|
Post by jeffb on Dec 15, 2021 6:58:32 GMT -6
Joe teaches Fred to play. Fred moves, finds new group supposedly playing the same game, lead by Sam. Sam and Joe picked different interpretations and opetions right along most of the options/open-to-interpretation points... and Fred finds he knows nothing at all about the game Sam's running... the odds of Fred continung thhe hobby just dropped radically, and may seriously negatively impact his views of either-/both-of Sam and Joe. I've been on all three sides of that coin... You have just described my ideal world. Every referee runs a completely different game. Setting down at Dan's table is a completely foreign experience from Gabby's. If Dan's and Gabby's tables suck, you can always try Hannah's. Or you can start your own and run a game that perfectly adheres to your unique sensibilities. One of the things I did with my son and his friends, from the very beginning, was to tell them that every table will be different. I run certain types of games and use/ don't use certain rules because that's what I like (of course I was open to changing style/rules/system if the group really had an issue with something that was killing fun). And I told them that if in HS they start playing games with other kids, or playing with family, things are likely to be different. And if ever they decide to run their own games they will play the game "their way" too. I guess I was blessed in the way I learned how to play and with the group I had. I'd absolutely hate it if everyone ran the same game with the same rules all the time. That is killing the mojo of what an RPG is. The only case I find that beneficial for is tournament/RPGA play.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 172
|
Post by aramis on Dec 17, 2021 17:17:59 GMT -6
Joe teaches Fred to play. Fred moves, finds new group supposedly playing the same game, lead by Sam. Sam and Joe picked different interpretations and opetions right along most of the options/open-to-interpretation points... and Fred finds he knows nothing at all about the game Sam's running... the odds of Fred continung thhe hobby just dropped radically, and may seriously negatively impact his views of either-/both-of Sam and Joe. I've been on all three sides of that coin... You have just described my ideal world. Every referee runs a completely different game. Setting down at Dan's table is a completely foreign experience from Gabby's. If Dan's and Gabby's tables suck, you can always try Hannah's. Or you can start your own and run a game that perfectly adheres to your unique sensibilities. It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry. And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 18, 2021 0:22:10 GMT -6
It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry. And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either. Why would they consider games individually personalized to their down desires a nightmare? As for the gaming industry and D&D going mainstream, I have zero interest in either.
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Dec 18, 2021 9:50:32 GMT -6
I'm currently reading The Oxford Guide to Card Games by David Parlett. Here a few excerpts from the chapter "Hoyle on troubled waters"
***
***
This really speaks to me, and echos a lot of the sentiment I've read on this board over the years. While I think the health of the industry is important in an abstract sense, I think customization is essential to the spirit of D&D--the sacred cow--and a wonderful callback to the history of games and human culture before Coca Cola.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Dec 18, 2021 11:10:21 GMT -6
And the customization of the game as we have all seen in the earliest years was expected and encouraged.
Then massive success.
It's only when the financial success of games became the #1 driver did we a shift towards rules and official stance from the powers that be. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on board with capitalism, just noting how things changed drastically @ TSR when $ become the priority---- lawsuits, new editions to standardize play, tournaments, modules, and the list gets ever deeper.
We've gone off on a tangent, but to circle around- 2E is the last edition where the designers were not on board with the finance folks, and serious compromises were made because of that in the rules. All editions post 2E were developed with a rather complex and detailed business model in mind to make sure people play the game the way each design team wanted you to- it sells more product and rulebooks.
|
|
calstaff
Level 1 Medium
Playing LotRO...as a human.
Posts: 13
|
Post by calstaff on Dec 31, 2021 9:51:07 GMT -6
I agree that with the sale of TSR to WotC the "corporatization" of D&D accelerated exponentially, but I think it began when EGG was pushed out. That, to me, was when the creative side of TSR was pushed aside in order to make room for the profit-driven side.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 172
|
Post by aramis on Feb 22, 2022 20:16:15 GMT -6
It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry. And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either. Why would they consider games individually personalized to their down desires a nightmare? As for the gaming industry and D&D going mainstream, I have zero interest in either. Being a corporation, TSR was, and WotC is, required to pursue the maximum profit. Which means people like you get shoved aside for the larger slice of the economy. Wizards, bottom line, only cares about separating people from their money. For me, consistency means I don't have to reteach experienced players to some variation no one else uses. It also gives my players a level of mechanical knowledge so that they can understand mechanically what their characters would have learned experientally: how the world works. It also means that, since I live in a college town, my players can come in and be ready to play sooner. This doesn't mean I don't houserule - but I do so very little. And I tell new players up front.
|
|
|
Post by poohgyrr on Jul 29, 2022 22:31:20 GMT -6
In the end, it’s the DMs game, including the rules. Discussion about the game, and reaching some kind of agreement on things, is part of playing.
Change the adventure, whatever. Make it work.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on May 11, 2024 13:07:12 GMT -6
Here's a video about 2nd Edition. Yes, it's still my favorite edition, tied with B/X. The last time I ran an official AD&D game, it was 2nd Edition.
|
|
|
Post by poohgyrr on May 12, 2024 6:55:48 GMT -6
Awesome video, thanks. I still think 2E/AD&D are my favorite.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on May 13, 2024 4:05:27 GMT -6
Since this thread was resurrected I reread some of my old posts and the responses. I was really at odds with the majority here! Haha.
I think it was my time working in the video game industry that colored a lot of my opinions on optional rules. They always sound great on paper, then in development you end up with an exponential nightmare. That is the "math is powerful" I referred to.
Since posting this I've read through my 2e books, I have a larger collection than intended because of various auction lots I've won over the years where there'd be one book I wanted, and several I didn't (mostly 2e stuff) in the lot as well. Now I'm glad that I have them because 2e is much better than I remembered it being.
I still think it had too many optional rules and that ultimately spelled disaster for TSR. Probably a good thing because in many ways Wizards was a better steward of D&D, until recently.
|
|
|
Post by b9anders on May 16, 2024 8:13:59 GMT -6
I consider it probably the best version of D&D ever made. It polished and cleaned up 1e very well. Not just in the obvious way with class design, but also the nuts and bolts, going through all the spells and cleaning up the weird and insane ones, etc (ray of enfeeblement springs to mind), bringing back morale rules per monster and such.
I think making it so modular through optional extensions is its greatest strength. If you simply play core rules, you have something very similar to Classic D&D. It works well enough as a standalone game.
And the optional rules are very well thought through. They will almost always consider how certain rules may or may not be impacted by using certain optional rules and make sure to address that in the text. My main quibble there is that the Fighter's only distinguishing feature, weapon specialization, is gated behind an optional system and I don't particularly care for weapon proficiencies.
I wish the DMG was better. Feels amputated. But other than that, a great core set.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on May 16, 2024 10:21:14 GMT -6
It's the same issue 5E has: Too many options to include them all, so the group must choose which to use and which to discard. Today's 5E has pretty much everything as "official" and many folks seem to think that's mandatory. Back then in AD&D 2E, we used the rules we wanted and forgot about the rest. And at some point we might go back to some rules and try them in our game, and discard them again if they sucked.
I think some people might have been overwhelmed by the pile of options, though.
|
|
|
Post by poohgyrr on May 16, 2024 18:47:43 GMT -6
Yes, feel free to run your game the way you want (sorta).. If the game is fun then players will be there. If the game is not fun, then…
We had some great adventures.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 27, 2024 18:59:53 GMT -6
Definitely worth a watch -Steve and Zeb and friends- I believe there are also episodes for O/A, and WOTC editions as well
|
|