D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

No. It means if your perfect is playing the edition you want but your choice is playing an edition you are less fond of or not playing at all, you have to weigh if not gaming is worth waiting for your perfect game to come, if ever. You have to weigh that playing something less than your desire is worth it.

To whit: a friend wanted to run Cyberpunk Red. I was less than enthused about the setting and system, but I would rather hang out with my friends than sit home alone. I could have sat out the Cyberpunk game and wait for us to go back to D&D, but I weighed the perfect (play the system I want) against the good (play something I don't care for, but still be with my friends).
Ultimately, some of this depends on just how "less fond" you are of a game. Is it not your favorite but OK? Is it a game you're neutral toward? Is it a game you actively dislike? Because depending on that sentiment, you may have the perfect (system I prefer), the good (system I don't care for but don't actively dislike and/or at least won't detract from time with friends), and the bad (system I hate and will undermine fun had with friends). The first two may be OK nights, but the third? I'd rather sit out at home and catch my friends on the flip side.
And I think that's perfectly OK. I'd rather enjoy the company of my friends doing things we ALL enjoy doing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

But then you have no players and thus no game.
Which is fine with me--I don't have to play. As I have said in other posts: I would rather not play than play with players I don't share similar preferences or with systems I dislike.

I have no qualms about this and accept it. D&D is one of many hobbies. I have other things I can do with my free time.

So I'll ask you what I just wrote in my last post here: Assuming you have a limited number of systems you want to run, why do you not want to try different systems?
Because I don't enjoy them? I've played other games in the past, but now I don't care to. Even other fantasy RPGs always lack something or have something I don't want. Frankly, after this current 5E campaign I might stop playing altogether until I can find some group I would enjoy more and return to AD&D or @DND_Reborn and @Smythe the Bard finish their project--which I will certainly try since I've had some involvement in it.

Anyway, it is one reason I don't consider myself a "gamer". I don't have half-a-dozen games I like to play, I don't even really enjoy most video games any more--certainly no new ones. I have never gone to a convention or anything like it. I don't visit my local game store unless the other group I was in happened to play there--we are currently on hiatus due to scheduling and might never regroup. regardless, I certainly don't BUY anything there when I do happen to be there. Heck, 90% of the systems people mention here I've never or barely heard of! I don't support 3PP or care for most of it. I don't buy a new set of dice for each campaign. I haven't bought dice for myself in ages lol!

If I ever came across a system that had what I wanted, I would try it, certainly, but so far nothing has hit the mark or frankly even come close.

Then sit home alone on Enworld complaining how nobody will play the game you want. I don't know what to tell you.
Wait... wasn't that the point of this thread??? :unsure::cautious::whistle:;):D
 

Ultimately, some of this depends on just how "less fond" you are of a game. Is it not your favorite but OK? Is it a game you're neutral toward? Is it a game you actively dislike? Because depending on that sentiment, you may have the perfect (system I prefer), the good (system I don't care for but don't actively dislike and/or at least won't detract from time with friends), and the bad (system I hate and will undermine fun had with friends). The first two may be OK nights, but the third? I'd rather sit out at home and catch my friends on the flip side.
Yeah, hence the generalized "perfect" (that thing you love) and "good" (that thing that wasn't your first choice). I mean, it's not a choice of being a famous scientist or having mad cow disease. If you don't want to play X, don't play X. Just don't bemoan "Woe is I" when you aren't playing anything.
 


Which is fine with me--I don't have to play. As I have said in other posts: I would rather not play than play with players I don't share similar preferences or with systems I dislike.

I have no qualms about this and accept it. D&D is one of many hobbies. I have other things I can do with my free time.


Because I don't enjoy them? I've played other games in the past, but now I don't care to. Even other fantasy RPGs always lack something or have something I don't want. Frankly, after this current 5E campaign I might stop playing altogether until I can find some group I would enjoy more and return to AD&D or @DND_Reborn and @Smythe the Bard finish their project--which I will certainly try since I've had some involvement in it.
There are literally thousands of games out there. You've tried them all?

...have you considered not pigeonholing yourself so much?

I mean, seriously, what's so perfect about AD&D's rules that no other game can't scratch the same itch?
 

The point of the thread was older fans are so conservative in their views that's it's exhausting.

So, yes, you are right.
How is it "conversative" to know what we like and not want to try something we won't like when it is a waste of time???

And please (just in case you're thinking it) don't throw the whole "How can you know you won't like it if you don't try it?" line; we aren't children. (Well, I suppose some could be, but "older fans" implies adult IMO).

Just don't bemoan "Woe is I" when you aren't playing anything.
It is more that the game isn't going in the direction "we" prefer than "woe is I". Most of us accept that and either look for other systems, homebrew/ house-rule or own, or move on.

Here's a funny thing: if you don't want to read it, you don't have to. There are plenty of threads on this forum I don't read, for example.

There are literally thousands of games out there. You've tried them all?
I know, right, what the heck! There's too many. And those that people suggest here, I look into, and don't work for me. Why would I "try them" anyway if I can tell from the mechanics, theme, jist, etc. that I won't like them?

...have you considered not pigeonholing yourself so much?
I'm not. I look at new systems all the time when people offer them. SotDL, Shadowdark, FTD, ToV, C&C, Nimble, 13th Age, Savage Worlds, OSE, DCC, LotR rpgs, etc. etc. etc. Many have good elements, some don't, most have elements I don't care for, or whatever. I'm not going to give you a detailed review of the dozens (lol heck maybe hundreds...) of systems I've looked at over the years. I preview them, read reviews, other peoples' input, etc.; I don't just dismiss them out of hand.

I mean, seriously, what's so perfect about AD&D's rules that no other game can't scratch the same itch?
Well, not "perfect" certainly, but what I enjoy, yes. There are elements of AD&D that d20 systems have simplified, sort of borrowing from B/X, like ability modifiers, which I prefer to AD&D's ability tables. There are sacred cows for AD&D (or D&D in general) which I would kill off in my ideal system, like ability scores and CON mod to HP at every level. Some stuff from 2E is definite improvements from 1E, like initiative.

1. Tolkien-like. (I don't mind a couple "extra" races, but not the cantina scene many players seem to like where you can have any race at all practically.)

2. Limited player options as far as features, powers, etc. are concerned.

3. THAC0 (lol just kidding! I am fine with Ascending AC... I just couldn't resist throwing that in due to prior discussions in the thread.)

4. Class disparity. MUs begin weak, end strong, for example. You don't need balance everywhere--in fact, it is best if everything has a cost vs. gain weights. (One reason why I like item attunement in 5E, I just think too many basic things require attunement...).

Actuallly... here:


That sums up what I am looking for. :)

I mean, heck @jasper just started (yet another) thread on how to make 5E "feel" like 1E. How many of those are we up to, now, anyway?? ;)


Some of those ideas are spot on, others I don't agree with as much personally. Which just goes to show (like with modern DND), there were near-infinite ways people played AD&D back then in 1E as well.

Anyway, houseruling 5E is a stop-gap solution for me. It makes 5E more bearable, even enjoyable at times, but man I would love to see something a full design-team could do that goes in a direction I can appreciate.
 


No. It means if your perfect is playing the edition you want but your choice is playing an edition you are less fond of or not playing at all, you have to weigh if not gaming is worth waiting for your perfect game to come, if ever. You have to weigh that playing something less than your desire is worth it.

To whit: a friend wanted to run Cyberpunk Red. I was less than enthused about the setting and system, but I would rather hang out with my friends than sit home alone. I could have sat out the Cyberpunk game and wait for us to go back to D&D, but I weighed the perfect (play the system I want) against the good (play something I don't care for, but still be with my friends).
I do that all the time, as the GM no less. My wife hates sandbox play
 

Okay.

If you can't sell your players a pig when it's not forced upon them by the system, why should you expect to be able to?
You shouldn't, and that's my point.

But when someone - be it a boss in retail or yourself in gaming - expects you to not only keep trying to sell that pig but to be successful at it, you're hosed.

If, hypothetically, I pitch a game or campaign and nobody's interested in it, where's the disconnect? Should I try pitching a different game or campaign (i.e. admit the game or campaign I'm pitching is a pig)? Should I pack it in and become a forever player (i.e. admit I'm the 'pig' in the scene)? Or should I take the retail approach and just keep hammering away pitching the same thing in hopes I'll get a bite someday?
I legitimately do not understand this line of argument. "I can't beat my players into submission if they know they have choices, so we need to make sure they're never allowed to have choices, so they'll meekly submit to whatever I want." Like, for real? You're angry that your players have preferences and actually advocate for themselves when they know there are options????
I think you might have either got a wrong impression somewhere or are really taking this to extremes, not sure which.
 

But it is, and I will die on this hill.

Actual compromise means negotiating. And, yes, sometimes that means you won't be abso-bloody-lutely perfectly blissful about the result. But a """compromise""" in name only that results in literally every single negotiator coming away outright upset about the result...does exactly what you're describing! And when we tell people that that's what "compromise" truly is, what we are telling them is "DO NOT compromise. You'll only be even more angry. Never accept anything less than total capitulation."

That's a recipe for violence. I would really rather not get to that point.
To the bolded: same here.

That said, every time - and I mean every bloody time - I've ever heard anyone say "We should compromise on this" in any context* not involving a decision that has to be immediately resolved, what they're really saying is "I can see I'm not going to get my way right now so let's punt on this to give me time to lobby-persuade-etc. enough support to allow me to get my way later".

In other words, it's the ultimate expression of passive aggression.

* - including around the gaming table, both in-character and out.
 

Remove ads

Top