D&D.

(Here's where everyone jumps up and says "I'm still playing Basic D&D.") All I can say is... I'll believe it when I see it. And by that I don't mean the guy that touts "Basic D&D as the best version of D&D ever" and then you find out he hasn't actually touched in over a decade. Or the guy that played it once at a con last year to prove he can lower himself to the level of the plebs.

Whether it really is D&D or whether it totally isn't D&D, or whether it maintains an "evolutionary" bloodline of D&D from when ye olde forefathers played.. who cares?

All I really want to know is if its going to be more playable and fun than 3.5, which I already enjoy. If so, I'm going to be playing it. If not, I can stick with 3.5 or go looking for something else. I have made this choice multiple times, and as much of a D&D zealot as I have been accused of being, D&D has not always won.

Here's where I lose my audience if you've been reading this far: oh yes, this is also a roundabout way of saying D&D3.5 is as popular as it is, because it's the best game. It totally is. The only question is, will D&D 4 be that good?



(1) My personal experience on Dragonsfoot is that a solid percentage are there for the nostalgia. Good things came out of it (OSRIC, and Basic Fantasy) but I don't really even see a significant community playing those. And yes, I  own both of them, and support the project.

Quote from: J ArcaneEvolution is a lot more messy and complex a process than simply "the best genes win".

No kidding.  And the development of role-playing systems is a lot more messy and complex a process than simply "the best game wins".  What I find particularly curious is that many of these digressions into the minutia of evolution actually make the analogy seem more appropriate.

Abyssal Maw - Uncle Ronny popularised his phrase "fantasy heartbreaker". I want to popularise my phrase, the MARP game. Much Admired, Rarely-Played.

HeroQuest, OSRIC, Burning Empires, Sorcerer, AD&D1e, Jorune, Classic Traveller...

They're all MARPs. Lots of people talk about how awesome they are, but sweet fuck all people play them. Whole mailing lists spend quite literally years discussing the finer points of the games, building up house rules for them... but they don't play them.

Whereas everyone complains about D&D, GURPS, WoD and so on, but heaps of people play them. So when James Maliszewski says that D&D4e won't be truly D&D, I know for a certainty that he'll buy every fucking book they publish and play them with a passion.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI want to hear his thoughts on gaming. I am not really interested in his understanding of evolution, what a "conservative" is or is not, his views on the NATO intervention in Kosovo, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

Kyle, why don't you include posts about me and my replies in your list of things to avoid and follow your own advice.  I think that by ignoring your posts like this, I've been encouraging you in your addiction to opining about my replies and style of reply.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOn topic[/B]: of course D&D4e will still be D&D. It's like saying "New Coke" was not Coke. Of course it was fucking Coke, it was just a Coke that people didn't like so much, and regular Coke drinkers definitely hated it. But it was still Coke. The worst that could happen with D&D4e is that it'd be D&D's New Coke.

Whether 4E is D&D or New Coke is Coke depends on what you mean when you say "D&D" or "Coke".  Rather than worry about the label, people should be talking about what it is that they consider essential characteristics beyond the name.  For some people, D&D is a name on a box.  For other people, it's certain system elements.  For yet others, it's a style of play.

As for your analogy about replacing almost every cell of your body, if at the end of those seven years, the Kyle that we've all come to know wrote long essays about his love for America, enthusiastically voted for Howard, thought Dogs in the Vineyard was the best game ever, and encouraged me to post more about politics because my viewpoints on the subject fascinated him, would we still think you were the same person after all of those cells had been replaced?  Clearly, something defines the essence of Kyle and you can replace those elements that have nothing to do with that essence with impunity and you'll still be Kyle but if we change the things that define that essence, then maybe you wouldn't be, or you'd just be a shadow of what you were (such as a person who becomes brain damaged or gets Alzheimer's disease).

Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει

(All is flux, nothing stays the same.)

--Heraclitus

Quote from: Kyle AaronAbyssal Maw - Uncle Ronny popularised his phrase "fantasy heartbreaker". I want to popularise my phrase, the MARP game. Much Admired, Rarely-Played.

You're so jealous of Ron.  :haw:

Quote from: Elliot WilenTo paraphrase what I wrote above, I think the point is "defensive", against arguments that are based on claims that D&D is essentially the same as it always was.

My thoughts exactly.

The game has changed over time. The external influences on the mechanics and aesthetics have changed over time. The people playing it have changed. The way people play it has changed over time.

It seems that the point of this thread was for one person to express how he has seen D&D change, using OD&D as the initial state of the game, and then to explain why the game today is different enough from the essence of the game as he understands it that he considers it a different game.

Too bad James got discouraged. I don't know why some players are hostile at the very notion that the game has changed. I find this kind of statement astonishing:

QuoteSo when James Maliszewski says that D&D4e won't be truly D&D, I know for a certainty that he'll buy every fucking book they publish and play them with a passion.

Dude, the rest of my group wouldn't know 4E was in the works unless I told them about it. They didn't know about 3E either, until I showed up with a couple books I bought second-hand. We played 3E for two sessions and then went back to 2E. Then we switched to C&C for a short campaign. Now we play Basic. Some of us just don't have the time or inclination to learn new and complex systems, especially when that complexity gives us options in areas (tactical combat, character builds) we're happy enough to leave simple and abstracted.

Quote from: John MorrowThe two corrections were not identical.

You mis-stated yourself and you got pantsed.  You just couldn't stand it from me. That's too bad, John.  Take your licks and stop being a twat about it.

As for the analogy, it has a certain appropriateness about it in that game design doesn't necessarily keep getting better and better.  Often times people go off on tangents to make games that simply reflect elements of play that they enjoy, but don't necessarily do them better than previous games.  Sometimes people even engage in regressive evolution by making "retro" games to recapture old styles of gaming.  The "natural selection" that's at work in situations like these is how well the games are received by the people who play games.  Games that are popular will go on to be played widely and affect subsequent games, whether they're better that other games or not.

Beyond this, the analogy wears thin.  Kyle has a point with his MARP games, games that do seem to be qualitatively "better" than other games on the market, and are frequently recognised as such, but that don't gain significant popularity or wide-spread play.  Now, roping that inconvenient analogy back into things, they may have a seminal influence on the design of later games -- an adaptive trait is passed on, even if the game it came from eventually failed.

So...what does all this have to do with D&D?

!i!

!i!

Quote from: Elliot WilenΠάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει

(All is flux, nothing stays the same.)

--Heraclitus

"And unmoved within the limits of great bonds/ it is unbeginning unending, since generation and destruction/ have wandered quite far away, and genuine conviction has expelled them./ And remaining the same, in the same place, and on its own, it rests,/ and thus steadfast right there it remains; for powerful Necessity/ holds it in the bonds of a limit, which encloses it all around,/ wherefore it is right that What Is be not unfulfilled; for it is not lacking: if it were, it would lack everything."

--Parmenides

:cool: :haw:

Quote from: John MorrowWhether 4E is D&D or New Coke is Coke depends on what you mean when you say "D&D" or "Coke"

I believe in naming things as I believe about rpg theory and grammar - description rather than prescription. I talk about what is, and try to be clear when I'm talking about what should be, clear that I'm not talking about "true roleplaying" or whatever.

What I mean is what producers of D&D or Coke or whatever themselves call "trademark" or "dress" - basically, if on looking at the thing most people will identify it as that thing, then that's what it is, or is trying to be.

"Most people" is a good enough standard. We can safely ignore the congenitally pedantic and drooling fanboys. "This film isn't the true Batman!" or "This is not a true Pinot Noir!" or "D&D4e is not true D&D!"

Quote from: StuartYou're so jealous of Ron.  :haw:

Yes, I missed out on the course which could have taken me to doctoral research on bat penises.

Quote from: HaffrungDude, the rest of my group wouldn't know 4E was in the works unless I told them about it.

My experience is that the players who are indifferent to editions are almost, though not quite, as indifferent to systems. The player who doesn't own a copy of D&D3.5's player's handbook and doesn't even know there's a 4th coming out is very unlikely to care much if the group changes to GURPS, so long as they don't have to do all the character conversion.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAs for the analogy, it has a certain appropriateness about it in that game design doesn't necessarily keep getting better and better.

Evolution is sometimes conceived of as finding the way to some One True Perfect Animal, adapted to survive in any conditions, which wipes out all other animals. Far more common however is the adaptation to fill some little niche, some space and place and set of nutrients that nothing else has any use for. I mean, you get little spiders and things living in the vents of volcanic springs in what's effectively sulphuric acid in the dark at past boiling point five miles down under water, for fuck's sakes.

In that sense, roleplaying games could be said to be "evolving" in that nowadays there's an rpg for just about any style of play, however obscure or unusual.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDear god, everyone's a primadonna these days!

Except for me.

:rimshot:

Let's hear it already.

Seriously. Mofo picked the WRONG boards to post this shit on if he can't take people being dicks, pricks or raging assholes. Hell, thats the appeal of these forums - talk about gaming and cussing like a pirate without cuss filters or moderators all over your inbetweennus.

MARP works for me. Let's get this meme rolling. It's pretty close to MERP, but that's a case for 'exhibit A', eh?

-=Grim=-

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity[...]
--Parmenides

:cool: :haw:

QuoteIt depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If [...]'is' means is and never has been, that is [...] one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....

--Bill Clinton:hehe: :haw:

Quote from: Elliot Wilen

QuoteIt depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

--Bill Clinton:hehe: :haw:

God damn it.  That and George H.W. Bush's quote about a "necessary economic downturn" have been haunting me non-stop for the last week or two.

!i!

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If [...]'is' means is and never has been, that is [...] one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....

Is you is or is you ain't my baby?

--Louis Jordan

:pimpdahoe:

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIs you is or is you ain't my baby?

--Louis Jordan

:pimpdahoe:

Causing a moment of total befuddlement, I read that as "Louis Jourdan". :eek:


!i!

Quote from: Kyle AaronDon't encourage Morrow to post on non-gaming topics. If we only reply to his gaming posts he'll make more of them.

I want to hear his thoughts on gaming. I am not really interested in his understanding of evolution, what a "conservative" is or is not, his views on the NATO intervention in Kosovo, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

But what he reckons about roleplaying games, I'm very interested in.

He also doesn't so often do that line-by-line refutation thing when talking about roleplaying stuff, which really pisses everyone off.

Morrow has an addiction to politics. It's time for us to stage an intervention and stop being his tambourine men.

If you don't want to encourage off-topic discussion in a thread, then why are you drawing attention to it? Drop the primadonna drama and get on with the discussion.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaCausing a moment of total befuddlement, I read that as "Louis Jourdan". :eek:


!i!

It should be by Vernon Jordan, really.

Only on the RPGsite can I post a picture of Rick James dressed as Conan and get completely ignored in favor of a quote by Heraclitus written in the original greek!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou mis-stated yourself and you got pantsed.  You just couldn't stand it from me. That's too bad, John.  Take your licks and stop being a twat about it.

Believe whatever you want.  Obviously you think you know me better than I know myself.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBeyond this, the analogy wears thin.

Analogies are rarely perfect but you can either try to work with them and understand what the person is trying to say through them or you can fight them and focus on where the analogy doesn't quite fit and miss what the other person is trying to say.  Nitpicking the way a person words an analogy helps further the conversation how, exactly?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaKyle has a point with his MARP games, games that do seem to be qualitatively "better" than other games on the market, and are frequently recognised as such, but that don't gain significant popularity or wide-spread play.  Now, roping that inconvenient analogy back into things, they may have a seminal influence on the design of later games -- an adaptive trait is passed on, even if the game it came from eventually failed.

You seem to think I have a definition of "superior" and "inferior", with respect to role-playing games (and evolution), that I don't have.  The reason why Kyle has a point with MARP is that the definitions of "superior" and "inferior" that some people do use is questionable.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSo...what does all this have to do with D&D?

The question was whether 4E is really D&D or not.  I felt it would be useful to look at how scientists classify animals and decide that an ant is in the same order as a bee but they are not the same species.  How do we decide when a new edition is essentially the same game or not?  Instead, we got side-tracked on nit-picking about my wording of an analogy.

Quote from: JimLotFPIs this true, really? OD&D seems like it was cooked up in a lab by madmen who really weren't giving much thought to the outside world. :)

And the language in the original AD&D rulebooks seems to indicate that the hardcovers were meant to resist what people all over the place were doing to D&D (not that it worked, haha)...

The initial audience was Gary Gygax's collection of wargaming buddies in southern Wisconsin. The rants found in sections of the AD&D seem to be an overreaction based on the sentiment of  "Look guys this is how I run and play this game"

Certainly the initial edition wasn't designed for a general audience of the kind late 80's TSR or WoTC would understand it. But it was designed for an audience. Remember D&D was born in a wargamer culture and in particular the wargamer culture of the upper midwest. Gary and Dave built a game to appeal to themselves and their friends. One that happened to have enough elements and flexibility to appeal to a whole lot of other people.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAbyssal Maw - Uncle Ronny popularised his phrase "fantasy heartbreaker". I want to popularise my phrase, the MARP game. Much Admired, Rarely-Played.

HeroQuest, OSRIC, Burning Empires, Sorcerer, AD&D1e, Jorune, Classic Traveller...

They're all MARPs. Lots of people talk about how awesome they are, but sweet fuck all people play them. Whole mailing lists spend quite literally years discussing the finer points of the games, building up house rules for them... but they don't play them.

Older games still may work as well as they always do, things have changed over the years and generally for the better. In general modern role-playing books are better written and better organized. Note this is different than being a better game. There are exceptions of course.

This weekend I picked up a set of the AD&D 1st Ed core books in the original covers (I had only the newer covers) just for old time sake I tried making up a character. Throughout the process I was reminded of some of the reasons why I found later editions of D&D and GURPS so appealing. I.e. a lot less page flipping. I found myself wishing that I had my OSRIC pdf with me to make things easier.

For many other players they don't know about OSRIC or only have access to the original books. Hence they are stuck with the original presentation in order to run a game.

Quote from: estarThe initial audience was Gary Gygax's collection of wargaming buddies in southern Wisconsin. The rants found in sections of the AD&D seem to be an overreaction based on the sentiment of  "Look guys this is how I run and play this game"

Certainly the initial edition wasn't designed for a general audience of the kind late 80's TSR or WoTC would understand it. But it was designed for an audience. Remember D&D was born in a wargamer culture and in particular the wargamer culture of the upper midwest. Gary and Dave built a game to appeal to themselves and their friends. One that happened to have enough elements and flexibility to appeal to a whole lot of other people.

This is true and there's like several developments that spun off from this:

* You had the wargamer culture- which came from military and research hobbyism

* You had an initial commercialization of that. Commercialization masks some of the key features of the original culture.

* ...followed by being picked up by a *youth* culture. That picked it up in the late 70s/early 80s.

* at this point is where the wargamer and youth culture coexist for a period.

* that eventually matures into a true gamer culture sometime during the 1990s. True gamer culture is large enough and diverse enough that people can join it, and leave it, and it remains the same.

* but portions of gamer culture continue to age, and some members of which declare themselves to be grognards. But scratch the surface and you find these guys aren't quite as old as the original wargamer culture at all. They're actually just members of that early youth culture. The real grognards are dying off.. by actually dying. They are that old.

* Some of the original youth culture (now quite old in some cases) is going back and rediscovering some of the old artifacts of the wargamer culture..It's buried under the commercialization way back in step 2! And sometimes the commercialization itself is a feature of what can be discovered. We suddenly see stuff we didn't appreciate early on. (This is definitely me).  

This can lead to one of two reactions:

Each person self-asseses and comes up with (roughly) one of these statements:

1) "I look at what is going on NOW and I cannot identify with it. I am from an earlier age."

2) "I look at what is going on NOW and it fits right in. What is all the shouting about?"

Quote from: Kyle AaronI want to popularise my phrase, the MARP game. Much Admired, Rarely-Played.

Awesome! It's got everything GNS has an more!

* Invented Jargon
* Useable as an insult
* GNS was "Games we like", "Games we don't like" and "Games we don't understand" -- this narrows that down to "Games we like" and "Games we don't like"
* No use in helping design new games
* No use in enjoying the game you and your group is already playing
* Completely ambiguous: "Well, around here that's a MARP!"
* The polar opposite of "Cheetoism" -- Who cares what your group likes, and what your group is playing -- it's what's selling the most copies in FLGSs worldwide that counts!

Forward to Adventure! -- MARP
Dogs in the Vineyard -- MARP
Jeff Rient's OD&D Game -- MARP
Whatever you're playing that Kyle isn't -- MARP

Let's make even more acronyms:
Oopgiloo -- Out Of Print Game I'd Like to Own Ok?!
Gilp -- Game I'd Like to... Play.

"Hey, look it's a copy of Brown Box D&D!  Oopgiloo! Oopgiloo!"
"Why? That game's a MARP! Marp! Marp! Marp!"
"I don't know guys, I think it's a Gilp. Gilp! Gilp! Gilp!"

...

Kyle... please stop.  Why do we need this? :confused:

Quote from: StuartOopgiloo -- Out Of Print Game I'd Like to Own Ok?!

I'm going to use this.

Quote from: JimLotFPI'm going to use this.

Make sure you bend at the knees, jump up and down, and wave both arms above your head. :haw:

Wow.  I was offline last night.  This thread turned out to be a bigger cluster than I had anticipated when I encouraged James to start it.  James, please don't let the nabobs here discourage you from completing your essay!  Some of us are patiently listening to the signal through the noise.

Question for the peanut gallery: Suppose Wizards put a big "D&D" stamp on a bar of soap and declared "There it is!  This is the new D&D!"  Would anyone still feel honor boound to remind us that Wizards legally owns the trademark and can do whatever they want with it?  Or would they finally get the point that some of us are more interested in discussing the artistic/philosphical/moral dimensions of the question "What is D&D"?

Yes, I am throwing fuel on the fire while simultaneously holding out hope for some productive discussion here.  I am large, I contain multitudes.

... read OP, moved on to my own rambling

I'm in the sobering situation of having been on both sides of the fence on this one.

On one hand, I roll my eyes at asswipes from Dragonsfoot who go on with BS like refusing to call D&D 3e "D&D", calling it "D20 Fantasy" instead.

On the other hand, what I see in 4e does not seem like D&D to me. It does not maintain many conventions and tropes that have existed and grown in the game since 1e, up to and including 3e.

I could be the next generation of asshat. But I like to think of myself as a more rational person that the Dragonsfoot asshat. In this, I have come to the sobering realization that when one makes the determination of whether or not something "is D&D", there are two modes of thought:
1) D&D as a trademark
2) D&D as a personal perception of what constitutes D&D.

Attempts to entertain some objective middle ground that calls the "current edition of D&D" "not D&D" without conflating it with some personal definition of what constitutes D&D is, well, indefensible. So admit it's personal and move on.

Caesar, you are of course absolutely right.  Much of what I hear about the new edition does not appeal to me.  If it turns out as I expect other people will play it, love it, and no doubt wonder what the hell is wrong me.  No hard feelings.  I asked James to start this thread, not because I expect him to provide us with any universal truths, but because I want to hear his opinion.  Apparently, even the introduction to his opinion is so inflammatory that people are reacting... strongly.

Quote from: John MorrowThe question was whether 4E is really D&D or not.  I felt it would be useful to look at how scientists classify animals and decide that an ant is in the same order as a bee but they are not the same species.  How do we decide wh en a new edition is essentially the same game or not?

Well, if we locked OD&D in a room with D&D 4e, and got them to mate, would they produce fertile offspring? :D

I think we all can agree that OD&D and 4e are not going to be the same games. They won't play the same, and they won't have the same rules. I mean, a game is a game, and if you have two games side by side with different rules, they are not the same. I don't see any debate in that. IMO 3.x wasn't the same game as OD&D.

The real question is whether aesthetically they are so different, and again I'd say yes. If you locked OD&D and D&D 4e in a room, not only could they not produce fertile offspring, but they probably wouldn't mate in the first place because they are so removed from each other that they wouldn't even recognize each other as viable mates.

Having said all of that, I don't think it matters one bit to people who like 3x and are eager for 4.0. There is definitely a generation gap here. I think what frustrates some of us is that what makes a game "evolutionarily successful" isn't just dependent on the cultural climate (even though that is a big thing) but it is also dependent on the company marketing it.

In other words, a new edition needs to come not just when your target audience has changed, but also when you've sold about all the books that is economically feasible, and it is time to do a reboot to sell all those core books and Forgotten Realms splat books all over again, but retooled to the new edition. About that time the company marketing such a game needs to get the rhetoric going that the earlier version is flawed, and that the next logical evolutionary step is a "better" game. Why do they use that method? Because our culture has a misconception about what evolution is (as evidenced earlier in this thread) and it is something people understand (wrongly). I mean, technology changes all the time right? My Mp3 player keeps getting better, so why not D&D?

Quote from: jrientsQuestion for the peanut gallery: Suppose Wizards put a big "D&D" stamp on a bar of soap and declared "There it is!  This is the new D&D!"

Or at least the latest recommended playing aid. :haw:

!i!

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSo admit it's personal and move on.

Our perceptions of D&D are personal, but they aren't absolutely unique. There are sub-groups of players whose personal preferences about play style and content are similar enough that they recognize one another and can say "that guy plays like me, but that guy doesn't."

I think it's useful to identify these sub-groups of play styles, and how they tie in to the various iterations of D&D.

For instance, my group's playstyle has the following characteristics:

• Rules light
• Lots of GM fiat
• Non-heroic
• Lethal
• Dungeon-centric

There are some D&D rulesets that support my style of game better than others. However, none suit it perfectly. That's why I'm house-ruling my own system to incorporate elements of several versions of D&D.

Still, I do think it's worthwhile to find out what James and others feel is essential to D&D, and I think using OD&D as the point of departure can show us how the game evolved and where some of us grew more or less compatible to the various editions.

Quote from: Goblinoid GamesWell, if we locked OD&D in a room with D&D 4e, and got them to mate, would they produce fertile offspring? :D

I think we all can agree that OD&D and 4e are not going to be the same games. They won't play the same, and they won't have the same rules. I mean, a game is a game, and if you have two games side by side with different rules, they are not the same. I don't see any debate in that. IMO 3.x wasn't the same game as OD&D.

The real question is whether aesthetically they are so different, and again I'd say yes. If you locked OD&D and D&D 4e in a room, not only could they not produce fertile offspring, but they probably wouldn't mate in the first place because they are so removed from each other that they wouldn't even recognize each other as viable mates.

Having said all of that, I don't think it matters one bit to people who like 3x and are eager for 4.0. There is definitely a generation gap here. I think what frustrates some of us is that what makes a game "evolutionarily successful" isn't just dependent on the cultural climate (even though that is a big thing) but it is also dependent on the company marketing it.

In other words, a new edition needs to come not just when your target audience has changed, but also when you've sold about all the books that is economically feasible, and it is time to do a reboot to sell all those core books and Forgotten Realms splat books all over again, but retooled to the new edition. About that time the company marketing such a game needs to get the rhetoric going that the earlier version is flawed, and that the next logical evolutionary step is a "better" game. Why do they use that method? Because our culture has a misconception about what evolution is (as evidenced earlier in this thread) and it is something people understand (wrongly). I mean, technology changes all the time right? My Mp3 player keeps getting better, so why not D&D?

Well said.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiIn that case, I shall move on.

I would. But because you design games. Designers creating these sorts of threads about rival products can look...curious from the outside.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI would. But because you design games. Designers creating these sorts of threads about rival products can look...curious from the outside.

With all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

I liken it to what my Father told me about building your perfect house (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=57).  D&D 4e is not the same house with adjustments; it's a different house.

Building a different house is fine - people do it all the time. But I agree with James M that it doesn't really fit the "evolution" model.

Contrary to what some have said, IMHO this discussion that did not even get to James M's opinion has been interesting. I don't agree with J Arcane's conclusion - that James' opinion is an essentially worthless discussion - but I totally love his implied insight that entry point makes a difference in perception.

If James would like, I invite him over to D20 Haven (http://www.d20haven.com) to provide said opinion - I'd love to hear it. Put it right in the aforelinked house building thread!

Quote from: jrientsOr would they finally get the point that some of us are more interested in discussing the artistic/philosphical/moral dimensions of the question "What is D&D"?

I don't think the question is precise enough. D&D has been developed into several distinct games.

Playing older edition, to me felt like playing D&D. In contrast playing late 2nd, 3rd feels like playing a GURPS lite game to me.

If I listed all the characteristics of OD&D versus the latest GURPS 4th edition I feel that 3rd edition and 4th edition would fall a lot closer to the GURPS end of the spectrum than the OD&D end.

I will say that from the sounds of it that 4th edition is not the type of GURPS game I would run. But that is a separate issue.

I brought up "D&D is whatever WoTC defines at" because for a large number of gamers, perhaps the majority of gamers, D&D IS 3rd Edition. It is pretty much all they known with exception of the Power & Option era of 2nd Edition serving as the paleo 3rd Edition in the same way OD&D+Greyhawk served as the paleo-AD&D.

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

Which will make 4th edition transition interesting because  unlike the doubts about OSRIC there is a clear cut legal to publish version of the older edition.

I also wonder of how much of a break 4th edition is going to be. Is is going really be a different D&D? Or feel more like somebody's heavily house-ruled 3rd edition game.

Perhaps people are confusing the organization, writing, and presentation of rules with the actual game rules themselves in terms of evolving games.

I thought of this the other day when I bought copies of 1st AD&D in the original covers. I decided to make characters up and was flipping between the Player's Handbook and the DM's Guide a lot and within the books as well. I thought "Man this sucks" especially compared to the Castles & Crusade game I ran in 2007. I found myself wishing I had the OSRIC pdf printed out.

So the physical presentation of the game can evolve to something better as we learn the best way to present all the information in an RPG. But James M is right in that as for the game itself.

I think the question is:  if it wasn't based on the name on the book, would people still recognize their new game as "D&D"?  Would it be more recognizable as D&D than other fantasy themed game like World of Warcraft, Warhammer, Gurps, Palladium, etc?

If 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?

Quote from: Ian Absentia

QuoteQuestion for the peanut gallery: Suppose Wizards put a big "D&D" stamp on a bar of soap and declared "There it is! This is the new D&D!"

Or at least the latest recommended playing aid. :haw:

!i!

I'd want a rope for mine, thanks.

Hmmm...

D&D4 will incorporate 'MMOish' elements because, regardless of whether these are objectively better or worse, they are more likely to sell in the current market.

D&D4 introduces simplified, streamlined or otherwise 'dumbed down' rules for certain things (e.g. skills) when compared with D&D3 because, regardless of whether these are objectively better or worse, they are more likely to sell in the current market.

D&D4 introduces several gothy/emo elements in the core rules (Tieflings, warlocks, etc) because, regardless of whether these are objectively better or worse, they are ore likely to sell in the current market.

I could go on, but that sounds about as close to evolution as we are going to get from a commercially designed product. I'd like to heard someone explain how that sort of thing doesn't equate to evolution in manner suggested by the OP.

Also...

Someone in the past few pages mentioned a generational divide between those who are pro and those who are anti 4E (apologies if I've mischaracterised that argument, and I can't find the specific comment). I've seen that suggestion thrown about without much support in several other places too.

Some time before Christmas (so this many have changed as more information has reached us) someone made the same claim on RPGnet. The results of a quick straw poll (so take this with a pinch of salt) suggested that in many cases the older gamers were more positive about the change, and the yuonger guys were more inclined to oppose it. The suggestion was made that once you've seen a few new editions they don't scare you as much, while those who largely grew up on 3E are scared of the change.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

The alternative suggestion was that politics and/or income might also be a factor. Those with more left wing political views tended to be more anti corporate changes to make money, and those with little disposable income didn't like the cost element inherent in upgrading. Conversely, those with a more capitalist attitude didn't blame WotC, and those with more disposable income weren't worried about buying new books.

Again, does this sound remotely reasonable, or is there no basis for that suspicion?

Quote from: Trevelyan"they are more likely to sell in the current market. "

How do you know that's true?  If I add MMORPG elements, dumb down, or goth and emo up other products will they also more likely to sell in the current market?

Quote from: Trevelyanolder gamers were more positive about the change, and the yuonger guys were more inclined to oppose it

Could be this:

"You know... kids today, they like that MMORPG stuff.  They're not as sophisticated, so it'll need to be dumbed down.  Full of that Goth and Emo stuff.  It's not for me, but the kids they'll just LOVE it."

;)

Quote from: StuartHow do you know that's true?  If I add MMORPG elements, dumb down, or goth and emo up other products will they also more likely to sell in the current market?

I don't know that the changes will sell, and I'm not sure that I fully subscribe to the 'MMOification of D&D' argument anyway, but whenever those accusations are made, it's with the assertion that these changes are being made to sell the game to the modern teenie consumer. If those elements are included by design then surely the intent is to 'evolve' the game. All that remains to be seen is whether the 'mutations' are 'adaptive' to the current market.

Quote"You know... kids today, they like that MMORPG stuff.  They're not as sophisticated, so it'll need to be dumbed down.  Full of that Goth and Emo stuff.  It's not for me, but the kids they'll just LOVE it."

;)

I've seen that for some people, but the older guys on RPGnet who replied positively in that thread were clear that they intended to play 4E themselves. It might also depend on where you draw the generation line, of course, but I'm talking predominantly about the 30+, married-with-young-kids types (assuming accurate information was given, and personally I have neither a wife nor kids, so that profile didn't fit every respondant).

Quote from: Stuart"Hey, look it's a copy of Brown Box D&D!  Oopgiloo! Oopgiloo!"
"Why? That game's a MARP! Marp! Marp! Marp!"
"I don't know guys, I think it's a Gilp. Gilp! Gilp! Gilp!"

Dude, this reads like a transcript of Sons of Kryos.

Except whenever one guy mentions a MARP, the other guy would go "oooOOOoohh!"

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

Although it would be a stretch to call Thousand Suns a significant rival to D&D, it's a lot more probable that D&D is a significant rival to Thousand Suns.

I think Seanchai's point has merit. James might be seen by some as an author badmouthing a rival. But I find James interesting and nothing says the impact of him sharing his opinion might not have the opposite effect and create a positive vibe for some potential consumers.

James! Pleas elucidate!

Quote from: Goblinoid GamesWell, if we locked OD&D in a room with D&D 4e, and got them to mate, would they produce fertile offspring? :D

That is actually exactly the line of reasoning that I wanted to explore.  How?

If you take a 1st Edition AD&D character and run them through a 2nd Edition AD&D module, much of it will work as-is so you are dealing with variants of the same game.  If you try to use an OD&D module with AD&D rules, it will generally work, so they are close.  So we're talking about the same species here, or at least two species close enough to produce offspring, even if the offspring aren't fertile.Now, using the 3e rules, characters, or adventures with components of earlier editions requires a more substantial level of conversion and adaption.  But you can use the basic structure and features of characters and adventures from earlier editions, even if you have to do some reworking.  So D&D 3e is clearly a different species than the earlier editions.  It has some commonalities but it's a different beast.

So I think the important question to ask is how compatible 4E will be with 3e or earlier editions.  Will you be able to use 3e adventures and characters pretty much as-is?  Will you be able to use a module like Keep on the Borderlands to run a 4E game, perhaps with reworked monsters, and have it work as planned?

So far, the suggestion that people adopting 4E will have to ditch their 3e (or earlier) campaigns and characters and should start over.  That suggests that 4E is going to be as different from 3e and earlier editions as 3e was from AD&D and OD&D, if not more-so.  So at what point are we not only dealing with a different species but a different order of games?

It's not merely a suggestion.  Several WOTC employees playing the new edition in-house flat-out said that this is required.

Quote from: StuartHow do you know that's true?  If I add MMORPG elements, dumb down, or goth and emo up other products will they also more likely to sell in the current market?

How does nature know that a mutation is going to be adaptive or maladaptive?  It doesn't until it's tested against its environment.  The difference, if you want to nit-pick the analogy, is that the designer is trying to anticipate what might succeed while random mutations don't.  There is no guarantee that their predictions will be right, though.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerIt's not merely a suggestion.  Several WOTC employees playing the new edition in-house flat-out said that this is required.

But the actual thrust of the adventure/campaign? Basically drop in new stat blocks seemed to work well with 1e/2e to 3e.  Whether such a thing constitutes a mule or not is left as a futile exersize to self-loathing readers.

Quote from: blakkieBut the actual thrust of the adventure/campaign? Basically drop in new stat blocks seemed to work well with 1e/2e to 3e.  Whether such a thing constitutes a mule or not is left as a futile exersize to self-loathing readers.

Correct.  But there are hints that it will be even more difficult with 4e because the entire way encounters are structured, the roles of the characters in the party, and the balance between characters and encounters at various power levels will all change substantially in 4e.  

Yes, 3e required some new stat blocks and maybe some rebalancing of encounters to convert a module.  How much will a person have to change to run it in 4E and at what point does it stop being D&D?  One can convert a D&D module GURPS but the effort requires simply emphasizes the fact that GURPS isn't D&D.  Clearly, D&D 3e was more different from earlier editions than they were from each other but is 4e going to be about as different from 3e as 3e was to earlier editions or is it going to be a lot more different like GURPS is.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But there are hints that it will be even more difficult with 4e because the entire way encounters are structured, the roles of the characters in the party, and the balance between characters and encounters at various power levels will all change substantially in 4e.  

Yes, 3e required some new stat blocks and maybe some rebalancing of encounters to convert a module.  How much will a person have to change to run it in 4E and at what point does it stop being D&D?  One can convert a D&D module GURPS but the effort requires simply emphasizes the fact that GURPS isn't D&D.  Clearly, D&D 3e was more different from earlier editions than they were from each other but is 4e going to be about as different from 3e as 3e was to earlier editions or is it going to be a lot more different like GURPS is.

So far it looks to me like a smaller step than 2e->3e (you don't get total rethinking of AC numbers, attacks, saving throws like there was with that step) but a bit bigger step than 1e->2e.  Not much bigger though, mostly re-orging stuff within the classes that means you rebuild the character sheet in the spirit of the old (so sorry if you've got a Gnome, you'll have to home-roll until someone bring out the Gnome later in the year). Yeah there is this new type of trap but that's an optional addition to the dungeon toolkit, not a substitution/replacement.

You'll have a bit of power shuffle with the levels. But 2e to 3e was a pretty big change there, I don't think you'll see quite as much here.

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

I thought of that when I wrote my post, but...eh. Whether he's #2 or #32, commenting on a public forum about what a competitor is doing wrong with his product generally tends to make the publisher doing the commenting look...well, like it's sour grapes, that he's arrogant, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: blakkieSo far it looks to me like a smaller step than 2e->3e (you don't get total rethinking of AC numbers, attacks, saving throws like there was with that step) but a bit bigger step than 1e->2e.  Not much bigger though, mostly re-orging stuff within the classes that means you rebuild the character sheet in the spirit of the old (so sorry if you've got a Gnome, you'll have to home-roll until someone bring out the Gnome later in the year). Yeah there is this new type of trap but that's an optional addition to the dungeon toolkit, not a substitution/replacement.

Yeah, you'll have a bit of power shuffle with the levels. But 2e to 3e was a pretty big change there, I don't think you'll see quite as much here.

Perhaps this is where the disagreement arises (and why seeing James M's viewpoint would have been interesting to me, anyway) - a difference of opinion as to how much it differs.

I look at something like Living Greyhawk - and they decided it was way too much to convert.  Now they had the experience of going, IIRC, from 2e to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.5 and the sense was this was at least as major an undertaking. That seems to me to be a pretty significant indicator of how much of a change is coming. There are a cumulative set of little things that, taken together, seem to be pretty large to me, but may seem meaningless to someone else. And then you take into account J Arcane's entry point issue, and you're all over the board on how much it seems a change to each person.

To John's point, there's no question the game is changing - identifying in exactly what ways could help determine, for different people, how much 4e is still D&D. Towards that end, I propose two Kingdom's of change - Setting and Rule, and within each a Phylum of Conceptual and Mechanical. For example, going from THAC0 to the current system (10 + Armor versus Roll + BAB + modifiers) was a Rule change that was a significant [/I]conceptual[/I] change, but not a significant mechanical change.

Quote from: SeanchaiI thought of that when I wrote my post, but...eh. Whether he's #2 or #32, commenting on a public forum about what a competitor is doing wrong with his product generally tends to make the publisher doing the commenting look...well, like it's sour grapes, that he's arrogant, etc..

Are you OK? Have you fallen, bumped your head, and forgotten where you are? :haw:  This place is wall to wall with that. With comments on competitors that are a lot closer in scale.

Although maybe I haven't been taking enough notice of that. *shrug*

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think Seanchai's point has merit. James might be seen by some as an author badmouthing a rival. But I find James interesting and nothing says the impact of him sharing his opinion might not have the opposite effect and create a positive vibe for some potential consumers.

Yeah. Some folks won't care. For example, I, personally, will buy GMS' products if I think they're interesting despite thinking he's an arrogant, clueless blowhard. What the company and its representatives say matters more to others, to the point where they say they'll boycott the company or raise a stink.

And since the Internet is forever...

Seanchai

Quote from: John MorrowThe difference, if you want to nit-pick the analogy, is that the designer is trying to anticipate what might succeed while random mutations don't.  There is no guarantee that their predictions will be right, though.

Using the above quote as a jumping off point, another element of our sense of "evolution" is continuity. Perhaps one thing that rankles about 3e and now even more 4e is that the process is seemingly top-down and anti-democratic, "creationist" if you will, compared to the development of earlier editions and even other games. In those, you had incremental rules changes introduced both by publisher & fans, then tested by the widespread community, incorporated in the culture, and then eventually rolled up into a new benchmark edition.

Quote from: James J SkachI look at something like Living Greyhawk - and they decided it was way too much to convert.  Now they had the experience of going, IIRC, from 2e to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.5 and the sense was this was at least as major an undertaking.

You do not remember correctly. Living Greyhaw started with 3e. And trying to steer that ship through anything other than minor bits would be madness. I remember it took them months to sift through and OK which Sword & Fist feats to allow, and that's just adding them. Trying to 'reimagine' characters, even when the classes do basically the same task? With all those certs? On a system that people haven't played with yet so don't understand? Aieeeeeeee.

I remember that at the start of Living Greyhawk when the regions were being set up there were people that didn't understand how the rules would function. One region started out with a slough of undead based adventures because they had this fear of the Rogue's SA, they thought it was going to be all unbalanced (or didn't like that it wasn't the PITA to use/adjudicate Backstab) so they basically tried to backdoor changing the rules.

In my region the S&M pricks running the show (several hundred miles away incidentally) decided they wanted death to be permanent. So they contrived this "nobody in our region believes Divine magic comes from gods, so there are no clerics high enough to cast Raise Dead". Now imagine such irrational and/or unfounded fears unleashed, or players that don't yet understand the system being told their new character is 'X'.

You don't need much change to turn a Living campaign into a vast clusterbang of hate email.

QuoteFor example, going from THAC0 to the current system (10 + Armor versus Roll + BAB + modifiers) was a Rule change that was a significant [/I]conceptual[/I] change, but not a significant mechanical change.

So far I'm actually seeing not so much conceptual change outside this 'dangerous environment in combat'. And perhaps more fluid Skill use (but that's only hinted at so far, outside of seeing a reduced Skill list and less granularity in the level of individual Skills).

Quote from: blakkieYou do not remember correctly. Living Greyhaw started with 3e. And trying to steer that ship through anything other than minor bits would be madness. I remember it took them months to sift through and OK which Sword & Fist feats to allow, and that's just adding them. Trying to 'reimagine' characters, even when the classes do basically the same task? With all those certs? On a system that people haven't played with yet so don't understand? Aieeeeeeee.

My apologies, I was mixing Living City and Living Greyhawk.  Though this article (http://odrysius.multiply.com/journal/item/92) shows why...Living City players did vote to convert from 2e to 3e and it was no small headache - admittedly not necessarily only for 2e to 3e reasons...

I was mixing them up because the topic is being bandied about in various RPGA/LG Yahoo Groups, for obvious reasons. And I recall that people were talking about the huge shift it was just to go from 3.0 to 3.5.

From my limited exposure to Living Greyhawk, I think they did a pretty damn good job of running a campaign. But that's the RPGA - directly answerable to Wizards - and as I said, even they decided it would be too difficult, for both rules and non-rules reasons, to do a conversion from 3.5 to 4e.

Quote from: James J SkachMy apologies, I was mixing Living City and Living Greyhawk.  Though this article (http://odrysius.multiply.com/journal/item/92) shows why...Living City players did vote to convert from 2e to 3e and it was no small headache - admittedly not necessarily only for 2e to 3e reasons...

I was mixing them up because the topic is being bandied about in various RPGA/LG Yahoo Groups, for obvious reasons. And I recall that people were talking about the huge shift it was just to go from 3.0 to 3.5.

From my limited exposure to Living Greyhawk, I think they did a pretty damn good job of running a campaign. But that's the RPGA - directly answerable to Wizards - and as I said, even they decided it would be too difficult, for both rules and non-rules reasons, to do a conversion from 3.5 to 4e.

LG Eventually got (most of) it right, but there were pockets of people who really saw it as their private gaming club and treated their regions like personal fiefdoms. That attitude has now been noted and identified as a bad thing.

For me the tipping point was the Kobold controversy. That was what got me to apply. And I bet the kobold controversy has a lot to do with why LG was dropped in favor LFR.

What the kobold controversy was- in short, the last hurrah of the folks who wanted to see the RPGA as a private club, rather than as an inclusive promotional organization.  

By last year, the RPGA had found it's place as an organized fan club for general players of D&D. LG was hands-down the most popular campaign at conventions..ever. And we had an organized way to serve  content up to players, and even allow them to run games at home. In fact, you can even run your general D&D campaign at home, and 'report it' and get RPGA points, (which eventually gets you free stuff).

 That was the real goal... and it more or less got there in certain areas of the country. And WOTC in turn was using the RPGA as a channel for promotion, as they should have been doing all along.

Well, last year, they produced a rewards card that allowed certain people to use the kobold as a playable character race in LG. This card was a promotional item for Races of the Dragon.

In some places, a few local RPGA warlords decided they would not allow it in their region, or they would make it so restrictive that anyone who dared use it would be very very sorry. They were confused, because they actually thought they had the right to do this. This was like a case of federalism vs states rights, but the states in this case were abusing the rights of the citizens.

So the kobold controversy wasn't really about kobolds at all, but about what the RPGA actually stood for and was meant to do.

Anyhow, finally WOTC had to flex its muscle, emails were sent, private conferences held, and a week or two later, the areas that tried to ban the card had reversed their decisions.

Ok, so the end of the story: nobody is confused any more about who is running the RPGA.

Now personally, I'm glad. I loved LG, but I'm ready for the sunset. I think a lot of people who had risen to important positions in their various regions in LG need to be gone. I think a few people were and are confused about who they are working for, and they were confused about their relationship to the players. LFR will not be like that.

The truth is, most people who come to the RPGA are really just looking for a way to play the game they bought (and not the expurgated/filtered/house-ruled version, but the actual game) with a large group of new people.  Thats it, and thats all it is. They don't really care about the RPGA, and that's totally fine. A general guy that wants to play D&D--thats the target audience, as far as I'm concerned. I see the RPGA as possibly holding the key component for a new type of organized fandom and I look forward to taking part in shaping the new era.

Quote from: jrientsSuppose Wizards put a big "D&D" stamp on a bar of soap and declared "There it is!  This is the new D&D!"  

That'd work wonders for the gamer funk that cloyingly lingers throughout Origins and Gen Con.

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?

I think that's a very valid point. I should ask one of my friends who only played AD&D 1e to sit in on a 4th edition D&D game, but tell him it's the new Palladium or something. It'd require a lot of photocopying so there was no books, but I wonder if he's recognize the game ad D&D. Interesting point you've brought up, Stuart.


I can't believe the OP is still gone. Someone punch him in the stomach to make his balls descend so he can come back and play in the sandbox with the rest of us.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: James J SkachMy apologies, I was mixing Living City and Living Greyhawk.  Though this article (http://odrysius.multiply.com/journal/item/92) shows why...Living City players did vote to convert from 2e to 3e and it was no small headache - admittedly not necessarily only for 2e to 3e reasons...

No small headache is quite the understatement. "It would prove to be incredibly daunting and helped to speed the campaign's decline."  "It was a logistical behemoth." In short a VERY bad idea that the RPGA probably learned from.

QuoteI was mixing them up because the topic is being bandied about in various RPGA/LG Yahoo Groups, for obvious reasons. And I recall that people were talking about the huge shift it was just to go from 3.0 to 3.5.

Yeah, a tiny step in the rules (much smaller than 1e->2e) translates a huge shift for a, what, a 2 year-old Living campaign?  Now 7ish years in?

Quote from: blakkieNo small headache is quite the understatement. "It would prove to be incredibly daunting and helped to speed the campaign's decline."  "It was a logistical behemoth." In short a VERY bad idea that the RPGA probably learned from.

So 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.

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 (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.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou cannot deny that Sorcerer or AD&D1e are much admired these days, but rarely played.

I'll deny it.

Sorcerer is often said to be a good game by those who actually play it, but confusing and ill-explained by those just reading it.

My perception of AD&D1e's reputation is that it's considered old and disorganized and uselessly outdated... except by the people actually playing it.

I don't know that my view is any more valid than yours, but it's certainly no slam-dunk "you cannot deny."

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.

It's possible you're looking in places where that's the case.  I haven't seen any discussion of Sorcerer in a long time.  The only place I see any real AD&D1e discussion is Dragonsfoot or Jeff Rients blog.  In both cases I have no reason to believe those folk aren't playing it.

I definitely haven't seen anything that makes me think they're discussed much in excess of how often they're played.

And if you accept the figures WotC puts out about total #s of gamers, then the vast majority of them aren't posting on internet forums, and you have no idea what games they're playing... or talking about.

I'm talking also about gamers I know personally, or secondhand through interactions offline.

Last year, for example, I gamed with 14 different people. I met and discussed gaming with another dozen or so, and through both groups heard at length about another two dozen gamers. Previous years have similar numbers for me. It ain't scientific, but then neither is Uncle Ronny's anecdotal experience and he built a whole game theory, reputation and forum on it - whereas I'm just trying to describe my experiences in general terms, descriptive rather than prescriptive.

The ones who admire the indie games - apart from that one Burning Wheel group - just can't seem to get a game group together and keep it. They either actively scorn gamers generally as being ignorant fools, or they get a group together but then bombard them with Premise and Creative Agendas and Beliefs and so on and drive them away.

Notably, the Burning Wheel group is a very well-established group of three people, who also played over 150 sessions of Hackmaster, God knows how many of Cthulhu, several of Mage, and so on. They're also close friends outside gaming, sharing experiences of first children and so on. When you've a very well-established group of players who are close friends, I think it's a bit easier to try different sorts of games.

Most game groups I've seen are rather newer and looser than that.

The one who admire the excrutiatingly-detailed settings, the Tekumels and so on, they seem more intent on collecting books and planning the One True Perfect Campaign than playing anything.

I'd love to see more descriptions of play experiences for all these less-played games. There are a few - like Jorune - I wish I was playing myself. In my case, I set Jorune aside as a prospect for GMing because I think the true enjoyment of a very detailed setting comes when players are very into it - and because of the sorts of people I get along well with and therefore game with, I rarely get players who are going to read or listen to, remember and enjoy all that detail.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm talking also about gamers I know personally, or secondhand through interactions offline.

The problem with anecdotal evidence in this hobby is that two people can have wildly different experiences even when they've played with dozens or even hundreds of gamers, depending on the social circles that they move in, how they meet other gamers, and the games that they play.  That doesn't mean that your experience doesn't reflect the norm, but in the absence of more objective polling data and the presence of wildly conflicting experiences, it's difficult to tell who really represents the norm.

I already made the disclaimer about its being anecdotal experience - it's not perfect and scientific, but then neither is that of people making far grander and far-reaching claims than I do, and anyway we're just idly chatting about rpgs in a discussion forum which may disappear tomorrow, not writing doctoral theses, so I think we can be held to rather lower standards of proof.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI already made the disclaimer about its being anecdotal experience - it's not perfect and scientific, but then neither is that of people making far grander and far-reaching claims than I do, and anyway we're just idly chatting about rpgs in a discussion forum which may disappear tomorrow, not writing doctoral theses, so I think we can be held to rather lower standards of proof.

I'm not asking for proof and I'm not singling you out for this criticism.  I am simply commenting on the limited value of such anecdotal experience in this particular hobby because people rarely believe anecdotal experience that conflicts with their own anecdotal experience.  Basically, your anecdotal evidence will be convincing to someone who has similar experiences but probably not so convincing for someone with very different experiences, as several of the replies to you bear out.  That's why I tend to focus on sales as a form of success, because it's the best measure that we have in the absence of polling, though that doesn't distinguish between the games that are bought and read vs. the games that are bought and played, an important distinction to determine if a game is MARP or not.

QuoteWhereas 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.

Well, you can't leave the punters hanging like that, Kyle. Now you'll have to play in a game of Sorcerer (or HQ), run by me. Hear that, RPG Site? It's a challenge.

If I was your friend — as opposed to a guy I know vaguely — we wouldn't have any problems. The thing is, I ain't. I don't even know if I like you.

Time's short when you're working and have a family. Time's definitely too short at my age to be spending it (week after week after week) with people who aren't my kind of people. Doesn't make any of them bad people (maybe I'm the bad one), it just means they're not my people.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm talking also about gamers I know personally, or secondhand through interactions offline.

Last year, for example, I gamed with 14 different people. I met and discussed gaming with another dozen or so, and through both groups heard at length about another two dozen gamers. Previous years have similar numbers for me. It ain't scientific, but then neither is Uncle Ronny's anecdotal experience and he built a whole game theory, reputation and forum on it - whereas I'm just trying to describe my experiences in general terms, descriptive rather than prescriptive.

The ones who admire the indie games - apart from that one Burning Wheel group - just can't seem to get a game group together and keep it. They either actively scorn gamers generally as being ignorant fools, or they get a group together but then bombard them with Premise and Creative Agendas and Beliefs and so on and drive them away.

Notably, the Burning Wheel group is a very well-established group of three people, who also played over 150 sessions of Hackmaster, God knows how many of Cthulhu, several of Mage, and so on. They're also close friends outside gaming, sharing experiences of first children and so on. When you've a very well-established group of players who are close friends, I think it's a bit easier to try different sorts of games.

Most game groups I've seen are rather newer and looser than that.

The one who admire the excrutiatingly-detailed settings, the Tekumels and so on, they seem more intent on collecting books and planning the One True Perfect Campaign than playing anything.

I'd love to see more descriptions of play experiences for all these less-played games. There are a few - like Jorune - I wish I was playing myself. In my case, I set Jorune aside as a prospect for GMing because I think the true enjoyment of a very detailed setting comes when players are very into it - and because of the sorts of people I get along well with and therefore game with, I rarely get players who are going to read or listen to, remember and enjoy all that detail.

Kyle, I don't want to pile on you or anything, but I find this time you are talking completely out of your ass :P

This last saturday, I went to my gamers' reunion. Some of these people I had not seen for 14 to 17 years. I also had news thanks to them of other gamers that I know but could not attend and are now based in Ottawa, London, France and Oregon.

I can tell you very detailed game/settings like Harn/Harnmaster are still played, not just admired. If Traveller counts, you can add that as well. If Ars Magica tied to Mage: The Ascension counts, you can also add that.

AD&D1e? It is still VERY MUCH played around here. Not just discussed in nostalgia. I myself played in several campaigns just last year and discussed it. I'm not talking about a single isolated DM either. I see those old hardcovers all the time and there's a lot of AD&D1e being played, as well as other popular games (lots of GURPS 3e, D&D3, WoD, Warhammer, etc...)

Maybe it's because I started playing over a quarter of a century ago (and thus know a lot of old time gamers ) but my anecdotal experience seems to differ from yours. At the very least, I think it is unwise to make claims based on forums you frequent against your local gaming circle.  

And of course, in my case, I introduce all the other fringe games, indie or not. So CORPS, Story Engine, BESM, QAGS, Kult, Over The Edge as well as a crapload of indie games like Primetime Adventures and The Mountain Witch are introduced either by me or through my recommendations. And they are all played at least a few times.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm just trying to describe my experiences in general terms, descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Unlike other forms of analysis, there's no way for someone to use this to either make better games, select games they're more likely to enjoy, or find ways to enjoy the games they're already playing even more.  It's only purpose is as a obscure derogatory comment.

Quote from: Kyle AaronLast year, for example, I gamed with 14 different people. I met and discussed gaming with another dozen or so, and through both groups heard at length about another two dozen gamers.

The Internet and RPG Discussion Forums is an International community.  You're seeing discussion about games on the International level, and comparing that to what you're personally seeing on the Local / Regional level.

Online I see a lot of mentions of GURPS, Exalted, and Rifts -- but I don't see people around here playing those games.  I do see lots of groups playing Serenity, All Flesh Must Be Eaten and Legends of the Five Rings.  All that means is that, just like film, tv, books, clothes, music, or whatever else, different areas can have variations in the type of things that area popular.

What you're describing isn't "much admired and rarely played" it's "much admired and rarely played In Kyle's Area:

Marpika

Which makes me think of some new girl at your school who you're being mean to and making up gossip about.

"Did you hear about Marpika?!  She thinks she's so cool, but I don't think she has any friends.  Who'd want to hang out with her anyway?  Let's go write things about her on the bathroom walls."

Please channel your energies into something positive, like Cheetoism, rather than picking on poor Marpika.

I have just been reading round on RPG.net and I think they are on the whole getting the game they deserve :-)

Quote from: Kyle AaronYeah, 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 could be OK with Harn the world. I'd just avoid the world hoping ability of the Godstones, it seemed like an excuse to play a different game....if I wanted to do that I'd just play a different game.  But I was completely underwhelmed with the system. Among other things the combat could just drag on and on.