I can't say I'm one of the original gamers but I DO have all the books back to ODD in checking what they originally said!
I also know some of the original gamers!
But here's the kicker...there seem to be more people who claim to be original gamers than there actually WERE original gamers from what I've seen.
How does that happen?!
On a side note, I don't know how many original gamers are here, but there's only one that I believe I might verify/back up that they were at least around near the beginning of the game...
At least that I'm able to verify/back up with any general ability of my own, not because I knew them personally right now but because I know what they participated in (and even created).
On a much sadder note, the original gamers of the older generation are dying off rather quickly, those who were kids at the time are still around though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are aspects of AD&D that can be adapted into Pathfinder...
Actually, one of the things I always liked about Pathfinder is how much of the old AD&D stuff it has brought BACK. For example, 'potions' had become solely 'liquid spell delivery devices'... so Pathfinder introduced 'elixir' wondrous items to bring back some of the more interesting AD&D potions. Indeed, what is the 'Sun Orchid Elixir' but a fancy AD&D 'potion of longevity'? All those 'Fiend Folio' (original version) monsters that had long since fallen by the wayside? First there was 'Misfit Monsters' and then some of them started showing up in the actual 'Monster Manual' series.
Sure, Pathfinder is different from AD&D, but in some ways it is closer to AD&D than D&D v3.5 was.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Usually the annoyance comes about when some young boy-wonder (girl-wonder)comes up with a RAW rules interpretation that allows for broken chicanery and the wise old DM uses a variation of the anti-drug campaign and just says no.
So my question is "Is the petulant neebie argument any better than the original gamer argument?"
I've seen this clash happen a great many times, but the vast majority of the time, the thing being labeled as "RAW rules interpretation that allows for broken chicanery" is just someone reading in good faith and doing what the game plainly tells them they can do (sometimes even backed up with the author and/or Design Team reaffirming that that's exactly what they meant), and the "wise old DM" can't tell the difference between "broken chicanery" and "has a result that doesn't feel like what I played 30 years ago".
For every "smite says all attack rolls so it buffs everyone in the world," there's half a dozen "My player's being cheesy by having a hands-free light source"/"Not wanting to take TWF penalties on iteratives made with different weapons is munchkin nonsense"/"When the rules say that ability damage doesn't actually reduce your score like drain does it really means that it DOES reduce your score and you're a language-twisting rules lawyer for thinking it means what it says"/"If you try to Take 10 at my table I'm going to watch you like a hawk to see what you're trying to get away with"/"The FAQ is wrong, it actually works like this".
(All of the above are real examples, BTW.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've only been gaming for about 5 years, and I've played in three different systems.
I think there are some merits to the old geezers experiences when it comes to insight on the game's evolution and understanding why certain things work the way they do.
Haste not granting a second standard action for example.
That said, it is also really disrespectful when someone with mroe experience than you acts as if you don't have the right to speak to them because they have gamed so much longer than you have. Elitism is absolutely the right word for it. It really has nothing to do with what edition was being played, but rather with the mindset of older gamers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, here is a thought (and I am not even mentioning how long I have played, or what I play, or anything). What if the old grognards and the newer gens decided to put aside the "I know everything better because of X" and tried having a civil discussion that centred around facts and game rules rather than defaulting to the ever so human desire to always be right. Gods above, now that would be a great day for gaming in general, as the generations might actually learn something from each other, and better the hobby as a whole, oh the madness of it all.
That said, get off my lawn!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, here is a thought (and I am not even mentioning how long I have played, or what I play, or anything). What if the old grognards and the newer gens decided to put aside the "I know everything better because of X" and tried having a civil discussion that centred around facts and game rules rather than defaulting to the ever so human desire to always be right. Gods above, now that would be a great day for gaming in general, as the generations might actually learn something from each other, and better the hobby as a whole, oh the madness of it all.
Get off of the Internet.
Ok GM Tyrant Princess, mind explaining your distaste for the suggestion of coop for the good of gaming and reduction of all folks stress levels?
Or is glaring at me electronically just part of the "Tyrant" moniker...
Skills, feats, spells, to hits, and all those changes don't really change what the game was, is, where it has come from, or how it is meant to be played. Sure an android gunslinger is new (not really though), but he base assumptions of the game have for the most part always been the same. And that is the point of Pathfinder, even if it feels different than what has come before, it is suppose to also feel like the game has continued on rather than been replaced.
they changed the base assumption of the game from being entirely class driven. now it's entirely possible to just make a character that is competent outside of combat instead of just flat being their class. You also now need feats to do anything different than normal. now someones class doesn't mean as much and can have a negligible effect on their role, and those roles are deeper now, even allowing people to fill in multiple ones. the Change to multiclassing especially changes for character creation is thought out.
it also shows more of an emphasis for the player's to gain deep knowledge of the game and the importance of their choices.
OPINION -> this made the game feel dramatically different to me. <- OPINION
Or is glaring at me electronically just part of the "Tyrant" moniker...
EDIT YOUR DAMN POSTS!
anyway that's Kalindlara, she's being melodramatic/sarcastic. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...and tried having a civil discussion that centred around facts and game rules rather than defaulting to the ever so human desire to always be right.
Unfortunately, trying to do this is often what triggers an elitist's rant, as they very often are against giving any significant weight to "facts and game rules".
Let me attempt an analogy:
Suppose you were at some kind of hobby store and found a product that said it contained multiple sheets of clear plastic (like the trasparencies for those old overhead projectors) and instructions for painting blotches of different colors on different sheets. Then you would stack the sheets on top of each other in a certain order to discover a picture that you had just painted all by yourself.
Neat! It sounds fun, so you buy it and try it out. You follow the instructions, paint the blotches, stack the sheets, and voila! You have a painting of a jockey riding his horse, jumping it over a hedge. Cool!
So you go and show your friend. You tell him what you bought, and he excitedly exclaims, "Oh yeah! They make those every year or so, they're super fun!"
So you say "Nice! Here's the one I made; I don't have a very steady hand, but I think you can still tell it's a horseman jumping a hedge."
Then your friend replies, "No no no, these things are jungle pictures. Always have been. Started with a tiger in 1985, sometimes the general pose or the exact animal changes, but it's always been a big cat in the jungle."
"Really?" you ask, confused. "I thought I followed the instructions pretty close..."
"Well, that's the problem," your friend says. "Quit being such a rules-lawyer. This is a TOY made to have FUN. Quit trying to 'win' by sticking rigidly to the written instructions. Just because you can do something within the rules, doesn't mean you should."
Bewildered, you stammer, "But it's a horse, the package even said it would be a horse, I—"
Your friend cuts you off: "Sometimes the package and the instructions are ambiguous, and you have to apply common sense. That's why the painting is left for a human to do, instead of having a computer just print the picture for you. Trust me, I've been painting these since they started in 1985, and they were always meant to be jungle animals. I know this probably goes against the MMO mindset, but try not to forget what the point of this is. It's time to grow out of this juvenile 'rules' phase you're in so that animal-painting can finally mature as a hobby."
A week later, you find out that your friend has been using you and this incident as an example of how petulant children can act so entitled these days.
----------------------------------
Now, to be clear, not everyone who's been playing a long time is like this. There's some pretty cool folks among the veterans' ranks. Unfortunately, every terrible line in the above story is taken from real experiences, both in person and here on the forums.
@ Bandw2, Pardon, internet lacks context at times, what is your problem now?
I would argue that a lot of the clash between the older players of the game and the younger is simply different expectations.
Its difficult to say "I don't like the way you play the game, I think it is silly and I have no interest in playing it that way," without coming across with a negative tone.
Its like comparing the "Underworld" movies to the "Twilight" movies. While they both deal with some similar concepts and themes, I love one and hate the other.
@ Bandw2, Pardon, internet lacks context at times, what is your problem now?
I guess it might have to do with you posting twice within 3 minutes instead of adding to your first post via edit.
But I'm far from sure.
I've only been gaming for about 5 years, and I've played in three different systems.
I think there are some merits to the old geezers experiences when it comes to insight on the game's evolution and understanding why certain things work the way they do.
Haste not granting a second standard action for example.
That said, it is also really disrespectful when someone with mroe experience than you acts as if you don't have the right to speak to them because they have gamed so much longer than you have. Elitism is absolutely the right word for it. It really has nothing to do with what edition was being played, but rather with the mindset of older gamers.
Old geezers. Old farts. Isn't it interesting that we've been seeing that throughout the thread, but precious little of "young punks" or "little $&#+s"?
I'll agree it has to do with mindset and disrespect. A lot of that is fueled by talking over this new fangled computer stuff. Face to face people are forced to be a bit more understanding and willing to compromise on ideas or at least wait till someone is not in front of them to disparage them.
No one gets to disrespect the other based on years of playing or not playing. There are people that have been playing for 40 years that I think are wrong, and those that have been playing for a few that I think are right -- depending on the topic.
I take what you say and process it against my experiences, like we all do. If you are feeling offended because someone older/with more experience or younger/with less experiences holds an opinion, it is there age/experience that you have a problem with or the opinion?
I can't say I'm one of the original gamers but I DO have all the books back to ODD in checking what they originally said!
I also know some of the original gamers!
But here's the kicker...there seem to be more people who claim to be original gamers than there actually WERE original gamers from what I've seen.
How does that happen?!
On a side note, I don't know how many original gamers are here, but there's only one that I believe I might verify/back up that they were at least around near the beginning of the game...
At least that I'm able to verify/back up with any general ability of my own, not because I knew them personally right now but because I know what they participated in (and even created).
On a much sadder note, the original gamers of the older generation are dying off rather quickly, those who were kids at the time are still around though.
So you are in effect saying that people are lying about how long they have been playing? I mean, yeah, not all of us were baking cookies for Gary for the first game, but it really isn't hard to have been playing for X amount of time. It's a matter of being alive and having run across the game. I'm curious what "proof" you'd be interested in?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its difficult to say "I don't like the way you play the game, I think it is silly and I have no interest in playing it that way," without coming across with a negative tone.
My thing is, does that even need to be said at all? Even in a conversation about gaming, a simple "Your gaming style and mine aren't really compatible. But hey as long as you're having fun it's all good." establishes more good will than the above statement.
You say the first thing to me and my first thought is "Well I'm glad that I don't play with you because you obviously have the social graces of a complete and utter sociopath. DUECES."
The second shows that you're an actual human being with empathy and while I might not want to play Pathfinder or AD&D with you there's a remote probability that I might play something else with you.
EDIT: Let me be clear - by "You" I mean the person who would say something like that and not necessarily Tormsskull. Unless Tormsskull WOULD actually say something like that. Then...Yeah I'm talking about you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was once the young guy, now I'm old.
So the perspective from the old vet side, in my case at least, is less 'you feckless whippersnappers with your horse overheads!' and more 'don't break what isn't broken' and 'don't tear down the fence til you know why its there.'
Also, trying to rank everyone into 'old' vs 'new' is futile since my generation has just as many number crunching rules-engineering raw maniacs as fluffy carebears like me.
That being said, if we're defining 'original gamer' as the convention minded individual what needs to be remembered is that these folks in general..
1.) Have seen a wide variety of things, including what people's attempts at novelty have wrought. Thus most don't see it as 'change is bad!' so much as 'novelty for the sake of novelty is stupid.' The ethic here is 'don't tear down the fence til you know why it was put up.'
2.) Have played with a variety of people and experiences. We've sat across from the cottage cheese swilling weirdoes, the perverts, and eons worth of plucky kids who are going to 'fix' things with their bright ideas. In general the bright ideas turn out to be garbage. Newer things aren't always good. Hegel was a hack.
3.) Tend to realize that its the game, not the system, that really makes for an entertaining situation.
4.) Have heard different flavors of snake-oil over the years for new builds, new ethoses, and new approaches and found out the ones that work tended to be variations on themes, as opposed to anything "revolutionary."
The RAW for RAI thing is a different axis. I'm a RAI oriented old-timer. I get into arguments with RAW oriented old-timers. The RAI-RAW thing doesn't go away with age.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its difficult to say "I don't like the way you play the game, I think it is silly and I have no interest in playing it that way," without coming across with a negative tone.
Well, that's because the part where the speaker says "the way you play the game is silly" is a negative statement. A listener would be quite reasonable to take offense at that.
Now, if you just removed that part about their way being silly, and the speaker just said "I don't like the way you play the game, and I have no interest in playing it that way," then it becomes a little more ambiguous. It could come across as a bit condescending, or not. That's the limitations of text.
But your original version, where the speaker literally name-calls the listener's playstyle? Yeah, that speaker's being a jerk. Nothing to do with misunderstanding text.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us old gamers May start to belive. that reality is experience based, like in the game. We just forget, that we have a bad build with old style rolled stats.
Some of us old gamers May start to belive. that reality is experience based, like in the game. We just forget, that we have a bad build with old style rolled stats.
Nah, we just dumped charisma.
|
So is this an offensive comment on play style?
You know I have no problem with the way you guys like to play but personally I dont think of my characters as superheroic lava swimmers so I PREFER my games to be more realistic. Doesnt mean your way wouldnt be fun, but just like playing any mmo, I'd probably get bored eventually.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So is this an offensive comment on play style?
You know I have no problem with the way you guys like to play but personally I dont think of my characters as superheroic lava swimmers so I PREFER my games to be more realistic. Doesnt mean your way wouldnt be fun, but just like playing any mmo, I'd probably get bored eventually.
All by itself, no.
However, if it was within the context of a dialogue in which MMOs have been belittled as though they were a lesser game compared to the higher art form that is tabletop roleplaying (as often happens on these forums), then it becomes offensive because you've tagged the other person's playstyle with a term that you've previously established as being in some way inferior.
There might be other contexts that would reveal a negative mindset as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nah! what really happens is the young knows-it-alls want to play the game and the only people willing to run the game are the old-forget-it-all codgers!!!!
To the young know-it-all please run a game I will be happy to play in it!
If only you knew how much of my GMing style is heavily influenced by trying to NOT do what I've seen some of the elitists do...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thing is, does that even need to be said at all? Even in a conversation about gaming, a simple "Your gaming style and mine aren't really compatible. But hey as long as you're having fun it's all good." establishes more good will than the above statement.
I would agree, which is why there's a separation between what we think and what we say. Actually saying "Your play style is silly" would be rude, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't thinking it at times.
EDIT: Let me be clear - by "You" I mean the person who would say something like that and not necessarily Tormsskull. Unless Tormsskull WOULD actually say something like that. Then...Yeah I'm talking about you.
I would like to think I do my best in not being intentionally rude, and looking back at posts I've made years ago, I would say I've definitely dialed down the snark.
That said, everyone gets frustrated, some times things slip.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is this an offensive comment on play style?
You know I have no problem with the way you guys like to play but personally I dont think of my characters as superheroic lava swimmers so I PREFER my games to be more realistic. Doesnt mean your way wouldnt be fun, but just like playing any mmo, I'd probably get bored eventually.
Its essentially an "with all due respect" or " no offense, but..." type of statement. It makes me think of this.
Well, I am (in a way) one of the original gamers, since 1974, and I have said something along these lines before:
You are right and wrong here. I do that a lot, having been around as long as anyone in the business. But having played dozens and dozens of systems with hundreds and hundreds of players, I can tell you that certain things carry over from any system- things that are just universal to RPGs.
So, for example, if I tell you to "Never try to solve a OOC problem IC" - it will work even if I have never heard of that RPG, let along played it.
However, if I tell you that "xxx class is overpowered and needs nerfing" then yes, I needs must have played that class and played WITH that class- in a couple of games. Simply reading it once doesn't really cut it. Watching one guy cream everyone in one session is not proof either.
So, I really dont know more about PF than any of the other experienced posters here. Despite my deep experience, as far as PF game mechanics go, my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's- and less than quite a few. But if you tell me you have a certain problem player- then yes- my 40 years of experience will likely be of value. *
* and if you compare PF to other legacy systems, then I have dropped several ranks in that skill.
I can't say I'm one of the original gamers but I DO have all the books back to ODD in checking what they originally said!
I also know some of the original gamers!
But here's the kicker...there seem to be more people who claim to be original gamers than there actually WERE original gamers from what I've seen.
How does that happen?!
On a side note, I don't know how many original gamers are here, but there's only one that I believe I might verify/back up that they were at least around near the beginning of the game...
Well, at least I do have evidence for my claims, anyway.
Here's another reason why someone with Legacy experience is valuable- sometimes.
Take this with a ;-)
Say "A Poster" chimes in with "I hate Pathfinders stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping! They are unrealistic and stupid! I dont know why the stupid devs came up with this stupid rule!"
Grognard: "Well, you see, Rutabaga chopping came from 3rd Ed, and was in it's original form in AD&D- in fact a primitive version existed in OD&D. "
Well "A Poster" now feels shot down, but since "they have always done it this way" isnt really a good reason, gets angry.
So, if "A Poster" had done some research he could of said "Look, I know Pathfinder is a legacy system, but they shouldn't have kept in the stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping. They are unrealistic and stupid!"
Mush better, since now we can concentrate on better rules for Rutabaga chopping, rather than why and how they came to be.
Here's another reason why someone with Legacy experience is valuable- sometimes.
Take this with a ;-)
Say "A Poster" chimes in with "I hate Pathfinders stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping! They are unrealistic and stupid! I dont know why the stupid devs came up with this stupid rule!"
Grognard: "Well, you see, Rutabaga chopping came from 3rd Ed, and was in it's original form in AD&D- in fact a primitive version existed in OD&D. "
Well "A Poster" now feels shot down, but since "they have always done it this way" isnt really a good reason, gets angry.
So, if "A Poster" had done some research he could of said "Look, I know Pathfinder is a legacy system, but they shouldn't have kept in the stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping. They are unrealistic and stupid!"
Mush better, since now we can concentrate on better rules for Rutabaga chopping, rather than why and how they came to be.
The legacy experience didn't do anything but waste 2 posts in this scenario.
(1) people without the legacy knowledge wouldnt have the objection and would have immediately begun working on the posters rutabaga chopping issue.
(2) the legacy knowledge created the problem that it solved. That doesn't seem particularly helpful.
Here's another reason why someone with Legacy experience is valuable- sometimes.
Take this with a ;-)
Say "A Poster" chimes in with "I hate Pathfinders stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping! They are unrealistic and stupid! I dont know why the stupid devs came up with this stupid rule!"
Grognard: "Well, you see, Rutabaga chopping came from 3rd Ed, and was in it's original form in AD&D- in fact a primitive version existed in OD&D. "
Well "A Poster" now feels shot down, but since "they have always done it this way" isnt really a good reason, gets angry.
So, if "A Poster" had done some research he could of said "Look, I know Pathfinder is a legacy system, but they shouldn't have kept in the stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping. They are unrealistic and stupid!"
Mush better, since now we can concentrate on better rules for Rutabaga chopping, rather than why and how they came to be.
The legacy experience didn't do anything but waste 2 posts in this scenario.
(1) people without the legacy knowledge wouldnt have the objection and would have immediately begun working on the posters rutabaga chopping issue.
(2) the legacy knowledge created the problem that it solved. That doesn't seem particularly helpful.
No they would have gotten irate at the tone, the blame on the devs and the editions war issue, and would have gotten the thread locked~ ;-)
No, Legacy caused the issue. Cut & Paste. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are in effect saying that people are lying about how long they have been playing? I mean, yeah, not all of us were baking cookies for Gary for the first game, but it really isn't hard to have been playing for X amount of time. It's a matter of being alive and having run across the game. I'm curious what "proof" you'd be interested in?
NO, I'm not accusing anyone of lying.
I'm just saying, when I look at who was originally playing, and all those who CLAIM it, the numbers don't add up.
Well, at least I do have evidence for my claims, anyway.I can't say I'm one of the original gamers but I DO have all the books back to ODD in checking what they originally said!
I also know some of the original gamers!
But here's the kicker...there seem to be more people who claim to be original gamers than there actually WERE original gamers from what I've seen.
How does that happen?!
On a side note, I don't know how many original gamers are here, but there's only one that I believe I might verify/back up that they were at least around near the beginning of the game...
You're the one guy on these forums (as long as you are who I think you are) that I can back up (as I referred to before).
I know what was contributed and the significance of it.
NO offense to the others, but I can't verify that they are OG or not.
I just know there's an AWFULLY LOT of people that claim it, and the numbers didn't seem that prevalent.
Plus, a LOT of those original gamers are actually dying off, which cuts the numbers even more. A lot of those that are still active on the scene and are part of that original gaming group (or groups) were the kids at the time (like Gygax's kids and others who are pretty big celebrities amongst their own RPG circles, at least in some ways these days).
I know a few of the OG, and many seem to know each other. When so many claim they were OG on forums, it's just something that I wonder about sometimes.
As for me, the biggest thing I can say, is I have the books from ODD on...and have occasionally pointed out what the books say to people when they make mistakes about what ODD and the booklets said in them.
However, I do admit, my printing is not the FIRST printing (I know a guy who DOES have an original printing...I've ONLY SEEN it once though...) so if they made changes from the Original printing down the line I would have the revised wording.
Unfortunately I don't have any of the Judges guild stuff, but I still respect the contributions made by it and others at the time (And I believe yours was particularly huge if I recall correctly).
I think there are some things that can be useful from more experienced gamers. It's not just the original gamers, but any that have a lot of experience.
Outside of strictly rules, the idea of RPGs, and groups playing one have many similarities across the board.
A more experience player that plays in a style similar to yours can be invaluable in many various items that come up in any game or RPG simply because of how many games they've seen and the experiences they have had in dealing with different and various situations that are common, no matter what RPG you are playing.
IN a like manner, if they play in a style similar to yours, even in PF their advice can be invaluable. For example, I play more of a style where you don't skip around a multiclass constantly...where you typically stick to your class. I also game where rule 0 is supreme...which basically means that the GM has a LOT more power in many ways...
Advice in how this works and dealing with situations that may arise because of this is far more valuable from a more experienced player who plays in the same way than someone who plays a game where rule 0 does not exist for them (which to me, would seem a headache when ever you stumble across something that is not in the rules or otherwise...BUT my playstyle is probably similarly an equal headache to others who play differently).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are in effect saying that people are lying about how long they have been playing? I mean, yeah, not all of us were baking cookies for Gary for the first game, but it really isn't hard to have been playing for X amount of time. It's a matter of being alive and having run across the game. I'm curious what "proof" you'd be interested in?NO, I'm not accusing anyone of lying.
I'm just saying, when I look at who was originally playing, and all those who CLAIM it, the numbers don't add up.
You have numbers of people who have been playing RPGs from all over the world?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have numbers of people who have been playing RPGs from all over the world?So you are in effect saying that people are lying about how long they have been playing? I mean, yeah, not all of us were baking cookies for Gary for the first game, but it really isn't hard to have been playing for X amount of time. It's a matter of being alive and having run across the game. I'm curious what "proof" you'd be interested in?NO, I'm not accusing anyone of lying.
I'm just saying, when I look at who was originally playing, and all those who CLAIM it, the numbers don't add up.
He has experience.
You have numbers of people who have been playing RPGs from all over the world?So you are in effect saying that people are lying about how long they have been playing? I mean, yeah, not all of us were baking cookies for Gary for the first game, but it really isn't hard to have been playing for X amount of time. It's a matter of being alive and having run across the game. I'm curious what "proof" you'd be interested in?NO, I'm not accusing anyone of lying.
I'm just saying, when I look at who was originally playing, and all those who CLAIM it, the numbers don't add up.
I think he's talking about the "originals". Like those who played in Gary's first groups and the like. Maybe up to those who started with OD&D before Advanced or Basic came out. Which is still a fairly small number, but guessing by what little I know of print runs at least in the 10s of thousands, so it would be hard to say the numbers don't add up.
Even so, I'd say that most of those talking about their long experience are probably not talking about OD&D, but AD&D, which can still be nearly 40 years now. And there were a lot of people playing that. Probably more then than are playing RPGs now, so it doesn't really make any sense to talk about those numbers not adding up.
Yeah. I have not seen anyone claiming to be one of the original gamers or whatever. But when you start saying that the numbers don't add up and whatever, you are effectively calling people liars. That's sort of how the language works.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NO, I'm not accusing anyone of lying.
I'm just saying, when I look at who was originally playing, and all those who CLAIM it, the numbers don't add up.
Seriously? You're not accusing anybody of lying, you're just saying that people's claims don't match reality? I'm pretty sure that qualifies as accusing people of lying.
SO first we must designate what gives one "original Gamer" status and what it means.
That's a good point. To me the best distinction is pre-3.0 and post-3.0. I think Basic D&D and AD&D 1e and 2e could be reasonably placed in a similar box.
3.0, 3.5, and PF definitely belong in their own, separate box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started in (late) 2e.
Worship me, base and insignificant players.
I didn't get into D&D until 3E but I did play the old D6 starwars system a bit.....also where does Hero Quest fall in line?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically I started on Star Frontiers. Bought it in a grocery store. That game...was not the best system. I started D&D with BECMI in 1984. So I'm probably one of the older folks being complained about ;)
Mostly I don't bring up how long I've been playing because for most discussions it's irrelevant.