Quote from: Windjammer;456140Not my personal favourite by a long shot, but:

Taa taaaa!! Edition wars gave us 'Essentials'.

Venomous dislike of the 'new' core races? Check.
Vitriol over 'every class plays the same'? Check.
'Not enough flavour to accompany the mechanics'? Check.
'Martial dailys are dissociated mechanics'? Check.

These are the things which drew the most vitriol, the most hate. Mearls names every one of these, as points he wanted to address in Essentials. The interview ends with an outspoken olive branch to those disillusioned with 4E.

You really think that the 4E design team would have back paddled on so many of their key design stances if on- and offline reception of 4E had been anything short of vehemently divisive?

And 4E itself seemed like it was influenced by all the 3e balance/character optimization flame wars on the wizards board.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;456141And 4E itself seemed like it was influenced by all the 3e balance/character optimization flame wars on the wizards board.

Online feedback from customers has only become more important and easier to collect over the past decade. The visibility of forum comments - that they are read not just by a CSR but by other customers, the designers, etc. mean that they're more influential in aggregate than we often think.

CharOp in particular was a powerful board because it had developed a very well-defined consensus and set of norms for debate. It taught people how to operate within that consensus and those norms, and offered obvious rewards for doing so (more powerful characters in play). That lead to a lot of influence in the broader 3.x community, and treatment by WotC as representative of the concerns of that community (WotC used to put up job postings in Char Op asking for people to come and work checking the system for them).

Quote from: mhensleyAhhh... back in the good old days when DF was still entertaining. The really funny thing is that the whiny pussies who complained the most about the EW forum on DF were the ones who eventually left the board eventually to form the even more hardcore AD&D boards. Pandering to the extremists never helps your party.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;456133DF always (and wrongly) pitched itself as an "old school" forum.  I think DF did itself a disservice by trying to be a big-tent place.  Moreover, there was a time when saying "by the book" in the 1e forum would cause a dogpile.  "Well, I give xp for treasure by the book" followed by a parade of posts about how that was wrong, about how it should just be done to (other editions) standards, and so on.

I came - and stayed for a long stretch - to DF because there was a period when it was at least appearing to try to live up to the notion of "the home of 1e on the net".  Of course, in a "DF anniversary" thread it was just flat laid out that no, the founder(s) weren't really 1e guys at all but saying "the home of 1e" drew in a larger userbase.  You can call people who don't want to get hassled (constantly) for discussing one thing "whiny pussies" as you like.  I see people like you as having been the real problem.

Dragonsfoot is the home of 1e on the net (for better or for worse), and is also very much an "old school" forum. Only a handful of "uber-grogs" on the Internet think otherwise, and they're all inevitably members of the same crew, most of whom frequent your site, K&K, and a handful of other such smaller sites. Just because you, Axemental, Gene Weigel, and others took your balls, went home, and mostly left the site, doesn't mean that Dragonsfoot stopped being the home of 1e for everyone else. Just sayin'.

With the exception of the "General Discussion" area, the 1st edition subforum on dragonsfoot is larger than every other subforum on the site by a ridiculous order of magnitude. What you're projecting now is a remnant aspect of "sour grapes" from a decade ago, when you and the rest of your crew had conniption fits when the mods got fed up with the "uber-grogs" screaming about the "evils" of 3e in all of those posts back in the days when dragonsfoot's "Edition Wars" subforum existed. That's why you guys fled dragonsfoot, and created your own sister micro sites...where so many of you piteously ranted and raved about dragonsfoot, WoTC, and especially 3e for years. It's only within the past few years that you guys are finally getting that shit out of your system, and showing hints of calming the fuck down.

So...no. People like mhensley are not the "real problem" here. He's right about it being unwise to pander to the extremists, because that shit just drives people away. You are an extremist, so pandering to you would be a mistake, as guys like you don't grow the hobby, or even the 1e fan base. You shrink it by scaring people away. The only thing saving you guys is that you aren't quite the hardcore, foaming-at-the-mouth edition-purists that you used to be, and that might give you a shot at winning the hearts and minds of other gamers on the Internet.

Remember...playing "Gygaxier-than-thou" will never win you enough converts to your cause. It just makes people reject your position. I hope you figure that out someday...

And if you really want to win people over to 1e, tell us about your games! Adventure modules are great, but they are not enough. You need to post maps, random encounter tables, new characters, monsters, spells, magic items, equipment, and more. Make attempts to actually grow the system, and show us what we can do with it. Demonstrate to us how all this stuff applies in actual game play.

Furthermore, do not try to emulate the graphic design styles from 1979. Standards have changed since then, and no...that doesn't mean you suddenly have to add dungeon-punk or manga art in your product. It does mean, however, that you guys should try a little originality in a 1e/OSRIC product for once, and not to try to create a product that looks like it came out of a fucking time capsule from over 30 years ago.

Got it?

I like BX D&D, so I'm over at Dragonsfoot quite a lot. As far as edition wars go, I don't see much of a point to them unless they actually do influence the opinions of the designers (for the future). Maybe they do, maybe they don't. As for me personally, I think every edition of D&D has had its inborn quirks, but BX and BECMI fit much more closely to my tastes of how I like to play D&D. I'd rank 1e and 2e somewhere behind that, and 3e-4e a distant last. But i understand that's a personal preference, as some people seem to love 3e, 3.5e and 4e.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;456220And if you really want to win people over to 1e, tell us about your games! Adventure modules are great, but they are not enough. You need to post maps, random encounter tables, new characters, monsters, spells, magic items, equipment, and more. Make attempts to actually grow the system, and show us what we can do with it. Demonstrate to us how all this stuff applies in actual game play.

Furthermore, do not try to emulate the graphic design styles from 1979. Standards have changed since then, and no...that doesn't mean you suddenly have to add dungeon-punk or manga art in your product. It does mean, however, that you guys should try a little originality in a 1e/OSRIC product for once, and not to try to create a product that looks like it came out of a fucking time capsule from over 30 years ago.

Got it?

Leaving aside the whole part about your own frustrations about the "uber-grogs" and all that. To answer your question - "Got it?" - no, I don't. I don't want to pander to a prospective audience by fundamentally changing the game I want to share in the first place. For some people, the game as it is pre-UA is a great game. These people don't need to "grow the system" or all this sort of bullshit.

I'll agree with you that talking about actual games, sharing some stuff like encounter tables, new monsters and the like, stuff that add something to the system as it is rather than changing its premise dramatically, like the K&K aficionados actually do, as for instance in the case of Kellri's OSRIC documents, or the mass combat system Matthew's working on, is a benefit to spreading the love.

But the rest? The "grow the system" part, Unearthed Arcana style? Fuck that. You might welcome that, but I don't have to. I'm just as entitled to what I like and don't like as you are, mate. If you're melting a fuse because that rubs your sensibilities the wrong way, it's your own responsibility. Not mine.

PS: As for "growing the audience," none of this stuff matters. What matters is for people to actually run games with their friends, relatives, to go to the local store and run demos welcoming people who just want to try games. The hobby grows by actually playing the game with newbies. That has not changed in the past 35+ years.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;456144CharOp in particular was a powerful board because it had developed a very well-defined consensus and set of norms for debate. It taught people how to operate within that consensus and those norms, and offered obvious rewards for doing so (more powerful characters in play). That lead to a lot of influence in the broader 3.x community, and treatment by WotC as representative of the concerns of that community (WotC used to put up job postings in Char Op asking for people to come and work checking the system for them).

Which is, of course, problematic because CharOp isn't actually about optimizing characters. It's almost universally about optimizing characters for combat. It's a skewed view of how the game is played, but you can see its influence not only in the system design of 4E, but also adventure and setting design.

It's particularly problematic because it places the emphasis of the game on the area where it is arguably least competitive in the era of video games.

LOLs.

Or despair in humanity. But I feel that most days anyway so I'm not sure that counts.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;456133You can call people who don't want to get hassled (constantly) for discussing one thing "whiny pussies" as you like.  I see people like you as having been the real problem.

I don't think people should be hassled for discussing anything on a board.  I play all the editions so it seems rather dickish to me to outlaw the discussion of a particular edition on a gaming board.  Nobody forces anyone to read a thread about a game they don't have an interest in.  I still visit DF, but not nearly as much as I used to before they dropped the EW forum.

Quote from: mhensley;456241I play all the editions so it seems rather dickish to me to outlaw the discussion of a particular edition on a gaming board.  Nobody forces anyone to read a thread about a game they don't have an interest in.  I still visit DF, but not nearly as much as I used to before they dropped the EW forum.

Wait. That logic makes no sense whatsoever, to me.

Nobody forces anyone to use a particular forum.

When you use a message board, you are basically a guest of the owner of the site, who does with it however he pleases. It's not dickish to say "okay, dinner at my place, but please don't bring Coke. My wife hates this shit." After, if you're such a huge fan of Coke as to not be able to take a few hours at your friend's home without it, you're welcome not to come at all.

Honestly?

I really do hate D&D and WotC that much.

I try not to, I really do, I've spent endless hours trying to find a way to bridge the gap or make a D&D I can live with.  I've bought every edition of the game.  I've played every edition but the old white boxed set.

It'd be nice to be on the other side of the chasm with all those other people.

But I just don't like it.

Quote from: mhensley;456241I don't think people should be hassled for discussing anything on a board.  I play all the editions so it seems rather dickish to me to outlaw the discussion of a particular edition on a gaming board.  Nobody forces anyone to read a thread about a game they don't have an interest in.  I still visit DF, but not nearly as much as I used to before they dropped the EW forum.

I don't see that site owners "have to" do anything.  I despair when a site is advertised as one thing ("Home of 1e on the web!") when it isn't, but it's kind of ridiculous to go to a place that is decidedly organized and focused on one thing and demand they support something else.

I know, for example, Enworld is 3e and 4e focused (not totally, but it's where their prime aim is).  I don't demand they post up AD&D resources.  I don't insist they create space for AD&D discussion.  If they did, that's their prerogative.  On the other hand, if tomorrow they instituted a site policy of no pre-4e discussion, period...welp, it's their site innit?

But, again, they're not out there saying they're the number one 1e AD&D site on the web and then not holding to it.  Should a Pittsburgh Steelers forum have a mandatory Chicago Bears subforum?  Should a Chevy pickup truck owner's forum have a mandatory Ford truck owners forum?  No, they shouldn't, and it's ludicrous to say "...it's dickish to outlaw the discussion of a particular [thing]..."  In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Quote from: Benoist;456227Leaving aside the whole part about your own frustrations about the "uber-grogs" and all that. To answer your question - "Got it?" - no, I don't. I don't want to pander to a prospective audience by fundamentally changing the game I want to share in the first place. For some people, the game as it is pre-UA is a great game. These people don't need to "grow the system" or all this sort of bullshit.

I'll agree with you that talking about actual games, sharing some stuff like encounter tables, new monsters and the like, stuff that add something to the system as it is rather than changing its premise dramatically, like the K&K aficionados actually do, as for instance in the case of Kellri's OSRIC documents, or the mass combat system Matthew's working on, is a benefit to spreading the love.

Guess what? The "uber-grogs" are pandering anyway by using styles of graphic design straight out of 1979, but the problem here is that they're pandering to a small subset of the AD&D audience (only themselves), and that is a mistake. If they keep that up, they'll doom themselves to obscurity and hopeless mediocrity.

And sorry...about growing the system, I totally disagree. AD&D should be treated as a living, breathing game...and not as a cold, dusty museum piece....never to be tampered with, for fear of incurring the wrath of "ye Holy Gygax". And I'm not talking about some "planned obsolesence" bullshit. I'm talking about adding cool stuff that has practical applications in a person's campaign.

Quote from: BenoistBut the rest? The "grow the system" part, Unearthed Arcana style? Fuck that. You might welcome that, but I don't have to. I'm just as entitled to what I like and don't like as you are, mate. If you're melting a fuse because that rubs your sensibilities the wrong way, it's your own responsibility. Not mine.

Who's stopping you from liking what you like? I want you to focus on the stuff that you enjoy.  The thing is....life did go on in AD&Dland after Unearthed Arcana came out, though the uber-grogs loathe to admit it. And if they keep going apeshit about other people's fun, then the rest of gamerdom will happily go on without them.

Quote from: BenoistPS: As for "growing the audience," none of this stuff matters. What matters is for people to actually run games with their friends, relatives, to go to the local store and run demos welcoming people who just want to try games. The hobby grows by actually playing the game with newbies. That has not changed in the past 35+ years.

Correction. None of it matters....to you. Go to a place like K&K, and read the threads over the past several years. You'll see tons of discussions by the uber-grogs about growing the 1e audience, where they get positively spaztastic about it. I'm not making this shit up. And what you're suggesting doesn't really work on a large scale any more, at least not by itself. The AD&D audience is shrinking, not growing....and the grogs have only themselves to blame.

I feel compelled to mention something here, Benny. You're not really an edition purist or "one-wayist", or whatever. The guys I'm talking about are. Or at least they were, as they're not quite as virulent as they used to be...for which I'm thankful. I used to avoid getting into arguments with them to prevent a giant clusterfuck. Now...I don't know. Maybe it just doesn't matter any more, or maybe it never really did.

Quote from: David Johansen;456252Honestly?

I really do hate D&D and WotC that much.

I try not to, I really do, I've spent endless hours trying to find a way to bridge the gap or make a D&D I can live with.  I've bought every edition of the game.  I've played every edition but the old white boxed set.

It'd be nice to be on the other side of the chasm with all those other people.

But I just don't like it.

What do you hate about D&D and WoTC...specifically? If you don't mind me asking.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;456266Guess what? The "uber-grogs" are pandering anyway by using styles of graphic design straight out of 1979, but the problem here is that they're pandering to a small subset of the AD&D audience (only themselves), and that is a mistake. If they keep that up, they'll doom themselves to obscurity and hopeless mediocrity.

Perhaps this is entirely intentional.

Are they a group which wants to remain insular and "elitist" (even if it's just entirely in their own minds)?

Some genres of music seem to be very much like this, such as some very extreme forms of heavy metal.  In the minds of fans of such extreme metal bands, being insular and "elitist" is all a part of being in the "cool" or "exclusive" crowd.  When the fanbase consists of more and more casual (ie. non-hardcore) fans, the hardcore fans make more and more accusations of the bands "selling out" and turning into shit.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;456259But, again, they're not out there saying they're the number one 1e AD&D site on the web and then not holding to it.  Should a Pittsburgh Steelers forum have a mandatory Chicago Bears subforum?  Should a Chevy pickup truck owner's forum have a mandatory Ford truck owners forum?  No, they shouldn't, and it's ludicrous to say "...it's dickish to outlaw the discussion of a particular [thing]..."  In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Do you think Chevy sites ban threads mentioning Fords?  Would a Steelers board ban talk about the Bears?  The whole thing is silly and childish. It only serves to chase away people like me who do play all the editions.