I'll buy the concept that people can complain about 4e because it's not keeping pace with the changing tastes of the folks who played OD&D.  That said, I don't think it would be wrong for D&D to stay, version after version, the best game for young kids to get into ... even if that means that it's a game that people don't find fully satisfying as they get older.

Tavis:  That all sounds like a drift toward the things that people value about CCGs.  Does that sound right to you?

Quote from: Serious PaulOn a much more serious note I have never used a random table. Ever.

Not only have I seen entire games run from random rolls and tables but we have a concept we called "solo Traveller" when I was in high school where people would create characters and use random tables to essentially play solo games without a GM or other players.

Quote from: Herr ArnulfeAbsolutely, though nowadays I prefer games where setting coherence was taken into account in the design process.

OD&D doesn't have setting coherence because it doesn't have a setting to be coherent too. It is a general purpose Fantasy RPG. If your mermaids don't have spices then ignore the portion of random treasure tables that give it spices. Or ignore the random tables and just pick, using your own judgment.

The only reason that spices are even a possibility with mermaids because they have one treasure tables covering all the monsters. The designers expect to you use your judgment to throw out nonsense results. Likely there is one treasure table because it is what they could fit in the space they had.

Sure there are RPGs that benefited from having a setting associated with it. But there are general purpose RPGs as well that are geared to one genre or even universal.

The point is that people forget about the first days their RPG experience is that they never played the game exactly as written. Due to inexperience, misinterpretation, or the fact the game lacked something stuff was just made up.

When we return years later as experienced gamers we sit down with the old rules and go WTF! We wonder why it just doesn't work. It because we made up a lot of what we did. It not just OD&D but any old game of your choice. When you sit down, use the rules you got, and make the rest up.

Quote from: KenHRC'mon, seriously, use a real example.  Dried spices don't show up on the treasure tables.

Yeah but scrolls and books are there. So while he technically incorrect the treasure table will generate nonsense results for certain monsters.

Quote from: KenHRC'mon, seriously, use a real example.  Dried spices don't show up on the treasure tables.

And again, just about every edition of D&D warned DMs not to lean on the treasure tables for everything and to use some common sense.

I only used the dried spices example because the OP used it. But IMO, the lack of setting coherence is ingrained in the OD&D system (and most of the modules written for it too). However, this isn't meant to be an anti-D&D rant. I was just commenting on the system/setting incongruities that I accepted when I was younger but don't any longer.

Quote from: KenHRIn the end, though, if you do resort to random tables (and I do quite often!), that effort at rationalization can lead you down some pleasantly surprising pathways in your imagination.  And seriously, the effort required is not much effort at all...5 seconds tops if the question comes up in the middle of a game?

I agree, random tables are great. I use them all the time, modifying the results if they don't make sense when I can't immediately think of a rational explanation. For example, the mermaid with dried spices could have salvaged them from a sunken merchant vessel.

However, it seemed to me the OP was generally lamenting the increased demand for coherence in systems and settings. My personal take is yes, perhaps the ageing gamer population is less able to suspend disbelief, but it's also important to remember that OD&D was written for a younger audience.

Quote from: TonyLBI'll buy the concept that people can complain about 4e because it's not keeping pace with the changing tastes of the folks who played OD&D.  That said, I don't think it would be wrong for D&D to stay, version after version, the best game for young kids to get into ... even if that means that it's a game that people don't find fully satisfying as they get older.

Agreed. Part of the problem with D&D, IMO, is that its rules-complexity has matured along with the OD&D generation, but the setting tropes haven't (for the most part).

Quote from: Tavis- Increasing self-referentiality. The OD&D rules are clearly designed to emulate a kitchen-sink worth of literary precedents, from Middle Earth to Barsoom. In the AD&D days, the reverse becomes true as RPG settings like Dragonlance spin off novel series that become best-sellers in part because playing D&D, rather than reading SF (everything you could get your hands on) and sword & sorcery (harder to find and much of which is still SF at heart), has become the initial experience of heroic fantasy for millions of people.

This has actually become a problem with almost all forms of entertainment after their initial innovative explosion.  The people writing for the original Star Trek series, for example, weren't self-referentially writing "Star Trek" the way the writers of the later series were and I think that's one of the things that soured the "franchise".  Instead of exploring strange new worlds, they were too busy referencing what had come before.  Long running comic book series and TV shows suffer the same fate.  It becomes easier to recycle than to come up with something new that doesn't conflict with what came before once "what came before" reaches a particular mass.

Quote from: estarYeah but scrolls and books are there. So while he technically incorrect the treasure table will generate nonsense results for certain monsters.

...but, but, but...like you just finished posting above this...common sense!

Quote from: John MorrowThis has actually become a problem with almost all forms of entertainment after their initial innovative explosion.  The people writing for the original Star Trek series, for example, weren't self-referentially writing "Star Trek" the way the writers of the later series were and I think that's one of the things that soured the "franchise".  Instead of exploring strange new worlds, they were too busy referencing what had come before.  Long running comic book series and TV shows suffer the same fate.  It becomes easier to recycle than to come up with something new that doesn't conflict with what came before once "what came before" reaches a particular mass.

I was in a discussion about X-Files, one time, and someone said something really interesting:  If you put a whole lot of contradictory facts down in the midst of the unknown then folks will entertain themselves filling in the gaps.  If you fill in that unknown with more facts, eventually people run out of room to make up for your short-comings, and they just look at the mass of stuff and say "Well, that doesn't make any damn SENSE!"

Less is more, and all that.  But at the same time, broadly scattered seeds of inspiration go a long way toward helping people.  The treasure tables (and a lot of the rest of OD&D and AD&D) were good that way ... lots of little nuggets of "What if", scattered broadly across the realm of the unknown.

Quote from: TonyLBSo, those who believe that the sky is falling, please help me understand ... why is that so wrong?

It's not wrong. It's wrong for me.

Though to be fair, I find that the player entitlement aspect engendered by such things as "treasure schedule" to be a negative dynamic that eventually leads to trouble.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThough to be fair, I find that the player entitlement aspect engendered by such things as "treasure schedule" to be a negative dynamic that eventually leads to trouble.

How so?

Are you saying it causes trouble even if the GM is sticking to the schedule?  I see how it leads to trouble if we posit the GM's right to ignore the schedule ... but if the schedule is part of the rules of the game and is adhered to, how is it different from "Pass Go, Receive $200"?

Quote from: KenHR...but, but, but...like you just finished posting above this...common sense!

Of course you use common sense. People don't know that to play OD&D/AD&D you need to be more creative and use your judgment as a ref more. For people who don't know that a lot of OD&D looks like nonsense or boring.

Quote from: Serious PaulOn a much more serious note I have never used a random table. Ever.

That goes a long way to explaining why you're such a miserable cunt.

RPGPundit

Was that really necessary?