Gaming Generation Gap

[amysrevenge]

Originally Posted by Hairfoot

I just started reading Jack Vance. I'm through the Cugel books and into Magnus Ridolph. I got the nostalgia in reverse: "ah, so this is what OD&D was based on when I played it!"

I'm reading Dying Earth for the first time myself (at age 34). I find that I'm not enjoying it, and I probably will move on to other books without finishing it. And I doubt that the problem is the age - I'm a big time Golden Age SF buff, and continually read SF from the 40s and 50s. I just don't feel any empathy at all for the characters, who I find universally morally reprehensible, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I just can't get through a book about one sociopath after another.

[Ariosto]

I do not think that "literature" in the customary or "high-brow" sense, had excessively much to do with the origins and early development of D&D! Universal, Hammer, and Harryhausen pictures were probably at least on par with the classic tales on which they drew for inspiration. The Kung Fu TV show has always seemed a strong association with the Monk class (a stranger in the strange land of predominantly Western D&D) -- along with the "Kung Fu Fighting" pop song!

Ancient myths and legends continue to inform works even by artists who have themselves received them only via very recent reinterpretations. Shakespeare's plays were part of the "pop culture" of his day, as perhaps were Homer's poems. They stand out as especially fine works, long recognized and preserved as "art" while most of their contemporaries have been forgotten. The roots of Story in them, though, are perennial stock from which popular works sprout. Fantasy has, I think, come to much greater prominence in "mainstream" entertainment than it enjoyed 35 years ago.

I see a slight difference in generations, though, in the role that the visual media play. I think they weigh a bit more heavily in the balance these days than reading and listening do -- or at least than those once did. Besides the decline of radio as a dramatic medium, face-to-face storytelling seems less commonly indulged in as a form of entertainment. Young people have hardly stopped reading books, and SF magazines are notable among the few short-fiction venues still precariously clinging to existence. Television has grown, though, and video games pretty much came into existence, in the decades since D&D first appeared.

[Ariosto]

I just can't get through a book about one sociopath after another.

That is not as ubiquitous in Vance as his unique prose style, but certainly predominates in the jaded and cynical Dying Earth. The Demon Princes series is another in which even the protagonist (a man driven by vengeance, reminiscent of the Count of Monte Cristo) is not very much more sympathetic than the villains.

If memory serves, The Languages of Pao, Big Planet and the Tschai (Planet of Adventure) series are among those in which Vance portrays characters of more traditionally heroic bent. I have yet to read Lyonesse, so cannot speak to that.

[Herschel]

I haven't read a lot of them either and I turned 40. Heck I just got around to actually reading LotR a couple of years ago (although I had heard the BBC radio play a few times. Most of my early reading was Donaldson and then historical records of mythology, warfare and a few of the true "classics" (Homer). Later, I read the Forgotten Realms books when I wanted some fluff, and read a few of the Dragonlance books, but always really hated Raistlin as a character and never got why people like him.

Then again, maybe I'm geek-light.

[JRRNeiklot]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Heh, that's most certainly NOT the first REH Conan story. However, that's the first one of the reprints, so, that's fair enough.

Ok, when Conan is a young teen, he's afraid. Note, while being afraid, he still takes the sword and kills the undead creature. So much for being so scared he runs away.

Yeah, it was like 4 am, I meant to say the first story I looked in, "Tower of the Elephant."

That's what being a hero is about. Heroism is action, not due to lack of fear, but despite it.

Also Conan WAS running from the wolves, but I don't think it was in fear, just practical. He knew he couldn't handle an entire pack of wolves, although in the movie, we see him wearing skins of some sort after he leaves the cave. :-) Nor does it mean the pcs in D&D are necessarily afraid when they retreat from overwhelming odds or deathtraps. It's merely pragmaticism.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

Is Tomb of Horrors merely a satire then, never intended to be actually run? That makes a lot of sense tbh.

Tomb of Horrors is a very specific kind of adventure and not representative of anything else.

But I'm guessing you knew that.

[amysrevenge]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

That is not as ubiquitous in Vance as his unique prose style, but certainly predominates in the jaded and cynical Dying Earth.

I think that the style is an indication of this culture gap as well. I started playing in 2E, and I have this impression that many of the people playing ahead of me played similar types of characters to the Dying Earth ones, who were only interested in things they could kill, steal, or hump. Obviously this impression is incorrect (or at most vastly exaggerated in my mind), but it still colours how I react on a gut level, and makes me feel disconnected from my gaming elders.


As an aside, how funny is it that my favourite modern fictional character is Bender from Futurama, who exhibits most of the characteristics I dislike from Vance, and yet it's OK because he's a robot? There's hypocrisy for you lol.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by TwinBahamut

You certainly have a point in saying that D&D has been extremely influential in the modern conception of fantasy, but I think you overstate exactly how influential it is.

Sure, the original Final Fantasy blatantly steals a huge number of ideas from D&D in general and Dragonlance in particular, and many of these stolen ideas (such as the Black Mage/White Mage/Red Mage distinction) continue to stay close to the thematic core of the series, but at the same time the Final Fantasy series has gone off to create a huge number of interesting and unique ideas that don't resemble core D&D whatsoever. I mean, at this point a significant fraction of the Final Fantasy games feature modern or futuristic settings in which swordsmen, wizards, guns, cars, and robots all exist side by side, something that D&D itself has not supported whatsoever, and probably won't support any time soon.

Originally Posted by 1e DMG pg 112

Sixguns & Sorcery:

Whether or not you opt to have time/space warp throw BOOT HILL gunfighters into your AD&D world, or the advernturers from your fantasy milieu enter a Wild West setting, the conversions are the same.

Originally Posted by 1e DMG, the next page

Mutants & Magic:

Readers of THE DRAGON might already be familiar with the concept of mixing science fantasy and heroic fantasy from reading my previous article about the adventurers of a group of AD&D characters transported via a curse scroll to another continuum and ending up amidst the androids and mutants aboard the Starship Warden....

These 3 pages of the 1e DMG explain how to convert AD&D characters to Boot Hill and Gamma World and vice versa.

Yes, you are right. D&D never directly supported bonzo Rifts like play but it certainly was not said that you couldn't add such to your D&D game should you choose to. (See also S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.) If you don't see the influence of D&D on Final Fantasy in all its forms, you don't know D&D as well as you might.

** Hey, remember when it called The Dragon.

[haakon1]

Whether you read fantasy books or not isn't about age, it's circles of geekdom. Some things (Tolkien) are pretty core. Other things are common among D&D players (liking comics), but at all required.

The circles don't all overlap. And being totally out of one circle (no interest in comics) doesn't make you not a geek.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by JRRNeiklot

Yeah, it was like 4 am, I meant to say the first story I looked in, "Tower of the Elephant."

That's what being a hero is about. Heroism is action, not due to lack of fear, but despite it.

Also Conan WAS running from the wolves, but I don't think it was in fear, just practical. He knew he couldn't handle an entire pack of wolves, although in the movie, we see him wearing skins of some sort after he leaves the cave. :-) Nor does it mean the pcs in D&D are necessarily afraid when they retreat from overwhelming odds or deathtraps. It's merely pragmaticism.

That wasn't from Tower of the Elephant. That's from the one where Conan is a teen ager running away. I forget right now what the title is. Tower of the Elephant, Conan is not a youth and there's no wolves or crypts. There's a honking big Elephant like god and a wizard, but, no wolves. And certainly nothing howls.

But, I think we agree more than we disagree. Conan is a really poor example of the idea that PC's should not be bad assed. Conan is the original superhero bad ass. He wades through armies and comes out on top.

Again, he's the biggest, baddest, strongest, whatever est warrior around. That makes him a super-bad ass in my mind.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Tomb of Horrors is a very specific kind of adventure and not representative of anything else.

But I'm guessing you knew that.

But, Reynard, I've been told, over and over and over again that old school play is all about dying lots and lots of times. That early D&D was incredibly lethal and you died any number of times before finally getting lucky enough to hit higher levels.

Is that a complete fabrication in your mind? Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by Hussar

But, Reynard, I've been told, over and over and over again that old school play is all about dying lots and lots of times. That early D&D was incredibly lethal and you died any number of times before finally getting lucky enough to hit higher levels.

Is that a complete fabrication in your mind? Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

Certainly IMX 1e was an endless stream of disposable PCs. We'd see an adventure for 4 PCs, bring 12, and lose at least 6... every adventure. We used to say "your character didn't survive, he just hasn't died yet."

PS

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Hussar

But, Reynard, I've been told, over and over and over again that old school play is all about dying lots and lots of times. That early D&D was incredibly lethal and you died any number of times before finally getting lucky enough to hit higher levels.

Is that a complete fabrication in your mind? Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

AD&D certainly can be lethal, but I think you are making a false assumption here: the lethality isn't based solely on luck. AD&D emphasized a certain style of play, one often referred to as "player skill", where mastering the fiddly bits of the mechanics are relying on polyhedrons wasn't the point. Especially at low levels, jumping into combat (or any other dangerous situation0 with just the fickle dice as your allies was a good prologue to character generation.

All those super lethal traps, gotcha monsters, riddles and puzzles and other often derided "old school" elements: those were there to enhance everyones fun by engaging the *players* in the game, to immerse them beyond their character sheets.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

My experience is that while early D&D certainly can be lethal, for quite a few group's it wasn't.

When you hear people rhapsodizing about the extremely deadly, acumen-heavy, usually combat-light old-school D&D, they're talking about a particular way some groups approached the game.

Other early D&D-groups embraced options like Unearthed Arcana, had their PC's decked out with enough magic items to keep the entire Rockefeller Center Christmas tree a-glitter, and unleashed a video game-sized amount of whoop-ass on their foes.

Different strokes and all.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Storminator

Certainly IMX 1e was an endless stream of disposable PCs. We'd see an adventure for 4 PCs, bring 12, and lose at least 6... every adventure. We used to say "your character didn't survive, he just hasn't died yet."

PS

Originally Posted by Reynard

AD&D certainly can be lethal, but I think you are making a false assumption here: the lethality isn't based solely on luck. AD&D emphasized a certain style of play, one often referred to as "player skill", where mastering the fiddly bits of the mechanics are relying on polyhedrons wasn't the point. Especially at low levels, jumping into combat (or any other dangerous situation0 with just the fickle dice as your allies was a good prologue to character generation.

All those super lethal traps, gotcha monsters, riddles and puzzles and other often derided "old school" elements: those were there to enhance everyones fun by engaging the *players* in the game, to immerse them beyond their character sheets.

Originally Posted by Mallus

My experience is that while early D&D certainly can be lethal, for quite a few group's it wasn't.

When you hear people rhapsodizing about the extremely deadly, acumen-heavy, usually combat-light old-school D&D, they're talking about a particular way some groups approached the game.

Other early D&D-groups embraced options like Unearthed Arcana, had their PC's decked out with enough magic items to keep the entire Rockefeller Center Christmas tree a-glitter, and unleashed a video game-sized amount of whoop-ass on their foes.

Different strokes and all.

These three quotes, put together pretty much say to me, "The experiences at the table were so wildly varied that making any broad brush assumptions is false."

To be honest, I probably fell into Mallus' latter group - an Unearthed Arcana Paladin playing through G-D-Q and other modules. I had more Schwag than I knew what to do with. I remember at one point adding up our magic loot list, and gaining a complete LEVEL from selling it.

My point is, Reynard is trying to say that earlier edition play was one way. It most certainly wasn't.

[Oni]

Originally Posted by Mallus

My experience is that while early D&D certainly can be lethal, for quite a few group's it wasn't.

When you hear people rhapsodizing about the extremely deadly, acumen-heavy, usually combat-light old-school D&D, they're talking about a particular way some groups approached the game.

Other early D&D-groups embraced options like Unearthed Arcana, had their PC's decked out with enough magic items to keep the entire Rockefeller Center Christmas tree a-glitter, and unleashed a video game-sized amount of whoop-ass on their foes.

Different strokes and all.

Yet the former is what I always hear about in regards to why the old school is so much more superior to everything that came after. There is a definite sense of "kids these days" ruining the game amongst the grognard community that frankly has poisoned the atmosphere so much that it has all but destroyed my, at one time burgeoning, interest in older games. It wasn't the games that put me off, it was the people who were their supposed proponents.

It seems weird to me, but I often feel like that a lot of old schoolers are trying to give the impression that they're harder, have a more manly approach to gaming and a bigger set of polyhedrons, and had to roll their dice up hill...both ways. Now that is a generation gap.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Hussar

My point is, Reynard is trying to say that earlier edition play was one way. It most certainly wasn't.

I most certainly am not. Rather I refuting the statement by *others* that AD&D was played in a kill the PCs, RBDM style as the default.

[Hussar]

Really Oni, and this gets back to the OP's original thoughts, my honest opinion is that people are so tied into a certain mind-set that they cannot be objective. I'm probably just as guilty as anyone of that.

But, it does make any sort of discussion of the history of the game extremely difficult. People's experiences so color their perceptions of how things were done that they cannot separate the experience from objective view. Add to this the tendency of people to get very defensive when their views are challenged, and it becomes even more difficult.

The "generation gap" gets blurred behind some very real politicking that goes on as well.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Oni

Yet the former is what I always hear about in regards to why the old school is so much more superior to everything that came after. There is a definite sense of "kids these days" ruining the game amongst the grognard community that frankly has poisoned the atmosphere so much that it has all but destroyed my, at one time burgeoning, interest in older games. It wasn't the games that put me off, it was the people who were their supposed proponents.

It seems weird to me, but I often feel like that a lot of old schoolers are trying to give the impression that they're harder, have a more manly approach to gaming and a bigger set of polyhedrons, and had to roll their dice up hill...both ways. Now that is a generation gap.

Whereas i would say that the environment here has become increasingly less friendly to different playstyles -- "old school" in particular, but others as well -- over the past year or so.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Whereas i would say that the environment here has become increasingly less friendly to different playstyles -- "old school" in particular, but others as well -- over the past year or so.

When I first read this, my first reaction was to let this slide, but, y'know what? I don't think so.

You reap what you sow. And I mean that in the general sense of everyone, not you specifically. Reynard, even in this thread, you specifically stated:

Originally Posted by Reynard

Blame John McCain or Hulk Hogan (yes, pro wrestling is genre entertainment) if you want, but the "action hero" is one who gets "bloodied" but never goes down, who always pulls out a badass move in the end and wins the day. Compare this to earlier, when even Conan was terrified of the undead or demons or magic.

Now, this is factually incorrect. It's been pretty much shown that your interpretation of Conan is not supported by the text. Conan is and was a superhero and every bit as bad assed as any modern hero. Yet, you use that interpretation to completely dismiss later era fantasy as

Originally Posted by Reynard

Modern genre entertainment tends toward the super-heroic, regardless of the actual genre, and it tends toward badassitude as a major selling point for its heroes. There's less fear, trepidation, uncertainty and just plain retreat and/or failure in modern stories, regardless of medium, than there is in stories from just one or two decades ago.

You then end off with:

It should be no surprise that I prefer AD&D 1E above all other versions of the game, but am comfortable with any edition before 4th (though 3E only up till about 12th level). It's not just the anime inspired kung fu attitude -- I love Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for example -- but the disconnect from "realism" and "simulation" that creates my generation gap.

as if 4e is "anime inspired kung fu attitude". Gimme a break. You pretty much slam everything 4e and tell everyone that your way is better, more "realistic" and then wonder why you get a negative reaction? Really?

Hrm, 4e=anime, gee where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, I heard it for TEN FREAKING YEARS from grognards bitching about 3e.

If you would like to find a more reasoned discussion, then perhaps couching your criticisms in forms that haven't been repeated ad nauseum for almost a decade might aid in that endevour. Instead of telling me how much better things were in the past, how they were more "pure" and "true to the roots", tell me why those roots are something I should be interested in. Instead of telling me why the things that I like suck, why not tell me why the things you like are actually good.

I double dog dare you.