No. Players are players, good and bad. I've played D&D for over 30 years and while I've seen individually good / bad players I haven't noticed any decline. I can see differences in how people play with more experience vs. how new people play, but a couple of years of seasoning pretty much evens it out. My current players range in age from their mid 20s to the mid 50s. They've played D&D from between 5 and 30 years. They're a good batch, one and all. I can't say that about all the players I've had, but the current crew is a fun bunch to run a game for.
Naw... ya just need to learn to break them in properly.
New player: So how does this work?
Me: Well have you played any video game RPG's or MMOs?
New player: Absolutely!
Me: Ok it's nothing like that.
New player: ...
Me: Where is your offering of cheetoes and beer to the gaming gods? You were informed of this ahead of time right?
New player: Uhh...
Me: Now you must be punished for insulting the gods. Disrobe and assume the position.
New player: The position?!!?
Me: Don't try to run... we have the exits covered.
I do think that the edition played has a bit of an effect on how people play, and particularly the edition people started with. Rules and mechanics do have a profound influence on how you play. A couple of random examples:
- 3E vs. 2E, the former treats PCs having and continually getting more and better magical items much more as a given. 3E players feel (and really are, since they need them in basic 3E) entitled to their shinies. In 2E, magical items are considered rare and much more special.
- 2E vs. 3E, the former has a huge emphasis on class roles (long before 4E put it in the mechanics) with certain key abilities being tied to specific classes (only thieves and rangers having rules for sneaking being the most obvious example). In 3E classes still have their areas of expertise, but the lines are more blurred.
I could go on (resurrection possibility and death rates, more vs less elaborate rules for social encounters, etc.) but I think the point should be clear.
That said, there is no absolute reason why one edition should always get you "better" (by whatever standards you choose to measure this by) players, since IMO every edition has aspects a savvy DM can use to steer the 'feel' of his games. 3E's mechanics for social skills for instance can be used to gloss over social encounters and dispense of them with a couple of rolls if that's what you want, or conversely you can use them to put a real focus on making such encounters important. If they want to, DMs can use the rules of any edition to their advantage in setting tone.
To be brutally honest, many other RPG systems encourage the type of roleplaying the OP talks about but not necessarily D&D (of any edition). CoC offered some of the finest roleplaying campaigns and scenarios I've ever seen and Ars Magica is simply an elegant and beautiful roleplaying system. I once went through an entire session of Ars - full on roleplaying - without once rolling a dice! Can anyone say that about D&D? No-one can. Because rolling dice and fighting creatures is the entire point of the game.
Don't get me wrong; I love D&D. And I think 3.5 is the best edition of the game hands down (with respect to the OP). The vast majority of the people I roleplay with currently I began roleplaying with when 1e ruled the roost. And quite frankly the opportunity to roleplay as opposed to rollplay comes down to the motivations of the player. The people who simply think D&D is fantasy combat to accumulate bling have been the same through all editions of the game. And the people who want to play with a balance of roleplay and rollplay? Yep; the same through all of the editions.
All power to the OP! You've got a great group. I'm more of a roleplayer so I like what you've written about them. But I don't think the players who have only known 3e or 3.5e are any better or worse than older players.
We have been playing since 1987 (1st edition) and I have not noticed a decline of quality among players. I have 2 groups of players and the one is more combat-oriented and the other more roleplay-oriented. This has always been the case, and it is independent of the edition we are playing.
I have two new players since last year and they blend right in. They have taken to the game quite fast and are as enthusiastic and as clever as the rest. Well, perhaps they are a bit more careful, that is all. One player is 15 years old and new to the game. He is the youngest of my group. He even spots things sometimes that the older players overlook. So I do not think there is a decline in quality.
O, and we do have sessions when not a single die is rolled. So this happens with D&D as well. And these are not the worst sessions either. Often they are great fun, since they mostly involve unexpected PC actions.
We still play 2E. Though it's a bastardized version of 2E. (2E Heavily modified with house rules running 3.5 monsters, modules, and Paizo stuff.) ANd I have to say, over the years I've played with some great roleplayers (My wife and my Brother-in-law are the two best), but also In that time, I've played with some people who have a hard time "getting it". Usually when I get someone who doesn't understand Roleplaying, As a Dm, I'll pull them in and force them to roleplay. One of my pet peeves of 3.5 is Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate. I think these checks are often used in place of Roleplaying. With a player who's having problems getting into the game, I will usually set them into a situation that forces them to interact with an NPC without the rest of the group. They must speak to the NPC in the first person if they want the NPC to respond to them.
I've always loved good roleplaying. I tend to be more Lenient with players who are willing to emerse themselves in their characters, giving them a looser structure to develope personality. I think that as a DM you can set up a structure where RP is the only option, but then you are risking angering players who just want to hack and slash.
We have been playing since 1987 (1st edition) and I have not noticed a decline of quality among players.
I think that this has to do with an over all decline in the value of imagination in out society. Our society is on visual overload, where every cell phone has internet, and MP3 player and streaming video. Children today aren't allowed to be borded long enough to exercise their imaginations. It's really sad.
I once went through an entire session of Ars - full on roleplaying - without once rolling a dice! Can anyone say that about D&D? No-one can.
I can. Sorry. Some of the best sessions of D&D I've ever run were 8 hour sessions with no fights and no dice rolled.
Then again, I play mostly with folks who cut their teeth on AD&D. I have seen some of the problems the OP talks about with new players who started on 3e though.There's definitely a sense of entitlement with some players who've only played 3e. But that behavior can be trained out of them in my experience. You just need to run a good game, stick to your guns, but don't be richard about it.
Players can be shown that you don't need to have every magic item at their fingertips and have access to every splatbook ever written to have a good time playing D&D. And if they can't have a good time without all that stuff, you might be better off playing without them anyway.
|
I once went through an entire session of Ars - full on roleplaying - without once rolling a dice! Can anyone say that about D&D? No-one can.I can. Sorry. Some of the best sessions of D&D I've ever run were 8 hour sessions with no fights and no dice rolled.
Just finished a 4 hour session last night, the only dice we rolled were knowledge checks to learn about the villains. We had a quick combat at the very end (as a result of roleplaying), but this is not an uncommon occurence for my games. I find my groups (even when not DM) spend more time on non-combat activity than the other way around (contrary to what Wizards is telling us).
Have to say I completely disagree with the OP.
One of my players was raised on 2nd Edition, but was always a munchkin, and even moreso with the freedom of 3rd edition. He likes to roleplay, but usually limited to a certain type of character. And he loves to munchkin.
One DM, who I do not play with anymore, was convinced that anyone raised playing 3rd Edition was a tweak that did not care about roleplaying, and only wanted the newest, coolest options for their characters. We in the teaching profession call this "Pygmalion theory" - a self-fulfilling prophecy, in this case, he expected 3rd Edition players to suck, and so looked for things for them to suck at and jumped on them.
Roleplaying is roleplaying. The DM runs the game. Anyone who has a problem with players not roleplaying should take a long serious look at their own style of DMing - do you make it fun or worthwhile (not in a monetary sense) for people to roleplay?
@ Luna eladrin and hazel monday: you make me glad I'm wrong!!
@ Jal Dorak: couldn't agree with you more. In a former life I was a teacher and one of the best times I've had in recent years was running several parties of very keen and adept 14-15 yr olds.
At one point, I was worried about this, too. I even started a thread yesterday about books v. computer games. I have run into more difficulty prying the role-playing element out of my players than knowledge of how combat works. I have found, however, that there's still role-playing out there ... you just have to do more work to find it in most of your younger compatriots. With patience, most players can be shown that depth of character and story is always more fun than crunching numbers.
....it just takes patience and good planning.
|
|
@ Luna eladrin and hazel monday: you make me glad I'm wrong!!
@ Jal Dorak: couldn't agree with you more. In a former life I was a teacher and one of the best times I've had in recent years was running several parties of very keen and adept 14-15 yr olds.
I ran a 4th Edition game at D&D Gameday, and I was beaming the whole time as a group of three 12 year olds was doing very creative things with their characters.
I think if we all watched our younger selves playing D&D, we would be surprised at how weak our "roleplaying" was!
I should also probably mention that some of the younger generations have had their individuality hammered out of them one way or another ... but roleplaying gives them a way to find that sense of self.
One of my most recent additions to my game (maybe 9 months ago) is a really nice guy named Andy. According to a colleague who was his professor, he feels overshadowed by an older brother. My experience with him has taught me that he has no need whatsoever to feel overshadowed. From day one of his time in my game, he has been in character. This guy is all dwarf ... he's got the voice, the attitude, and even the stature. He came in with a backstory that he has fully embraced, to the point of asking everyone the party meets if they've seen the "beardless dwarf who massacred his village." This guy has changed my mind about whether 3.5 raised gamers are less character/RP capable.
Of course, despite the fact that his character is a kick-butt fighter type (probably the most powerful in the group), the dice hate him ... hate, hate, hate. This guy's dice luck is statistically impossible. The dice gods hate him so much that we have renamed rolling a Nat 1 "rolling an Andy". He never lets it get him down; he just presses on and feels wonderful when he manages to succeed despite the crappy rolls.
One thing I will say: 3.5 edition gives many more opportunities to roll dice than 1st edition (which had basically no skill system for non-thieves, for instance). So if you consider rolling dice to be the antithesis of role-playing, then you will probably like 3.5 edition less.
We have been playing since 1987 (1st edition) and I have not noticed a decline of quality among players.I think that this has to do with an over all decline in the value of imagination in out society. Our society is on visual overload, where every cell phone has internet, and MP3 player and streaming video. Children today aren't allowed to be borded long enough to exercise their imaginations. It's really sad.
Sadly Blackdragon is quite right. I would add though that newer players in general also have the savy of too many movies. They often question and fight the logic of a fantasy world. They don't like the idea of the hero dieing (i.e. they're character) or the bad guy getting away with it. I often feel like the gradpa in "The Princes Bride" when he says "Prince Humperdink lives who ever said life if fair?".
However this is for newer younger players, if they mature and learn things change. Moreover I never put this on 3rd edition players particularly. In fact I've always had more issues with DM's then with players. I never call myself a Dungeon Master, Game Master okay, but Dungeon Master has always struck me as D&D is the best and only game that exist (whichever edition) and any other rules or rule sugestion is worng.
I played with good 3e groups and players. I played with bad 3e groups and players. I played with good 2e groups and players. I played with bad 2e groups and players.
Hate the players, not the game.