Computers beat up my role player

[Col_Pladoh]

...

Again, if you mean actual (tabletop) RPGs, we'll need to see the actual numbers . . . you may be correct. If you are lumping video games in with that term . . . it's not really worth trying to discuss this rationally with you.

Rely on the fact that he can not produce any actual numbers.

Your suggested conclusion is one I arrived at yesterday.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

The way it always worked back in the old days, the players would be wandering the store, see some cool cover, read some back cover text and decide that was a game we needed to play.

Then they would give me the book and ask to explain it to them once I finished!

I had lots of lazy players.

So you were the guy that always got stuck, eh? You have more patience than I then for sure. Although I was the one that learned Japanese, Chinese, and Korean chess all the main chess variants and taught them to the others. That goes for most of the board wargames as well. It was only when Iwas spending so much time creating gaming material that I decided "others" could learn the game in question and teach me by doing.

How good it is to have Tom Wham in the group with whom I boardgame

Now I do wish there were more GMs around...and maybe someone with a big table and lots of painted figures for miniature wargaming...

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Thanks, guys, for polluting what was an otherwise interesting thread. I found the insights about UA and early play styles most enlightening, while your quibbling is quite the opposite. Why not start a new thread instead of continuing your pointless "discussion" here?

Amen!

And my apologies for any part I might have had in instigating the niggling.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

First, I was "there." I've played and DMed D&D for 27 years. The only version of D&D I haven't played is the original, 1974 edition.

Pity you missed that, for it is the most free-wheeling of all versions of the D&D game. OD&D is now the one I prefer to play when I DM.

Second, much of what I quote is primary source material: You. I've read just about everything you have ever written about D&D -- your rule books, your adventures, your articles, your responses in message board threads, etc. The quote in the opening post is directly from your article in Dragon magazine. All the follow up quotes I've given in this thread are also your own words. In my thread discussing the treasure and experience points in AD&D1 adventure modules, the data all comes from modules listing you as the author.

I've also read (and sometimes quote) a lot of what other people at the time of AD&D1 wrote in Dragon magazine, in TSR-published adventure modules, etc. I figure what people said and wrote at the time is at least as relevant and accurate as what people now are saying now in their reminisces.

Quasqueton

And so? There is such a thing as reading between the lines, interpreting what is recorded to suit your own particular conception.

While your credentials are not lacking, how many tournaments did you DM? In how many other campaigns did you play?

Quoting from books and articles is not particularly valid when searching for something other than the letter of the game or anecdotal accounts. It is axiomatic that the author is writing for a select audience, setting forth that which is meant to be conveyed, not necessarily how things are in actuality.

As I said some number of posts back, there was a good deal of. "Do as I say, not as I do," in the material you refer to. That I can assure you, because I am the principal author of the early game material amny articles regarding the games and their play.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[carmachu]

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.

I'm glad yours were. Personally? I'm having more fun now RPing than I ever did back then.

Granted I'm guilty of generalizations others have made. But the point still stands: there was just as much munchkinism back then, then there is today. People's memories fade over time and forget.

I can pull an old module....and find tons of crap that were in peassants huts. Unearthed arcana. Psionics. Bards. I can go on.

The fact that you, and others had wonderful expereices doesnt change the facts that munchkinism was alive and well back then as it is today.

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.

Those people are in the very tiny minority. MOST people are relying on memory of the day. And it doesnt change the fact people ARE failing to remember the bad of the good old days.

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.

I may not know what proportions did what when. But unlike you, I'm not going to shy away from saying it, munchkinism was just as much alive then as it is now. The fact that you didnt doesnt change that.

 

[diaglo]

How good it is to have Tom Wham in the group with whom I boardgame

and artist

Now I do wish there were more GMs around...and maybe someone with a big table and lots of painted figures for miniature wargaming...

Cheers,
Gary

ditto. but for my preference for referees.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

As to the matter of what is and isn't role-playing, it seems clear that those that suppose that a crpG is an RPG are confusing role-assumption with role-playing.

When one role-plays it must be to an audience that will be able to respond in some fashion to that acting.

When one engages in a RP Game, then the audience must react in game, respond to the actor, the acting by the player being activity that has an impact on the game's direction and the environment within which it is set. Simply put, there must needs be a a Game Master able to interact with the player or players so as to have valid role-play activity.

I feel quite safe in this assertion, for I wrote the basis for the game form

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[molonel]

Rely on the fact that he can not produce any actual numbers.

Neither can you.

In fact, the numbers required to talk about this subject have not been compiled by anyone. Nobody has put together the numbers of independent sellers, PDF sales, and every seller dealing in tabletop RPGs. You've only mentioned D&D sales, while conceding that they are a smaller share of the market than when you ran TSR. How relevant are they, then? The only way to know that is to determine what share of the market they possess. And we can't do that without the numbers you can't provide, either.

And you, rather conveniently, prefer to disregard the millions of games based off of your work that appear on a computer screen. Any attempt to argue with this assumption is trivial wordplay and niggling.

Except when you argue about it.

Your suggested conclusion is one I arrived at yesterday.

Then don't argue with me through stage whispers.

There are millions of people all over the world playing roleplaying games of many different varieties. More people, in fact, than have ever played roleplaying games in history.

You were one of the pivotal figures in that genre's genesis. Nobody has denied that.

But the number of games that people play, and the ways that they enjoy them, and the means by which those games are experienced, and the number of people playing them is bigger than ever before.

Not smaller.

 

[molonel]

I don't view it the same way as Gary but I do agree the games by nature are different enough that I don't lump them together. There is such a vast difference between say D&D at a tabletop and an MMOG, the type of experiences they create that I don't put them in the same category. Neverwinter Nights with a DM is different than WoW in most ways too, its seeking to emulate the tabletop using the video game medium way more than an MMO. I've played a lot of MMOG and it just can't scratch the same itch as the tabletop game and its by design. Pretty much as everyone has to be a star and not just you as is the case in a RPG. You can't be the one to save the queen, everyone else paid too and they want to do it as well. There is role playing at times in MMO's, but I've also seen/done rp'ing in Talisman or other board games as well.

I don't recall saying that they were exactly the same in every way.

You might not put them on the same shelf, certainly. But would you go so far as to say that a video game cannot be a roleplaying game?

We've seen people say that a video game absolutely cannot be a roleplaying game, people who say yes they can and people distinguish between games that can be - like NWN - and games that cannot, like WoW.

I do find it mildy amusing that we have to start lopping off letters from an acronym so that we get "MMOG" and "so-called MMP online games" because it's so hard to use the abbreviation that is actually used to describe them: MMORPG.

And guess what the RPG stands for?

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.

And yet, here you reading it. And the threads to discuss it are often multipage, extremely passionate extravaganzas that often get several mod appearances. So even if you disagree with his conclusions, it's a big enough deal for you and a lot of other people, including the founder of the game, to come in and express their opinions.

Seems like a big deal to me.

As for the alleged need to "wipe away some of the nostalgia", what kind of moral imperative is there to do this?

Moral imperative? That's stating it rather dramatically. It's an internet discussion. Take it for what it is.

(Heaven forbid that people might have positive memories of their early RPG experiences!)

Again, you're missing the point. 1st Edition AD&D is second on my list of editions. I have extremely good memories of playing the game, and two shelves full of books and modules that I still use for reference materials. Pointing out the warts isn't hating the game, or destroying anything essential.

There are entire forums where you can do to do nothing but discuss how awesome 1st Edition AD&D. In fact, you can't even talk about 3rd Edition and they call it "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named."

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"? :\

And they are absolutely free to do so. They can even go to gaming communities that do nothing but talk about how awesome it is, and you are not ALLOWED to talk about 3rd Edition.

But if you're in a forum where people discuss all editions of D&D, so these sorts of discussions are going to come up.

As I said earlier in this thread, I can't believe that people devote so much energy to such a pointless debate.

There have been forums that tried to contain edition wars discussions in subforums, and finally banned the discussion as verboten.

And, well, you're contributing energy to the "pointless debate."

People have their preferences -- in this case, 3e versus 1e AD&D. Most of the 'points' being made by people here seem to be attempts to give an objective veneer to their subjective preferences.

But that's just the point: they're not. Quas is NOT adding objective veneer to his subjective preferences. People attack HIM, and his motives, but they don't really meet his arguments.

I mean, literally, if you read some of Col_Pladoh's replies, he essentially says, "Well, yes, that's what it SAYS but that's not what we MEANT."

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hey Mods!

Someone here doesn't seem to be able to follow a pointed suggestion...

Cheers,
Gary