Behind Pathfinder and the horrible new Star Wars game.
I don't think this is surprising, though, given that there effectively is no "current" edition of D&D.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;641183I don't think this is surprising...
Well, sort-of. Personally, I once thought I'd never see the day. On the other hand, the last 4 or 5 years have been like watching a slow motion train wreck.
So much for all those reprint and pdf sales.
If us old guys needed a reminder about where the market is, this says it ain't us.
Considering that there has been nothing new besides the playtest of 5th for about the past year, it is actually kind of testament to the power of the D&D brand name. They have done nothing and still come in 3rd in sales.
Yeah, for not releasing much of anything, they are still making sales. Though I suspect those numbers are WAY lower than Hasbro requires.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;641226So much for all those reprint and pdf sales.
Anyone actually know if those are included in the available numbers?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;641226If us old guys needed a reminder about where the market is, this says it ain't us.
I'm not sure how it says that unless we know that reprint and OSR sales are both abysmal.
Quote from: Bobloblah;641230I'm not sure how it says that unless we know that reprint and OSR sales are both abysmal.
They don't have to be "abysmal" to be not-good.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;641232They don't have to be "abysmal" to be not-good.
True, but I'm not sure there's information to even make that call. And no wonder. It's messy. How much does each producer sell? How much overlap is there? How much is made through sales? Kickstarter? On eBay, Noble Knight, etc. for original product?
Quote from: Bobloblah;641230Anyone actually know if those are included in the available numbers?
As far as I understand the methodology, they ring some shops, companies and distributors and ask what is selling. There are no numbers per say. But I suspect most reprint sales where not done through the distributor network so will not be included.
Quote from: RPGPundit;641183Behind Pathfinder and the horrible new Star Wars game.
I don't think this is surprising, though, given that there effectively is no "current" edition of D&D.
RPGPundit
Do these numbers also include the re-prints of the older editions, or just 4e D&D?
Even though I didn't like 3e, WotC had a good thing in it.
Then they told everyone who played and liked 3e (and previous editions*) that they were idiots for doing so, thus firing about 75% of their customer base. They also fired the greatest non-them ally they had, Paizo. I didn't like the 3e rules but Paizo was smart enough, when they ran the Dragon and Dungeon paper mags, to do stuff like get Gary to write for them, and to publish things like Maure Castle (and associated adventures) by he and Rob Kuntz.
What the fuck did Wizards think was going to happen.
Paizo told the 75% "You don't have to wait around to see if you like 4e or if it will grow on you: we'll keep on writing 3rd ed and supporting it." And it was hugely successful.
Wizards immediately tried to "undo" the firing with Essentials - a product that was more 3e-like, wrapped in a Basic D&D from 1981 box. My god, when you opened the damn thing you didn't get new book smell, you got the scent of desperation.
Star Wars is now ascendant with the news from Disney, so of course its going to be popular.
"All is proceeding as I have foreseen."**
That the 1e reprints and PDF re-releases haven't buoyed up WotC isn't surprising. Half the old-school fans I know*** are pretty cynical about WotC these days, and many looked at the reprints and said "Meh," and went on about their business with their 30-year-old books and continued to play. The remaining half wasn't really enough to cause that big of a jump in sales - even if tens of thousands of copies sold (and I'd wager tens of thousands of copies have sold). But I hope it - and the PDF releases' sales - are enough to convince WotC that old school gaming is worth supporting. That's sales data we don't have. But I hope that's the case. See, 'cause I don't care about lotfp, I don't care about acks, I don't care about carcosa, nor dcc nor any of that shit. Nobody can touch Gygaxian AD&D 1e (not even LA or Mythus system or even Cyborg Commando). So seeing 1e get tacit support from WotC is very cool to me. Even if it's only the occasional minor "thing" from them.
SO.
With all that said I think it's a temporary thing, I think 5e will buoy them up to a strong 2nd or weak 1st place in sales again. I think Pathfinder will probably run neck-and-neck with them for a long, long time.
...
*=although I have to say their public face on enwurld was weird - they spent the promo-wind-up phase of 4e's release pissing all over older editions, then their spokesposter on enw (and I can't recall who it was now) said "3e is dead, if I play D&D it will be 4e - or OD&D or AD&D". W to the eird.
**=I didn't foresee anything, I just wanted to throw the Palpatine quote out there.
***=online. Most rational people who stay away from the internet (and most rational people do) don't know or care or give a fig about edition wars or whatever the hell. (And I admit I'm not one of them, but that's obvious.)
Well, what is the current D&D release schedule? Are there any new, high-profile D&D products being sold right now? It seems to me that WotC is letting the brand stay fallow for a bit while preparing for 5th edition.
Would that be the kinda shitty "beginners" box for Star Wars?
Because the actual game isn't out yet...
Long-term, this is likely to benefit WotC. No new releases means customers don't get excess splats that end up detailing crap no one cares about. It also leaves them wanting more.
No matter what anyone says, the day 5e goes on sale, the top 3 selling rpg books are going to be the PHB, DMG, and MM. And it will likely remain that way for at least a year following release, and probably longer.
(What I'm really interested in is when the inevitable Pathfinder 2e gets released. That is going to be very interesting. I'd be extremely surprised if a Paizo team isn't already developing it.)
Quote from: danbuter;641272(What I'm really interested in is when the inevitable Pathfinder 2e gets released. That is going to be very interesting. I'd be extremely surprised if a Paizo team isn't already developing it.)
I really hope not. I'm not a huge PF fan but they've done the hobby a huge favor by validating that adventures can sell and they'd do us an even greater service by showing us the edition treadmill isn't the only way to profitability.
I would expect Pathfinder to go with incremental edition change. Maybe more than Call of Cthulhu, but much less radical than D&D - that can be sold to fans while (mostly) maintaining product compatibility between editions.
Spoiler
Or maybe their MMORPG will become the new Warcraft. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Melan;641281Spoiler
Or maybe their MMORPG will become the new Warcraft. :rolleyes:
Hahaha!
Quote from: Melan;641281I would expect Pathfinder to go with incremental edition change.
It's hard to imagine a scenario where abandoning this model would be a good business decision, particularly with WotC soon to be breathing down their neck with D&DNext.
Quote from: Melan;641281I would expect Pathfinder to go with incremental edition change. Maybe more than Call of Cthulhu, but much less radical than D&D - that can be sold to fans while (mostly) maintaining product compatibility between editions.
Possibly. But there doesn't seem to be any strong motivation for it.
Motivation #1 would be that there's a commercial reason for doing it -- i.e., selling more books. But Paizo's business model is based on selling subscription adventures and support material, not rule supplements. Awhile back I also did a calculation based on the number of 3.5 rule supplements that were released and the pace at which Paizo was releasing rule supplements. My conclusion was that Paizo won't reach WotC's saturation of the splatbook market until 2017 or 2018 or something like that.
Motivation #2 would be that there's a game design reason for doing it. But PF's current customer base, by its very nature, has already affirmed its basic satisfaction with the mechanics. There are some problems that Paizo might want to fix, but they would require a massive overhaul of the system and it's not clear that there's any strong motivation for this.
Paizo definitely won't take any action until after they see the reaction to D&D Next. And unless D&D Next has a serious impact on their revenue, Paizo won't be motivated to change anything about what they're doing. Either way, I'd bet hard currency that we won't see a new edition of Pathfinder published before 2017.
Of course, if D&D Next actually resembles D&D in some way shape or form, than it should be possible to use Paizo's adventures for it without too much work...a big win for Paizo unless WotC figures out how to write worthwhile adventures themselves.
The new star wars game hasn't even been released. (Fuck only knows why not, fFG seem intent on milking it for all it's worth.)
Well maybe this is significant from an industry point of view, in as much as roleplaying games qualify as an industry.
From the player point for view all this says is that D&D is in position number 1 and number 3 which is precious little comfort to those of us who don't much care for fantasy. But plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose and all that.
Quote from: Melan;641281I would expect Pathfinder to go with incremental edition change. Maybe more than Call of Cthulhu, but much less radical than D&D - that can be sold to fans while (mostly) maintaining product compatibility between editions.
Spoiler
Or maybe their MMORPG will become the new Warcraft. :rolleyes:
Ryan Dancey is involved with the game.
'Nuff said.
From a profit standpoint, I wonder whether it's better to be #1 or 2 in sales for books that are being published on an ongoing basis. Or number 3 in sales, based mainly on reprints of old editions.
Also, I suspect that a lot of the money they drew in from 4e (and continue to draw in) comes from paid DDI subscriptions rather than books. I've always been curious about how many people passed on buying the splat books, knowing or expecting that the same material would be available through DDI.
Quote from: Saplatt;641367From a profit standpoint, I wonder whether it's better to be #1 or 2 in sales for books that are being published on an ongoing basis. Or number 3 in sales, based mainly on reprints of old editions.
Also, I suspect that a lot of the money they drew in from 4e (and continue to draw in) comes from paid DDI subscriptions rather than books. I've always been curious about how many people passed on buying the splat books, knowing or expecting that the same material would be available through DDI.
One reason nearly every FLGS owner I know really dislikes 4e and generally don't run events.
On the upside, if 4e was an experiment in modern marketing and product management I hope the data has sent them a nice clear message loud enough that they could hear it with their heads up their asses.
It's like when Jay Leno pointed out that NBC is now not only below Fox but fifth in the US behind Univision.
"Now The Biggest Loser isn't just a primetime show, it's our network motto!"
JG
So the reprints weren't the second coming of D&D? How can that be? The interwebs told me that all would be well once the holy word of Gygax was back in print!
WotC should get used to 3rd place because its doubtful that 5e is going to do much for them. The Edition That Pleases No One isn't going to save the company's bottom line.
Quote from: Melan;641281I would expect Pathfinder to go with incremental edition change. Maybe more than Call of Cthulhu, but much less radical than D&D - that can be sold to fans while (mostly) maintaining product compatibility between editions.
Quote from: Bobloblah;641292It's hard to imagine a scenario where abandoning this model would be a good business decision, particularly with WotC soon to be breathing down their neck with D&DNext.
Agreed.
Ladies and gentlemen, edition change threadmill is not bad per se, the problem is when editions follow one another
too fast.
Quote from: Spinachcat;641505So the reprints weren't the second coming of D&D? How can that be? The interwebs told me that all would be well once the holy word of Gygax was back in print!
WotC should get used to 3rd place because its doubtful that 5e is going to do much for them. The Edition That Pleases No One isn't going to save the company's bottom line.
We'll see. I don't know if D&D5 will be a resounding success, but I bet it will be better than D&D4, and even if D&D4 was a fiasco, it just went from 1st to 3rd place. WotC only needs a decent enough version of D&D, not great, just decent, to get back to the 1st place.
Quote from: Saplatt;641367Also, I suspect that a lot of the money they drew in from 4e (and continue to draw in) comes from paid DDI subscriptions rather than books. I've always been curious about how many people passed on buying the splat books, knowing or expecting that the same material would be available through DDI.
And all those that depend on DDI and never got the books will really regret it the day WOTC pulls the plug on 4E support. Such are the hazards of renting content.
Quote from: Claudius;641514We'll see. I don't know if D&D5 will be a resounding success, but I bet it will be better than D&D4, and even if D&D4 was a fiasco, it just went from 1st to 3rd place. WotC only needs a decent enough version of D&D, not great, just decent, to get back to the 1st place.
I don't think this is true. For D&D to be first, it's going to need 'draw'. I don't think it will have it. Assuming you weren't playing 4th edition, you've been able to make yourself happy without WotC producing new product for you
for years. Among the people that I game with, I'm the only one that has any real curiosity about Next - and that's minimal.
I have every 3rd edition book* so I should be the kind of fan that they want back - but the comment that they 'fired the customer base' is true, in my opinion. A 'decent enough' edition isn't going to win back any group that found a solution to their gaming needs that doesn't involve new product. Only a spectacular product
might do that, and even then I have my doubts. From what I've seen of Next (which is very limited and nothing recent) they're not even on the right path.
Maybe buying Paizo would allow WotC to become number one, but I don't think that will happen. It's not a publicly traded company, and I don't think Lisa is interested in selling.
* Not
quite every, but close. This isn't quite up to date, but is close:
http://www.dndarchive.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=22&id=9722&Itemid=50
Quote from: deadDMwalking;641521I don't think this is true. For D&D to be first, it's going to need 'draw'. I don't think it will have it. Assuming you weren't playing 4th edition, you've been able to make yourself happy without WotC producing new product for you for years. Among the people that I game with, I'm the only one that has any real curiosity about Next - and that's minimal.
I have every 3rd edition book* so I should be the kind of fan that they want back - but the comment that they 'fired the customer base' is true, in my opinion. A 'decent enough' edition isn't going to win back any group that found a solution to their gaming needs that doesn't involve new product. Only a spectacular product might do that, and even then I have my doubts. From what I've seen of Next (which is very limited and nothing recent) they're not even on the right path.
Maybe buying Paizo would allow WotC to become number one, but I don't think that will happen. It's not a publicly traded company, and I don't think Lisa is interested in selling.
* Not quite every, but close. This isn't quite up to date, but is close:
http://www.dndarchive.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=22&id=9722&Itemid=50
deadDMwalking, you are like myself a few years ago. I owned nearly every 3.x book WotC put out, but when 4e hit, I bought it, played it for about a year and gave up on it. I really tried to stick it out as it was all people played in my area.
Thankfully I found the OSR a little after 4e launch and it has been much more pleasing. I have a good group now that I run a B/X-LL game using Barrowmaze and An Echo Resounding for domain level things in the sandbox. It is littered with OSR and TSR adventures. I have another game that is an Other Dust/Mutant Future/Carcosa/Realms of Crawling Chaos hexcrawl along the west coast of North America.
WotC should want me back as I spend thousands on their product and so did most of the players that I had played with. They each had at least $1000 in books. Now they are all playing Pathfinder or LL with me (some of them) and they have no desire to return to D&D as a brand. They have Pathfinder (essentially 3.5) and that is what they wanted. WotC really screwed up 4e and the hype leading up to it.
I checked out D&DNext when they said they were going to build off the B/X base, and being my edition of choice I was excited. So I checked it out, tried and it was better than 4e, but not good enough to win me or my players back.
WotC really needs to hope they can get something that will hype people up and get them playing like 3.0 did. Sadly I don't think they will strike lightning twice.
The rankings are one thing, but more important is that the overall pie has been shrinking. No, I can't prove that. But I think RPGs have gone from a small industry to a tiny one not really worthy of the name in the last 5 years.
Quote from: Claudius;641513Agreed.
Ladies and gentlemen, edition change threadmill is not bad per se, the problem is when editions follow one another too fast.
I think they were taking their cue from the publishers of college textbooks.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;641686I think they were taking their cue from the publishers of college textbooks.
Now announcing the D&D 5e Player's Handbook, available at a hobby shop near you for only $249.95!
Sales, schmales.
Thanks to the World Wide Web, the hobby is back in the hands of hobbyists, and I think that's a good thing.
The days when Brand X could literally be the only game in town are long gone.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;641521I don't think this is true. For D&D to be first, it's going to need 'draw'. I don't think it will have it. Assuming you weren't playing 4th edition, you've been able to make yourself happy without WotC producing new product for you for years. Among the people that I game with, I'm the only one that has any real curiosity about Next - and that's minimal.
I agree and this matches my experience as well. I know at least a couple dozen people who bought into 1st, 2nd, and/or 3rd pretty heavy who have absolutely no interest in Next at all.
Some liked 4e OK, some hated it, but no one loved it. So the people that preferred 3e dropped back to it, the people that preferred 2e dropped back to it, etc.
So now everyone is playing their own personal favorite and no one cares what WotC is doing because after the quick churn of 3->3.5->4->essentials, no one really wants to even bother investing any more money in a WotC product.
In order to really win people back, they will need both a great product and some major brand overhaul; and I don't just mean the D&D brand - I think the WotC brand itself has major issues (not unlike the final days of TSR).
Quote from: Spinachcat;641505WotC should get used to 3rd place because its doubtful that 5e is going to do much for them. The Edition That Pleases No One isn't going to save the company's bottom line.
You're making a prediction, but it's not very specific. Let's drill down on this a bit.
Do you think 5e will put WOTC back in the number 2 spot for any length of time? The number one spot? If so, how long do you think they will sustain being the #2 or #1 before they fall back to #3 again, in your opinion?
As for bottom line, of course we don't know what that is. But, given your opinion is 4e did not satisfy that bottom line, and you think 5e won't either, is it your opinion WOTC will end D&D, or sell it, or closet it for a while, or make it into primarily a non-RPG, after it fails? And how do you measure whether or not it is a failure? If it successfully continues publishing for a year is that a sign of success? Three years? Five years? Seven years? Ten years?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;641521I don't think this is true. For D&D to be first, it's going to need 'draw'. I don't think it will have it.
Same questions I just asked Spinach. You're making a prediction, so be specific.
Quote from: jgants;641952So now everyone is playing their own personal favorite and no one cares what WotC is doing because after the quick churn of 3->3.5->4->essentials, no one really wants to even bother investing any more money in a WotC product.
In order to really win people back, they will need both a great product and some major brand overhaul; and I don't just mean the D&D brand - I think the WotC brand itself has major issues (not unlike the final days of TSR).
You too, same questions. You're making a prediction of the doom of 5e, so nail down the specifics of what you think would objectively measure failure and success.
Quote from: Mistwell;642110As for bottom line, of course we don't know what that is. But, given your opinion is 4e did not satisfy that bottom line, and you think 5e won't either, is it your opinion WOTC will end D&D, or sell it, or closet it for a while, or make it into primarily a non-RPG, after it fails?
I don't know if it'll happen but that's absolutely the best thing that can happen to D&D under WOTC.
Release an evergreen game, keep it in print and STOP "DEVELOPING" for it.
No more supplements, no more "splats", no more feats/powers/skills/ponies/etc... no more editions, no more nothing.
Let them whore out the IP for money, board games, video games, card games, woodburning sets, "My little Beholder" cartoons, whatever, and leave the RPG alone.
If they want they could release an occasional "themed" version of game (IP tie-ins, D&D: Forgotten Realms, D&D: Gamma World, D&D: Dragonlance, etc...). Or maybe adventures but since they suck at those probably not.
Quote from: jgants;641952I think the WotC brand itself has major issues (not unlike the final days of TSR).
That's an interesting statement in which I'm inclined to agree with.
Quote from: Mistwell;642111Same questions I just asked Spinach. You're making a prediction, so be specific.
I don't think D&D will be successful by 'any measure'. As I said up thread, people that were happily choosing to be dependent on WotC for content during the 3.x era have had years to develop a 'new fix'.
WotC managed to capture a tremendous amount of good will circa 2000 when they 'saved D&D'. I think most gamers had the feeling (regardless of whether they agreed on the cause/causes) that TSR was failing and D&D was in trouble.
WotC swooped in, acquired TSR and the D&D rights, released a pretty kickass edition with the OGL that let all the 3rd party publishers play, too. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that the release of 3rd edition ushered in a new 'golden age' of gaming. Not everything was 'perfect', but 3.x was robust enough and third party support was extensive enough that the warts were easy to ignore for a good long time.
By the time 4th edition came out, some of those warts were starting to come to light - but the player base wasn't yet ready for a new edition. Instead of making a case for how a new edition could 'fix the flaws', WotC took a totally different tact. They made the following major mistakes:
1) They essentially made fans of earlier editions (including 3rd, particularly) feel that they were being called 'stupid' for liking the edition they had been playing. Despite the backpedaling, I was there for the whole thing, and that's how I felt. Calling people stupid for liking something is going to make them defensive - that's a big thing right there.
2) They cancelled the license for Dragon and Dungeon and promised to move everything 'digital'. This was a pretty huge deal - gamers in general tend to be pretty traditionalist as far as media. I've not met a gamer yet that doesn't prefer 'real books'. I've heard of some that prefer electronic, and I'm sure that will be a growing group in the coming years, but 4th edition with the promise of moving everything to an 'online subscription model' was too far ahead of the base.
3) WotC had an abysmal record regarding providing online content. They had consistently promised a digital table top and failed to deliver. E-Tools was released on CD and was perpetually buggy. For a company that was able to successfully launch an online 'Magic: The Gathering', they clearly couldn't put together the resources to deliver the online content that had been promised.
4) 4th edition, when it was finally released, seemed 'gamist' to too many gamers. Maybe nobody wanted a 'story game', but counting squares and making every class work the same (albeit flavored differently) was unsatisfying to a large portion of the player base. 4th edition was essentially alienating.
5) Bears mentioning. The 3rd edition OGL was beautiful - it meant that if you REALLY wanted a particular supplement or setting, it could be adapted to the rules of your game. 4th edition made it very clear that they were
not interested in 3rd party support of the platform. Combined with the pretty bad reputation WotC had with adventures (compared to the pretty favorable reputation that Paizo has, for instance) that was a bad move - it essentially made it inevitable that 'the competition' would behave as competition, rather than supporting the product that WotC was producing.
So, what would I consider a successful D&D Next?
1) Number 1 in sales by a large margin for 3-5 years.
2) Robust 3rd party support (including settings and adventures)
3) A ruleset that is light but flexible, readily adapting to a wide variety of play styles -
but not modular.
(additional explanation for 3)
If the rules are modular, in the sense that table A plays with some rules and table B plays with totally different rules, a 3rd party can't
really support both tables. Additionally, WotC has a reputation garnered in 3rd edition for not considering how rules would work together to create 'broken' situations... Modular rules are simply more difficult to balance appropriately.
4) An edition that I am personally inclined to try - either because of it's innate popularity (it's the only game in town) or because it's actually fun (that makes recruiting a breeze).
I don't think they'll achieve #1; I'd be really surprised if they achieved #2; I don't think they even intend to pursue #3; so that leaves #4 - and if they don't hit any of the first three, they won't hit this one either.
So, WotC can take a stab at it, but my expectations are near zero. The good news is that they'll easily exceed my expectations - but the bad news is that it won't actually make them successful.
I used to go hunting with a guy who knew the bush in that part of New Zealand like the back of his hand.
Hope he doesn't go hunting with Mistwell.
Experienced back country guy (glancing at the sky):
"I think it's gonna rain tonight. Might be heavy."
Mistwell: "That's not very specific. Let's drill down a little. How many millimetres of rain will fall between midnight and 2am? What will the wind speed be? Will the splatter be strong enough to heavily obscure 2 day old scat, or just moderately?
Come on - you're making a prediction. Be precise, my good fellow!"
Quote from: Mistwell;642110You're making a prediction, but it's not very specific. Let's drill down on this a bit.
Do you think 5e will put WOTC back in the number 2 spot for any length of time? The number one spot? If so, how long do you think they will sustain being the #2 or #1 before they fall back to #3 again, in your opinion?
As for bottom line, of course we don't know what that is. But, given your opinion is 4e did not satisfy that bottom line, and you think 5e won't either, is it your opinion WOTC will end D&D, or sell it, or closet it for a while, or make it into primarily a non-RPG, after it fails? And how do you measure whether or not it is a failure? If it successfully continues publishing for a year is that a sign of success? Three years? Five years? Seven years? Ten years?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;642123I don't think D&D will be successful by 'any measure'. As I said up thread, people that were happily choosing to be dependent on WotC for content during the 3.x era have had years to develop a 'new fix'.
OK, "any measure", that leaves room for a lot of success. Heck, if they make #1 sales for 1 quarter, they are a success by "any measure".
QuoteBunch of whiny shit about what you think WOTC did wrong
Maybe someone here cares what you think about that other topic, but that someone is not me, and that topic is not this one.
QuoteSo, what would I consider a successful D&D Next?
1) Number 1 in sales by a large margin for 3-5 years.
OK so when you say "by any measure" you meant "Not by any measure". Gotcha. Some questions:
a) What does "large margin" mean to you?
b) What measure of "sales" do you plan to use?
c) If 5e surpassed 3e-peak levels in terms of number of people playing it, would that be a success, even if Pathfinder surpassed even that level (due to an expansion in the number of total players)?
Quote2) Robust 3rd party support (including settings and adventures)
Something cannot be a success in your opinion without third party support? Why? LOTS of things succeed on closed platforms with no third party support. Can't it be a smashing success with no third party support? Heck, didn't AD&D do damn well with almost no third party support (it certainly wasn't what I'd call "robust")?
And what is your measure of "robust"?
Quote3) A ruleset that is light but flexible, readily adapting to a wide variety of play styles - but not modular.
I think there is some confusion here. I was not asking what you think would help make 5e a success, I was asking what measures would you use to determine whether or not 5e is a success once it comes out, IE whether your prediction turned out to be correct or not. That's why I asked to drill down on the specifics of your prediction of failure. You liking the game is not related to whether or not it is a success. I am sure there are lots of things in life that are wildly popular, which are not your thing.
Quote4) An edition that I am personally inclined to try
Again, this appears to be "what appeals to me" as opposed to "what is a success". I am sure there are things in life which are wildly popular but which do not appeal to you to even try them out.
So we are left with "Number 1 in sales by a large margin for 3-5 years," with some questions to answer about that, and possibly an explanation for why "robust third party support" would be a requirement of an RPG being measured as a success.
Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;642149I used to go hunting with a guy who knew the bush in that part of New Zealand like the back of his hand.
Hope he doesn't go hunting with Mistwell.
Experienced back country guy (glancing at the sky):
"I think it's gonna rain tonight. Might be heavy."
Mistwell: "That's not very specific. Let's drill down a little. How many millimetres of rain will fall between midnight and 2am? What will the wind speed be? Will the splatter be strong enough to heavily obscure 2 day old scat, or just moderately?
Come on - you're making a prediction. Be precise, my good fellow!"
I think my point was just proven. At least one person thought "5e = failed RPG" if he didn't like it (even if everyone else does and it sells a million copies and goes on to another golden age of D&D).
"I think it will rain" is a fairly generic, well understood thing that does not vary from perspective to perspective. We know it means water will come down from the sky and make us wet in some material quantity. We might not know how much, but we know it means it will rain, and we know what rain is.
"I think it will fail", obviously, does have wide variation depending on perspective. Some people will think sales in retail stores, some will thing total dollars earned, some will think relative to competitors, some will think relative to Hasbro expectations, some will think total books in print, some will think praise on message boards, etc.. It's not a "will it rain" type prediction. Success for one person may well be failure for another.
It's also the kind of prediction people can and will use to weasel around being wrong, if left too vague. Did it rain? Check the weather report for how many inches it rained, and if they had a measurement, it rained. Did it fail? There is no unifying standard for that, so you have to ask what people mean by failure.
So, what do you mean by failure?
It's more than just the gamebooks.
Don't underestimate the influence / revenue of online sales (D&D Insider) and the brand itself (D&D movies etc).
Quote from: Piestrio;642115I don't know if it'll happen but that's absolutely the best thing that can happen to D&D under WOTC.
Release an evergreen game, keep it in print and STOP "DEVELOPING" for it.
No more supplements, no more "splats", no more feats/powers/skills/ponies/etc... no more editions, no more nothing.
Let them whore out the IP for money, board games, video games, card games, woodburning sets, "My little Beholder" cartoons, whatever, and leave the RPG alone.
If they want they could release an occasional "themed" version of game (IP tie-ins, D&D: Forgotten Realms, D&D: Gamma World, D&D: Dragonlance, etc...). Or maybe adventures but since they suck at those probably not.
Coming Soon From Hasbro: MONOPOLY Live-Action
Quote from: Bobloblah;641230Anyone actually know if those are included in the available numbers?
It never will.
When PF 'overtook' 4e they talked to a couple places in California and Wisconsin, then somehow extrapolated everything else.
They dismiss everything not related to their own network.
Quote from: jgants;641952In order to really win people back, they will need both a great product and some major brand overhaul; and I don't just mean the D&D brand - I think the WotC brand itself has major issues (not unlike the final days of TSR).
I can agree with that, although I think their biggest issue is Hasbro itself. Hasbro's corporate model doesn't fit well with RPG companies, and the concept of an RPG with steady sales doesn't sit well with the incessant desire for ever increasing corporate profits.
RPGs just aren't the mega millions in sales type of product, and WotC's gyrations and design decisions have been based upon trying to please their corporate overlords in the short term rather than making a product that will sell well in the long term. I'm almost 100% certain that the lack of an 3.x-esque OGL in 4e was driven primarily by greed, to pull back in house the "lost profits" caused by third party products. The fact that third party support helped to drive profits of the primary game was lost or minimized by the bean counters.
Having WotC be cut loose from Hasbro might actually improve things a bit by eliminating the financial pressure from Hasbro. However, I don't know what might happen long term because of WotC's self-inflicted wounds.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;6421233) WotC had an abysmal record regarding providing online content. They had consistently promised a digital table top and failed to deliver. E-Tools was released on CD and was perpetually buggy. For a company that was able to successfully launch an online 'Magic: The Gathering', they clearly couldn't put together the resources to deliver the online content that had been promised.
4) 4th edition, when it was finally released, seemed 'gamist' to too many gamers. Maybe nobody wanted a 'story game', but counting squares and making every class work the same (albeit flavored differently) was unsatisfying to a large portion of the player base. 4th edition was essentially alienating.
I think the two points are connected. Ryan Dancey tells a convincing story (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column/page21&p=5765766#post5765766) about this one. If it's true, it'd have to be based on knowledge from what contacts he still had in WotC given that he'd been gone for years before the events in question, but frankly it explains
so much that I consider it to be at least the best working theory on why 4E is the way it is and not the whole truth, and the whole Forge deal is really a side issue in it.
To summarise the picture as I see it from what Dancey and others have written, the downfall of 4E was DDI, and specifically its virtual tabletop. The two entities were
never meant to live apart: like a pistol shrimp and a goby fish (http://chainsawsuit.com/2013/03/21/sea-buddies/) or you and your gut flora, they were meant to have a symbiotic relationship from the start, and the absence or dysfunction of one would be fatal to the other. 4E was designed from the ground-up to be nice and easy to implement in DDI's tabletop - hence the grid, hence the "pick a power from a menu" style of play which the presentation of the game promoted. (Yeah, yeah, sure, there's capability in 4E to go off-script and improvise actions, but in play the path of least resistance and highest effectiveness is often to just pick a power from the menu, unless the GM is largely abandoning grid-based combat as the focus of the game - at which point you're ignoring the thing 4E does best and might as well be playing a different game.)
The problem was that the virtual tabletop wasn't actually ready for 4E's premier in June 2008 - and a couple of months down the line, there was a nasty murder-suicide perpetrated by Joseph Batten, who was one of the key virtual tabletop team members. It's a bit of the story people tend to gloss over, and there's good reasons for that - considering that
people died in that situation, the disruption to a project schedule for a roleplaying game accessory is truly small beans in comparison - but I don't think it's a part of the story which can be entirely ignored because let's face it, it
did disrupt the project. All of the team members would have known Batten, and it's likely that many of them would have also known Melissa, and losing both under any circumstances would have shaken everyone, but under
those circumstances... the mixture of sadness and anger in the people working on that project must have been incredible, and I'm sure several of them must have contemplated walking off the project. I know if I were on that team and I knew that I'd have to work with Batten's code or dredge up old e-mails from him to continue my work on it, I'd have serious thoughts about resigning, because who wants to live with that sort of reminder every working day?
That left Wizards with a game optimised for a virtual tabletop environment which they weren't able to complete on time, and in the wake of the killings they were staring down the very real possibility that the work would never get done at all. So, the optimal environment to play 4E in, the one the game had been specifically designed for, was unavailable for months, crawled out in a hamstrung beta version after a long delay, and was quietly cancelled last year. Meanwhile, a bunch of absolutely lovely system-agnostic alternatives like Roll20 have come out which beat the pants off the VTT (and don't even lock you to the grid if that isn't what you want!).
Maybe, if Wizards had been able to have their vision for the VTT in place when 4E came out, it'd have been more of a hit - not so much with the face-to-face tabletop crowd, maybe, but I can imagine a parallel universe where there's a sizeable number of folks using a really good VTT with 4E because they aren't in touch with other gamers or don't have time to schedule face-to-face games (squeezing in a quick hour on the VTT here and there rather than scheduling a weekly four-hour session), as well as people who actually get all the face-to-face gaming they want who approach the VTT as a related but not identical pastime.
But that's a parallel universe where the VTT is really excellent, of a high enough standard that you're able to forgive being locked to the grid and being expected to pick powers from a list most combat rounds because the VTT provides a sufficiently fast-flowing and exciting game experience that you're able to treat is as a sort of boardgame-computer game hybrid. Who knows, maybe in such a universe Wizards would have been glad to concede a large part of the tabletop market to Paizo and others.
But of course, that's not the universe we live in.
In retrospect, changing the tabletop RPG as part of a process of setting up this robust VTT environment is something which never needed to happen. There's no reason why D&D couldn't have had mildly divergent editions tailored to different mediums - a "Classic Tabletop Experience" edition optimised for face-to-face gaming, and a "New Hotness" edition optimised for the Virtual Tabletop. The New Hotness could have been held back until a suitable VTT was ready to go, and the Classic Tabletop Experience would have been liberated from having to try to replicate fiddly game mechanics and book-keeping and encounter assumptions more suited to exciting videogame fights than to RPGs not tailored towards being skirmish wargames in disguise. The trick would be to make sure that the
flavour was consistent between the versions, rather than to slavishly make sure the
system is exactly the same.
But, of course, Wizards fumbled the ball. It would be grossly unfair to blame them for all of it - nobody could have predicted the Batten situation, for example - but the Wizards of 2013 has to play with the hand the Wizards of 2008 dealt. The fact is that Wizards have not only lost the initiative in the tabletop RPG area, they've also completely conceded the VTT zone - and they're still no closer to clawing back the computer game/MMO rights they were hoping to snag. That means they have literally
no choice but to make D&D Next the best tabletop RPG experience they can possibly make it. That'll involve rolling back a heap of 4Eisms because those were designed for a medium (the virtual tabletop) that Wizards has no interest in.
Quote from: Mistwell;642113You too, same questions. You're making a prediction of the doom of 5e, so nail down the specifics of what you think would objectively measure failure and success.
I'm not predicting doom for 5e so much as predicting it won't be much of a hit - those aren't equivalent statements for me.
If I had to guess something more precise, I'd say it will get sales somewhere within 10% (either direction) of the sales Essentials got and that sales will drop off at around the same rate. That would still put it up in sales at or near the top for a while. RPG releases are like movies - even terrible movies can be #1 at the box office when they're brand new if there's not a lot of competition.
There's always a group of people willing to buy the next edition, particularly the first couple of books. It will sell. It will make a modest amount of money. But I don't think we'll see the level of interest or long tail that some of the previous editions had. I think we'll see the continuation of the "market splintering" effect that 4e and Essentials had.
And since WotC clearly didn't consider 4e much of a success, I'm guessing 5e will look even less like one to them / Hasbro.
Quote from: Piestrio;641278I really hope not. I'm not a huge PF fan but they've done the hobby a huge favor by validating that adventures can sell and they'd do us an even greater service by showing us the edition treadmill isn't the only way to profitability.
Agreed. And I think they have already shown that they don't need to release new system supplements to remain profitable and attract a big market share. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to admit that adventures and setting material can form the foundation of a successful RPG company.
Quote from: Haffrung;642269Agreed. And I think they have already shown that they don't need to release new system supplements to remain profitable and attract a big market share. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to admit that adventures and setting material can form the foundation of a successful RPG company.
My uninformed impression is that the key to Paizo's success is that they sell
subscriptions. They don't need to re-convince their costumers to by each new installment that comes out.
I suspect it's harder to make money selling individual titles through retail channels. Goodman did that pretty well...but then hasn't he kept his day job the entire time he's been running Goodman Games? I could swear I read that somewhere.
Quote from: Mistwell;642154OK, "any measure", that leaves room for a lot of success. Heck, if they make #1 sales for 1 quarter, they are a success by "any measure".
Yeah. I don't think they'll be #1 for even a single quarter.
So, while I stand by what I said for ways to measure 'obvious success', let's talk about what you think would indicate a success.
Then I'll be happy to predict whether it will achieve any of those benchmarks.
Not being a hater here - I'd like to see D&D succeed. I just think that boat has sailed and it's going to take something spectacular to revive it.
I expect WotC to sell the D&D IP in 5-8 years. That would be a clear mark of failure, don't you think?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;642360I expect WotC to sell the D&D IP in 5-8 years.
Never gonna happen. Tv, Book, Movie & Video Game rights will never leave the Hasbro fold again.
Quote from: bryce0lynch;642362Never gonna happen. Tv, Book, Movie & Video Game rights will never leave the Hasbro fold again.
Agreed. Hasbro simply will never sell - it's an anathema to their whole operation.
Hasbro would shelve D&D before they would sell.
Most you could expect would be for Hasbro to licence out the tabletop RPG rights to D&D whilst keeping hold of more lucrative aspects of the IP like novels, board games, computer games, etc. They may well decide that there's no point in them directly investing time and effort into making tabletop RPGs but reason that it doesn't do any harm to licence that stuff out and at least get some royalties on it whilst their development budget goes on stuff which gets a better return on the investment.
Quote from: Warthur;642377Most you could expect would be for Hasbro to licence out the tabletop RPG rights to D&D whilst keeping hold of more lucrative aspects of the IP like novels, board games, computer games, etc. They may well decide that there's no point in them directly investing time and effort into making tabletop RPGs but reason that it doesn't do any harm to licence that stuff out and at least get some royalties on it whilst their development budget goes on stuff which gets a better return on the investment.
Who would be a good candidate for such a license, and has the deep pockets?
Quote from: ggroy;642380Who would be a good candidate for such a license, and has the deep pockets?
Pathfinder?
Quote from: Warthur;642377Most you could expect would be for Hasbro to licence out the tabletop RPG rights to D&D whilst keeping hold of more lucrative aspects of the IP like novels, board games, computer games, etc. They may well decide that there's no point in them directly investing time and effort into making tabletop RPGs but reason that it doesn't do any harm to licence that stuff out and at least get some royalties on it whilst their development budget goes on stuff which gets a better return on the investment.
That seems more plausible, although historically Hasbro's approach to licensing has been pretty godawful. The was a He-man comic a few years back where they pretty much had to get licenses on a character by character basis.
Although all that said, from what I have have heard*, when Hasbro do think about D&D they do end up being pretty confused by how to deal with it. The fact that pretty much anyone can just make a pretty close knock-off and legally there is nothing that can be done about it means it really doesn't fit into their normal IP strategy.
*I.e. not much
Quote from: deadDMwalking;642360Yeah. I don't think they'll be #1 for even a single quarter.
So, while I stand by what I said for ways to measure 'obvious success', let's talk about what you think would indicate a success.
Then I'll be happy to predict whether it will achieve any of those benchmarks.
Not being a hater here - I'd like to see D&D succeed. I just think that boat has sailed and it's going to take something spectacular to revive it.
I expect WotC to sell the D&D IP in 5-8 years. That would be a clear mark of failure, don't you think?
I don't think selling D&D would be a mark of failure by itself. As a rule, most companies sell assets when they peak in value. They only sell them when they bottom out if the company is desperate, and I don't see Hasbro as a company being desperate.
For me, success would be good sales for three years.
That does not mean "#1 in sales based on interviews with retailers and distributors", which is the number people keep quoting. To me, that's not a very helpful number in this age of drastically shrinking retail units, internet sales, and digital distribution. Retail sales are a symbol of a bygone era, and interviewable distributors distribute to the retail units and not to internet-only sources for the most part.
Which makes it hard to figure out what "good sales" are, when you cannot get a firm number on internet sales and digital sales. Unless there is data released in quarterly reports (unlikely) or leaks (unlikely) or they publicly give numbers this time (possible I suppose, but I wouldn't hold my breath), we're probably going to again be stuck extrapolating from circumstantial data.
That means daily Amazon rankings, hints of subscriber numbers from "joins" and "unjoins" of DDI-type message boards, and even more tangential things like "games played at GenCon" and "retail-store shelf space".
Anyway, that would be my standard, good sales for three years straight. I don't care if they "beat" Pathfinder, just that they do good on their own in sales.
Will they? I don't know. I am not making a prediction on this one. I hope they succeed.
Quote from: ggroy;642380Who would be a good candidate for such a license, and has the deep pockets?
Fantasy Flight.
Quote from: Haffrung;642541Fantasy Flight.
AH, yes! If anyone can "innovate" the game into oblivion, it's them.
Quote from: danbuter;641228Yeah, for not releasing much of anything, they are still making sales. Though I suspect those numbers are WAY lower than Hasbro requires.
I think that Hasbro obviously took into account in their decisions about WoTC that there would be low sales between the 5e announcement and its release. I'm betting they were also really impressed with how well the reprints have sold, I'm quite sure it was well beyond their expectations for this period.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Melan;641281I would expect Pathfinder to go with incremental edition change. Maybe more than Call of Cthulhu, but much less radical than D&D - that can be sold to fans while (mostly) maintaining product compatibility between editions.
Spoiler
Or maybe their MMORPG will become the new Warcraft. :rolleyes:
The thing is, Pathfinder faces a dilemma: their whole selling point was about NOT being a big change of edition, but rather an attempt at "perfecting" 3.5. If they now try to make a change of edition in response to 5e, they'll probably end up splintering their own market.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;643029The thing is, Pathfinder faces a dilemma: their whole selling point was about NOT being a big change of edition, but rather an attempt at "perfecting" 3.5. If they now try to make a change of edition in response to 5e, they'll probably end up splintering their own market.
RPGPundit
If 5th allows you to run Pazio adventure paths with little to no conversion, they may well decide the Pathfinder rule-set is pretty much redundant.
Quote from: RPGPundit;643029The thing is, Pathfinder faces a dilemma: their whole selling point was about NOT being a big change of edition, but rather an attempt at "perfecting" 3.5. If they now try to make a change of edition in response to 5e, they'll probably end up splintering their own market.
I'd imagine they'll put out a Pathfinder 2nd edition in three or four or five years, and it'll be about as different from current Pathfinder as PF is from 3.5e or 3e – so, basically compatible but with some nits you'll have to be really detail-oriented to look out for.
Quote from: RPGPundit;643029The thing is, Pathfinder faces a dilemma: their whole selling point was about NOT being a big change of edition, but rather an attempt at "perfecting" 3.5. If they now try to make a change of edition in response to 5e, they'll probably end up splintering their own market.
RPGPundit
Assuming that that audience really, really wants a new edition to begin with.
JG
As a fan of 3.x, I think a new edition was a good idea at some point. 4th edition came out about 2 years too soon, before a compelling case had been made for the limitations or flaws with 3.x that needed correction.
Further, 4th edition didn't really address any flaws in 3.x - it was a totally new system that introduced it's own whole new set of flaws.
An 'improved' Pathfinder would do well at some point. Not being a Pathfinder player, I don't have my hand on the pulse, but I'd think they'd be best to wait at least 2-3 years before moving toward a new edition... And in a transparent fashion. As much as possible they want to be seen as addressing fan 'complaints', rather than pushing for a new edition strictly for their own bottom line.
Quote from: James Gillen;643103Assuming that that audience really, really wants a new edition to begin with.
JG
That's my point: I'm assuming the Pathfinder fans really really won't; but that means Paizo won't be able to sell every fan a shiny new set of corebooks...
RPGPundit
I have a brief question, since I heard of this SW RPG but then it slipped my mind until now - judging by the custom dice, it seems to be Chithammer: SW Edition. The assumption is correct?
Quote from: RPGPundit;644222That's my point: I'm assuming the Pathfinder fans really really won't; but that means Paizo won't be able to sell every fan a shiny new set of corebooks...
RPGPundit
I don't think Paizo is having enough issues with cash flow to consider doing a 2.0 to boost their bottom line. Paizo seems to be comfortable enough using their subscriber base to keep themselves going without rocking the boat too much. They've got a good thing going; the last thing they'd need is to pull a 4e on their current formula.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;644227I don't think Paizo is having enough issues with cash flow to consider doing a 2.0 to boost their bottom line. Paizo seems to be comfortable enough using their subscriber base to keep themselves going without rocking the boat too much. They've got a good thing going; the last thing they'd need is to pull a 4e on their current formula.
Generally speaking, you only need (or only SHOULD need) a core book for a game once every five years at MOST. That means the short term profits are in the "splat" stuff. And by developing the subscription-for-modules model, Paizo has given modules new life.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;644319Generally speaking, you only need (or only SHOULD need) a core book for a game once every five years at MOST. That means the short term profits are in the "splat" stuff. And by developing the subscription-for-modules model, Paizo has given modules new life.
JG
From what Erik Mona has said in interviews, I've gathered that Paizo makes a profit from the subs alone. That means it gives Paizo the freedom to work on items that are important to them without harming the bottom line, such as the Bestiary Box and the minis (with WizKids).
Quote from: James Gillen;643103Assuming that that audience really, really wants a new edition to begin with.
JG
I know a few players that definately do not want a new version of pathfinder.
They would have been happy to stay with 3.5 but Pathfinder is newer and perhaps a bit of an improvement.
That being said, I wish to hell they would try something new.
I am so sick of 3X
There is certainly a split in the online fanbase between those wanting a new edition of Pathfinder and those who don't.
Quote from: Bill;644351They would have been happy to stay with 3.5 but Pathfinder is newer and perhaps a bit of an improvement.
These are probably an interesting audience block to study from our point of view, people who did not really want to change but did anyway because Pathfinder is "newer".
Quote from: jadrax;644374There is certainly a split in the online fanbase between those wanting a new edition of Pathfinder and those who don't.
These are probably an interesting audience block to study from our point of view, people who did not really want to change but did anyway because Pathfinder is "newer".
Personally I consider 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder to be essentially the same game system. But there are definately fans of each.
Quote from: Bill;644382Personally I consider 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder to be essentially the same game system. But there are definately fans of each.
In terms of mechanics I would agree. But this is all about actual product rather than system.
I.e. who bought the Pathfinder core books and why. Which is probably going to break down into 4 or 5 major categories.
I suspect what you may get in the long run isn't so much different editions as different presentations of Pathfinder. The beginner's box was a good example of providing a subset of the Pathfinder core and seems to have succeeded to a certain extent in not being crippleware. I can see scope for, say, cheap and cheerful pocket editions of the major Pathfinder rulebooks, for example.
I suspect if they do make a new edition it'll be a matter of juggling about the material in the expansion rulebooks - the Advanced Player's Guide, Bestiaries, various Ultimates and so on. It'll be sold as shifting the absolute cream of the supplemental material into the core so that the core rulebook can consist of the most tried-and-tested, solid and enjoyable features of the game line. Then they come out with new versions of the expansion rulebooks comprising of stuff which didn't make it into the core book, perhaps trimming away less inspired ideas to make room for new material. Rinse and repeat every few years, and perhaps issue cheap and cheerful "update patches" for those who don't want to buy a new core book, and that might work. I think it's correct to say that between the subscription model and a fanbase who'll be naturally suspicious of new editions that PF will wait longer than average before bringing out a new edition, and I think when they do it it'll be presented as an updated revision rather than as a bold departure. ("PF1 was 3.75E, PF2 is 3.80E!")
Certainly, I think the wise thing for Paizo would be to stay put for however long they are making a steady and prosperous profit. But this really depends on not caring if you're number 1 or number 2 (or number 5) as long as you're still doing well; and I could see how it might be very tempting to get into an arms race with WoTC once 5e comes out, to try to stop them from taking away the (ultimately not that important) title of "first place".
RPGPundit
Quote from: Warthur;644394I suspect what you may get in the long run isn't so much different editions as different presentations of Pathfinder. The beginner's box was a good example of providing a subset of the Pathfinder core and seems to have succeeded to a certain extent in not being crippleware. I can see scope for, say, cheap and cheerful pocket editions of the major Pathfinder rulebooks, for example.
I suspect if they do make a new edition it'll be a matter of juggling about the material in the expansion rulebooks - the Advanced Player's Guide, Bestiaries, various Ultimates and so on. It'll be sold as shifting the absolute cream of the supplemental material into the core so that the core rulebook can consist of the most tried-and-tested, solid and enjoyable features of the game line. Then they come out with new versions of the expansion rulebooks comprising of stuff which didn't make it into the core book, perhaps trimming away less inspired ideas to make room for new material. Rinse and repeat every few years, and perhaps issue cheap and cheerful "update patches" for those who don't want to buy a new core book, and that might work. I think it's correct to say that between the subscription model and a fanbase who'll be naturally suspicious of new editions that PF will wait longer than average before bringing out a new edition, and I think when they do it it'll be presented as an updated revision rather than as a bold departure. ("PF1 was 3.75E, PF2 is 3.80E!")
I totally agree.
Quote from: RPGPundit;644801Certainly, I think the wise thing for Paizo would be to stay put for however long they are making a steady and prosperous profit. But this really depends on not caring if you're number 1 or number 2 (or number 5) as long as you're still doing well; and I could see how it might be very tempting to get into an arms race with WoTC once 5e comes out, to try to stop them from taking away the (ultimately not that important) title of "first place".
RPGPundit
At this point "first place" is a rather vain standard when the real measure of success is mere survival.
JG
Quote from: Warthur;644394I suspect what you may get in the long run isn't so much different editions as different presentations of Pathfinder. The beginner's box was a good example of providing a subset of the Pathfinder core and seems to have succeeded to a certain extent in not being crippleware.
The rules in the Pathfinder Beginner's Box are amazing, and I hope some day we'll have a 3PP releasing an "expert" set.
Quote from: Frey;644898The rules in the Pathfinder Beginner's Box are amazing, and I hope some day we'll have a 3PP releasing an "expert" set.
What would be in an expert set? (ie. Besides higher levels).
Quote from: ggroy;644904What would be in an expert set? (ie. Besides higher levels).
One of the things that the Beginner Box did really well was to take the textbook style of Paizo's regular offerings and convert it into a graphical, easy to follow format. I know that my kids' eyes will occasionally glaze over while reading the Core Rules, but the Beginner Box never had that issue.
If Paizo ever came out with an "Expert" version of the Beginner Box that added more of the Core rules/classes in a similar fashion, they'd have another hit on their hands.
Quote from: RPGPundit;644801Certainly, I think the wise thing for Paizo would be to stay put for however long they are making a steady and prosperous profit. But this really depends on not caring if you're number 1 or number 2 (or number 5) as long as you're still doing well; and I could see how it might be very tempting to get into an arms race with WoTC once 5e comes out, to try to stop them from taking away the (ultimately not that important) title of "first place".
Oh, certainly there's scope for the egos involved to sway things one way or another.
If I were responsible for Pathfinder I'd be thrilled at the game taking first place but I'd also be realistic about it: such things are temporary (even for D&D these days, it seems) and I'd be very aware that a large part of that success really belongs to the previous generation at Wizards, who made a game so robust that it becomes the number one RPG even if it's published by a different company under a different title. And if D&D Next recaptured a large part of the market by shifting back towards something resembling 3.X then I would consider the project to be decidedly exonerated (and consider dual-statting Pathfinder adventures so that they can be used with Next).
At the very least, I hope that Paizo do retain sight of the fact that they've got where they are by providing the most widely-loved and embraced retro-clone of 3.X, and understand that they'd be destroying their own place in the market ecosystem if they moved away from that.
Quote from: James Gillen;644882At this point "first place" is a rather vain standard when the real measure of success is mere survival.
Absolutely. Fighting over who is top dog is a achievement when you're competing in a thriving industry.There comes a point at which a rival failing jeopardizes the survival of the whole hobby as a commercial endeavor. It seems to me that tabletop RPGs have reached that point.
Quote from: Warthur;644954and I'd be very aware that a large part of that success really belongs to the previous generation at Wizards, who made a game so robust that it becomes the number one RPG even if it's published by a different company under a different title.
Not really. It was due to the arrogance of Wotc to think it could have D&D fans substitute their game for a monthly subscription to a virtual board game decorated with D&D art.
Quote from: xech;645034Not really. It was due to the arrogance of Wotc to think it could have D&D fans substitute their game for a monthly subscription to a virtual board game decorated with D&D art.
You're wrong in your mischaracterization of 4e, but you knew that. I thought it would be impolite to not acknowledge your trolling, since you worked so hard to get a response.
Quote from: Mistwell;645043You're wrong in your mischaracterization of 4e, but you knew that. I thought it would be impolite to not acknowledge your trolling, since you worked so hard to get a response.
No, I am just stating the fact. The so much advertized virtual table top was a grid platform and 4e is a grid game designed for it. The whole fucking point of 4e's character options (powers and what have you) is mastering the options of a tactical grid game.
This is not a roleplaying game, not D&D.
Quote from: xech;645044No, I am just stating the fact. The so much advertized virtual table top was a grid platform and 4e is a grid game designed for it. The whole fucking point of 4e's character options (powers and what have you) is mastering the options of a tactical grid game.
This is not a roleplaying game, not D&D.
You said it was a boardgame. Now you're calling it a grid game, as if the two are synonyms. They are not. You might argue 4e was a wargame (I think that is inaccurate as well, but at least it's a cogent argument), but not that it's a boardgame. It simply was not a boardgame, by any reasonable definition.
I get it was not your thing. I'd tell you why your opinion is not fact, but I think I've fed your trolling enough. I hope you appreciate that I put the effort in purely for your satisfaction. I didn't want you to feel like you got nothing from your troll.
Oh mistwell, do stop hitting yourself.
Quote from: Mistwell;645047You said it was a boardgame. Now you're calling it a grid game, as if the two are synonyms. They are not. You might argue 4e was a wargame (I think that is inaccurate as well, but at least it's a cogent argument), but not that it's a boardgame. It simply was not a boardgame, by any reasonable definition.
Are you fucking kidding me?
What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share? Same question about wargames. Wargames are some kind of boardgame.
Roleplaying games are something else.Why? Because roleplaying games are about role immersion and not about winning point balanced tactical game "encounters".
Quote from: xech;645050Because roleplaying games are about role immersion and not about winning point balanced tactical game "encounters".
So far as I can tell, combat has always been the central focus of D&D, in all its incarnations.
4e may have been a bit more overt than earlier editions, in that regard, making it quite clearly the bread and butter of the game, but I think that was a misguided attempt to focus on what they thought people wanted from their TTRPGs.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645053So far as I can tell, combat has always been the central focus of D&D, in all its incarnations.
Combat in D&D wasn't a point balanced encounter affair. Combat or avoiding combat in D&D was a part of adventuring. In 4e adventure is just a part of grid combat: that is, the purpose of adventure is a narrative to drive you from one grid combat encounter to the next.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645053I think that was a misguided attempt to focus on what they thought people wanted from their TTRPGs.
They wanted to succeed on selling D&D as a thing of a grid environment (a grid game) so to have people subscribe to their virtual table top.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645053So far as I can tell, combat has always been the central focus of D&D, in all its incarnations.
Wrong.
Quote from: Benoist;645062Wrong.
Also one thing is talking about combat in general, and another thing the grid focused combat of 4e which is just a tactical board game and fails to have you simulate a fantasy action role/character (dissociated mechanics and what have you).
Quote from: xech;645061Combat in D&D wasn't a point balanced encounter affair.
No, and I didn't say that it has been. However, combat has been a strong, central theme to the game for what seems like it's entire existence.
Of course, as I've noted elsewhere, my experience is only with 1e onward. So perhaps whatever came before that was less so.
Quote from: Benoist;645062Wrong.
D&D can trace its mechanical roots to wargaming. That implies a strong combat focus.
Advancement mechanics have almost universally been related to "killing things and taking their stuff." Now you can argue that the "gp = xp" formula did not directly reward combat, and yes, technically you'd be correct... but the game has also not been shy about telling players that monsters have lots of loot.
The entire concept of "player skill," in the Gygaxian context, runs directly counter to the idea of roleplaying. It is metagaming, through and through, and I can think of few concepts that are as diametrically opposed to the concept of roleplaying as that.
D&D is largely about combat. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - it's not meant to be a judgmental statement - but trying to deny that seems silly.
Quote from: xech;645064(dissociated mechanics and what have you).
Disassociated mechanics are another thing entirely. And yeah, 4e did embrace that concept wholesale, which made it IMO a significantly worse game than earlier incarnations.
Quote from: xech;645064Also one thing is talking about combat in general, and another thing the grid focused combat of 4e which is just a tactical board game and fails to have you simulate a fantasy action role/character (dissociated mechanics and what have you).
Yes. I think you'd find most sessions of most D&D players back in the 70s and 80s were mainly combat. Not only, but mainly. About 50 per cent combat, 30 per cent exploration, 20 per cent misc roleplay. Looking at an adventure like Hall of the Fire Giant King, it's hard to imagine combat not taking up most of the gameplay time.
But that's a far cry from making the combat grid the focus of all player attention and game mechanics. And a game session with lots of 10-20 minutes combats with exploration and roleplay in between is going to feel very different from a game session with one or two 2+ hour combats.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645067The entire concept of "player skill," in the Gygaxian context, runs directly counter to the idea of roleplaying. It is metagaming, through and through, and I can think of few concepts that are as diametrically opposed to the concept of roleplaying as that.
D&D is largely about combat. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - it's not meant to be a judgmental statement - but trying to deny that seems silly.
The notion that early D&D wasn't mainly about combat is one of the those persistent memes kicked out by a certain element of the OSR crowd - often people who didn't even play in the 70s and early 80s and have gotten all of their ideas about the early game from reading forums in the last few years.
Early D&D was about exploration. You explored dungeons and the wilderness, faced dangers doing so, and managed the risk as a property of your player's skill at survival in the ongoing campaign. Combat in this context is but one of the possible dangers faced, and one you would rather avoid whenever possible, in fact. If you have not avoided combat in some fashion or other over your first game sessions, or mitigated the threats by using actual tactics, including retreats, henchmen and hirelings, pitting two enemies against each other while you stand back and the like, you are going to die and never see your character reach higher levels.
The XP gained from coin and loot in fact far exceeds (in a 2 for 1 proportion, on average) what you will gain from the creatures you will have defeated in combat, following the DMG/MM guidelines regarding stocking, treasures on creatures, in their various lairs, etc.
Saying that D&D's main focus was always combat is reductio ad absurdum that only leads to parodies of the real game, as the recent design trends that gave us say, fourth edition, have proven in spades, as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Haffrung;645074The notion that early D&D wasn't mainly about combat is one of the those persistent memes kicked out by a certain element of the OSR crowd - often people who didn't even play in the 70s and early 80s and have gotten all of their ideas about the early game from reading forums in the last few years.
When I started playing D&D in 1975, we only played in dungeons and combat (or combat-related activities, like fleeing from an encounter gone wrong) took about 50% of the session time, the other 50% was exploration-related activities and "setup stuff" (going back to town, buying equipment, gathering rumors and other info, etc.). The average combat took 5 to 10 minutes max. A long combat took 15 minutes. The average 5-6 hour dungeon session (I was in college then) saw around 20 separate combats.
Later I bought a copy of the City-State of the Invincible Overlord and the first Wilderlands set from Judge's Guild. After figuring out how to do outdoor wandering monsters (encounters with orcs were likely an orc patrol, not the entire tribe of 40D10 adult male orcs on the march), wilderness exploration, trade, and the like started competing with the dungeon. Dungeon sessions still had a lot of combat, but non-dungeon sessions usually had far less (even rolling for possible night encounters every watch) -- say, 60 to 90 minutes of the session.
Even in dungeon sessions, however, the purpose of the exploration wasn't just to be a way to string possible combat encounters together. The purpose of the expeditions was to explore and to collect treasure -- not to have exciting combats. Combat was simply something you could not always avoid if you wanted to explore the dungeon and get the treasure. In other words, combat was a sideline, not the central focus of play.
The all-combat, all-the-time groups were usually run either by killer GMs or as a wargame (as opposed to a roleplaying game -- and yes, the distinction was made fairly early on, at least in South Texas.)
Quote from: Haffrung;645074The notion that early D&D wasn't mainly about combat is one of the those persistent memes kicked out by a certain element of the OSR crowd - often people who didn't even play in the 70s and early 80s and have gotten all of their ideas about the early game from reading forums in the last few years.
Or it could be people talking about how you can play the game NOW and don't really give a rats ass about how it was "back in the day".
Quote from: Benoist;645077Early D&D was about exploration.
This may have been how it played out - I don't know, I wasn't there - but looking at the mechanics, I can't agree with this.
One of the primary classes of the game, one of the few that has been there the entire time, is the
fighter. That kind of implies fighting is a big thing, at least to me.
I mean, if exploration were the focus of the game, then I would expect to see mechanics that back up that claim... but I don't. What mechanics do exist to encourage that focus are either nigh-unusable or straight-up ignored (if stories I've been told/read/etc are any indication).
As for the treasure thing: sure, loot may have given you more xp than monsters. And how often was that treasure just sitting around unguarded? I mean, come on... one of the core books is the Monster Manual. I don't think they wrote that anticipating people to not use the damn thing.
Yeah, see, GnomeWorks. You're coming at it the wrong way. You're applying your own post-3rd edition, post-Forge bias of "system matters", "the rules are the game" and all that jazz back onto a game that had nothing to do with that mentality in the first place. You're just wrong. Now, you can either accept that, or not, but repeating the same inanities over and over again will just cause you to dig a bigger hole for yourself. It's not going to make you any more right, because you just are not.
I know I won't be able to convince you of that, because your mind is made up and now your back is against the wall, so you're going to defend your point over dozens of posts and so on. I won't be there for that. I'm just telling you: you're wrong. Read the games or better yet, play them with a competent DM. Learn what it is you are talking about. Then you'll look back and realize how ignorant what you just said really sounded.
The portion size a rulebook contains toward a rules section does not wholly relate to its table impact, as tempting a facile association may be made. Possibly influencing, but never more than GM, setting, or players. Otherwise experience and treasure would be an oversight and so many tables would be locked in discussions of alignment, movement, and shopping.
Having ran (and ran through) multiple D&D sessions in very different campaign styles, I can easily attest that combat can be a mere afterthought, if the players are so inclined. The combat rules are so involved because it's the easiest spot to notice where a "shot you!" "did not!" contest would occur.
Quote from: Benoist;645089Yeah, see, GnomeWorks. You're coming at it the wrong way. You're applying your own post-3rd edition, post-Forge bias of "system matters", "the rules are the game" and all that jazz back onto a game that had nothing to do with that mentality in the first place. You're just wrong.
i.e. this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BJyM6EiSL._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg) isn't poker.
nor is this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JsHneU6wL._AA160_.jpg)
Quote from: Opaopajr;645093The portion size a rulebook contains toward a rules section does not wholly relate to its table impact, as tempting a facile association may be made. Possibly influencing, but never more than GM, setting, or players. Otherwise experience and treasure would be an oversight and so many tables would be locked in discussions of alignment, movement, and shopping.
Not to mention that the rules on combat are actually fairly small in TSRD&D, certainly a smaller portion of the rules than in either WOTCD&D.
Well if were all about page number size, there'd be magic spells going off all the time, regardless of their spell levels. However you can have whole parties without Wizards or Priests, let alone the DMG discussing whole settings without magic. Imagine that. Seeds of their own destruction, it must have been.
:idunno:
A lot of people figured out D&D's game mode from published adventures. Even a "puzzly" dungeon like White Plume Mountain has a fuckload of combat encounters that you pretty much can't avoid. And the G series? Bloodbaths. Whether revisionist jihadists admit it or not, hack and slash was always a popular - and probably the default - mode of play.
Quote from: Haffrung;645111A lot of people figured out D&D's game mode from published adventures. Even a "puzzly" dungeon like White Plume Mountain has a fuckload of combat encounters that you pretty much can't avoid. And the G series? Bloodbaths. Whether revisionist jihadists admit it or not, hack and slash was always a popular - and probably the default - mode of play.
I'm going to pull an Alexandrian and cite myself.
Quote from: Rincewind1;644513I'll be foolish enough to walk into this manhole.
A conception that DnD is about fighting monster is the same misconception that brought the wide fan dislike of Diablo 3 (or the dislike/failure of 4e, come to think of it) - not because it was a bad game, but because it was based on misconceptions of previous games. This guy will explain it funnier than I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I22Ivb8ELzQ
Sure, you can treat DnD as just fighting monsters - but then you deliberatively choose to shallow your own experience, just as you can choose to treat Prachett's work as pure humour rather than clever social commentary, or to simply chomp on good food in a restaurant - you get your enjoyment/nourishment, it's fun all the same, but you miss out on some stuff.
DnD is about raising from a guy who can be killed by a goblin in one to one combat, to a guy who commands his own castle and starts combating not goblins, but lords and kings, and eventually, if his bones do not litter the various dungeons or battlefields, he may become a (demi)god. Killing monsters is means to an end, not the end itself - unless you deliberatively choose to do so. Just because you choose to gobble a fine goblet of wine in one go, it does not mean it wasn't created with intention of savouring it.
And my gripe is that sometimes a tavern should be just a tavern, a man/women should be just someone you try to bed, not a quest point.
And no, I didn't know DnD from Adam, it's not my favourite system, I have systems that I find much better (Warhammer & BRP). But it handles nicely enough to my certain needs, aka a mix between high fantasy/sword and sorcerery campaign.
And for some proof - Combat in Rules Cyclopedia takes 13 pages...and 12 pages of Siege & Mass combat rules, almost as long as the hack & slash rules. Rules for Strongholds & Dominions take 9 pages - almost the same as combat. A bit too much for a PnP Diablo, I'd say. :P
Quote from: Piestrio;645095i.e. this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BJyM6EiSL._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg) isn't poker.
nor is this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JsHneU6wL._AA160_.jpg)
Eh, comparing competitive games to RPGs (even poker - I assume you are relating to the number of variants of poker) isn't entirely proper. Since RPGs are, for the most part, collaborative, you needn't worry so much about clarity of rules and agreement on those rules, since everyone's on the same side, so to speak - even the GM isn't trying to kill the party, just creates a challenging world, and victory is entertainment, so to speak. Competitive games, on the other hand, especially when money's at stake, demand clear rules that are known and fair to all participants, since everyone ought to be trying for the victory - that is the shared enjoyment of the competitive game, after all. Playing it is fun as well, of course, but the fun, in a large part, comes from overcoming an invested opponent.
That is why it is not so important in RPGs that a wizard may be more powerful than warrior in the party (since they are in one party anyway, and ought wizard start to play dick, the warrior can always cut his throat in his sleep), but it is important in a board game about fighting that wizard is mechanically on a same or at least similar power level to fighter - he may be easier to play, but warrior may be more powerful once you understand his tactical potential, etc. etc.
Quote from: Haffrung;645111A lot of people figured out D&D's game mode from published adventures. Even a "puzzly" dungeon like White Plume Mountain has a fuckload of combat encounters that you pretty much can't avoid. And the G series? Bloodbaths. Whether revisionist jihadists admit it or not, hack and slash was always a popular - and probably the default - mode of play.
It'd be nice if you took your head out of your ass-cheeks and realized that nobody's talking about whether combat had a big part to play in the D&D game from the start or not: it did, and it does.
The contention is whether combat was THE focus of the game throughout its iterations, and THIS is flat-out wrong. And I know that from playing the game personally, from reading through OD&D and AD&D thoroughly, from talking to people like Rob Kuntz, Luke and Ernie Gygax and what their games, game-mastered or played, felt like, and everything tells me that the idea bandied about ever since Mike Mearls started talking about D&D being about "killing things and taking their stuff" on his livejournal is total bullshit.
Now you might have played with DMs that made it all about combat and construed "hack and slash" as just kicking a door, rolling to hit and getting the treasure for whoever was left standing, but that's not what hack and slash actually is, that's not how the game was played originally, and that's certainly not how the game books of OD&D and AD&D formulated it either, if you cared to re-read them and got over your own bloody bias.
Quote from: Benoist;645120It'd be nice if you took your head out of your ass-cheeks and realized that nobody's talking about whether combat had a big part to play in the D&D game from the start or not: it did, and it does.
The contention is whether combat was THE focus of the game throughout its iterations, and THIS is flat-out wrong. And I know that from playing the game personally, from reading through OD&D and AD&D thoroughly, from talking to people like Rob Kuntz, Luke and Ernie Gygax and what their games, game-mastered or played, felt like, and everything tells me that the idea bandied about ever since Mike Mearls started talking about D&D being about "killing things and taking their stuff" on his livejournal is total bullshit.
Now you might have played with DMs that made it all about combat and construed "hack and slash" as just kicking a door, rolling to hit and getting the treasure for whoever was left standing, but that's not what hack and slash actually is, that's not how the game was played originally, and that's certainly not how the game books of OD&D and AD&D formulated it either, if you cared to re-read them and got over your own bloody bias.
Heck, even by 3e DMM the "kick in the door" is differentiated as
one of the playstyles, and by the tone, not suggested as the primary one.
Quote from: xech;645034Not really. It was due to the arrogance of Wotc to think it could have D&D fans substitute their game for a monthly subscription to a virtual board game decorated with D&D art.
Sure, but why didn't those fans migrate to, say, 2E WFRP, or True20, or GURPS, or Runequest? It's because they specifically wanted the 3.X experience and Pathfinder was offering it, and they were offering it with better support than anyone else putting out a 3.X clone on the market.
Quote from: Benoist;645089You're just wrong.
Yes, and your incredibly large body of evidence has convinced me of that comple- oh, wait.
QuoteI know I won't be able to convince you of that, because your mind is made up and now your back is against the wall, so you're going to defend your point over dozens of posts and so on.
You know how I know you know nothing about me?
Anyway.
System does matter. Perhaps not for the reasons that Edwards claimed it does, but it is relevant. System impacts how and why decisions are made. D&D has a certain systemic feel to it, and that is why you favor it over other games (I assume - if not the case, then feel free to replace "D&D" with whatever system you actually favor). Arguments that system is irrelevant are just childish backlash against the swine.
You try to claim that D&D has never been about hack and slash, that there's this whole history of groups that would run from encounters, try turning monsters against each other, clever manipulation of situations... yet all I hear are stories. I have never seen anything like this in actual play. I have never heard about these things happening from gamers I talk to in real life that play older editions of D&D. This style doesn't even seem to occur to most of the gamers I talk to - and these are older folks, who grew up with older editions of the game.
Am I saying that that style is impossible in D&D? No. Maybe I just have a limited experience, though the gaming circles I have been in are rather large, so I would argue against that. Hell, that style of play is along the lines of what I've been aiming for in the design of my current project.
Quote from: HaffrungAbout 50 per cent combat, 30 per cent exploration, 20 per cent misc roleplay.
This, right here. I doubt any particular set of numbers ascribed to division of play in older D&D is going to be incredibly accurate - differences in style and such, and most people I know wouldn't track the time they spend doing certain types of things while gaming - but this seems reasonable enough. As an aggregate, obviously; I'd assume individual sessions vary wildly, but over time, these averages seem reasonable.
There is nothing wrong with this division of play, and this is what I was getting at: combat tends to take up the largest amount of time and be the focus more often. If you interpreted what I said - that combat is the focus of D&D - as implying that D&D is "all combat all the time," then my apologies for being unclear. Later editions certainly lend themselves to it more, but I would argue this is because there is a greater mechanical focus on combat and less importance placed on non-combat (again, through mechanical means).
I mean, hell - look at the vast majority of modules. Most of them have a hefty amount of combat (or potential combat, since I suppose you could theoretically avoid them). That is not to say there is no interaction or exploration in them, but those elements usually not as strongly present as combat. That rather implies that combat is an important focal point of the game.
Quote from: Rincewind1;645115Eh, comparing competitive games to RPGs (even poker - I assume you are relating to the number of variants of poker) isn't entirely proper.
Actually, I think the point being made is a cogent one.
The rules of poker (as expressed in Hoyle's, or whichever source you want to roll with), and the implements you play poker with (cards and chips) do not constitute the poker experience. More than that,
the most important aspect of poker has absolutely nothing to do with any written rules, and nothing to do with the implements used to play the game.That, of course, is bluffing.
Imagine an alien robot comes to our planet. Because it's a robot, it is a super-genius but is also not very imaginative; given a set of rules, it can master and them rapidly and craft an optimal playing strategy based on them, but if something isn't mentioned in the rules it's not going to take it into account. Because it's an alien, it's never encountered poker before - never played it, never seen anyone played it, never encountered any of the idioms associated with it, never read a story featuring it, doesn't even know it exists.
Now, give the alien robot a summary of the rules of Texas Hold 'Em. It will consider the probabilities of drawing each card, it will consider the probabilities of assembling each hand, it will probably be quite good at card-counting. Then sit the robot down at the table and make it play.
It will lose, hard, because the rules never mentioned bluffing, and success at poker hinges so much on bluffing that someone playing exclusively based on the balance of probabilities will not prosper long.
Likewise, a lot of the actual draw of a tabletop RPG is poorly related at best in the rules. Actual roleplaying in terms of adopting the point of view of your character isn't really mentioned
at all in OD&D and the idea isn't developed very much in subsequent games except for in examples of play and other "for beginners" material. The fact that the rules spend a lot of time on combat doesn't necessarily mean that combat is what is important - it could, equally, mean that a lot of game mechanics are needed in association with combat because in a tabletop RPG you can't very well replicate combat by LARPing it out.
Fair enough Warthur and point conceded. Though in general I found a lot of Balance is Law foolishness rooted around the concept that board games = RPGs, henceforth my instinctive raising of claws.
Quote from: Haffrung;645111A lot of people figured out D&D's game mode from published adventures. Even a "puzzly" dungeon like White Plume Mountain has a fuckload of combat encounters that you pretty much can't avoid. And the G series? Bloodbaths. Whether revisionist jihadists admit it or not, hack and slash was always a popular - and probably the default - mode of play.
I agree, but would like to think that people learn to enjoy the roleplay aspects at some point even if they start off focused on combat.
I enjoy a good wargame but not neraly as much as I enjoy a good role playing game.
I have run into gamers over the years that admit they play roleplaying games like a wargame for the tactical combat.
Quote from: Benoist;645120It'd be nice if you took your head out of your ass-cheeks and realized that nobody's talking about whether combat had a big part to play in the D&D game from the start or not: it did, and it does.
The contention is whether combat was THE focus of the game throughout its iterations, and THIS is flat-out wrong. And I know that from playing the game personally, from reading through OD&D and AD&D thoroughly, from talking to people like Rob Kuntz, Luke and Ernie Gygax and what their games, game-mastered or played, felt like, and everything tells me that the idea bandied about ever since Mike Mearls started talking about D&D being about "killing things and taking their stuff" on his livejournal is total bullshit.
Now you might have played with DMs that made it all about combat and construed "hack and slash" as just kicking a door, rolling to hit and getting the treasure for whoever was left standing, but that's not what hack and slash actually is, that's not how the game was played originally, and that's certainly not how the game books of OD&D and AD&D formulated it either, if you cared to re-read them and got over your own bloody bias.
I was fortunate as a young gm to be told by a player that I was doing it wrong. When I first started gming I thought you made dungeons with level one monsters on level one, level two monsters on level two, etc...
Fill up those rooms with monsters!
So my early adventures were nothing more than dungeons filled with monsters to fight.
After this reality check from a player, I learned to focus on roleplay and setting.
I went from lame ass gm to good gm fairly quickly.
Also I was fortunate to experience a few really horrid gm's that demonstrated what not to do.
But combat was what I assumed the game was about when I first discovered Basic dnd and adnd.
Quote from: Benoist;645120It'd be nice if you took your head out of your ass-cheeks and realized that nobody's talking about whether combat had a big part to play in the D&D game from the start or not: it did, and it does.
The contention is whether combat was THE focus of the game throughout its iterations, and THIS is flat-out wrong. And I know that from playing the game personally, from reading through OD&D and AD&D thoroughly, from talking to people like Rob Kuntz, Luke and Ernie Gygax and what their games, game-mastered or played, felt like, and everything tells me that the idea bandied about ever since Mike Mearls started talking about D&D being about "killing things and taking their stuff" on his livejournal is total bullshit.
But you didn't play a whole lot of D&D back in the day, did you Benoist? Like so many of the OSR jihadists, you've learned about True Old School ways from forums. But why in fuck should how Rob Kuntz, or Frank Mentzer, or Gary Gygax himself played matter, except as a historical curiosity?
The way D&D was played once it was out in the wild by 1978 is what old-school D&D was, not what a bunch of forum wanks parsing the Scrolls of Olde Lake Geneva claim. I played in a thriving local city scene from 1978 to 1986. I saw how 10, 15 different groups played. Lunch-time school groups. Neighbours. Conventions. And while playstyles certainly varied, the norm was very different from what the forum revisionists claim.
Yes, there were often monsters that you had to run away from. But you killed most monsters on sight. Yes, there was a lot of exploration and puzzle-solving. But at the end of the day, you tried to clear out a dungeon level because that was the only way to be sure you got all the loot. This notion that D&D was primarily about sneaking in to get the golden crown and sneaking out again is bullshit. It may have been the way some groups played sometimes. It certainly wasn't the norm at the table, or even the norm for published adventures. Get your hands on one of the old DM's Adventure logs. A table to fill in the list of PCs and their stats on one page, and a table to fill in the monsters, their treasure, and XP on the facing page. And the example has a full page of kills.
Quote from: Benoist;645120Now you might have played with DMs that made it all about combat and construed "hack and slash" as just kicking a door, rolling to hit and getting the treasure for whoever was left standing, but that's not what hack and slash actually is, that's not how the game was played originally, and that's certainly not how the game books of OD&D and AD&D formulated it either, if you cared to re-read them and got over your own bloody bias.
I went through the Dark Tower with a first level party. How's that for fantasy fucking Vietnam? We had to hunt down and kill every giant rat in the place in order to level up and start hunting down every goblin in the place, and then make ourselves useful to Avakris and his ambitions, all the while avoiding Vredni, Eater of the dead. But that certainly wasn't the norm. My DM had a reputation as a killer DM, and even for him this was an extreme case.
I get that some people have always played D&D that way. What gets on my nerves is claiming it's the way most people played, or (worse) claiming it's the way the game was meant to played. Once D&D was out in the wild, it was everyone's game. It's sad that a lot of younger players who weren't around then have to go by second-hand accounts to learn about old-school D&D. The problem is that a very particular mode of play has been evangelized by a small clique of forum posters and bloggers who, out of incendiary hatred of WotC and its fans, employ revisionism to foster a model of old-school D&D as different as humanly possible from modern D&D.
Quote from: Bill;645179I was fortunate as a young gm to be told by a player that I was doing it wrong. When I first started gming I thought you made dungeons with level one monsters on level one, level two monsters on level two, etc...
Fill up those rooms with monsters!
So my early adventures were nothing more than dungeons filled with monsters to fight.
That style of play was actually encouraged by TSR supplements like Dungeon Geomorphs and Monster and Treasure Assortments. Or look at the section of the AD&D DMG on creating random dungeons. You do, in fact, roll on a monster table corresponding to the level of the dungeon.
I think most people grow out of that mode of play. But you certainly weren't doing it wrong. It was a common, and as I said earlier, default mode of play for a while there. What's the Caverns of Chaos in the Keep on the Borderlands except a bunch of monster lairs jammed together, organized roughly by difficulty?
Quote from: Haffrung;645183That style of play was actually encouraged by TSR supplements like Dungeon Geomorphs and Monster and Treasure Assortments. Or look at the section of the AD&D DMG on creating random dungeons. You do, in fact, roll on a monster table corresponding to the level of the dungeon.
I think most people grow out of that mode of play. But you certainly weren't doing it wrong. It was a common, and as I said earlier, default mode of play for a while there. What's the Caverns of Chaos in the Keep on the Borderlands except a bunch of monster lairs jammed together, organized roughly by difficulty?
While the caverns of chaos are mostly just a lot of monsters, the entire module has some depth. I ran that module again recently and it was a blast.
Full of plot hooks, things to do, and interesting npc's.
Quote from: Benoist;645120The contention is whether combat was THE focus of the game throughout its iterations, and THIS is flat-out wrong. And I know that from playing the game personally, from reading through OD&D and AD&D thoroughly, from talking to people like Rob Kuntz, Luke and Ernie Gygax and what their games, game-mastered or played, felt like, and everything tells me that the idea bandied about ever since Mike Mearls started talking about D&D being about "killing things and taking their stuff" on his livejournal is total bullshit.
I believe you.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645167System does matter. Perhaps not for the reasons that Edwards claimed it does, but it is relevant. System impacts how and why decisions are made.
This quoted part is right for the wrong reasons.
D&D, among many people, was as Ben described. It was, for most people, as GnomeWorks and Haffrug have described.
The problem is, the playstyle Ben describes was
allowed by the rules, but not
taught by them.
So most players didn't play that way.
"Because they were fucking fucktards!"
Maybe. It doesn't matter. The game manuals didn't explicitly teach that style of play, and in the absence of such guidelines (not rules which compel it, but guidelines — "here's ways to have fun within the rules") most people fell back on the most easily grasped, lowest common denominator aspect of RPG's: killing evil things and taking their stuff.
(Plus, power fantasy. Crack to kids. "I totally kicked it's ass!" "My dude has 18/00!" etc.)
GM's don't spring up from nowhere. And most games are relatively good about teaching them the rules, and how to apply them.
But most are really bad about — "Hey players and GM's: in addition to the rules, here's ways of thinking about challenges in the game. Here's some things to do, that will be more interesting than killing. Here's all the cool stuf we do, that aren't part of the rules, but which are totally the shit."
Let's stipulate that Ben's right on the facts. Let's further stipulate that the described mode of play is fun as fucking hell.
I'll speculate that mode (and close variants) drives much of the OSR love, and "movement". But the OSR people don't seem to understand that their rules set doesn't, in and of itself, explain or establish this mode of play. (And doesn't have to. And probably shouldn't.)
But, in addition to the rules, there's the advice. And the advice on how to play in the "outhinking the dungeon" mode is woefully absent.
The playstyle isn't just some magic thing that, if you crack open OSRIC, will magically appear at the table, "because that's what OS D&D is
about!"
So, instead of
preaching the virtues of 4 classes, weapon/armor modifier tables, and what the fuck ever, Old Schoolers should probably be
teaching people how to play the game in the old school way. Not the moments of zen, that shit fucking sucked (because it was all about mechanics, and wrong to boot), but how to outthink a dungeon.
It's not the system, stupid. It's the play style.
So stop banging on about how awesome the system is
and teach the playstyle.That's my two cents.
Hi, new poster here.
I didn't play a lot of D&D in the 80s (or most RPGs in general), but saying that D&D was about combat more than anything else... I mean, that's not the way I remember.
Using the same logic, my conclusion is that D&D was about mapping. It was about filling a square grid paper with the corridors, until you had a complete copy of whatever was in the DM's square grid paper.
Each room could have a monster, a trap, an unguarded treasure, nothing, flavor text, I don't know. But I wouldn't say it was about combat, because you had about equal chance of finding either of these. And from what I remember, monster treasure tables had a separate value for what they were usually carrying, and what they had stashed away (most of their loot was in their lair, so yeah if you killed them there you'd probably get nice shiny stuff and had to fight for it, but you might not even find the monster at all if he's just walking clockwise down the corridors same as you ;)).
So, in conclusion, D&D was about completing the map. What you found in each "40' x 30' room, with a long table" blah blah was just a situational hazard.
And now, those forum hippies with their "well you'll probably remember the layout of the dungeon so you can find the exit" can git outta my lawn.
(EDIT: for the record, not having to draw a map in 10' grid paper most of the time is an improvement to me)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645200It's not the system, stupid. It's the play style.
You can't just ignore mechanics, though. As has been observed elsewhere, good mechanics ideally help engender interesting gameplay, while bad mechanics obstruct it.
I wasn't trying to say system is the only thing - obviously there needs to be more, as you pointed out - but it is
a thing, and it shouldn't be ignored. Bad mechanics can just as easily kill a game as a GM with minimal grasp of what makes the game interesting.
Quote from: Haffrung;645180I get that some people have always played D&D that way. What gets on my nerves is claiming it's the way most people played
Something I have not said once.
Quote from: Haffrung;645180or (worse) claiming it's the way the game was meant to played.
Never said that either.
What I did say is that the contention that "combat was the main focus of the game throughout its iterations" is WRONG. Period. The end. And that if you actually care to play the game, you'll find out that combat doesn't have to be the main focus of the game for one thing, that if you read the original booklets of Dungeons & Dragons there's a THIRD of the game that's named "Underworld and Wilderness adventures" which details what the rules of Men & Magic and Monsters & Treasures are supposed to be used for, which is, you guessed it, exploring dungeons and the wilderness, which both come with a variety of potential threats and tactics, not solely combat, not even mainly direct brainless kick the door confrontations, especially at low levels, that AD&D (the *ADVANCED* game) does not have a "main focus" on combat EITHER, because the main focus is instead the campaign milieu, the world to explore - just read your DMG for God's sakes.
As for Fantasy Fucking Vietnam, I played AD&D 1st edition solo with the DM running Temple of Elemental Evil for months. I was 11 years old. And I went through easily more than half a dozen characters before one of them made it to level 2, who got then killed later at level 2. It took me a dozen characters to reach heroic levels (4th plus). But I did it. I was learning. The DM (my much older cousin, in his twenties at the time) was tough, and fair. I adventured with some other people recruited at Hommlet, I stole treasure avoiding the ogres. I did whatever it took to get into the less trouble possible. And it was a blast, let me tell you.
You got me all wrong dude. You put me in a little box with "OSR jyhadist" on it and think you've got me all figured out. I don't know what "OSR" is supposed to mean anymore, if it ever actually meant something clear, and I don't give a shit. What I do know is that I enjoy the games, I've read them (and not 15 years ago, mind you, I read them again NOW, as I'm playing and running my games and working on my own stuff - it's not a vague memory, I'm still using the books now), I play them, and I know plenty of people, including some of the people from Lake Geneva whom I call friends, who are also still playing the games and know what the game is and isn't and what it can be in the ends of a competent DM thinking for himself, instead of a drone thinking that the rules are the game.
Who cares? I CARE. That's who. You don't have to give a shit. You can still harp on the same bitter tone about how "OSR jyhadists are full of lies and ruined your breakfast" and keep at it until Kingdom Come. But I do give a shit. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645210You can't just ignore mechanics, though. As has been observed elsewhere, good mechanics ideally help engender interesting gameplay, while bad mechanics obstruct it.
There is no evidence that the mechanics of OD&D obstruct the playstyle Ben is endorsing.
The problem is, they don't teach it, either.
Whether the mechanics compelled combat heavy gameplay or not, that was the default. It's what most people played. Assertions otherwise are mere fantasies.
If there was a better play style, then those who love it should have taught is, demonstrated it, showed it to people, instead of bunkering up and obsessing over mechanics. Because the mechanics didn't cause the play style. They allowed it; they didn't cause it.
I don't see there being a strong recognition of that fact among the OSR people I've read. For a group that bristles at the mere mention of "system matters", the entire OSR is about pushing system — the mechanics of "old school" D&D.
What do they hate? System — the mechanics of 3e and 4e.
What do they love? System — the mechanics of Old School D&D. (And variants and interesting and well-done derivatives like SWN, and Hulks & Horrors, and Arrows of Indra...)
What does the flagship manifesto of OD&D, the moments of zen malarky, bang on about? System. Mechanics. Rules.
Not play style.
System clearly matters to them.
The problem is, the virtues of the Old School play style were not primarily based in the system. And they weren't obvious deductions from it. So when a 12 year old cracked the mother open, they didn't find it.
It wasn't there.Maybe they should, you know, help people find it, is all I'm saying. Then people might come to love the Old School play style.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645219The problem is, they don't teach it, either.
YES, they do. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures is the third booklet for a reason, dammit.
Also, read your first edition DMG. NO, I don't mean using the matrixes and ignoring the text because it's "boring" or something, or remembering those days decades ago when that's exactly what you or others used the book for to then say on forums how you know the book backwards and forwards. I mean read it. Now. Fresh. And actually think about what the book is talking to you about in the text. It's there.
Quote from: Benoist;645220YES, they do. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures is the third booklet for a reason, dammit.
Printed in 1974, went out of print in 1976.
After that?
It wasn't there. Not clearly, not compellingly.
The play style you advocate was not taught.
Quote from: Benoist;645220And actually think about what the book is talking to you about in the text. It's there.
The expectation that a novice player — who's never picked up the game before — can and should read the DMG and grok from it the playstyle you're advocating for is mistaken.
I point to the simple fact that most people
didn't. Even those who wanted to learn the game inside and out.
And the problem isn't that Gygax prose is boring — it's obscure and overwritten. (At least, by the AD&D era.)
People played what was immediately apparent. And if that was the default playstyle expected, it should have been clearly and simply stated, up front, in the PHB (and in the Basic sets.)
It wasn't.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645221The play style you advocate was not taught.
It is. Read your PH, DMG and MM.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645219There is no evidence that the mechanics of OD&D obstruct the playstyle Ben is endorsing.
...I know?
You said it's not the system, it was the playstyle. I was reiterating my stance that system matters, and that it has a hand in encouraging or obstructing particular styles of play.
Quote from: Benoist;645222Read your PH, DMG and MM.
...which?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645226...which?
THE PH, DMG and MM. First Edition. And not for the tables, cartoons and bits of rules here and there. Not a quote here and there you post to prove a point on the forum afterwards with a stolen sense of achievement because you were "clever" enough to find it. I mean read it. The actual full text. Cover to cover. At your own pace, preferably in an environment where you can think about what the words on the page actually mean.
Quote from: Benoist;645228THE PH, DMG and MM. First Edition.
I don't actually own any 1e books, never have. I sold all the rest of my D&D books awhile back (to pay rent) aside from my 4e core books because I didn't anticipate I would actually be able to sell them, but those are off in a corner somewhere gathering dust.
I just wanted you to clarify, since talking about the "PH, DMG, and MM" is pretty vague, since many editions have them (and in some cases, multiple versions of them).
Quote from: Benoist;645222It is. Read your PH, DMG and MM.
There's a difference between teaching and stating. Here's stating:
"The introductory notes to the ODE explain that /ˈlɪt(ə)l/ means that the second syllable can be a syllabic /l/ or /əl/. It would be a very odd language that permitted a syllable to end in [tl] with a non-syllabic [l]. Actually, to my ears /lɪtəl/ sounds like what a 4-year-old would say, but no doubt someone here will swear they've always used it!"
Teaching requires something more. Period.
And if the vast majority of your audience didn't get it — it's your fucking fault.
The onus is on the writer. Period.
It could have been done better.
(And all this "it was really there, people just didn't take the time to plumb the books and really understand them" is crazy. OS D&D is trumpeted at "5 minutes to create" and "5-15 minute combats!" Fast playing is a selling point. Well, guys, if fast play is a selling point, telling people they need to read and grok 3 manuals to understand the very basics of play is insane. There should have been 1 or two paragraphs, right up front, that stated it clearly, and in basic English. (Or French. Depending.) )
(Last point — complaining about people not getting it misses the point. People
didn't get it. So either teach it, or write a new clone that does. Bitching about how they
should have gotten it back in 1979 is worse than useless. If you love it, teach it.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645221The expectation that a novice player — who's never picked up the game before — can and should read the DMG and grok from it the playstyle you're advocating for is mistaken.
It is, yes. Except I never implied this, but rather implied the reverse, talking about it as the "ADVANCED" game. Look. That word. It means something. It's there for a reason. These books are not supposed to be the introduction to the game. At the time, that's the function OD&D, revised to form the Holmes rules set, was fulfilling.
OD&D being what it is, aimed at a specific wargaming audience with lots of bits and pieces implied or left out with the implication of house ruling that was part of the experience, when the game became popular there was a necessity to revise it to make it more approachable to broader audiences. That's what became the Holmes rules set. Now you can be critical of the approach J. Eric Holmes took with that boxed set, but all in all it is a pretty good introduction to the Dungeons & Dragons game, with the expectation that you will then move on to the ADVANCED game, with a content that will then make much more sense in context.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645233It could have been done better.
"It could have been done better" is not the same thing as "it isn't there." We can debate whether the ADVANCED books could have been done better. Honestly, I don't care much for that because I am satisfied with them, I like the prose, I like the dialog from one DM to another, I like a book that makes you think and take responsibility for your own game. But the notion that the exploration of dungeon and wilderness, the focus on the campaign milieu to explore isn't explained within the pages of the books, and advice provided for the players in the PH that explicitly talk about cleverness and preparations and the like, it's just flat-out wrong. It's there. If you care to take your eye off the rules and tables and read them.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645233(Last point — complaining about people not getting it misses the point. People didn't get it. So either teach it, or write a new clone that does. Bitching about how they should have gotten it back in 1979 is worse than useless. If you love it, teach it.)
Check my advice to build the mega-dungeon in my sig. This is going to be completed and shared outside of forums later on. In the meantime, I am working with Ernie Gygax to publish the dungeon that was run in the Dungeon Hobby Shop of TSR in Lake Geneva from 1977/78 on.
I have no ambition to publish yet-another-clone. If I did publish a game using the OGL, it would take the game in a different direction, kind of like games like AS&SH and others do, but probably as a supplement rather than a full game, because I don't see the need to restate with yet-another-game what's already there for people with eyes to see and actually read. Who knows. Maybe I'll change my mind on this. But that's not in the cards for me right now.
Speaking of which, I should get back to work. Thanks.
Quote from: Benoist;645235It's there.
I'll conceded the point. It doesn't matter.
The distinction between "it isn't there" and "it is there, but it's so deeply buried most people never got the idea" isn't one worth fighting over.
Why? Because the evidence is that the games didn't teach the play style. The vast majority of players didn't play that way, so it might as well have been missing.
And even if it was there, and everybody had gotten it, how long has it been missing?
Isn't that the primary impetus behind the OSR? "Nobody does Old School anymore!"
Okay, fine, you've resurrected the rules. Now do better.
Resurrect the play style.
If people love that play style, they need start teaching the play style. In person, in demo games, in RPG's or supplements they write.
• A two book, well-done dungeon written to be OS compatible, with the player booklet teaching the style and the DMG teaching how to run it.
Boom!
• A short rulebook on dungeoneering, a "universal" supplement for most popular OS systems, teaching the play style. With advice on "getting beyond combat."
Yeah. Like that.
If you love it, teach it. That's my suggestion, at least.
Quote from: Benoist;645234Now you can be critical of the approach J. Eric Holmes took with that boxed set, but all in all it is a pretty good introduction to the Dungeons & Dragons game, with the expectation that you will then move on to the ADVANCED game, with a content that will then make much more sense in context.
I learned D&D from the Holmes set. Or rather, I was introduced to the D&D by the Holmes set, then learned how to actually play (badly) from my friend's brother. As an instructional manual, the Holmes rules set is terrible.
The best things about the Holmes set were the sample dungeon (the Tower of Zenopus) and B1 In Search of the Unknown. And drawing on those as examples of how to play, D&D was evidently very much about a DM drawing a dungeon map, stocking it with cool monsters and treasures, and then the players exploring the dungeons, killing the shit out of those monsters, and taking the treasure. The sheer deadliness of 1st level D&D meant you had to sneak around avoid monsters sometimes. But ultimately, if you wanted to loot that dungeon properly (what with the gems in the bellies of giant spiders or wands suspended in gelatinous cubes) you better put everything to the sword.
Quote from: Benoist;645238Check my advice to build the mega-dungeon in my sig. This is going to be completed and shared outside of forums later on. In the meantime, I am working with Ernie Gygax to publish the dungeon that was run in the Dungeon Hobby Shop of TSR in Lake Geneva from 1977/78 on.
I know, and I admire that.
In addition to the dungeons, and how to build one, how about advice on how to run one — as
sidebars or articles in the dungeon itself.
"Dungeoneering the Old School Way: How to Think Around Obstacles."
You don't
need to write an entire clone. Just write great advice on how to run dungeons, and how to dungeon-delve. Advice for players, advice for GM's. Simple, clear, direct. Explain the fun of the play style, explain the basics.
And include it in the dungeon.If you love it, teach it.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645244I know, and I admire that.
In addition to the dungeons, and how to build one, how about advice on how to run one — as sidebars or articles in the dungeon itself.
"Dungeoneering the Old School Way: How to Think Around Obstacles."
There's going to be some of that in the introduction of the module, I think, with the caveat that edits and the like are going to modify the module's content and presentation as we move forward with the project. One of the aspects of the design involves making some of the implicit aspects of the environment that didn't appear on the original keys explicit in some way, shape or form. One instance of that is to talk about the various groups or factions of the dungeon and give ideas to the DM of their potential development thoughout the campaign. The wandering monster tables and the check frequencies are obviously a traditional part of that, but there are other ways in which this can be conveyed. The environment is meant to be dynamic, and though the written page by its very nature is an obstacle to conveying this sort of thing (since the key of a map for instance shows some static positions of this or that inhabitant or critter or feature in the dungeon by virtue of saying "this guy lives in this room" for instance), there are ways to convey this sort of thing which I think will assist the DM in making the environment his own, especially as the campaign unfolds. Hopefully, a combination of context, adventure opportunities, presentation, tools and design will help DMs do just that.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645244You don't need to write an entire clone. Just write great advice on how to run dungeons, and how to dungeon-delve. Advice for players, advice for GM's. Simple, clear, direct. Explain the fun of the play style, explain the basics. And include it in the dungeon.
The advice to build the mega-dungeon (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466) is meant to achieve this, though I went about it from the other way, in giving the advice and taking practical examples by building a dungeon environment right there in the advice to show how I'd do it, and what purpose it all serves. Once the advice will be completed, you'll hopefully have a set of clear (restructured, clarified etc, e.g. see the threads more as a draft than a final product, in terms of presentation and organization) guidelines and advice, with the additional perk of having a whole slew of fleshed out examples you could use in your own campaigns if you want to, including the Bandit level, the side-cut of the dungeon, the ideas brain-stormed for subsequent levels, the hex map around and all that.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645244If you love it, teach it.
We do agree fundamentally on this. Better yet, from my point of view: don't just teach it. Live it. Play it. Share it. That's what I do.
Quote from: Benoist;645264We do agree fundamentally on this. Better yet, from my point of view: don't just teach it. Live it. Play it. Share it. That's what I do.
That's all I meant to say. I'm not trying to say your preferred game is crap, or that you shouldn't play it.
Just that there's better things to focus on than complaining about New School. Like actually teaching Old School. (Not that you personally had a problem with that.)
Again, JMO.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645266[T]here's better things to focus on than complaining about New School.
I agree. Note that the reason I commented here is to respond to the statement that "D&D was always about combat primarily" (which is a brain-dead canard). Not about bitching at post-2000 D&D version #39802312093.
Quote from: xech;645050Wargames are some kind of boardgame.
Everybody hear that? Wargames are boardgames. Chainmail was a boardgame. Hundreds of years of wargamers are all wrong, they were playing boardgames the whole time and just didn't know it. Napolean? Fucking Euro Boardgamer.
You're an idiot Xech, and a troll.
You're wrong, I tell you!
WRONG!!!
Quote from: Mistwell;645274Everybody hear that? Wargames are boardgames. Chainmail was a boardgame. Hundreds of years of wargamers are all wrong, they were playing boardgames the whole time and just didn't know it. Napolean? Fucking Euro Boardgamer.
You're an idiot Xech, and a troll.
Why so messed up?
Try to answer this question (asked some pages ago):
"What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share?"
Also, regarding your confusion and frustration about discussing the definition of wargames, hope this helps you out:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamecategory/1019/wargame
Quote from: xech;645333Why so messed up?
Try to answer this question (asked some pages ago):
"What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share?"
Also, regarding your confusion and frustration about discussing the definition of wargames, hope this helps you out:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamecategory/1019/wargame
Most boardgames like monopoly, catan, eurorails, whatever, have fairly specific goals. They seem quite limited and shallow compared to a campaign with an rpg.
Boardgames don't seem at all similar to rpg's to me.
There are a few boardgames with superficial similarity to some elements of an rpg, like Talisman or Titan.
But they feel very different to me.
Quote from: Bill;645339Most boardgames like monopoly, catan, eurorails, whatever, have fairly specific goals. They seem quite limited and shallow compared to a campaign with an rpg.
Boardgames don't seem at all similar to rpg's to me.
Neither to me. 4e rules do though a lot, and that is the matter with Mistwell here. Grid based rules of balanced encounters regarding the players and the obstacles. A game of mastering specific tactics. The goals of 4e are very specific for each player's character role and the player group. It's too focused a game to be considered a true rpg instead of anything else.
I have no experience playing 4th edition. But I do have enough experience talking with people DO play it to know that the significant RPG elements still exist.
If it has a 'board game feel', that's pretty exclusively due to combat; which while a significant portion (even majority perhaps) of the game is not the entirety of the game.
It is possible to play 4th edition and actually play an RPG with character motivations and all that jazz.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;645357I have no experience playing 4th edition. But I do have enough experience talking with people DO play it to know that the significant RPG elements still exist.
If it has a 'board game feel', that's pretty exclusively due to combat; which while a significant portion (even majority perhaps) of the game is not the entirety of the game.
It is possible to play 4th edition and actually play an RPG with character motivations and all that jazz.
There are some people invested in 4e. Nevertheless Wotc tried to sell this game of board combat as the next iteration of D&D to the fanbase and failed. For fans, a combat board game is what 4e offers instead of not buying the product at all or some previous iteration of d&d.
Quote from: xech;645352Neither to me. 4e rules do though a lot, and that is the matter with Mistwell here. Grid based rules of balanced encounters regarding the players and the obstacles. A game of mastering specific tactics. The goals of 4e are very specific for each player's character role and the player group. It's too focused a game to be considered a true rpg instead of anything else.
I play 1E, 3X, and 4E the same way. You don't even need to use maps and minis in any version. I personally like 1E best, then 4E, and distant last place is 3X. But I gm and play all of them the same way.
Quote from: Bill;645363I play 1E, 3X, and 4E the same way. You don't even need to use maps and minis in any version. I personally like 1E best, then 4E, and distant last place is 3X. But I gm and play all of them the same way.
To me, 4e rules are a total waste of time regarding roleplaying sword fighters & fragile wizards. If you do not play 4e as it is intended to be played (activating grid based actions that tend to depict something that resembles powers of fantasy superheroes but what really matters are the tactics of activating them) then this is a different matter entirely.
I've got to side with Xech here on this subject. While you can still role-play with 4E, it is primarily designed more like a tactical skirmish game. As far as 4E being a board game, well, it is tough to argue against that when faced with this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-The-Coast-Legend-Drizzt/dp/0786958731/ref=sr_1_3?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1365800833&sr=1-3&keywords=dungeon), this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Coast-5511558-Wrath-Ashardalon/dp/0786955708/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Castle-Ravenloft-Board/dp/0786955570/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/078696023X/ref=pd_sim_t_6), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960175/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960442/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Undeath-Dungeons-Expansion/dp/0786960434/ref=pd_sim_b_1), and this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960426/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z).
Quote from: jeff37923;645381I've got to side with Xech here on this subject. While you can still role-play with 4E, it is primarily designed more like a tactical skirmish game. As far as 4E being a board game, well, it is tough to argue against that when faced with this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-The-Coast-Legend-Drizzt/dp/0786958731/ref=sr_1_3?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1365800833&sr=1-3&keywords=dungeon), this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Coast-5511558-Wrath-Ashardalon/dp/0786955708/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Castle-Ravenloft-Board/dp/0786955570/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/078696023X/ref=pd_sim_t_6), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960175/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960442/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Undeath-Dungeons-Expansion/dp/0786960434/ref=pd_sim_b_1), and this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960426/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z).
...wow.
On the one hand, those actually seem kinda cool. Like an introduction to TTRPGs, almost.
On the other... that is pretty damning evidence for 4e being roughly equivalent to a board game.
Quote from: jeff37923;641227Considering that there has been nothing new besides the playtest of 5th for about the past year, it is actually kind of testament to the power of the D&D brand name. They have done nothing and still come in 3rd in sales.
That's my thought.
Quote from: Bill;645363I play 1E, 3X, and 4E the same way. You don't even need to use maps and minis in any version. I personally like 1E best, then 4E, and distant last place is 3X. But I gm and play all of them the same way.
Same thing here. I play all rpgs the same.
Quote from: xech;645333Why so messed up?
Try to answer this question (asked some pages ago):
"What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share?"
Also, regarding your confusion and frustration about discussing the definition of wargames, hope this helps you out:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamecategory/1019/wargame
Oh, we're using BGG as the objective source for definitions? Cool. 4e is an RPG (http://rpggeek.com/rpg/190/dungeons-dragons-4th-edition). Guess that ends that.
BTW, the debate you're looking for? You're not going to find it from me. 4e is an RPG, and you don't like it, so you want to piss off it's fans by calling it not an RPG. Cool, you go on with your juvenile self.
But the moment you told a bunch of wargamer fans that they were playing boardgames, I think you lost whatever audience you might have started with. It marked you as as a guy who doesn't know anything about the subject matter we're discussing. While the three topics are related, boardgames are not wargames, and wargames are not rpgs, and rpgs are not boardgames. The three are distinct but related categories of games.
4e is a role playing game. It's bad one from my standpoint, it's not D&D, it's a game that steals left and right from MMOs, eurogames, and a whole bunch of other influences for the sake of being "hip" and "edgy" and fails so much it's pointless to reassess the thing all over again, but it's a role playing game nonetheless.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645388...wow.
On the one hand, those actually seem kinda cool. Like an introduction to TTRPGs, almost.
On the other... that is pretty damning evidence for 4e being roughly equivalent to a board game.
WOTC made D&D themed board games, and D&D themed RPGs, and even at one point a D&D themed wargame. Because they all have the D&D theme, this does not all make them one thing.
Those board games in no way play like 4e. They're using similar art, and names for some things, and most of the comparison ends there. Some of them ARE, however, good board games from what I have heard. I have yet to play any of the board games.
Quote from: Mistwell;645456WOTC made D&D themed board games
Ditto. WOTC made D&D themed board games. It doesn't mean 4e is a board game. Now the tactical packs of miniatures on the other hand clearly show what the marketing focus is about, and therefore how the game is construed from that standpoint: a small-units miniatures role playing game, which does rub a lot of people the wrong way.
Quote from: Benoist;6454544e is a role playing game. It's bad one from my standpoint, it's not D&D, it's a game that steals left and right from MMOs, eurogames, and a whole bunch of other influences for the sake of being "hip" and "edgy" and fails so much it's pointless to reassess the thing all over again, but it's a role playing game nonetheless.
The MMO loving 4e crowd are the same people who are up in arms about being cheated out of gaming content by having to start at level 4 when every MMO I can think of has introductory levels where you really don't get any powers until level 5 or 10 or so (depending on the MMO).
The irony. It is substantial.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;645459The MMO loving 4e crowd are the same people who are up in arms about being cheated out of gaming content by having to start at level 4 when every MMO I can think of has introductory levels where you really don't get any powers until level 5 or 10 or so (depending on the MMO).
The irony. It is substantial.
There is some irony to that whole thing, like how a few years back it was all about "4e feels like old school, man, you can make up what you want, if you don't like this or that you can just change it and stuff, page 32 (?) of the DMG man!" and suddenly it's all "ZOMG! Starting at level 4, WTF? Dead levels and stuff and I shouldn't have to do this and you guys are grogTARDS!"
The truth points to itself.
Quote from: Mistwell;645452Oh, we're using BGG as the objective source for definitions? Cool. 4e is an RPG (http://rpggeek.com/rpg/190/dungeons-dragons-4th-edition). Guess that ends that.
BTW, the debate you're looking for? You're not going to find it from me. 4e is an RPG, and you don't like it, so you want to piss off it's fans by calling it not an RPG. Cool, you go on with your juvenile self.
But the moment you told a bunch of wargamer fans that they were playing boardgames, I think you lost whatever audience you might have started with. It marked you as as a guy who doesn't know anything about the subject matter we're discussing. While the three topics are related, boardgames are not wargames, and wargames are not rpgs, and rpgs are not boardgames. The three are distinct but related categories of games.
I loves me some Axis and Allies, but I'm not that savvy with the nomenclature. Would that be a boardgame or a wargame?
Quote from: Mistwell;645456WOTC made D&D themed board games, and D&D themed RPGs, and even at one point a D&D themed wargame. Because they all have the D&D theme, this does not all make them one thing.
Those board games in no way play like 4e. They're using similar art, and names for some things, and most of the comparison ends there. Some of them ARE, however, good board games from what I have heard. I have yet to play any of the board games.
Now if they could just get 4E to quit quacking like a duck....
Quote from: Old One Eye;645466I loves me some Axis and Allies, but I'm not that savvy with the nomenclature. Would that be a boardgame or a wargame?
Boardgame that falls under a subcategory of wargames, I'd say, as far as modern terms go.
Of course, there are also wargames wargames - the ones you use miniatures for. Or are those miniature games? Confusing stuff.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645388...wow.
On the one hand, those actually seem kinda cool. Like an introduction to TTRPGs, almost.
On the other... that is pretty damning evidence for 4e being roughly equivalent to a board game.
Again, this is the "college textbook" sales model.
JG
Quote from: Mistwell;645452Oh, we're using BGG as the objective source for definitions? Cool. 4e is an RPG (http://rpggeek.com/rpg/190/dungeons-dragons-4th-edition). Guess that ends that.
BTW, the debate you're looking for? You're not going to find it from me. 4e is an RPG, and you don't like it, so you want to piss off it's fans by calling it not an RPG. Cool, you go on with your juvenile self.
But the moment you told a bunch of wargamer fans that they were playing boardgames, I think you lost whatever audience you might have started with. It marked you as as a guy who doesn't know anything about the subject matter we're discussing. While the three topics are related, boardgames are not wargames, and wargames are not rpgs, and rpgs are not boardgames. The three are distinct but related categories of games.
You didn't answer for a third time:
For this discussion to go on and convince people on the merits of 4e's game design as a good roleplaying game and not a board game answer the following questions in tandem:
"What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share?"
Wotc might call 4e a roleplaying game, even it's fans, but it is a bad roleplaying game because as a game it is designed as a board game. The virtual tabletop board as the platform of the game and its rules was in mind when it was designed.
But why does this fact hurt you so much and you get so defensive is beyond me.
I always liked playing the Top Hat in MONOPOLY myself.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;645485I always liked playing the Top Hat in MONOPOLY myself.
JG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt6DzuL0S20
'THE HOUSES ARE PEOPLE'S HOMES!'
Quote from: xech;645484"What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share?"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....I may be wayyyyy out here in like the back 40, but I would swear boardgames have a thing called a 'winner'. If I understand this phenomenon correctly a 'winner' is the person or thing that has accrued the most "things"(things being points, money or some such that the boardgames uses to keep "score" with).
Quote from: Sommerjon;645589Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....I may be wayyyyy out here in like the back 40, but I would swear boardgames have a thing called a 'winner'. If I understand this phenomenon correctly a 'winner' is the person or thing that has accrued the most "things"(things being points, money or some such that the boardgames uses to keep "score" with).
" As far as 4E being a board game, well, it is tough to argue against that when faced with this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-The-Coast-Legend-Drizzt/dp/0786958731/ref=sr_1_3?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1365800833&sr=1-3&keywords=dungeon), this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Coast-5511558-Wrath-Ashardalon/dp/0786955708/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Castle-Ravenloft-Board/dp/0786955570/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/078696023X/ref=pd_sim_t_6), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960175/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960442/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Undeath-Dungeons-Expansion/dp/0786960434/ref=pd_sim_b_1), and this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960426/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z). "
Quote from: xech;645484"What is a board game? What definite characteristics does a boardgame have that 4e doesn't share?"
A definite board.
You know, like
Candyland, where the board is always the same. Or even if the board is somewhat randomized (like Settlers of Cataan?) the same definite repeating tiles mark it as a board game. The players interact directly with the board itself...
Since I like to use a mini-map when playing RPGs (not 4th edition), I resent the implication that having a board or map turns an RPG into a board game.
In a board game, the board defines the limits of the world. In an RPG, the imagination of the players (including GM) define those limits.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;645603In a board game, the board defines the limits of the world. In an RPG, the imagination of the players (including GM) define those limits.
What rules does 4e have to let players drive the game by their creative imagination in contrast to board or grid rules that define the limits of player and NPC actions? Does 4e, in its pages, provides for the customer to buy the former or the later? I believe the answer is pretty clear.
Are Milton Bradley's HeroQuest and Advanced HeroQuest board games, or role playing games?
Quote from: jeff37923;645591" As far as 4E being a board game, well, it is tough to argue against that when faced with this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-The-Coast-Legend-Drizzt/dp/0786958731/ref=sr_1_3?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1365800833&sr=1-3&keywords=dungeon), this (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Coast-5511558-Wrath-Ashardalon/dp/0786955708/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Castle-Ravenloft-Board/dp/0786955570/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/078696023X/ref=pd_sim_t_6), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960175/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_y), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960442/ref=pd_bxgy_t_text_z), this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Undeath-Dungeons-Expansion/dp/0786960434/ref=pd_sim_b_1), and this (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Command-Dungeons-Expansion-Miniatures/dp/0786960426/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z). "
So you linking a couple boardgames based on D&D and a fucking skirmish game that uses D&D miniatures somehows turn 4e into a boardgame?
Shit I can do this to.
TSR boardgames based on D&D
Dungeon!(1975)
Dungeons & Dragons Computer Labyrinth Game (1980)
Quest for the Dungeonmaster(1984) Based on the cartoon that is based on the game.
and on and on.
What's you point?
Quote from: Benoist;645606Are Milton Bradley's HeroQuest and Advanced HeroQuest board games, or role playing games?
More importantly is this the dumbest persistent conversation we have, or the stupidest?
Quote from: Sommerjon;645642So you linking a couple boardgames based on D&D and a fucking skirmish game that uses D&D miniatures somehows turn 4e into a boardgame?
What's you point?
4E has more in common with tactical skirmish games than it does to role-playing games. If the manufacturer of 4E can so easily port it into becomming a boardgame that the boardgames become the flagship product while they end production of the 4E RPG, then that speaks volumes. If you don't like it, take it up with WotC/Hasbro.
Quote from: jeff37923;6456464E has more in common with tactical skirmish games than it does to role-playing games. If the manufacturer of 4E can so easily port it into becomming a boardgame that the boardgames become the flagship product while they end production of the 4E RPG, then that speaks volumes. If you don't like it, take it up with WotC/Hasbro.
So were your also this prune-faced about all of the other media TSR used to promote their game? You know all of those tactical skirmish rules they released, the board games they released, the computer games they released, the use of inches for the game, the miniatures they released. Are you so eageer to throw all of D&D under the bus over your irrational hatred of 4e? Did you take it up with TSR about all of these as well?
Ya I didn't think so.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645664So were your also this prune-faced about all of the other media TSR used to promote their game? You know all of those tactical skirmish rules they released, the board games they released, the computer games they released, the use of inches for the game, the miniatures they released. Are you so eageer to throw all of D&D under the bus over your irrational hatred of 4e? Did you take it up with TSR about all of these as well?
Ya I didn't think so.
You would be mistaken also.
After all, my go-to game is
Traveller. :p
Not all of D&D needs to be thrown under the bus, just 4E.
Oh, and WotC/Hasbro has already done that.
If you go to game is traveller why do you even care what WotC does?
I am pointing out to you that what you are bitching about is the exact same thing that TSR did. Why the hell is it fine for TSR to have done it, but sooooo fucking wrong for WotC to do the exact same thing?
Quote from: Sommerjon;645670If you go to game is traveller why do you even care what WotC does?
Because I am ever thankful for the d20 SRD and OGL which spawned its Killer Baby,
Pathfinder/3.x.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645670I am pointing out to you that what you are bitching about is the exact same thing that TSR did. Why the hell is it fine for TSR to have done it, but sooooo fucking wrong for WotC to do the exact same thing?
Actually, back then when TSR did it, they did not kill off their RPG and use its bones for a profit margin. They kept the RPG alive. Significant difference there when comparing TSR to WotC/Hasbro.
Come to think of it, back then TSR may have been led by a total bitch who loathed gamers - but she wasn't stupid enough to alienate most of her customer base like 4E has.
As a 2e fan, especially of the new settings, I actually concede Lorraine Williams might have been better in total D&D legacy than WotC/Hasbro so far. Even her efforts to kill everything TSR off, she left better game-able/marketable product: more iconic and diverse art, worlds, IPs, etc. That's lamentable.
Anyway, I still feel 4e is an RPG -- a Tactics RPG, but still RPG nonetheless. However, if I wear my jaded glasses I can see how the hyperbolic charge that it is 'just a board game' may seem too damn embarrassingly close. At that point it feels like splitting hairs than an obvious exaggeration, and that is the shame; none can come from such a painful discussion any better -- and that is WotC's D&D 4e design team's fault.
Quote from: Opaopajr;645680-- and that is WotC's D&D 4e design team's fault.
I believe their goal for the design of the game was
1)players needing an online subscription product so to play it
2)cater to the investment sensibilities of the established D&D fan base so to sell it to it and kill the OGL while at it. Which means to be able to market it to hardcore fans as a better game than the previous iteration.
They failed but I do not believe that their goals were achievable in tandem.
I'd agree to that. They wanted a college textbook model with planned obsolescence and rentals. And they wanted to kill all 3rd parties dead (cuz Hasbro are assholes that way); either completely monopolize the puny RPG market or destroy it utterly by having 'the big boy' go on strike/Galt.
They never seem to have suspected rebellion...
Wow. :jaw-dropping:
When you find yourself compared to Lorraine Williams, and are called actually "worse" as far as D&D's legacy is concerned, you know something's gone horribly wrong.
Lets put things in perspective MBs Heroquest game is an RPG defintely.
You talk in character, you play a role you can play the same character in different ways definitely an RPG.
Second Wizards get so much stick. Lets not mince words they saved D&D. D&D was dead 2e had become skills and powers and doom. the game was goign nowhere the company were close to bankrupcy. Peter Adkinson loves games, loved RPGs. He had literally stumbled on the golden goose with Magic and because of that found himself in the position to save a thing he loved.
Wizards bought TSR and D&D. Then they got to work on 3e and because they loved D&D they created the OGL.
Its obvious from here that these guys werejust like most of us on here. They basically published their own heartbreaker. Something most of us would do if we just won the lottery that was MtG.
3e created a silver age. The number of gamers boomed and the number of games boomed. I never liked 3e and wasn't interested in any of the OGL spin off stuff but it woudl daft to deny that it envigourated the market hugely and caused a second blush in the hobby.
Because of Magic and more so the Pokemon card game Hasbro were interested. They offered $325 million for the company and so Peter Adkinson eventually sold and retired so he could play games and chillax all day. Someone offered $300 million for a company you started in your basement would you take it ....
Why give Wizards so much shit? You can see that the OGL was a corporate gaff but one made I think deliberately to ensure that D&D woudl carry on for ever and be owned by the players. 4e might have tried to close that stable long after the horse had bolted, by all means bitch that Hasbro acted like a multinational corporation trying to potect it's IP but please give Wizards their due they were far better custodians of D&D than TSR were even if their version stank next to 2e :)
Quote from: Benoist;645460There is some irony to that whole thing, like how a few years back it was all about "4e feels like old school, man, you can make up what you want, if you don't like this or that you can just change it and stuff, page 32 (?) of the DMG man!" and suddenly it's all "ZOMG! Starting at level 4, WTF? Dead levels and stuff and I shouldn't have to do this and you guys are grogTARDS!"
4E does not feel old school to me at all. Did I miss something? :)
Quote from: Bill;6457514E does not feel old school to me at all. Did I miss something? :)
Apparently their entire initial marketing campaign?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645755Apparently their entire initial marketing campaign?
This. The one after the "Ze Game Remains Ze Same... but BETTER!!ONE!", to be precise.
Quote from: jibbajibba;645737Lets put things in perspective MBs Heroquest game is an RPG defintely.
You talk in character, you play a role you can play the same character in different ways definitely an RPG.
Second Wizards get so much stick. Lets not mince words they saved D&D. D&D was dead 2e had become skills and powers and doom. the game was goign nowhere the company were close to bankrupcy. Peter Adkinson loves games, loved RPGs. He had literally stumbled on the golden goose with Magic and because of that found himself in the position to save a thing he loved.
Wizards bought TSR and D&D. Then they got to work on 3e and because they loved D&D they created the OGL.
Its obvious from here that these guys werejust like most of us on here. They basically published their own heartbreaker. Something most of us would do if we just won the lottery that was MtG.
3e created a silver age. The number of gamers boomed and the number of games boomed. I never liked 3e and wasn't interested in any of the OGL spin off stuff but it woudl daft to deny that it envigourated the market hugely and caused a second blush in the hobby.
Because of Magic and more so the Pokemon card game Hasbro were interested. They offered $325 million for the company and so Peter Adkinson eventually sold and retired so he could play games and chillax all day. Someone offered $300 million for a company you started in your basement would you take it ....
Why give Wizards so much shit? You can see that the OGL was a corporate gaff but one made I think deliberately to ensure that D&D woudl carry on for ever and be owned by the players. 4e might have tried to close that stable long after the horse had bolted, by all means bitch that Hasbro acted like a multinational corporation trying to potect it's IP but please give Wizards their due they were far better custodians of D&D than TSR were even if their version stank next to 2e :)
This sounds more as a fairy tale than business history and analysis. One cannot neglect the business strength of the IP if considered the novels and the Baldur's Gate series. One can also not neglect that most initial MtG players were hobby players and Wotc did itself a great favor to control a brand with so much awareness in its target market.
Then what happens? They suddenly pull a 3.5 reboot and violently burst the bubble of the ultra-bloated D20 tabletop market that they intentionally tried to make it a reality first place by issuing the OGL.
After that enter the facepalm business project of 4e that they put in practice (and its marketing campaign towards fans included) and you can see that those suspect of Wotc regarding the handling of D&D having lots of things to say.
Quote from: jibbajibba;645737Its obvious from here that these guys werejust like most of us on here. They basically published their own heartbreaker. Something most of us would do if we just won the lottery that was MtG.
Fuck, yeah. If I suddenly became a multi-millionaire, I'd buy my gaming obsession (Torg, I may have mentioned it once or twice) and revamp and republish that mother.
In a heartbeat.
Quote from: Benoist;645729Wow. :jaw-dropping:
When you find yourself compared to Lorraine Williams, and are called actually "worse" as far as D&D's legacy is concerned, you know something's gone horribly wrong.
That is the thing that kills me about how D&D has progressed over time under Hasbro. Nobody has learned from the past.
Lorraine Williams hated gamers, but she was smart enough to realise that gamers were who was spending money on their products so she kept her scorn and derision internal to the TSR offices and did not try to alienate the customer base like WotC/Hasbro has done with the 4E marketting campaign. So while Lorraine kept floating merily along putting out some good product and making money, WotC/Hasbro is sitting on a lost market shares debacle from self-inflicted wounds.
I still think the D&D 4e marketing campaign was actually inspired by the Dominos adds where they talk about how bad their pizzas used to be. It was considered massively innovative and successful at the time.
I do think game designers come to resent the flak they get from gamers though. But I don't think they're dumb enough to come out and shout at people. Well, okay excluding a few anecdotes about Lou Zochi :D
Quote from: David Johansen;645804I still think the D&D 4e marketing campaign was actually inspired by the Dominos adds where they talk about how bad their pizzas used to be. It was considered massively innovative and successful at the time.
4e: 2008
Domino's "our pizza sucks" ads: 2010-2011
Fair point. I'm frequently shocked to find that things I remember being recent are more than ten years in the past.
Either way it was a disasterous campaign for D&D and generated a lot of ill will before the new edition even came out.
Quote from: jeff37923;645673Because I am ever thankful for the d20 SRD and OGL which spawned its Killer Baby, Pathfinder/3.x.
Has it? I find it very strange how people here a so quick to defend and/or prop up icv2 and their supposed expertise in these matters.
Quote from: jeff37923;645673Actually, back then when TSR did it, they did not kill off their RPG and use its bones for a profit margin. They kept the RPG alive. Significant difference there when comparing TSR to WotC/Hasbro.
Come to think of it, back then TSR may have been led by a total bitch who loathed gamers - but she wasn't stupid enough to alienate most of her customer base like 4E has.
Um I was talking about product that came out almost a decade before Williams was in charge.
Let's see how well Mearls' magnum opus does.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645819Let's see how well Mearls' magnum opus does.
It looks like it is doing OK, as a boardgame. The vote has already been called and counted by WotC/Hasbro as far as being a role-playing game, they have decided that it was a failure.
Didn't know they were turning D&DN into a boardgame.
Never quite understood the thought process behind the "once a miniature touches the surface it is no longer a rpg it is automatically a boardgame"
It's number 2 on my list.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645825It's number 2 on my list.
Number 1 being?
#1 Worst thing to happen to RPGs, the internet.
#2 Worst thing to happen to RPGs, gamer opinions.
Customers having opinion on the product?
Preposterous entitlement. Jeeves, fetch my cloak, I shall be dining at the club tonite.
edit: Since I love all this whining about Internet being boo boo, let me reiterate: For customers everywhere, Internet is the best thing since sliced bread. Because while you may need to read some white noise while you do, it has none the less liberated us from the tyranny of the so - called "critics", and their whorish morality, allowing us to garner opinions of our fellow customers, and a large database of such, not just our friends and acquaintances.
Quote from: Rincewind1;645844Customers having opinion on the product?
Preposterous entitlement. Jeeves, fetch my cloak, I shall be dining with milady tonite.
Customers can have all the opinions they want.
Producers (or anyone really) just shouldn't put much stock in them.
Creators shouldn't put much stock in them but I'm not so sure about producers. If multimillion dollar corporations just don't have that luxury then any games company that aspires to be more than a hobby don't either.
That being said, the greatest volume seldom comes from the largest segment of the customer base. The largest segment is generally silent and quite possibly unaware of the producer on more than a vague level. When most people open a can of Campbels Tomato Soup they want to find Campbels Tomato soup in the can. They aren't overly concerned about the marketing decisions that lead to that result.
Quote from: BenoistIt'd be nice if you took your head out of your ass-cheeks and realized that nobody's talking about whether combat had a big part to play in the D&D game from the start or not: it did, and it does.
The contention is whether combat was THE focus of the game throughout its iterations, and THIS is flat-out wrong. And I know that from playing the game personally, from reading through OD&D and AD&D thoroughly, from talking to people like Rob Kuntz, Luke and Ernie Gygax and what their games, game-mastered or played, felt like, and everything tells me that the idea bandied about ever since Mike Mearls started talking about D&D being about "killing things and taking their stuff" on his livejournal is total bullshit.
Quote from: Haffrung;645180But you didn't play a whole lot of D&D back in the day, did you Benoist? Like so many of the OSR jihadists, you've learned about True Old School ways from forums. But why in fuck should how Rob Kuntz, or Frank Mentzer, or Gary Gygax himself played matter, except as a historical curiosity?
The way D&D was played once it was out in the wild by 1978 is what old-school D&D was, not what a bunch of forum wanks parsing the Scrolls of Olde Lake Geneva claim. I played in a thriving local city scene from 1978 to 1986. I saw how 10, 15 different groups played. Lunch-time school groups. Neighbours. Conventions. And while playstyles certainly varied, the norm was very different from what the forum revisionists claim.
Yes, there were often monsters that you had to run away from. But you killed most monsters on sight. Yes, there was a lot of exploration and puzzle-solving. But at the end of the day, you tried to clear out a dungeon level because that was the only way to be sure you got all the loot. This notion that D&D was primarily about sneaking in to get the golden crown and sneaking out again is bullshit. It may have been the way some groups played sometimes. It certainly wasn't the norm at the table, or even the norm for published adventures. Get your hands on one of the old DM's Adventure logs. A table to fill in the list of PCs and their stats on one page, and a table to fill in the monsters, their treasure, and XP on the facing page. And the example has a full page of kills.
Quote from: BenoistNow you might have played with DMs that made it all about combat and construed "hack and slash" as just kicking a door, rolling to hit and getting the treasure for whoever was left standing, but that's not what hack and slash actually is, that's not how the game was played originally, and that's certainly not how the game books of OD&D and AD&D formulated it either, if you cared to re-read them and got over your own bloody bias.
Quote from: HaffrungI went through the Dark Tower with a first level party. How's that for fantasy fucking Vietnam? We had to hunt down and kill every giant rat in the place in order to level up and start hunting down every goblin in the place, and then make ourselves useful to Avakris and his ambitions, all the while avoiding Vredni, Eater of the dead. But that certainly wasn't the norm. My DM had a reputation as a killer DM, and even for him this was an extreme case.
I get that some people have always played D&D that way. What gets on my nerves is claiming it's the way most people played, or (worse) claiming it's the way the game was meant to played. Once D&D was out in the wild, it was everyone's game. It's sad that a lot of younger players who weren't around then have to go by second-hand accounts to learn about old-school D&D. The problem is that a very particular mode of play has been evangelized by a small clique of forum posters and bloggers who, out of incendiary hatred of WotC and its fans, employ revisionism to foster a model of old-school D&D as different as humanly possible from modern D&D.
Haffrung, I agree with you 100%, and have become so fucking tired of the continual historical revisionism of the "Gygaxian jihadists" and company. This is what D&D is, in no particular order:
(1.) Combat
(2.) Exploration
(3.) Roleplaying
(4.) Social Interaction
Quote from: Daddy WarpigThe play style you advocate was not taught.
Quote from: BenoistIt is. Read your PH, DMG and MM.
Quote from: Daddy WarpigThere's a difference between teaching and stating. Here's stating:
"The introductory notes to the ODE explain that /ˈlɪt(ə)l/ means that the second syllable can be a syllabic /l/ or /əl/. It would be a very odd language that permitted a syllable to end in [tl] with a non-syllabic [l]. Actually, to my ears /lɪtəl/ sounds like what a 4-year-old would say, but no doubt someone here will swear they've always used it!"
Teaching requires something more. Period.
And if the vast majority of your audience didn't get it — it's your fucking fault.
The onus is on the writer. Period.
It could have been done better.
(And all this "it was really there, people just didn't take the time to plumb the books and really understand them" is crazy. OS D&D is trumpeted at "5 minutes to create" and "5-15 minute combats!" Fast playing is a selling point. Well, guys, if fast play is a selling point, telling people they need to read and grok 3 manuals to understand the very basics of play is insane. There should have been 1 or two paragraphs, right up front, that stated it clearly, and in basic English. (Or French. Depending.) )
(Last point — complaining about people not getting it misses the point. People didn't get it. So either teach it, or write a new clone that does. Bitching about how they should have gotten it back in 1979 is worse than useless. If you love it, teach it.)
Quote from: BenoistIt's there.
Quote from: Daddy WarpigI'll conceded the point. It doesn't matter.
The distinction between "it isn't there" and "it is there, but it's so deeply buried most people never got the idea" isn't one worth fighting over.
Why? Because the evidence is that the games didn't teach the play style. The vast majority of players didn't play that way, so it might as well have been missing.
I agree with this too. It doesn't really matter what Gygax and Kuntz did in their home games. What matters is if the written text properly communicates to the reader what the stated purpose of the game is. For all its strengths, 1e failed at that. But Heaven help you if you tell a Gygaxian that.
Quote from: Daddy WarpigSo, instead of preaching the virtues of 4 classes, weapon/armor modifier tables, and what the fuck ever, Old Schoolers should probably be teaching people how to play the game in the old school way. Not the moments of zen, that shit fucking sucked (because it was all about mechanics, and wrong to boot), but how to outthink a dungeon.
It's not the system, stupid. It's the play style.
So stop banging on about how awesome the system is and teach the playstyle.
That's my two cents.
This part I
don't agree with. There was
not a monolithic "old school style" of play. Seriously, there wasn't. If we went back in time over 30 years ago, and visited 10 different gaming groups, we'd likely see 10 completely different gaming styles. And you know what? That's ok...
I'm going to write a song called, "The Red Herring" and it's going to be all about how nobody gives a fuck about how D&D was "really played back in the day" because it doesn't fucking matter.
TSR D&D is alive today. There are some really cool ways to play TSR D&D TODAY.
Right now.
That way when someone starts fapping about how D&D was/wasn't back "in the day" in order to score some internet points and make their epenis larger we can all break into song.
Every wyrm is sacred,
Every wyrm is great.
If a wyrm is wasted,
The DM gets quite irate!
Quote from: Piestrio;645847Customers can have all the opinions they want.
Producers (or anyone really) just shouldn't put much stock in them.
Quote from: David Johansen;645853Creators shouldn't put much stock in them but I'm not so sure about producers. If multimillion dollar corporations just don't have that luxury then any games company that aspires to be more than a hobby don't either.
That being said, the greatest volume seldom comes from the largest segment of the customer base. The largest segment is generally silent and quite possibly unaware of the producer on more than a vague level. When most people open a can of Campbels Tomato Soup they want to find Campbels Tomato soup in the can. They aren't overly concerned about the marketing decisions that lead to that result.
Ha ha no.
David was a bit closer, but still no cookie, and here's why - when you are designing Campbel's soup you are no Orson Wells. You are not designing a masterpiece of cinema, you are not having an auteur theory to defend why you have put mushrooms into tomato soup. If it will work, you may be a hero and gain much needed reputation to experiment further with your brand. If it tanks - you work the commercial game, you knew the risks, goodbye.
Since customer isn't always right? If a politican'd say that he shall not put stock in opinion of his voters, he'd be finished the day he said those words- we may be fools, but we are the fools to whom he is a servant. Since when did we start buying into those idiotical hacks, that the creators of commercial products aren't beholden to us, but we are beholden to them? The very term "customer entitlement" is a bizarre buzzword, invented by some devil of PR, in order to sell us a product we do not want, under the pretence we are too stupid/uneducated/unwashed etc. etc. for it. The gaming part of entertainment industry, though entertainment industry in general (then again, films and theater, as passive entertainment, have higher tolerancy quotas on this), is a prime offender based on this. The statement of "this is art! This is my vision!" is most often used by terrible hacks, who have forgotten that they are trying to provide a product for their customers/audience, as well as give us their vision. The reasons why The Godfather is an excellent film and a true piece of art, and The Room is basically a joke, is because the former is truly a genius work, that is also
entertaining (bear in mind that I am using the most broad definition of this world - a tragedy or an abstract work can be entertaining as well, just on a different level), while the other is art for art's sake. A good commercial product may be much more evoking, than art for art's sake. And the producer and designer -is- a slave to our passion and opinion. If you paint a lone painting, you may perhaps hope that there will be a fool that shall buy you for top dollar, especially if you have a good name, or at least if you can fake one, as Nat Tate taught us.
But a purely commercial product appeals to the notion of mass purchase, and therefore must appear to an audience as wide as possible, or target as much of a specific spectrum as possible. And games are commercial products, as the first and foremost duty of the game, is to provide us entertainment. Only after that, you can have your art and vision in a game. And it has happened in RPGs as well - Call of Cthulhu and Eclipse Phase are games which have tight mechanics, great gameplay, but also drive a certain artistic notes, especially in scenarios - Call of Cthulhu's mechanics greatly reinforce the Lovecraftian vibe of an average, perhaps a bit too sensitive man, discovering terrible treasures not meant for man, while Eclipse Phase's mechanics, while clunky at first, help greatly indulge in the musings of transhumanism genre, with horror elements nicely added. Even Warhammer (1e) has this great underlining feeling of just being an average medieval guy in a crazy Medieval Europe's expy, doing crazy medieval things to get by, though that is evoked, thanks to ingenius design, as you play it, without any forced motions from the game mechanics or designer's vision being forced down your throat.
And the failures to understand this pivotal relationship between a customer and creator, is the result of recent EA's reputation, fall of New Coke, 4e, Star Wars' new MMO (old one's as well probably), or any Themepark MMO other than Warcraft 3 really, Diablo 3's fan outcry, various cinematic and theatrical flops throughout the years, when the directors forgot that they are also creating an entertaining product, etc. etc. The list can go on forever.
And even ye mighty may fall because of that - Windows 7 was released unnaturally fast after Vista's flop, as compared to the time between Vista and XP, or XP and 98. And nowadays, with the birth of Android, perhaps even the Lord Humongous of software will slowly loose it's grasps*.
*And no I am not an enemy of Microsoft, but this form of monopoly can create nothing but hubris.
Quote from: jeff37923;645872Every wyrm is sacred,
Every wyrm is great.
If a wyrm is wasted,
The DM gets gets quite irate!
Miracle of RPGs
(3rd world country)
QuoteGygaxian jihadists
So when are you guys gonna start bombing WotC headquaters? Tell me please, I want to get a camera crew ahead first.
Quote from: Rincewind1;645844Customers having opinion on the product?
Preposterous entitlement. Jeeves, fetch my cloak, I shall be dining at the club tonite.
edit: Since I love all this whining about Internet being boo boo, let me reiterate: For customers everywhere, Internet is the best thing since sliced bread. Because while you may need to read some white noise while you do, it has none the less liberated us from the tyranny of the so - called "critics", and their whorish morality, allowing us to garner opinions of our fellow customers, and a large database of such, not just our friends and acquaintances.
Who said anything about customers having opnions?
I said the worst thing to happen to RPGs is gamer opinions. Sounds a bit better than the worst thing to happen to RPGs is gamer elitism. Gamers have this compulsion to put boxes around every aspect of the hobby so they can shit in the 'bad' boxes.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645889Who said anything about customers having opnions?
I said the worst thing to happen to RPGs is gamer opinions. Sounds a bit better than the worst thing to happen to RPGs is gamer elitism. Gamers have this compulsion to put boxes around every aspect of the hobby so they can shit in the 'bad' boxes.
Newsflash: People who play RPGs are gamers. And there won't really be a market for casual RPGs, because RPGs by design are uncasual (especially for GMs) and can't be played on the toilet. Closest thing to a casual RPG is an RPG with mechanics bare enough, that you can easily play it during a trip, in a train or camping, without needing a large amount of minis and dice.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645889I said the worst thing to happen to RPGs is gamer opinions. Sounds a bit better than the worst thing to happen to RPGs is gamer elitism. Gamers have this compulsion to put boxes around every aspect of the hobby so they can shit in the 'bad' boxes.
There's a difference between gamers and the noisy vocal pushy fanboi parishes though. Gamers are technically people who play RPGs, but the fanbois will go to any lengths to have the game more closely resemble their perfect one true way. I wouldn't ignore them, but even the most rabid fanboi isn't likely to buy more than one copy of your game.
Also on customer opinions, some works pander to market desires, some works create them. Where a new creation is being undertaken the rules can go flying out the window - as such these endeavours are inherently riskier, but the rewards beyond creative freedom can be much greater.
For every true visionary, bones of ten false prophets, drunk on their own hubris, litter the road.
I am of course not against invention, quite the contrary - but I do not believe that pandering = listening to customers, nor that listening to what people expect is a negation of creating a trend. A successful vision still needs to be hooked in the realities of the "market" you are appealing to. Those truly successful often listened to what people wanted, and gave it to them, in a form that the people had not expected or had not experienced before, or a great refinement or play on their expectations.
But yes, I agree that there are some pieces of advice you may sift through - there are some rabid customers for whom your good will never truly be good unless X, or those who simply would have you commit professional suicide for their amusement.
edit: down
Quote from: David Johansen;645903only ten?
I am positive that if I'd write "hundred", someone'd say "surely only fifty".
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645904I didn't say there was only one playstyle. I was giving some accurate and excellent advice to people looking to advance their preferred style of (in this case) dungeon-crawling. Those people are missing the boat obsessing on mechanics.
"Holmes! Moldvay! White Box! RC! AD&D! But not the Unearthed shit!"
For fucks sake, people. If what you want to resurrect is your style of Old School Play, you're focusing on the wrong thing!
The mechanics don't teach your play style. The original manuals didn't teach your play style. And, I gather, little of the New Old School teaches it, either.
So the onus is on you.
Here's the truth that's too fucking obvious to have been understood:
If you want people to play "old school", then teach old school play.
Seriously — how fucking simple is that?
If you love it, teach it.
Because, no matter how many times you bitch about feats and skills, your playstyle won't magically appear.
You could summon Cthulhu from dread R'lyeh, and he could eat all the 3e manuals and make everyone forget feats...
And your Old School play still wouldn't magically fucking appear.
Just bitching about 3e and 4e and whatever isn't enough. If you want the old school style... teach it. And write about it. And stick it in your games.
Because it isn't the mechanics you love — they can be played a million different ways. It's the play. And spreading that love requires more than bitter bitching about how other people have done your game wrong.
(See? I'm not saying their style is the only style. Just telling them how to advance their style. If they're willing to listen.)
Well, but to teach old school, one'd need to define what exactly old school i wait damn it I have opened the Pandora's box again haven't I.
only ten?
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;645863This part I don't agree with. There was not a monolithic "old school style" of play. Seriously, there wasn't. If we went back in time over 30 years ago, and visited 10 different gaming groups, we'd likely see 10 completely different gaming styles. And you know what? That's ok...
I didn't say there was only one playstyle. I was giving some accurate and excellent advice to people looking to advance their preferred style of (in this case) dungeon-crawling. Those people are missing the boat obsessing on mechanics.
"Holmes! Moldvay! White Box! RC! AD&D! But not the Unearthed shit!"
For fucks sake, people. If what you want to resurrect is your style of Old School Play, you're focusing on the wrong thing!
The mechanics don't teach your play style. The original manuals didn't teach your play style. And, I gather, little of the New Old School teaches it, either.
So the onus is on
you.
Here's the truth that's too fucking obvious to have been understood:
If you want people to play "old school", then teach old school play. Seriously — how fucking simple is that?
If you love it, teach it.
Because, no matter how many times you bitch about feats and skills, your playstyle won't magically appear.
You could summon Cthulhu from dread R'lyeh, and he could eat all the 3e manuals and make everyone forget feats...
And your Old School play
still wouldn't magically fucking appear.
Just bitching about 3e and 4e and whatever isn't enough. If you want the old school style... teach it. And write about it. And stick it in your games.
Because it isn't the mechanics you love — they can be played a million different ways. It's the play. And spreading that love requires more than bitter bitching about how other people have done your game wrong.
(See? I'm not saying their style is the only style. Just telling them how to advance their style. If they're willing to listen.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;645904Here's the truth that's too fucking obvious to have been understood:
If you want people to play "old school", then teach old school play.
Seriously — how fucking simple is that?
There is no old school play. Seriously, what
is "old school play"? What is it? It's never been properly explained.
In my AD&D games, we often had city exploration take place with more frequency than dungeon exploration. We had rabbit folk running around with Fighters and Thieves, and talking animals and shit. Our campaign had half-ogres, as well as Barbarians and Cavaliers with maximum starting Hit Points and 18's in their physical attributes. And we never used level draining, or level limits, which is guaranteed to cause plenty of posters on Dragonsfoot to have a conniption fit.
Yes, there was an ample amount of exploration in my campaign....but there was also plenty of combat, and such conflict was usually
expected.
"Old school play?" I have no idea what that means.
Quote from: Rincewind1;645891Newsflash: People who play RPGs are gamers. And there won't really be a market for casual RPGs, because RPGs by design are uncasual (especially for GMs) and can't be played on the toilet. Closest thing to a casual RPG is an RPG with mechanics bare enough, that you can easily play it during a trip, in a train or camping, without needing a large amount of minis and dice.
Whatever dudette. You seem to be way the hell over there some place.
Quote from: The Traveller;645899There's a difference between gamers and the noisy vocal pushy fanboi parishes though. Gamers are technically people who play RPGs, but the fanbois will go to any lengths to have the game more closely resemble their perfect one true way. I wouldn't ignore them, but even the most rabid fanboi isn't likely to buy more than one copy of your game.
I realize there is a difference.
I have gotten tired of going into any lgs and having random guy 34 or even employee/owner come up to me and proceed to tell me how the material I am looking at is shit and that I should be looking at meterial that he likes.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;645920"Old school play?" I have no idea what that means.
It's just another box gamers came up with the tell people they were/are playing wrong.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645923I have gotten tired of going into any lgs and having random guy 34 or even employee/owner come up to me and proceed to tell me how the material I am looking at is shit and that I should be looking at meterial that he likes.
I've had that happen to me too. Some game store I went to some years back (now out of business) had a sales associate saying derogatory things about the rpg product I was buying. In my mind, I'm thinking, "you do actually want to make money here, right?"
Is that a normal game store phenomenon? I hear that it happens a lot.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;645928I've had that happen to me too. Some game store I went to some years back (now out of business) had a sales associate saying derogatory things about the rpg product I was buying. In my mind, I'm thinking, "you do actually want to make money here, right?"
Is that a normal game store phenomenon? I hear that it happens a lot.
Most likely depends if you have a businessman or an afficiando running the store.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;645928Is that a normal game store phenomenon? I hear that it happens a lot.
Really depends on the store.
I've seen it but I've also seen rather more professional stores.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;645928I've had that happen to me too. Some game store I went to some years back (now out of business) had a sales associate saying derogatory things about the rpg product I was buying. In my mind, I'm thinking, "you do actually want to make money here, right?"
Is that a normal game store phenomenon? I hear that it happens a lot.
The last time this happened to me was in Nord's Games. I had a bunch of marked down 3.5 products and the cashier informed me that 3.x sucked and I should move on to 4E. I left the $100 potential sale on his counter and walked out.
If the guy that I am trying to give money to for his wares is so stupid as to insult the customer, then they do not need my business.
Quote from: MistwellBTW, the debate you're looking for? You're not going to find it from me.
Quote from: xech;645484You didn't answer for a third time:
I am starting to think you're just not a very bright person.
Quote from: Sommerjon;645923Whatever dudette. You seem to be way the hell over there some place.
'My armchair salesmanship is better than yours!'
Quote from: xech;645688I believe their goal for the design of the game was
1)players needing an online subscription product so to play it
2)cater to the investment sensibilities of the established D&D fan base so to sell it to it and kill the OGL while at it. Which means to be able to market it to hardcore fans as a better game than the previous iteration.
They failed but I do not believe that their goals were achievable in tandem.
They failed BECAUSE those goals were not achievable in tandem.
JG
Quote from: David Johansen;645804I still think the D&D 4e marketing campaign was actually inspired by the Dominos adds where they talk about how bad their pizzas used to be. It was considered massively innovative and successful at the time.
I do think game designers come to resent the flak they get from gamers though. But I don't think they're dumb enough to come out and shout at people. Well, okay excluding a few anecdotes about Lou Zochi :D
The difference being that D&D 3 did not suck, whereas Domino's did and still does.
JG
Quote from: Sommerjon;645589Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....I may be wayyyyy out here in like the back 40, but I would swear boardgames have a thing called a 'winner'. If I understand this phenomenon correctly a 'winner' is the person or thing that has accrued the most "things"(things being points, money or some such that the boardgames uses to keep "score" with).
Actually, some of the most popular hobbyist boardgames today are cooperative (Pandemic, Lord of the Rings Card Game, Arkham Horror). More to the point, WotC's own Dungeons and Dragons line of boardgames are cooperative. They also use grids and minis, and they can feature ongoing campaign play. So it's not at all clear that the D&D line of boardgames are a fundamentally different kind of game from 4E D&D.
Nifty.
Now there is no definition of boardgame.
Quote from: Sommerjon;646190Now there is no definition of boardgame.
Sounds like a good time for an ontological overhaul.
A board game is a game that uses some flat/card-board surface to represent the going-ons in the game (a board) and generally has a winner. I think that covers it.
A role playing game involves actual role playing, that is, a sense of identification with your character, which then becomes a field of much debate (here and elsewhere) between narrative mechanics, author versus character stance, etc, and what actually constitutes an RPG versus "not an RPG", story game and otherwise.
In that sense, 4th edition D&D is NOT a board game, because it does not have a "winner" in the conventional (board game) sense of the term, though it does in a (role playing game) more general sense of the term, and very much involves a sense of identification with your character (along with all the mechanical bits customizing your alter-ego and so on).
Milton Bradley's HeroQuest, for anyone who's read the original rules, is an hybrid, in the sense that there is some identification with your piece, and yet, it is very much treated as a piece, not a "character" in the conventional RPG sense.
Quote from: Benoist;646236A board game is a game that uses some flat/card-board surface to represent the going-ons in the game (a board) and generally has a winner. I think that covers it.
A role playing game involves actual role playing, that is, a sense of identification with your character, which then becomes a field of much debate (here and elsewhere) between narrative mechanics, author versus character stance, etc, and what actually constitutes an RPG versus "not an RPG", story game and otherwise.
In that sense, 4th edition D&D is NOT a board game, because it does not have a "winner" in the conventional (board game) sense of the term, though it does in a (role playing game) more general sense of the term, and very much involves a sense of identification with your character (along with all the mechanical bits customizing your alter-ego and so on).
Milton Bradley's HeroQuest, for anyone who's read the original rules, is an hybrid, in the sense that there is some identification with your piece, and yet, it is very much treated as a piece, not a "character" in the conventional RPG sense.
Not sure that the boardgame defintion really works. Trivial pursuit is a boardgame, no doubt, but you can play travel TP without a board. MtG is much more like a boardgame than HeroQuest but has no board.
I treat Heroquest as an RPG. Having said that I also treat Escape from Colditz as an RPG.
Games are a thing the way we play games is a style we impose on the rules. cards, boards, minis are all elements that influece the play style.
You can definitely play D&D like a boardgame. You only use a subset of the rules and you abstract the stuff outside the ruins/dungeon to stuff that happens out of character (training getting equipment and spells etc). This is just what MBs HeroQuest is like.
I can imagine an RPG that uses a deck of cards to generate the PC and run them through the game play. so the party each draw 4 character cards then they travel through a card generated dungeon but can rolplay. Add a GM and its fully like an RPG.
Maybe that part havign a GM is a good benchmark?
Quote from: Haffrung;646051Actually, some of the most popular hobbyist boardgames today are cooperative (Pandemic, Lord of the Rings Card Game, Arkham Horror). More to the point, WotC's own Dungeons and Dragons line of boardgames are cooperative. They also use grids and minis, and they can feature ongoing campaign play. So it's not at all clear that the D&D line of boardgames are a fundamentally different kind of game from 4E D&D.
Dungeon! isn't coop.
Quote from: jibbajibba;646260Not sure that the boardgame defintion really works. Trivial pursuit is a boardgame, no doubt, but you can play travel TP without a board. MtG is much more like a boardgame than HeroQuest but has no board.
It doesn't work that way. Trivial Pursuit is a board game; if you don't play with the board, the actual wheel with six sides and stuff, you're not actually playing TP, you're just using the TP question cards in some other type of game of your own making. Magic is a trading card game (not a board game), and HeroQuest is an RPG/board game hybrid.
Since several board games offer solitaire options (GMT games), while others work off a cooperative basis often against an automated solitaire program, the "winner selected from the players" competition basis does have to be reconsidered. That board games have an end game and the potential to "win" (divorced from selection among participants) might be more appropriate. But I'm sure we can splice this hair even further if we try!
Quote from: Rincewind1;645844Customers having opinion on the product?
Preposterous entitlement. Jeeves, fetch my cloak, I shall be dining at the club tonite.
edit: Since I love all this whining about Internet being boo boo, let me reiterate: For customers everywhere, Internet is the best thing since sliced bread. Because while you may need to read some white noise while you do, it has none the less liberated us from the tyranny of the so - called "critics", and their whorish morality, allowing us to garner opinions of our fellow customers, and a large database of such, not just our friends and acquaintances.
I agree that Internet is the bes thing for us. It is also true, too, that opinions in Internet are just a tiny subset of the hobby and thus, taking them as general opinions is a terrible idea, as shown here:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-4739-scott-pilgrim/
Being vocal about something on Internet does not equal to spending money on it.
Quote from: Piestrio;645868I'm going to write a song called, "The Red Herring" and it's going to be all about how nobody gives a fuck about how D&D was "really played back in the day" because it doesn't fucking matter.
TSR D&D is alive today. There are some really cool ways to play TSR D&D TODAY.
Right now.
That way when someone starts fapping about how D&D was/wasn't back "in the day" in order to score some internet points and make their epenis larger we can all break into song.
Wonderful. I can do a very good bass.
Also, I agree with Daddy Warpig and Haffrung. For all its many virtues, 1e DMG does not such a good job explaining how the game was to be played, so everyone did the best they could.
Quote from: Benoist;646263It doesn't work that way. Trivial Pursuit is a board game; if you don't play with the board, the actual wheel with six sides and stuff, you're not actually playing TP, you're just using the TP question cards in some other type of game of your own making. Magic is a trading card game (not a board game), and HeroQuest is an RPG/board game hybrid.
Um .. like I said in my post you can play Travel TP without a board, it comes in a little box so you can play in the back of a car or whatever.
Magic is a card game but if you use a play mat its just like using a 'board' living card games ? card games with boards loads of examples. I created a 'hybrid' board ccg eventually dropped the board but meh ... its moot.
We used to play Magic without cards. You have a 0 sized hand you drew 1 card a round and had to play it straight away and any card could only be played once. More a memory exercise than anything else but certainly played like Magic.
You can definitely play D&D like herorquest. In play it feels identical to a game of D&D played with minis and a floortiles. Rember Ad HeroQuest doesn't have a baord it just has floor tiles you put together for each adventure. If you let the ref make up their own game is so close to D&D I am suprised they weren't sued.
Point is that games want to be free they don't like to be categorised :) Defining the category of a game through the media or materials used to play is a bit restrictive. D&D with dwarven forge and minis... board game? Heroquest with GM generated content and custom characters ...RPG?
Magic with out any cards ? CCG? Magic with a play mat that tells you where to put the cards? Board game? Monopoly on a tablet... computer game ?
etc etc
I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...
... but here goes:
Quote from: Benoist;646236A role playing game involves actual role playing, that is, a sense of identification with your character, which then becomes a field of much debate (here and elsewhere) between narrative mechanics, author versus character stance, etc, and what actually constitutes an RPG versus "not an RPG", story game and otherwise.
- Talisman
- Junta
- Diplomacy
- Tales of the Arabian Nights
Quote from: Imperator;646315I agree that Internet is the bes thing for us. It is also true, too, that opinions in Internet are just a tiny subset of the hobby and thus, taking them as general opinions is a terrible idea, as shown here:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-4739-scott-pilgrim/
Being vocal about something on Internet does not equal to spending money on it.
As usual, I mostly agree and partially disagree ;). The theory from that link is mostly flawed (it only got right the Serenity, which sadly proves that Firefly fans are indeed a very vocal, but minority), because, well, since I had been in the saloon when Jessie James was shot:
1) All the other films than Serenity had this "geek hype" whipped up by PR department. Snakes on a Plane were in fact so notoriously marketed as a "film so bad it's gonna be good", that at some point while browsing the Internet at the time, I was afraid to open the fridge. So de facto this article ought to cover more the problem of Marketing Hype != Reality.
2) The films themselves were rather mediocre (I'm biased on Serenity to say it was good, and Kickass was also an interesting experiment, at least in comic version), and failed to meet the expectations of media hype they produced. Or, as often happens, they were based on misconceptions about what the "geeks" wanted - such as Cera being the titular Scott Pilgrim, because Internet laughing at his expense was mistaken for real popularity.
3) Indie was running on an awesome licence, and the more decent comparison would be with The Last Crusade, which got 474 million dollars. Crystal skull also costed 185 millions, while Last Crusade only about 50 - so basically, Crystal skull made about 4.5 dollar for every 1 invested in production (add to that marketing expenses EDIT: sorry, I did not count the worldwide profits for Crystal skull), while Last Crusade made 9.5 dollars for every dollar invested (add marketing expenses as well, of course). When you do all that really simple math & fact check, that took me five minutes (and no Imperator, I am not picking a "fight" with you for clearance - just Crakced ;) ) it does turn out a bit that perhaps listening to "geeks" a bit about what'd they want from their legacy film, might've been a good idea. Not to mention adjusting for inflation. And I doubt that Crystal Skull toys sold that well, since the film was really aimed at the people who grew up with Indy, rather than the new generation.
Edit: 3.5) In fact, as I sacrificed another minute of my time - Kickass costed 30 million, brought 90 in box office worldwide. So it earned 3 dollars for every one invested - only 1.5 less than Indiana Jones, and you just can't compare the IPs.
But I do agree that:
4) Marketing to geeks may not be the smartest idea. Then again, we're really as gullible as any other group, just not a very big one.
And perhaps most importantly I do agree with you that vocal does not equal right. And that's not just a problem of the Internet really, but the reality itself - we can see what vocal, well organised minorities everywhere are doing, and most often it is not something that a majority would call "right". But as we are silent, they triumph - which is why it is always better to speak, even if on the Internet.
To summarise - I agree that an author needs to have his vision. But he ought not to distance himself too far from the audience and it's voice, or both him and his vision will be too obscured.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;646346I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...
... but here goes:
- Talisman
- Junta
- Diplomacy
- Tales of the Arabian Nights
I can assure you that I do not identify even slight as much with my character in Talisman, as I do with my characters in an RPG. Talisman is for crushing your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. In Diplomacy and Junta, while you may wish to have some gentleman agreement to role - play those games, it is all that - a gentleman's agreement. There is no tailoring in the rules to adjust for a cooperative game, where being the character is an important part of the activity.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;645755Apparently their entire initial marketing campaign?
Honestly I don't remember it.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;646262Dungeon! isn't coop.
I'm referring to the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System Board Games (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/9547/dungeons-and-dragons-adventure-system-board-games). Castle Ravenloft. The Wrath of Ashardalon. The Legend of Drizzt. Very popular (much more than Dungeon!). And they're co-op.
The line between boardgames and RPGs isn't clear at all these days. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Quote from: Haffrung;646367I'm referring to the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System Board Games (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/9547/dungeons-and-dragons-adventure-system-board-games). Castle Ravenloft. The Wrath of Ashardalon. The Legend of Drizzt. Very popular (much more than Dungeon!). And they're co-op.
The line between boardgames and RPGs isn't clear at all these days. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Since I play a lot of board games, I couldn't disagree more. While some BGs may emulate RPG elements and storytelling elements (such as Arkham Horror for example), the feeling of playing against the board is vastly, vastly different to playing an RPG, and I truly rarely see players bothering to try and RP elements as we play - if we wanted that, we'd just, well...play an RPG?
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;646346I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...
... but here goes:
- Talisman
- Junta
- Diplomacy
- Tales of the Arabian Nights
Playing Descent in campaign mode has most of the hallmarks of a focused dungeon-crawling RPG. The biggest difference being the adversarial GM who has his options defined by the rules.
Quote from: Rincewind1;646369Since I play a lot of board games, I couldn't disagree more. While some BGs may emulate RPG elements and storytelling elements (such as Arkham Horror for example), the feeling of playing against the board is vastly, vastly different to playing an RPG, and I truly rarely see players bothering to try and RP elements as we play - if we wanted that, we'd just, well...play an RPG?
Playing a bidding game is vastly different from playing a tile-laying game. Playing a deck-building game is vastly different from playing a hex and counter wargame. And yet boardgames designers are cheerfully exploring the gaps between these formats and devising new hybrid systems all of the time. This cross-polinization has fostered a golden age in boardgaming.
Personally, I also play boardgames for entirely different reasons and in a different way than I play RPGs. However, a great many people do play RPGs mainly as a tactical combat games. And I get he impression a lot of people never speak in character, or roleplay much at all. And on the other hand, some people do play boardgames like Arkham Horror and Tales of the Arabian Nights primarily to generate enjoyable narratives. Cooperative games like Sentinels of the Multiverse (superheroes) are sizzling hot right now. Mansions of Madness even features a 'keeper' who runs all of the environmental encounters and foes. There's clearly a big demand for RPG-like boardgames. I expect more of these narrative games will feature ongoing campaign modes, and devise ways to grow and customize characters. And I don't really understand why this would make people angry or contemptuous.
Quote from: Haffrung;646380Playing a bidding game is vastly different from playing a tile-laying game. Playing a deck-building game is vastly different from playing a hex and counter wargame. And yet boardgames designers are cheerfully exploring the gaps between these formats and devising new hybrid systems all of the time. This cross-polinization has fostered a golden age in boardgaming.
Personally, I also play boardgames for entirely different reasons and in a different way than I play RPGs. However, a great many people do play RPGs mainly as a tactical combat games. And I get he impression a lot of people never speak in character, or roleplay much at all. And on the other hand, some people do play boardgames like Arkham Horror and Tales of the Arabian Nights primarily to generate enjoyable narratives. Cooperative games like Sentinels of the Multiverse (superheroes) are sizzling hot right now. Mansions of Madness even features a 'keeper' who runs all of the environmental encounters and foes. There's clearly a big demand for RPG-like boardgames. I expect more of these narrative games will feature ongoing campaign modes, and devise ways to grow and customize characters. And I don't really understand why this would make people angry or contemptuous.
I agree on these, though as I said, there is a somewhat vast difference between RPG - like board game and just the RPG. Part of it is because, even against the board/keeper, there's still an inherit friends against foe relationship at the table, which should not exist at the RPG table.
I'll give an example from the Mansion of Madness I played - I can not remember exactly what it was about, so pardon if I am a bit wrong/unclear. There is a Cultist's Robe item there, that adds to evasion against cultists and makes them not attack you, or something. But according to the ruleset and the Keeper, that bonus would not apply when trying to evade out of the room (full of Cultists, mind you) or something like that. So in other words -despite having a brilliant disguise, the cultists still attack me as I try to leave the room. On a board game I can let it stand, because we're playing a game that's based on the opposition still. If we were at the RPG table, I'd call bull. It might've not been exactly this, as I said again, but I do remember it was a situation which was indeed reasonable by the rules, but a complete idiocy if logic would be applied to it -and in RPGs, part of GMs role is to apply such logic.
Quote from: Rincewind1;646383I agree on these, though as I said, there is a somewhat vast difference between RPG - like board game and just the RPG. Part of it is because, even against the board/keeper, there's still an inherit friends against foe relationship at the table, which should not exist at the RPG table.
I'll give an example from the Mansion of Madness I played - I can not remember exactly what it was about, so pardon if I am a bit wrong/unclear. There is a Cultist's Robe item there, that adds to evasion against cultists and makes them not attack you, or something. But according to the ruleset and the Keeper, that bonus would not apply when trying to evade out of the room (full of Cultists, mind you) or something like that. So in other words -despite having a brilliant disguise, the cultists still attack me as I try to leave the room. On a board game I can let it stand, because we're playing a game that's based on the opposition still. If we were at the RPG table, I'd call bull. It might've not been exactly this, as I said again, but I do remember it was a situation which was indeed reasonable by the rules, but a complete idiocy if logic would be applied to it -and in RPGs, part of GMs role is to apply such logic.
I share your belief that rulings not rules is one of the hallmarks of RPGs. However, given how divisive the subject is in the RPG world, that's not the case for a lot of RPGers. And who's to say someone won't design an innovative boardgame in which logical rulings by a referee, or by consensus, will be incorporated into the game.
A few years ago I took part in a play-by-forum game of an Colonial-era miniatures system (British versus Mahdi). Each of the 12 or so players, who represented particular named officers, described how we disposed trained our units, how we scouted the terrain, even engaged in regimental politics, all in-character. All die-rolling was conducted by the referee, who fed back the consequences of our decisions in forum updates. For game aids, we used only one historical (and inaccurate) map of the region. Was that a roleplaying game, or a boardgame conducted via text?
Quote from: Haffrung;646403I share your belief that rulings not rules is one of the hallmarks of RPGs. However, given how divisive the subject is in the RPG world, that's not the case for a lot of RPGers. And who's to say someone won't design an innovative boardgame in which logical rulings by a referee, or by consensus, will be incorporated into the game.
Fair enough, and it's really happening anyway - I mean in practice it's quite often that when someone forgets a rule, we don't bother checking if all voices speak the same version. Only when there's a conflict of interest the rules of a boardgame are checked - and that's why I don't see that happening with a "typical" boardgame, at least not for a degree that RPGs are, because the conflict of interest (aka me winning vs you winning, or us winning fairly against the board vs us just winning) happens more often. Perhaps, however indeed - who knows.
QuoteA few years ago I took part in a play-by-forum game of an Colonial-era miniatures system (British versus Mahdi). Each of the 12 or so players, who represented particular named officers, described how we disposed trained our units, how we scouted the terrain, even engaged in regimental politics, all in-character. All die-rolling was conducted by the referee, who fed back the consequences of our decisions in forum updates. For game aids, we used only one historical (and inaccurate) map of the region. Was that a roleplaying game, or a boardgame conducted via text?
An interesting example, because I, for one, long had flirted with an idea of a campaign in a sandbox setting, where there are two groups of players, which both represent people iin control of one of the opposing kingdoms, who are a part of an empire about to dissolve in a civil war. So we would need to adhere more to agreed rules, while still keeping the logics of an RPG, so to speak. And indeed, it's one of those gray zone things, where an answer may lie in splitting hairs, but what'd be the point of that? If you had fun, it means it was good, and if everyone was indeed sticking to their guns with their characters (aka - if you had a lazy, timid officer, you hadn't suddenly turned into a brilliant man because you were getting your ass kicked), then I'd say mission accomplished either way. But if I were to split a hair, I'd say an RPG game with heavy wargame elements, or vice - versa.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;646346I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...
Well, I don't particularly want to pixel-bitch about this or that hybrid so yeah, I'm moving on.
Quote from: Haffrung;646367I'm referring to the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System Board Games (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/9547/dungeons-and-dragons-adventure-system-board-games). Castle Ravenloft. The Wrath of Ashardalon. The Legend of Drizzt. Very popular (much more than Dungeon!). And they're co-op.
The line between boardgames and RPGs isn't clear at all these days. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.
That's a very bad thing.
I got into RPGs because, like the Red Box said, loosely quoted "there is no gameboard. The action takes place in your imagination."
Huge difference.
People who think boardgames and RPGs are close . . . man, I could never play with those people.
Quote from: 1989;646417That's a very bad thing.
I got into RPGs because, like the Red Box said, loosely quoted "there is no gameboard. The action takes place in your imagination."
Huge difference.
People who think boardgames and RPGs are close . . . man, I could never play with those people.
Well, they are all tabletop games...
But no worries 1989 - I'm not recruiting at the moment anyway, so even if you'd live in my location, it'd not really be your decision.
Quote from: Rincewind1;646350To summarise - I agree that an author needs to have his vision. But he ought not to distance himself too far from the audience and it's voice, or both him and his vision will be too obscured.
:hatsoff:
That is what I meant to say. And that is what I consider the weakest point of an open playtesting process.
Quote from: 1989;646417That's a very bad thing.
I got into RPGs because, like the Red Box said, loosely quoted "there is no gameboard. The action takes place in your imagination."
Huge difference.
People who think boardgames and RPGs are close . . . man, I could never play with those people.
I suppose I don't understand the anxiety about the market making products for people who like different things than I do. It doesn't mean someone is going to take away the things I do like.
Quote from: Imperator;646423:hatsoff:
That is what I meant to say. And that is what I consider the weakest point of an open playtesting process.
You need to have a strong enough personality to remember that you won't satisfy everyone. I on the other hand believe it to be more beneficial, than writing from an ivory tower - care to elaborate? I am genuinely interested what you have to say on the matter. Do you believe that trying to listen to all the voices as you work, too early, mudden one's own vision?
I admit when you stage a test, so to speak - films get test screenings too, and stuff gets edited all the time. Clerks were famously supposed to end with Dante dying from a hand of a random burglar, but that was heavily criticised by the test audience, but it was a finished product by the time as well.
Quote from: Haffrung;646432I suppose I don't understand the anxiety about the market making products for people who like different things than I do. It doesn't mean someone is going to take away the things I do like.
Well, that's exactly what happened.
They took away 2e and replaced it with a gridded wargame 3.x/4e.
Quote from: neutromancer;645203Hi, new poster here.
I didn't play a lot of D&D in the 80s (or most RPGs in general), but saying that D&D was about combat more than anything else... I mean, that's not the way I remember.
Using the same logic, my conclusion is that D&D was about mapping. It was about filling a square grid paper with the corridors, until you had a complete copy of whatever was in the DM's square grid paper.
Each room could have a monster, a trap, an unguarded treasure, nothing, flavor text, I don't know. But I wouldn't say it was about combat, because you had about equal chance of finding either of these. And from what I remember, monster treasure tables had a separate value for what they were usually carrying, and what they had stashed away (most of their loot was in their lair, so yeah if you killed them there you'd probably get nice shiny stuff and had to fight for it, but you might not even find the monster at all if he's just walking clockwise down the corridors same as you ;)).
So, in conclusion, D&D was about completing the map. What you found in each "40' x 30' room, with a long table" blah blah was just a situational hazard.
And now, those forum hippies with their "well you'll probably remember the layout of the dungeon so you can find the exit" can git outta my lawn.
(EDIT: for the record, not having to draw a map in 10' grid paper most of the time is an improvement to me)
Welcome to theRPGsite!
Quote from: Haffrung;646432I suppose I don't understand the anxiety about the market making products for people who like different things than I do. It doesn't mean someone is going to take away the things I do like.
In some cases that's exactly what they want.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;646605In some cases that's exactly what they want.
RPGPundit
Hasbro: Taking Away The Things You Like
(TM)
Its ok to like rpgs, wargames, and boardgames at the same time.
Quote from: Bill;646662Its ok to like rpgs, wargames, and boardgames at the same time.
Indeed.
And maybe some RPG hobbyists should stop and consider why the popularity of boardgames is increasing by leaps and bounds, while RPGs shuffle into decline.
But no, the RPG hobby has nothing to learn from a hobby where geeks who are into fantasy, science fiction, and history gather around tables face-to-face to play games and socialize. Boardgames and RPGs are utterly different hobbies, and RPGs are doing just fine on their own, thank you very much.
Quote from: Haffrung;646673Indeed.
And maybe some RPG hobbyists should stop and consider why the popularity of boardgames is increasing by leaps and bounds, while RPGs shuffle into decline.
But no, the RPG hobby has nothing to learn from a hobby where geeks who are into fantasy, science fiction, and history gather around tables face-to-face to play games and socialize. Boardgames and RPGs are utterly different hobbies, and RPGs are doing just fine on their own, thank you very much.
Easy. A boardgame is much faster to learn and play and costs less money in comparison say to 4e.
Personally, I like Blood Bowl and Wotc 4e inspired boardgames but I consider 4e a boring as hell roleplaying-game-wannabe using board game rules. Perhaps it is just the implementation that sucks, as other people have claimed, but I rather believe it is the original idea to base the structure of D&D, a generic (in regards to play style) roleplaying game, on grid interactions.
Quote from: 1989;646579Well, that's exactly what happened.
They took away 2e and replaced it with a gridded wargame 3.x/4e.
No, they did not, you fucking child. Nobody took your books away. Nobody took your players away. Nobody took your campaign away. In fact, third party publishers still publish adventures for 2e, and WOTC is re-releasing the hardback books as well, and both are thanks to WOTC.
The game you like was made by a company that doesn't even exist. WOTC didn't EVER publish the game you like - it was from a company that existed and ceased to exist long ago. In fact, had WOTC not bought the shell of the remains of that company, there never would have been an OGL, and you wouldn't have all this new shit and re-published books to play with for 2e. So SHUT THE FUCK UP already with your constant whining. Shit, I hear more emo bullshit from you than from your typical goth Vampire larper. Just play the game you like, let others play the games they like, and stop pouting that the game you like MUST BE THE NUMBER ONE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED GAME or else some RPG company must pay with your constant impotent internet wraith, you spoiled little shit.
Now now, 4E is not a gridded wargame. It is a fantasy tactical skirmish boardgame with some role-playing tacked on as an afterthought.
EDIT: Just like D&D Next is a marketting campaign trying to return former D&D fans to the WotC fold with a playtest tacked on.
Quote from: Mistwell;646774No, they did not, you fucking child. Nobody took your books away. Nobody took your players away. Nobody took your campaign away. In fact, third party publishers still publish adventures for 2e, and WOTC is re-releasing the hardback books as well, and both are thanks to WOTC.
The game you like was made by a company that doesn't even exist. WOTC didn't EVER publish the game you like - it was from a company that existed and ceased to exist long ago. In fact, had WOTC not bought the shell of the remains of that company, there never would have been an OGL, and you wouldn't have all this new shit and re-published books to play with for 2e. So SHUT THE FUCK UP already with your constant whining. Shit, I hear more emo bullshit from you than from your typical goth Vampire larper. Just play the game you like, let others play the games they like, and stop pouting that the game you like MUST BE THE NUMBER ONE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED GAME or else some RPG company must pay with your constant impotent internet wraith, you spoiled little shit.
Lovely, enthusiastic post. +1 for lolz.
Really though, you are playing semantics. 2e was replaced with a gridded wargame. Anyone can see that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;646593Welcome to theRPGsite!
Thanks!
Quote from: 1989;646814Lovely, enthusiastic post. +1 for lolz.
Really though, you are playing semantics. 2e was replaced with a gridded wargame. Anyone can see that.
Wierd the first 4 years I played D&D back in the early to mid 80s we played on a terrain table utilizing all them there measurements that the game came with.
Quote from: 1989;646814Lovely, enthusiastic post. +1 for lolz.
Really though, you are playing semantics. 2e was replaced with a gridded wargame. Anyone can see that.
Did they break into your house and steal your books and replace them with 3e books? Did they force your players to play 3e instead of 2e?
No, then stop fucking saying they replaced your game. They didn't replace it, any more than new editions of monopoly with star wars characters replaced your 1970s copy of monopoly.
You cannot any longer even say your books are out of print - they're going back into print. And you can't say your game isn't supported - it has lots of 3rd party support. There's just nothing logical behind your position.
So what exactly is your complaint, that other people are playing RPGs other than your preferred RPG? That your preferred RPG is not the most popular RPG?
Quote from: Mistwell;646943Did they break into your house and steal your books and replace them with 3e books? Did they force your players to play 3e instead of 2e?
No, then stop fucking saying they replaced your game. They didn't replace it, any more than new editions of monopoly with star wars characters replaced your 1970s copy of monopoly.
You cannot any longer even say your books are out of print - they're going back into print. And you can't say your game isn't supported - it has lots of 3rd party support. There's just nothing logical behind your position.
So what exactly is your complaint, that other people are playing RPGs other than your preferred RPG? That your preferred RPG is not the most popular RPG?
The current official edition is a gridded wargame. Was not before. How's that?
I blame the advertising culture overall.
Everyone associates new = better = cooler
So therefore it ends up being harder to find people to play older games.
though I will say with AD&D 2nd, there seem to be limitless numbers of dudes over 40 who will jump at the chance to play the game again. If there's one game of any in the entire tabletop rpg hobby, it's AD&D 2nd that should be considered still very much alive and thriving.
Quote from: 1989;647060The current official edition is a gridded wargame. Was not before. How's that?
Why is it important to you that the current "official" edition (am not even sure what that means, given the other editions are "officially" back in print) is one you do not like? How does that impact you in a meaningful way? Why would it offend you if other people are buying and playing a game you do not like?
Quote from: Ian Noble;647087I blame the advertising culture overall.
Everyone associates new = better = cooler
So therefore it ends up being harder to find people to play older games.
though I will say with AD&D 2nd, there seem to be limitless numbers of dudes over 40 who will jump at the chance to play the game again. If there's one game of any in the entire tabletop rpg hobby, it's AD&D 2nd that should be considered still very much alive and thriving.
It's arguably easier to find players for 2e now than it was the month before 3e was published, though much of that is the popularity of the internet allowing a lot more people to find each other.
Quote from: Ian Noble;647087I blame the advertising culture overall.
Everyone associates new = better = cooler
So therefore it ends up being harder to find people to play older games.
Or sometimes the newer things are better. And sometimes they're not. And usually, consumers are smart enough to figure it out.
That's why 3.x (and Pathfinder) continue to be more popular than 1st edition and 2nd edition - at least, my take.
Quote from: Mistwell;647114Why is it important to you that the current "official" edition (am not even sure what that means, given the other editions are "officially" back in print) is one you do not like? How does that impact you in a meaningful way? Why would it offend you if other people are buying and playing a game you do not like?
They are in print, but it's just a one-off.
When *your* edition (the one that favours your playstyle) is the official edition, then you can enjoy gaming. When the official edition is one that goes against your playstyle, then no gaming with that edition. Harder to find support among others, who often just go with the latest.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;647139Or sometimes the newer things are better. And sometimes they're not. And usually, consumers are smart enough to figure it out.
Judging by what I see out there, they are not. TV shows, music, food....not better. Newer stuff is geared towards instant gratification and shorter attention spans. That doesn't make it better.
QuoteThat's why 3.x (and Pathfinder) continue to be more popular than 1st edition and 2nd edition - at least, my take.
That's some shaky logic. That's like saying a 90s Mustang or Camaro was better than a 60s Mustang or Camaro because a lot more people drove them than the 60s version. The reality is that there were a lot more people in general driving cars and had access to cars in the 90s than the 60s, not that they were any better.
Better is often subjective. But my personal opinion is that 3.x is 'better' than 1st or 2nd edition. I like it because it has more options for customization. Even if I don't optimize, I still like making characters 'feel' different. 3.x provides the tools to do that well.
But to your larger point - there's more that goes into the availability of consumption than just quality. Few would argue that a 16oz New York Strip is equal or lower quality than a Big Mac - but Big Macs are more popular. They're also cheaper to produce.
Reality TV, for instance, is much, much, much, less expensive than a scripted program (like HBO's Rome, for instance). That makes them popular among producers, and there are a lot of them available. And by and large, they are 'popular' - but so are the quality shows. Among the people that you desire to hang with, I imagine shows like Rome are more popular than whatever that Honey Boo Boo show is (for the record, I don't have live TV - I watch TV only through Streaming Netflix or watching the Daily Show and/or Colbert Report on Hulu the next day).
Likewise with 3.x. It's more popular among the gamers that I like to associate with than earlier editions - in part because I value the company of gamers that like to customize.