"Original Gamer" argument annoying?


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

On the plus side, this argument is usually a gigantic flashing neon sign that the poster in question doesn't play the game exactly as written.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

kyrt-ryder wrote:
On the plus side, this argument is usually a gigantic flashing neon sign that the poster in question doesn't play the game exactly as written is playing AD&D with LotR-based houserules while a row of Pathfinder books gather dust on a shelf.

Fixed that for you.

I kid, of course. ;)

Well, for some posters...


For the sake of context, could someone, preferably the OP, post a link to a thread where this actually happened, preferably the one that caused this one? I don't doubt that it did, I'd just like to see it in action.

Getting only one side is a bad way to evaluate a problem and, no offense, threads like this always give off a "somebody hurt my feelings, make them stop" vibe.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ironically, the clearest examples of this tend to get deleted by the mods.

That's always the issue with showing examples of someone being a jerk on the boards: anything that's still there to link to is probably something that doesn't seem all that bad, which of course makes it look like the person must be overreacting.

That's why I usually try to point out when an example I cite in a post is real rather than hypothetical (I've done so in at least two posts in this thread, if I'm not mistaken).

For more examples, I've also had someone flat-out tell me "If you think X, you're obviously under 30" (ironically, I'm not), and I've seen someone respond to a complaint about the ruleset by saying "If you see that problem, but I've been playing since the beginning and I didn't have that problem, and [oldschoolnamedrops] that I played with didn't have that problem, then have you considered that what's actually wrong could be how YOU play?"

Not sure I could find links, though.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm not sure a thread calling out a whole subset of the boards is healthy for the positive vibe Paizo wants and deserves on their boards. Remember this space doubles as advertising for them...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually prefer old time gamers being around, if only because for all their b!+ching and complaining, at least they aren't teenagers, a group of individuals I have disdained since I myself was one.

Being a grognard doesn't really excuse antisocial behavior, however, and claiming you know more than someone else because you happen to have been breathing for longer than them with no other objective evidence actually relevant to the situation is an example of such behavior.

Old gamers can bring a lot of experience to the table with stuff that is non-system specific, however. Knowledge of how to run a cohesive table, tell a story that will engage a group, dissolve tension, making NPCs people care about, etc. These things transcend systems, so in those instances and others like them, old gamers with experience from other systems absolutely can soapbox about how long they've been playing (although just for courtesy they probably shouldn't, but at least if they do it has some meaning).

But as for "how to fix this system" or other crunchy stuff, nah, their opinion is no more valid than anyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanDM wrote:
I'm not sure a thread calling out a whole subset of the boards is healthy for the positive vibe Paizo wants and deserves on their boards. Remember this space doubles as advertising for them...

Rename the title "I think new gamers' opinions are just as valid as experienced veterans". Boom. Problem solved. Equality and positivity image, same exact point.


In my view, experience is not particularly useful if it's the only metric used when considering the merits of a person or that person's arguments.

When I was at university, I met a guy who claimed to be an 8th year sophomore. He was the dumbest sonuvab+#!& I ever met, and yet if we only consider years of experience then I would be forced to say he was the greatest undergrad student in the world.

This argument about "Original Gamer" is much the same. Years of experience by itself is not a good metric to judge a person's merits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have an opinion on this topic!


MeanDM wrote:
I'm not sure a thread calling out a whole subset of the boards is healthy for the positive vibe Paizo wants and deserves on their boards. Remember this space doubles as advertising for them...

It's only addressed at the oldschoolers who try to abuse false seniority. There are a number of old timers on these boards who don't do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
I have an opinion on this topic!

My opinion on this matter is in line with yours, only I am older and have been playing longer, so it carries more weight, naturally


kyrt-ryder wrote:
MeanDM wrote:
I'm not sure a thread calling out a whole subset of the boards is healthy for the positive vibe Paizo wants and deserves on their boards. Remember this space doubles as advertising for them...
It's only addressed at the oldschoolers who try to abuse false seniority. There are a number of old timers on these boards who don't do that.

It's hard for some to tell who that is though. Is it everyone who's mentioned that they started playing X decades ago?

I'm sure some of the people you're thinking of think to themselves "I never abuse it. He can't mean me."
And some who you're fine with are wondering if you're talking about them.


thejeff wrote:
I'm sure some of the people you're thinking of think to themselves "I never abuse it. He can't mean me."

Or maybe they're thinking, "Who gives a crap what that guy thinks, he's not an Original Gamer, like me." :P

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
Old gamers can bring a lot of experience to the table with stuff that is non-system specific, however. Knowledge of how to run a cohesive table, tell a story that will engage a group, dissolve tension, making NPCs people care about, etc. These things transcend systems, so in those instances and others like them, old gamers with experience from other systems absolutely can soapbox about how long they've been playing (although just for courtesy they probably shouldn't, but at least if they do it has some meaning).

Anecdotally, I've found that those types of situations where decades of experience is relevant tend to be the minority of cases where posters actually do "play the age card".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
MeanDM wrote:
I'm not sure a thread calling out a whole subset of the boards is healthy for the positive vibe Paizo wants and deserves on their boards. Remember this space doubles as advertising for them...
It's only addressed at the oldschoolers who try to abuse false seniority. There are a number of old timers on these boards who don't do that.

It's hard for some to tell who that is though. Is it everyone who's mentioned that they started playing X decades ago?

I'm sure some of the people you're thinking of think to themselves "I never abuse it. He can't mean me."
And some who you're fine with are wondering if you're talking about them.

It's me. They are totally talking about me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing for a lot less than my age should indicate, but I feel like lying and saying otherwise all the time; I don't want any extra respect, as I don't think it garners any, I just don't feel anonymity has any point if I'm forthright and honest all the time.

Also, on an unrelated note, I discovered a cure for all types of cancer once, but sold the formula for a small island in the Pacific to a conglomerate of drug companies making considerably more on the medicine than the cure. I then lost my island gambling at an underground mob casino, and now live in abject poverty. I have considered giving away the formula for the cure for free, but I had my mind wiped by aliens a week ago, and only just recently recalled how to type this outrageous lie out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I started in 1984, i don't get no respect, but then i don't ask for it:-D


PIXIE DUST wrote:

Ok this I have noticed a lot in certainother threads and quite honestly, it is getting old.

Honestly, it just sounds elitist for no reason. AD&D is nothing like PF...

What do you guys think Of this?

AD&D is nothing like PF? There are similarities and PF still uses some of the old AD&D rules! :D

Falling damage per ten feet and the base damage of longswords, the same names for many classes and the use of ability scores. To say they are nothing alike is false.


thejeff wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
knightnday wrote:
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?

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.

After the "originals" the numbers of people that were exposed to (the mind altering virus that was) AD&D is not accurately known. The print-runs aren't the real number, as a whole party may use a book, copy it and spread it. Those that were raised reading their older brother's AD&D books (better than simplistic children books), or their father's collection or bought it second hand, third hand and so on enlarges the early reader/player groups to huge numbers. Who has been here since AD&D is not accurately known and would be nigh impossible to determine. Who has been here before that may be more easy to determine but it faces much of the same problems. I know youngish people that are still playing AD&D (they love it).

When I think of the number of lives gaming material has touched, it feels very humbling. It feels like a tradition that is passed on and some of the rivalries start to break down and seem unimportant. Who was there? Well everyone has their story to tell on how they found and came to this hobby.


As DM under the bridge has pointed out....and I did earlier was that when one started gaming doesn't dictate what edition one started with, nor even which one someone has the most experience with.

I have the books for 1st, 2nd, 3rd....and am glad for the srd's and pdf's.

Mostly I played first and second...a lot ( what else is high school for?)

Then some 3rd

Now Pathfinder...mostly play by posts....

Play tested Kirthfinder! ; )

Trying Swords & Wizardry....a retoclone..


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
knightnday wrote:
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?

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.

After the "originals" the numbers of people that were exposed to (the mind altering virus that was) AD&D is not accurately known. The print-runs aren't the real number, as a whole party may use a book, copy it and spread it. Those that were raised reading their older brother's AD&D books (better than simplistic children books), or their father's collection or bought it second hand, third hand and so on enlarges the early reader/player groups to huge numbers. Who has been here since AD&D is not accurately known and would be nigh impossible to determine. Who has been here before that may be more easy to determine but it faces much of the same...

Well by the time you got to AD&D there were a lot of players as I said, so it's hard for "the numbers don't add up" to make any sense. For that to be meaningful, it would have to be restricted to OD&D and maybe even not that, since OD&D was in the 10s of thousands of copies and as you say they could be copied or only one bought per group. The only group it really makes sense to talk about the numbers not adding up would be the players in the actual first groups.

And the only person I know of here to claim that is Dr. Deth.

Shadow Lodge

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

Ok this I have noticed a lot in certainother threads and quite honestly, it is getting old.

Honestly, it just sounds elitist for no reason. AD&D is nothing like PF...

What do you guys think Of this?

AD&D is nothing like PF? There are similarities and PF still uses some of the old AD&D rules! :D

Falling damage per ten feet and the base damage of longswords, the same names for many classes and the use of ability scores. To say they are nothing alike is false.

A lot of the TERMINOLOGY is the same, but a large amount of the underlying system has been had massive changes.

Palladium's Heroes Unlimited has many classes and the use of ability scores as well. Is it the same thing as AD&D and Pathfinder, in your view?

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, the falling damage rule is actually NOT the same (but it is based on a misunderstanding of how AD&D falling damage is supposed to work).

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

DrDeth suggested playing Chainmail in a fantasy setting with only a single character each to Gygax and Arneson while they were all out hunting brontosaurus.


Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

Ok this I have noticed a lot in certainother threads and quite honestly, it is getting old.

Honestly, it just sounds elitist for no reason. AD&D is nothing like PF...

What do you guys think Of this?

AD&D is nothing like PF? There are similarities and PF still uses some of the old AD&D rules! :D

Falling damage per ten feet and the base damage of longswords, the same names for many classes and the use of ability scores. To say they are nothing alike is false.

A lot of the TERMINOLOGY is the same, but a large amount of the underlying system has been had massive changes.

Palladium's Heroes Unlimited has many classes and the use of ability scores as well. Is it the same thing as AD&D and Pathfinder, in your view?

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, the falling damage rule is actually NOT the same (but it is based on a misunderstanding of how AD&D falling damage is supposed to work).

True, but AD&D is still closer to PF than to Heroes Unlimited (at least in my limited experience of that). There have definitely been changes, but the roots are still there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
DrDeth suggested playing Chainmail in a fantasy setting with only a single character each to Gygax and Arneson while they were all out hunting brontosaurus.

I remember that. Those dang kids were all over my yard. I told them we only had mastadons, what with the time differential between humanity and the nearest true dinosaur era and all, and they said no, we're hunting behemoths and leviathans, which is what we called dinosaurs at the time. Now around this time, my neighbor, Job, had broken out into this rash, and he got into scraping it with a broken pot he borrowed from me, because that Job was always borrowing my pots and tools, and I said, let me have my pot back, and he said, I can't, I'm cursed by God, and are those kids wearing chainmail in your yard? That's not even era appropriate! We're not even true bronze age yet, by all best historical accounts. And I said, well, that's just Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax...young Intern Deth (he has not yet finished his residency, you see) told them there's monsters in this region! Well, Job and I had a good laugh, and then he cried about his kids dying, and I stoned Deth, on account of medicine being witchcraft, and it was a good day.


Dragons today! i tell you w-hat in my day you couldn't go up ta one'n w-hack 'I'm with'n ma cane! of course back then a potion cost a nickel and Roosters we called cocks!

Now get'n off my lawn, Dangnabbit!!


As I've reached 30, I've started to understand the completely irrational hold nostalgia can take on a person.

It's inevitable- All will become stuck up, aging hipsters eventually! :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What my vaunted years of experience have given me isn't rules knowledge, necessarily, but more the ability to draw from countless sessions and know how to think on my feet. I may not always draw the exact correct rule or page number, but I can come up with a rule (drawn from PF, another edition, or another game system entirely) and keep the game moving with a minimum of grinding to a halt while we dredge through books for a half-forgotten rule that amounts to a random plus or minus here or there.

The second is the wisdom to know that people are going to disagree with me, especially on the internet. People would disagree with Gary if he showed up, so I don't sweat it and I suggest others don't. If they are throwing around their virtual experience as weight, so what? It doesn't mean that you have to listen to them or do what they say.

Everyone's game is their own; this arguing on the boards is an amusing pass time at best between gaming sessions in my mind. If someone disagrees with me, eh. My wife disagrees with me all the time and I don't lose sleep over that.


knightnday wrote:
What my vaunted years of experience have given me isn't rules knowledge, necessarily, but more the ability to draw from countless sessions and know how to think on my feet. I may not always draw the exact correct rule or page number, but I can come up with a rule (drawn from PF, another edition, or another game system entirely) and keep the game moving with a minimum of grinding to a halt while we dredge through books for a half-forgotten rule that amounts to a random plus or minus here or there.

This isn't an age-related thing. There are plenty of GMs out there with sufficient rules understanding to 'wing it' in this manner without decades of experience or experience in multiple editions.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
knightnday wrote:
What my vaunted years of experience have given me isn't rules knowledge, necessarily, but more the ability to draw from countless sessions and know how to think on my feet. I may not always draw the exact correct rule or page number, but I can come up with a rule (drawn from PF, another edition, or another game system entirely) and keep the game moving with a minimum of grinding to a halt while we dredge through books for a half-forgotten rule that amounts to a random plus or minus here or there.
This isn't an age-related thing. There are plenty of GMs out there with sufficient rules understanding to 'wing it' in this manner without decades of experience or experience in multiple editions.

This is very true. Not everyone learns the same way or processes things the same.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
My wife disagrees with me all the time and I don't lose sleep over that.

There's a dirty joke to be had here somewhere, I just know it.


thejeff wrote:
And the only person I know of here to claim that is Dr. Deth.

Fortunately, since no less than two books etc, corroborate me, my eternal gasbagging about this is at least true. ;-) Altho no doubt annoying to some.


We're tired of your gas Doc :P


kyrt-ryder wrote:
We're tired of your gas Doc :P

(Joke ahead, warning- joke ahead, reply is to be taken tongue in cheek)

Better my kind that yours, whippersnapper.

And get out of my cycads!

;-)


Story of my life, I wargamed with your grannies, and I still don't get no respect!!!


thejeff wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
knightnday wrote:
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?

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.

Depends on what one defines as OG I suppose, mine are typically the OG.

At first, however, the original print run wasn't that large, and to say 10's of thousands were playing it...I don't really think so.

Even with subsequent print runs, originally most knew everyone else or had a connection to others from what I gather.

For nicety sake, let's say with that we are extending it beyond the orginal group to those who bought and played with the first print run. YOu MIGHT have 5000 gamers there (though I think it was more like 3000-4000 as some just took the booklets and didn't actually game with a large group or sometimes no group).

Many were sold to those who were already with the majority group and it spread from there. Knowing how many have passed on or otherwise...when someone claims to be an OG from that original printing, it's possible, but alarm bells go off in my head. I've had MANY claim this, but most of the time they eventually slip up and say something that was absolutely untrue from that time period, or that doesn't match up with what actually happened back then. Normally, you catch some of these with their pants down.

It's been VERY rare for me to see those who actually WERE from back then (Note: most of those gamers would be in their 60s and 70s these days with a few in their 80s. As I said, it's basically those who were kids back then (and most of those from their early teens would still be in their early 50s today, and that's saying that somehow they just happened to be hardcore wargamers that were going to be able to buy the original booklet...IME most of those kids were able to play because their FATHERS were players and the DMs in many instances) that are still around in the RPG circles today.

Many of that original crowd is now dead...as well..a LOT of that original crowd...just as something else to consider).

What's more, is that I don't think many actually have transitioned to playing anything D20 period. You have many that never started with D20, others that were like Gygax that made nice with D20 but never really changed over to it (much less 3e, 3.5, or PF), and then a few that were like Arneson (who seemed to grab it by the reins and dive head first...at least from what I've seen).

I'm not putting down those that have gamed a LONG time, but I think if you've simply gamed a long time, that's enough in and of itself.

Saying one is one of the original gamers...to me...most of the time, my eyebrows raise and I grow suspicious.

They were varied, but in many ways they are VERY much products of their era...and due to that I've seen VERY FEW of them actually play anything 3.X or along the D20 lines.

Even the later ones I haven't seen that happen all that much. Deth is one, and there is a few others that I know that play modern games (or more specifically D20 and Pathfinder), but overall, most of the OG that I know of are actually known (At least what I consider an OG or at least complimentary into that group...which seems to be FAR more restrictive than what some are referring to here) haven't even played PF.

My first and foremost idea of an original gamer are those who were in Gygax's and/or Arneson's group(s) originally. These are specifically known.

Secondly, it can be extended to those who bought or played with those who bought the initial print run of D&D. I believe only around 1000 copies were printed in this, and it didn't completely sell out until around November (though there may have been a secondary print run that started selling around the middle of the year there).

Overall gamers at this point in my opinion were far below the 10000 mark.

Thirdly, those who made major contributions to the OD&D up through when it started getting consolidated by GG into what we now know as AD&D.

Those are the main three circles I accept for OG...with the first being the most obvious, the second being acceptable, and the third a necessity (as they made contributions to the original game itself!).

Outside that, you aren't an Original Gamer. Furthermore, I've seen all too often someone claim they are and it turns out...they aren't.

So, yes, I'm extremely skeptical about someone who claims OG status...or that they've been gaming since 1974...not that they ARE lying...but I typically have to see something more substantial than a claim as I've seen a LOT who claim it turn out to NOT be telling the truth.

YES...I am a skeptic in that manner...


Now, I think most people are thinking OLD timers when they think about the time gaming and such. You can definitely be an OLD timer and NOT an original Gamer as such.

There are many old timers that played OD&D...and onwards. AD&D literally had millions playing.

Unlike saying you were one of the original gamers, I hear people state how long they've been playing FAR more often, and using that as a point of what their experience has entailed in that many years.

AS far as roleplaying goes, I think I stated my opinion on it already.

However, I think any OT's experience can be a VERY VALUABLE TOOL.

I find it odd that people want to disregard the experiences of those who have gone before in favor of what they feel they already know.

Then again, the young have always tried to disregard what the older generations have to say...because...don't you know it...the young people already KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THE WORLD.

Dang it...

Something must happen around 30 or something though, because they find out that they've either forgotten it all...or maybe there's something they didn't know afterall...dang amnesia....

So, to say that you have been playing since 1976 or 1975 is a different thing than saying...yeah...I've been gaming since the beginning and Gygax was my personal DM during that time....or something similar.

I think some say it to try to garner respect without realizing that it's not necessarily if you were one of the Original Gamers that one respects, but that you've been gaming an extraordinarily LONG time compared to others...and because of that you've seen situations rise up that could help understand current situations.

Which could come from someone gaming since Gygax's time, or from AD&D, or otherwise. Once you get past something like 25 years of gaming...it all sort of rushes together in that...yes...we know you have a TON of experience...

So to me, the term Old Timer seems to fit far better than the someone claiming being an original Gamer...

Old Timer is far easier to prove than being an OG as well (IMO).

(PS: And I don't say there isn't anyone that are OG, but unless I know you are an OG personally somehow...I'm sorry, but I just happen to be suspicious of those claims. On the otherhand, if you simply use your years of experience or your editions that you've gamed with and what you've seen, I tend to be far more accepting, just speaking for myself).


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Depends on what one defines as OG I suppose, mine are typically the OG.

At first, however, the original print run wasn't that large, and to say 10's of thousands were playing it...I don't really think so.

Even with subsequent print runs, originally most knew everyone else or had a connection to others from what I gather.

For nicety sake, let's say with that we are extending it beyond the orginal group to those who bought and played with the first print run. YOu MIGHT have 5000 gamers there (though I think it was more like 3000-4000 as some just took the booklets and didn't actually game with a large group or sometimes no group)....

That's kind of what I though you were saying and I don't have any real argument with those numbers. The 10s of thousands was for all printings of OD&D (not counting nostalgic post AD&D reprintings).

OTOH, I haven't actually seen that many people making that claim.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Outside that, you aren't an Original Gamer. Furthermore, I've seen all too often someone claim they are and it turns out...they aren't.

That's more likely because everyone has a different idea of what "original gamer" means. I really don't hear that specific title being thrown around or claimed, its more or less "I've been playing for x years" or "I've been playing since Basic", etc.

Though you do have me kind of curious now, because I started in the late 80s with Basic. My dad is the one that taught my brother and I, and he had been playing in college, if memory serves. I'm kind of curious what year he actually started. I'll have to remember to ask him.

Anyhow, I think experience is a good thing, as long as people aren't trying to use it as a cudgel to silence those without experience. Again, I don't see this very often.

If two people are on opposite sides of an argument, them trying to back their points up by listing facts isn't all that surprising. They will list how often they play, how long they played, how other well-known forum posters agree with them, etc.

Stating that they started 20, 30, etc. years ago is just as relevant as a lot of the other things listed to try to support their position.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a side note, us older gamers should get a little more respect, after all, our charisma, wisdom and intelligence have usually gone up by at least one thanks to the age modifier chart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holy smokes people are arguing with terms that are in them selves arguable in definition.

For example if I started with 1st edition I can say I am an "original gamer" a term that I mean to indicate starting in the 1st edition and I can further hand-wave and claim that everything prior to that was play-testing, that the games origins were the first set of codified rule books.
Booklets don't count..grumble, grumble

So the short version is if someone says they are something, ask them what that means to them and then you will understand their perspective, if instead your first instinct is to argue then you are a problem. You first have to know the other persons position in order to oppose it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

Ok this I have noticed a lot in certainother threads and quite honestly, it is getting old.

Honestly, it just sounds elitist for no reason. AD&D is nothing like PF...

What do you guys think Of this?

AD&D is nothing like PF? There are similarities and PF still uses some of the old AD&D rules! :D

Falling damage per ten feet and the base damage of longswords, the same names for many classes and the use of ability scores. To say they are nothing alike is false.

A lot of the TERMINOLOGY is the same, but a large amount of the underlying system has been had massive changes.

Palladium's Heroes Unlimited has many classes and the use of ability scores as well. Is it the same thing as AD&D and Pathfinder, in your view?

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, the falling damage rule is actually NOT the same (but it is based on a misunderstanding of how AD&D falling damage is supposed to work).

There's a lot of conceptual space between "nothing like each other" and "the same thing." I would say both claims are erroneous. Pathfinder certainly derives fluff/inspiration from AD&D, and many of the rules are actually similar. Pathfinder is certainly more similar to AD&D than, say, either is to Shadowrun or World of Darkness.


Jiggy wrote:
Ironically, the clearest examples of this tend to get deleted by the mods.

But sometimes there is a visible discrepancy about when they start modding. Its usually slower when the "there is no problem" fanboys start becoming insulting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

WHY DO YOU HATE THIN SKINNED FANBOYS SO MUCH!! Won't somebody think of the children!!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Just a Guess wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ironically, the clearest examples of this tend to get deleted by the mods.
But sometimes there is a visible discrepancy about when they start modding. Its usually slower when the "there is no problem" fanboys start becoming insulting.

...Who? Are we still talking in the context of the whole experience-as-credibility thing? Or did you jump tracks over onto the recent surge in caster/martial disparity discussion? Or am I just derping really hard?


Wait, what? I was playing "make-believe" with my friends when I was seven, that was 1970, way before them dang nabit fancy new "leaflets" were around


Terquem wrote:
Wait, what? I was playing "make-believe" with my friends when I was seven, that was 1970, way before them dang nabit fancy new "leaflets" were around

Holy crap! Your an OG!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Did I miss some postings or has anyone outside of DrDeth said anything about being an "OG"? I mean, I've seen people saying I've played since X years or Y box, but no one saying that they mowed Gygax's yard and was rewarded by him GMing a game for them, or having claimed to have written something for Chainmail.


I've got vague memories of some people saying they'd played with Gary, but it was usually "once at a Con" or something and in the context of what old school gaming was really like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ironically, the clearest examples of this tend to get deleted by the mods.
But sometimes there is a visible discrepancy about when they start modding. Its usually slower when the "there is no problem" fanboys start becoming insulting.
...Who? Are we still talking in the context of the whole experience-as-credibility thing? Or did you jump tracks over onto the recent surge in caster/martial disparity discussion? Or am I just derping really hard?

Wait I'm missing c/m Disparity discussion? Quick someone link me a thead I love those.

151 to 200 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / "Original Gamer" argument annoying? All Messageboards