Computers beat up my role player

Hussar · Jul 25, 2007

Akrasia - having positive memories of the past is perfectly fine.

Having creative history memories of the past and then trying to pass it off as "fact" of how the game was played is a tactic used all too often. Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.

diaglo · Jul 25, 2007

Hussar said:
Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.

having played in a deep immersive game back in the day. i can tell you not everyone at the table was into it the same.

just like today.

Numion · Jul 25, 2007

Hussar said:
Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.

I remember approaching everything in 1E as we would a dungeon. It was incredibly funny to go to a village, knock on the door of house #1, attack and steal everything, house #2, rinse, repeat. Our adventuring party was the scourge of the Known World.

We got better. Eventually

Shadeydm · Jul 25, 2007

At the end of the day this thread failed to prove that Mr. Gygax was a munchkin.

All it really did was prove once again is just how far people are willing to go to try and cast a bad light on previous editions of the game. Not to mention how quickly expressing displeasure with any component of the current edition gets dragged into an instant edition war.

RFisher · Jul 25, 2007

Quasqueton said:
I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?

I don't think you have to wonder. Just head over to DF's 1e forum & drop the words "Unearthed Arcana" & stand back. (^_^)

My group was always cautious about what we used from UA, but we embraced 2e wholeheartedly. So, I suspect that--while we may have played a Gygax 2e--we would've grumbled about it more than we did 2e. Although in the end I felt 2e's changes never really delivered on their promises for us. Or for me at least.

Doug McCrae said:
Sorry Gary, but you're the father (or perhaps grandfather) of EverQuest, World of Warcraft, Lineage and all the rest.

Yeah. I'd venture that many computer games are still closer to D&D & AD&D than most role-playing games.

The strange thing to me is how much some people's experience with computer games seem to have colored their memories of D&D. Someone will tell me how computer RPGs have completely replaced pen & paper RPGs for them. Upon further inquiry, I find they think of D&D as being nothing more than what the computer games are. When I dig a bit further, however, they start to recall that their D&D games were much more than the computer RPGs.

It's like people forget that there has always been more to the game than the mechanics.

Flexor the Mighty! · Jul 25, 2007

Doug McCrae said:
I roleplayed a character once in Morrowind, a single player crpg. This PC would never steal and in my mind was akin to a lawful evil alignment - nasty, brutal, murderous, hated thieves, tough-minded, unyielding and adhered to strict rules of behaviour.

That's the furthest I've gone, in Morrowind it's quite restrictive if you don't steal - it's by far the easiest way to get ahead. Mostly in crpgs I do whatever it takes to 'win' but I often, maybe always, have some notion of character concept, it's hard not to.

In other words, I do exactly what people do in tabletop rpging - mostly success driven with some character stuff.

Thinking about it, I'm quite surprised myself by how similar my approach is in both types of game.

Oh, and computer roleplaying games are actually called roleplaying games. The name is kind of a giveaway.

A marketing term to sell them to the existing fanbase of gamers.

But I agree with you, there is role-playing in CRPG's like Morrowind, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, etc, way more than in MMO's IME. I role-played a Jedi in KOTR and a Paladin in BG. You had moral choices to make, options in dealing with NPC's. In an MMO you take a quest or not, click to read the script or not. That is pretty much the It. Fred the vendor has a quest option, one option and you take it or not, there isn't much else to the games. Other than killing the same bosses over and over for loot.

So for me its not the medium of the game but the design that determines if I call it a RPG.

kaomera · Jul 25, 2007

Hussar said:
Akrasia - having positive memories of the past is perfectly fine.

Having creative history memories of the past and then trying to pass it off as "fact" of how the game was played is a tactic used all too often. Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.

It seems to me that sometimes, at least, someone will recount what I parse as how they played the game, and several other posters will parse it as stating that this was the only way the game was played.

Part of the problem here may be that Quasqueton's original quote:

As a typically ambitious player, I did what all others of that ilk do: Everything I could do to gain advantage for my PCs and rise in level as rapidly as possible.

does not seem to indicate "munchkin" behavior to me, and apparently to at least some others as well. And there's also the question of purpose: this thread doesn't seem to be replying to that quote, merely putting it up there as "evidence".

Now the whole thread seems to have been a response to uncited gamers who apparently have a very adamant view that all the bad things about D&D are strictly the invention of 3e, and that some earlier edition(s) where a gaming paradise where all of the polyhedrals lay down together and there was no hunger or fear... That almost seems like a rather suspicious thing to have to argue against... Unfortunately I've met enough gamers who have a vehement disdain for all things D&D (regardless of edition), and who feel the need to justify their dislike for the game by badmouthing it and anyone who could be so crass as to actually find any value whatsoever in it, that I actually understand (if not entirely agree with) Quasqueton's position.

carmachu · Jul 25, 2007

Akrasia said:
Why is his "point" "valid"? What exactly is his point? Is it simply that the old modules had lots of loot, that players back then were 'munchkins' (or 'power gamers', or whatever), etc.? Big deal. It seems like a rather uninteresting, petty "point" to devote such energy towards, in multiple threads over multiple years.

As for the alleged need to "wipe away some of the nostalgia", what kind of moral imperative is there to do this? (Heaven forbid that people might have positive memories of their early RPG experiences!) In any case, the fact of the matter is is that many people play 1e AD&D (and OD&D, and Basic/Expert D&D, etc.) today, often because they prefer it over 3e. How can that be "nostalgia"?
:\

The point is...the good old days were never as good as folks "remember" them being. Looking over the old modules I have still on the shelf, you had magic items and tons of money stilling in zero level peasant houses....unearthed arcana had two of the most broken classes in the game(cavalier and barbarian) and of course weapon and double weapon specialization.....and lets not forget about bards and psionics.....

The point is really: the good old days were just as much filled with powergaming and munchinkin-ities as they are today. Its not to say you didnt have a great time with friends, becuase we did. Tons of fun.

But listening to people try and tell me it was better then and less power gaming? You're just flat out wrong.

carmachu · Jul 25, 2007

Shadeydm said:
All it really did was prove once again is just how far people are willing to go to try and cast a bad light on previous editions of the game. Not to mention how quickly expressing displeasure with any component of the current edition gets dragged into an instant edition war.

No. What it did was shine the light on th eugly parts of the previous edition, despite the fond memories of it. For all my great memories of 1st, it had some absolutely bad parts to it.

Just like today in 3.5.

People's "memories" dont always jive with what actually happened. That is the rub of the matter.

Akrasia · Jul 25, 2007

carmachu said:
The point is...the good old days were never as good as folks "remember" them being.

First, what grounds do you have for making this claim? How do you know that other people's "good old days" weren't as good as they "remember" them being? Don't project your own experiences on others.

Second, you obviously failed to read my entire post. One of my main points is that people still play those old games today, and prefer them over the current games. That's not 'nostalgia' or 'memory'. They're doing it today! So obviously their preferences simply differ from yours. By making silly claims about people "misremembering" the "old days" you fail to recognize this fact, and try to present your subjective preference as something more objective than it really is.

carmachu said:
But listening to people try and tell me it was better then and less power gaming? You're just flat out wrong.

Um, I never claimed anything of the sort, thus I'm hardly "flat out wrong". Yet again, you show that you haven't bothered to read what I've posted.

Different people had different gaming styles back then, just as they do today. Unlike you, I'm not about to claim that I know what proportion of people were "powergamers" in 1982 versus 2007. I have no idea. And frankly, I couldn't care less.

Computers beat up my role player

Hussar

Legend

diaglo

Adventurer

Numion

First Post

Shadeydm

First Post

RFisher

Explorer

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

kaomera

Explorer

carmachu

Explorer

carmachu

Explorer

Akrasia

Procrastinator

Similar Threads