The Gaming Den

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

I never said that at all, so don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the same demographic who likes tabletop RPGs generally likes video games, too. So they're competing for that demographic's fixed amount of leisure time.

So why do videogames win out over attention? The reasons you give below have everything to do with technological superiority.

Huh? I don't need a referee to play a game of Bridge; does that mean that a deck of cards is technologically superior to D&D?

You could fit the rules of Bridge on a piece of paper. Dragonfire is the line in the sand for how complicated a game can get without a referee--which means you can't have a very complicated game, since the 1-player mode of that game doesn't even let you use tactics.

If you're playing a game with a lot of rules such as World of Warcraft or Shadowrun, you either need a human referee or you need to throw out all of the rules that require adjucation and let a computer run it.

hogarth wrote:the average age of a tabletop RPG player is getting older and older. Kids just aren't picking up the hobby like they used to.

Where are you getting that statistic from?

Just from the fact that 4E and nWoD aren't selling well?

No, before our stats broke the bank, it was common knowledge that all hobbies have aging populations.

People become interested as children, and then their interest fades off as time does. However, a certain percentage do not. And if you don't replace the ones who leave with ones who are younger, your core ages.

Sometimes this is good. (Radio controlled models, comics) Sometimes this is bad. (Model railroads, ham radio)

I'm not sure why you would argue with this statistic. It's not even unexpected. The hobby was codified by teens and college students in the 70s... And they're now dying off in old age.

-Crissa

More consumer money was spent on video games in 2007 than on all motion pictures combined - theaters, on demand movies or rentals, DVD, etc.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote: I'm not sure why you would argue with this statistic. It's not even unexpected. The hobby was codified by teens and college students in the 70s... And they're now dying off in old age.

I'm curious mostly.

I mean, as someone who started D&D around near the end of 2E, I'm certianly not from the 70s.

As far as I recall one of the reasons for PF was that they wanted to make sure there was still printed core rules book available for purchase for their APs.

Fuchs wrote:As far as I recall one of the reasons for PF was that they wanted to make sure there was still printed core rules book available for purchase for their APs.

That don't allow you to actually handle the APs.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Crissa wrote: I'm not sure why you would argue with this statistic. It's not even unexpected. The hobby was codified by teens and college students in the 70s... And they're now dying off in old age.

I'm curious mostly.

I mean, as someone who started D&D around near the end of 2E, I'm certianly not from the 70s.

From my personal experience, and also from this thread on the Paizo boards ("What is the average age of a Dungeon reader?").

Seriously, does anyone here know someone who started playing D&D in the last 5 years? Children of current D&D players don't count.

hogarth wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Crissa wrote: I'm not sure why you would argue with this statistic. It's not even unexpected. The hobby was codified by teens and college students in the 70s... And they're now dying off in old age.

I'm curious mostly.

I mean, as someone who started D&D around near the end of 2E, I'm certianly not from the 70s.

From my personal experience, and also from this thread on the Paizo boards ("What is the average age of a Dungeon reader?").

Seriously, does anyone here know someone who started playing D&D in the last 5 years? Children of current D&D players don't count.

Do I know myself? Yes, Yes I know myself.

Kaelik wrote:

hogarth wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
I'm curious mostly.

I mean, as someone who started D&D around near the end of 2E, I'm certianly not from the 70s.

From my personal experience, and also from this thread on the Paizo boards ("What is the average age of a Dungeon reader?").

Seriously, does anyone here know someone who started playing D&D in the last 5 years? Children of current D&D players don't count.

Do I know myself? Yes, Yes I know myself.

Plus Fucking One.

Roy wrote: Plus Fucking One.

You never played a tabletop RPG before five years ago? That would explain a lot.

Kaelik wrote:Do I know myself? Yes, Yes I know myself.

Interesting; so how did you get interested in D&D having never played RPGs before?

hogarth wrote:Interesting; so how did you get interested in D&D having never played RPGs before?

My first actual experience with actual D&D stuff was playing Ice wind dale on my computer. From then I went through the Baldur's gate stuff. Then I went a while without becoming more ingrained until I showed up at college, and a friend who I met through axis and allies was starting a game (it was his first as well).

Only the DM had ever played before, he had apparently been playing since about junior high and wanted to start a game. I was certainly open to it, having enjoyed old Infinity games.

Pretty quick I went online, found a few forums, including here back on the old board.

Ah, that does explain a lot of your attitude. You might feel differently with a bit more expereince of different playing styles.

Fuchs wrote:Ah, that does explain a lot of your attitude. You might feel differently with a bit more expereince of different playing styles.

Suck a fucking nut.

My opinions are not subject to not having experience of different play styles. I have fucking experience. I don't go around implying that your opinions are based on ignorance and you just can't help yourself, that's fucking condescending and bullshit.

Kaelik wrote:

hogarth wrote:Interesting; so how did you get interested in D&D having never played RPGs before?

My first actual experience with actual D&D stuff was playing Ice wind dale on my computer. From then I went through the Baldur's gate stuff. Then I went a while without becoming more ingrained until I showed up at college, and a friend who I met through axis and allies was starting a game (it was his first as well).

Only the DM had ever played before, he had apparently been playing since about junior high and wanted to start a game. I was certainly open to it, having enjoyed old Infinity games.

Pretty quick I went online, found a few forums, including here back on the old board.

O.K., that sounds plausible.

But the average RPG player I know started playing in the 80s/early 90s. Maybe I just know a lot of old people...

I do not imply it, I state it. You need a bit more maturity, and a bit more tolrenace, to understand that not everyone shares your attitude, preferences, and playing style. In short you need to grow up.

Fuchs wrote:I do not imply it, I state it. You need a bit more maturity, and a bit more tolrenace, to understand that not everyone shares your attitude, preferences, and playing style. In short you need to grow up.

Right, because no one ever disagrees with you if they are mature. Shut the fuck up.

I already understand that, which is why I have no problem dealing with lots of people with different preferences and playing styles. The difference between them and you is that they don't think that I'm immature for having my own opinions. Also they can spell.

I don't think you are immature for having a different opinion. I think you are immature for thinking your playing style is the only right way to play D&D. For insisting that anyone who does not use the rules as you do, who does adjust enemies according to the PCs in play, not the other way around, is doing it wrong.

And of course your attitude doesn't make me think you're mature either.

hogarth wrote:

Roy wrote: Plus Fucking One.

You never played a tabletop RPG before five years ago? That would explain a lot.

Cute. But seeing as before 5 years ago, it was all either like now but worse (3.0 being inferior to 3.5 in every way) or a DNS wank fest with much power tripping douchebaggery that would have turned me off the hobby for good. So in a way, it's very good I never did find an actual game when I first heard about D&D and got the rulebooks thereof because kids just aren't serious enough for that and it took until much later, when I got more recent rulebooks that I got to actually play.

Now, RPGs of the non tabletop variety are another matter. But really, there's no roleplaying in Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest or what the fuck ever. There isn't even any in the ones based on D&D, like Eye of the Beholder.

And the games other than D&D either didn't exist, existed but had the same problems, or existed, had the same problems, and still do today.

Ignoring Fuchs brand Fail. Except for one thing. 'WAH I MUST WIN EVEN IF I DON'T DESERVE IT MAKE ME WIN PLZ KKTHXBAI!' is classic small child brand whining. Who is lacking maturity, again?

Roy wrote:(3.0 being inferior to 3.5 in every way)

Wow, really? Really?

You know, this board had a whole thread about how 3.5 didn't fix any of the actual problems with 3.0, while at the same time putting all of Skip's most retarded Sage rulings in the book, buffing the Druid to make Ed Stark happy, screwing the two-weapon fighters even harder, introducing the weapon sizes debacle, etc. etc. et multiple cetera.

So, what makes 3.5 superior?

angelfromanotherpin wrote:So, what makes 3.5 superior?

That's obvious: The new and improved Polymorph rules!

angelfromanotherpin wrote:

Roy wrote:(3.0 being inferior to 3.5 in every way)

Wow, really? Really?

You know, this board had a whole thread about how 3.5 didn't fix any of the actual problems with 3.0, while at the same time putting all of Skip's most retarded Sage rulings in the book, buffing the Druid to make Ed Stark happy, screwing the two-weapon fighters even harder, introducing the weapon sizes debacle, etc. etc. et multiple cetera.

So, what makes 3.5 superior?

3.0 Druids were stronger actually. Now you get a grizzly at like... level 5 or something instead of 3.

Now granted, it doesn't do nearly enough, but beatsticks suck slightly less in 3.5 and casters are slightly weaker. Check a 3.0 splatbook sometime. They seriously think stuff like 10 level PRCs that let you do nothing but actually protect someone else, if they are standing right next to you and not even that well is worthwhile. And the feats are worse. Meanwhile, Haste is giving two spells a round, every round (and more with Quicken) from level 5 up.

Yes, it's not a very comprehensive bug fix, but it is a bug fix.

There being some actual fixes in 3.5 doesn't make 3.0 "inferior in every way". Case in point: Wishing for more wishes. That was introduced with the 3.5 wish not having a specific GP cap for magic items. The most significant part of Frank & K's fix for that was actually *reinstating* the 15k gp limit.

If you *introduce* a world-breaking bug, your product can't be called strictly better. Edit: without spreading blatant falsehoods.

Quantumboost wrote:There being some actual fixes in 3.5 doesn't make 3.0 "inferior in every way". Case in point: Wishing for more wishes. That was introduced with the 3.5 wish not having a specific GP cap for magic items. The most significant part of Frank & K's fix for that was actually *reinstating* the 15k gp limit.

If you *introduce* a world-breaking bug, your product can't be called strictly better. Edit: without spreading blatant falsehoods.

Not a meaningful distinction. Unless you're trying to tell me Efreeti binding didn't exist, there was already a such thing as infinite wishes long before you can actually cast Wish on your own, and it was introduced in 3.0 since before that, even if you could get one Wish was the fuck you lololol spell so you didn't care.