RSDancey replies to Goodman article (Forked Thread: Goodman rebuttal)

[xechnao]

I just listen to your gaming opinions and what you want out of a game and it doesn't really sound like any D&D I've ever known.

You are correct in your assertion. In fact I tried to touch on this at some point. I think that D&D never really tried as hard as it could to reach the potential of being able to provide as smooth a tabletop experience as it could because it had space to expand its market and thus the game's market approach was focused to expanding the game that was already under hand. Only 4e so far has tried to make some big steps in re-designing the game. However it could not go incredibly far at one shot because the fans would be more than surprised. But I believe the game has yet room to evolve.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The brilliance of playing a P&P RPG is that you, the player, supply the visuals. What makes them gratifying isn't solely the quality of the visuals but also the fact that YOU supplied them when no one else could. When you would let no one else have done that for you. Factor in the social experience of sharing these personal imaginings with friends, and you already have two things which MMOs don't and won't simulate because that's not what people will ever want or need them for.

External visual culture is rampant in our own day, and will be on the increase. But it doesn't ever stand a chance of supplanting internal visual culture. Not as long as there are people who appreciate the difference. Everyone who ever read, and was captivated by, a book knows the difference. So don't let Ryan fool you into thinking that one day that difference will go away.

I think the process of supplying the visuals - ie imagining, seeing pictures with the mind's eye - is worthless. It's worthless because it's too easy, anyone can do it.

What's worthwhile imo is creating the initial idea and, to a lesser extent, describing it at the table. That's worth something because it's actually challenging. I may well fail to create a striking visual for a monster or character, in fact I probably do fail around half the time. But that's what makes it a worthwhile endeavour.

Take HP Lovecraft. He was a bad, bad writer. But he had a genius for creating visual monster concepts such as Cthulhu or the shoggoth. He described his monsters clumsily but the initial idea of their physical forms was fantastic, as artists have subsequently demonstrated. Not everyone can do what Lovecraft did, in fact most people can't.

 

[Corinth]

The brilliance of playing a P&P RPG is that you, the player, supply the visuals. What makes them gratifying isn't solely the quality of the visuals but also the fact that YOU supplied them when no one else could. When you would let no one else have done that for you. Factor in the social experience of sharing these personal imaginings with friends, and you already have two things which MMOs don't and won't simulate because that's not what people will ever want or need them for.

WOW works because it gives the common gamer what he wants. He doesn't want someone else to make him do anything other than work the controls; if he has to do work, he's out. That includes supplying the visuals himself.

External visual culture is rampant in our own day, and will be on the increase. But it doesn't ever stand a chance of supplanting internal visual culture. Not as long as there are people who appreciate the difference. Everyone who ever read, and was captivated by, a book knows the difference. So don't let Ryan fool you into thinking that one day that difference will go away.

It will; making your own is work, work that most people neither want nor need to do, and anything isn't either compelled from you or enjoyed by you gets done. It will come about because most people will willinglly cede that work to those that like and enjoy doing it; our successors will cede it to the specialists, and reward them for it.

 

[xechnao]

I think the process of supplying the visuals - ie imagining, seeing pictures with the mind's eye - is worthless. It's worthless because it's too easy, anyone can do it.

What's worthwhile imo is creating the initial idea and, to a lesser extent, describing it at the table. That's worth something because it's actually challenging. I may well fail to create a striking visual for a monster or character, in fact I probably do fail around half the time. But that's what makes it a worthwhile endeavour.

Take HP Lovecraft. He was a bad, bad writer. But he had a genius for creating visual monster concepts such as Cthulhu or the shoggoth. He described his monsters clumsily but the initial idea of their physical forms was fantastic, as artists have subsequently demonstrated. Not everyone can do what Lovecraft did, in fact most people can't.

But that idea you are talking about comes from visuals. I mean anyone can think of ideas. What one is capable of thinking of and what ends up in the top ten charts of pop culture is something that is not really relevant in the way you make it to be, I think. IMO the most impressive thing about tabletop rpgs is that it is a medium or a tool whose function is to let people share their visions together. It is about (living) this collective process through the dynamics that the medium offers that makes this medium, that is rpgs what they really are or can be.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You are correct in your assertion. In fact I tried to touch on this at some point. I think that D&D never really tried as hard as it could to reach the potential of being able to provide as smooth a tabletop experience as it could because it had space to expand its market and thus the game's market approach was focused to expanding the game that was already under hand. Only 4e so far has tried to make some big steps in re-designing the game. However it could not go incredibly far at one shot because the fans would be more than surprised. But I believe the game has yet room to evolve.

The issue I see is this:

There are different kinds of RPG players, like for example hack and slashers or "serious" roleplayers, and they often want different and contradictory things from their game. Some of the ideals you pointed out are things I definitively don't want in my game, and would be reasons for me to refuse playing said game.

One game can't please us all, because we want conflicting things. I want a game with engaging tactical combat, a class based system, strong game balance, doesn't bog down roleplaying with too much mechanics, and interesting character creation and progression. 4E delivers that. If 4E had freeform classless character creation and more narrative combat as opposed to tactical boardgame combat, I would like it less and most likely play something else.

We can't all have what we want, and moreso we don't all have the right to demand that D&D be what we want it to be. What you want may be what others don't.

 

[xechnao]

It will; making your own is work, work that most people neither want nor need to do, and anything isn't either compelled from you or enjoyed by you gets done. It will come about because most people will willinglly cede that work to those that like and enjoy doing it; our successors will cede it to the specialists, and reward them for it.

Humans constantly need to learn and adapt. This follows the fact that humans are not perfect. They are trying to survive but they cannot see the future for example. The fact that humans are not perfect is remedied by the fact that they create internal visions (not only optical, the full spectrum of senses is involved). Best example of this in practice are human bonds. Humans build bonds among themselves and live themselves, live their own life in a social way. Visions change all the time and there is a constant feedback of what you call internal and external. The problem with digital is that it will never reach a technological level where it can be a medium for such a feedback unless we first totally harness the natural environment itself and this will never happen since we are imperfect beings.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Humans constantly need to learn and adapt. This follows the fact that humans are not perfect. They are trying to survive but they cannot see the future for example. The fact that humans are not perfect is remedied by the fact that they create internal visions (not only optical, the full spectrum of senses is involved). Best example of this in practice are human bonds. Humans build bonds among themselves and live themselves, live their own life in a social way. Visions change all the time and there is a constant feedback of what you call internal and external. The problem with digital is that it will never reach a technological level where it can be a medium for such a feedback unless we first totally harness the natural environment itself and this will never happen since we are imperfect beings.

I don't know. There is such a thing as being too esoteric. Your statement makes me want to crack a beer and watch The Fast and the Furious again.

Seriously, is there such a thing as taking things too seriously? I think there is wisdom in "relax, its just a game".

 

[rgard]

What do you expect, though? I got sticker shock when my 6 year old daughter wanted a spiderman comic-she was into superhero's for a while. After seeing the price of almost $4 for a comic, I can see why kids dont buy them.

Growing up comics were $1-$2 tops at the time. I cant see kids having the income to buy comics nowadays.

now I feel old. I remember 35 cent comics.

 

[xechnao]

Some of the ideals you pointed out are things I definitively don't want in my game, and would be reasons for me to refuse playing said game.

One game can't please us all, because we want conflicting things. I want a game with engaging tactical combat, a class based system, strong game balance, doesn't bog down roleplaying with too much mechanics, and interesting character creation and progression.

Sure, I like these ideals too. These possibilities make part of what I have in mind.

If 4E had freeform classless character creation and more narrative combat as opposed to tactical boardgame combat, I would like it less and most likely play something else.

I do not like freeform myself either. Narrative control and GM fiat, as I have known of them, leave to loose a game and I want something more solid. Yet, on the other hand the board is limiting in as something too artificial for me and I too often have the impression that it bogs and bores me down a bit. I want something solid but without artificial limits. I am sure that there must exist limits and that they have to be abstract but I would like to work with something more natural and optimized for delivering gameplay as fast and fluidly as possible in the tabletop environment.

We can't all have what we want, and moreso we don't all have the right to demand that D&D be what we want it to be. What you want may be what others don't.

Heh, I have been just stating my opinion here -do not shoot!

Anyway, the way you reply here makes me think of the problem of the feelings of hardcore fans or players which is always a strong force to consider. Nevertheless 4e has been doing relatively well with the hardcore camp I think even if it were a revolutionary step. The successfull possibility of such kind of steps regarding the acceptance of the hardcore base is something positive I would think and a good omen for the future evolution of the game.

 

[xechnao]

I don't know. There is such a thing as being too esoteric. Your statement makes me want to crack a beer and watch The Fast and the Furious again.

Seriously, is there such a thing as taking things too seriously? I think there is wisdom in "relax, its just a game".

Yeah, I know. Sometimes I just let myself blah blah. I am not that frustrated