True, but very little of the Planescape stuff was a significant divergence from Greyhawk cosmology in the first place. It was all based on the same Great Wheel, after all. Planescape primarily adds detail and texture, maybe puts an addition on the house. It's not an Extreme Makeover Home Edition.
I think it was a pretty significant departure. Prior to 3rd, if you played in Greyhawk, you had a pretty gritty game based around a world that felt very 11th century or earlier (except with lots of magic and the obligatory evil overlord to the north).
What I mean by this is if an adventure featured Tieflings then they where creatures that the DM controlled and if they existed in a town then it was probably in some secret lair in the sewers or some such. If your party was engaged in the totally cliche activity of forming a party in a bar you might find some Elven Rangers or Mages and doughty Dwarven Fighters as well as a plethora of different humans but the bar would not be filled with Aasimar, Teiflings and ex-pat Lizard Folk. These types of creatures simply were not commonly around inside human or elvish settlements. They were monsters and not NPCs or PCs.
With 3rd the number of options, many of which were clearly inspired by the supplemental material, were now on the table as options for the players to use. The worlds themselves transformed to accommodate the plethora of new material available and it was no longer a nearly inconceivable event to see an Aasimar Paladin wandering down the main street of Greyhawk City.
In an older edition, say 1st, if my players saw an Angelic Paladin walking down the main street of any city or town in my campaign world they'd know right off the bat that this was the adventure hook and they'd probably have killed a Teifling on the spot - well they'd probably use detect evil first to make sure that the DM was not about to smack them upside the head with an alignment infraction - but an evil Teifling standing in the middle of the street would have been killed. Under the paradigm of 3rd (and 4E) one could just as easily assume that this was basically background fluff. Can't kill the evil Teifling any more then you can kill the evil human Smith - they are both more or less average citizens of the city.
The worlds are just not as human centric as they once were. The stories are no longer generally about the after effects of human follies or human migrations with a dash of elf and dwarf in them but usually events that are much more cosmic in scale. The fact that the Fruzti presumably still raid south every year probably still holds but its almost an anachronism at this point to have human viking societies around without reference to the plethora of half-dragons
Now I can somewhat see the idea that its easier to convert from 2nd to 3rd in the sense that one can draw a line to where the Aasimar fit into the world based on the Great Wheel Cosmology. However I personally had more difficulty adapting my homebrew to the style implicit in 3rd then I did in transiting to the style implicit in 4th because the real stretch in terms of world adaption had taken place during the 2nd to 3rd transition. Thats where the underlying fundamentals of the game seemed to shift.
Despite all the mechanical changes in place in 4E the fundamentals are in many ways very similar to what was already on the table in the later stages of 3.5. The world itself does not look or act dramatically differently between the two editions while 3rd does act significantly differently then what had come before.
Ethnicity, of humans, of elves and of Dwarves, is a heck of a lot less relevant in a world where the prodigy of angels and devils are commonplace. This was simply not the case if one picked up Dragonlance in the 1st edition era. That was a world dominated by the interactions of human or Tolkienesque races. One might manage to incorporate a Lizard Folk into the War of the Lance but a whole party of misfits? That'd be a stretch and it'd miss out on the tensions between the various core races that were a fundamental part of the setting.
|
Any fresh blood I get has to be "untainted" by the modern expectations gamers seem to have, and that is a rare thing these day.
Eh, nevermind. Just bring me my Geritol and get offa my lawn!
I think that this is the first time I have ever been referred to as "untainted"... I guess I will just have to work harder.
I have to agree with derek though - in games I played and GM'd the threat of instant death did provide excitement and thrill - not to mention the occasional chance to run through multiple characters. For longer, campaign length games I feel that it is the responsibility of the GM to provide opportunities for character survival at 1st level - with the recognition that the player has every right not to take advantage of such "opportunities" and have their character die.
I knew there was a reason we played together :)
|
|
True, but very little of the Planescape stuff was a significant divergence from Greyhawk cosmology in the first place. It was all based on the same Great Wheel, after all. Planescape primarily adds detail and texture, maybe puts an addition on the house. It's not an Extreme Makeover Home Edition.Maybe not as extreme a departure as 4E is but I think it was a pretty significant departure. Prior to 3rd, if you played in Greyhawk, you had a pretty gritty game based around a world that felt very 11th century or earlier (except with lots of magic and the obligatory evil overlord to the north).
What I mean by this is if an adventure featured Tieflings then they where creatures that the DM controlled and if they existed in a town then it was probably in some secret lair in the sewers or some such. If your party was engaged in the totally cliche activity of forming a party in a bar you might find some Elven Rangers or Mages and doughty Dwarven Fighters as well as a plethora of different humans but the bar would not be filled with Aasimar, Teiflings and ex-pat Lizard Folk. These types of creatures simply were not commonly around inside human or elvish settlements. They were monsters and not NPCs or PCs.
With 3rd the number of options, many of which were clearly inspired by the supplemental material, were now on the table as options for the players to use. The worlds themselves transformed to accommodate the plethora of new material available and it was no longer a nearly inconceivable event to see an Aasimar Paladin wandering down the main street of Greyhawk City.
In an older edition, say 1st, if my players saw an Angelic Paladin walking down the main street of any city or town in my campaign world they'd know right off the bat that this was the adventure hook and they'd probably have killed a Teifling on the spot - well they'd probably use detect evil first to make sure that the DM was not about to smack them upside the head with an alignment infraction - but an...
Because, you know, the purpose of roleplaying a fantasy game is to emulate the PC modern world, but with pointy ears and tails...
:)
Because, you know, the purpose of roleplaying a fantasy game is to emulate the PC modern world, but with pointy ears and tails...
The purpose of role playing is for the DM to trick you into breaking your alignment and then to jump up from the table in excitement and exclaim...
"You broke your alignment! You lose all your spells forever...[pause]...and your God appears out of a cloud of greasy black smoke and turns you into a toad."
|
|
Because, you know, the purpose of roleplaying a fantasy game is to emulate the PC modern world, but with pointy ears and tails...
The purpose of role playing is for the DM to trick you into breaking your alignment and then to jump up from the table in excitement and exclaim...
"You broke your alignment! You lose all your spells forever...[pause]...and your God appears out of a cloud of greasy black smoke and turns you into a toad."
Wow, you must have played with some real tools.
Sorry about your luck...
wow Jeremy you played with some real asses it seems man. Sorry for that
|
The purpose of role playing is for the DM to trick you into breaking your alignment and then to jump up from the table in excitement and exclaim..."You broke your alignment! You lose all your spells forever...[pause]...and your God appears out of a cloud of greasy black smoke and turns you into a toad."
Right. When you're done with the bullshit humor and done being an ass, we can have a conversation.
I think it was a pretty significant departure. Prior to 3rd, if you played in Greyhawk, you had a pretty gritty game based around a world that felt very 11th century or earlier (except with lots of magic and the obligatory evil overlord to the north).
What I mean by this is if an adventure featured Tieflings then they where creatures that the DM controlled and if they existed in a town then it was probably in some secret lair in the sewers or some such. If your party was engaged in the totally cliche activity of forming a party in a bar you might find some Elven Rangers or Mages and doughty Dwarven Fighters as well as a plethora of different humans but the bar would not be filled with Aasimar, Teiflings and ex-pat Lizard Folk. These types of creatures simply were not commonly around inside human or elvish settlements. They were monsters and not NPCs or PCs.With 3rd the number of options, many of which were clearly inspired by the supplemental material, were now on the table as options for the players to use. The worlds themselves transformed to accommodate the plethora of new material available and it was no longer a nearly inconceivable event to see an Aasimar Paladin wandering down the main street of Greyhawk City.
The addition of things like aasimar paladins was always optional, like running characters who weren't from the core races since back in 1e. I'm just not seeing the addition of options, some of which fit and some of which didn't into any particular published campaign, as being a problem or even a major departure.
The worlds are just not as human centric as they once were. The stories are no longer generally about the after effects of human follies or human migrations with a dash of elf and dwarf in them but usually events that are much more cosmic in scale. The fact that the Fruzti presumably still raid south every year probably still holds but its almost an anachronism at this point to have human viking societies around without reference to the plethora of half-dragons
Except that they're as human-centric as they've always been, as long as that's the game the DM is running. Again, it's all at the option of the DM and players what elements they will include in a game. 3E Greyhawk runs like 1e Greyhawk - particularly if you run it in a sort of "classic" Greyhawk mode, holding fairly strongly to the source material.
But departures from published materials has always been a hallmark of Greyhawk gaming in particular and homebrew worlds in general. As DMs, we were always expected to put our own imprint on the game. For some, that means some different options, for others, it meant cleaving to the canon.Honestly, when did options become such a problem? When DMs stopped putting a collective foot down about what is and what is not appropriate for the tone and contents of their campaigns?
Honestly, when did options become such a problem? When DMs stopped putting a collective foot down about what is and what is not appropriate for the tone and contents of their campaigns?
Ya know this is an issue with most game. Mainly new GM not knowing how to say "no". In most games with splat books many GM's feel its not fair to the players to not allow them to use books they payed for. I myself was told I was being an ass for not allowing most splat books. Said I was being unfair to my players..heh. This is an issue, it's not a 3e/4e issue but a gaming issue as a whole. I mean some of use can say no all day long, others worries and give in at the mere thought of not allowing players everything they want. A GM's job is to make sure the game runs smooth and that involves saying no at times. the issue is with 1 or so books a month coming out, it makes most new GM's feel like they can't say no. And an issue with later 3.5 books and 4e books is it makes the player feel he has the right to use anything he has.
How do you teach a new GM or even an old GM how to say no? If I started playing now instead of when I did would I know how? would you? How different would your gaming style be if you started now. I would hope mine would be the same but really I don't know.
|
|
Honestly, when did options become such a problem? When DMs stopped putting a collective foot down about what is and what is not appropriate for the tone and contents of their campaigns?
Define "options"?
Are dragonborn an "option" if they're in the core rules? This isn't the good old days when DMs always had the final say in what was and wasn't kosher. If they add elements that never existed in the previous material, it changes the flavor of that material. Where are tieflings from in Greyhawk? Dragonborn? Eladrin? How do I tell a player he cannot play three of the seven core races because they don't fit my 30 year understanding of Greyhawk?
"Options" have never been a problem. Changing basic assumptions about a setting by adding elements that have never been "standard" before can be a problem, if the GM is one to stick with canon.
The basic assumption of the new edition is to "start over". It is understandable, and the designers even recommend it, as they know there are inconsistencies that may be difficult to explain for someone trying to convert an old campaign to the new rules. But. To characterize these new elements as "options" when the point is to allow the players to be what they want to be flies in the face of logic.
DMs had their "foot putting down" powers short circuited when the WotC and 3pp splats took PrCs, which are "options" according to the 3x DMG, and put them in books marketed towards players. All of the sudden, instead of PrCs being "options" allowed at the sufferance of DMs, they were now "options" that the DM was a richard for not allowing.
Define "options"?
Are dragonborn an "option" if they're in the core rules? This isn't the good old days when DMs always had the final say in what was and wasn't kosher. If they add elements that never existed in the previous material, it changes the flavor of that material. Where are tieflings from in Greyhawk? Dragonborn? Eladrin? How do I tell a player he cannot play three of the seven core races because they don't fit my 30 year understanding of Greyhawk?
"Options" have never been a problem. Changing basic assumptions about a setting by adding elements that have never been "standard" before can be a problem, if the GM is one to stick with canon.
The basic assumption of the new edition is to "start over". It is understandable, and the designers even recommend it, as they know there are inconsistencies that may be difficult to explain for someone trying to convert an old campaign to the new rules. But. To characterize these new elements as "options" when the point is to allow the players to be what they want to be flies in the face of logic.
DMs had their "foot putting down" powers short circuited when the WotC and 3pp splats took PrCs, which are "options" according to the 3x DMG, and put them in books marketed towards players. All of the sudden, instead of PrCs being "options" allowed at the sufferance of DMs, they were now "options" that the DM was a richard for not allowing.
It seems like you nave two complaints going on here.
1) If a an old-school DM uses a setting like Greyhawk, and if said DM sticks to canon material, and if that DM also would like to use a post-2E version of D&D, and also wants to start a campaign with new players, then that DM is screwed because the new players will naturally assume that core material of the post-2E version, especially races and classes, will be allowable in the campaign.
I agree. In fact, I would guess that even if you were to DM such a campaign with a group that’s been together for 30 years, they probably wouldn’t want to change systems at this point anyway. I’m positive that there are groups out there who value continuity more than some system tweaks that may or may not, in their opinion, improve game play. I wish I had that problem. I haven't consistently played with the same group of players in a decade.
2) DMs used to have a pretty tight rein on what was introduced into their campaign and they were the major conduit through which new material, even core magic items, was presented to the players. Now it’s gotten to the point where magic items are in the PHB and players get to pick which ones they start with.
I think the whole concept of iron-fisted DM control over story, setting, and material went out the window when players started needing a MM to cast their spells and magic item creation rules were developed.
Either way, it seems like the Gygaxian style of gaming is becoming antiquated. Whether that’s good or bad is obviously a matter of personal taste.
|
|
Because, you know, the purpose of roleplaying a fantasy game is to emulate the PC modern world, but with pointy ears and tails...
The purpose of role playing is for the DM to trick you into breaking your alignment and then to jump up from the table in excitement and exclaim...
"You broke your alignment! You lose all your spells forever...[pause]...and your God appears out of a cloud of greasy black smoke and turns you into a toad."
Wow, you must have played with some real tools.
Sorry about your luck...
I remember playing in a Forgotten Realms campaign and having to clear a bunch of orcs from a temple of Mystra. After rescuing one of the priestesses, she described how the orcs had violated it. Being a jerk at the time, and slightly drunk, I asked "did you enjoy it?" Suddenly Mystra's avatar appeared out of nowhere and pimp slapped my character across the room. Jeremy isn't the only one who had wicked tools for DMs.
|
|
Honestly, when did options become such a problem? When DMs stopped putting a collective foot down about what is and what is not appropriate for the tone and contents of their campaigns?DMs had their "foot putting down" powers short circuited when the WotC and 3pp splats took PrCs, which are "options" according to the 3x DMG, and put them in books marketed towards players. All of the sudden, instead of PrCs being "options" allowed at the sufferance of DMs, they were now "options" that the DM was a richard for not allowing.I suppose people who loved D&D in the One True Way that it's meant to be would never have published books like that.
Well, 2e is "middle school", not "old school". And, yeah, quite a few of us saw those books as the last nails in the coffin...
And frankly, those books were "fluff" heavy. Basically, someone else doing the imagining for you. I mean, do you really need a book to tell you you're a pirate?
(See my comment about those books in the "Beyond the Core Rulebook" thread)
|
|
"Proto-cheese? We didn't have proto-cheese when I played Traveller. And all out characters died during character creation. Kids these days, with their proto-cheese planet busters and characters who aren't undead. They don't know they're born these days."And I won't talk about the 1e Cavalier if you don't.What, sonny? Speak up! I thought you said "proto-cheese"...
Come on Traveller characters weren't doomed to die upon creation only - there was also the characters who had Knitting 6 and no combat skills. Failing that, actually get shot also killed you once you started playing...
Man I loved Traveller, bring back instant kills I say. New roleplayers are just soft.
On a more serious note, I think the looming specter of instant death gave DM's a tool to have characters think that every encounter might not be something you want to try to solve with "combat". An example being say Strombringer RPG (Chaosium system) vs well any D&D at middle+ level. I have 4 guys with crossbows pointing at you. In D&D - the players leap at the enemy knowing full well they can take a few bolts no problem. Verses Stormbringer - the players drop their weapons and surrender.
I guess it comes down to being "heroic" vs doing "heroic things"?
S.
Honestly, when did options become such a problem? When DMs stopped putting a collective foot down about what is and what is not appropriate for the tone and contents of their campaigns?
A big part of this is due to the fact that you really have to put your foot down over a huge amount of material that the players would like to have access too in order to maintain a human centric dark age feeling campaign or to effectively recreate the political tensions and infighting of the original Dragonlance material. This is an activity not designed to endear you to your players and all those options are on the table to help the players make the kind of characters they want to play - as a DM standing in the way of that is probably best held to exceptions and not the rule. In essence the problem is that disallowing a lot of options puts you actually in conflict with your players desire and reduces the appeal of ones own game in their eyes. If one wants to change the alignment of Unicorns or make Succubus Demons then thats the kind of activity that ones players are not likely to really care about but telling them that they must be a Tolkenesque race and class is stepping on their toes.
The other issue is that the published material no longer supports the kinds of games it did in the classical editions. So, if a DM wants to keep running such games they need to make all the material themselves. The modern editions of the game don't support this style of gaming.
Now I'll get by more or less just fine - I've already gone with the big changes when I shifted to 3.5 from 2nd. The changes needed to further adapt this to 4E are comparatively cosmetic and, more importantly, they almost all revolve around aspects of the game that I, as a DM, have full control over and I won't be stepping on my players toes in any significant degree when I rework all the Gods and reorder the Planes to suite my needs. Certainly I have a fair bit of work ahead of me but that was true during the last edition switch as well and, at least, I won't have to change the fundamentals to deal with what my players choice of characters. I know it will probably be a pretty outlandish mix but this was the case in 3.5 so there is nothing new to deal with there.
|
|
Honestly, when did options become such a problem? When DMs stopped putting a collective foot down about what is and what is not appropriate for the tone and contents of their campaigns?
I agree. We have always had a "vote" system in our groups. If a new supplement came out then the group would vote on its inclusion. However the players understood that the DM could veto the vote. The reason is the DM has keep control over the game, if tens/hundreds of rules he has never seen come out of left field it can derail the game into "rule reading" sessions. Strangely enough it wasn't only the DM asking "what the hell" but also players who though that the "new" class/feature (whatever) that someone else had just made their character completely pointless.
Specific to 4E we only allow PHB/PHB2 & Powers books for PC's nothing else. Previous editions we were only allowing PHB, so 4E is a huge leap for us by the inclusion of powers books. But beastmasters just were so cool... ;)
S.
PS: I am the DM.
What I meant is I'd much prefer it if these 3-4 comparison threads had more proposals by posters they think would make (insert game of your choice) better, especially as to how to give game X some of the good stuff they like from game Y, such as the earlier posts as to how to emulate some 3E characters in 4E.
I have been a DM since 1990, having followed all iterations of D&D up to 3.5. 4e caused me pause but I eventually tried DMing a mini-campaign. I have to say I did like some of the changes, but I can't see myself playing it again due to some critical changes. In the spirit of JRM's comment,I list my personal thumbs up/down for the system (in comparison to 3e) and what could me made to improve it, in my opinion of course.
The good:
1. Improved survivability/options for low-level characters;
2. Better skill system;
3. Faster adventure prep;
4. Harder to min/max your character towards an uber-munchkin build.
Taking Reflex, Fortitude and Will as target numbers is an interesting concept, though I'm not sure if it is really an advantage
What is worse:
1. The bland descriptive prose, including races, classes, monsters and abilities. It stinks;
2. The dissociated mechanics. It is true D&D always had this in some level, but it has become the major issue to me and to my players;
3. Combat rounds go a bit faster, but combat seems endless because of the amount of restoration players have available;
4. The absence of a magic system. This an aesthetic personal view, but I think different mechanics for magic make it feel different from other more mundane pursuits.
5. Keeping track of the many conditions in both PCs and monsters was problematic. Maybe it was a lack of experience with the system, but we felt it was a bit overwheming.
What I think could make it better
1. Writing better and more interesting descriptions. This also might help (in some cases) with the issue of dissociated mechanics.
2. Tone down or restrict somewhat the use of healing surges during combat. Diminish monsters hit points a bit.
3. Reduce the reliance on temporary bonuses and conditions to differentiate abilities.
I don't think the problems with dissociated mechanics and the magic system could be completely solved without major changes to the system, which would, of course, defeat the purpose. However if design of abilities was flavor --> mechanics instead of the other way around, it might lead to a better experience.
|
"Someone has carjacked TSR's Minivan, Painted WOTC on the hood, chopped it down into a lowrider, swapped it to rear end drive, and painted 4E on the the licence plate."
If they had maintianed the Core game systems it would be a lot more popular, but rehashing the old Adventures and churning out poorly considered new adventures is all well and fine but it is precisely what has hurt the game.
H1-Keep on the Shadowfell: At the precise moment you are investigating the ruins, you happen to stumble past tides of undead to discover the regional Evil high priest of orcus trying to open the Portal...
More likely had a villain set up camp, he would do so above surface and venture in with an elite retinue. That would have left a small army of minions hold up on the surface. If he had decided "pull the men in and hide in the upper level so you are not discovered by travellers along the road" it should have been there to some extentas a residue - There should have been a lot of evidence of traffic on the site, and going down the stairs into the dungeon which should have been noticed even by the most unobservant character.
Face it, we're in a dying hobby. Books don't have flashy bells and whistles, and, when you see threads like this, you start to think that kids today don't have what it takes to fully embrace the hobby. No amount of pampering first level characters in the rules is going to change the fact that our society is less literate, less patient, and less willing to have to learn something to play a game than they were 30 years ago.
Oh, that's nice, the "kids today are too stupid to play TTRPGs" line. I'm sure when you were a kid all of your peers were geniuses and would have had the willpower to resist the evil temptations of the XBox had it been around then.
There probably is some truth in what you're saying, but whenever someone espouses this argument it just seems so insulting.
3. Combat rounds go a bit faster, but combat seems endless because of the amount of restoration players have available;
Seriously? (I've read too many of Courtfools posts - I'm starting to use his prose).
My experience as a player has been that one of the most significant differences between 3.5 and 4E is a major lack of restoration, especially in combat but outside of combat as well. Once in combat you mainly only have your second wind. If you have leaders around they can do stuff that allow you to access your healing surges but this kind of healing is very limited. Generally along the lines of some characters getting a boost beyond the second wind but there is not enough for everyone. Hence against something really tough like a Dragon you can very easily get to a point where every last drop of healing has been accessed and if you go down now you stay down because the Cleric has nothing left to help you with. My character is an amazing healing Cleric in my party (multi-class into warlord for the bonus healing, I wear +1 Exalted chainmail magic armour that helps with my healing and I've chosen powers that often say things along the lines of if I hit then some one nearby gets to use a healing surge. Nonetheless in tough fights we've just run dry on a fair number of occasions.
Out of combat things are less critical but they are also in some ways even more extreme compared to 3.5 where, in my experience, after a couple of levels there simply was no such thing as being out of hps. You left when the casters were out of good spells otherwise you used Wands of Cure Light Wounds or Vigour to bring everyone up to full hps after every fight. This just does not work in 4E because healing surges are such a limited resource and its very hard and very expensive to get access to healing that does not depend on healing surges.
Seriously? (I've read too many of Courtfools posts - I'm starting to use his prose).My experience as a player has been that one of the most significant differences between 3.5 and 4E is a major lack of restoration, especially in combat but outside of combat as well. Once in combat you mainly only have your second wind. If you have leaders around they can do stuff that allow you to access your healing surges but this kind of healing is very limited. Generally along the lines of some characters getting a boost beyond the second wind but there is not enough for everyone. Hence against something really tough like a Dragon you can very easily get to a point where every last drop of healing has been accessed and if you go down now you stay down because the Cleric has nothing left to help you with. My character is an amazing healing Cleric in my party (multi-class into warlord for the bonus healing, I wear +1 Exalted chainmail magic armour that helps with my healing and I've chosen powers that often say things along the lines of if I hit then some one nearby gets to use a healing surge. Nonetheless in tough fights we've just run dry on a fair number of occasions.
Out of combat things are less critical but they are also in some ways even more extreme compared to 3.5 where, in my experience, after a couple of levels there simply was no such thing as being out of hps. You left when the casters were out of good spells otherwise you used Wands of Cure Light Wounds or Vigour to bring everyone up to full hps after every fight. This just does not work in 4E because healing surges are such a limited resource and its very hard and very expensive to get access to healing that does not depend on healing surges.
Note that I am not saying that there is too much restoration overall but it seems to me that the healing options during combat seem to have increased. Of course we played at a relatively low-level so it is possible that I got this impression due to a comparison with low-level combats from previous editions. It seemed to me that the players had so much recovery that the monsters were designed with more hit points in order to present a fitting challenge. I guess this made the combat drag a bit. It might be a problem associated with our expectations but I am not sure. This, if it is a problem, which after reading your answer I'm not sure, can be corrected by some houseruling. The flavor and dissociated mechanics problems are more difficult to work around, I think.
|
|
Face it, we're in a dying hobby. Books don't have flashy bells and whistles, and, when you see threads like this, you start to think that kids today don't have what it takes to fully embrace the hobby. No amount of pampering first level characters in the rules is going to change the fact that our society is less literate, less patient, and less willing to have to learn something to play a game than they were 30 years ago.
Oh, that's nice, the "kids today are too stupid to play TTRPGs" line. I'm sure when you were a kid all of your peers were geniuses and would have had the willpower to resist the evil temptations of the XBox had it been around then.
There probably is some truth in what you're saying, but whenever someone espouses this argument it just seems so insulting.
If people were less interested in not being "insulted", and more interested in learning...
Seriously, I have friends that teach high school English, and I was a manager at a place that hired high school and college kids for counter help, and it is a horror show. I helped a friend grade essays a while back (and this was a level 2 class from a "good" school), and the level of illiteracy in a senior English class was amazing.
As to the job applications I had to evaluate...
I asked one applicant "You're in college? Really?". Her application was horrid.
When I was a kid, all of my peers were, in fact, "geniuses". Being an honors student has that perk. And we had Atari and, later, the NES, and we did resist playing on them all day. Believe it or not, we had computers, too. And television, VCRs etc...
But, what we also had were parents interested in what we were doing, parents who bought us books, parents who insisted we go outside and play.
And, yes, back then, very few kids who weren't decent students had any patience to play D&D. The entry fee, functional literacy and basic math skills, was too high for many of them to pay. Instant gratification isn't a new phenomenon, and TTRPGs aren't an instant gratification vehicle.
Sugar coating a problem perpetuates the problem, it doesn't solve the problem. I don't care if I "insult" people who make no effort to improve their knowledge and literacy, I care if society creates false self esteem in people by telling them it's ok to be ignorant.
|
|
By "more accurate world view" I suppose you mean "a world view that reflects yours", I suppose?
I have to disagree. I've seen quite a bit of the world, had access to places most people here would never dare to go, and seen all sorts of madness. Most of that madness was the result of ignorance, and much of the madness here in the States appears to me to be due to people being over sensitive about hurting feelings rather than actually doing anything that may result in people learning to better themselves.
Most people in bad situations here have all sorts of excuses for why they are the way they are, and wallow in their self pity, waiting for someone to feel sorry for them. I've been through hell, I'm not in the greatest of places now, but I'm not waiting for someone to feel sorry for me, and when people tell me to get off my ass and do something, I'm not insulted, I get off my ass and do something.
Go blow smoke up someone's ass if that makes you feel better about yourself. I'm not the one to do that.
When I was a kid, all of my peers were, in fact, "geniuses". Being an honors student has that perk. And we had Atari and, later, the NES, and we did resist playing on them all day. Believe it or not, we had computers, too. And television, VCRs etc...
But, what we also had were parents interested in what we were doing, parents who bought us books, parents who insisted we go outside and play.
And, yes, back then, very few kids who weren't decent students had any patience to play...
I'm with you here Derek. I was a bookstore manager for 10 years & the number of semi-literate and illiterate poeple who were surprised when they found that was an obstacle in selling books was astounding. One cashier didn't even understand what "fiction" meant . . . yes, she really thought all those books were sort of like TV into the minds of real people doing real stuff somewhere else. She was the worst perhaps, but still typical of the basic difference in society between 20+ years ago when I started gaming and now.
More and more each year I find larger & larger numbers of supposed gamers who hate creating characters because it's too difficult and want to get straight to the "fun," gamers who condescendingly tell me that I shouldn't role play so much in game but like them save it for special occaisions because otherwise it would interfere with the real reason they game: making jokes and quoting tv shows, and worst of all the alleged gamers who tell me they only play RPGs so they have an excuse to socialize with friends. Seems to me most people never used to need excuses to socialize with friends. And like you Derek back in the 80's the point was to role play, to get into the game, we socialized before or after the game, but the game was something separate. When confronted with players who want to text message or play iPhone games every second they aren't having their turn in the spotlight, well, I have to wonder why they do play TTRPGs instead of playing WoW while texting & iPhoning.
This isn't an edition problem, it isn't even a system problem. The simple fact is that most people today are not prepared to play D&D, Traveler, or Runequest, and being unprepared are less likely to have fun at it. And given the choice between reading alot of swords & sorcery fiction, picking up a dictionary or a calculator when necessary --- they would much rather sit down & play WoW or Mass Effect, and I can't entirely blame them. Different standards & different tastes. There was a time when opera was a mass media entertainment & popular with both the rich & educated classes & the poorer classes. Times changed, & now opera is the reservse of a small group of either die hard fans or snobs, but it certainly isn't a popular medium of entertainment among any specific class of people today.
Frankly, role playing games were a unique product of the 70s & 80s and like wargames and miniature railroads, and even opera, it's unlikely RPGs are ever going to be popular the way they used to be. It is likely that RPGs will dwindle to a tiny niche hobby divided between the do-it-yourself types using old books or pdfs and rich fans paying a few small companies top dollar for new products. Hopefully one of those companies will be Paizo, but in ten or twenty years I don't expect WotC to be anything except a footnote in corporate history of Hasbro. It would be nice if this isn't the case, but I sure know which way to bet, sadly.
If people were less interested in not being "insulted", and more interested in learning...
Seriously, I have friends that teach high school English, and I was a manager at a place that hired high school and college kids for counter help, and it is a horror show. I helped a friend grade essays a while back (and this was a level 2 class from a "good" school), and the level of illiteracy in a senior English class was amazing.
As to the job applications I had to evaluate...
I asked one applicant "You're in college? Really?". Her application was horrid.
When I was a kid, all of my peers were, in fact, "geniuses". Being an honors student has that perk. And we had Atari and, later, the NES, and we did resist playing on them all day. Believe it or not, we had computers, too. And television, VCRs etc...
But, what we also had were parents interested in what we were doing, parents who bought us books, parents who insisted we go outside and play.
And, yes, back then, very few kids who weren't decent students had any patience to play...
I was an Honor Student myself, but seeing as I graduated High School in 2007 the title may not be as meaningful now as it was when you were in school.
I'm not saying that you are wrong in that there is less of a focus on learning in modern society. My problem is that you are characterizing entire generations as being intellectually deficit and citing personal anecdotes as evidence. If previous generations were morally and intellectually superior then what happened to cause current generations to decline sharply in levels of education? Why did the children of superior parents, parents who emphasized learning and self control, fail to impart the lessons they were taught to their own children?
I guess I just don't appreciate it when gamers use elitist arguments to explain why their preferences make them superior to others and feel that it is more detrimental and inflammatory than it is constructive.
|
|
Define "options"? Are dragonborn an "option" if they're in the core rules? This isn't the good old days when DMs always had the final say in what was and wasn't kosher. DMs had their "foot putting down" powers short circuited when the WotC and 3pp splats took PrCs, which are "options" according to the 3x DMG, and put them in books marketed towards players. All of the sudden, instead of PrCs being "options" allowed at the sufferance of DMs, they were now "options" that the DM was a richard for not allowing.
I'm sorry guys, but I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree here. All this prattle about "what is core, and what isn't core" falls in the exact same boat as the "Your paladin can't do that because he's lawful good!" crap. Don't tell me how to play my character, and don't tell me what I have to allow or not allow.
James Wyatt CLEARLY addresses this issue in the very first 4E DUNGEONCRAFT article, when he actually goes in and SETS what races are and are not allowed.
If a DM wants to do an "everything's allowed" then great. If the DM wants to limit options, this is not only acceptable, but apparently rather expected.
4E did not introduce the Gamer Inquisition (our chief weapons are suprise and fear!). They simply made EVERYTHING the default core, and DMs are allowed to prune to their games as they see fit.
Sorry boys, but this is a windmill you're tilting at, not a dragon...
I guess I just don't appreciate it when gamers use elitist arguments to explain why their preferences make them superior to others and feel that it is more detrimental and inflammatory than it is constructive.
This is a byproduct of our "enlightened" society today. We all want to feel good about ourselves. That we made the right choices. That we're the right people, etc. Unfortunately, it's become increasingly more common for us to establish our self-worth by tearing others down. This is going to become a serious problem in about 10-20 years, where my rights to not be offended exceed your rights to personal choice.
People were saying all this in the letters page of Dragon 20 years ago. Plus ca change...
|
|
a) Doesn't matter what the books say, players feel entitled to play whatever they want, and, in my experience, many are upset if thew DM tries to limit them.
b) There's no such thing as a "right to not be offended". Well, unless you think Lenny Bruce getting jailed for his comedy routine was a good thing...
I'll have a look. I was reading one the other day; seems to have been about the time of the 1E/2E transition. The parallels grow...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'll have a look. I was reading one the other day; seems to have been about the time of the 1E/2E transition. The parallels grow...
Yes, some always complain about change. That doesn't necessarily mean that the level of satisfaction with an edition change is always the same.
Also, might be wise to remember that 2E is widely considered a misstep in D&D's history...one it eventually recovered from. Plenty of good things came out of the 2E error, but plenty of garbage too. I'm glad 3E stepped away from the dumbing down of 2E.
Edit: full disclosure: I played hybrid 1E/2E for most of my 90s gaming. Eventually wearied of D&D and went to Champions and Shadowrun. Stepped away from the hobby and wrote MUDs (using D&D books as reference) from 1992-1996, then picked up the game again after Player's Option had come out.
|
|
I'll have a look. I was reading one the other day; seems to have been about the time of the 1E/2E transition. The parallels grow...Yes, some always complain about change. That doesn't necessarily mean that the level of satisfaction with an edition change is always the same.
Also, might be wise to remember that 2E is widely considered a mistep in D&D's history...one it eventually recovered from. Plenty of good things came out of the 2E error, but plenty of garbage too. I'm glad 3E stepped away from the dumbing down of 2E.
Yeah, I skipped 2e and played 1e until 3x came out. Maybe D&D editions are the opposite of Star Trek movies, instead of the odd numbered ones being meh, it's the even numbered ones...
I felt 2e was "dumbed down" to a degree (but that might just be because Grubb wasn't as dense in his prose style as Gygax), but it was the sanitizing of the game in an attempt to appease the religious nuts that made me skip it all together. It wasn't like Sunday Schools were going to start D&D games because they changed "demon" to "t'anari" (or whatever the euphemistic name change was).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
In part I'm referring to bowdlerizing (no demons, devils, assassins, evil PCs, half-orcs) when I refer to dumbing down. But I also feel many of the 2E adventures (and late 1E adventures) weren't written with an intelligent audience in mind. Compare Rod of Seven Parts (which does have its good points) to Dragonlance or Temple of Elemental Evil...
I'll have a look. I was reading one the other day; seems to have been about the time of the 1E/2E transition. The parallels grow...Oh, I remember the edition change discussions, I thought you were talking about the literacy of potential players. Sorry.
The discussions were also around concerns about video games etc taking away potential players as well as concerns about concentration span et al.
|
|
The discussions were also around concerns about video games etc taking away potential players as well as concerns about concentration span et al.I'll have a look. I was reading one the other day; seems to have been about the time of the 1E/2E transition. The parallels grow...Oh, I remember the edition change discussions, I thought you were talking about the literacy of potential players. Sorry.
Yeah, I remember those discussions, too. I always wanted to write a letter saying the further the game got away from its origins, and kept trying for force "story hour" on players, the more players they were going to lose.
I wish more modern gamers would realize that quite a few people would rather read a novel, watch a movie or whatever, than play a novel or a movie or whatever. I think if the game got back to being a game (and 4e does address this, but alienates too many of gaming's best ambassadors), and not trying to be amateur dinner theater, more people wouldn't be so put off by it.
Just an opinion.
|
The discussions were also around concerns about video games etc taking away potential players as well as concerns about concentration span et al.I'll have a look. I was reading one the other day; seems to have been about the time of the 1E/2E transition. The parallels grow...Oh, I remember the edition change discussions, I thought you were talking about the literacy of potential players. Sorry.Yeah, I remember those discussions, too. I always wanted to write a letter saying the further the game got away from its origins, and kept trying for force "story hour" on players, the more players they were going to lose.
I wish more modern gamers would realize that quite a few people would rather read a novel, watch a movie or whatever, than play a novel or a movie or whatever. I think if the game got back to being a game (and 4e does address this, but alienates too many of gaming's best ambassadors), and not trying to be amateur dinner theater, more people wouldn't be so put off by it.
Just an opinion.
By this I take it you mean the people who say TPKs should never happen by accident and that player death should be fudged so that they never actually lose the character no matter how many times they die?
|
|
By this I take it you mean the people who say TPKs should never happen by accident and that player death should be fudged so that they never actually lose the character no matter how many times they die?The discussions were also around concerns about video games etc taking away potential players as well as concerns about concentration span et al.I'll have a look. I was reading one the other day; seems to have been about the time of the 1E/2E transition. The parallels grow...Oh, I remember the edition change discussions, I thought you were talking about the literacy of potential players. Sorry.Yeah, I remember those discussions, too. I always wanted to write a letter saying the further the game got away from its origins, and kept trying for force "story hour" on players, the more players they were going to lose.
I wish more modern gamers would realize that quite a few people would rather read a novel, watch a movie or whatever, than play a novel or a movie or whatever. I think if the game got back to being a game (and 4e does address this, but alienates too many of gaming's best ambassadors), and not trying to be amateur dinner theater, more people wouldn't be so put off by it.
Just an opinion.
That's part of it, I suppose. But I mean more like people who think acting everything out is the paramount aspect of the game, and get on Ted the Shy and/or Not Into Acting for wanting to just play a game. Part of it is finding the right group, but, in a shrinking hobby, finding a "beer and pretzel" group is getting harder, and people who might otherwise give it a go can be put off if they're expected to be Master Thespian all the time.
People worry about the hobby shrinking, but they don't want to lower the bar for people who might enjoy the game if it weren't for all the frustrated actors in the hobby these days...
As to the TPK/Character death thing: Again, there were WAY more players in the hobby when character death was more common. The hobby started shrinking about the time people started putting story concerns ahead of just playing a game. I know it is a logical fallacy to assume, considering all of the other factors that could be cited for the shrinking community, that this is the main reason, but I still can't help but think that computer games started becoming more attractive because they didn't expect anyone to act, they just let people have fun. Beer and Pretzels is how the game started, was the default setting when the game was most popular, and after it was tossed aside, the hobby shrank.
|
|
To be honest, I have never seen this. I think that people not roleplaying very well and being more interested in the tactical aspects is the more common experience. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think you can plame excessive roleplaying for the demise of the game. And people bring different strengths to the game, so I would be hesitant to even consider it a problem. If players are picking on other players, that simply indicates they are a knob, and I'm sure a powergamer is capable of being as obnoxious as a primadonna roleplayer.