Quote from: gamerGoyf;693349Yes people are talking about 5e because that's the no. 1 story in RPGs. It is a new edition of D&D after all that sort of a big deal. If we were halving this sort discussion in 2008 we'd see 4e a big slice of that pie too. 4e still failed. Fuck if "people talk about it a lot on the internet" was a metric for success why aren't we hailing the tremendous success of FATAL ;3

We're not concerned with what the current state of the discussion means for the long term success of 5e.  We're just noting that TCO is talking out of his ass.

Quote from: The Traveller;693345Except we aren't talking about having  barbecue. We're talking about playing a game. The beef patties and potato salad are how the attendees interact with the setting, and that happens through the rules, unless you're a dice rolling conversationalist with a penchant for the pulpit.

I have over the course of my life combed through hundreds or even thousands of different game systems (yes, there are that many out there) looking for useful ideas and pieces I could fit into my own framework, like some sort of lunatic mechanic building a luxury gilded zeppelin by sifting through the world's junkyards, plugging in some bits, melting down others for their raw components.

Does that make me a mathematical masturbator? A one true way onanist? Does the fact that I've played RPGs throughout and enjoyed the deeply social aspects of RPGs (again in which by the way they are not unique, every organised event includes quite a large number of people who are there for social reasons alone) balance this out on the scales of theorywank?

The frankly schizophrenic arguments that D&D appears to inspire at every turn shouldn't detract from the value that being aware of how game rules affect play brings to the table. And I do respect that people enjoy D&D, and certain styles of gameplay that I personally don't.

There's talking about rules, and thinking of new rules, and trying different mechanics, and such.  And then there is the statistical analysis of the game for optimal "builds" and insistence that RPGs need to support such WoW-like analysis.  The former is awesome, the latter is fun only within the constraints of a game that is, well, fun for that stuff.  I've done my fair share of WoW wonk and RPG system wonk, and I'm not immune to it.  But I've long since learned that such things have little to do with at-the-table play enjoyment.  I agree 100% that RPGs are not the medium for analysis wonks - such analysis is useless when a big chunk of the fun of a medium is house-ruling, not to mention subjectivity.  I had fun playing 4E, but after 18 months of doing so, my thoughts became, "why am I not just playing a video game?"

But of course we should talk about rules and mechanics in addition to fluff and characters and stories.  That's the brilliance of RPGs!

Quote from: Haffrung;693357No. It means in addition to the hobby of playing RPG games with people, you enjoy a related hobby of analyzing and tweaking game systems. There's even a certain amount of synergy between the two hobbies. Just not as much as some people think.

Maybe differentiate between the angry rulings not rules crowd who are usually the first to quote chapter, verse, grammatical style and punctuation of their favourite version of whatever, the D&D ragers, and the people who are primarily interested in delivering a better and occasionally new experience to their players.

It was, after all, the instincts of the latter which gave rise to the hobby in the first place.

Its funny that even though I liked 4e for what it was, I don't think I would tack the combat and tactics options onto Next. Next seems pretty nice the way it is in the latest playtest pack for me.

Of course, that is the nice thing about options!

Quote from: gamerGoyf;693349Yes people are talking about 5e because that's the no. 1 story in RPGs.

Wrong.  Two weeks ago they had a different result, and PF was the #1 topic in discussion.  So, people have RECENTLY started to talk about it, and that's not a sign of people giving up on it, now is it.  It's a trend indicating the opposite...that people are becoming more interested in it, not less.  People who give up on something talk about that thing less.

Quote from: Mistwell;693380Wrong.  Two weeks ago they had a different result, and PF was the #1 topic in discussion.  So, people have RECENTLY started to talk about it, and that's not a sign of people giving up on it, now is it.  It's a trend indicating the opposite...that people are becoming more interested in it, not less.  People who give up on something talk about that thing less.

Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;693395Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.

However, it does refute that people have given up on Next and moved on, which was TCO's contention and what the graphic was used to refute.

This is kind of funny though, a 4rry and a 3tard joining together against Next.

Quote from: Haffrung;693336I laughed out loud when I saw one of the most persistent anti-Next posters on the big purple admit that he had only played 4E a couple times. He was defending 4E and spouting hysterical comments in every thread about Next out of some sort of obsession with D&D as a theoretical model. It's bizarre. And hilarious. And sad.

Yeah, that was pretty funny. But then at least his username was apt.

QuoteOkay, let's see you 'build' an AD&D fighter. Go ahead. Pick a race. Roll some random attributes. Buy your shit. And then plot him out to 10th level. Try it. You'll find the number of mechanical power choices he has after character generation is zero.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Quote from: TristramEvans;693335Speaking as a Steve, I depend on Garys to game.

Same here.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;693395Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.

Dude your goalposts are moving so fast, they have redshift.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693276Your ignorance is showing again.

Yeah plans were made, and characters developed-based on experiences in actual play not ad-on mechanical do-dads (there really weren't any, you can look it up)

Plans involved choosing where to clear your hex, build a fortress, etc. Your character became whatever your experiences made of him- or worm food long before any of that hex clearing stuff became relevant.

Yeah sure:rolleyes:
No one ever ever ever said "wow looky here I got some decent stats I can start off as ____ and then switch to ____ after level ____"

Love the "in actual play" bullshit that gets tossed around this place.  No one ever ever ever thought about their character beyond 'the now' in AD&D.:rolleyes:

Quote from: Haffrung;693336Okay, let's see you 'build' an AD&D fighter. Go ahead. Pick a race. Roll some random attributes. Buy your shit. And then plot him out to 10th level. Try it. You'll find the number of mechanical power choices he has after character generation is zero.

Yeah sure lets see what I can do.

A character with ability scores of 17 strength, 15 intelligence, 12 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a magic-user. After attaining 3rd level, the player switches the character to fighter.
Now before you start with the "omg what bullshit stats." You may want to check pg. 33.
So we gots a Magic-User3/Fighter10

Holy Shit batman I just did a build in the edition that has no builds. WTF?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;693395Yeah, and two weeks ago there wasn't a fresh playtest packet, two data points does not a trend make.

Ummm....you do realize that getting people to talk about DDN is a major part of what the playtest packets are for?  The actual game hasn't even been given a release date yet.

We are literally talking about some pdfs with no art, minimal layout, skimpy on the material included, no fluff other than a handful of old converted adventures.  How much more buzz do you think some skimpy pdfs should be generating?

Quote from: Haffrung;693344And if a culture develops where barbecue hosting becomes focused on these matters, it's probably a sign that there's something unhealthy going on.

Yes. There is a tremendous disconnect between online discussions and game table discussions.

It has occurred to me that Playing RPGs at Home, Playing RPGs at Cons/Game Days and Talking about RPGs Online are three separate hobbies with only some overlap.

Kinda like Reading Warhammer Novels, Painting Warhammer figs and Actually Playing 40k are often unrelated hobbies.

Quote from: Old One Eye;693440How much more buzz do you think some skimpy pdfs should be generating?

Without the D&D name attached, Next would just be another retroclone with equal or less readership to any other of the clones, near clones or clone inspired RPGs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;693462Yes. There is a tremendous disconnect between online discussions and game table discussions.

It has occurred to me that Playing RPGs at Home, Playing RPGs at Cons/Game Days and Talking about RPGs Online are three separate hobbies with only some overlap.

Kinda like Reading Warhammer Novels, Painting Warhammer figs and Actually Playing 40k are often unrelated hobbies.

I agree completely.

QuoteWithout the D&D name attached, Next would just be another retroclone with equal or less readership to any other of the clones, near clones or clone inspired RPGs.

What edition do you think it's a retro clone of?

Quote from: vytzka;693435Yeah, that was pretty funny. But then at least his username was apt.

Link?

Quote from: Spinachcat;693462Without the D&D name attached, Next would just be another retroclone with equal or less readership to any other of the clones, near clones or clone inspired RPGs.

Yes, the name is what sells it (though we can probably quibble about retrocloneness).  And the Warhammer 40k novels would sell less if they were generic sci fi books.  Brand means a crap load, nobody denying that.  What is your point?