Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI'm beginning to get one of those creeping sensations you get when it dawns on you that you might be missing some kind of joke.

!i!

Brilliant, isn't it?  

Quote from: CalithenaElliot, do you have a dog in this race or something?

You appear to be trying to make a point while hiding behind a claim of "irony" to avoid responsibility.

If this is about anti-D&D RQ-fanboys, you're revisiting something that's been talked about before here--nothing wrong with that except that you should realize you're not making any stunning revelations. However you're painting with a very broad brush and overplaying the parallel with later generations of "swine". E.g. I believe there were folks (I was one of them) who believed that most people played D&D out of inertia, and would like RQ or GURPS better if only they'd try them...or that the tastes which preferred D&D were less refined. But I disbelieve that there was a social dynamic of wanting to "be one of the cool kids".

And so, on the other hand, if you're arguing that a lot of people on theRPGsite are hypocrites because they complain about Forger attitudes toward other games, you only have it partly right, because the social dynamic of "being part of the movement" is much more evident today.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd so, on the other hand, if you're arguing that a lot of people on theRPGsite are hypocrites because they complain about Forger attitudes toward other games, you only have it partly right, because the social dynamic of "being part of the movement" is much more evident today.

And much of this is simply based on the ease of communication we have in the "Internet Age".  There have always been people who see 'their' version of a hobby as 'better' than 'yours'.  Hell, go back and read some issues of "Alarums & Excursions" sometime.

And this isn't specific to gaming either.

For years, I recall people telling me I wasn't a "real" Tolkien fan, because I hadn't read the Silmarillion (which I have since, not out of needing to 'fit in', but because I finally was able to understand what Tolkien was doing with it, and why it was different from LOTR).  And I'm sure that people who've read the Silmarillion but haven't taught themselves to speak Elvish aren't seen as "real" Tolkien fans by those who have.

It's all about insecurities, and people bringing their own baggage into any hobby.

Quote from: zombenIt's all about insecurities, and people bringing their own baggage into any hobby.

Yup. And no matter how tired the posturing gets there's always a new generation of 13-year-olds (of all ages) to continue flogging the tribalist horse.

Quote from: DrewYup. And no matter how tired the posturing gets there's always a new generation of 13-year-olds (of all ages) to continue flogging the tribalist horse.

Exactly.  And if they're not decrying that their games are better than your games, they're shrieking that the industry is dying.

Seriously.  I've been part of this hobby since 1980.  I've seen the cycles, the waves, the whatever you want to call them.

Let me say it once and for all: Your favorite game is not better than mine.  My favorite game is not better than yours.  The game industry is not dying.  Now shut the hell up, pass the Doritos and roll the fucking dice.

Quote from: zombenNow shut the hell up, pass the Doritos and roll the fucking dice.

I agree with you for the most part, but your choice of snack sucks, so you'd never get me at the same table.

TheShadow

Quote from: zombenAnd much of this is simply based on the ease of communication we have in the "Internet Age".  There have always been people who see 'their' version of a hobby as 'better' than 'yours'.  Hell, go back and read some issues of "Alarums & Excursions" sometime.

Yeah, I don't know if I've ever read A&E, so maybe the "tribalism" was there...the sense of being part of a movement of Young Turks or Beat Poets or whatever. I didn't see it in the big game conventions I attended back in the 80's, or on Usenet. I did see (and participate in on Usenet) a lot of criticism of D&D and bemoaning its crowding out other games, but there wasn't any sense of a "movement".

Another thing is that when early D&D critics held up "game X" as "the answer", they were much less likely to be doing so in ignorance of all the rest of the games out there--if only because there weren't as many. The rhetoric of advancing "game X" and its methods tends to entail an overt or implicit claim that no other games can do what "X" does. Back in 1979, it was reasonable to say that RQ was revolutionary simply on the basis of comparison to D&D. Today, though, it seems like a lot of folks who talk about the limitations of "traditional games"--often in the course of touting some Forge game, or maybe Wushu--still have little experience with games outside of D&D or Vampire, and with GMing paradigms outside of plot-heavy quests and missions.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut fundamentally, we've also lost something.  We've lost the ability to appeal to people who aren't going to be hardcore gamers.   You can't, with any game out there right now (including D&D) get a group of people together, whip up characters in 5 minutes, and just go Forward to Adventure (pardon the shameless plug). You can't have stuff that makes no sense and not have to justify it.

I totally agree with this. When I attend to a con, I usually end using some free PDF rules lite game so I can be up and running in no time.

Oh, great joke, Cali. You really got me there until last posts

Quote from: ImperatorI totally agree with this. When I attend to a con, I usually end using some free PDF rules lite game so I can be up and running in no time.

I always use pregens for my con games I've run in the past ten years or so.  And frequently, when teaching my friends a new game, I offer to make characters based on their interests for the first session.

For a GM familiar with the system, HeroQuest is an easy one to get up and running fast.  Players just have to use the 'make it up as you go' option.

But Pundit does make an interesting point.  An RPG which could be bought out of the box, set up and started in a short period of time (say half an hour) by inexperienced gamers would be a neat thing.

QuoteAn RPG which could be bought out of the box, set up and started in a short period of time (say half an hour) by inexperienced gamers would be a neat thing.

...no, it wouldn´t. It would be a lame ultra-narrow game.

I´ve introduced dozens of people from all walks of life into 3.5 or Star Wars D6. They all liked it.
And started gaming casually on their own, oftentimes.

What you are hoping for leads to venom-ridden, unnameable places.

Quote from: Settembrini...no, it wouldn´t. It would be a lame ultra-narrow game.

I´ve introduced dozens of people from all walks of life into 3.5 or Star Wars D6. They all liked it.
And started gaming casually on their own, oftentimes.

But you're an experienced RPGer.  Toss something like D&D 3.5 in front of the average person without any guidance, and I doubt you'll get so positive a response.  Star Wars D6 might be a different matter, but some games offer a better entry point for completely new players who lack any sort of experienced guidance -- namely, the benefit of a GM who already knows the rules.

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniI´ve introduced dozens of people from all walks of life into 3.5 or Star Wars D6. They all liked it.
And started gaming casually on their own, oftentimes.

You completely missed my point.  I was saying a simple to learn game that doesn't need the hand holding of an 'experienced' gamer to get people into it.

Honestly, can you tell me that those people you introduced 3.5 and D6 SW to would have enjoyed it if they'd had to muddle through the books by themselves? Without the benefit of you being there to help answer questions?

Quote from: SettembriniWhat you are hoping for leads to venom-ridden, unnameable places.

Don't put words into my mouth.  I didn't say I was "hoping" for this, just that it was an interesting idea.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBut you're an experienced RPGer.  Toss something like D&D 3.5 in front of the average person without any guidance, and I doubt you'll get so positive a response.  Star Wars D6 might be a different matter, but some games offer a better entry point for completely new players who lack any sort of experienced guidance -- namely, the benefit of a GM who already knows the rules.

!i!

Eh.  D&D 3.5 gives you plenty of handholding, and the nature of levels is as such that if you start at level 1, players are introduced to it's mechanical intricacies slowly.  It even provides sample character packages, which boil down the chargen process even more simply.

Even on the GM's side, the favorite song of D&D-haters of how "hard to prep" it is, is really pretty much nonsense in the face of pregen NPC-by-level tables and the Monster Manual.  

The game's complexity is vastly overstated by it's opponents.

Quote from: zombenHonestly, can you tell me that those people you introduced 3.5 and D6 SW to would have enjoyed it if they'd had to muddle through the books by themselves? Without the benefit of you being there to help answer questions?



Don't put words into my mouth.  I didn't say I was "hoping" for this, just that it was an interesting idea.

Actually, I firmly believe that this rite of initiation is important part of the hobby. If you gain the knowledge the hard way, via reading it yourself, you gain a form of gratification and investment that´s rewarding in itself.
Being shown how to play a game is also a form of personal initiation, a weak  initiation, but still. It´s part of the appeal. And, the Method of Roleplaying actually is very hard to describe, but very easy to show.

EDIT: But yes, you are right: The people I  have shown RPGs would have never ever picked them up on their own behalf.

Concerning my reading things into your post: that might well be. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Quote from: SettembriniActually, I firmly believe that this rite of initiation is important part of the hobby. If you gain the knowledge the hard way, via reading it yourself, you gain a form of gratification and investment that´s rewarding in itself.
Being shown how to play a game is also a form of personal initiation, a weak  initiation, but still. It´s part of the appeal. And, the Method of Roleplaying actually is very hard to describe, but very easy to show.

For my part, I think that the "initiation" is cool, but not the only way of doing things.  Yeah, for some people the act of overcoming barriers to entry makes for a rich and deep experience, and that's a great thing.  But, at the same time, the barriers that prove that experience for some people block some other people from getting into the actual play of the game ... so that's a downside.  Plusses and minusses, as with most things.

There are already a fair number of games on the market that require people to go through a lengthy learning process before playing them.  No matter how many games there are (like oD&D, Toon, TFOS, etc.) that don't require such a process, those other games would still exist.  Low-entry games don't leave the high-entry-minded folks without any place to turn.  Contrariwise, they do help provide the experience of enjoyable play to people who can't or won't wade through a high-entry text.  Sounds like a win-win to me.  Diversity rocks!