RetroRoleplaying Forum

I had to remove a comment on the blog this morning. I don't think it was up long and with Google's on and off again server problems today, I doubt many people saw it. Thankfully. It was a diatribe against people like me who do not support current editions of D&D. Normally, I would have left such a comment up and replied to it, but the comment was made to my post on Gary's death, almost 10% of the words in the post were profanity, and there were insults to Gary in the comment.

However, I'd like to toss out a couple of the arguments made in the comment -- stripped of their childish profanity and rude tone -- for discussion. The poster's argument was basically that those of us who refuse to "get with the program" and abandon older editions for the latest edition from the current publisher are harming the D&D hobby by:

• not buying current books which hurts the profits of WOTC and Hasbro making it less likely that they will continue to publish D&D materials.
• fragmenting the hobby. When everyone plays the same edition and plays it by all the books, it makes it easier for players to find games. The more people refuse to upgrade to the latest version every few years, the more fragmented the hobby becomes and the harder it is to find players.

The poster had a few other arguments, but they were incomprehensible to me as written (e.g. "the [profanity omitted] Coolness factor you [profanity omitted]") or were really just attacks on Gary for not strongly supporting newer editions.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel any obligation to keep WOTC or Hasbro in the black and I feel that the second argument makes as little sense as saying that American Football fans should stop watching their favorite sport and support Soccer (Football to the rest of the world) because Soccer is the more popular game.

What do you think? Are we fans of older versions of D&D hurting the hobby by our refusal to fall in love with, buy, and play the current edition of D&D?

This guy sounds like a zealot.  Wotc/Hasbro gets my money when they offer products I want to buy.  I'm not in gaming to support WotC or to support the health of "the market" or "the industry."  I'm in gaming to have fun.  I buy what I like, and I play what I like. 


More zealotry.  Again, I "upgrade" if I like the changes.  I don't upgrade to "support the hobby."  Frankly, I don't really care if the hobby grows and is "unified," or not.  I'd be perfectly happy with a smaller, more hobbyist market.  What concerns me is having fun with my gaming.  I've never had a problem finding players, so that's just not an issue, to me.

Also, I think diversity in the hobby is healthy.  I think the market is healthiest when it's driven by competition and purchases.  The market adjusts to the needs and desires of the consumers; that's healthy.  Trying to force everyone under one banner is just silly, IMO.

Or, to put another spin on what Philotomy has said, yeah, it probably is bad for the RPG industry when I don't buy their newest game.  Just like it was bad for the Detroit-based auto industry when customers decided they preferred Japanese cars that had the features they wanted and were cheaper.  Just like it's bad for Hollywood that I don't like cop dramas and romantic comedies.

But in all of those cases, the problem isn't the consumers, and to say so is to utterly miss the point of how a free enterprise economy works.

Now, I'd prefer to have a thriving, dynamic, and strong RPG industry.  But if they want my money, they can earn it by creating products I want to buy.  It's not difficult.  Heck, by posting on message boards and my blog, I've done the hard work for 'em by explaining what it is I want in a product.  If they still can't be bothered to create product I want to buy, then [expletive] them.  ;D

- Brian

I got a lot of flack for not liking newer editions from some people- which is funny, because I never once said they were worse in anyway, just different from what I like.

I really don't get the need for everyone to like the same thing.

Sounds good to me. :) I dare say that if there was no "current" edition, it would be easier for us to find players willing to play previous editions.


I agree. Fragmenting the hobby is horrible. The problem is, I think everyone should play my favorite version (Basic Fantasy, right now). Why should Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro decide what my Dungeons and Dragons rules will be?

But "finding players" is the sign of someone who isn't trying. Nobody in my gaming group here in Vaasa ever played the games or editions I've run before I came along. (hmm, it probably is more of an issue if you're a player looking for a group... if you're running the games, you get to dictate what's being played... :P)


We are the hobby. We follow (and embrace) the history of role-playing, we are not swayed by current marketing and trends, and we tend to create and share our own stuff amongst each other. We connect yesterday and today. Get rid of us, and this hobby floats in space, not connected to anything, and it becomes susceptible to death if the current producers make bad business decisions.

Tell someone who cares. You'd have to be an idiot to spend good money on products you don't like, purely out of loyalty to a company that has consistently shown no loyalty to its long-standing customers.

Nothing destroys diversity and creativity like a monopoly.


Not at all. If anything, the distaste many feel towards 3e and the glimpses we've seen of 4e, has resulted in new heights of creativity and "sharing the love". Over and over again on various forums, I have seen people returning to the hobby, often because of this reaction and the resulting output of new work. And those people often talk of new people they have introduced to the hobby. If anything, our collective dislike of Hasbro's current D&D seems to be causing the hobby to grow and expand.   :)

I'm not sure when the idea that we all had to like and buy the same things became the norm. It was fairly common when I was in grade school during the 60s. At least I can remember kids who would only be your friend if you like the same TV shows, sports, or whatever they did, but most of outgrew that silliness long before we hit junior high.

These days I often encounter it in adults. People who think I'm weird because I prefer original Star Trek (and to a lesser extent TNG) to whatever Paramount has decided is Star Trek this year) and feel the strong need to save me from this weirdness by trying to force me to watch and like later. People who are offended because I will not buy CDs from their favorite groups. Etc.

I suppose I should not be surprised that so many RPG players today seem to be offended by people who don't play the same game (and edition) they do. However, I find it strange. I don't think D&D 4.x has much in common with the type of D&D I enjoy, so I'm not going to play it. Since I am not going to stop people who like it from playing it, I just don't see why anyone should really care that I did not jump on the 3.x bandwagon and am staying clear of 4.x.

Like you, I just don't get it. Perhaps it is that "generation gap" thing?

ROFL!  Welcome to the Forum, Jim.

Good grief...kids these days eh?


The first argument is partly valid, I concede that. If people do not buy a company's product in sufficient number it will tend to be phased out. Just look at all the gaming companies which went belly up when the Magic:TG and D20 crazes began.

However, the poster forgets none of us is under any obligation whatsoever to purchace any company's products. he might as well attack my grandfather accusing him of never having bought a RPG or boardgame or video game during his lifetime, thus "harming" the industry  ::)

The second argument is silly and bears a hint of gaming facism. The poster is basicaly whining that if not everyone plays his favourite game there is a possibility that any particular gaming group he finds will not be running it...duh.

It's like advocating the banning of hollywood action movies because you feel they aren't doing enough romantic comedies.


Amen.

I don't buy gaming material to "keep a company afloat" or anything like that. Actually, at this point in life I have an extended RPG library and I don't believe I have the need to purchase any RPG material for years to come. That's how long it would take me to literary use all the stuff I own if I wanted to. Not to mention that the current avaiability of free material on the internet these days, including fully playable rule systems that cater to a diversity of tastes extend this period even longer.

Unless WoTC comes out with a brand-new, revolutionary, "kick-ass", unique, remarkabely user-friendly (from both the GM and player prespective) roleplaying game which appeals to my personal tastes and cannot be emulated by any of the current games I own...they will not be seeing a penny of my money.
 

Of course we are. Exactly the same way "the hobby" hurts us fans of older versions of D&D by its refusal to produce, promote and market material for our older editions of D&D.

What goes around comes around...

Honestly, from your description it sounds more like a rant than any sort of reasoned argument. With such an untenable position as the fellow you speak of I'd say he's got the "fanatical fear-mongering" down cold.

His use of the terminology "fragmenting the hobby", "harming the hobby" is the type of white-wash/tar-us-all-with-the-same-brush attitude that does FAR MORE HARM than what he's ranting about.

As far as I'm concerned it's this type of "Cultic" thinking that is going to do the greater damage by forcing us all to take sides where there aren't any! It's as ludicrous as telling crafting hobbyists that the grognard "sock puppet enthusiasts" are fragmenting the hobby by not taking up "scrapbook making" instead. Why don't they get with the program....rant...rant. I can see it now. Dozens of flame wars on sock puppet and scrapbook message boards.

Let's put this in perspective for heaven's sake! This is getting to be utter, unforgivable nonsense!
 ::)

Same here. I could run a weekly RPG session for the rest of my life and not have to buy anything except replacements for lost dice. I have more adventures than I would ever run -- especially as I like to create my own and play using game systems that encourage that. I might buy an adventure or setting every once in a while if something really caught my eye, but I'm not going to be keeping any company afloat on my purchases.

This is one of the reasons I really think simulacrum games need to be published with the aim of attracting new players, not just being a set of rules publishers can use to publish material for older editions of D&D under the legal cover of the OGL. Most of the people playing older editions now probably don't need enough new professionally published material to make publishing such material a truly profitable activity.

There is the belief that "no new products" = "dead game" = difficulty in getting new people to play it. So then, "new products" = "living system" = grow the player base... just by virtue of new products existing.

I don't think it's that easy... but it certainly doesn't hurt.

It certainly is a mindset that is both narrow and blinkered and the paranoid cynic in me thinks it's probably a result of subtle propaganda by the big companies (or should that be company?)

On the other hand, new products are both exciting and encouraging. I've said before that the whole retro-clone movement has excited me more about role-playing, than anything that has been produced since the early 80's. The fact that the retro-clone movement began at all, demonstrates how incorrect the whole "no new products" = "dead game" thinking actually is.

I know that belief is out there, but considering the huge number of products for D&D and AD&D available at very low cost in PDF format, I'm not sure that just having new adventures for these older systems is going to bring in many new players. I think Labyrinth Lord is an example of a more effective way: a retro-clone game that is a complete "new game" package. Yes, its primary purpose it to allow people to publish adventures "for Labyrinth Lord" that are compatible with B/X D&D. However, it was packaged as a complete new game with a catchy title. I can see someone seeing Labyrinth Lord in a shop and deciding to give it a try. I can't see that as very likely with OSRIC (at least the first edition. What might help even more is a retro-clone game with an edition aimed at new players with art and layout more like current games.


You're right. It definitely can't hurt.

I'm not sure about this point of view that "no sales = dead system". I can understand the reasoning, but it's definition of dead is very narrow. What do you think? Is this a large part of what decides if a system is dead? Or only one point of view? Is it only sales and being serviced by some company that decides it?  I have recently been reminded by boards like this that the point of the original rules was to make you independent as far as house-rules, design and adventures were concerned. When I bought the magazine "Fight On" from lulu.com it reminded me with it's crudely drawn maps that this was something that I could do myself. And have great fun with! I had spent so much money on 3e I had forgotten this. (I was cleaning up after a game and had, no joke, 14 books under my arms. I said to my daughter, "Hey, how about a quick pickup game of D&D?" We both laughed.)

I'm going to look at this Labyrinth Lord, it sounds interesting.

Interesting thread topic.

Given that people who started playing popular RPGs (e.g. D&D, Rifts, WoD) after the early 1990s are used to lots of support material published on a regular basis and have come to depend on that stream of published material for their adventures and campaigns, lack of support material probably does mean "dead game" to them. People who started playing before that or who play less popular systems are probably less likely to think that way as they never had a steady stream of supplements and adventures to depend on and so are used to creating their own.

I probably don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said better, but I've never let that stop me before. (^_^)

Two problems with the first point:

1. The hobby is not the industry

2. Any company that is betting everything on a role-playing game is probably doomed anyway. D&D sales to not decide the fate of Wizards. (And how much less so for Hasbro.)

Edit: 3. Buying products you don't like is a good way to encourage more products you don't like rather than products you do like.

Two problems with the second point:

1. I've only met a couple of gamers who weren't willing to play whatever game someone is willing to run. I have not witnessed--in real-life--this fragmentation despite over two decades and countless game systems of experience.

2. What fragmentation might exist is a feature, not a bug. Why shouldn't the simulationists have GURPS, the narrativists have the World of Darkness, and the gamists have D&D, rather than none of us being happy? (Ignoring for the moment that I don't really believe in those correlations, but it gets the point across.)

My heart bleeds. :)  I haven't played D&D for years.  I don't know if that puts me outside the target of the diatribe, or just makes me a plain old heretic.  I could care less if WOTC et all make D&D books.


Yes, but what if I don't want to play *that* game?  I find it a lot easier t stick with a group you like, and try whatever game it is you like there, rather than finding a new group for whichever game you want to play.  By this logic, only one roleplaying game should be allowed, and whilst we're at it, we probably should ban all religions but one, etc etc.
Very few games can do everything.  GURPS tries, but it isn't my favourite system.  My favourite games of the moment are those with simple rules that are geared towards doing a particular thing.




Again, not a D&D fan.  But I do buy new books - often games I will probably never run, because I'm interested in just reading it, or possibly taking inspiration for another game, etc.  And I still have a part of me deep inside that is looking for the elusive perfect system that will let me run an amazing game.  Haven't found it, naturally. ;)
So I like some old stuff, and some new stuff.  I don't think I can be particularly accused of being 'hidebound.'  But the thing I'm looking for in a game is quality.  I feel no need to buy rubbish that other people like, and to play that rubbish, to keep them happy.

On a seperate note, my next campaign will be for an old game long out of print (The Ars Magica game plan died when something else got my attention) - Amber.
A minimum amount of stats relatively simple rules (the complexity being in interpretation), and no dice.  I like random results, but I'm getting tired of so-called competent characters appearing amazingly bad because the player rolled badly.

If a new game comes out that will address what I want in a game - great.  I'm not going to buy it solely because it is new, and because it might keep the hobby going.  If the roleplaying business went under, it wouldn't prevent me from roleplaying.

SIGH -- Not for the choice of game, but for the fact that the Amber RPG's author, Erick Wujcik, is dying of pancreatic cancer. A third really good gaming author we are going to lose this year. I've never been a huge fan of diceless RPGs, but the Amber RPG did an excellent job of capturing the spirit of Zalanzy's Amber books and the diceless system Erick came up with for it seemed to work for the game and world.

Yeah, I'd heard about Wujcik.  It is sad news.  But I'm looking forward to trying out Amber.  I love the series (they are possibly my favourite series of novels, and have influenced my writing 'voice' a fair bit).  My headache has been trying to find a space to set a campaign - afterall, the family is supposedly reconciled and stable at the end of the Patternfall war.

My basic idea is going to be that the characters are unknown children of Amberites from previous dalliances (ie: the kid you never knew you had) who have been dug up by someone who'd like to throw the succession back into debate.  After that, it depends on what the characters want to do.  You can't get much more freedom of choice than playing a godlike being with a choice of infinite universes... :)
I used to be very uneasy around dice, but the last campaign I ran had me thinking that the dice largely served to mean that characters could randomly fail at something that was meant to be the core purpose of their character.  Being lousy in combat is fine when that's not your gig, and fights should always be a little unpredictable...  but it's when the scholar flubs a knowledge role, or the socialite fails to be persuasive...

But anyway.  Im in danger of ranting.

I seldom have that problem because I don't require skill rolls if I think the character should automatically succeed at the task he is attempting. Or I just use the skill roll to decide how well the task succeeds.  Of course, I started playing RPGs back before there were skills (D&D, early CD&D, and AD&D 1E really did not have them) so I am used to making GM decisions rather than having the dice decide everything.


Perfect setup for a good game -- at least with the right players.

Which is fair enough.  I got my start with early D&D really, so in a sense I started in the same place.  But I like skills - even when the skills are never used.  I'm wierd I guess. ;)
Other than that, I'm beginning to like styles of play that reward the chances players take, and the choices they make.  I like Unknown Armies because the best results come with the highest prices.  In the same way, I also like sorcerer...


Well, one of my players has read the first five in the series (which is all that I'm treating as canon for the purposes of the campaign).  So having them all as unknowing pawns will be a better intro, so I can introduce them to the way things work.  I think the more familial politics of Amber will suit my players more than the somewhat arcane politics you can find in other games. :)

That's definitely how I would do it. That leaves everything wide open for the players to influence.

Yeah.  It's hard finding room to wedge in a wide open conflict like there is in the beginning of the saga...  But I suspect my players might not be crazy enough to try and bring down Amber themselves anyway.  (possibly..).  In which case, it's largely  a case of setting up a reason for them to want to find out what is going on behind the scenes/ clear their names.

I'm planning to make a big deal of who their parents are, as that comes into play with the whole succession.  Pity the poor wretch who gets Brand as their father. ;)

To answer the thread's subject question: I don't think there's anything wrong with not liking current RPG's, but I say be wary of instantly turning your nose up at any new RPG just because it's new. I know the current trend with games seems to be gravitating towards the CCG/MMORPG crowd, but I'm sure there's got to be one or two quality products being produced every now and then.

Some I like: Blue Rose, Microlite20 and its variants, Spirit of the Century seems interesting, and I really like what I've seen of Trail of Cthulthu.

What I've seen of Aces & Eights looks pretty cool (Google for the youtube videos of the "shot clock").
Encounter Critical is gonzo neo-old-school goodness
Mazes & Minotaurs
Out of the d20ish stuff, I thought Mutants & Masterminds was pretty good.  I was also impressed with Green Ronin's Testament and Black Company books.

I haven't tried Trail of Cthulhu yet, as well... I already know Call of Cthulhu, and Im finding it harder and harder to learn new systems.  But there are new ideas in there, and the artwork is *beautiful*

The new Mongoose edition of Traveller is good.

Somewhere I read that you can't die during character generation any more. Is this true? While that could be a good change for actually generating one character to play, it would really nerf the try to roll up ancient characters to kill time solitaire game.  8)

I haven't played any of the lder Traveller editions.  I played one game with T4, so I have that edition and the Mongoose one.  In T4, you basically don't die or get injured - during character creation anyway.  But since you start aging in the game somewhere in your thirties, I think there's an incentive to stop while you're ahead.  Plus you get one skill per year, so you can actually be competent at something before the age of sixty.

In the Mongoose edition, there's the 'Iron Man' option in which you can indeed die.  As it is, in their standard version your character still runs the risk of being severely injured if unlucky, and incurring the relevant medical expenses.  In that version, however, you get one skill per four year term, so you're pretty much required to try and make it to old age.  Plus I found it frustrating that aside from missing promotions, I might completely screw up my ex-military character by losing several points from the one good stat s/he had.

I dunno.  It's one of my pet peeves that too many systems give you the wonderful opportunity to make a character who isn't actually very good at anything.  character limitations?  Great!  But it's annoying to come up with the idea of an agent character, and then arbitrarily get forced out of service in the first term.  (I'm clearly not Traveller's target audience!).

Rolling characters was a game in itself back in the Classic Traveller days. Generally, failed characters like that did not get played, but were used as NPCs when one was needed.

I'm an impatient kinda guy.  I like twists that make you rethink what your character is doing (or even boons that make your character great at something you'd never normally consider doing...).  I just don't like going through character gen until I finally get something decent.  I'm not that committed.

On that topic, I quite like Sorcerer.  There's basically four stats, all your skills use a single 'cover' skill which represents what you actually do...
Plus you assign a set number of points, which is a style of game I tend to gravitate to these days.

(I also like Unknown Armies in that your toughness as a character depends on what you're willing to do, and the biggest rewards go for the biggest risks).

Sorry about Necroing this thread but I want to trot out my spin on this line of reasoning.

I dont think there is anything wrong with not liking current RPGs, provided you actually give the rules a read through. If you instantly shoot down a game because its from after 1989 your being as bad as the people who insist that you play the "one true RPG".

Some new games have design concepts that I think are either much more intuitive or just simply better then old ones, but that doesnt mean the game itself is better. I'm currently DMing a D&D4 campaign and Im finding that while some parts of the rules are neat and have alot of potential I really miss the open framework or something like D&D Basic - but thats partially due to my style of GMing too. I dont know 4e as intimately as I am beginning to believe I need to, as it has as many quirks and issues as the old chart heavy games like Rolemaster. On the other hand my campaign of Dark Heresy flows much much smooter (partly because of some good players) because the mentality that the game is written in. Much like Classic Battletech and the good parts of 2nd ed. AD&D there are tons of optional rules I can use as a tool kit, in addition to a relatively intuitive ruleset. Its actually fairly easy to run a session with nothing but scratch paper, the GMs screen for some stats and a couple handfuls of d100s, which is hard to believe given how many percentile charts are hidden away in the core book.

Im definately shifting towards the D&D Rules Cyclopedia or Microlite74 in my D&D ideas but with elements of 4e and others spliced in (ascending ac and to hit works better for many players in my experience and the concept of bloodied and healing surges intrigue me)

I don't need to read all the rules for many games if I know from reviews or from glancing through the rules that the game systems or focus of the game do not interest me.  For example, I have no interest in RPGs that focus on detailed tactical (or even just time-consuming) combat. I like fast, abstract combat. I don't need a read all the rules of a game with detailed or time-eating combat to know it is not for me.  The same with games full of angst (like most WoD games) -- they are just not my cup of tea.  I don't need to buy and read the latest edition or variant of a WoD game to know that I will have no interest in playing it.


"Intuitive" and "better" are both subjective terms. What is intuitive to one person may be counter-intuitive to another. "Better" is obviously in the eye of the beholder.  For example, I think OD&D is better than D&D 4e because I greatly prefer RPGs centered on exploration to RPGs centered on combat. Someone who prefers opposite will likely think I'm nuts.

Well the same argument applies to saying a combat is detailed or time consuming - I enjoy Battletech so 4e isnt detailed or time consuming but rather stale so far. OD&D atleast has the potential to be much more open ended in combat, as the players seem less limited.

Just for the record intuitive to me means something that a new RPGer will pick up without alot of explanation. For example the classic to me is Thac0 vs ascending attack bonus.

Personally, if someone wants me to give a new game a try, and I'm not interested?  They can buy the game for me if they want so much for me to give it a chance.