Quote from: Bill;665214X-Com is almost as fun as Sex.

I last longer during sex.

Quote from: Rincewind1;665230I last longer during sex.

haha, so true.


Yes, I admit it.  For that game, I turned into a save freak.

Quote from: Haffrung;665209I don't have any problem with people enjoying different styles of RPGs. But when it comes to D&D, it's the RPGNet-System Matters-4E crowd who go around saying other editions are objectively broken. Check out all the posts on RPGNet where 4E fans full of nerdfury claim the Next team is designing a game only Mike Mearl likes. And anyone who claims to actually like the style of D&D Next is aimed at are dismissed as delusional or confounded by nostalgia. It's only a matter of time until we see the term 'brain damaged' come out.

I also don't have a problem with other people enjoying a particular RPG.  Even D&D Next, if that's your cup of tea.  But mostly, it has failed in my mind to deliver anything better than any existing edition (except, perhaps, 4th, but I don't know much about that one).  

The general ideas of Next aren't always bad - but the implementation seems to be.  Of course, speaking ill of it is difficult because it's a moving target.  Anything that you don't like and can explain why is 'subject to change'.  

D&D Next is an edition in search of a philosophy.  What does it want to improve?  Is it a stab at making a 3.x style game with greater simplicity and less 'optimization/system mastery' elements?  Is it 1st edition with streamlined and consistent subsystems (and roll high is always good)?  

I've mentioned before that 3.x is my preferred edition.  I think that they should have stayed with 3.x for a couple more years and then worked out a gradual change to a 4th edition that included the best elements of 3.x (transparent monster rules; NPC/PC consistency; player customization) with a lot more simplicity.  

Next seems committed to throwing those 'best bits' out and focusing on just 'simplicity', without really proving any advantage over B/X.

Quote from: Haffrung;664222The pissy complaints that Next is only catering to nostalgia comes from three, often overlapping sources:

1) Bitter 4E fans.
2) System-matters wanks on RPGnet
3) People young enough to have only played WotC D&D who don't know any better.

Wouldn't that mean;
1) That 4e was way more popular than what this forum gives credit for?
2) That tbp is way more important on the gaming front than this forum?
3) That you don't like WotC D&D? That you discount the people who were around for both and prefer wotc D&D?

Quote from: Haffrung;664222The Next designers are certainly designing a game to appeal to the modes of play that were more common in the TSR era. That is, accessible, fast combat, no need for system mastery, focused on in-game decisions rather than char op and tactical mastery.

heh, yeah.  combat isn't fast in 5e nor was it 'fast' in tsr days either.  Yes it could be if the group wanted to blitz through it, but if the group liked inclusive combat it could take just as long as 'newer' D&D.  
System Mastery was just as big in tsr days, no matter what people here talk about immersiveness or whatnot, 'knowing' your DM went a long way towards 'mastering' tsr D&D

Quote from: Haffrung;664222It isn't nostalgia to cater to that play style, as it's still a perfectly good way to play. And no doubt WotC has concluded that it's in fact a better mode of play for a business model desperate to make D&D more accessible to a broader audience.

No, but it is a huge risk in going back to a style that has been out of 'fashion(trends)' for a couple decades.

Quote from: Haffrung;664222There's that too. They simply can't grasp the notion that different people like different things - they take it as an article of religious faith that game design is like engineering bridges and software systems. And they lack the imagination to consider anyone playing D&D in anything but a mechanics-first, meta-game, WoW fashion.

How is this not a pot vs kettle thing?

Quote from: Haffrung;665209I don't have any problem with people enjoying different styles of RPGs. But when it comes to D&D, it's the RPGNet-System Matters-4E crowd who go around saying other editions are objectively broken. Check out all the posts on RPGNet where 4E fans full of nerdfury claim the Next team is designing a game only Mike Mearl likes. And anyone who claims to actually like the style of D&D Next is aimed at are dismissed as delusional or confounded by nostalgia. It's only a matter of time until we see the term 'brain damaged' come out.

Holy shit dude.  Really?  This whole place here is built upon one dude's 'nerdfury'.  That post up there I quoted from you is 'nerdfury'

Quote from: Haffrung;665209People who see games only in terms in formulas and analytic optimization tend to have a stark and unbending attitude towards these things. I have shelves full of eurogames, so I understand exactly what appeals to them and why they have problems with various editions of D&D (all of them, actually). But it's frankly tiresome seeing a bunch of people who always hated D&D until 4E came out claiming that people who like other editions, or who are enjoying Next, can only be impaired by nostalgia. I accept why people might want to play 4E ; I've never seen anyone who dislikes 4E claim it was a terrible game - only one they wouldn't want to play. The System Matters crowd doesn't make such distinctions.

So you haven't been paying much attention to this forum where people here make  claims of 4e is a tactical skirmish game, not a roleplaying game?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next.  There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.

Needless to say, I disagree.  I certainly resent people telling me that the elements I like from AD&D are only because of nostalgia.  Not every new rendition of something is better, and we have tons of examples that back this up.

For instance, New Coke sucked.  Windows Vista was horrible compared to Win XP.  The new Chevy Camaro's design, while intentionally meant to emulate the first generation Camaro from 1967-1969, wasn't solely for nostalgia.  It's a better design than the late 1990s Camaro regardless.

So why does this argument not only persist, but is so rampant?

Or am I way off, and in fact Next's AD&D-type elements* are not better designed than 4e, but nothing more than nostalgia?

*what I mean by this are no dependancy on grid based combat, faster paced combat, less reliance on skills and/or power cards, and being able to fit an entire character on one side of one piece of paper.

This makes me wonder how many here when they started playing D&D used miniatures compared to those who didn't and how much of that is directly reflects on the dislike of miniature use in D&D.
I know when I started the DM was the son of a local high school art teacher and they had miniatures in abundance.  So I have never been 'offended' by miniatures in gaming.  It wasn't until later that I learned 'we were playing D&D wrong'.


It will be too hard for Mearls to put the genie back into the bottle.  It's like having Joe Public go from Cell Phones back to Landlines.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665283It will be too hard for Mearls to put the genie back into the bottle.  It's like having Joe Public go from Cell Phones back to Landlines.

No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.

There is no genie and no bottle. There are different kinds of playstyles being enjoyed by gamers all over.

Yeah, a lot of people around here seem to swap between using/not using miniatures on a cycle.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665286No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.

There is no genie and no bottle. There are different kinds of playstyles being enjoyed by gamers all over.

I absolutely believe that mechanics, like every other idea, can 'evolve'.  I mean, you're basically coming up with 'new ideas' that are related to the old ideas in some way; like an internal combustion engine is related to a steam engine.  Just because it's all 'in the head' doesn't mean that someone can't think of something 'new' that is 'better' than what came before.  

Generally, simplification without loss of representation is better, in my mind.  

Some 'newer' games have applied lessons learned from older games regarding what worked well and what worked poorly; as a result, they're 'better' games in my opinion.  

But to pretend that a new idea that is based on an older idea (whether better or worse) is not a form of evolution is kinda silly.  When you throw out a bunch of different variations (mutations?) and you retain the best (survival of the fittest?) that sounds like evolution to me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665275Wouldn't that mean;
1) That 4e was way more popular than what this forum gives credit for?
2) That tbp is way more important on the gaming front than this forum?
3) That you don't like WotC D&D? That you discount the people who were around for both and prefer wotc D&D?

4E was tied as the most popular RPG of the last 5 years. I don't anyone would dispute that. And of course RPGNet has far more posters than this site. Again, I'd never dispute that. I do suspect that few of the most active system-wank crowd who dominate RPGNet are actively playing D&D, or any other RPGs. Bitter Non Gamers is the term, I believe. As for WotC, no doubt some people do prefer WotC D&D to earlier iterations. And a lot of them will probably prefer Next to previous editions as well - whether it's because it's the D&D they always wanted, or it's a new mode of play they find themselves enjoying. I'm just happy they're designing a game that I'll play.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665275heh, yeah.  combat isn't fast in 5e nor was it 'fast' in tsr days either.  Yes it could be if the group wanted to blitz through it, but if the group liked inclusive combat it could take just as long as 'newer' D&D.

Sorry, bullshit. Combat played without a grid where the only decision is what monster to attack, followed by a die roll, runs far faster than a game using a grid where facing, flanking, AOOs matter, and where each character has 3-8 options a round over what kind of attack or maneuver it can conduct, and where modifiers and conditions stack and stack until you need some sort of system of tokens to track them.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665275System Mastery was just as big in tsr days, no matter what people here talk about immersiveness or whatnot, 'knowing' your DM went a long way towards 'mastering' tsr D&D

What kind of system mastery is involved in running a human fighter in B/X D&D? What kind of character optimization levers and tactical combos would players learn to exploit? Being a smart player in the game world isn't system mastery. And the main difference is anyone can engage in a fictional world and make smart decisions. But only someone who pores over books at home analyzing feat chains and probabilities can master 3E and 4E D&D. One is accessible to new players, the other tells them they'll need to study a lot before they'll have a character as powerful as Billy No Mates built from a half-dozen sources to deliver maximum DPS.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665275No, but it is a huge risk in going back to a style that has been out of 'fashion(trends)' for a couple decades.

In the broader gaming scene, lighter games are the dominant mode, not heavy, inaccessible games that reward deeply engaged system mastery. It's no coincidence that the Next designers keep bringing up boardgames, and how easy most of them are to get into and play today. The boardgame renaissance has been built on a massive broadening of the player base through accessible, fast-playing games. I'm sure WotC has a lot of data points on how ease of learning, speed of play, and up-front resources affect a game's popularity.

When if first secured the license, WotC built it's D&D model on heavily-invested ubergeeks who bought books full of crunch that they studied at home to win at the metagame of character optimization. As many people predicted, this model proved to have diminishing returns, as the game became ever more difficult to run and master, and the game culture became dominated by math-wankery, competitive char-op, and a fixation on mathematical balance, creating a huge barrier of play to casual and new gamers. But hardcores drop out eventually, and if you don't have a steady influx of new gamers, a game dies. The status quo was not sustainable for WotC as a business. Now they're trying to reverse that mistake and reach out to people who want to play a game that's not much more complicated than Descent, but much more free-form and creative.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665275So you haven't been paying much attention to this forum where people here make  claims of 4e is a tactical skirmish game, not a roleplaying game?

It is a tactical skirmish game. I don't know how anyone could deny that with a straight face. Re-theme it to WW2 and it gets sold and marketed as a tactical wargame. But from what I understand, it's quite a good tactical skirmish game. And I completely understand why people would enjoy a good tactical fantasy-themed tactical skirmish game. My game shelves are full of tactical wargames. I just want something fundamentally different from maneuvering pieces on a combat grid when I play D&D. WotC is banking on there being lots of people like me out there.

The system-wanks on RPGnet are furious because they're learning once again just how marginal they are to the commercial RPG market. They mock the credibility of the posters on WotC forums without recognizing those forums are used by people who actually play D&D, rather than just talk about it endlessly on RPGNet.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;665288I absolutely believe that mechanics, like every other idea, can 'evolve'.  I mean, you're basically coming up with 'new ideas' that are related to the old ideas in some way; like an internal combustion engine is related to a steam engine.  Just because it's all 'in the head' doesn't mean that someone can't think of something 'new' that is 'better' than what came before.  

Generally, simplification without loss of representation is better, in my mind.  

Some 'newer' games have applied lessons learned from older games regarding what worked well and what worked poorly; as a result, they're 'better' games in my opinion.  

But to pretend that a new idea that is based on an older idea (whether better or worse) is not a form of evolution is kinda silly.  When you throw out a bunch of different variations (mutations?) and you retain the best (survival of the fittest?) that sounds like evolution to me.

When what is best cannot be objectively measured then there can be no declaration of evolution. Thats the problem.

Games are a form of enjoyment subject to differing taste and opinion. What is 'better' for a given individual is whatever provides the most fun for them. There is no other measurement that matters.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665286No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.

yeah, he was sort of proving Haffrung and my point by comparing D&D to an item of technology.  The irony is pretty thick.  D&D isn't technology.  Cell phones are objectively better than a landline in just about every regard.  Newer versions of D&D are not.

That's sort of the entire point of this thread.  Leave it up to Sommerjon to not only miss that, but to use an analogy that was expressly identified as rediculous in the very first post without realizing it.

golf clap

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665286No matter how many times it has been said, there will always be idiots who believe pen and paper tabletop games go through some sort of technological progression as if they were some kind of software application.

There is no genie and no bottle. There are different kinds of playstyles being enjoyed by gamers all over.

What absurdity.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665295What absurdity.

The claim that RPGs evolve certainly is absurd, yes.

Quote from: Haffrung;665291Sorry, bullshit. Combat played without a grid where the only decision is what monster to attack, followed by a die roll, runs far faster than a game using a grid where facing, flanking, AOOs matter, and where each character has 3-8 options a round over what kind of attack or maneuver it can conduct, and where modifiers and conditions stack and stack until you need some sort of system of tokens to track them.

And if you played tsr with a grid, what happened then?

Quote from: Haffrung;665291What kind of system mastery is involved in running a human fighter in B/X D&D? What kind of character optimization levers and tactical combos would players learn to exploit? Being a smart player in the game world isn't system mastery.

Knowing the Dm's likes and dislikes, knowing when to do something outrageous or sticking to the mundane, knowing your DM.  How to stroke the ego of the Dm is also system mastery.  People here who deny this is even possible are deluding themselves.

Quote from: Haffrung;665291When if first secured the license, WotC built it's D&D model on heavily-invested ubergeeks who bought books full of crunch that they studied at home to win at the metagame of character optimization. As many people predicted, this model proved to have diminishing returns, as the game became ever more difficult to run and master, and the game culture became dominated by math-wankery, competitive char-op, and a fixation on mathematical balance, creating a huge barrier of play to casual and new gamers. But hardcores drop out eventually, and if you don't have a steady influx of new gamers, a game dies. The status quo was not sustainable for WotC as a business. Now they're trying to reverse that mistake and reach out to people who want to play a game that's not much more complicated than Descent, but much more free-form and creative.

Facts not in evidence.  Pure speculation or otherwise known as theorywanking.  How many here who have already shit on 5e for being too math-wankery, competitive char-op bullshity?

Quote from: Haffrung;665291It is a tactical skirmish game. I don't know how anyone could deny that with a straight face. Re-theme it to WW2 and it gets sold and marketed as a tactical wargame. But from what I understand, it's quite a good tactical skirmish game. And I completely understand why people would enjoy a good tactical fantasy-themed tactical skirmish game. My game shelves are full of tactical wargames. I just want something fundamentally different from maneuvering pieces on a combat grid when I play D&D. WotC is banking on there being lots of people like me out there.

Wait, what?  You haven't even played it yet you know "It is a tactical skirmish game"?  When all those players out there who did play tsr D&D with miniatures on a gameboard, was that also 'a tactical skirmish game'?

Quote from: Haffrung;665291The system-wanks on RPGnet are furious because they're learning once again just how marginal they are to the commercial RPG market. They mock the credibility of the posters on WotC forums without recognizing those forums are used by people who actually play D&D, rather than just talk about it endlessly on RPGNet.

Wait what?   I thought everyone here has this concept that rpgnet is all 4e all the time
"4E was tied as the most popular RPG of the last 5 years. I don't anyone would dispute that." Now it's marginal?  What that is sum hoop hopping there.

Quote from: The Ent;665299The claim that RPGs evolve certainly is absurd, yes.

Was not the game added to by Most Holy EGG?  Did he develop it gradually(evolve) into another edition?  You know that definition of Evolve: to develop gradually.  Did the game not go through an evolution(any process of formation or growth; development)? You know that definition of Evolution: any process of formation or growth; development.