another rpg industry doomsday article (merged: all 3 "Mishler Rant" threads)

[rounser]

I interpret that as meaning that you use figures, but if you don't have figures, it's cool -- you can use unit counters instead. I think that interpretation is borne out by the text from U&WA, which clearly says that you use those counters if you don't have minis.

A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by rounser

A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.

Unfortunately, most of us didn't have personal access to Gygax, and only had his written word to guide us.

Or were all those thousands of lead minis advertised in early Dragon magazines intended for some other game?

[Vigilance]

Originally Posted by rounser

The text of the OD&D books explicitly tells you that the rules do not assume use of miniatures! And the usual way to play was without them! All you've done is draw out assumptions based on what you're reading into the text based on what you want to believe, when the book itself and people who were there explicitly contradict you. Your argument seems plausible to the casual observer, but people who were there have told us that what you're suggesting isn't true.

Page 6: As with any other set of miniatures rules...

Page 7: miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing; similarly unit counters can be employed

As others have pointed out, he's clearly saying you don't 100% NEED minis to play the game, nor do you need counters.

That doesn't change the fact that there is no other reason for movement and spell ranges to be listed in inches (and only inches) except for use of tactical miniatures.

And you quoting how any old time gaming group did their gaming is an appeal to false authority.

Quoting the book is not "superficial", nor is it an assumption. Its a demonstration of how the game was meant to be played.

That you can play it other ways doesn't change that.

OD&D also says you can play it in SPACE.

If some old group of grognards who you claim played with Gary told you they played it in space, does that also mean I'm making an assumption that it's a fantasy game?

[rounser]

Or were all those thousands of lead minis advertised in early Dragon magazines intended for some other game?

Thousands? How early are we talking? In the early days, fantasy minis mostly didn't even exist. They had enough trouble sourcing polyhedral dice. Where you gonna get your bugbears from, a booster pack? Why not pick up some M:tG cards while you're there? Better get on ebay while you're at it, the prices for OD&D draconians might be cheaper there...

[rounser]

And you quoting how any old time gaming group did their gaming is an appeal to false authority.

A player in Gygax's group from the OD&D days is not in "any old time gaming group", and in a position to know what the designers intended. And also in a position to know how people actually played the game. You're the false authority here.

[ggroy]

Yep, I call it .

The difference between me and you is that I'm staking a successful company on it, and you are pulling guesses out of your ass on the internet.

Personally if I was betting my company and money on something, I would certainly be putting a positive spin on it. It would look very bad if I was trashing my own firm's products and/or services. (If I had thought the product and/or service was crap, I probably would have closed down or sold the business a long time ago).

Even though I'm not a convert to the Pathfinder RPG, I'll hope for the best. It would be a shame if the opposite happened, with Paizo falling into bankruptcy from a hypothetical fallout by the Pathfinder RPG core books flopping badly. (Hopefully this won't happen). But hey, nobody knows what will happen in the future. Back in 1990, who would have thought that TSR would be almost bankrupt by 1997?

[Glyfair]

Originally Posted by rounser

Thousands? How early are we talking? In the early days, fantasy minis mostly didn't even exist. They had enough trouble sourcing polyhedral dice. Where you gonna get your bugbears from, a booster pack? Why not pick up some M:tG cards while you're there? Better get on ebay while you're at it, the prices for OD&D draconians might be cheaper there...

Thousands might be an overstatement (depending on when you are talking about). The TSR catalog containing miniatures is advertised in The Strategic Review ('75-'76) with a refund of the cost with a purchase of $10 in miniatures. Fantasy miniatures are explicitly advertised starting with the first issue of The Dragon. Within a year or two the ads certainly hit hundreds of fantasy miniatures per issue.

Now, I started playing Holmes and AD&D about '78. We started using miniatures quite early. We mostly used them as representations of our character, for marching orders, and to show where we were in a room (for trap detection, etc).

[Thanlis]

Originally Posted by rounser

A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.

I did say that I was perfectly happy to believe that play drifted from the text and that people didn't use miniatures. I'm not talking about what people in Gygax's group did in practice, I'm talking about what the rules said.

Here's why this matters: "But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures)."

If you're going to stand up and tell me that the way I /play/ 4e is irrelevant, and all that matters is the way it's designed, then I would like it if you'd apply the same critical lens to your own favorite edition. If you'll excuse your preferred text on the grounds that actual play varied quite a bit, I would appreciate it if you'd excuse my favored text when I tell you I've found it very easy to play outside any niche.

[Glyfair]

Originally Posted by ggroy

Personally if I was betting my company and money on something, I would certainly be putting a positive spin on it. It would look very bad if I was trashing my own firm's products and/or services. (If I had thought the product and/or service was crap, I probably would have closed down or sold the business a long time ago).

The problem with this theory is you can discount everyone not in the industry because they don't have access to actual numbers, everyone who left the industry as disgruntled and everyone in the industry because they will be putting positive spin on it. No one can give real relevant, accurate facts, so we can spin any argument we want.

At some point you need to trust that someone isn't blowing smoke or walk away from the discussion because it can't be constructive.

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by rounser

It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players (RPG as a term hadn't been coined at that stage), and the text explicitly says that the rules don't assume the use of minis. And fantasy minis mostly did not exist back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there. Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there. Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.

Actually, this I have to agree with. I didn't play OD&D with miniatures, nor did we think that the inches thing meant actual inches measured on a tabletop with minis.

In our 1e AD&D PH and DMG, it told us that outdoors 1" meant 10 yards (if I recall correctly, my books aren't here, with me.) and indoors it meant 10ft. So we assumed it was just a notation that I could use to determine distance indoors and outdoors, as ranges changed their base measurement from feet to yards.

AD&D very rarely, if ever, had a mini tabletop element for my group for many, many years, 1e thru 2e mostly, though I dabbled with minis a bit more in 2e for no more than curiosity sake.

I didn't know anyone at my jr-high or highschool, or at the local game shop as a kid, that played AD&D with minis.

Obviously, this is all anecdotal. Have some sodium.

[rounser]

If you're going to stand up and tell me that the way I /play/ 4e is irrelevant, and all that matters is the way it's designed, then I would like it if you'd apply the same critical lens to your own favorite edition.

I don't care about the way you play 4E. 4E as a whole is irrelevant to me, except insofar as it is taking up space as to what currently passes for in-print D&D, and what it bodes for the future of the game.

[ggroy]

Originally Posted by Glyfair

The problem with this theory is you can discount everyone not in the industry because they don't have access to actual numbers, everyone who left the industry as disgruntled and everyone in the industry because they will be putting positive spin on it. No one can give real relevant, accurate facts, so we can spin any argument we want.

At some point you need to trust that someone isn't blowing smoke or walk away from the discussion because it can't be constructive.

PR and propaganda are all about blowing smoke. Punditry is all about blowing smoke and re-blowing somebody else's smoke.

The final decisions are obviously based on what the financial books look like. If a product or service turns out to be a flop, I'm not going to putting any more money into further development. No use in throwing more money into a black hole.

[kenmarable]

{thread whiplash}
Wow! We've gone from "pulling guesses out of our... butts" about what the gaming industry will be in 20 years to trying to divine the intentions of Gygax when he created the game over 35 years ago (not to mention discussing the meaning of an "inch") - all in the same thread!

Zowie!

[ggroy]

Originally Posted by kenmarable

trying to divine the intentions of Gygax when he created the game over 35 years ago

Bring on the Ouija board.

[coyote6]

Technically, I think this is becoming a replay of a thread from last week. Or the week before that. Or both. In which, IIRC, no one was persuaded of anything, except maybe that "hey, people play the game in various different ways, now and in the past." Add doses of "But mostly they play[ed] like me!" to taste.

[ggroy]

Originally Posted by coyote6

Technically, I think this is becoming a replay of a thread from last week. Or the week before that. Or both. In which, IIRC, no one was persuaded of anything, except maybe that "hey, people play the game in various different ways, now and in the past." Add doses of "But mostly they play[ed] like me!" to taste.

The lowest common denominator.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by rounser

I don't see the refutation, here. It's trading off of a name, yes I agree. But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures). It's a testament to the power of that name that the game still sees some success regardless, IMO. To reverse the scenario as a rhetorical question, would 4E have sunk without a trace without that name to bouy it?

The church of play styles I would agree was broad for 3.5E, but I'd say at least 80% fell into casual generic action-fantasy with an emphasis on combat, with length(3.5E was similarly slow), minis focus(3.5E was nearly as minis focused), and gamism as non-handicaps. D&D has always been the casual hack and slash game of choice.

Simulationists, OGL-worshippers, noncombat, anti-miniatures, are all small high strung minorities, dwarfed by the big picture.

I don't deny that 4E has excluded some playstyles with prejudice. Its still broad enough to cover 80% of the D&D people were playing during 3.5E, and 4E covers that 80% better than 3.5E did and has more appeal to new players.

[Thanlis]

Originally Posted by rounser

I don't care about the way you play 4E. 4E as a whole is irrelevant to me, except insofar as it is taking up space as to what currently passes for in-print D&D, and what it bodes for the future of the game.

Yes. And your assumptions about what it bodes for the future of the game all assume that 4e players are incapable of making the same sort of play adjustments that original D&D players made in practice.

This is probably a fruitless conversation -- we've gone back and forth a couple of times now and you're carefully refusing to notice page 25 of Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. But hey, everyone else can remember those special words the next time someone claims OD&D wasn't written as a miniatures game:

PLAYING AREA:
Paper counters and a hexagon or staggered-square playing board should be used in those cases where it is not possible to use miniature figures. It is also necessary that height be noted by use of a counter. Counters numbered in 1" increments can be prepared, and the appropriate one be placed with the unit when the turn is finished, thus indicating height in inches.

And everyone else should remember that in practice? A lot of people, including Gygax, ignored that "should" and that "necessary". Because actual play always differs from the rules.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

Simulationists, OGL-worshippers, noncombat, anti-miniatures, are all small high strung minorities, dwarfed by the big picture.

The insulting tone seen in this post was not necessary. It has earned a thread-ban. Please don't respond in kind, or you shall share that fate.

[malraux]

"Those Damn Kids" -- Name one other era in history when schools had to be guarded by armed guards, drug-sniffing hounds, and metal detectors. Name one other advanced state in the world where a majority of the "students" in the schools can not identify their own state on a map. Name one other advanced state in the world where the functional literacy of its youngest cadre is so poor. Name one other state in the world, other than maybe Somalia, where the teachers often have to fear the students. Anyone who looks at the crop of youth today as a whole, and does not see the sea change that has occured in the last 20 years, is fooling themselves.

This is somewhat unrelated to everything else, but is a pet peeve of mine. Kids today are smarter than they were a few decades ago, and kids a few decades ago were smarter than their elders. The Flynn effect is pretty clear and unmistakable. While it might appear that kids are getting dumber, in many cases what is happening is that the educational system is bringing in more and more of the kids who wouldn't have had as much education in times past.

On the specifics. Lets see, armed guards, drug hounds and metal detectors were in place in the 90s. Moreover, here are some military units in a school, not just some rent a cops.

Places where teachers fear the students: Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com Registering "fear" of students is pretty hard. Certainly big events like school shootings are not limited to the US. And really the big difference is that this sort of violence moved into the "good" schools, not that it hasn't always been around. Heck, right now it looks like juvenile violence crime is at a relative low point: Trends

Literacy rates: Functional illiteracy for the youngest cadre seems like you don't know what you are talking about. Functional illiteracy is an adult issue, not a young child issue.