Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 2:50:07 GMT -6
... is the way SO MANY fans act as if I have to provide reasons to NOT buy it.
Doesn't work that way, Cupcake! The burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and no edition of D&D since the original has made a convincing case that they will be more fun than the game I'm now playing. Or, rather, enough more fun to be worth the money and time to buy and learn.
I don't have to justify a decision to not buy; you need to justify WHY I should buy.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 24, 2014 4:13:42 GMT -6
Agreed, but if it weren't for "edition wars" where they bash everything but their favorite edition some folks would have little to contribure to gaming boards. Always a tricky issue, but in general I try to make positive posts rather than negative ones for much the same reason you describe. If I like something I like to tell folks about it, but if I dislike something I usually don't say anything at all about it. So, while I probably can't convince you (or myself) that 5E is "better" than OD&D, it does have some strong points and is fun to play. First level characters in 5E can do more things than they can in OD&D, and some of my players really like that fact. Of course, no reason why one couldn't house rule OD&D to do the same thing; I recall Gary saying in his later years that he liked to start PCs off at 3rd level and OD&D 3rd level is probably similar to 5E 1st level...
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 24, 2014 10:29:15 GMT -6
... is the way SO MANY fans act as if I have to provide reasons to NOT buy it. Doesn't work that way, Cupcake! The burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and no edition of D&D since the original has made a convincing case that they will be more fun than the game I'm now playing. Or, rather, enough more fun to be worth the money and time to buy and learn. I don't have to justify a decision to not buy; you need to justify WHY I should buy. Thank you. I personally don’t enjoy the whole “learn new/different rules!” aspect of the hobby. The changes trip me up, and for no tangible benefit. But, clearly, some people are downright rejuvenated by a new set of books. I do have to credit the publishers, though, for (this time around) not denigrating past editions, but only banking on the hope that people will like their new edition.
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 24, 2014 11:14:24 GMT -6
I've never understood why it's such a difficult thing to learn a new rules set. It's like not playing with a card game, board game, or video game because one doesn't want to master a new system. To be clear, I'm not objecting to not playing with something in general; I object to not playing because one game has a different set of rules than another. Each game provides a different experience; there is no objective scale of fun (i.e. one cannot objectively say that Shadowrun 2E is more or less fun than Poker, Battleship, Final Fantasy IX, World of Warcraft, Vampire: the Masquerade, or OD&D), so proving that a game is more fun than another is impossible, therefore waiting for such proof is an irrational expectation.
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Jul 24, 2014 11:25:32 GMT -6
I'm willing to give any game a try once, though that doesn't necessarily mean I'll buy it (even if I like it).
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 24, 2014 12:52:20 GMT -6
I've never understood why it's such a difficult thing to learn a new rules set. It's like not playing with a card game, board game, or video game because one doesn't want to master a new system. To be clear, I'm not objecting to not playing with something in general; I object to not playing because one game has a different set of rules than another. Each game provides a different experience; there is no objective scale of fun (i.e. one cannot objectively say that Shadowrun 2E is more or less fun than Poker, Battleship, Final Fantasy IX, World of Warcraft, Vampire: the Masquerade, or OD&D), so proving that a game is more fun than another is impossible, therefore waiting for such proof is an irrational expectation. It's not that it's difficult to learn new rules -- unless it's one of those "rich" rules system games where the object is to figure out how to use the multiple layers of rules to your advantage. No, it's simply a matter of whether there's anything in a new game with new rules that attracts your interest and makes it worthwhile to learn the new rules. Let's say you only play AD&D 1e. Let's say also you are really interested in detailed space flight. When new RPGs come along that were about space travel, you probably would check 'em out. If they offer the right kind of space flight details that appeal to your interests, you might play 'em. If, on the other hand, a new cowboy RPG comes out, you probably won't check it out unless you have some interest in cowboys, or unless it is *also* a space exploration game. It's just not worth your time to play yet another game if it doesn't offer anything that appeals to you. But the same applies to yet another fantasy RPG; you are already playing AD&D 1e, and really, unless a new game offers something that interests you, why learn another fantasy RPG? There are some people whose interests include "playing lots of games". They like games in general, not just specific games. For those, learning a new system is an easy sell. Other people have an interest in hanging out with their friends, so when their friends get hooked by a new game, they may learn the game for social reasons. But if you aren't a diehard game fanatic and your friends aren't deadset on playing a given game, it's up to the game to sell you on why you should buy it and play it. It is not up to you to sample every new game that shows up just in case you enjoy it. And yeah, same thing applies to card games, board games, and video games. I've played several card games and many board games, and haven't found one I really enjoy, so I don't buy new card games and board games, precisely because I don't want to learn the rules for yet another game I'm probably not going to enjoy. I might learn a new game if friends really want to play it and want to include me, but I won't do it for the game's sake. And video games? I usually wait a couple years befoore I try a game. Partly that's because of finances: I just don't buy many games. But partly it's because a lot of them don't seem worth the effort and expense.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 24, 2014 14:29:52 GMT -6
Well, a couple of points: - I only said it’s not enjoyable for me to learn a new rule set, but I acknowledged that others may enjoy it.
- I am fine with learning a *completely* different rule set (i.e., I learned RuneQuest 2e last year). It inhabits a different part of my brain, and its type of fun is different from D&D’s type of fun.
- I am *not* fine with learning a rule set that is superficially similar to one I already know but has hundreds, even thousands, of little differences. It will just confuse an already crowded part of my brain. What do I roll for a healing potion, again? 1d6+1 (D&D)? 2d4+2 (AD&D)? 1d8+1 (d20)? Aargh! And that’s something I can easily look up. Many aspects of the game you just have to know how they work.
- There are more D&D variants (alone) out there than I could try in my lifetime. What makes 5e a variant that I must try? Because its publishers hold the D&D trademark? That holds no water for me.
- If a friend were to offer to run 5e (or 3e or 4e or PF), it’s not like I would refuse to play in his game. I assume this doesn’t need to be stated, but perhaps it does: everything I said above relates to me as DM. DMing is a huge effort, and whatever you’re willing to run, I’m willing to play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 15:56:21 GMT -6
I've never understood why it's such a difficult thing to learn a new rules set. It's like not playing with a card game, board game, or video game because one doesn't want to master a new system. To be clear, I'm not objecting to not playing with something in general; I object to not playing because one game has a different set of rules than another. Each game provides a different experience; there is no objective scale of fun (i.e. one cannot objectively say that Shadowrun 2E is more or less fun than Poker, Battleship, Final Fantasy IX, World of Warcraft, Vampire: the Masquerade, or OD&D), so proving that a game is more fun than another is impossible, therefore waiting for such proof is an irrational expectation. "Non sequitur. Your facts are un-coordinated." I didn't say I only played OD&D, I said I haven't bought any newer editions. I own and play many games including 3 different Star Wars role playing games. Furthermore, I'll play d**n near anything if somebody else is running. And I've lost count of the number of different miniatures wargames I've played. So, basically, you're responding to an entirely different conversation happening somewhere else.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Jul 24, 2014 17:51:16 GMT -6
Forgive this little trip down memory lane...
For me, the D&D editions that came about after 2nd Edition are just not the same experience. I won't get into why that may be but I'll just say that I played Basic (Mentzer) D&D back in the 80s with my friend. It was only a few times one summer but it was a blast. The in high school, my friends and I would play 2nd Edition every once in a while. I'd say maybe 6 times a summer and another 6 times during the school year. It was fun.
Then we graduated, moved away and just stopped playing. When 3.5 came out, my friend and I got excited. My wife was always down to try and play so we bought 3.5. It was ok...but it lacked something. I figured it was my age making me experience things differently and that maybe I had outgrown it a bit. Then when I tried to play a sort of 2nd Edition/3.5 mash up with my wife and kids...the kids didn't enjoy it as much as I thought they would.
Eventually I discovered the OSR and through that we play OD&D via a clone. I'll just say that the magic is back for me and my kids absolutely love to play. In this day and age to have them hounding me to sit at a table with them and roll dice means alot to me. And one of my daughters is in high school!
I have also started buying old rules sets (BECMI and B/X) via ebay and just reading them is great. There is something different about the old rules and they just seem to suit certain people.
Sorry if this was off topicish.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 25, 2014 0:10:45 GMT -6
I am someone who thinks that certain editions of D&D (the earlier ones) are objectively better than others.
People like to caricature that position as one of these:
1. I'm a Fascist. I believe everyone should be like me. Those that are not are evil.
2. What's really important is fun. I'm interfering with people's fun by saying that their fun is not worthy.
3. I believe in a weird metaphysical philosophy that claims that only certain editions exist in platonic Heaven. That's Medieval (or Fascist or just stupid, etc.).
4. I like to argue. What's the point of that?
No.
Rather, it's empirical. You claim to want certain things in a game. I claim that certain editions give those things to you better than other editions. I may be wrong of course about the facts. But there is an objective truth of the matter. Certain editions WILL give you those things better than other editions. And while I might be wrong about which ones do that, you also might be wrong about which ones do that. Even if you say that you prefer a certain edition, you still might be wrong as to whether it best satisfies your goals.
95% of D&D players play "new school" D&D because they believe that it's the only thing worthwhile out there. 35 years ago, 95% of D&D players played "old school" D&D because they believed it was the only thing out there. I don't think preferences have changed so much as that the dominant product has changed. Most people use the dominant product because they think they have to, not because they have rationally considered all the alternatives. That's not a criticism. All of us do that to some extent. Time is finite.
So I played 4e with five friends that so obviously loved the idea of D&D. A meaningless combat with kobolds took two hours. My friends had fun. Heck, I had fun-they were my friends. But does that mean that they prefer two hour kobold combats? Really, do they? Or is it just that that's all they knew?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 25, 2014 1:54:37 GMT -6
Actually I think the main consideration is what my group is playing. If they play a game I really dislike in spite of my attempts to dissuade them I might pass (in theory because I haven't disliked anything that much yet), but generally speaking it's the tabletop gaming with friends that I like and the rules, while important, are secondary to that. So, although in an ideal world I would play only my favourite game of the moment (hey, it changes), more often than not I end up playing Pathfinder because that's what the most prolific referee in the group tend to run.
|
|
Merias
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 104
|
Post by Merias on Jul 25, 2014 5:17:17 GMT -6
I enjoy collecting rulebooks for other systems, as I like to at least read through them, even if I won't ever play them. I take bits that I like and incorporate them into the games I do play. I do limit myself to mostly rules-light systems, since I have less patience than I used to and my eyes glaze over when I see dense and complex rules for things that should be handled with role-play or a simple die roll. But I too, will try most games once, especially if someone in my group is DM'ing.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 26, 2014 17:52:47 GMT -6
I've never understood why it's such a difficult thing to learn a new rules set. It's like not playing with a card game, board game, or video game because one doesn't want to master a new system. To be clear, I'm not objecting to not playing with something in general; I object to not playing because one game has a different set of rules than another. Each game provides a different experience; there is no objective scale of fun (i.e. one cannot objectively say that Shadowrun 2E is more or less fun than Poker, Battleship, Final Fantasy IX, World of Warcraft, Vampire: the Masquerade, or OD&D), so proving that a game is more fun than another is impossible, therefore waiting for such proof is an irrational expectation. "Non sequitur. Your facts are un-coordinated." I didn't say I only played OD&D, I said I haven't bought any newer editions. I own and play many games including 3 different Star Wars role playing games. Furthermore, I'll play d**n near anything if somebody else is running. And I've lost count of the number of different miniatures wargames I've played. So, basically, you're responding to an entirely different conversation happening somewhere else. So what makes D&D different than Star Wars roleplaying games as far as your willingness to buy a new set of mechanics in the same genre/setting? And just for curiosity sakes have you bought any other fantasy tabletop roleplaying game? Of course you don't need to justify anything but since this is a subforum devoted to well... you it would be interesting to hear why D&D in particular is singled out.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Jul 27, 2014 11:29:32 GMT -6
Well, we all know what happened to new models of factory-street muscle cars of the 60s--they got hosed down by Detroit so wusses that bought them could handle them. I kinda see game editions in the same light.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jul 27, 2014 13:54:45 GMT -6
You forgot: "You see everything through rose colored glasses and speak out of nostalgy! "
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 27, 2014 14:52:22 GMT -6
"You see everything through rose colored glasses and speak out of nostalgy! " Yeah, I hate that. Philotomy has a great dissection of the phrase in his Musings: "For some reason, when I tell other gamers I'm playing OD&D (or AD&D, or B/X, et cetera), I often hear comments about my "nostalgia" or my "rose colored glasses." I find this both odd and annoying. The idea behind "rose colored glasses" is that your perception is being altered, and that you aren't seeing things as they truly are. If you're "looking back through rose colored glasses," it means that you're not seeing clearly, with the implication that time has tricked your memory, making the past seem better than it actually was. You only see the good stuff through the rose colored glasses. So this is a neat turn of phrase, a flippant dismissal of any fond feelings for older editions like OD&D. Nevertheless, while glib, the phrase doesn't apply to me and my enthusiam for OD&D." "Rose colored glasses only "work" when you're looking back on an experience. Once you actually go back and experience it, again, the glasses stop working. At that point, the experience must stand or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof). I'm not looking back fondly on OD&D, I'm currently playing it. When I say I like it, it's not because rose colored glasses have skewed my perception of the past; it's because I like the experience I'm currently having. Rose colored glasses? Nope." To be really fair, there needs to be some other color of glasses (gray?) for describing the propensity of some people to go with the perceived current wisdom, whatever it is. To be serious for a moment, the annoying thing to me is not that people disagree with me by liking something I don't or not liking something I do. It's the implicit assumption that we're all little random or arbitrary preference blobs, drifting hither and tither, without actually wanting to apply any rational thought to, so to speak, the movement process. So it's like "hey, man, hands off my trajectory." (I was trying to figure out how to fit the metaphor to one of those mental duals over a Sphere of Annihilation, but I gave up.)
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 29, 2014 8:24:53 GMT -6
I've enjoyed following this thread. It has inspired some "academic" musings about 0e, why we like it, how it compares to other editions, new school, etc. I don't want to derail this thread so I've started another one in the OD&D study folder: odd74.proboards.com/thread/10213/game-games-engaging-diverse-legendariaI would be interested in thoughts and comments. Thanks folks.
|
|
tog
Level 4 Theurgist
Detect Meal & What Kind
Posts: 148
|
Post by tog on Jul 30, 2014 13:08:40 GMT -6
I've never understood why it's such a difficult thing to learn a new rules set. Some of us are old, and our brains are full.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 15:41:43 GMT -6
I've never understood why it's such a difficult thing to learn a new rules set. You've missed my entire point. I'm speaking specifically about BUYING.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 3, 2014 7:44:36 GMT -6
I don't have to justify a decision to not buy; you need to justify WHY I should buy. "Non sequitur. Your facts are un-coordinated." I own and play many games including 3 different Star Wars role playing games. You've missed my entire point. I'm speaking specifically about BUYING. OK you should buy the newer editions of D&D for the same you own 3 different Star Wars role playing games. I don't know why you bought 3 different Star War roleplaying games and only bought OD&D. But in the lieu of additional information I can not know the difference in your attitude towards the two games.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 3, 2014 10:42:27 GMT -6
So? He had his reasons TO BUY 3 different Star Wars roleplaying games. He still doesn’t have to provide reasons TO NOT BUY 5e.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 17:51:13 GMT -6
Exactly.
I bought WEG Star Wars because it was the first. I bought WOTC SW d20 because that's what was being played in the group and I wanted to ref. I bought Star Wars SAGA because it was supposed to be a totally new and better game.
I regret 2 out of the 3. WEG is the only one I don't regret.
Also, hands up if you can discern the difference between 'Buying a licensed game from 2 different manufacturers' and 'buying later editions of the same game.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 17:54:00 GMT -6
deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 17:56:02 GMT -6
Or, "The d20 version of Star Wars convinced me it offered something worth having. Later editions of D&D have not."
It. Is. Just. That. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 3, 2014 21:13:58 GMT -6
I don't think you should buy 5E if you preferred OD&D over B/X, BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E, Pathfinder and 4E. But you might want so spend an idle afternoon leafing through the Basic PDF to see if it grabs you.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 3, 2014 21:16:48 GMT -6
But you might want so spend an idle afternoon leafing through the Basic PDF to see if it grabs you. I did that, and it didn't grab me. I own the following editions of D&D: OD&D AD&D C&C LotFP
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 3, 2014 21:25:03 GMT -6
But you might want so spend an idle afternoon leafing through the Basic PDF to see if it grabs you. I did that, and it didn't grab me. That's what I like about the way things are done now - you get enough of a taster in most of the free PDFs to be able to make an informed decision whether to buy or not if you haven't had a chance to try it out in actual play. It's okay to ask people around here for their recommendation, but in the final analysis I base my increasingly rare purchases on what actually appeals to me at the table. YMMV, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 23:18:46 GMT -6
I don't think you should buy 5E if you preferred OD&D over B/X, BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E, Pathfinder and 4E. But you might want so spend an idle afternoon leafing through the Basic PDF to see if it grabs you. Okay, so why? What is in there that would make me want to ref it instead of OD&D? I play lots of stuff without buying the books, and my time is scarce. I played some 3rd edition and hated it; I don't know what morons were in charge, but they had no ****ing idea what they were doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 6:56:02 GMT -6
... is the way SO MANY fans act as if I have to provide reasons to NOT buy it. Doesn't work that way, Cupcake! The burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and no edition of D&D since the original has made a convincing case that they will be more fun than the game I'm now playing. Or, rather, enough more fun to be worth the money and time to buy and learn. I don't have to justify a decision to not buy; you need to justify WHY I should buy. Thank you. I personally don’t enjoy the whole “learn new/different rules!” aspect of the hobby. The changes trip me up, and for no tangible benefit. But, clearly, some people are downright rejuvenated by a new set of books. I do have to credit the publishers, though, for (this time around) not denigrating past editions, but only banking on the hope that people will like their new edition. When I was 18, single, college student learning new rules for new games was no big deal, I had a fair amount of time, my freshman year I learned at least 12-15 new games. However, now I am 58, married and have a lot of things on my plate as part of everyday life, I have very little free time. These days if I am going to learn a new game, someone has to convince me that it is not just as good as what I am playing now but demonstrably superior. That is a pretty high bar to get over. I ref OD&D for my group, my players when they ref there own game it is anything from B/X to 1E or 2E or some other game. If they ref in my shared game world, it is more 1E. I will happily play in other games, but the only thing I will ref these days is OD&D and there is not much in the way of rules that the players need to know in OD&D. And I have gotten to I am running OD&D as rule less as I possibly can.
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Aug 4, 2014 10:07:40 GMT -6
A better question might be: what doesn't annoy me about newer editions of D&D?
|
|