Quote from: Sommerjon;693265Yeah no one at any time ever ever ever, made a plan on what to do with their character at all ever ever ever. :rolleyes:
It was all quink-a-dink on what the character became. :rolleyes:

Your ignorance is showing again.

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

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

Quote from: Mistwell;693177I've seen you whine bitch moan and complain at EW, and your views are not well-shared there either.  There are a few core complainers who agree with you, but the mass of people over there seem cautiously optimistic.  And that's hardly the "a modern AD&D" crowd.

Naw, it could just be mostly you, and you're projecting because you don't want to think that the mass of gamers are not thinking like you.

I have to agree with Mistwell here because he is correct.

TCO is a well-known troll across several forums, that he is emotionally distraught over this just makes me smile.

Quote from: Phillip;693185Again, if you or I want verisimilitude, it's easy enough for us to assign a probability of a figure being a serf handicapped by prenatal defects, malnutrition, plague and injuries.

You can actually play that guy in Zweihander.

Quote from: Sommerjon;693222:rolleyes: Yeah here it's totally different.  They don't need G+ or any of those BS 'internet roleplaying services'.  They all sit down face to face. :rolleyes:

I do, but then again, I play Traveller.

Options aren't a bad idea, but it means that "I play 5e" could mean very different things. But overall, I believe the advantage of options would outweigh the disadvantage.

Quote from: Benoist;693270I think that's not true, because that excludes the middle, and by definition almost, I think what we like to call casual gamers are people who are in the middle. I think most gamers actually care what they play as far as their immediate game tables and buddies are concerned. They do have opinions, likes and dislikes, they know when they're having less fun than last week, it's just that they're not making the expression of these opinions on the internet or anywhere really the defining element of their gaming personality or whatnot.

They may have likes and dislikes, but those aren't what drives a group or sells them books.

So we have a guy in our group called Gary (He played Gorm in my Dungeon World game, the mercenary in my SWN game, and I've played other things with him as well. He's a real person, not just an anecdote). Gary is pretty much the epitome of a casual gamer; he comes along every Tuesday, rolls some dice, and then goes home again. He's not terribly big on characterisation, he doesn't post on forums or do anything gaming-related the rest of the week, doesn't really seem concerned about system (Although he's not very good with anything narrative), but he is evidently enjoying himself because, week-in, week-out, he's at the club. Gary is a casual gamer, and there is nothing wrong with that. What he doesn't do, though, is run games. If you got Gary excited about a game, you'd probably sell that book... but he wouldn't run it or get other people excited about it, and if you've done enough marketing that Gary knows about your game, you've spent a lot of money.

No, the person you want to get excited is a Steve (Or perhaps even a Ben, in your group). The Steves of this world follow the gaming news, have near boundless enthusiasm, and like to run games. They're cheap to market to, because they are actively seeking this sort of thing out, and once you've got them, they will happily do the rest of your marketing for you for free, and sell the rest of the group on your books.

Everyone else is just a varying data point on the sliding scale of marketing spend vs marketing effectiveness, for this model.

Steves should care about Garys. The guy who follows the news and runs the games should actually care about the people he plays with.

Steve can be as motivated as he wants, if Gary doesn't like the game, he might not post about it on the internet, hell, he might not even say it to the other players of the group, but you can tell Gary could have a better time if he wasn't counting beans on his character sheet, or didn't have to choose between seven thousand options in the book for his knight character, options he actually doesn't give a fuck about.

Steve is the one who's going to read the books and that's a good thing: Steve could use some advice if all he cares about is what he personally thinks about the game he wants for himself. He could care about the many parts that make up a role playing game, including the people playing with him, the snacks, the setting he wants to run, the rules he's going to use, and if he's sensible about these things, then thinking about Garys when you design your game definitely will be a plus. Steve is going to see that. He's going to run the  game, and even though Gary doesn't pip a word, Steve's going to notice he isn't frowning the same way he was when he had to search for a feat on his character sheet. Instead he's going to rave about how he wouldn't have come up with this character idea if the group hadn't decided to roll 3d6 in order, to use the tactical rules this time around, or the storytelling options, for that matter.

The Garys of this world are worth thinking about. Steve would do well to remember.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;693192There's no enthusiasm there Mistwell. Most people have given up and moved on.

Confirmation Bias, thy name is thecasualoblivion.  There is enthusiasm for sure over at EW, and other places, and if you look at their chart of what people are discussing across the internet spectrum for D&D things, 5e now outstrips pathfinder (which it didn't just a couple weeks ago).

Quote from: MorrusWhat's the current zeitgeist? What are the hottest games being played right now? This isn't a list of sales figures; it tracks what's currently being talked about using a top secret algorithm. This page tracks discussion on a selection of major independent RPG discussion forums to create an overall sample from a list including EN World, RPGnet, UK Roleplayers, RPG Geek, the RPG Bloggers network of nearly 300 blogs and the RPG Blog Alliance of nearly 600 blogs.

Tell me again how people have moved on, given the surge in discussion of 5e.  You really think people who moved on started to suddenly talk about 5e more?

You like the controversy, you like to play the devils advocate, so please don't pretend all of a sudden you're thinking like the masses on this topic.  We both know the game you're playing, and it's transparent.

Speaking as a Steve, I depend on Garys to game.

Quote from: Obeeron;693171Actually, the final straw for me was when a couple of the biggest complainers about Next mentioned that they don't actually play RPGs because they "can't find anyone to play with".

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

Quote from: Sommerjon;693265Really?  The wave of osr shit hits the hobby and looky at what Mearls is doing, 'going back to the simpler times'.  Yeah no correlations can be drawn at all. :rolleyes:
Yeah no one at any time ever ever ever, made a plan on what to do with their character at all ever ever ever. :rolleyes:

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

Quote from: Ladybird;693268If you've got Strong Opinions on systems, like any of these, you clearly aren't some sort of 'casual' gamer. The casual player doesn't go for any thing in particular, they just join whatever's getting played.

You can't make your game popular by targeting them, because they don't give a shit.

Sorry, you're wrong. The thing about RPGs is you need other people to play with. If you play with people who don't have the time or inclination to take the rules home to engage in 3 hour char-op sessions, or who get bored and disengaged when combat lasts more than 60 minutes, you have two choices:

* Take all of the burden of the game mechanics (or setting) upon yourself and lead the table by the hand to partake in what you (as the hardcore gamer) find fun.

* Buy and run an RPG that most of the people at the table will be happy with, and that you can run without cajoling and hand-holding.

Of course, for a lot of hardcores who post a lot on forums, accessibility and playability don't matter because they're Bitter Non-Gamers or Theory-Wanks. Or they're uber-nerds who bully and cajole and whine in order to get a bunch of their diffident acquaintances to play the game they think is theoretically awesome.

Quote from: Piestrio;693274I think because of their non-engagement with the "hard-core" they've stumbled on the great truth of RPGs that make them fun in the first place. That they are about so much more than the rules or the books or all the faff you buy from stores.

Something the hobbyists lost sight of in our never ending quest to cram our collective head up our ass.

In fact I think RPGs are pretty poorly suited to the type of obsessive nerd that infests many hobbies. Which probably explains why everyone is so unhappy with RPGs all the time. "15 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours" and the like.

The type of holistic experience best provided by RPGs is anathema to obsessive mouth breathers.

Yep. Number-crunching and obsessive analysis of mechanical theory are poorly suited to the organic and largely subjective social experience of playing RPGs. It's like creating an algorithm to determine the steps to take to host a fun backyard barbecue.

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

It's kind of typical though, that place is addled with those who've been deprived of regular human contact for so long that they'll seek any opportunity to draw attention to themselves without crossing the boundaries that mean they'll get ejected.

RPGs aren't unique in this incidentally, I've seen it in many walks of life. It's a sad commentary on society itself to be honest.

Quote from: Haffrung;693336Yep. Number-crunching and obsessive analysis of mechanical theory are poorly suited to the organic and largely subjective social experience of playing RPGs. It's like creating an algorithm to determine the steps to take to host a fun backyard barbecue.

So... what you're saying is nobody should talk about game rules because you'd rather sit around having a conversation where the only rule is that everyone has to listen to you, peppered with the odd dice roll? And anyone who disagrees with that opinion is the sort we need less of?

There are good ways to do things and less good ways, depending on your priorities. A lot of your 'theorywank' deals with this topic. In fact without 'theorywank' the hobby wouldn't exist, end of story.

I do agree that the endless ouroboric furballs within the online spectrum of the D&D hobbyist contingent are not constructive for the most part, mainly due to the refrain that if you change the RAW you aren't playing D&D any more. Ironically this most often emerges from people who claim both to disdain the rules and make a special effort to avoid playing by the RAW.

Quote from: The Traveller;693342So... what you're saying is nobody should talk about game rules because you'd rather sit around having a conversation where the only rule is that everyone has to listen to you, peppered with the odd dice roll? And anyone who disagrees with that opinion is the sort we need less of?

No. If people want to discuss the optimal distance a grill should be from a back door, the utility of various sized plastic coolers, and the options for arranging hamburger assembly stations, all the power to them. And no doubt some decent tips would come out of those discussions. It's just that they'll have only a marginal effect on how much fun people actually have at a barbecue. And if a culture develops where barbecue hosting becomes focused on these matters, it's probably a sign that there's something unhealthy going on.

Quote from: The Traveller;693342I do agree that the endless ouroboric furballs within the online spectrum of the D&D hobbyist contingent are not constructive for the most part, mainly due to the refrain that if you change the RAW you aren't playing D&D any more. Ironically this most often emerges from people who claim both to disdain the rules and make a special effort to avoid playing by the RAW.

I won't argue with you there.

Quote from: Haffrung;693344It's just that they'll have only a marginal effect on how much fun people actually have at a barbecue.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Mistwell;693333Tell me again how people have moved on, given the surge in discussion of 5e.  You really think people who moved on started to suddenly talk about 5e more?

You like the controversy, you like to play the devils advocate, so please don't pretend all of a sudden you're thinking like the masses on this topic.  We both know the game you're playing, and it's transparent.

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

Quote from: The Traveller;693345The frankly schizophrenic arguments that D&D appears to inspire at every turn shouldn't detract from the value that being aware of how game rules affect play brings to the table. And I do respect that people enjoy D&D, and certain styles of gameplay that I personally don't.

Don't bother. Questions like "what should the the rules be like?" are always going to bring forth a torrent of tribalistic shibboleths like "play the game not the rules". 'cause dealing with those sorts of questions honestly leads to answers that are uncomfortable to people here.

Quote from: The Traveller;693345I have over the course of my life combed through hundreds or even thousands of different game systems (yes, there are that many out there) looking for useful ideas and pieces I could fit into my own framework, like some sort of lunatic mechanic building a luxury gilded zeppelin by sifting through the world's junkyards, plugging in some bits, melting down others for their raw components.

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

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