Quote from: HalfjackI think Levi meant chess, which is almost totally devoid of narrative.  Just maneuver and slaughter, non-stop.  Stupid game really.

It's certainly not the "metaphor for war" it's cracked up to be.  I mean, in a game of Kings, Queens, Bishops, Knights - and you can't get a gmae of political intrigue?  WTF is with that rule set anyway?

I think poeple just keep playing even when they aren't having fun anymore - just because dad played chess, now I have to?

You mean, you guys are then surprised when people take offense at that; that you can't understand why people would get upset when you tell them not only is the game they are playing a steaming pile of shit, but that you think less of them because they play it?

Wow...imagine that..

Quote from: James J SkachYou mean, you guys are then surprised when people take offense at that; that you can't understand why people would get upset when you tell them not only is the game they are playing a steaming pile of shit, but that you think less of them because they play it?

Wow...imagine that..

And thus, dear James, why I say there's absolutely such a thing as pretentious assholes.  

Quote from: walkerpBut that doesn't mean I can't say, "that dude really doesn't know what good bourbon is.  He's missing out."
...
But still, if you consider something not as good as something else, to my mind it is perfectly acceptable to consider that people using the not as good thing could be better off trying the better thing.

It's funny, that's remarkably similar to what the other fellow just did.  You wrap up your post by pretending that what you're talking about is thinking someone could be happier, rather than knocking on other people for their tastes.

QuoteI kind of agree with Tyberius.  Not that D&D is a steaming pile of shit, but that he  should be allowed to be critical of people who play something he has no respect for.

Allowed?  I couldn't stop him if I wanted to.  But I certainly look down on him for it.  It shows a lack of maturity.

Quote from: James J SkachYou mean, you guys are then surprised when people take offense at that; that you can't understand why people would get upset when you tell them not only is the game they are playing a steaming pile of shit, but that you think less of them because they play it?

Firstly, I said the example I was using was being deliberately extreme.  And secondly, I (usually) don't tell people that I think the game they are playing is a steaming pile of shit.  Either I try to be diplomatic or I keep my opinions to myself.  Unless they are playing Rifts.
 
But the example I gave can be applied to a whole bunch of scenarios.  And which side of the fence you sit on will simply be a matter of the individual scenario.  What if you met gamers who said their favourite games where SenZaar and Synnibaar?  Not extreme enough for you?  What if their favourite game was FATAL?  Y'know, the game with rules for rape, complete with charts for anal circumference and penis size.
 
What about someone who likes to play RaHoWa?  Would you look down on them?  Would you dare to be so condescending and call their game a steaming pile of shit?  I sure hope so.

Quote from: hgjsAllowed? I couldn't stop him if I wanted to. But I certainly look down on him for it. It shows a lack of maturity.

A few weeks ago there was a news report about this New Zealand guy that stapled his dick to a piece of wood and then set it on fire in order to win $500.
 
Would it be immature of me to look down on such behaviour?

This is kind of getting into the post-modern subjectivity argument.

But yes, I would expect someone to be offended if I told them their choice of game or bourbon was inferior.  But not if I said "want to try something even better than that?"

even better?

Now d20 is equivalent to stapling your penis to someting and setting it on fire?

Yeah...umm...you could actually be the first person on my IL...and I'm not even mad at you.  I just think it's hopeless to discuss anything with you because you're - to steal your own phrase - "close minded."

TF - I don't know those games, and I'm not condoning pretend rape, but it's hard to comment without knowing...but offhand, no, I wouldn't look down on them.

It's not some post-modernist subjectivity thingie - If people are doing things to have fun and don't hurt other people in the process, I'm kinda kive and let live...

Quote from: James J SkachYeah...umm...you could actually be the first person on my IL...and I'm not even mad at you. I just think it's hopeless to discuss anything with you because you're - to steal your own phrase - "close minded."

Would it help if I told you that I played D&D (mostly very happily) for 15+ years?  And that I have an extensive collection of D&D/d20 products?  And while I haven't played D&D for a couple of years now, I have also publicly stated I'd go back to D&D for the right sort of campaign.
 
I don't think I'm close minded.  I'm playing devil's advocate.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWould you dare to be so condescending and call their game a steaming pile of shit?  I sure hope so.

FATAL / RaHoWa are shit for an entirely differing set of reasons - and that is a set of reasons I am willing, even eager, to attack.

It's not because they're shit games.

It's because they're repulsive shit.  Period.  They would be even if they were not games.

Quote from: walkerpThe main reason D&D is succesful is market share.  The market share is based on something certainly, their powerful legacy, good production values, consistent product support.  That legacy and market share could have been blundered when Wizards took over, but they did a good job of 3.5 of creating a relatively consistent ruleset (at least at the beginning) that maintained (as Pundit says) the things that were precious to the fans.  However, the biggest single factor is still established market share and that will endure for a long time even if they did start totally screwing it up.

Popularity has never been an indicator of quality and it certainly isn't in the case of D&D.

Quote from: walkerpTrue enough.  If it were totally terrible, as some might argue 2nd edition was approaching (and almost did fail, though there were also extenuating management circumstances), it would probably be gone. However, there is a cost to entry to a new system (partially because the cost to entry into D&D is quite high, plus the good "fiddly bits being attractive to gamers" points that others have made, plus if you are playing in a D&D-based setting), so D&D has a built-in resistance to change.  Economists have some term for this but I forgot what it is.  Anyhow, it creates a significant inertia that makes it easier for Wizards to sell new splat books to its users than it does for some other company to come in and try and sell a whole new system and setting.

It's easy to switch from Burger King to McDonald's.  It's quite hard to go from Windows to Mac.  Roleplaying systems lie somewhere in between that.  That is very much to D&D's advantage.

This is the answer here. Microsoft is actually a better analogy. It's available in more places, it's what you are most likely to get exposed to by another player, and once you buy in there is a disincentive to "waste your money" by trying something else.

It isn't the system that makes D&D successful, because most players have never tried anything else.

It is about market share, buy-in costs and risk aversion, as can be seen in other countries where something other than D&D is dominant, in spite of direct competition with D&D.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWould it help if I told you that I played D&D (mostly very happily) for 15+ years?  And that I have an extensive collection of D&D/d20 products?  And while I haven't played D&D for a couple of years now, I have also publicly stated I'd go back to D&D for the right sort of campaign.
 
I don't think I'm close minded.  I'm playing devil's advocate.

Sorry for the misunderstanding TF, that portion was directed at walkerp..

Quote from: apparition13This is the answer here. Microsoft is actually a better analogy. It's available in more places, it's what you are most likely to get exposed to by another player, and once you buy in there is a disincentive to "waste your money" by trying something else.

It isn't the system that makes D&D successful, because most players have never tried anything else.

It is about market share, buy-in costs and risk aversion, as can be seen in other countries where something other than D&D is dominant, in spite of direct competition with D&D.

A buy in cost of...what...$100? That's a bit different from laying out $1,000 for a computer and OS and whatnot. And if you don't like D&D, what's the cost of changing? How much are the core books of another game? Borrowing or pooling to see if you like the game?

D&D is not successful because of buy-in costs...

Risk aversion? That all depends.  Do you mean avoiding the risk of wasting your precious time on learning/trying another game when you're happy with the one you've got? What's the risk you are avoiding?

D&D is not successful because of risk aversion...

Keep trying guys...someday you'll come to the realization that D&D is not successful because people are lazy or stupid or scared or close-minded.  It's because they like the fucking game and are happy with it's performance.

Then, when you realize that, you can realize that it's not for everyone - which is, amazingly enough, supported by a market of hundreds, if not thousands, of other relatively-low-buy-in-cost games and that there's probably a game for just about anyone that wants to find one.

And then you can realize that nobody's stupid or lazy or uniformed or otherwise mentally hindered for playing a game other than the one you think is the coolest thing in print.

Then we can all have a group hug and commence with the gaming...

It's a dream, but it's my dream...

The main disincentive that I have encountered is learning new rules.  Most people are interested in certain ideas but they don't want to spend the time learning a new set of rules.  You forget how much you internalize after years of playing D&D.  It is a pretty large set of rules, depending on how strictly you follow the combat rules.  For a lot of gamers who only play D&D, they see their time in learning those rules as a major investment and they aren't ready to do that all over again.  I have encountered that many times.

After you have learned your 3rd system, it becomes much easier to digest and understand any roleplaying system.  It's very much like spoken languages that way (though, obviously a lot easier).  So for those of us who have played several systems, we forget that work that goes into learning a new one, especially for players who tend to let their GM do all the work and just show up to play.

Quote from: walkerpThe main disincentive that I have encountered is learning new rules.  Most people are interested in certain ideas but they don't want to spend the time learning a new set of rules.  You forget how much you internalize after years of playing D&D.  It is a pretty large set of rules, depending on how strictly you follow the combat rules.  For a lot of gamers who only play D&D, they see their time in learning those rules as a major investment and they aren't ready to do that all over again.  I have encountered that many times.

After you have learned your 3rd system, it becomes much easier to digest and understand any roleplaying system.  It's very much like spoken languages that way (though, obviously a lot easier).  So for those of us who have played several systems, we forget that work that goes into learning a new one, especially for players who tend to let their GM do all the work and just show up to play.

This is so true. I know because I used to be one of those types, back in the days of AD&D 2e, when I had spent countless hours poring over books to get a handle on that mad patchwork of a system. I remember thinking that if other systems were similar, it would be a colossal waste of time and energy to learn them when I could make do with what I was already familiar with, despite its flaws. For years, I wouldn't touch a game that wasn't D&D. Plus, the market share and marketing power of D&D made other games seem like fringe copycats by comparison. It never occurred to me that I might not like D&D all that much on its own merits.

Fast forward several years to when, after an extended hiatus, I'm reintroduced to roleplaying through another game unrelated to D&D. It wasn't that hard to learn, and it did things D&D wasn't capable of, especially at the time. As my perspective broadened and I tried other systems and genres, I found that learning new games wasn't the chore I thought it would be. It's like learning a foreign language--after you've studied 3 or 4, it's really not such a big deal, but that 1st one sure is scary! I've since tried multiple systems and genres and found that while not everything is for me, still I've discovered a lot of great games I wouldn't have tried otherwise. And some of those came to be my favorites, while D&D isn't even in the top 5.