PSA: "Dead" games are still playable

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Tangentially related to the OGL 1.1 kerfuffle, but more broadly applicable.

Just because a game is not currently supported by its creator or publisher does not mean that you can't play it. Just because only a small community of folks keep it alive doesn't mean you can't find players. just because you have to make your own "supplements" doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

If you love a game, don't stop supporting and playing it just because the company stops supporting it or it gets "de-authorized" or whatever.
Literally no human being who is aware of published games is unaware of this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


FitzTheRuke

Legend
I have a bit of a different view on this than most of you, because as a game retailer, I really can't play games that I can't sell. I mean, of course I can, but it would be a really big waste of my limited time.

I actually did it (for about a decade) - I wrote my own RPG that everyone loved, and I played it at my store, but the only thing I could sell for it was dice. (It was ready to be played, but not fit for publication - I suppose I could have polished it up, but I was too busy playing it (and starting a family) to do that.

I got smart and stopped playing it when 4e came out (and sold a LOT more 4e than I did 3e because of it). I haven't gone back. I now must move forward. I miss my game, but what can ya do.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yes. Objectively.
Because I see people on this very board talk about how they will have to sell their books once the OGL goes away, and who refuse to play dead editions.
I haven't seen anyone actually say that, but I don't doubt some folks will do that. They are fully aware that they could instead choose to keep playing an unsupported game that will have left a bad taste after a predatory action by the publishing company.

The fact people make decisions you don't agree with or understand doesn't mean they are unaware of basic fundamental facts, and it is obnoxiously condescending to imply that they are.
 

Reynard

Legend
Yes. Objectively.

I haven't seen anyone actually say that, but I don't doubt some folks will do that. They are fully aware that they could instead choose to keep playing an unsupported game that will have left a bad taste after a predatory action by the publishing company.

The fact people make decisions you don't agree with or understand doesn't mean they are unaware of basic fundamental facts, and it is obnoxiously condescending to imply that they are.
You know, just because you read the OP in the worst way possible doesn't mean it was intended that way.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You know, just because you read the OP in the worst way possible doesn't mean it was intended that way.
More importantly, just because you didn't intend a statement you made to be insulting or condescending, doesn't mean that it wasn't, or that you aren't still responsible for your own words.
 

Scribe

Legend
The whole 'dead game' thing is an interesting phenomenon. If you only play with your own group of friends, then yes, its never 'dead'. There is something to be said however for a global, or large, living community to engage with, interact with, 'talk shop' and essentially share with.

When a game is 'dead' that is harder to get.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
The whole 'dead game' thing is an interesting phenomenon. If you only play with your own group of friends, then yes, its never 'dead'. There is something to be said however for a global, or large, living community to engage with, interact with, 'talk shop' and essentially share with.

When a game is 'dead' that is harder to get.
I think the issue is that some people really want it to be dead, and are willing to take great leaps of logic to believe it.
 

Scribe

Legend
I think the issue is that some people really want it to be dead, and are willing to take great leaps of logic to believe it.

100%.

I've played online 'dead' games with concurrent, online, verifiable, thousands of users that (if one were so inclined) you could verify by talking to in real time.

Those games were decried as 'dead' by people playing them, at that moment, within that online space, because thousands was not TENS of thousands.

I dont know why people like to do that, but I assume its just trolls trolling most of the time.
 

This might not be the actual issue though. Yeah, you-singular can keep playing a game. By yourself. But there's a mass market out there, and it responds to what advertisers are telling it, right here, right now.

"Hey local game community, let's try a game of (dead game)!"

"Yeah, sorry, we just got the sample app of the new 1D&D game through Facecrack, and our dragonborn-species paladins can't level up unless we use the QR codes in the new player's handbook *copyright *trademark *all rights reserved. Maybe next time?"

I think though people often talk themselves out of trying because they think it will be too hard. I am not saying suggesting a game like TORG* or AD&D 1E is going to be an easier sell than 5E, but I have had a lot of success myself suggesting older RPGs to my groups. Another thing to consider is it is easier than ever to connect with people who play games your regular game group don't play. When I first learned about Savage Worlds (which is still very much a game that alive and supported) I had trouble finding players I knew who were into it, but after ten minutes looking online I found a group two towns over and joined in with them. There are plenty of people who still play older editions of D&D especially. 4E has its fans, 3E still has players (and Pathfinder is still around), 2E has been getting a bit more popular than it was in the past, 1E is easy to get players for, as are most versions of basic. When you venture beyond D&D it can be trickier but far from impossible.

*Not sure if this one is back in production or not
 

Remove ads

Top