Difference From 10 Years Ago?

[Ratskinner]

Define huge...

I dunno if it counts as huge or not, but I do recall seeing (IIRC) Mearls briefly mentioning the influence of the Forge on their thinking. I got the impression it was viewed more as an awareness, rather than axiom. At the very least, I think its safe to assume that any prominent designers or authors in the field are at least cognizant of the "indie" thinking, even if they aren't "forgites". Which, honestly, I think is a good thing. If somebody is going to spend all that mental energy and time dissecting the hobby and its practice, it'd be a foolish designer who'd ignore such conclusions entirely...even if its just to avoid repeating what you may view as mistakes in their reasoning or designs. So how could you count that? If you were to discover that some part of 4e, say Skill Challenges, was devised under the influence of some Forge thinking/games, how many units of impact/influence/whatever is that?

Having said that, the real problem here, of course, is that none of us actually know who is doing what in their home games. So many of the indie games are available for cheap or free in electronic form, and I've personally witnessed much explicit "piracy" of pdf files.* Even if the games themselves aren't being played, its impossible to know how many, how much, or how often they influence people's houserules or hacks. Witness multiple discussions in multiple places about adapting FATE's aspects to some version of D&D or another. And again, how would you even account for that? If you could discover that there are 500,000 people playing otherwise standard d20 with aspects added in, how many units of influence is that?)::shrug::

In the end, this is totally subjective. Much like when people try to compare the changes between each edition to determine which edition marked the greatest change....its senseless to rank qualitative differences this way.

*Which, in this case, I can't see any moral justification for.

 

[pemerton]

I do recall seeing (IIRC) Mearls briefly mentioning the influence of the Forge on their thinking.

I don't know how it relates to the instance you have in mind, but Mearls had this to say about The Forge back in 2005:

The simple truth is that few in the gaming industry put any real, useful thought into their work. The Forge is really the crucible for a lot of the real examination and exploration of the underlying structure of RPGs. Outside of the Forge, there are few other designers who think of games in a useful, interesting way.

The RPG "industry" doesn't exist to produce good games. It exists to produce a network where game creators can compete for social prestige. There are pockets of real design work, but they're the exception, not the rule. . .

The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.​

That strikes me as a reasonable assessment.

 

[Pour]

I was mentioned! Honestly, my reason for bailing from EnWorld was that it was much more negatively impacting me than positively save in a select few threads. I decided to put the time I normally scroll, groan, and question these boards into the end of my Epic campaign, which is now 28. I wanted to finish it this summer, but you can't rush the ending of a 5 year old game...

I've also become an adopter of a very edition-pointless philosophy. The power and pleasure of a game is entirely in the hands of the DMs and players. The rules can be bent and broken, the paradigms and expectations shifted, the desired kinds of experiences planned for and emphasized, or else added on with little trouble. The rules do create different feels, color your stories and experiences to a degree, but in my experiences only marginally. I've run a DCCRPG, 13th Age, 4e, SW, and CoC game in the last two months and they all worked beautifully. They all had interesting characters, rich stories, funny moments, exciting combats, etc. I'm sure I could rock a PF, 1e, MSH, or FATE game just as well.

Hm, so 10 years ago, I saw ttrpgs as D&D. Now I see ttrpgs as everything I can get my hands and eyes on (as my wallet allows). And I like it all. I do wish I had the discipline to continue with my campaign summary thread, though. So many stories worth sharing. That and the conversions/homebrews are the real reason I still stop by the site. And, of course, mentions!

 

[pemerton]

I was mentioned!

<snip>

I do wish I had the discipline to continue with my campaign summary thread, though. So many stories worth sharing. That and the conversions/homebrews are the real reason I still stop by the site. And, of course, mentions!

Well, you were mentioned because you were in my mind (most recently, at least) for your Epic thread.

If you don't have the discipline to make more posts on that thread, at least leave a comment on my "PCs kill Ometh" thread!

 

[TerraDave]

Given the heyday of published adventures (or modules as we called them) was in the 80s and campaign settings was in the 90s....the idea that this is something new is....impossible. For 4e both adventure and campaign support has been weak, by far weaker then any past edition. Fortunately its very easy to homebrew for (though converting old adventures can be tricky).

 

[TerraDave]

Whats different now, and different then ever before, is the fragmentation within D&D.

Looking back at 10 years ago what stands out as the aberation was 1 OGL to rule them all. That didn't last. The wave of new games feels very '85 or '95. (10 years from now it will be the kickstarting part that is different).

But this many D&Ds supported and in play...no real precedent. Sure, you had the official split between basic and advanced, but many people still mixed and matched. You had 3rd party versions like palladium frg...but they were very much a minority of,players. And a 2e and 1e split, and lots of 2 e variants. It was still the same game.

Dragon Age, 13 th age, PF, 4e, Next, are not the same game, but they are all D&D.

 

[brvheart]

I would say there is a huge difference around here at least from 10 years ago. Back then I could not get a word in edge wise and was either ignored or trounced on when I did. So I left because I didn't really feel welcome. The new ENWorld is a much smaller, more friendly place. As for D&D, I have been dragged kicking and screaming by my players from one edition to another from 1E to 2E then 3E, 3.5 and even a short stint with 4E and now Pathfinder. It is the flavor of the decade now. As for OSR, yeah it has a fan base, but is still small in relative terms. I don't really want to go back myself, but more power to you if you want to just don't stick in my face like a lot seem to do some places.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't know how it relates to the instance you have in mind, but Mearls had this to say about The Forge back in 2005:

The simple truth is that few in the gaming industry put any real, useful thought into their work. The Forge is really the crucible for a lot of the real examination and exploration of the underlying structure of RPGs. Outside of the Forge, there are few other designers who think of games in a useful, interesting way.

​

At least we have a reasonable explanation for the suckitude that followed. That explains quite a bit.

​

 

[Balesir]

At least we have a reasonable explanation for the suckitude that followed. That explains quite a bit.

Yep - explains quite a bit of the suckitude that happened before, too.

 

[howandwhy99]

At least we have a reasonable explanation for the suckitude that followed. That explains quite a bit.

[/INDENT]

Yep - explains quite a bit of the suckitude that happened before, too.

I'll agree to both of these.