General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Just a little bit based only on my own experiences..
I've been teaching freshman entering college now from 1992 to the present, so my own perceptions are this:
"Intelligence" isn't as easily locked down...
Over the past 17 years I can say I see an increase in "knowledge" in some areas, especially in technological saavy and awareness. I agree that more students progress onward to higher levels than did in generations past, because of the cultural shift in expectations (both in general and specifically in employment demands - where a high school degree once served an Associates is needed, and Bachelors are becoming more the "norm" rather than the exception).
There are also areas where "knowledge" has certainly slipped quite a bit... "cultural capital" is one - a colleague was wearing a "Yale" sweatshirt and one of our top academic students walked up and asked "Yawhlee... what's that?" Younger generations of students today have greater extent of available knowledge, via the internet and mass media, but don't absorb as much depth within any specific area because, as one student queried me "why bother learning it - I can just google whatever I need to know anytime, even from my phone." Even the old buggaboos of film and tv, which were supposed to "warp our children's" minds, are actually slipping away from the radar a good bit. It used to be easy for me in a film or theatre class to come up with one or two cultural totems that almost everyone had seen for a common reference ("Titanic" during late 90's and early 2000's for instance) - that is no longer true.
Reading is also an area that has dropped dramatically. Just seven years ago, at LSU, there were always the students who just didn't read, but if I asked the question "so what did you read in high school" I'd get answers - often with a "yeah it was boring, I hated that one...." Now, a common answer is "I didn't read a book in high school...." To which I respond "None were required?" To which the response was "sure, but you could pass without bothering to read... just look up a synopsis on Wiki or something.." There have been "surges" around certain popular series such as Harry Potter and now the "Twilight" series, but an interesting phenomenon is that younger readers just repeat their reads of these more often than expanding to different novels or genres.
Finally there is the phenomenon of information bloat.... one thing that gets lost and forgotten is the mere fact that, in so many areas, there is always a continually growing spectra of knowledge to be covered, but without longer time to teach or learn it. Simple ex. - when I first took Intro to Film myself in 1988, there was just over 90 years of film history and movies to cover. Now, we have had 2 decades more, and that's A LOT of material added on when I teach the course now. Same with history, lit, most social sciences and humanities. Even sciences have changed and expanded rapidly. Only mathematics (at this level - higher levels of graduate studies different yes) remains relatively static. Because of this, simple assumed facts become "left behind" or skimmed so quickly they are not retained - if I asked "who fought on which side in World War II" you would be surprised at the fumbling around for answers.
For my speech class, my 1st project is a mad-lib excercise designed to get everyone up, speaking a bit of funny nonsensical text to help with comfort in public speaking.... when I pass this out, hands go up - "what's an adverb? what do you mean by infinitive verb...?"
These students are not "stupid," there are just big holes in their knowledge base. On the other hand, if I have a computer question, a tech communication question, I will ask my students before I ask my colleagues with PhDs.
Just my 2 cents.
__________________ John Maddog Wright
"In the Immortal Words of Socrates.... I Drank What!?"
I'll admit that there has been a huge shift in how information is handled by the younger generations. It will take time to deal with the idea that information in electronic form is almost as available as information in nerve cells. My generation saw this more in the calculators are better at simple arithmetic than the brain is, but I can't say that much was lost in that change.
In addition, there is somewhat less of a homogenizing force in cultural matters and there is a much larger pool of people participating in cultural issues. I won't deny that there are some big issues to deal with as human knowledge continually expands and our methods of accessing so much of that change radically, but that's a dramatically different statement from the age old "kids these days" sort of rant.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
It is a struggle and a challenge I can tell you, and pedagogically speaking many of us do indeed adapt and change.
It is easy to say "these damn kids today," which has probably been uttered by older generations for centuries in some form or another. It is difficult to sometimes reconcile the differences and changes, and sometimes the changes can be so negative as to be dangerous unless fought against... (I'm speaking in general eductaion - I'm far afield from RPGs or gaming here lol)
As I said, I see the knowledge base issues and I work hard to not get peeved about them, but to deal with them.
The one area I might, myself, sometimes rant about in a "these damn kids" kind of mode is merely inquisitiveness... the past decade, and as Mal said technology increasingly replacing the need for nerve processing, I've seen a distinct shift to a paradigm where students have very little desire to QUESTION - a 4-year-old will never stop asking questions like "why is the sky blue?" or "what's that" when pointing a newly encountered object. College freshman used to routinely raise a hand or give me a quizzical look if they didn't understand a term or concept. Now, a blank stare is far too common in many classes. It's not a lack of intelligence or ability that I often get most frustrated with, it's the lack of CURIOSITY.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread arguments lol.
__________________ John Maddog Wright
"In the Immortal Words of Socrates.... I Drank What!?"
Just to continue the "kids these days" discussion, I wonder if part of the issue of "I'll just look it up" attitude is a shift away from consumption to production? Between a truly awe-inspiring amount of readily available information online and the tools to allow easy content production and sharing, I'm thinking it is having a major cultural impact on children. Back when I was growing up in the 80's entertainment you could interact with (from D&D to Atari) was just beginning. The majority of the entertainment and information I experienced was fed to me - TV, movies, the set of encyclopedias my parents bought, or for really big matters - a trip to the local library. But all of it was static information that was not only presented to me, but seemed so far from anything I could produce. I still remember the one afternoon in the mid 90's when I first saw a web page and the code behind it. What astounded me the most actually was how easy it was to have pictures and text together on the computer screen, and link to other pages! I had visions of making "Choose Your Own Adventure" books on the world wide web. I was a senior in college and something that simple was amazing to me.
Even further, for my parents, interactive entertainment was seeing the neighbor kids were home. Heck, growing up for them the "TV schedule" was the times when shows were even broadcast, the rest of the time was a test pattern.
My kids however are leaps and bounds past us. My 9 year old daughter maintains several websites. She's even made several movies with iLife on our Mac. All of them (even our youngest who can't even read yet) prefer interactive websites to watching TV. They would rather spend an hour on Webkinz where they can interact and create than sit and stare at a TV show they can't do anything to.
So I can see that sort of attitude leading to not bothering to learn "facts" (after all, facts and information are trivial to find nowadays). It's a shift towards creating content and interacting with content than just being fed static information. It's pretty significantly different from how I was raised, and how my parents were raised. So if we're not careful, their education might not account for this different mindset and it's much harder to teach them. We also have to make sure it doesn't swing too far and we wind up with the students mentioned above who not only don't have much factual foundation but even begin to lose curiosity.
The text of the OD&D books explicitly tells you that the rules do not assume use of miniatures!
The text stating that doesn't make it so, necessarily. If the 4E DMG stated "these rules do not assume the use of miniatures", would that counteract the fact that many of the rules rely on specific placement and positioning?
At best we can say the OD&D rules were contradictory, because though they claimed not to assume the use of minis, many rules were in fact written in direct reference to minis.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
I hope you'll think about it, Erik. (You might be surprised how good it actually feels to give someone a sincere apology. I know I have been!)
I have thought about it, I thought about it at the time, and I'm still thinking about it.
I do not apologize.
James made some terribly misinformed comments about the state of the industry, and in doing so literally said Paizo's pricing of one PDF was putting the nail in the coffin of the industry, and he was attempting to coin a phrase that put the onus of his own difficulties in a challenging industry on my company.
Which was BS, and I called it BS.
I can appreciate that you'd have preferred a more even-keeled response, and to that all I can point to are the thousands of words of passionless factual commentary I've posted on this issue over the course of the last week.
James made some terribly misinformed comments about the state of the industry, and in doing so literally said Paizo's pricing of one PDF was putting the nail in the coffin of the industry, and he was attempting to coin a phrase that put the onus of his own difficulties in a challenging industry on my company.
--Erik
Ah! I haven't been following most of this... discussion, however I did read the beginning and didn't get why you were upset, but this definitely clarifies it. Yes, James can lament and try and blame, but the saying "survival of the fittest" is alive and well in the world of business and failure to adapt and thrive will still lead any company to extinction.
So to blame other companies for the failure of the other companies in a given "market" is just avoiding responsibility for their own failure to successfully adapt and prosper. People do hate to look in their own mirrors to see who is ultimately responsible for their own success or failure.
So I doubt you can avoid such blame, Erik. People tend to point the finger of blame everywhere but where it belongs.
James has awesome content, but his business plan has been turning into a dismal failure, and I can only assume he isn't able to acknowledge his own mistakes. When your a business, and you fail again and again to deliver on promises, you fail as a business. That is completely in James' own lap.
__________________ It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.
Not really sure how the King of Snark comment came about since from what I've seen of this thread Skarka hasn't really been all that snarky he has asked that questions be answered (Which I notice still haven't been) and he has provided evidence that proves that some of the things that Mischler said were wrong. So to me it seem like he is trying to avoid the subject.
Last edited by Dilandau Kale; 18th July 2009 at 11:31 PM..
This has been soundly refuted in other threads. OD&D didn't assume the use of miniatures, most didn't use them, and even said it didn't in the text. It offered little tactical options, and had swift combat resolution. 4E is the odd man out here, much as wishful thinking and assumption would have it otherwise.
I agree that this is true about 1e previous editions. During the latter half of 2e(Combat and Tactics), the books all specified the effects of abilities based on where you were standing on a grid compared to your enemies. There was increasing complexity in combat based on the kind of weapon you were using, the action you were taking, and what abilities you took with your proficiencies.
When we were playing 1e, we put the minis on a board, but they were mostly there for visualizing distance and position. Which we only used to figure out if we could move up to an enemy in one round or two..and if the magic missile was in range. But we also used it to determine if we were "behind" a creature in order to get the bonuses. It was much easier than keeping track of things in our head and the books recommended it.
However, we were all bored of having so few options. Tired of having the game be an exercise in rolling attack and damage rolls. We happily accepted Combat and Tactics when it came out.
When 3e came out, the entire rulebook had information on position on a battle mat. Nearly every power talked about how close you needed to be to someone in tactical distances. Creatures had abilities like cones and bursts that were defined by the squares they took up on a battle map. Creatures were defined by the squares they took up. All abilities from the ground up assumed the use of a battle map. Of course, distances were listed in real world units to avoid converting back and forth and for legacy purposes. Powers were explained in plain english to avoid confusing people.
And, by everything you've said and other people have said, this was the biggest edition of D&D ever.
But what they learned from 3e was that, since everyone was using a battle map anyways, we were doing MORE converting by constantly converting distances into squares and squares back to distances. They also learned that when you list abilities in plain english it causes MORE arguments due to misunderstanding of the language(something they learned from the early days of MTG as well). So, they fixed these two issues.
Other than that...4e isn't a major departure or "odd man out". It's just another step in the inevitable shift towards the way most people were playing the game.
I also keep seeing the phrase "it is proven and agreed that most people did not use minis". I disagree that this has been proven or agreed. I saw a survey done with some gamers that showed the majority of them DID use minis which keeps being thrown around with the statement, "Yeah, but the way the question was asked means the answer is most likely wrong."
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
When he insists that based on his "15 years of working in the game industry" he knows not just that the world is in an "economic depression", and not just that we are in a "Greater Depression" but that he literally projects the future of the entire world economy for decades to come...I dismissed what he had to say entirely. And I think that's a fair position for me to take. If he is going to speak with such firm authority on a topic he clearly has no background in whatsoever, then I feel it is safe to assume his comments about the industry he is in might well be just as unfounded.
Forum FYI:
Kask is not the famous Tim Kask of the early days of TSR
I am that weird guy you see buried deep down in the credits section on many of EGGs later products.
Last edited by JohnRTroy; 19th July 2009 at 02:42 AM..
An interesting historical quote on minis + early D&D...
From a column by Gary Gygax in The Dragon #15 (June 1978):
For about two years D&D was played without benefit of any visual aids by the majority of enthusiasts. They held literally that it was a paper and pencil game, and if some particular situation arose which demanded more than verbalization, they would draw or place dice as tokens in order to picture the conditions. In 1976 a movement began among D&Ders to portray characters with actual miniature figurines.
Now, before anyone thinks I'm a minis hater... do a quick Google search for "making miniatures for D&D"
Minis are lots of fun, but they do change the style of game you're playing quite a bit. D&D has been played both with and without minis from basically the very beginning -- so it's no surprise that people still like playing it both with and without minis.
Charging $29.95 for a PDF that is not even a set of rules is a pipe dream. Most PDFs are probably five times too expensive. As a result, the market is sluggish and an audience has yet to appear, because they are not being dealt with fairly. PDFs are electrons, and it's not the buyer's fault your PDF sales do not do enough volume.
The criticism in the article not only fails to grasp the future, it misses the present by a mile. PDF sales are not direct competition to print sales, as has been demonstrated time and again. PDFs cost too much. The market has never developed because publishers treat buyers disrespectfully. If publishers can get down a reasonable pricing point, the audience grows, which helps drive future sales. Currently, PDF sales tend to be in the hundreds, maybe the thousands, and that's where the problem is. Solve that problem, and you solve not only the production cost problem but the PDF pricing "problem."
Show me a lineup of $5 RPGs, and I'll show you an evergreen future with a great profit margin. I'd buy one of those every month!
Mishler is known in the industry, even if many fans don't know him by name. He's a member of the "cabal", my code word for the game designers who made the "secret mailing list". So I doubt this was any sort of deliberate trolling--he was simply answering somebody's honest questions and he got
As far as GURPS goes, I'm a fan, but I'm not sure GURPS is as healthy as it once was. I remember when they were releasing 6-8 supplements a year or so and the amount of stuff coming out has really dwindled over this decade. I think they were the victim of the d20 glut--as more d20 games got popular they suffered. I'm disapppointed because I loved GURPS, but wish they'd make more supplements.
GURPS is a victim of SJG success of it's other children, in particular Munchkin.
A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.
Gygax lies, misinterprets, and obfuscates a LOT.
For example, the original creation of the Owlbear, Bulette, and Rust Monster, three of the most classic and original monsters ever created in OD&D, were in fact inspired by MINIS USED IN GARYS GAMES.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The owlbear is among the earliest monsters in Dungeons & Dragons and like the bulette and the rust monster, was inspired by a Hong Kong-made plastic toy purchased by Gary Gygax for use as miniature in a Chainmail game.[1]
To act as if D&D was ever a 100% non-miniature intended game is an exercise in futility.
__________________ "Welcome to the Honorable Temple of Tiamat. Survivors of the monster attack will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Donations gladly accepted."
99% of edition conflict boils down to "For me, there are a lot of things that [Edition] can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can."
To act as if D&D was ever a 100% non-miniature intended game is an exercise in futility.
My 2e PHB states that miniatures are 100% optional, and that, at best, they should only be used in specific conditions to make combat positioning easier. Furthermore, it states that only the DM should have a battlemap, and that the players should not ever see them. Lastly, it recommends that, if you do use miniatures, you can use just about anything as a token, not just an official miniature.
But I guess I'm just gving an exercise in futility
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
My 2e PHB states that miniatures are 100% optional, and that, at best, they should only be used in specific conditions to make combat positioning easier. Furthermore, it states that only the DM should have a battlemap, and that the players should not ever see them.
A single iteration of a game that has more than 5 individual designs (OD&D, AD&D 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E) is statistical noise, for one.
And even considering 2E to be the One True Game doesn't preclude my claim that miniatures are integrated into the elemental game-play of the system in regards to combat positioning. Because the combat system as-built uses singular "spaces" of representative figures only acting during a set "initiative order". This is a miniature-based combat system, whether or not you actually use miniatures.
Quote:
Lastly, it recommends that, if you do use miniatures, you can use just about anything as a token, not just an official miniature.
Semantic arguments are wastes of time and an immature debating tactic. "Tokens" are miniatures by any other name.
__________________ "Welcome to the Honorable Temple of Tiamat. Survivors of the monster attack will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Donations gladly accepted."
99% of edition conflict boils down to "For me, there are a lot of things that [Edition] can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can."
Well, it seems this thread has progressed to the point of calling dead men liars. Isn't that special.
You know, the guy probably wasn't a saint. He probably told a fib here or there in his life. But how utterly classless are we willing to be to score a point in an internet discussion? Talk about defenseless targets.
There's a bunch of other sub-standard arguing methods going on here, too. So, folks, here's the deal. Agree to disagree. Agree that maybe your point is subject to interpretation. Whatever - just treat people with a modicum of respect. 'Cause if you have to be a jerk to make your point, really, your point isn't strong enough to make.
You are the first person to ever, on any message board, give me reason to put them on the ignore list.
__________________ It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
