Kobajagrande wrote:What probably "ruined" D&D in my mind is the growing realization that RPG system should be built to support the specific type of story - and the fact that D&D simply did not emulate the type of story most people wanted, or expected. Before people actually realized the consequences of every D&D element taken to their logical conclusion, people were more than willing to hand-wave, ignore or ad-hoc add the elements they wanted to make it the support the kind of story they wanted.
When people started realizing that RPG should be designed to support the kind of story they want to play, it led to the attempt by the designers to add everything that the "majority" wanted. Somewhere along those lines, the line of "I'll make the game I want to play" got lost.
Or maybe I'm just rambling. The moment I opened 4e on a random page, and flipped through pages of similar-looking class powers, I thought how this crap doesn't inspire me one single bit. Some sort of magic that previous editions had was lost. Or maybe, it was just me growing old
not a realization per say, but a bastardation. people wanted D&D to support a specific style of play, because other RPGs focused on this. other RPGs that came about after had a specific style of play in mind as their goal.
i started with BD&D and AD&D 1st, but rarely got much out of 1st when having to read the books. due to Gary's prose, 1dst does have a flavor, but when second came out, it didnt need to have that flavor in the books, if you already used that flavor yourself.
like Kuntz said, D&D wasnt intended to support any style of play over another, but to allow people to choose. how to play for them selves. it gave you some wood, screws, screwdriver, hammer, nails, and saw; and you could build shelves, a table, a cabinet, whatever. it wasnt intended to be used for just one thing.
you could tell any kind of story with it, and alter it to suit the needs or your story, or playstyle.
another example of what D&D was made for, if the wood working tools above doesn't fit, think of a deck of playing cards. 13 ranks in 4 suits, but there is not une way only you can use them to play a "game", even if MANY of those games follow using full house, flush, straight, etc as part of their system.
i think the last 2 things you say is true, but wrong, and sort of confusing.
yes the designers stepped in to add things for the LCD, the masses, the majority; but did set out to "make the game i want to play" from the designer stand point, but that game was too narrow focused that it shut out MANY playstyles, and you end up with 4th edition.
you cannot make "everybody's game" by adding more stuff, but only by taking away the parts that everyone doesn't share.
discounting people that espouse "im playing D&D even though i only use WoD rules", cause that is just bullshit speak to appeal to popularity rather than explain to someone else what they are playing, then you need to make D&D in a way that everyone CAN play it, which was done originally.
you amke the backbone of a game, and let each group be able to adjust things as needed, but everyone using the same system then makes them "feel" connected through the hobby.
tournament format never worked and never will. sorry Frank M, that work went to waste. how to get people to play at cons and such idk, or maybe it is so simple, to have trained DMs, and the best ever written moduled, so that each DM running at the game wil come to the same conclusion should something come up during two different games at the con. so rather than rules made for a tournament like chess or monopoly, DMs that think so alike that the same actions result in the same results. or hell have varying DMs, so you get a different game with the same adventure, depending on the DM.
which was the point of D&D, so that people could play HOW they wanted, rather than forced to play Gary's game.
LFR, "tournament play", LGH, etc trying to get everyone to play the same way to have a "shared" global game is just silly and stupid in light of the games purpose...to let everyone play with a shared set of tools, but their own skills changes the game to suit their needs.
i will let everyone in on a secret now that may shock them; campaign settings never needed to exist, as that was something anybody could make. nobody needed to buy them. yet i own more campaign settings (4) than i do published adventures. because i took inspiration from them just as many others did from pieces of fiction, like novels; because they had a world that you could take ideas from.
you can play D&D on Discworld, but their was no Discworld D&D setting. it all boils down to where you pull YOR inspiration as to where the game is played.
so you weren't growing old, you jsut stepped back and looked at what the difference was in what you were doing all along, versus what the designers were doing, and noticed the goal of D&D and the goal of those making it had changed, and it had NOT gotten better for it.
