There isn't enough scathing criticism of old-school RPGing

[Seerow]

Where did I imply evolution = better? I didn't, just that you are horribly misapplying it.

[Dean]

Why are you talking to him?

[...You Lost Me]

Didn't the fish that evolved on land eventually turn back to water? Like... whales and dolphins and stuff?

[Lokathor]

Didn't the fish that evolved on land eventually turn back to water? Like... whales and dolphins and stuff?

Some of them. Not all, obviously. Also whales and dolphins are mammals.

Also, that's the Old School Renaissance movement, I guess, if you want to keep with the evolution thing.

[OgreBattle]

What is the goal of scathing criticism of old-school RPGs?
How will it benefit your RPG hobby.

How do 'oldschool' games harm your enjoyment of RPGs?

[koz]

What is the goal of scathing criticism of old-school RPGs?
How will it benefit your RPG hobby.

How do 'oldschool' games harm your enjoyment of RPGs?

Because rage is fun?

[Dean]

How do 'oldschool' games harm your enjoyment of RPGs?

Because it FUCKING MAKES SHADZARS. Every time I get into a game there will be at least ONE idiot in it who was trained on that magical tea party DM dick slapping bullshit and more people should spend time talking about how shitty those people's beliefs are.

It takes a long time to train them out of their thinking and it would benefit them, and me, if people told them the things they like are shitty. It can be done, and I've done it often, but it takes time. More people critiquing the terrible things they think positively of would reduce that time and improve the RPG community in general.

[Aryxbez]

Why are you talking to him?

A good question...I guess because it can be fun at first, prolonged conversation becomes rather unpleasant, with all the work a round, and his own irrationality.

I put my responses for Shadzar, below to save space.

1. its called a spell checker, not a mind reader. even if it were a grammar checker, the statement would have been grammatically correct. it doesnt KNOW when you intend to use a negative rather than positive. now get the broomstick out of your ass.

Silly Shadzar, at what point is there evidence indicated by me, or even implying I've got anything up my keester? After all, you're the one who had indicated it so, and as your words said...you evolve!

NOTE: but VERY VERY VERY FEW women would qualify to be fielded, and insurance companies would likely insure them, so they would never see play.

Well, interesting to note that companies that ensure someone, seals your fate of basically never playing (who knew insurance could be such a slave driver).

2. the medium is words. understand than in regards to evolution. electronic is NOT better objectively than dead-tree stock. it just offers some different features. dead-tree stock also offers features than electronic medium does not. the medium is still the written word, and it hasnt changed that much in millennia.

Don't recall bringing this part up myself, but alrighty, PDF could be seen as an advancement in marketing, cheaper than printing out large amounts of books. That said, I myself prefer physical form of things, much easier to look through its contents (PDF's have advantage of whole finding specific information quicker though).

3. subjective. there will NEVER be an agreed upon set of criteria to quantify the changes to assign a value relative to "better".

Group A: better is more codified, more "choices", less thinking
Group B: better is less codified, more choice, more room to think

what is "better" for both groups here?

Numbers never lie, you do the math right to a game, surviving even under stress tests, and some power creep, then yeah that's a more definite set of criteria. If the math means a well designed core system foundation, then you indeed will have a well grounded base game.

I would find it would depend what A & B regarded exactly. If "Group A" meant case where an involved process was streamlined to go quick and smooth as it'd allow, whereas it'd be inconsistent results at best with just imagination, then I could find it a good rule. However, if its process gets in the way of the games advertised stories it supports (like Superman character can't throw cars, fly/leap buildings in single bound, Wolverine claws don't cut, Flash can't go faster than a man on a bike), then I would find it's a bad rule. As for "Group B", if it was a small selection of abilities with wide use of imaginative applications, then that would be a plus. If instead it meant where it's a game fueled on essentially "DM Fiat" or Free-form Roleplay, where just kinda roll a die, and make up a result on how pretty the result looked. Like where rolling 16 via d20 to say, stab a troll, meant a different result every round (from "you stabbed a troll", "missed your stab", to even "stabbed your own arm off, and now have cancer), where there's no actual inputs to the game to have any basic expectations...then that just would be terrible (40 cakes and all).

but being a sheep with the wool pulled over its eyes and a fad-follower who will by the "new shiny", you dont understand this concept because you only follow the hype and jump on any bandwagon that get you into the popular culture fads.

Funny you seek to once more make broad assumptions towards me. To be "sheep-ish" I would actually have to be following said "fads", and even keeping up to date on them no less. Idea you think it's you, but "everyone else" is pretty sad, least here on the Gaming Den (any other RPG forum, might have something, most are pretty subject to whole mass ignorance thing). So your petty insult is just that, I'm actually rather dynamically minded for someone in my area, someone like you would probably be a little esoteric, but not unheard of, so go Bah! to whence you came.

5. no fucking D&D book has been anything but wordy shit trying to explain what an RPG is. over complicated fucking ideas rather than simple description. read any edition pre-WotC, as well MANY other RPGs and you will find the root description of an RPG.

I have, which is why I'm fully aware could play an RPG without rules at all, play it rules-lite, or just free-form (kinda like Cops & robbers, Tag!, and so forth). Yeah, rules-lite games have their place, for a fun evening or few, but anything actually lasting, a "campaign" if you will, not so great for. Which is where games with actual rules seek to exist, where existence of such a framework puts everyone on a similar page, even to the kind of game it'll be.

YOUR narrow-minded needs you want to reduce the game to something that is less open so it only serves YOU. because as usual these people NEED to play D&D to be popular and must be able to jump on the band-wagon, you want to play D&D so bad, but dont like it. but you want to play it to be accepted. which is puzzling since you could have more fun playing something you like rather than change something you dont like to be that other thing, just with the D&D name on it.

Not at all, it is you that seeks a strict "coded" theme of what D&D is, even the rules itself, seeking to apparently dub for a rather limiting game that only serves your self destructive desires. I only "need" D&D, so long as there's not another Fantasy RPG that's well designed, and supports the 1-20 (low-mid-high-epic tiers of play, check out thread in sig for better picture how I mean) power level ranges of play adequately. I've no need for "acceptance" at all, another one of your false conclusions, which maybe I should start making things up for you eh? Otherwise, a better fantasy game comes along that fulfills the goals that D&D sought to do in a way, then by all means I'll likely turn to that game instead, D&D is just a brand name.

created different things for people to be able to choose because MOST people arent buying something just for the name which you obsessively need in the case of playing D&D.

why do YO need D&D so much if you dont like what it is or was? why much it be changed for YOU, or anyone else? why can you not play something else?

Admittingly, I do long for higher levels of fantasy, both in RPG's and represented in current fantasy mediums. Otherwise, I seek no obligation to use the D&D rules for everything, like for Shadowrun, just use the aptly named game for that (unless Frank's version of the game finally gets created, then should be using that instead).

It's needed for Fantasy, as it's the best built Fantasy game out there currently, with cool monsters, covers an exciting power level ranges of play (see earlier comment), also variety of character concepts can be done with the rules. For everything else, there's (master card) whatever appropriate system that'd facilitate the stories wanting to be conveyed.

get over YOUR obsession with needing to be a part of D&D, and realize, that you can have another game. D&D doesnt have to be the only game, so widen your view, and find one that works for you if you dont like D&D. adapt D&D to your needs at YOUR table. or jsut make the game that fits YOUR needs, and if you are lucky and enough people agree with you, they will buy and play it and you will have enough players outside your current group.

Frank (the one here) has a game of his own. Gygax didnt only make D&D he made about 30 different games for 30 different purposes. Mentzer is working on a new game that isnt D&D, though he made the best version or widest used version of D&D.

I find it ironic, I'm the one being accused of being out of touch with reality, or my mind, when here is a guy who can't even get his own words together. Let alone coherent interpretation of what someone is saying, instead choosing to insult, and jump to conclusions, trying to show off as if you were superior to me, quite petty.

[TheFlatline]

It takes a long time to train them out of their thinking and it would benefit them, and me, if people told them the things they like are shitty. It can be done, and I've done it often, but it takes time. More people critiquing the terrible things they think positively of would reduce that time and improve the RPG community in general.

Thank you Master of the Universe for decreeing that.

Now.

[Citation needed]

[TheFlatline]

If you insist on inserting douchebag villainous NPCs, with a huge penis power level for PCs to marvel at, into your adventures, can you at least not resort to giving them the ability to ignore rules outright or directly commanding GM to ensure that they will ride the railroad to success?

DealWithIt.jpg
Seriously, man, this is one of those things that's going to stick around forever.

Also, Shadzar is in top form today.

True. I mean, the heroes overcoming the uber-powerful NPCs is one of the basic tropes of RPGs.

A better statement would be "named NPCs are NOT the DM's PC". They're there to be killed crushed humiliated, tortured intimidated, ignored, put in a bag or anything else the story needs.

[Dean]

Thank you Master of the Universe for decreeing that.

Now.

[Citation needed]

So your stance is that the last 20 years of game design has been a waste of time. That essentially what we all do here on this very forum is a complete waste of time. Because the game design field reached a zenith of perfection in 1989 and improvements cannot be made hence. Fuck you.

[shadzar]

Thank you Master of the Universe for decreeing that.

Now.

[Citation needed]

So your stance is that the last 20 years of game design has been a waste of time. That essentially what we all do here on this very forum is a complete waste of time. Because the game design field reached a zenith of perfection in 1989 and improvements cannot be made hence. Fuck you.

no, only the last 15 years since WotC took over with D&D and people keep following their onetrueway to play bullshit that breeds feckless retarded rules lawyers that prevent the hobby from having a chance to grow, trying to think EVERYONE must play this ONE way.

"untrain them" of their preferred playstyle and agree only with you, a rules-lawyer.

stick to your board games, you are NOT welcome at everyone's home.

THIS is the reason fighters cant have nice things, because morons wanting too much uniformity dont understand that it prevents people from playing what they was in the closed system, and excludes people from being able to play, rather than taking their shitty playstyle and just finding people to play with that has the same one. they try to force their playstyle on EVERYONE like they are each a Mike Mearls themselves.

yo actually sound like a bigger idiot with your idea and the comments you made than Gygax ever could have sounded.

[Leress]

Group A: better is more codified, more "choices", less thinking
Group B: better is less codified, more choice, more room to think

One: Fuck your loaded ass example.

Two: For someone talking about how WOTC is doing the "One True Way" of playing, you come off just as bad in regards to the way you play.

Three: There is Group C - mode codified, more choice, taking those tools and making new rules that fit with the system to make what the group thinks that should be able to do possible.

[shadzar]

1. MY one true way, is a way that includes the ability for others, there is the key. im not forcing a single way to play, but on open area to allow whatever style of ply

2. i didnt need a group C to prove that everyone doesnt agree on "better" it only takes 2 people to disagree, to show a disagreement exists. i have no need to list every type of play to show disagreement exists, when i proved it with less effort.

[tussock]

So your stance is that the last 20 years of game design has been a waste of time. That essentially what we all do here on this very forum is a complete waste of time. Because the game design field reached a zenith of perfection in 1989 and improvements cannot be made hence. Fuck you.

What happened on the way to 3.0 was brilliance, they took a bankrupt company's clunky-yet-awesome game (AD&D) and made it easily playable right out of the box. And people did play it. Money was made thereby.

Since then? Not so much, and sales figures to match. Game design has been pretty damn flat for 12 years, Pathfinder is the next biggest fish and it's an even clumsier 3e with all the same problems. Indy games are even smaller than they've ever been, and OOTS showed there's D&D money out there burning a hole in people's pockets with nothing to spend it on.

[...You Lost Me]

What happened on the way to 3.0 was brilliance, they took a bankrupt company's clunky-yet-awesome game (AD&D) and made it easily playable right out of the box. And people did play it. Money was made thereby.

Since then? Not so much, and sales figures to match. Game design has been pretty damn flat for 12 years, Pathfinder is the next biggest fish and it's an even clumsier 3e with all the same problems. Indy games are even smaller than they've ever been, and OOTS showed there's D&D money out there burning a hole in people's pockets with nothing to spend it on.

Sigg'd.

[Sunwitch]

How did you people manage to turn another thread into a thread about shadzar. God damn it.

I hate traditionalist RPG people because they are vehemently opposed to doing what the rest of their group wants and because they have an incredibly perverted idea of what is actually fun. I hate having to play with people who joke about being "evil DMs" and claim that what makes D&D, and other RPGs, so great is that you can die or otherwise get royally fucked over in a permanent manner. Because that shit is not actually fun. It is boring and humiliating. That is what I hate about traditionalist RPGers.

[koz]

He's like a cancer. There's no removing him from anything, and he keeps metastasising (sp?).

[Wrathzog]

is that you can die or otherwise get royally fucked over in a permanent manner. Because that shit is not actually fun. It is boring and humiliating. That is what I hate about traditionalist RPGers.

When I get together with my group and we talk about all of our past adventures, all of the best stories involve one of the players getting murdered.
But apparently we weren't having fun at the time?

[Ektagliaresia]

If there's another, it's the idea that games should be super-narrow in focus...

4e really is... built on the assumption that every game of Dungeons and Dragons involves hunting down monsters lairing in creepy-ass places underground... Just like the shit pre-2e.

OD&D has (sketchy, but present) rules for mass, naval, and aerial combat, building castles, running baronies, and hiring retainers. All but the last was absent from core 1e to 4e (note that 3e was the "back to the dungeon" edition). It's pretty disappointing that subsequent editions dropped these rules instead of improving them.

[Chamomile]

Unsurprising. OD&D seems to have had a lot of rules that were originally created because a playtester wanted to do something, so the DM houseruled something. Mass combats and realm management are often the first two things players looking for something past squad-based battle are going to want.

[shadzar]

you dont seem to know what OD&D is. why do you even think it had playtesters?

the reason such didnt exist as much in 1e and 2e was because Gary had to move away from what Dave helped him create. the game was shifted form miniature wargames (mass combat and realm management) to a single character focus. people ate that shit up.

they both contained those things, but didnt want the game to seem being ABOUT those things. the game is about "you are one person in this world, now do what you want in it" without preloading a "goal" like "have a kingdom". the goal of the game was to play. the goal you can make during play is anything. so things were left out of the "core" that wasnt general to ALL games.

also there is something else people look for when they get tired of "squad based"...single player is what they will want. D&D just does this very poorly.

[bosssmiley]

OD&D has (sketchy, but present) rules for mass, naval, and aerial combat, building castles, running baronies, and hiring retainers. All but the last was absent from core 1e to 4e (note that 3e was the "back to the dungeon" edition).

BECMI had all those too, albeit often a bit ropey. But then again, BECMI had everything, up to and including Kirby-style New Gods nuttiness.

(Its surprising how much 'modern' D&D owed to the 'kiddie' version of D&D. Arguably 3E is closer to/owes more to BECMI than it does to AD&D 2E.)

I hate traditionalist RPG people because they are vehemently opposed to doing what the rest of their group wants and because they have an incredibly perverted idea of what is actually fun. I hate having to play with people who [...] claim that what makes D&D, and other RPGs, so great is that you can die or otherwise get royally fucked over in a permanent manner. Because that shit is not actually fun. It is boring and humiliating.

This is a time when I think "don't hate the player; hate the game" is actually an appropriate, non-facetious, response.

Old (pre-WOTC) D&D was predicated on the idea that characters were - in some senses - disposable and easily replaceable. Level 1 as gauntlet run/hazing rite, death at 0hp, wall-to-wall save-or-die effects, 5 minute chargen: all these things were *intentional* on the parts of the game designers who came - let us not forget - from wargaming roots.

As late as 2E these things remained as (sadly unspoken) assumptions of the game. A later generation - raised on Shannara and Dragonlance and with cinematic or multi-volume fantasy assumptions about character survivability/agency - ended up playing a game built on assumptions about character dispensability derived from wargaming and pulp short stories. Inevitably, nerdrage ensued.

Traditionalist RPGers differ from modern players because they bring to the table a different - but equally valid - set of assumptions about the game. Old style vs. modern style is just the classic Gentlemen vs. Players ("play for love of it, win or lose" vs. "play to win/succeed") distinction all over again.

[FatR]

If you insist on inserting douchebag villainous NPCs, with a huge penis power level for PCs to marvel at, into your adventures, can you at least not resort to giving them the ability to ignore rules outright or directly commanding GM to ensure that they will ride the railroad to success?

DealWithIt.jpg
Seriously, man, this is one of those things that's going to stick around forever.

Also, Shadzar is in top form today.

True. I mean, the heroes overcoming the uber-powerful NPCs is one of the basic tropes of RPGs.

How are you supposed to overcome them if they don't actually use rules or GM is outright told to make them impossible to overcome? It seems you haven't noticed what my complaint is about.

For that matter, if an NPC is actually uber-powerful, you won't overcome him either, unless the GM cheats in other direction, but that happens much less often, NPC writeups tend to suck dicks.

[hogarth]

As late as 2E these things remained as (sadly unspoken) assumptions of the game. A later generation - raised on Shannara and Dragonlance and with cinematic or multi-volume fantasy assumptions about character survivability/agency - ended up playing a game built on assumptions about character dispensability derived from wargaming and pulp short stories.

If you read Appendix N, almost none of those supposed inspirations involved "characer dispensibility".