Quote from: Spinachcat;245809I imagine the 3e fans who don't like 4e are having that same experience where you have to accept that you have been kicked out of the clubhouse.

Correction - chose to leave the "clubhouse." At least, that's the realization I came to some time ago.

Now Living Greyhawk - don't even get me started...

Quote from: Seanchai;245785For example, if you could file the serial numbers off OD&D and 4e, then release them, would grogards still love OD&D and hate 4e? I'd bet their feelings for the two wouldn't be remotely as strong.

Well, I missed Traveller the first time around and only got into it in '99 with the landscape reprints.  And Encounter Critical wasn't really from the ancient past and I'm still grooving on it.  But I'll grant you that if 4e was released under a different name a lot less people would give a rat's ass about it.

QuoteGiven that and to return to my point, there's not necessarily a point in studying OD&D because 4e's designers can't replicate grognard's love of olde school. It's not intrinsic to the rules set; it arose from the situation.

I honestly don't understand the wavelength you're on.  I'm trying to think of a field of human endeavor where a good grasp of the origins of the phenomenon is considered anything less than an asset.  Don't they still teach British Common Law in American law schools?  They did last time I was in a law school.  And Newtonian mechanics were still a part of the science curriculum last time I visited a physics department.

Quote from: estar;245822The point is that the world most popular RPG requires $50+ dollars in order to play it thus limiting it's appeal to novices.

There are starter editions out there that don't cost nearly as much. They've been available since the inception of the game. Literally. There have been starter set after starter set, in variable formats. So where's all the new blood?

Moreover, the core set is available for about the price of a video game. Plenty of folks have enough money to buy video games. Or brand name shoes. Or an iPod.

Finally, why would a new player need anything more than the PHB? If even that.

Quote from: estar;245822That the system incorporated in the latest is of average complexity and not at all easy for novices to pick up.

How many folks do you suppose actually started gaming with rules light/easy-to-understand games? Because many, many of us didn't. And yet here we are. We somehow survived a system of average complexity.

But, really, what you're missing is that folks decide whether or not to do something based on a system of effort versus reward. If they feel the reward is great enough, they'll under take the effort. And I'm afraid that they just don't see roleplaying as that rewarding. It's not about cost or learning the rules - in a world of MMOs, Facebook, cell phones, Twitter, and iPods, people just aren't interested in learning D&D.  

Quote from: estar;245822It not a question of a time gone past it is a question of getting new players in the hobby period. Currently Wizards has gone off the deep end in this regard.

Except they have starter sets, introductions to the game online, free rules, etc.. They have the first RPG commerical to air in decades. They have products in major chains - and, at least in my local booksellers, displayed in prominent ways. I mean, when the local Borders literally has a wall of D&D products out there in the open, next to the anime and manga, it's hard to argue that WotC isn't getting the word out to folks...

Seanchai

Quote from: jrients;245837I'm trying to think of a field of human endeavor where a good grasp of the origins of the phenomenon is considered anything less than an asset.

I suppose that depends on whether we're talking about an introduction to the history of a thing or using the history as a model.

But what do you see as the value in the 4e design team being knowledgeable about OD&D?

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;245699What would that be...and are you basing this judgment on having read/played OD&D?

Yeah I've read it, I started with boxed (Basic) D&D, but went back later to read OD&D. (In fact a near mint still in box three gold books OD&D.)

 In general I feel it was a solid miniatures game with some "play the personality", aspects on top. That's pretty much what I feel of 4E at the moment. Very centered at "fight, recover, fight, recover, fight, reward split and recover."

Understand, I think 4E is great for what it is--but it isn't really aimed at my personal preferences.

Okay, I've argued against that in the past, so I won't rehash the point in depth. Basically, I don't think OD&D was very much of a miniatures game at all. OTOH, my view of it isn't colored by prior exposure to Basic; when I look at Basic now (Moldvay, Mentzer, or RC), I see elements that, to me, look like an effort already to impart a boardgame-like quality which wasn't there in OD&D or AD&D. So that could account for the difference in perspective.

To digress a bit: those elements of Basic include things like the sequence of play for combat. I only encountered them recently, and my impression from trying them is that they seem sort of like a half-baked response to the board-wargame-influenced approach of Metagaming's Melee--but with problems in the area of movement rates (too high) and maneuvers (lack of any kind of AOO/engagement/zone of control rule).

Quote from: Seanchai;245838There are starter editions out there that don't cost nearly as much. They've been available since the inception of the game. Literally. There have been starter set after starter set, in variable formats. So where's all the new blood?

The Starter sets are not complete RPGs like the Mentzer set was. That the difference.

Quote from: Seanchai;245838Moreover, the core set is available for about the price of a video game. Plenty of folks have enough money to buy video games. Or brand name shoes. Or an iPod.

In most stores the three book total more than a video game. Plus novices like to buy one single box for the the game.

Quote from: Seanchai;245838Finally, why would a new player need anything more than the PHB? If even that.

Sorry but that reply shows a lot of ignorance on the subject.  The PHB isn't the complete D&D game and a novice would have difficulty running a game for his friend using that book alone.

Quote from: Seanchai;245838How many folks do you suppose actually started gaming with rules light/easy-to-understand games? Because many, many of us didn't. And yet here we are. We somehow survived a system of average complexity.

Most players in the 80s were introduced via the Mentzer Red Book. Since the late  80s the only time the RPG Market had expanded is when Vampire the Masquerade was introduced. The D20 revival brought back a lot of old player and the new players were by traditional word of mouth.

Quote from: Seanchai;245838It's hard to argue that WotC isn't getting the word out to folks...

Yet the market for RPGS keeps shrinking.

Ima refute a point of yours, estar. Fourth edition  D&D, more than any other edition I've seen, can be played with just the PHB.  

The only thing you are missing is a 'monster manual', but lots of games lack beastiaries of critters, and just assume you'll be fighting other people built much like the PC's, which is an assumption a new player can reach pretty easily in the PHB. Need an opponent? Make one just like a character!

It's not the default D*D way, but it comes pretty naturally to people, I've found. Lots of fantasy stories don't really have much critter slaying, much less the movies. Other people are always a good opponent, and D*D has somewhat traditionally shied away from that angle, a bit unnaturally to me.

In fact, based on that, presenting the new DMG as a core book (more redundant and unnecessary than ever!) is actually bad marketing on their part, as Seanchai's point could, in fact, be used to attract new players if you consider the buy in a stopping point.

I think one disconnect you run into is the notion that miniatures games in 1974 resembled modern Warhammer style miniatures games.  In reality they were much faster and looser and there was an entire skirmish game end of things that actually resembled rpgs a fair bit.

One of the reasons I think of D&D as a miniatures game is that in the early sets ranges and movement were given in inches.

Quote from: jrients;245837Well, I missed Traveller   I'm trying to think of a field of human endeavor where a good grasp of the origins of the phenomenon is considered anything less than an asset.  Don't they still teach British Common Law in American law schools?  They did last time I was in a law school.  And Newtonian mechanics were still a part of the science curriculum last time I visited a physics department.

Tool manufacture FTW. Flint knapping and stone grinding. Knowledge of these things was so lost and misunderstood that at the beginning of the modern era that, when found, stone tools were thought to be the products of lightning bolts or elves- really. There, is not to my knowledge a single culture that holds onto stone tool  mfg techniques once they get easy access to metal. They're sure as hell not teaching classes on lithic tool manufacture anywhere outside of Archaeology departments today. The guys Black and Decker aren't learning about the fracture properties of chalcedony as opposed to obsidian.
And there is no field of human endeavor more, well, human, than this one.

Newtonian mechanics is still relevant, which is why it's taught, not because it's old- Aristotol's ideas predate Newtons, but we're taught these in history and philosophy classes now.

I don't mean to be a dick, but so many posts and posters from Sett to droog, validate their positions with the phrase, "back in the early days of the hobby..." It is a tired line of argument.

Oh, and look, we're going to quibble about whether OD&D was a minitures game or not- well, that's fresh.

P.S. I respect the hell out of all of you (-the cantpissman), especially you jrients, so don't take any of that the wrong way, please.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;245855Okay, I've argued against that in the past, so I won't rehash the point in depth. Basically, I don't think OD&D was very much of a miniatures game at all. OTOH, my view of it isn't colored by prior exposure to Basic; when I look at Basic now (Moldvay, Mentzer, or RC), I see elements that, to me, look like an effort already to impart a boardgame-like quality which wasn't there in OD&D or AD&D. So that could account for the difference in perspective.
.

You do realize that OD&D was a SUPPLEMENT to Chainmail? Chainmail being a significant part of the rules for OD&D. (Although it could be used without Chainmail, it was not intended so much as a stand alone game originally.)


You may see those things, I actually found the various basic D&D more clear in the step by step process of running a game. True, it was intentionally meant to be just that "Basic", AD&D had many of the same elements in the DMG. I played MOSTLY AD&D 1E for my years of gaming, shifting to 2E when it came out. I still see far fewer of those elements in Core AD&D2E than I did in previous games--yet it isn't as well loved by most. Which is probably why I liked it more--more like a fantasy novel, less like a war/mini's game. I'm not saying that any of those games were bad; not at all, just the intend of their design was far more "Krothgar leaps across the crevasse and swings his sword at the lizardman.." and less "I, Krothgar, leap across the crevasse and swing my sword at the lizardman.."

The difference is a subtle one--the latter more into what I want, the former was what D&D (early on, and definitley with 4E) follow.

There is NOTHING wrong with that format, it just isn't my preferential one.

Quote from: David Johansen;245905I think one disconnect you run into is the notion that miniatures games in 1974 resembled modern Warhammer style miniatures games.  In reality they were much faster and looser and there was an entire skirmish game end of things that actually resembled rpgs a fair bit.

One of the reasons I think of D&D as a miniatures game is that in the early sets ranges and movement were given in inches.

One thing, does that make HERO a mini's game because it still does that? Or Savage Worlds?


To be clear, i'm not saying D&D isn't an RPG at all, I'm saying it is PRIMARILY, a mini's game first, and an RPG second. 4E is very good at the first, and balancing at least the current PHB stuff to make everyone's character to feel important. It's not as good an RPG--because it now decided the "good" size for a party was, what treasure is appropriate, and a lot of other things that really aren't the rules decisions to make--but that works for miniatures better than RPG's.

Gygax didn't use minis in his game, even when D&D had "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures" on the cover. (even before it was published, for that matter)

As I understand it, he also used the "alternate" combat system included in the original box rather than the Chainmail combat system taken as the default.

OD&D was not a minis game.

Quote from: Silverlion;245935One thing, does that make HERO a mini's game because it still does that? Or Savage Worlds?

Say rather that D&D is closely tied to miniatures games and only narrowly divided from them.  HERO certainly can be played as a miniatures game for Superheroes even if it aspires to be more.  Savage Worlds wishes it was cool enough to be a miniatures game but is too embarassed to come right out and be one.  That or I'm bitter that they haven't done more with Savage Showdown

Yup, what Jim said, Silverlion. I think you must have missed my earlier screeds on this issue, or you'd acknowledge them even if you end up disagreeing anyway. I'll sketch out the argument.

In spite of the use of the phrase "alternate combat system" for what was eventually to become THAC0, Arneson has said that his group only used Chainmail for a very brief time before they switched. (The "new" system was reportedly based on a set of Civil War ironclads naval rules.) The frequently asked questions about D&D that were published in the Strategic Review (precursor to The Dragon), which can be found in a number of places on the net, also make clear that Chainmail's place in D&D-as-played was solely for mass battles. Although Chainmail supplied some of the raw data for D&D (i.e., weapon types and some of the spells) as it was written up by Gygax, it's pretty clear that far from forming the "core" of D&D, it was more of an appendage, an off-the-shelf system that was used to "fill in the blanks" of a game that was much more about exploration and adventure, than stand-up combat. And it was quickly discarded.

When you write that D&D was a "supplement" I think you are probably confounding the "Fantasy Supplement" which Gygax wrote for Chainmail, with D&D itself. It's becoming harder and harder, due to time and the passing of the principals, to reconstruct the early days, and there's an undercurrent of Gygax vs. Arneson partisanship (not to mention a legacy of high-stakes legal wrangling). But I think the evidence is strong, that the fundamental idea of D&D derived from pre-existing character-based games (the "Braunsteins" and "Anababs") that had been developed by Dave Weseley and carried forward by Dave Arneson, even though Gygax wrote the published rules.

D&D is not one thing, but three. Like many inventions, it´s the congregation of small innovations or process-refinements that make something totally new.

Gygaxian Building Blocks = they come from Chainmail
Arnesonian Dungeon Crawl setup = From Blackmoor sessions
Method of Roleplaying = Braunstein, which also inspired Blackmoor

That´s why it is safe to say GG invented D&D, and it´s also safe to say Weseley invented RPGs and Arneson glued them together. Once the three disparate parts came together, the only thing needed on  a constant basis was new building blocks. That´s why the other contributors got marginalized.
And that´s why it´s safe to say that 4e isn´t D&D any more, as it threw out the Gygaxian building blocks, along with the formalisms used for their in-world interaction (spells, magic items, HP are further removed from D&D than, say GURPS: Fantasy)

As far as To Hit Roll vs Armor Class and HP goes, that´s directly lifted from Fletcher Pratt´s Naval Wargame, a WWI/WWII Battleship game (based on statistics for the Skagerrakschlacht/Battle of Jutland). Before RPGs existed, there were already debates about how "unrealistic" ablative HP are, and that critical hits are the most important thing in naval warfare. Go figure.