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

[Archmage]

So post more stuff about how terrible it was. A la Phonelobster's "our favorite edition is second edition" thread and Roy's 2nd edition anatomy of failed design thread.

But don't stop there. I demand massive shitting all over the cheerios of the old-school revival movement, retroclones, and everything that has ever involved a ten-foot pole.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Old-school RPG magic with a bunch of gimmicky weaknesses and exception clauses can turn every encounter into a puzzle where you read the MC's mind or lose. That can be really lame.

[shadzar]

3rd edition had shit like feats, and PrCs, and WBL... and other stupid shit like that in it.

[Dogbert]

Okay, here goes:

If I was a genius inventor, I wouldn't be wasting my time here or gaming, I'd be making big money off my patents.

If I was a master detective, my life would be a lot more exciting as for me to want to play one.

If I was a suave, silver-tongued diplomancer/pornomancer, chances are I'd be having much more sex than I do, and probably wouldn't have time to post here or play tabletop games.

If I wanted to roleplay "myself, except in dangerous situations" I'd rob a liquor store.

Skills exist for the fucking reason of helping people roleplay someone they're not. I'm under no obligation to -be- my character.

Dear grognards, Game Design has evolved. Deal with it.

[TheFlatline]

GOD DAMMIT HOW FUCKING DARE WE EVER HAVE HAD FUN.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Dear D&D writers:

I find it extremely hypocritical that you go on and on about the hidden roleplay opportunities of a character with poor stats and not to give up hope. That is, doing this while publishing NPC manual after NPC manual of characters with ridiculous stats, even the minor characters. Caramon with an INT of 12? I honestly doubt that you guys even rolled those characters fairly.

And no, the Anthropic Principle does not explain this garbage. That is, the reason why we see so many multiple 16s characters for NPCs is that those are the ones that survive. For one, even with a population size in the millions so many NPCs being like that strains credibility what with the 'fair' rolling scheme. For two, this is an admission that you're lying about the roleplaying opportunities of someone with poor stats.

[ishy]

Skills exist for the fucking reason of helping people roleplay someone they're not. I'm under no obligation to -be- my character.

Dear grognards, Game Design has evolved. Deal with it.

Dear Dogbert, I don't need skills to be able to roleplay. I can roleplay being a doctor for example just fine, even though I know virtually nothing about actually being a doctor while pretty much everyone in my standard gaming group is a doctor.

[Kaelik]

Skills exist for the fucking reason of helping people roleplay someone they're not. I'm under no obligation to -be- my character.

Dear grognards, Game Design has evolved. Deal with it.

Dear Dogbert, I don't need skills to be able to roleplay. I can roleplay being a doctor for example just fine, even though I know virtually nothing about actually being a doctor while pretty much everyone in my standard gaming group is a doctor.

Clearly you are not familiar with what Dogbert is talking about. Here is a brief example of some old school DMs:

Player: I tend to the injured barbarian, rolled a 10, have a +24 modifier, therefore, he stabilizes.

DM: Don't just roll play, role play. Tell me what you did to stabilize him.

Player: I tied a tourniquet around his shoulder to stop the bleeding on his arm.

DM: Okay.

Ten minutes later

DM: And then the Barbarian can't use his arm, because tourniquets cut off blood at lead to gangrene and muscle death if left on.

Player: WTF!

DM: Well you said you tied a tourniquet so I completely ignored all the rules that exist to determine how good a job you did at healing in favor of an arbitrary failure because you yourself didn't know the relevant medical facts.

[shadzar]

Dear grognards, Game Design has evolved. Deal with it.

this is the kind of stupid shit that just reinforces my lack of faith in humanity.

dead-tree stock products have evolved...nope still words on paper. everyone doesnt like reading eBooks

math hasnt changed. either you can do it or you cant.

imaginations haven't changed. either you have one or you dont.

playstyles havent changed.. they were always different. that is why you have board games, card games, RPGs, etc.

NOTHING has evolved.

gaming media has evolved, but this does not translate for TTRPGs.

there is NO evolution of any sort of mechanic, because most have already been done and tried in the early 90s at the latest.

you need 2 things for a TTRPG:
1. inspiration to play
2. an agreed upon method of play

that can NOT evolve in any way.

i just love how retards, especially the ones in the industry try to claim the game has evolved. sounds as stupid as Bill S on the MMO report talking about 4th edition combat being like a basketball game with two teams and the host of the show telling him to shut up with sports because its the MMO report.

but a Willie Loman will always be a Willie Loman and try to sell you something rather than talk to you or provide useful information.

TTRPGs cannot evolve, else they will no longer be TTRPGs. or if you prefer, they already DID evolved into CRPGs and MMOs. the only place left for an RPG to evolve to is VR.

paper or digital the books must still be read.
RG (random generators) are still a part of it
you must still track certain things by writing them or typing them
you must be able to think for yourself

RPGs dont evolve because you change the system around or add more fiddly bits like feats. shoving a broomstick up your ass didnt mean you evolved, you just did something VERY gay, and now have a broomstick up your ass.

RPGs are still the act of portraying a fictional character in its world by a single real-world player. you cant really evolve that and still have an RPG. sorry. come up with a better sales gimmick/tactic.

[ishy]

Clearly you are not familiar with what Dogbert is talking about. Here is a brief example of some old school DMs:

(...)

Seeing as how they are ignoring the rules for those kind of dms it doesn't matter at all what edition they play in, they'll pull the same crap.
In fact I've had dms like that in 3.5 and 4th edition games as well. And I either walked or told them that I didn't enjoy that and that they had to cut it out.

[Kaelik]

Seeing as how they are ignoring the rules for those kind of dms it doesn't matter at all what edition they play in, they'll pull the same crap.
In fact I've had dms like that in 3.5 and 4th edition games as well. And I either walked or told them that I didn't enjoy that and that they had to cut it out.

And you'll notice that Dogbert is specifically criticizing DMs for sucking and not following the rules. And he's doing this because these are "old school" DMs who follow the shadzar logic of "Skills in 3e are bad, because they prevent people from really playing their character."

And if you don't believe that those people exist and specifically prefer 2e to 3e, just ask shadzar.

[Maxus]

And the real issue is the idea of it being "DM vs. Players" mentality which was started by Gygax and perpetuated for a long, long time. Especially all the DM Douchebaggery tools in 2e--all the DNS effects that players couldn't know about, f'rinstance.

That's one of the bigger sins of Old-Skool tabletops.

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

Confession time: It's been years since I've played Dungeons & Dragons that featured a bona-fide underground fortress called a dungeon. I'm actually rather impressed that 'dungeon' can now be understood to mean 'underground fortress' rather than 'a section of a building dedicated to being a jail. Possibly built into the ground.' That's actual cultural impact, but dungeon-crawling isn't something that's come up in any games for a -long- time.

4e really is a step backwards. It's built on the assumption that every game of Dungeons and Dragons involves hunting down monsters lairing in creepy-ass places underground, and all combat happens in relatively confined chambers. Just like the shit pre-2e. The rules, especially in the power ranges, are built with this assumption in mind.

[TheFlatline]

Seeing as how they are ignoring the rules for those kind of dms it doesn't matter at all what edition they play in, they'll pull the same crap.
In fact I've had dms like that in 3.5 and 4th edition games as well. And I either walked or told them that I didn't enjoy that and that they had to cut it out.

And you'll notice that Dogbert is specifically criticizing DMs for sucking and not following the rules. And he's doing this because these are "old school" DMs who follow the shadzar logic of "Skills in 3e are bad, because they prevent people from really playing their character."

And if you don't believe that those people exist and specifically prefer 2e to 3e, just ask shadzar.

Well, skills in 3e are bad because they let you do shit like the diplomancer and swim up waterfalls and shit.

[Aryxbez]

Well, skills in 3e are bad because they let you do shit like the diplomancer and swim up waterfalls and shit.

Yay for what I assume is sarcasm! considering swimming up waterfalls, running tip toe across spear heads and clouds is AWESOME.


(sighs) Shadzar....why he's so stringent on RPG's being within his narrow minded opinion, or the equivalent of free-form ("tag! you're it" has more rules than that crap) I can only guess. Well, do realize when you make changes for the better, those are in fact, advancements within the medium. Otherwise, seem to not have an understanding as what is meant by the word "evolved" seem to overly semanticize words, taking such broad conclusions...welcome to the Gaming Den! (yes, I know he's been here for awhile)

Speaking of semantics...

RPGs dont evolve because you change the system around or add more fiddly bits like feats. shoving a broomstick up your ass did mean you evolved, you just did something VERY gay, and now have a broomstick up your ass.

Yay, let it go on record that Shadzar said that you DO in fact evolve! Given that example, and Shadzar's knowledge, it's very well possible it's a method he is personally familiar with (it explains so much...), especially given it implies to make him very "happy".

Let's see...to hell with realism, but not consistency (big difference in RPG context), actually build GOOD games, so we can focus more on playing, and less on worrying if our character concepts will actually function as they're advertised to done so.

[DSMatticus]

Well, skills in 3e are bad because they let you do shit like the diplomancer and swim up waterfalls and shit.

Can't tell if sarcastic or not.

[OgreBattle]

4e really is a step backwards. It's built on the assumption that every game of Dungeons and Dragons involves hunting down monsters lairing in creepy-ass places underground, and all combat happens in relatively confined chambers. Just like the shit pre-2e. The rules, especially in the power ranges, are built with this assumption in mind.

That's what D&D is good at though.

[Koumei]

(yes, I know he's been here for awhile)

Much to the regret of all of us, trust me. He really should go to a forum for fellow insane 2E-fans, except I'm pretty sure no such person could start up a forum of their own.

[Maxus]

4e really is a step backwards. It's built on the assumption that every game of Dungeons and Dragons involves hunting down monsters lairing in creepy-ass places underground, and all combat happens in relatively confined chambers. Just like the shit pre-2e. The rules, especially in the power ranges, are built with this assumption in mind.

That's what D&D is good at though.

But instead of trying to tone up rules for cities or forests or open fields, they just cut them back to try to force you to play in dungeons. I mean, look at the ranges on bows. I'd think an arrow from a bow could travel significantly farther than I can throw a frisbee, wouldn't you?

[Aryxbez]

Seems to me 4th edition is just as apt to the dungeon, to outdoor areas as well. Since their encounter areas are usually just tile grid maps, they tend to vary from dungeon, open city areas, and even outdoors if I recall right. All really need to do is nail down the specifics of the battleground, slap on whatever random terrain, and good to go to make some tiles. Also, I recalled long ago, one of their designs was to have spacious areas, so not too sure where the idea of "cramped Dungeons" is coming from exactly. Sure it's DUNGEONS & Dragons, but even 4th edition isn't all dungeons, but certainly make sense to focus on it to give excuses for random terrain.

[Blicero]

Seems to me 4th edition is just as apt to the dungeon, to outdoor areas as well. Since their encounter areas are usually just tile grid maps, they tend to vary from dungeon, open city areas, and even outdoors if I recall right. All really need to do is nail down the specifics of the battleground, slap on whatever random terrain, and good to go to make some tiles. Also, I recalled long ago, one of their designs was to have spacious areas, so not too sure where the idea of "cramped Dungeons" is coming from exactly. Sure it's DUNGEONS & Dragons, but even 4th edition isn't all dungeons, but certainly make sense to focus on it to give excuses for random terrain.

I seem to recall something of a "Mongol Archer" problem with taking 4E outdoors, in that a dude on a horse on a bow can run away and shoot arrows and kill a noticeably large proportion of 4E monsters. This problem/feature exists in 3.x as well, but you generally only get it with closet trolls and giant scorpions. If you have a bunch of orcs, you can give them bows and they'll be kind of shitty but still vaguely levelappropriate.

But since 4E monsters tend toward the arbitrarium, if they're not the "ranged" flavor of their monster class (kobold slinger, etc.), they're kinda screwed.

In the ~10ish hours I've spent fairly RAW 4E combat, I did notice this problem to a decent extent.

[FatR]

Dear RPG authors:

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?

[shadzar]

(sighs) Shadzar....why he's so stringent on RPG's being within his narrow minded opinion, or the equivalent of free-form ("tag! you're it" has more rules than that crap) I can only guess. Well, do realize when you make changes for the better, those are in fact, advancements within the medium. Otherwise, seem to not have an understanding as what is meant by the word "evolved" seem to overly semanticize words, taking such broad conclusions...welcome to the Gaming Den! (yes, I know he's been here for awhile)

Speaking of semantics...

RPGs dont evolve because you change the system around or add more fiddly bits like feats. shoving a broomstick up your ass did mean you evolved, you just did something VERY gay, and now have a broomstick up your ass.

Yay, let it go on record that Shadzar said that you DO in fact evolve! Given that example, and Shadzar's knowledge, it's very well possible it's a method he is personally familiar with (it explains so much...), especially given it implies to make him very "happy".

Let's see...to hell with realism, but not consistency (big difference in RPG context), actually build GOOD games, so we can focus more on playing, and less on worrying if our character concepts will actually function as they're advertised to done so.

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.

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.

3.

changes for the better

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?

4. evolve means exactly as they have said it to be and you just illustrated. technology tries to take the word in the "evolving" English language, and assign to it their own technical definition. i dont abide by that shit that propagates misunderstanding of words. choose the right word even if it sounds less pleasing, and would sell less product in an advertisement. the word looking for outside of advertising jargon is "change", not evolve.

evolve means moving to a next level. "fish" evolved to breathe out of water.

what you are talking about as well as the advertisements that want to use a catchy word to hype on the "next gen" as if technology was a living thing and has lifespan and generations...well the right word is metamorphosis (see tadpoles and frogs), as that is what D&D has undergone. a mutation, not an evolution. 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.

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.

as a player, you assume the role of a someone in the game world.

it is as simple as that. not the horse shit "roles" brought out by MMOs. fighter is a class, not a role. the role is the PC. for the DM the role is "anything NOT a PC".

so when you are talking about the "freeform" being narrow minded, remember that this is D&D, not WoW. if you want something other than D&D offers, just go find it. D&D is ONE game and has a right to be narrow-minded and have its own focus.

if you want to you can change the focus, but dont try to falsely obscure it for all, just change it at your game. play the setting you choose out of the 20+ published official worlds. but due to 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, instead of r3ealizing, D&D doesnt need you, or anybody. your wants outweigh your needs. 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.

obviously the half-car-half-truck is the only car now because people couldnt agree, so everyone drives an El Camino, and manufacturers stopped producing cars and trucks...or did they jsut accept people like different things and rather than force a change on one, 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.

your utopia doesnt work, not all restaurants are Taco Bell. Demolition Man was a fictional movie. please join reality than your fictional world.

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?

NOTE: girls are allowed to play in school football teams, but the NFL has NO female players. insurance companies are the ones that prevent this. the law can say a female player must be allowed on a team I they are qualified to play, but VERY VERY VERY FEW women would qualify to be fielded, and insurance companies would likely insure them, so they would never see play. it would cost too much tax money to do studies to figure out what the true cost of a women player would be, and there just isnt enough that want to be in the NFL, and tax payers wont foot the bill for some stupid fucking old men doing public exhibitions of exercising.

nothing stops them from making their own sporting league. (see League of Their Own)

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.

what is that thing people say about changing something so much it is no longer the same thing? i think it is about repairing a car, and how many parts do you replace before it isnt the same car...? oh well, with games you dont have to worry about that because you can create a new game at any time. just look at the travesty that is 4th edition and you can easily see that changing too much people say it is no longer the same thing, no matter who owns a copyright.

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.

only when D&D stops being a brand and becomes again a game that has a franchise of products, will it again be able to do its job right. to illustrate this i will use 4th edition to show how it COULD be a D&D franchise product.

1. remove 4th edition..that just goes to show a cancelling of one system for a new one.

2. name it as something else, such as the d20 systems did: Modern, Fantasy, Sci-Fi (was this what it is called?)

see there is a d20 franchise, not a brand. that is how "4th" could fit with D&D proprietary components, without being D&D. how to get the popular d&D name on it? well that is disputed if it SHOULD have that name, but it IS possible.

some ideas are within the naming such as D&D and AD&D are two different games before WotC fucked that up with 3rd:

D&D: Powers Edition
D&D: Superhero Edition

you get the idea, break it OUT of the enumeration, so that you can have BOTH. that creates a franchise like the brand McDonalds, has more than a single store and EACH is a franchise. they dont ALL follow the exact same menu, but have a core connection. those proprietary and trademarked D&D elements would be that core connection.

many still wouldnt accept the D&D name being on 4th, but you get the idea. they just have to stop cancelling one edition when they want to make a new one, then they could have a thriving franchise, rather than a dying brand. and 30+ settings does NOT a franchise make....

[Wrathzog]

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.

[Seerow]

So we've known Shadzar fails at math, logic, and grammar in the past, but now he's adding failure at biology/science to the list with his definition of evolution.

How on earth does this guy survive?

[shadzar]

So we've known Shadzar fails at math, logic, and grammar in the past, but now he's adding failure at biology/science to the list with his definition of evolution.

How on earth does this guy survive?

evolution is NOT "better" dumbass. those fish that evolved to walk on land, cannot return to water if they intend to breathe. the problem remains, people want to assign the word evolve to be a "better" form, rather than a "different" form.

just say the game changed, and accept the word change has connotations with it that doesnt help marketing at all. "evolve" as used in technology like the cell phone "evolving" into the iPhone is advertising schemes and using it is evocative of positive things, when its just a salesman trying to sell you something using pretty words.

iPhone and those types of phones are NOT better, just have different options. some people just want a device to make voice communications over, not play teeny-bopper games like texting, tweeting, and such. they want a tool, not a toy.