Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393I've read everyone else's comments, too, but basically I think it's fair to say that you're somewhere between most wrong and completely wrong.

I suppose I would be, if I were talking about what you're talking about.

But I'm not talking about people afraid that they can't find players, or people who have a list of improvements they wish would be incorporated into their favorite game. I'm talking about people who don't enjoy the game they play, don't enjoy any other game, either, but won't make any changes, won't stop playing, and won't stop whining.

I think it's because the game they really enjoy playing is The Whining Game. It's what that Transactional Analysis book Games People Play called "Why Don't You Yes But": someone says "I have a problem", gets other people to suggest solutions, but always has a reason why that solution can't work, so there's no point in trying. they don't really want a solution; they want to revel in the effect they have on the conversation.

If you like 90% of the rules in your favorite game, but there's a couple changes you wish would be made, you could *probably* make several of those changes, but if not, you'd still enjoy the game. But if you don't enjoy your "favorite" game and just want to loudly complain about how you don't enjoy it, can't change it, and don't want to play any other game, you have another agenda.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393First, it's important to acknowledge that if you are a player of RPGs, there are a limited number of people with which you will be able to play.

In your world maybe. To me, having played an RPG before is not a requirement to play at my table, and I haven't been in shortage of players since... ever, in fact.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393If you play Warhammer 1st edition, but someone else plays Warhammer 2nd edition, and neither of you are willing to compromise, you're not going to be able to play together.

In my world these people are called douches. I would play an AD&D 2nd edition game, Skills and Powers, 4th edition game, you name it, as long as I think I can enjoy the presence of the other players and DM. It's one thing to debate the merits of this or that game on the internet. It's quite another to get together with a bunch of friends and roll some dice for fun.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393If you have thoughts on which edition is 'the best' or what game you'd prefer to play, you have a vested interest in increasing the player base for that game.  Not only does it make it easier for you to find a group, it also increases the amount of product support available to you.

A game that has 100 players (spread around the world) is only going to get the support from the developer that is truly 'labor of love'.  A game that has the support of 10 million players around the world will be more likely to provide 'niche' products - a setting on Elizabethean England or Tripoli Pirates might only appeal to a small segment of the player base, but with enough players, that might be enough to justify the development and production costs.

So, from a purely selfish point of view, if you have a preferred edition, having more players play that version is 'for the best'.  The more you like variety and you value having multiple different systems with different quirks, etc, the less this will apply.  But considering the investment of time involved in learning a new system, there is definitely a bias against experimentation.

That's debatable. On one hand I see what you mean and can see where you are coming from on this, not to mention the personal investment one feels having fun with a particular game for decades, but on the other hand, if you take into consideration that you do not *have* to close your table to newcomers, that you can basically play games with anyone you want, and that you can publish these things which support the game you like, then I think that point gets heavily mitigated. This is not the 90s anymore where RPG publishers controlled the fan material, shut down websites and aficionados could only rely on the LGS to provide their game products. This reality simply doesn't exist anymore.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393So, once you establish that you have a preferred edition (or an edition that has such broad support that it is really the only option available to you), that doesn't mean you have to accept it's perfect.  Most products can be improved.  RPGs aren't like cars where the 'technology' advances and needs to be incorporated into the latest models - but even outside of blue tooth and GPS, there are improvements that can make the car work better.  Most people would agree that key ignition is better than hand-cranking the car to start; automatic transmission is easier to drive than manual.  In an RPG, streamlining and simplifying the rules but maintaining or improving performance is desirable.  Resolving an action in 5 seconds with the same level of granularity is better than resolving the same action in 45 seconds.

Not necessarily, that too is a matter of taste. I've argued that easier is not always better some time ago, and there is some evidence pointing out that some people, under the right circumstances, will actually get more satisfaction out of hard choices and considerations, instead of defaulting to the simplest one. Just like there are aficionados of rules light single-mechanics games, there are aficionados of rules heavy many parts and subparts rules systems. The idea that "streamlined" everything is necessarily best for everyone is basically wrong.

Now that's not to say that somehow one has to accept a preferred game or games as "perfect" for some reason. I agree with that idea.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393So, if you have a preferred edition, and you identify ways the game could be 'better' (which is admittedly subjective), you have a vested interest in communicating that improvement to the designers and the players.  It's possible that you could just communicate it to your group, but the more your group differs from the 'base', the less value additional supplements have for you.

True.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393So, ultimately, having more people play the same game you play in the same way you play it is best for you personally.  There's nothing wrong with advocating for your preferred game and/or style.  Now, obviously, if your preferred style differs, you have a vested interest in stopping others from 'winning converts'.  That's what this is all about.

It's not necessarily best for you personally, but I think that's a right everyone has. You can like what you like, dislike what you dislike, and be vocal about it. You should also be ready for the disagreements and eventual backlash, if you are extremely vocal about it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654393Some people are happy with the status quo; some people would prefer changes to the game in one way, and others would prefer changes to the game another way.  I liked 3.x, but I wanted to see some serious improvements.  4th edition didn't 'fix' anything that I had a problem with and instead created totally new problems (I don't play that edition).  Ultimately, I had to create my own game and now I have to create all the support material for that game.  The advantage is I get exactly what I want, but the disadvantage is that it takes more work - I can't be lazy and passively consume products created for my benefit.

There's a third option: designers could stop trying to reinvent the wheel and actually name these new versions and variants differently, as the different games they really are. If D&D 4E had been named "13th Age", there wouldn't nearly have been so much backlash around it.

Quote from: The Ent;654356"Oh noes the D&D ed for D&D-haters is getting ganked!!!"

"Suck it, grognards! All your sacred cows have been filleted at last! Now we finally have the D&D we always want - whaddya mean, new edition?!"

Quote from: Black Vulmea;654481"Suck it, grognards! All your sacred cows have been filleted at last! Now we finally have the D&D we always want - whaddya mean, new edition?!"

That's pretty much verbatim I'd say. Just add some screaming at the end.

Quote from: Benoist;654467The idea that "streamlined" everything is necessarily best for everyone is basically wrong.

There are many 'fiddly bits' sweet spots out there.

Quote from: Benoist;654467There's a third option: designers could stop trying to reinvent the wheel and actually name these new versions and variants differently, as the different games they really are.

Except then they wouldn't have what they really want: control over the flagship game of the hobby.

Many gamers want Dungeons & Dragons to reflect their deep-set personal preferences, and the owners of D&D, fingers perpetually stuck into the wind, accommodate them, sure that gamers will follow their lead and remain true to the brand as they cater to naysayers instead of those who actually like the game as it is.

Quote from: Benoist;654467Not necessarily, that too is a matter of taste. I've argued that easier is not always better some time ago, and there is some evidence pointing out that some people, under the right circumstances, will actually get more satisfaction out of hard choices and considerations, instead of defaulting to the simplest one. Just like there are aficionados of rules light single-mechanics games, there are aficionados of rules heavy many parts and subparts rules systems. The idea that "streamlined" everything is necessarily best for everyone is basically wrong.

Just a point of clarification - I'm talking specifically about maintaining all the same level of granularity (ie, not reducing choice), but making it easier.  

For example, if all hit points are in thousands, and all damage is in hundreds (ie, the smallest amount of damage is 100), there's no reason not to divide by 100.  Then your hit points and damage are in small numbers.  Small numbers are easier to work with than large numbers.

Likewise, you could have a table that says 'roll a d10 - consult table; roll a d10 - consult table.  That works out to 100 possible outcomes.  If you roll a d100 and have only a single table to look at, that's faster.  

If two processes yield the same result, the simpler one is usually better for an RPG.

Quote from: BenoistIn my world these people are called douches. I would play an AD&D 2nd edition game, Skills and Powers, 4th edition game, you name it, as long as I think I can enjoy the presence of the other players and DM. It's one thing to debate the merits of this or that game on the internet. It's quite another to get together with a bunch of friends and roll some dice for fun.

I've noticed that there are people who will play only D&D 4E and there are people will refuse to play D&D 4E. Now, these are tenable positions because both sorts have plenty of opportunity to find their own social circles for gaming.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;654491Many gamers want Dungeons & Dragons to reflect their deep-set personal preferences,.

Meh, the sooner people realize that they aren't that special, the better the hobby will be for it.  "Official" D&D going to 3e and then 4e didn't really impact my gaming at all.  I just stayed with the games I liked.  I'm not special enough to think that they should cater to my whims if I'm in the minority.  They are a business, and their only goal should be trying to make the most money.  Obviously that's not 4e, so 4e fans should learn to get over themselves.

Welcome to the generation where everyone gets a ribbon, and everyone's a winner, so everyone thinks they are special and deserve special attention.

Quote from: Benoist;654467In your world maybe.

BTW, happy birthday Benoist!

Quote from: deadDMwalking;654493Just a point of clarification - I'm talking specifically about maintaining all the same level of granularity (ie, not reducing choice), but making it easier.  

For example, if all hit points are in thousands, and all damage is in hundreds (ie, the smallest amount of damage is 100), there's no reason not to divide by 100.  Then your hit points and damage are in small numbers.  Small numbers are easier to work with than large numbers.

I understood, and I actually disagree with that point. I know that seems counter-intuitive in a world of everything simpler, faster, stronger, "better," but that simply isn't true for everyone. The effort you have to make to understand some issues and solve them for yourself may very well end up giving you more satisfaction with the end result. Some people like it when not everything is given to them on a silver platter, or when they have to furnish some effort into getting what they want out of a specific problem (or system).

It's actually part of the attraction to some in regards to say, Gygaxian prose, or the way the DMG is organized, the way you have to basically immerse yourself in the reading to follow the threads and trains of thoughts as an active reader, instead of just treating the game as a series of equations, or the rules book as a manual to program a toaster oven.

So no. What you are saying is in fact not true. Easier is not necessarily better. Not for everyone, in any case.

Quote from: Mistwell;654502BTW, happy birthday Benoist!

Hey! Thanks Mark! Much obliged!

Quote from: Benoist;654507I understood, and I actually disagree with that point. I know that seems counter-intuitive in a world of everything simpler, faster, stronger, "better," but that simply isn't true for everyone. The effort you have to make to understand some issues and solve them for yourself may very well end up giving you more satisfaction with the end result. Some people like it when not everything is given to them on a silver platter, or when they have to furnish some effort into getting what they want out of a specific problem (or system).

It's actually part of the attraction to some in regards to say, Gygaxian prose, or the way the DMG is organized, the way you have to basically immerse yourself in the reading to follow the threads and trains of thoughts, instead of just treating the game as a series of equations and using the rules book as manuals to program a toaster oven.

So no. What you are saying is in fact not true. Easier is not necessarily better. Not for everyone, in any case.

That's like the conversation we had a week or so ago re: the AD&D matrix vs BAB.  One is objectively simpler, but I made sure I never said that one was better.

If simpler was always better, than everyone would be playing B/X and no one would be playing any other version.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;654509That's like the conversation we had a week or so ago re: the AD&D matrix vs BAB.  One is objectively simpler, but I made sure I never said that one was better.

I actually don't think one is simpler than the other. That was the source of our disagreement, in fact.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;654509If simpler was always better, than everyone would be playing B/X and no one would be playing any other version.

Correct.

Quick!  Let's have the argument all over again!



Ok, it's your birthday....maybe not

Quote from: Benoist;654507The effort you have to make to understand some issues and solve them for yourself may very well end up giving you more satisfaction with the end result.

Words to design a game by. Of course I'v taken it to a level that would drop a strong man to his begging knees, but hey- someone had to create the most complex RPG ever.