TheRPGSite

Folks, there´s a huge elephant in the room.

Let´s adress it.

WotC presented us with 4e. Some like it, some not. There clearly is a divide. It´s real.

So, isn´t it practically impossible that the whole 4e design team at wizards is REALLY totally pro-4e?

I´d suspect there´d be internal schisms as well. Are there signs of WotCies who cry for help? Like they did in the Lorrainne Williams days?
have all dissenters been quieted? Lay-offs?

You're asking this in a really strange way, so I'd like to double-check that I've understood the question.

Basically, you point out that the geek community as a whole is divided over whether they like 4e.

Then you ask "If the geek community as a whole is divided, is it possible that the WotC staff can be entirely behind the product that they all worked their asses off producing?"

Have I got that right?

burn the wotch!

No Tony. He's saying that there must be some folks in WotC who don't really like 4E and are crying out for help. And if only people would stop enjoying 4E and put down their dice they would be able to hear these cries for help.

Regards,
David R

The difference between being fascinated with RPGs and being fascinated with the RPG industry is akin to the difference between being fascinated with sex and being fascinated with masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with jerking off, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're getting laid.

Ka-ching!

Words of great wisdom, Aos.

I may have to sig that.  (to remind myself at the very least).

I've made my peace with 4e and wish it well.  If I've got a slot and there is still a seat available, I'll sit down for a session with the ChattyDM (http://chattydm.net/) who is one of our Guests of Honour at Draconis.

I 4saw your eventual surrender to the dark side as inevitable. After all we've got cool powers and shit, 4real.
I edited out the extra "the" in my earlier post btw.

Wouldn't these hypothetical quite the company in a resignation that was ppolite publicly, but privately they are ticked off?  These hypothetical WotC former employees go on to work for other game companies or start their own.


 Are there any individuals that fit that pattern?

 If not then it would appear that the current WotC staff are happy with ahat they created and release this past spring.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Aos;245186The difference between being fascinated with RPGs and being fascinated with the RPG industry is...

Lipstick.

hmmm...well, it could be argued that 4e is to D&D what a maximum security prison is to a playground.

However I suspect that the designers at WotC are all united in cashing their paychecks, actually gaming very little and caring even less.

No bile towards them here incidentally.  Jobs are just like that, no matter how awesome they look from the outside.

Quote from: David Johansen;245260However I suspect that the designers at WotC are all united in cashing their paychecks, actually gaming very little and caring even less.

No bile towards them here incidentally.  Jobs are just like that, no matter how awesome they look from the outside.

Tend to agree. Not that anyone is actually rubbing their hands together and laughing maliciously at the poor gamer slobs buying their stuff, but they are probably in something of a bubble and losing sight of the compromises they have made.

Frank Mentzer made the comment that he doesn't see D&D continuing much longer as a Hasbro product given its low ROI. We can only speculate, but I think that this the the real elephant in the room and I'm already on the record as saying 4e will be the last Hasbro/WotC edition.

Quote from: Settembrini;245146Folks, there´s a huge elephant in the room.

Let´s adress it.

WotC presented us with 4e. Some like it, some not. There clearly is a divide. It´s real.

So, isn´t it practically impossible that the whole 4e design team at wizards is REALLY totally pro-4e?

No, I don't think it's impossible. So many years have gone by, that understanding and appreciation for the old school ethos is quite possibly dissipated to near zilch among the current generation of designers. On top of that, 3e may have initiated the selection process/feedback loop that helped gather the "design heavy" and "gamist" (encount4rdization) crowd into the bosom of WotC and Hasbro.

In short I find it very easy to believe that Hasbro/WotC is competently managed in the sense that, having decided what they want D&D to be, they've been able to hire and promote people whose idea of RPGing (or at least D&D) is consistent with that. It might even be a good business decision, even though both the public it's designed for and the people who've been chosen to implement it don't really know the history of their own hobby (as is being argued at length by James Maliszewski over at Grognardia).

Quote from: Settembrini;245146Folks, there´s a huge elephant in the room.

In what room? The four by four padded cell they keep you in? Did you just get tired of the lack of bitching about 4e and decide to drum some up? (Those are, by the by, rhetorical questions...)

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;245270In what room? The four by four padded cell they keep you in?

I begged you guys to visit him there, but no. It was all about "we're having fun discussing the games we are currently playing". Inconsiderate bastards.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;245267No, I don't think it's impossible. So many years have gone by, that understanding and appreciation for the old school ethos is quite possibly dissipated to near zilch among the current generation of designers. On top of that, 3e may have initiated the selection process/feedback loop that helped gather the "design heavy" and "gamist" (encount4rdization) crowd into the bosom of WotC and Hasbro.

Actually for someone who never was into oldschool (me, my circle of gamers etc.) 4e looks really old school. Granted there are some cool powers but the things I associate with oldschool are there - in spades.
Those are resource management in the form of items and special powers and "challenge oriented" gaming. To me it looks like oldschool in a modern guise and I can definitely see the appeal to people who are into oldschool gaming.

Quote from: Settembrini;245146Folks, there´s a huge elephant in the room.
 
Let´s adress it.
 
WotC presented us with 4e. Some like it, some not. There clearly is a divide. It´s real.
 
So, isn´t it practically impossible that the whole 4e design team at wizards is REALLY totally pro-4e?
 
I´d suspect there´d be internal schisms as well. Are there signs of WotCies who cry for help? Like they did in the Lorrainne Williams days?
have all dissenters been quieted? Lay-offs?

I'm open to correction, but my impression is that yes, the people at WotC are unhappy with 4e, primaraly because I think that they're finicky players. There was so much focus on what was bad, boring and not fun and so little on good things, I suspect that they've got sand in their shorts no matter what game they're playing. I.e. They're RPG snob critics and thus are difficult to satisfy.
 
Secondly, because the rules went through rapid and drastic changes right up untill release, I suspect that the game was shipped before everything was settled. This might not be the case, they could have gotten everything "just right" at the 11th hour, but my guess is that they had to call it quits before they got everything right.
 
Thirdly, parts of the Players handbook (the only thing I've looked at so far) seem to be incomplete. Lanterns burn oil, but oil itself is undefined. Utility powers that are at-will but not at-will. I don't remember all of them but no author wants to have erata in their book.
 
That said, I don't think that they are yearning for a return to the sort of game that D&D used to be. It's just the typical too many cooks and a short deadline regrets. Specificaly, I don't sense any sort of "encount4rdization: omg what have we done" angst from them at all.

Quote from: Settembrini;245146WotC presented us with 4e. Some like it, some not. There clearly is a divide. It´s real.

  Nothing has changed. It has always been the current edition of D&D and then everybody else.

  I'm starting to get the impression that those who didn't like/switch to 4e are having a hard time accepting that they are now in the  "everybody else" category.

 
.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;245316I suspect that the game was shipped before everything was settled. This might not be the case

It definitely is the case, there have been some pretty significant errata, such as those concerning skill challenges.

But I agree that this doesn't indicate the sort of dissatisfaction which Sett is talking about. It may indicate that the bean counters are pulling the strings (or cracking the whips).

Quote from: Jaeger;245318Nothing has changed. It has always been the current edition of D&D and then everybody else.

  I'm starting to get the impression that those who didn't like/switch to 4e are having a hard time accepting that they are now in the  "everybody else" category.  
.

It's been that way since the very beginning. That's why I don't think that the new edition of D&D is going to change the hobby forever. Some people will switch to it, and some people will stick with their preferred edition, and life will go on.

The people complaining have really nothing going on for them, I think.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;245322But I agree that this doesn't indicate the sort of dissatisfaction which Sett is talking about. It may indicate that the bean counters are pulling the strings (or cracking the whips).

This to me is the much more interesting question.  How much influence did the bean counters have over the actual design.  I'm kind of starting to think that they had none.  It was this interview with Mike Mearls (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2008/08/19/show044-interview-with-mike-mearls/) that started my thinking that way.  Not that he answers the question directly, and it doesn't deny the notion that since he is the boss of the design team, he may in a sense be one of the bean counters or at least working closely with them, but his language makes it seem like they had absolutely free rein.  The thing is, I suspect that at Hasbro, the bean counters really have no idea how design will impact sales.  I suspect they just don't understand roleplaying enough, the scene or the practice itself to be able to make that kind of analysis.

I remember hearing once that everybody on the 4e design team had been introduced to D&D through 3e, so I think that is a pretty good indicator of the lack of education about D&D's roots.

Oh, no way am I going to listen to fucking podcast. I'll just have to take your word for it.

I find Clyde's style annoying as all get out and he is one of the bigger storygamers cheerleaders, but he lets his subject do nearly all of the talking.  It's an extremely informative and interesting interview about the design decisions behind 4e.  I recommend you suck it up and listen to it if you are at all interested and are a podcast listener.

Quote from: David Johansen;245260However I suspect that the designers at WotC are all united in cashing their paychecks, actually gaming very little and caring even less.

What he said. The economy is not so great, and RP is not exactly a necessity-market. I'm sure there are a few people on staff who wish 4e was a bit different, and I bet they are being absolutely silent about it. Paycheck=good. Unemployment=not good. There are worse things than flaws in game systems.

For the record, of course, the last release of D&D worthy of the name was 2ed. Everything since then has been an irrelevant pretender-to-the-throne-of-awesomeness; if you were already so sold out to actually knowingly design 4e, why would you suddenly have the scruples to admit any misgivings?

(The previous paragraph may possibly reflect some vague shade of bias and should be interpreted in that light, despite being absolutely and perfectly correct in every detail. Your mileage may vary, but that's your fault. Maybe If You Played a Real Game You'd Understand. (tm). And so on. :) )

Quote from: walkerp;245372I find Clyde's style annoying as all get out and he is one of the bigger storygamers cheerleaders, but he lets his subject do nearly all of the talking.  It's an extremely informative and interesting interview about the design decisions behind 4e.  I recommend you suck it up and listen to it if you are at all interested and are a podcast listener.

That's the thing, I'm not a podcast listener regardless of the source.

Gotchya.  Well Mearles very explicitly recognizes the influence of storygames on his design and accepts, at the interviewer's suggestion, that 4e design is very similar to Magic.  Germaine to this discussion is the general tone where he sounds like he and the design team had complete free reign and their challenges were design ones, not corporate pressures.  Of course, he is representing the company, so he could be hiding them, but I would have thought there might have been the tiniest mention.  The sense I got is that they really were left alone.  The interviewer deliberately didn't ask about the GSL and external marketing matters as the scope of the interview was explicitly the design of the game.

Quote from: Jaeger;245318I'm starting to get the impression that those who didn't like/switch to 4e are having a hard time accepting that they are now in the  "everybody else" category.

You're just starting to get that impression, huh? Some say they recognize and are okay with it, but I wonder. For example, I don't feel the need whatsoever to start threads about why AD&D sucks.

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerp;245346I remember hearing once that everybody on the 4e design team had been introduced to D&D through 3e, so I think that is a pretty good indicator of the lack of education about D&D's roots.

Why on earth would they have to be educated about D&D's roots? Unless, of course, they were setting out to recreate OD&D...

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerp;245424Gotchya.  Well Mearles very explicitly recognizes the influence of storygames on his design and accepts, at the interviewer's suggestion, that 4e design is very similar to Magic.  Germaine to this discussion is the general tone where he sounds like he and the design team had complete free reign and their challenges were design ones, not corporate pressures.  Of course, he is representing the company, so he could be hiding them, but I would have thought there might have been the tiniest mention.  The sense I got is that they really were left alone.  The interviewer deliberately didn't ask about the GSL and external marketing matters as the scope of the interview was explicitly the design of the game.

Yeah, I didn't get the impression that they were being directed by any higher power from Hasbro to do things a certain way, but his admission at the beginning of the influence of Mr Edwards, originally from Gaming Outpost, is certainly telling.

Quote from: Seanchai;245510Why on earth would they have to be educated about D&D's roots?

If I was designing a new edition of D&D and I was under the gun to make it a commercial success I'd take a good hard look at prior successful editions of the game.  Why did OD&D bust out of wargames and create a new genre of game all its own?  How did the 1st edition PHB manage to stay in print as a profitable venture after 2nd edition AD&D came out?  Why were the '81 and '83 Basic sets such huge hits?

I'll kind of put it like this: I've worked on homebrew games and systems with friends and by myself, and there are times in development and play that I've looked at what I came up with and said, "I wish this were different, but given what I've got, and when I'd like it to be done, this seems like the most implementable solution." and just went ahead.

D&D 4e was a big deal. There was a lot of marketing, and a lot of work. There were also a lot of playtesters and designers. Given the radical nature of the overhaul and the amount of people on the team, there are going to be designers that ended up unhappy with the parts or totality of the thing.

Dislike though there may be for a corporate structure producing creative works, free lancers and permanent designers need to get paid, and if they're unhappy with certain parts privately, it's a job they helped work on and got paid for. Taken from that standpoint, it's easy just to roll a 3.0 Cleric when you get home to game with your friends, if you're not already Dwarfed out, or whatever, from working at WoTC all day.

That said, I think it would be a dick move if Hasbro, after having bought Wizards and produced an rpg, canned their D&D staff. D&D would just get rezzed by someone else (probably White Wolf), but it'd be kind of a sad thing.

Good question Walker.
 
The suits knew that D&D was like World of Warcraft except without the Internet and the monthly subscription. From the way the DI died an ignoble "lock it in the attic and wait for it to die" kinda death, I'm confident that it's was never meant to be. It was just an illusion to placate the bean counters. "Gee boss, it was exactly like WoW except it failed completely. I guess everyone but you was right after all!"
 
Secondly, I think that the suits did not understand secret mojo of D&D and were therefore afraid of making sweeping changes unless the game was broken. I suspect that's the real reason why the design team was so ruthless to previous editions -- to make it appear broken so they could fix it. They created a substantial problem (in the minds of the bean counters) to get permission to scrap the old game and rebuild it from the ground up.
 
In short, the bean counters gave away artistic control in exchange for digital initiative garbage, previous edition smack talk, and the risk of alienating the Settites. The designers got what they wanted except they ran into a deadline and had to waste time on management stuff.

You do know that Mearls is not the "marquee name", on all three books. In fact his name appears on the Monster Manual cover, as well  as something like "Final Development Strike team", and "Development", but not credited with the design.

I must admit, I like 4E better than 3E on the surface. I think it looks to be a very good (if complex) tabletop miniature game. It seems to do what OD&D did, and do it well. It is definatly aimed away from the "theatrical" or "actor" style of play.  Guess where I fall on that spectrum? I'm going to give it a try with one of my groups, then likely go back to playing my FRPG, and things like Talislanta.

Well, Sett is basicaly asking if someone left WotC after publishing of 4e. I think none of their emploees left after that, so mine answer is no.

As someone who wears suits and counts beans for a living, I wish I had the same kind of authority that some people seem to attribute to the suit wearing bean counters at Hasbro. If I were feeling sceptical, I'd wonder how much some people actually knew about the way most large organisation actually opperate.

Quote from: jrients;245521If I was designing a new edition of D&D and I was under the gun to make it a commercial success I'd take a good hard look at prior successful editions of the game.  Why did OD&D bust out of wargames and create a new genre of game all its own?  How did the 1st edition PHB manage to stay in print as a profitable venture after 2nd edition AD&D came out?  Why were the '81 and '83 Basic sets such huge hits?

One, that's all subjective. Two, I'm not sure what you're saying is true. And, three, do I need to understand FORTRAN to write an app for Facebook?

Seanchai

Quote from: Silverlion;245633It seems to do what OD&D did, and do it well.

What would that be...and are you basing this judgment on having read/played OD&D?

Quote from: Seanchai;245695One, that's all subjective. Two, I'm not sure what you're saying is true. And, three, do I need to understand FORTRAN to write an app for Facebook?

FORTRAN and Facebook are not a good analogy. A better example would be learning what made the first versions of Wordstar and WordPerfect so great to make a new Word Processor.

Also another thing breaking your analogy is that that D&D was a game. Games as such are timeless. See Yahtzee, Monopoly, and so on. There nothing obsolete about the rules of 1974 OD&D.  Sure their presentation sucks compared to today's standards but that an issue of technical writing and marketing not whether the game itself is obsolete.

By their nature RPGs are indefinitely expandable in a number of areas. Unfortunately old TSR in their drive to retain their market leadership allowed the system to become ever more complex. Rather than keeping a core set of Basic/Expert D&D they choose to cater to the hard core segment.

D&D disappeared off of the shelves of Toys R US and other places where mass market games are sold. While you have D&D and other RPGs in Barnes & Nobles and other mass market bookstore that is not the first place where most people go to look for a game to play.

Plus despite is lack of realism and lack of "stuff to fiddle with for characters" Basic D&D is a simple game to learn and pick up. It is the original lite system. Especially when you use the Holmes/Moldavy/Mentzer rulebooks.

With the rise of computers, internet, card games, and finally MMORPG alternative games were formed and pared off a segment of the core audience that fueled D&D rise. If D&D wants to grow then it need to reach back out and be accessible to the general population.

The only RPG that had a proven track record at doing this was Basic D&D of the Holmes/Moldavy/Mentzer lineage.

Quote from: estar;245702Also another thing breaking your analogy is that that D&D was a game. Games as such are timeless.

Really? When was the last time you saw a group of children playing with a hoop and stick? Mansion of Happiness? Drop the Hankerchief? Clearly, games are not timeless. Moreover, what folks want and expect out of them change with the times.

Quote from: estar;245702The only RPG that had a proven track record at doing this was Basic D&D of the Holmes/Moldavy/Mentzer lineage.

You say it has a proven track record, yet all you've offered is supposition. When you can put another game in OD&D's place and have it fail, then you can demonstrate that OD&D's success was due to some factor instrinsic to the OD&D rule set.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;245738Really? When was the last time you saw a group of children playing with a hoop and stick? Mansion of Happiness? Drop the Hankerchief? Clearly, games are not timeless. Moreover, what folks want and expect out of them change with the times.

Of course NOT all games sell year after year. Use some common sense.

Quote from: Seanchai;245738You say it has a proven track record, yet all you've offered is supposition. When you can put another game in OD&D's place and have it fail, then you can demonstrate that OD&D's success was due to some factor instrinsic to the OD&D rule set.

Mentzer D&D was pulled from Toys R Us because of the edition change to 2nd. Subsequent editions had starter sets which had none of the value or appeal of the earlier Basic OD&D boxed sets. Sales tanked and the company moved away from boxed sets altogether to hardback which don't fit with toy stores.

So yes there was another game, the starter sets, put in Mentzer D&D place and tanked.

Quote from: estar;245750Mentzer D&D was pulled from Toys R Us because of the edition change to 2nd. Subsequent editions had starter sets which had none of the value or appeal of the earlier Basic OD&D boxed sets. Sales tanked and the company moved away from boxed sets altogether to hardback which don't fit with toy stores.

No.  Although my evidence is only anecdotal.  It's probably more that Toys R Us and the other major chains carrying the game intentionally stopped doing so.  Even before AD&D2 came along, every major retailer carrying RPGs was trying to get rid of their stock at total liquidation prices.

My Mentzer sets were purchased from Toys R Us during this era.  They were variously marked $2.50 or $5.00 each.  At that point the games weren't enjoying healthy sales.  They were dead stock the stores were just trying to unload.

Quote from: Gabriel2;245765No.  Although my evidence is only anecdotal.  It's probably more that Toys R Us and the other major chains carrying the game intentionally stopped doing so.  Even before AD&D2 came along, every major retailer carrying RPGs was trying to get rid of their stock at total liquidation prices.

My Mentzer sets were purchased from Toys R Us during this era.  They were variously marked $2.50 or $5.00 each.  At that point the games weren't enjoying healthy sales.  They were dead stock the stores were just trying to unload.

I guess we will need some hard data then because I remember this happening after AD&D2.

But then the alternative is that TSR over printed which they often did when Lorraine Williams was in charge.

Quote from: estar;245750Of course NOT all games sell year after year.

"Games as such are timeless." Pick an argument and stick with it.  

Quote from: estar;245750So yes there was another game, the starter sets, put in Mentzer D&D place and tanked.

I meant another game entirely. And by in its place, I don't mean just on the shelf. The point being, you can't say another totally different game in similar circumstances wouldn't have produced the same results.

For 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.

Given 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.

Seanchai

Quote from: Jaeger;245318I'm starting to get the impression that those who didn't like/switch to 4e are having a hard time accepting that they are now in the  "everybody else" category.

I completely understand.   I was a big fan of AD&D 1e.  When 2e came along, I did not see the point in "upgrading", but I enjoyed the settings, especially Planescape.   When 3e came out, I tried to get into the game, but after playing 20+ times, I decided I would rather not play anything than play 3e.

It was weird going from "D&D fan" to an outsider in the D&D community.  I greatly enjoy 4e as a fantasy skirmish boardgame, and I 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.

However, unlike in 2000, there is Pathfinder and many OGL / D20 resources immediately available to 3e fans.   And fortunately, there are now fan resources available today to fans of all editions of D&D.

Quote from: Seanchai;245785Given 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.

My view on this is, you're right, but for the wrong reasons. For the time and for the people who made up the original generations of D&D players, the boardgamification and design-heavy approach that's accelerated from 3e onward would not have caught on the way that OD&D and AD&D1e did.

But I think people who call for a new version of Moldvay or Mentzer Basic are simply missing the fact that the culture and society have changed.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;245819But I think people who call for a new version of Moldvay or Mentzer Basic are simply missing the fact that the culture and society have changed.

The point is that the world most popular RPG requires $50+ dollars in order to play it thus limiting it's appeal to novices. That the system incorporated in the latest is of average complexity and not at all easy for novices  to pick up.

That any other RPG simply doesn't have the brand name nor the market penetration to serve as a gateway for introducing people to role-playing games.

That the Moldavy/Mentzer edition updated with new layout, new art, and new packaging would be a far better system to introduce novices to roleplaying.

It 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.

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.

A nice summary of several controversies all rolled up in one post!

We have: (1) origins of D&D (2) why 4e isn't D&D (3) why ablative damage is unrealistic. Well done. Of course, if D&D fully followed Fletcher Pratt, characters would also lose their damage-dealing ability in direct relation with the percentage of hit points they'd lost, and would move ever more slowly at the same rate!

Anyway, I dug up a few threads where I either go into still more detail or provide links.

here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7320&highlight=chainmail) (gotta say, that lachek was a good sport)
here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=9484&highlight=chainmail)
and several posts in here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=215735&highlight=chainmail#post215735)

(Sorry, Aos.)

No need elliot, carry on.


I think Senchai makes a good point earlier in the thread, about there being a more varied menu of entertainment choices these days. Nobody blames street and smith for the death of the pulps, or Hearst for the death of the adventure comic strip. TV and rising paper costs killed the pulps, TV by and large killed newspaper comics too- they just don't know they're dead.  The emergence of video games and the internet have taken a tole on the RPG hobby, certianally. Nobody was doing what we're doing right now in 1974, or 1984, or even 1994. they got together instead, and when they did the dice came out.
But I'll tell you what the real elephant in the room is- it's us.
Gamers are a socially inept, argumentative lot, many of whom have questionable hygiene. There are some (many in fact) who wont even consider the idea of bringing new blood into the hobby. Then there is the related issue of the social stigma that still clings to the hobby- despite what you may all want to tell yourselves.
Beyond that, there is the other major issue. Gamers are, by and large, a puritanical lot. Nobody likes a puritan. I know it's hard for a lot of you to believe but it's true. Most adults open the scrabble box and the bottle of wine at the same time. My wife and I just spent some time with her brother and his family and some of their friends. We don't drink, but we don't say anything about it either- They were still uncomfortable having us around. Without even trying, we were the wet blanket. We slept in a separate cabin, and every night after we went to bed the party cranked up- we could hear it.
Whereas there is a huge proportion of gamers who actually GET ANGRY if someone brings booze to an RPG game*, much less anything else. I mean after all RPGs are "serious gaming". Do you think the guys in 1974 felt this way? I dunno, maybe they did, but they are a vanishing breed at any rate. Their kind play video games now, or spend all their time bitching about something or other online. I won;t even get into the social stigmas surrounding obesity, because, you know, we're all skinnny as hell around these parts.
Yeah, yeah self loathing, yeah yeah.

*there's a thread about this somewhere around here.

Quote from: Aos;245993But I'll tell you what the real elephant in the room is- it's us.
Gamers are a socially inept, argumentative lot, many of whom have questionable hygiene. There are some (many in fact) who wont even consider the idea of bringing new blood into the hobby. Then there is the related issue of the social stigma that still clings to the hobby- despite what you may all want to tell yourselves.
Beyond that, there is the other major issue. Gamers are, by and large, a puritanical lot. Nobody likes a puritan.

Which tells me that people have no idea what a puritan IS anymore. Trust me when I tell you that gamers are not puritans. In fact, I'm much less active over on That Other RPG Site because I explained my *relatively liberal* position on a social question and I got flamed into oblivion because I wasn't far enough over the edge on the issue. Those are puritans? No, I don't think so. I know puritans. You lot don't qualify.

That said... any paper-and-pencil RPG is essentially an intellectual exercise. You have to imagine, think, plan. It's more work that a lot of people put into their entertainment. That is why this will always be a niche hobby. People want their entertainment delivered, they don't want to build it themselves. And RPGs tend to involve... I hate to say the word, but... you know.. math. That thing you can't even pay half the population to do. We're nerds, you know, with our pencils and systems and crunching. Except for the narrative nerds, and that's even scarier, because everyone knows that's really all about talking about sex with other guys.

It will never be a popular hobby. It will always appeal to that narrow spectrum of mostly-guys who are into imagination, let's pretend, numbers and dramatics. Though it might help if you all showered more often. *nods*

Well my experiance has been quite the opposite, actually. I've been burnt and sneered at on at least two rpg boards for admitting that I enjoy the weed.
Beyond that check out this thread:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7239&highlight=drugs

While my argument might well be faulty, it did not come into being in a vacuum. But I agree on the math thing.

Hmm, on the issue of us generally being a socially difficult population, I would also add the incredible resistance to getting people to come out to a local convention.  It's like pulling teeth.  I've worked in event management and in every other sector (woman's products, cars, home and garden, books) you have to beat people off.  They come out, they are psyched to talk with vendors, to interact with each other, to go to panels, to participate in workshops.  With gamers, there is a large segment of the population that refuses to put themselves in any other world but there existing group (and by extension refuses to welcome anyone else into their group).  There is a lot of rationalization, but I think it is ultimately a function of a lack of social self-confidence and it hurts our hobby.

Cons are still going for the hardcore demographic, so it's not like they are going to cause a major explosion of new gamers, but they do help to break down barriers between sub-groups and create unity in the gaming scene.

Still, I think the major factor is what Seanchai said, just competition for time in today's saturated market.  Tabletop RPGs had their moment and will command a niche for a long time, but there are too many competing fun activities that satisfy the same urge today.

Quote from: walkerp;246013Still, I think the major factor is what Seanchai said, just competition for time in today's saturated market.  Tabletop RPGs had their moment and will command a niche for a long time, but there are too many competing fun activities that satisfy the same urge today.

I under no illusion that restoring a D&D boxed to the toy stores is going to ignite a new mass market craze. My purpose in doing so would to be restore or strengthen a flow of new gamers from the mainstream community. Have a full RPG at a price point where people will just try it for the heck of it. I suppose D&D Minis could serve this role somewhat but it is not an RPG.

Quote from: walkerp;246013With gamers, there is a large segment of the population that refuses to put themselves in any other world but there existing group (and by extension refuses to welcome anyone else into their group).  There is a lot of rationalization, but I think it is ultimately a function of a lack of social self-confidence and it hurts our hobby.

I'm certain I fall into this subgroup.

Aos, your theory is begetting of a lack of perspective/experience wiht anything non-gaming. Check out some other hobby pursuits, and compare. You´ll find hostility, righteous flamecrusades and all other infighty things are part of the human condition.

Even pacifists get to blows over how to best organize world peace (actually happened at a pacifist conference).

Quote from: walkerp;246013With gamers, there is a large segment of the population that refuses to put themselves in any other world but there existing group (and by extension refuses to welcome anyone else into their group). There is a lot of rationalization, but I think it is ultimately a function of a lack of social self-confidence and it hurts our hobby.

But isn't that also a problem with RPGs themselves? It's easy to call up your friends and then all go to a sports stadium, a movie theater, the boat show or a music concert as spectators because the "job" of being a spectator is easy. Roleplaying is more like forming a garage band or a team. You have to get people who are into the same kind of stuff, have the skills to entertain and the personalities to get along.

Yeah, that's true, Malleus.  Our hobby does intrinsically require a certain amount of effort to get into it.  But I'm talking about a population that already has made that effort and has all the tools they need to get together and go to a con.

I think this goes along with the majority of our population also being generally really resistant to trying anything new.

I think Aos is right, that we are basically a very conservative lot, conservative in the most general sense of the word.  We don't want to change and when it comes along, we freak out about it and resist.

All together now!

To dream ... the impossible dream ...
To fight ... the unbeatable foe ...
To bear ... with unbearable sorrow ...
To run ... where the brave dare not go ...
To right ... the unrightable wrong ...
To love ... pure and chaste from afar ...
To try ... when your arms are too weary ...
To reach ... the unreachable star ...

I can't comment on forming band, but as compared to making even the shortest and shitiest of short films the effort required to get a gaming session together is nearly non existent.

I'm trying to think of a good comparison for what I'm trying to say, but not coming up with a perfect one, so I'll throw out a couple of imperfect ones.

I went with my school to a kung fu tournament once.  A lot of people were participating, but most of the crowd were there to watch.  But they were all in the scene and it was eminently clear that everyone there wanted to fight.  It was palpable (and hilariously macho).  But the thing was, once the matches started, every spectator was clearly wishing they had signed up to participate.  They are kung fu geeks.  They want to fight.

Same with the women's trade shows.  Those women are lining up at the door and they want to shop, they want to get makeovers, they want to discuss health tips.  Before these shows, when you approach these women, you almost always get a positive response.  Even if they can't go, they'll say "ooh that sounds like fun, I'd love to go some other time."

With gamers, it's like this huge battle.  Don't ever dare approach them in a game store to give them a flyer.  Don't contact them online.  Don't ask them why they aren't interested.  You will get hostility.  There is a hardcore group who are super enthusiastic (and thank god for them) but my very rough guess is that represents about maybe a quarter of the actual people gaming regularily (at least in our region).

Oh yes and let's not forget the people who fight tooth and nail to not have to pay the $20 admission fee (for which you get a $5 rebate for each game you run; we've had DMs refuse to come because we wouldn't waive the last $15 and we all pay the full fee ourselves as organisers!)

Sorry, I realize I'm just bitching about my own frustrations here, but I'm just saying that my experiences have very much confirmed what Aos was saying.

Quote from: estar;245873The Starter sets are not complete RPGs like the Mentzer set was. That the difference.

No, that's the standard bullshit response. We're talking about getting folks into the game - not sustaining them indefinitely on one product. The starter sets have everything they need to a) get a basic understanding of the game and b) play it for a while.

If having an understanding of the game and having played it for a while isn't going to convince them to keep playing, a "complete" RPG like the Mentzer set wouldn't have convinced them to stay either.

Quote from: estar;245873In most stores the three book total more than a video game. Plus novices like to buy one single box for the the game.

Hence my saying "about the price of a video game." Of course, if we're talking about the special editions of video games that are available these days, then it may even be cheaper.

And all three books are available in one box. Even in FLGSes.

But, really, money doesn't stop people - even children - from getting what they want.

Quote from: estar;245873Sorry 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.

So now we're not talking about getting new blood, we're talking creating new groups?

But, as Spike pointed out, the new PHB is pretty damn complete. Moreover, you only need one copy per group of the other two books.

Quote from: estar;245873Most players in the 80s were introduced via the Mentzer Red Book.

Have you ever looked at actual survey data concerning how folks got into the hobby and when?

Quote from: estar;245873Since 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.

In other words, it expanded with 3e. And, apparently, it expanded again with 4e (unless there were a whole lot of closet players buying nothing for years).

Quote from: estar;245873Yet the market for RPGS keeps shrinking.

You just finished saying it expanded with 3e.

And you're right - the market does keep shrinking (whether it occasionally expands like a dying sun for a bit or not). Because folks aren't interested in RPGs anymore. Your "complete" boxed set isn't going to change that.

Seanchai

Quote from: JimLotFP;245951Gygax didn't use minis in his game...

Who cares? Who cares how he game, when the matter in dispute is what he actually wrote.

Quote from: JimLotFP;245951OD&D was not a minis game.

No, it wasn't. It just had an emphasis on them.

Seanchai

Quote from: estar;246019I under no illusion that restoring a D&D boxed to the toy stores is going to ignite a new mass market craze.

Are you sure? Because you seem to...

Quote from: estar;246019My purpose in doing so would to be restore or strengthen a flow of new gamers from the mainstream community.

I thought you just said you weren't expecting a return to the glory days? That "flow of new gamers from the mainstream community" only happened at one point - the 80's.

Look around - we're all old dudes who have been playing for decades. There has been any appreciable amount of new blood in the hobby for a long, long time.

Quote from: estar;246019Have a full RPG at a price point where people will just try it for the heck of it.

First, who cares if it's a "full" or "complete" RPG? It's meant to get people interested in gaming, not support their gaming activities for years.

Second, you think the price point matters?

A video game is $60.

Dinner and a movie for two adults is $60.

A Wii is $270.

A DVD is $20.

A hardback book is over $20. Hell, a paperback is $8.

An iPod is $60.

You have to buy software to play MMOs, then get charged a monthly $15 fee.

Face, people choose not to play RPGs because they don't feel it's worth it. It's like doing homework, then committing to meet with a bunch of weirdos for hours each week for something that could very well be an exercise in masochism. Yes, RPGs captured the imagination of some folks back in the day, but those days are over.

They're over dude.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;246101committing to meet with a bunch of weirdos

Seanchai

I game with friends. Who do you play with?

Quote from: Seanchai;246101I thought you just said you weren't expecting a return to the glory days? That "flow of new gamers from the mainstream community" only happened at one point - the 80's.

Really? I remember fuckton of people getting involved in the 90s, people who wouldn't have played otherwise, but who were interested in the new types of games they were seeing.

Quote from: Seanchai;246101Dinner and a movie for two adults is $60.

Or, likely, more. I suppose it depends on where you eat dinner, and what sort of concessions you get at the theater.

Quote from: Seanchai;246101Face, people choose not to play RPGs because they don't feel it's worth it.

I think it's overly simplistic to assign a single motive to the millions of people who "choose not to play RPGs."

Quote from: Seanchai;246101Yes, RPGs captured the imagination of some folks back in the day, but those days are over.

I capture people pretty regularly, as do the other gamers I know. Perhaps that's not a new influx of millions of new players, but the days of RPGs capturing the imagination of new people are by no means over. Adoption rates may have slowed, but they have not stopped. Would you agree with that?

Quote from: Engine;246112I think it's overly simplistic to assign a single motive to the millions of people who "choose not to play RPGs."

Cowardice!  They fear our awesome! :D

Quote from: Aos;245993Gamers are a socially inept, argumentative lot, many of whom have questionable hygiene. There are some (many in fact) who wont even consider the idea of bringing new blood into the hobby....
Beyond that, there is the other major issue. Gamers are, by and large, a puritanical lot....
I won;t even get into the social stigmas surrounding obesity, because, you know, we're all skinnny as hell around these parts.

Are you serious? What a ridiculous generalization. I think maybe your perception of the hobby is distorted by anecdotal experience, like personal experience and...you know, the guys you meet at TheRPGSite. ;) Or maybe it's my experience that's distorted, because you're not describing my group. Like, at all.

*sigh* I've rewritten this post four times, trying to find a way to describe our group in a way that doesn't sound like I'm showing off, but I really can't. [Details, I guess, available upon request.] Suffice to say, we don't fit into this pigeonhole, which could just mean we're a statistical anomaly; still, it sounds like you've taken the gross stereotype and writ it large, and I don't think that's meaningful.

Quote from: Aos;245993Then there is the related issue of the social stigma that still clings to the hobby- despite what you may all want to tell yourselves.

Now that strikes me as the greatest reason more people don't play. But that's only anecdotal, based on my experience.

Quote from: estar;245770I guess we will need some hard data then because I remember this happening after AD&D2.

But then the alternative is that TSR over printed which they often did when Lorraine Williams was in charge.

Don't forget that late in its life Mentzer D&D started looking very unwieldy. Once you have have a game whose core rules consist of 3-5 boxed sets, it starts getting hard for outsiders to get to grips with it - and it starts looking easier just to buy the 3 core AD&D books and have done with it.

Quote from: Warthur;246151Don't forget that late in its life Mentzer D&D started looking very unwieldy. Once you have have a game whose core rules consist of 3-5 boxed sets, it starts getting hard for outsiders to get to grips with it - and it starts looking easier just to buy the 3 core AD&D books and have done with it.

Of course this is why they produced the Rule Cyclopedia, essentially, wasn't it?

Quote from: Silverlion;246110I game with friends. Who do you play with?

Friends. Doesn't mean everyone - particularly starting up - will have the same opportunity. Moreover, who says your friends can't be weirdos?

Seanchai

Quote from: Silverlion;246159Of course this is why they produced the Rule Cyclopedia, essentially, wasn't it?

Yes, but that was well into the 2E era, and a while after the old Mentzer set went out of print - though they did put out the black-box basic starter set at the same time.

Quote from: Engine;246112I think it's overly simplistic to assign a single motive to the millions of people who "choose not to play RPGs."

Tell it to the opposition. The idea that we can't know for sure why so many people aren't playing RPGs applies to the assertion that all it's going to take is a simple, "complete" boxed set as well.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;246169Tell it to the opposition.

Good point. I'll do so:

The idea that we can't know for sure why so many people aren't playing RPGs applies to the assertion that all it's going to take is a simple, "complete" boxed set as well.

Quote from: Seanchai;246089Who cares? Who cares how he game, when the matter in dispute is what he actually wrote.

Here's a thread on the topic (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=philosophy&action=display&thread=1394), over at the OD&D board.

It's funny, at one point, Gygax is quoted saying that the movement to use miniatures (which started around 1976--two years after publication) was bringing the game back to its wargaming roots.

Quote from: Gary Gygax in 1978Because of the return of miniatures to D&D, the game is tending to come full circle; back to table top battles not unlike those which were first fought with D&D’s parent, CHAINMAIL’s “Fantasy Supplement”, now occurring quite regularly.

Plus ça change...

If you look at the actual rules of Brown/White Box, miniatures are mentioned here and there but not even remotely required, and there's no clear methods of how to use them--as opposed to absolutely necessary items like graph paper.

I started on 'brown book' D&D (and Chainmail), and left trhe system before AD&D became '1e', but what I don't understand is why the excitement about the issue.

There are 3.0 and 3.5 books still avalible; hell, Judges Guild D&D preoducts are out there in pdf forms.

There's more AD&D material avalible in pdf & print thasn any GM could possible run in a lifetime, and that leaves out homebrew.

So why is 4.0 important? If you like it, great! If you don't, play 3.5 or 3e or 2e or 1e or Basic.

Or any one of many other systems out there. I've been gaming for 22 years without AD&D.

Why is a new product line carrying the AD&D label a challenge to existing AD&D games?

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;246250Why is a new product line carrying the AD&D label a challenge to existing AD&D games?

Because, even with the amount of material on pdf, there is nothing new coming out for 1st edition, BECMI or OD&D.  The line is dead.  You can dig around and find some netbooks online, but it's not exactly easy.  You can get retro-clones, too, but they suffer the same problem with new material.

On the other hand, I can more or less take any supplement or module from any publishing era of Traveller, and any necessary tweaks can be performed on the fly.  GURPS, with a bit of prep work, is similarly easy to use old material with new rules and vice versa.  With 4e, they specifically stated that updating characters and material would be nigh impossible.  They designed the system to negate all previous material.  Had Paizo not stepped up with the Pathfinder line, all the 3.x material would have been obsolete, and virutally unusable.  And compatibility between 3.0 and 2nd edition was easier, but not simple, by any means.

3.0 was a significant departure from previous rules.  4.0 is a brand new set of rules with the old name.  Of course you can still keep playing 3.x, but source material and supplements are no longer published.  When you are pressed for time with real life and whatnot, you can usually squeeze in 15 minutes here or 20 minutes there to tweak a setting or module.  Investing an hour or two (or more!) every week to set up a campaign world from scratch and then populate it is too much for many people.

Quote from: Engine;246124Are you serious? What a ridiculous generalization. I think maybe your perception of the hobby is distorted by anecdotal experience, like personal experience and...you know, the guys you meet at TheRPGSite. ;) Or maybe it's my experience that's distorted, because you're not describing my group. Like, at all.

*sigh* I've rewritten this post four times, trying to find a way to describe our group in a way that doesn't sound like I'm showing off, but I really can't. [Details, I guess, available upon request.] Suffice to say, we don't fit into this pigeonhole, which could just mean we're a statistical anomaly; still, it sounds like you've taken the gross stereotype and writ it large, and I don't think that's meaningful.


Now that strikes me as the greatest reason more people don't play. But that's only anecdotal, based on my experience.

Yeah, I'm serious. My group isn't like this either- and I weigh a hundred and thirty pounds. So. Fucking. What. Ever go to a con? Take a look at the pics from last year and from this year in Zach's threads.
How about your local gaming store? Brad Pitt shop there? I've been in four of local gaming stores in as many months. in each of them the guy behind the counter and and the majority of customers fit my profile. I have met the lardoriffic male gamer version of "This one time at Band Camp," literally dozens of times. Last week in fact. No lie.
Why do we spend so much time trying to convince ourselves otherwise?  Ever get drunk and talk to yourself in the mirror about how not drunk you were?


I knew when I made that post that someone would have to pipe up and scream, "Not me, not me, you self loathing asshole!"  Maybe it isn't you. Hell engine, I know your life is a pimptastic wonderland of never ending delight. Rock on!
Maybe my decades of experience are totally skewed. Maybe the rest of you are all well-adjusted hard-bodies. If that's the case, congratulations.
I'm a total fucking nerd, myself, and it bothers me not at all.
Come on now, somebody call me some names.

Raoooooooow!

Quote from: StormBringer;246295Because, even with the amount of material on pdf, there is nothing new coming out for 1st edition, BECMI or OD&D.  The line is dead.  You can dig around and find some netbooks online, but it's not exactly easy.  You can get retro-clones, too, but they suffer the same problem with new material..

RPGNow has thousands of items for D&D, 1e, and 2E, plus all the OGL stuff.

3e & 3,5 too.

That's just one source-I don't use DriveThru, but they have a sizeable inventory as well.

You couldn't run everything that's in existence, much less design your own.

I havcen't run an in-print setting in a decade, and my campaigns run 50-70 weekly sessions.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;246350RPGNow has thousands of items for D&D, 1e, and 2E, plus all the OGL stuff.

3e & 3,5 too.

That's just one source-I don't use DriveThru, but they have a sizeable inventory as well.

You couldn't run everything that's in existence, much less design your own.

I havcen't run an in-print setting in a decade, and my campaigns run 50-70 weekly sessions.

That is a bit misleading, however, as you can't run everything together, necessarily.  Adapting Dark Sun for use with Forgotten Realms is not a trivial task.

And as I mentioned, a sizeable back stock is nice, but there will never be anything new for 1st edition.  The product line is finished.

Quote from: StormBringer;246353That is a bit misleading, however, as you can't run everything together, necessarily.  Adapting Dark Sun for use with Forgotten Realms is not a trivial task.

And as I mentioned, a sizeable back stock is nice, but there will never be anything new for 1st edition.  The product line is finished.

I dunno-if you have a mass of existing material, and the ability to make new material, what more do you need?

Myself, I seldom use commercial scenarios, so once I buy the setting books, I'm done.

Individual results vary, of course.

Jesus Karst, Aos, what's gotten into you!?  That's the longest post I've ever seen you write!  

Also, you suck!

(I couldn't stand everyone giving you the cold shoulder after you made such an effort.)

I had a shit day, and in retrospect, I'm not even sure I agree with me.

You don't.

Quote from: StormBringer;246295Because, even with the amount of material on pdf, there is nothing new coming out for 1st edition,

That's not entirely correct

http://www.nobleknight.com/ViewProducts.asp_Q_ProductLineID_E_2137422268_A_ManufacturerID_E_2145082521_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_ (http://www.nobleknight.com/ViewProducts.asp_Q_ProductLineID_E_2137422268_A_ManufacturerID_E_2145082521_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_)

http://pied-piper-publishing.com/ (http://pied-piper-publishing.com/)

Quote from: Warthur;246164Yes, but that was well into the 2E era, and a while after the old Mentzer set went out of print - though they did put out the black-box basic starter set at the same time.

No one ever seems to bring up the late black box editions.  I remember seeing one of them that a friend had bought.  I think it was the 1994 edition.  It was a very nice set and covered characters all the way to 6th level.

In a month or two D&D4 will have it's official RPG (as opposed to minis game) starter set.

Quote from: Gabriel2;246370That's not entirely correct

http://www.nobleknight.com/ViewProducts.asp_Q_ProductLineID_E_2137422268_A_ManufacturerID_E_2145082521_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_

http://pied-piper-publishing.com/

Yeah, a few modules and such.  I am working on some OSRIC rules supplements.  There isn't a complete stoppage, but compared to what came out for 3.x and what is planned for 4e?

It is definitely up to the Olde School folks to make the early editions viable again, which is why I am trying to drum up some support for some less well-played titles as well, and the folks over at Fight On! are working on the multi-issue mega-dungeon (for which I need to get some more work done on level 15).

Don't get me wrong, modules are great.  But it is barely a trickle compared to when the early editions were new, and especially compared to 3.x and 4.0.  Which is to say nothing of the virtual deluge of settings put out for 2nd ed.

Of course, the 2nd edition stuff is largely compatible and there is plenty of it out there for use on Paizo and the DriveThruRPGNow sites.  But you still run into similar problems.  It's like that Loverboy song, "Ravenloft and Spelljammer just don't mix".  ;)

Quote from: Aos;246335Come on now, somebody call me some names.

You're a pencil-necked geek!

Quote from: droog;246442You're a pencil-necked geek!

I believe such folk prefer to be referred to these days as the cervically constrained.

My neck is smooth and swan like. So, in essence, the criticism is valid.

Quote from: StormBringer;246295Because, even with the amount of material on pdf, there is nothing new coming out for 1st edition, BECMI or OD&D.  The line is dead.  You can dig around and find some netbooks online, but it's not exactly easy.  You can get retro-clones, too, but they suffer the same problem with new material.

Some of us have taken practical steps to address the issue and made products that work across different editions. You need to be smart about it.

http://www.goodman-games.com/4380preview.html

Quote from: estar;246480Some of us have taken practical steps to address the issue and made products that work across different editions. You need to be smart about it.

http://www.goodman-games.com/4380preview.html

Oh, absolutely.  I am looking forward to more product in the future, not only from yourself and Goodman Games, but from fan produced material.

But the question seemed to be, why the difficulty with the new editions?   Part of my reasoning is the planned obsolescence.  The transition from 1st ed to 2nd ed was pretty smooth, from 2nd to 3.x less so, and from 3.x to 4e impossible.  Again, this is a stark contrast to Traveller, as an example, where I can take my Mongoose Traveller book and start a game, and Dr Rotwang! can keep using his LBBs for the most part.  A tweak here, a nudge there, but almost 30yrs worth of books and they are still compatible to a large degree.

I applaud your entry into the market, and wish you success.  The olde school hex mapping is great, and the work is very professional.  The style you use is excellent for settings, but a book can't be that generic as another type of supplement, such as a book of magic items or spells, or an adventure module.

Those things are being created, of course.  I have a few plans of my own, and some work for Fight On! in the pipeline.  I am just impatient to get it in full swing.  :)

Quote from: estar;246480Some of us have taken practical steps to address the issue and made products that work across different editions. You need to be smart about it.

http://www.goodman-games.com/4380preview.html

order placed for this last night :)

Quote from: StormBringer;246521But the question seemed to be, why the difficulty with the new editions?   Part of my reasoning is the planned obsolescence.  The transition from 1st ed to 2nd ed was pretty smooth, from 2nd to 3.x less so, and from 3.x to 4e impossible.  

In general most (not all) companies have problems when their product become part of a huge fad which later implodes. Instead of just steadily growing or maintaining market share over the years. I think the D&D brand is one of the brands that suffered rather than benefited from being a fad.

My past suggestions are geared to ways of making D&D a steady business instead of cyclical one of being a fad and then not a fad. Which I favor what I call the "Monopoly Game" approach where you have a constant basic core game that is a full RPG. Then sell "special editions" and cycle supplements. In this way you attract a small but steady stream of new players from outside your core base but yet have something that caters to your hardcore fans.

Quote from: StormBringer;246521Again, this is a stark contrast to Traveller, as an example, where I can take my Mongoose Traveller book and start a game, and Dr Rotwang! can keep using his LBBs for the most part.  A tweak here, a nudge there, but almost 30yrs worth of books and they are still compatible to a large degree.

Well Traveller has a different circumstance The esstential difference is that Traveller has been strongly tied to the Third Imperium setting. That part has show remarkable consistency over the years.

However the Traveller rules have a history of chaos. With Classic, Classic+ Digest Group Pub, Mega, New Era, T4, Rikki-Tikki, and the upcoming T5. Also complete lines been developed for GURPS, HERO System, and D20 although those three don't proclaim themselves the official Traveller RPG but rather the Third Imperium Setting using X rules.

It as if Greyhawk became THE one and only official setting for D&D and continued through all four editions. Come to think of it Forgotten Realms fans now have their version of the New Era with 4th edition. It will be interesting to see if follows the same trajectory.

I do agree Mongoose going back to Classic Traveller as base for Rikki-Tikki was a great idea and will bring many new fans to the game. I am also encouraged that Traveller once again is promoted as a general purpose Science Fiction RPG rather than just the rules for the Third Imperium.

Quote from: StormBringer;246521I applaud your entry into the market, and wish you success.  The olde school hex mapping is great, and the work is very professional.  The style you use is excellent for settings, but a book can't be that generic as another type of supplement, such as a book of magic items or spells, or an adventure module.

I am lucky that I identified a niche that hasn't be covered by a hundred other products. That is also allows for a natural system lite approach.

Quote from: StormBringer;246521Those things are being created, of course.  I have a few plans of my own, and some work for Fight On! in the pipeline.  I am just impatient to get it in full swing.  :)

Looking forward to seeing it. And for me there are more Points of Light on the way.

Quote from: mhensley;246551order placed for this last night :)

Thanks and appreciate the business.

Rob Conley