|
Post by cooper on Sept 8, 2011 17:29:05 GMT -6
First of all, posting in CAPS is a good way to start a fight...
second, if simply asking you to buttrice your statement with examples is prima facie evidence of trying to start a fight, it will be difficult to carry on any type of conversation with you.
4E has what? hundreds of pages of errata and rules clarifications and mistakes, as did 3E. And you know what? Perhaps don't try and anticipate my reaction to your posts? If you do indeed point out that a monster exists on the encounter table that doesn't exist in the rules (which one...perhaps I would generally like to know?...you know?), don't presume to tell me how I will respond to you, it's rude and self defeating, because you imply that I'm not talking with you in good faith. And that's about the worst thing you can say to someone, so cut.it.out. Maybe I would thank you for pointing it out to me instead of becoming some raving monster you have in your mind?
assume I'm interesting in conversing in good faith.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 8, 2011 17:34:23 GMT -6
If, for a few examples, I say "% Liar for % Lair" which spawned some really weird misinterpretations, even in such worthies as Hargrave, you will simply say it was a spelling error. If I point out that monsters exist on the encounter tables that don't exist in the rules, you will say it was stylistic, or perhaps that the author should not have to do all the work for me. If I point out that some of the spell and magic item descriptions are hopelessly vague, I will hear that these were not mistakes at all, merely leaving them open to interpretation, etc. Thus, this is an argument I absolutely cannot win, and so don't care to undertake. This might be a clue that what you perceive as errors are actually your personal opinions, which would answer your previous question "why would anybody want something full of mistakes when a cleaned up and corrected copy is available?" Aside from spelling errors and the like, what you're seeing as errors -- "vague" spell descriptions, monsters identified by name only, etc. -- are plusses for other people. For example, since I know what rats, snakes, ants, wolves, bats, lions, centipedes, and other mostly natural animals are, I don't really need stats for any of them, and I think of including stats for a hundred natural creatures as a negative selling point for any product that includes them. Similarly, any spell description that nails down the effect to remove perceived ambiguity has at least a 50-50 chance of annoying me, by not fitting my conception of what that spell should do. So, although I understand you are not trying to pick a fight, I can't see why you keep bringing up the supposed errors, especially given, as you say, that those who don't share your opinion will have an answer for every objection you raise and you can never win the argument.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 8, 2011 20:49:43 GMT -6
Where it matters is to the loads of gamers who might well pick up a copy of a legally made and in print game sitting on a store self or being sold on the internet, but haven't the time, interest or patients to try to wade through the 3lBBs or search out and download fan creations of dubious legal standing. I'd agree with that too. I wasn't really thinking about "growing the audience" when I wrote my post.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 8, 2011 20:57:25 GMT -6
What I don't understand is the argument within the 0ed-1ed crowd. The LBBs are just... well... full of mistakes and badly written. They were the fountainhead game, and I respect them as such. But why would anybody want something full of mistakes when a cleaned up and corrected copy is available? I don’t think there IS an argument within the “0ed-1ed crowd”. I think there are very few people here who would be unwilling to take a monster writeup from Moldvay or a magical item from the DMG. In order to understand the spirit of this board, assume that 99% of the people here (Finarvyn being the most obvious exception) have been playing Basic or Advanced D&D all along, and only really discovered OD&D and really delved deeper into it in the past 10 years. So, there’s very little LBB purism here, except as an experiment of sorts: - what would it be like to play with just the 3 lbbs? - what alternate, non-Gygaxian directions can the game be taken? - what are the implications of reading the rules literally? - what styles of play emerge? In our exploration of OD&D, many of us were struck by all the exciting things that exploded in all directions out of OD&D in the early days before AD&D codified things: - Warriors of Mars - Empire of the Petal Throne - Metamorphosis Alpha - Wilderlands/City States - The First Fantasy Campaign - Arduin - Ryth - All things Holmes-related - Space Patrol Such genius creativity! Such wild variety! Such clever use of great literature, juxtaposed with incredible originality! I think the whole thrust of the OSR is to try to return to those days, and for whatever reason, immersing oneself in the LBBs and other primitive/flawed/innocent RPGs seems to be a key ingredient to getting those “outside the box” creative juices flowing. Now, at the end of the day, probably not a single person here rejects Greyhawk outright, and it’s a fact that many people here end up defaulting to 1e or B/X or a clone for actual play. (I know, I’m going to hear from the exceptions!) BUT, you really don’t have to go far to see the very rewarding fruits of the “OD&D Experiment.” I’m not even going to try enumerating them. Regards.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 9, 2011 8:45:32 GMT -6
Here's one solution. Every DM has his own personal retroclone printed specifically for his campaign: cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/2011/09/perfect-retroclone.htmlThis gets me thinking. Perhaps the perfect OD&D retroclone would be some kind of umbrella software package that would allow you to produce your own customized rulebook for your campaign. You could pick and choose the rules and options you wanted to include, as well as the artwork, and it would generate a printable rulebook that you could give out to your players. It would even allow you type in your own house rules that it would insert in the text where you wanted them.
|
|
|
Post by erroneousgrog on Sept 9, 2011 12:31:30 GMT -6
I did the S&W Whitebox and thought it was a pretty good product, but it gets knocked often for not being a "true" clone of OD&D. Every once in a while (perhaps a few dozen times over the past 35 years) I will sit down and try to create my own "ultimate OD&D" style doc. And I always fail. I think that the two statements above are linked together, and I think that the ambiguity of OD&D is such that we'll never get what we all agree is a "true" clone of OD&D. I'd rather not debate whether or not it's possible to understand the game without aid, and I'd rather not debate if you need book X or not in order to play it. We've covered that ground before and I think we've hit an impasse. What I notice every time I re-read OD&D is that there are a few key places where OD&D can be interpreted more than one way, and as such we will never reach group concensus. If you try to offer a "toolbox" apporach (such as I did in Whitebox) the critisism is that gamers don't want a rulebook with guidelines instead of hard-and-fast rules. They don't want "you can try this option" rules but instead want things black and white, but the game isn't 100% black and white. For example, - I look at the level charts in Men & Magic abd see that the progressions aren't always predictable patterns. There are places where "Fighting Capability" might jump from level to level, or places where FC and HD agree while other places do not. In trying to extrapolate to higher levels the examples given often don't quite seem to fit an exact pattern and I find myself wondering why Gary picked certain numbers for certain levels.
- Then there is the LBB versus Greyhawk issue, where certain rules clearly change whether Supplement I is considered or not. If I want to mix Druids or Monks with d6 hit dice from the box there may be some issues. If I want to mix FC with non-d6 hit dice there may be some issues. What I find is that while the rules are very specific, there are enough options that I need to choose which specific rules fit together with each other and which ones do not.
- Some monsters are rated in terms of things like "heavy foot" which imply the mass-combat Chainmail tables, but other references seem to imply that the Man-to-Man 2d6 rules are the ones to use.
- Some editions (1st-4th printings) state that all clerics must choose Law or Chaos while others (5th and later) say that they only need to choose at 7th level.
- Monsters are vague in terms of encounters. If there are 30-300 orcs, how do I roll this? 30d10? 30 times 1d10? Does the treasure table apply to 30-300 orcs or is the same treasure found in a room in a dungeon with a half dozen orcs in it?
- Just determining which classes "count" is impossible. Only the ones in the LBB plus supplements? That would leave out the Ranger, which would be sad. Add in everything from Dragon and you get some odd and obscure classes that I've never played and don't know anyone who has. (I think they're in Dragon #3 or #4. Healers and such.)
- What about rules changes. Some argue that nothing can change or it's not OD&D. Others cite the Hargrove material and say that it should count since it's an expansion. Where does it end? Could we have skills instead of classes? Would that still be OD&D? I doubt that we'll ever agree on that point, either.
Overall, these issues don't bother me now and they never have in over 3 decades of playing OD&D. They don't bother me because I'm not playing for realism, but instead am playing for fun and if I use different rules each time, that's okay with me. Still makes the game understandible and readable, even if the rules ebb and flow with my mood. From a scholarly point of view, however, it's become clear to me that there is no way that our "OD&D community" will ever agree on a single canon set of OD&D rules. We'll never get a rulebook as specific as AD&D because things are too scattered, updates are too inconsistent. What do you think? Any chance we will ever "agree" to one rules set? Kudos to you for doing the White Box. If people don't like it they can take a run at it themselves. I think the answer to your question Fin is probably not. The best you can get on this is a consensus that a lot of people will like something and a vocal minority of people won't. Funny how those are the one's you hear. Part of the criticism is based in a lack of understanding of what the SRD source is. On close inspection, you can only make it sort of like the old game. As you pointed out, "the game" was very vague in a lot of respects being based on two different sets of rules which didn't really mesh well. Vagueness was embraced and people made up the game from what they read. A lot of people don't get that at all. New games based on the SRD are new games. I've come around 360 degrees from my previous understanding and misunderstandings about the SRD and network externalities. So, thanks for doing the White Box! Greg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 12:53:31 GMT -6
... I say "% Liar for % Lair" which spawned some really weird misinterpretations, even in such worthies as Hargrave, ... I have always been of the opinion that Hargrave didn't misinterpret it, I think he understood it was a typo and thought it would be fun to go with % Liar. Since he passed away 23 years ago I don't suppose we will ever know what went through his head on that item.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 9, 2011 14:20:57 GMT -6
If we cannot agree on something this basic, we cannot really discuss it, only fight about it... This is certainly a significant observation, although my conclusion is slightly different than yours. I agree that there are some fundamental aspects of OD&D that we don't agree upon, and never will. On the other hand, I think we can still discuss our interpretations rationally without fighting. Each of us simply has to step away from the idea that there is "a correct" way to do it. If my way differs from your way, we can still exchange ideas as long as I don't feel I have to convert you to my way of thinking or vice versa. We've gone over many of these discussions/arguments on other threads. I love those threads becasue I get to see other viewpoints and sometimes I change my game to follow the new way of thinking. I hate those threads because folks get so passionate that they get angry with one another. Double-edged sword. Anyway, I hope that we are adult enough to disagree, which I believe was your point when you mentioned that you didn't want to start a fight over this stuff. And if we can't agree on the basics, that just reinforces the points I was making in the original post.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 9, 2011 14:23:30 GMT -6
... I say "% Liar for % Lair" which spawned some really weird misinterpretations, even in such worthies as Hargrave, ... I have always been of the opinion that Hargrave didn't misinterpret it, I think he understood it was a typo and thought it would be fun to go with % Liar. Since he passed away 23 years ago I don't suppose we will ever what went through his head on that item. This is my opinion as well. I saw the "% Liar" typo decades ago and never once thought it really had anything to do with spoken untruths. I always assumed that Hargrove had a sense of humor, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Sept 9, 2011 14:28:53 GMT -6
The funny thing is that 'true unadulterated OD&D' is a game that has been houseruled to hell and back. As said above the intent was a toolkit to base games off of. From there, the game goes the direction the group wishes. This is why in the early days you had Blackmoor, Greyhawk, the Wilderlands and other settings. They were created under the umbrella of D&D but were all variations of the game.
As far as a clone goes I like S&W well enough. It fixes some problems, codifies some confusing points and is then left for the group to move on with, just like OD&D. I don't really care if we get a true clone of the game. What we have is close enough to the original for the same type of creativity to emerge.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 9, 2011 14:42:52 GMT -6
What I don't understand is the argument within the 0ed-1ed crowd. The LBBs are just... well... full of mistakes and badly written. Heh, stepped on a few toes with that one eh? I reckon I've come to have a pretty fair handle on what's in the 3LBB's and I can't say I disagree with you. Let me put it this way. If I were teaching a class on game design I would not hold up any of the rulebooks by Mr. Gygax that I'm familiar with as models of clarity or expression. Seeing mistakes therein will depend on what you mean by the term, but there are things here and there in the 3LBBS that seem contradictory or at least, not complementary and those could be seen as mistakes in the broad sense (poison rules dffering, monster per HD per level dungeon stalking table not fitting the dungeon level = HD guide, confusion of "move" vs turn vs round, missing information, etc.) Really these are issues steming from the publication of a not well edited draft so I might prefer you to have said "editing oversights" rather than mistakes - but that's just quibbling. They were the fountainhead game, and I respect them as such. But why would anybody want something full of mistakes when a cleaned up and corrected copy is available? I've second guessed myself three times regarding what you mean by cleaned up and corrected copy, so I give up. What cleaned up and corrected copy?
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 9, 2011 18:06:55 GMT -6
What I don't understand is the argument within the 0ed-1ed crowd. The LBBs are just... well... full of mistakes and badly written. Heh, stepped on a few toes with that one eh? I guess so, but, considering how I was tripping over myself trying to be polite, and the ****storm started anyway, I can only conclude that I insulted a household god, and there is no way to do that and not be seen as starting a fight. So, I'm done with this one. Much love to everybody who posted, and if I'm seen as a heretic, remember that I love OD&D as much as anyone here, I just see it more clea... uh... differently.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Sept 9, 2011 19:25:19 GMT -6
Kudos to you for doing the White Box. If people don't like it they can take a run at it themselves. I think the answer to your question Fin is probably not. The best you can get on this is a consensus that a lot of people will like something and a vocal minority of people won't. Funny how those are the one's you hear. Part of the criticism is based in a lack of understanding of what the SRD source is. On close inspection, you can only make it sort of like the old game. As you pointed out, "the game" was very vague in a lot of respects being based on two different sets of rules which didn't really mesh well. Vagueness was embraced and people made up the game from what they read. A lot of people don't get that at all. New games based on the SRD are new games. I've come around 360 degrees from my previous understanding and misunderstandings about the SRD and network externalities. So, thanks for doing the White Box! Greg Could not have said it better myself. Exalt!
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Sept 10, 2011 11:55:36 GMT -6
This gets me thinking. Perhaps the perfect OD&D retroclone would be some kind of umbrella software package that would allow you to produce your own customized rulebook for your campaign. You could pick and choose the rules and options you wanted to include, as well as the artwork, and it would generate a printable rulebook that you could give out to your players. It would even allow you type in your own house rules that it would insert in the text where you wanted them. jrients.blogspot.com/2008/05/d-toolbox.htmlGreat minds ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2011 15:15:25 GMT -6
You are absolutely right, and it brings up an interesting point.
I can understand why some people want to play Oed, 1ed, ...4ed, as each gives a different take on the game. The older systems tended to be simpler, more political, less expensive, and incorporated a lot of areas the new rules missed, like war, hiring retainers, ruling a kingdom, the high seas, etc. The newer sets were more complicated, and focused more on character individualization, and the complexities of combat, as well as power-gaming.
I prefer the older stuff, but to each his own, and I can certainly see the arguments for 3.5 and 4e.I bolded the above quote for emphasis. I wll fully agree the newer sets were much more complicated, focused on making combat much more complex and time consuming and are a powergamers dream. I do not agree that they focus more on player character individualization, but I would agree that they tightly define and greatly limit the options that a player character has as compared to OD&D where there are minimal limits. I do not see the arguments for the newer editions, since as noted they don't offer anything that seems appealing in the least. What I don't understand is the argument within the 0ed-1ed crowd. The LBBs are just... well... full of mistakes and badly written. They were the fountainhead game, and I respect them as such. But why would anybody want something full of mistakes when a cleaned up and corrected copy is available? I don’t think there IS an argument within the “0ed-1ed crowd”. I think there are very few people here who would be unwilling to take a monster writeup from Moldvay or a magical item from the DMG. In order to understand the spirit of this board, assume that 99% of the people here (Finarvyn being the most obvious exception) have been playing Basic or Advanced D&D all along, and only really discovered OD&D and really delved deeper into it in the past 10 years. So, there’s very little LBB purism here, except as an experiment of sorts:
- what would it be like to play with just the 3 lbbs? - what alternate, non-Gygaxian directions can the game be taken? - what are the implications of reading the rules literally? - what styles of play emerge?
In our exploration of OD&D, many of us were struck by all the exciting things that exploded in all directions out of OD&D in the early days before AD&D codified things:
- Warriors of Mars - Empire of the Petal Throne - Metamorphosis Alpha - Wilderlands/City States - The First Fantasy Campaign - Arduin - Ryth - All things Holmes-related - Space Patrol
Such genius creativity! Such wild variety! Such clever use of great literature, juxtaposed with incredible originality!Gloriousbattle, I don't agree that the LBBs are full of mistakes and badly written and nothing against Holmes but I still prefer the LBBs. BitD we picked it up without anyone in the group having any wargaming experience, on the other hand we were all college students and we had all read at least half of the later published "Appendix N" inspirational reading by Gary Gygax. As an aside I will also note that the guy who was our original Referee had a photographic memory, and when we played he never once injected a rules lawyer moment into the game even though he could recite the entire LBBS, supplements etc verbatim if asked. Falconer, I also do not think there IS an argument within the “0ed-1ed crowd". I do consider myself a 3LBBs "purist" at least for my current campaign and I am perfectly willing to steal a monster or magic item from anywhere - not just what you mention - but from anywhere. I am not using any of the Supplements just the 3LBBs in my current campaign, since that is the way I played and reffed for the first year and a half BitD and then we added the Supplements to the game, but for this campaign I am going with just the 3LBBs, but monsters, magic items, spells etc from any source can be stolen and used in game. I believe that is as "purist" as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 10, 2011 20:13:33 GMT -6
Sounds like you’re having fun with the 3lbb-only campaign. I have done the same. I don’t think it amounts to anti-1e rhetoric to say so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 8:11:00 GMT -6
Sounds like you’re having fun with the 3lbb-only campaign. I have done the same. I don’t think it amounts to anti-1e rhetoric to say so. QFT Have an Exalt!
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 11, 2011 8:55:40 GMT -6
I do not see the arguments for the newer editions, since as noted they don't offer anything that seems appealing in the least. Well, as I said, I am not going to pontificate any further on the merits of 0ed on this thread, as, no matter how I couch any criticism, it is going to be seen as insulting. However, I must take issue with this statement. First, are you serious? Modern D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0) are the most popular rpgs in the history of the hobby, dwarfing our niche into near obscurity, and yet "they don't offer anything that seems appealing in the least"? Huh? Are all the kids and adults who play these games vapid zombies sucked in by Hasbro's commercialism? Are they all just plain wrong? Surely you must be able to see that someone else' aesthetic can differ from your own? Remember there was a time not so terribly long ago when you and I were considered the silly ones, playing with our new (certainly obsessive and possibly Satanic) roleplaying game, and our elders just shook their heads. Are we really going to do the same thing to the present younger gamers, just because their expectations don't match ours? The new gamers largely cut their teeth on WOW and similar stuff, so it is only natural that they would want a roleplaying system that mirrors that, to some extent. D&D influenced the online rpgs, and now they, in turn, influence D&D. Thus, they have a more tightly structured system in which the rules tend to be absolutes. So what? The rules in chess are absolutes, and it certainly does not lack for popularity. These games also focus much more on character design and combat than they do on the grand campaign. Again, that is a perfectly legitimate direction to take. Further, I know some excellent gamers who enjoy both. One of my 0ed players runs a 3.5 game (in which I am a player) based on Camelot, and it is enormous fun. It has every bit the imagination and wonder that I could possibly want, regardless of system. 0ed is my first love, and I imagine that I will always prefer it to other rpgs, of which I have played many, but to say that the modern stuff doesn't "offer anything that seems appealing in the least" is a little out there.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 11, 2011 11:45:48 GMT -6
Modern D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0) are the most popular rpgs in the history of the hobby That’s an outrageous claim. If these RPGs are so popular, where are the TV and print ads? how about a cartoon series? the monthly magazines? the presence in toy stores? TSR was a big business. Why is WotC pulling out of the RPG scene to focus on board/card/online games? Sorry, there’s no way any of the current crop are anywhere close to the ubiquity of the 80s sets.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 11, 2011 13:33:53 GMT -6
Modern D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0) are the most popular rpgs in the history of the hobby That’s an outrageous claim. Somewhat dated, but I think it makes the point. JULY 2007 Average UNIT SALES for retailers' best-selling ROLE-PLAYING GAMES All units are measured in PIECES sold; each boxed set, adventure, and sourcebook counts as one. Product Line: Manufacturer: raw#: up!/Dwn: wtd. turnout: 1 Dungeons & Dragons Wizards of the Coast 21.5 21.5 100% 2Star Wars d20 Wizards of the coast 3.4 4.0 37% 3World of Darkness White Wolf 2.6 3.1 35% 4 Warhammer Black industries 1.5 UP! 1.8 18% 5 GURPS Steve Jackson 1.5 1.7 27% 6 Shadowrun Fantasy Productions 1.5 1.5 7% 7Iron Kingdoms Privateer Press 1.1 1.3 16% 8 Exalted White Wolf 1.3 UP! 1.3 8% 9 Rifts Palladium 0.8 Dwn 1.0 17% 10 Aces & Eights Kenzer 0.7 UP! 0.9 19% 11Hero System 5th Ed. Hero 0.5 dwn 0.6 18% 12 BESM 3rd Ed White Wolf 0.5 dwn 0.5 9% 13Serenity MWP 0.5 dwn 0.5 10% 14 Castles & Crusades Troll Lord 0.4 0.4 10% 15 Dungeon Crawl Classics Goodman Games 0.4 0.4 8% 16 Spycraft Alderac 0.4 dwn 0.4 9% 17 d20 Modern Wizards of the coast 0.2 dwn 0.2 19% 18 GameMastery Paizo 0.2 dwn 0.2 9% 19 Pirates...Spanish Main Pinnacle 0.2 0.2 8% 20 Scion White Wolf 0.2 UP! 0.2 6% Unfortunately, the rpg makers have grown tight lipped about sales, but it is still the case that over 4,000,000 Americans play D&D, far more than in Gary's day. BTW, you will note that the only 0ed game to make the list is C&C, and it makes it barely. Doubtless it's numbers are up in 4 years, but I'd be surprised if they'd overtaken 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder just yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 14:32:14 GMT -6
In 2005, Paul Chapman, Marketing Director of Steve Jackson Games, noted that RPGs were roughly a $50M per year hobby.
In the early 80s, D&D ALONE was more than a $50 M hobby, never mind TSR's other games.
(Yes, I HAVE seen the numbers, but I am not allowed to divulge exact numbers )
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 11, 2011 14:48:23 GMT -6
In 2005, Paul Chapman, Marketing Director of Steve Jackson Games, noted that RPGs were roughly a $50M per year hobby. In the early 80s, D&D ALONE was more than a $50 M hobby, never mind TSR's other games. (Yes, I HAVE seen the numbers, but I am not allowed to divulge exact numbers ) If 4,000,000 Americans are playing D&D, and each spends thirteen bucks a year... But, more importantly: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1375742/Global-market-trading-virtual-goods-reaches-1-8bn-year--GDP-countries.htmlThe fact is that the rpg market has gone digital, and that is not something that tabletop stuff can compete with. Gotta compare apples to apples.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 11, 2011 19:39:33 GMT -6
I don't know or especially care what sales numbers are, except to say that it flies in the face of reason, all experiental evidence and the statements of virtually everybody in the industry I ever heard comment on the matter that tabletop RPG sales and popularity are no where near what they once were. The games certainly are not in the public conciousness as they once were. Be that as it may, whatever the truth of it, the reasons something is popular are multifaceted and not necessarily tied to relative quality. Take the qwerty keyboard for example. Alone, popularity is a non starter argument for proving value. Anyway, I do not see the arguments for the newer editions, since as noted they don't offer anything that seems appealing in the least. Well, as I said, I am not going to pontificate any further on the merits of 0ed on this thread, as, no matter how I couch any criticism, it is going to be seen as insulting. However, I must take issue with this statement. so Perilous is wrong to not find anything appealing in newer editions? Have you ever read Zacs sandwich dialog? Frankly, I don't find anything appealing in the newer editions of D&D either. I'm perfectly open to playing in any one of them, if the opportunity arose (heck, I'll play anything), and I get it that the Perilous Dreamer probably wouldn't want to, but I'd say that's his privledge, not a delusion he should be shaken out of.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 11, 2011 21:06:43 GMT -6
The fact is that the rpg market has gone digital, and that is not something that tabletop stuff can compete with. Gotta compare apples to apples. I thought we WERE talking about tabletop?
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 12, 2011 5:53:39 GMT -6
The fact is that the rpg market has gone digital, and that is not something that tabletop stuff can compete with. Gotta compare apples to apples. I thought we WERE talking about tabletop? WE were. YOU were talking about numbers.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 12, 2011 6:02:42 GMT -6
I don't know or especially care what sales numbers are, except to say that it flies in the face of reason, all experiental evidence and the statements of virtually everybody in the industry I ever heard comment on the matter that tabletop RPG sales and popularity are no where near what they once were. The games certainly are not in the public conciousness as they once were. Be that as it may, whatever the truth of it, the reasons something is popular are multifaceted and not necessarily tied to relative quality. Take the qwerty keyboard for example. Alone, popularity is a non starter argument for proving value. Anyway, Well, as I said, I am not going to pontificate any further on the merits of 0ed on this thread, as, no matter how I couch any criticism, it is going to be seen as insulting. However, I must take issue with this statement. so Perilous is wrong to not find anything appealing in newer editions? Have you ever read Zacs sandwich dialog? Frankly, I don't find anything appealing in the newer editions of D&D either. I'm perfectly open to playing in any one of them, if the opportunity arose (heck, I'll play anything), and I get it that the Perilous Dreamer probably wouldn't want to, but I'd say that's his privledge, not a delusion he should be shaken out of. "I do not see the arguments for the newer editions, since as noted they don't offer anything that seems appealing in the least." I'd hate to go on a museum tour with you guys. "So, whaddaya think of Michelangelo?" "He sucks." "Hmm. Most people think he was the world's greatest sculptor." "Who cares. He still sucks. Van Gogh's the only cool artist." "Why?" "He was in a Doctor Who episode, and killed this gnarly invisible monster." "Rhodin?" "Sucks." "Monet?" "Sucks." "Renoit?" "Sucks." "Okay... DaVinci?" "Sucks." "But he was in a Doctor Who episode too?" "Yeah, but he didn't kill an invisible monster." "Gotcha." etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 7:37:48 GMT -6
I do not see the arguments for the newer editions, since as noted they don't offer anything that seems appealing in the least. First, are you serious? Surely you must be able to see that someone else' aesthetic can differ from your own?You stated a list of things that the 3.0 and 3.5 games offer and your list of things previously posted are things that do not seem appealing in the least. Nowhere did I say that someone else would not like it, I said that it does not appeal to me and yes, I am serious about that statement. As I previously stated: I wll fully agree the newer sets were much more complicated, focused on making combat much more complex and time consuming and are a powergamers dream. I do not agree that they focus more on player character individualization, but I would agree that they tightly define and greatly limit the options that a player character has as compared to OD&D where there are minimal limits. As these are your arguments for the newer editions - more complicated, more complex combat, and a powergamers dream, I state again these things have zero appeal to me. Your claim that they focus more on player character individualization I reject as a completely false, as OD&D reigns supreme in this area as compared to the newer games. I nowhere stated anything about anyone else' aesthetic and of course they can differ from my own. That still doesn't mean that I can see how things that are anti-old school gaming are appealing. Why would a game being a powergamers dream seem appealing to any old school gamer? I hate, detest, despise and have zero respect for a powergamer aka munchkin and would kick one out of my game in a heart beat if he or she started causing me a problem by disrupting the game. I barely use the rules anyway, i.e. I usually only consult a few tables during the game itself, so why would the game have more complicated rules have any appeal to an old school gamer? As to the game have more complex (and time consuming) combat rules so that I 10 minute OD&D battle taking 1-2 hours in the newer versions, why would that have any appeal to an old school gamer? Thus, they have a more tightly structured system in which the rules tend to be absolutes. So what? The rules in chess are absolutes, and it certainly does not lack for popularity. These games also focus much more on character design and combat than they do on the grand campaign. Again, that is a perfectly legitimate direction to take.And where did I say the newer games are not popular? I do not recall ever saying that. If I wanted to play a game of absolutes, then likely I would play chess. However, chess doesn't appeal to me at all. Am I somehow wrong becuase chess doesn't appeal to me? Is there some requirement that all games should appeal to me? I completely reject that requirement, because all games do not appeal to me. I could care less, if they appeal to someone else, since I am not in charge of their likes and dislikes. Why do you think you are in charge of mine? Again I reject your claim that the newer games focus more on character design - they focus on character limitations, they offer nothing more in design. Further, I know some excellent gamers who enjoy both. [/size][/quote] As far as I know that is not a matter which is being disputed by anyone. I have 3E & 3.5E players in my current OD&D campaign. 0ed is my first love, and I imagine that I will always prefer it to other rpgs, of which I have played many, but to say that the modern stuff doesn't "offer anything that seems appealing in the least" is a little out there.Again the modern stuff does not offer anything that seems appealing in the least, I have no desire to play any of them at all. Again I have not told anyone not to play them or denigrated anyone that plays them, but somehow I am odd, strange, a little out there because they don't appeal to me? The only thing I denigrate are powergamers aka munchkins, rules lawyers and any other person who trys to disrupt a game and ruin it for everyone - you can play any game you want to - just don't be one of these fun-killers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 7:42:16 GMT -6
Modern D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0) are the most popular rpgs in the history of the hobby That’s an outrageous claim. If these RPGs are so popular, where are the TV and print ads? how about a cartoon series? the monthly magazines? the presence in toy stores? TSR was a big business. Why is WotC pulling out of the RPG scene to focus on board/card/online games? Sorry, there’s no way any of the current crop are anywhere close to the ubiquity of the 80s sets. You are correct, that is an outrageous claim. D&D/AD&D in the early 80's were way more popular and had way more players than Modern D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 7:59:40 GMT -6
Cheating [powergamers cheating who could have guessed] to gain an edge on their competetion and becoming suckers in the process P.T. Barnum would be so proud: Computer gamers are paying £1.8billion per year of real money on virtual items to give them a boost over their gaming rivals.
A report has revealed that the market for virtual gold, weapons and gadgets is now so large it has surpassed the GDP of some small nations.
An army of 100,000 workers in China and Vietnam are working around the clock to build up stockpiles of online supplies to then sell to wealthy Western gamers.
They would rather pay up to £5,000 of their real money for the virtual goods than put in the time and hunt down the supplies themselves.
The arrangement has been especially popular on role playing games such as World of Warcraft and Lineage in which gamers have traditionally spent days or weeks building up their characters and equipping them with the best gear so that they have an edge over other players.
About a quarter of all players on such popular multi-player online games now spend real money to shortcut the process, the report from the World Bank said.
It found that the market for supplying such goods was mature and that the largest of eight Chinese suppliers of virtual gold have an annual turnover of £6.1million each.
An additional 50 to 60 firms are raking in around £600,000 every year.
The total for virtual sales around the globe is £1.8billion - by comparison the GDP for Aruba is £1.3billion while that of Greenland is £1.2billion.
|
|
|
Post by baronopal on Sept 12, 2011 12:02:50 GMT -6
Modern D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0) are the most popular rpgs in the history of the hobby That’s an outrageous claim. ...TSR was a big business. Why is WotC pulling out of the RPG scene to focus on board/card/online games? Sorry, there’s no way any of the current crop are anywhere close to the ubiquity of the 80s sets. I think what you two are looking at is more the change of tastes among hobbyists than the particular merits of the games themselves. The greater the number of rules and the greater deviation from the most basic rule set, the more personal taste comes into play. And, RPGs have been around for 30+ years. It's not novel anymore, like it was in the 80's.
|
|