Quote from: CRKrueger;788791The difference is, and this is probably more due to video games then anime, new-school D&D characters start well on the way with special abilities & plenty of buttons to mash right out of the gate, and a healing/wounding system right out of an FPS.

Yeah, I attribute a lot of that 'I want my PC to start off as competent' (where 'competent' pretty much means 'chock full of powarz') to video games... not that all video games work that way, unless using a cheat.
One of the first questions the kids I play with asked was 'what powers do I get'... and they're coming from video games. Not that that's bad/wrong... just different than my usual fantasy preference of starting at 'turnip farmer with a stick'.

5E interests me not at all, and I am also glad it exists.

As for the OSR frenemy angle, things kind of morphed over the years from playing the actual games, to playing a certain style with the actual game played as of lesser importance.  So I think it is inevitable that 5E becomes the game of choice (or at least frequent use) for lots of people who fall into the second group.

And that bothers me not a whit.  People should play what they want to play. Plus, I think that if it is close enough that publishers can dual-publish content for both 5E and the original games that it will have a subsidy effect where content for the way I prefer to play will be published in greater amounts.

Do I think it is in the same family as AD&D and OD&D?  No.  Same family as C&C, Blood and Treasure, or a host of other OSR games?  Yes.  But then I think a decent chunk of the OSR lately was trying to find a balance between what they liked when they played 3E, and the older games, anyway.  So, inevitable.

If you're gonna invoke the rule 0 fallacy as a reason to completely dismiss someone's argument that 5e can be played in an OSR style, I guess that means all those people who didn't play with strict level limits in AD&D weren't OSR either.  Or people who houseruled away weapon vs. armor table modifiers.  Or any other number of rules that were ignored in 1e.

Pretty much everyone houserules or ignores parts of the "core" rules, and has been since the get go.  So forgive me if I find it ludicrous to use that reasoning now for 5e.

Quote from: Simlasa;788794Yeah, I attribute a lot of that 'I want my PC to start off as competent' (where 'competent' pretty much means 'chock full of powarz') to video games... not that all video games work that way, unless using a cheat.
One of the first questions the kids I play with asked was 'what powers do I get'... and they're coming from video games. Not that that's bad/wrong... just different than my usual fantasy preference of starting at 'turnip farmer with a stick'.

But see, my group in the early 1980s was saying precisely that: "We want characters who start out competent ... like Conan in "Tower of the Elephant" and Fafhrd and Mouser in "Ill Met" and Gimli in Lord of the Rings and even Tarl Cabot in the Gor books."

At a time when video games were somewhere between Pong and Combat for the 2600.

That's why I don't buy the competency = video game heritage angle. Lots of people were house-ruling more robust starting characters ... or even writing new games that did this.

"If you don't like it, change it." can be applied to Toon to turn it into Phoenix Command or vice versa.  It can smooth out the Anal Circumference Tables of F.A.T.A.L (so to speak).  If allowed as a valid answer to any criticism about a mechanic or a game, then any criticism or commentary of any game becomes meaningless.

"If you don't like it, change it." Is absolutely vital GMing advice, especially when coupled with advice as to how.  In regards to theory and playstyles, it's just useless obfuscation as any game can fit any playstyle if you're willing to hack it, it's just a question of how much.

It isn't worth getting into the more tangled elements of this hoary, ancient debate. But, I do agree that 'rule 0' is one of the most over used old saws in our hobby. It is hard to think of anyone who hasn't abused it in one of our nerd-rage debates. Though, the most grognardy OSR enthusiasts seem to be the guiltiest.

The version of this that drives me ape shit is when it is pulled out to rationalize the fact that OD&D is almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics. I've always wished someone would make a version of D&D that is even shorter and more to the point than the original, but founded on a page or two of rules that make some sort of sense. Wouldn't it have been amazing if our hobby was founded on a set of rules that had the creativity of the original, but expressed through the sort of rational approach you'd see in the best contemporaneous board games? Like, picture D&D as written by the people who made Panzerblitz. Pretty much everyone would still be playing with the same core rules.

Quote from: Vargold;788812But see, my group in the early 1980s was saying precisely that: "We want characters who start out competent ... like Conan in "Tower of the Elephant" and Fafhrd and Mouser in "Ill Met" and Gimli in Lord of the Rings and even Tarl Cabot in the Gor books."

At a time when video games were somewhere between Pong and Combat for the 2600.

That's why I don't buy the competency = video game heritage angle. Lots of people were house-ruling more robust starting characters ... or even writing new games that did this.

I only Dnd I have ever played or even seen is Opa's online game. In my experience 1/2e used maybe 50% of the actual rules which ones differed by table, campaign and other factors. OSR is after a fantasy of what they think Dnd is and they should shut up and live and let live already.

Basically they should thank God 5e is here because it's the best gateway ever to their games and they don't really have to work that hard to get most 5e players to give them a try given 5e is so easily hackable and doesn't cater to the optimization style.

Quote from: Vargold;788812But see, my group in the early 1980s was saying precisely that: "We want characters who start out competent ... like Conan in "Tower of the Elephant" and Fafhrd and Mouser in "Ill Met" and Gimli in Lord of the Rings and even Tarl Cabot in the Gor books."

You miss the bit where I specify the folks who equate 'competent' with 'powerz'... like WOWMMPORG player who vaults in at lvl 90.
And I'd never say that video games are the entire source of that desire... but a factor that has substantially increased it.

Quote from: Simlasa;788825You miss the bit where I specify the folks who equate 'competent' with 'powerz'... like WOWMMPORG player who vaults in at lvl 90.
And I'd never say that video games are the entire source of that desire... but a factor that has substantially increased it.

Sure, but one man's "competent" is another man's "powers." To me, all of the first level fighter abilities in 4E were perfectly normal abilities that a trained warrior might be expected to have--to other people, it was like Captain America, Black Panther, and Deathstroke the Terminator had just suddenly been unleashed on the unsuspecting former pig-farmers of the Forgotten Greyhawks.

My reading of Jon Peterson's Playing the World has pretty much convinced me that we're still fighting the battles of the 1970s. Video games may inflect those debates in new ways, but they don't alter the core issues.

Quote from: Vargold;788828My reading of Jon Peterson's Playing the World has pretty much convinced me that we're still fighting the battles of the 1970s. Video games may inflect those debates in new ways, but they don't alter the core issues.

Yeah, there was a bunch of friction in the Wayback between my High School group and another one... mostly because we played low magic, low violence... and they played with PCs armed to the gills with magic gewgaws. Stupid arguments.
Once I got into college it certainly seemed that other group was largely the norm... Players see a magic ship-in-your-pocket in some game book and demand that their PC must have it. Another factor in my quick movement away from D&D.
But those were guys who'd been playing for a while, they'd done zero-to-hero a dozen times... not newbies showing up with those expectations of superheros that I started seeing a lot of later on.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788771That is a fucking disgusting comparison. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?

I used to, but she's been six feet under for 11 years now. Do you think it might have been something I said?

Quote from: CRKrueger;788783Jeff has a talent for maximum offense per word count when he wants to push buttons.  At some point, he'll type a single word and the internet will implode.

Why, thank you! Sigged.

Since ya'll are in D&D is serious business mode, I'll relate what I'm seeing  outside of the internet.

There is a competition going on between the organized play groups of Pathfinder and D&D 5E starting. In my city, the competition is for FLGS game playable space and local convention recognition (although the 2014 Dragon Con rolled out the red carpet for D&D 5E DMs). It could be entirely personality driven, but with a new version of the 800 pound gorilla present the RPG tribalism has come out.

What the two sides aren't seeing is that both are good games. The fans don't need to be acting as pawns for either WotC or Paizo.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788729Ah, Rule Zero in response to definition and classification...someone had to, I guess.

Yeah, nothing says old-school like playing RAW. Could you imagine the shit-show that would go down on Dragonsfoot if someone suggest ignoring weapon speeds or racial level limits?

Quote from: jeff37923;788751Remember, games are the religion of some fanatics. Anything but unbridled enthusiasm means that to them, you are a heathen unbeliever and should be beheaded.

And to another group, anything besides blistering contempt for games published after 1993 means you fail to demonstrate proper orthodoxy and should be beheaded.

Quote from: jeff37923;788833Since ya'll are in D&D is serious business mode, I'll relate what I'm seeing  outside of the internet.

There is a competition going on between the organized play groups of Pathfinder and D&D 5E starting. In my city, the competition is for FLGS game playable space and local convention recognition (although the 2014 Dragon Con rolled out the red carpet for D&D 5E DMs). It could be entirely personality driven, but with a new version of the 800 pound gorilla present the RPG tribalism has come out.

What the two sides aren't seeing is that both are good games. The fans don't need to be acting as pawns for either WotC or Paizo.

Serious question: How big of portion of WotC's market are people who don't have homes? And how wise of a business decision is it to rely on such people for your revenue?

5e =/= OSR and all the screeching and whining by Sacrosanct and Marleycat isn't going to change the basic issue that 5e is built on core assumptions antithetical to OSR games (ie, healing, death, spell resources, etc).

5e is what is it is. Like 3e and 4e, if you like a particular edition, enjoy it for what it actually does for you without some bullshit pretending that your edition is somehow inclusive of the playstyles of the others.

But hey, 5e is the new shiny and it will make waves for a year. When its obvious the lack of marketing hasn't expanded the hobby and instead its just another edition cannibalizing the dwindling fanbase, the knives will come out and blame the edition...instead of blaming the lack of marketing.

Quote from: Haffrung;788836Serious question: How big of portion of WotC's market are people who don't have homes? And how wise of a business decision is it to rely on such people for your revenue?

At the moment, the rules for Encounters and Expeditions and Epics are draconian (excuse the pun) with the idea that WotC wants to shove D&D into the mode of Magic where you have Friday Night Magic, then regional events and then the special national events.

The idea is simple. People who hang around their FLGS buy more stuff. WotC has decided stores are key to the hobby's success. I do not know if this is true, but they *might* have a lot of data behind the decision.

Let's not forget that WotC is NOT a game company. It's a book publisher. They need people to buy stacks of books so if the bookstore model works for them better than Amazon, then their Public Play concept makes sense.

Back in 4e, LFR let you print out your adventures and run them at home. Now in 5e, all official D&D has to be coordinated through the FLGS or you do not get the download and thus, can't run OFFICIAL D&D for your friends.

We will see how long this lasts.

BTW, the new rules are meaningless to home campaigns, just the Official Organized Play events (previously called RPGA and Living campaigns).