Did the nerds win?

[Umbran]

I think they're less acceptable than people think they are. They're tolerated, but I feel like the height of that tolerance was like, over a decade ago at this point.

That I spent much of the covid lockdown years playing Gloomhaven with my wife hasn't raised an eyebrow, that's acceptable enough.

It's still a profitable business but it seems like they're increasingly selling more products to smaller groups of more hardcore fans (which might actually be a more profitable audience than the mass market given the margins on boardgames).

I think this is more about economics and the facility of kickstarter than about whether it is socially okay to play complicated games.

But less-complex ones and boardgames as a hobby in general are clearly still a big thing, in a way they weren't in say, 2005.

Sure. We don't need to say that boardgames are dominated by the big complicated things to accept that complicated games are socially okay, though. If more people are playing (I think) better boardgames, honestly, they are less likely to get weirded out by the more complex end of the spectrum.

 

[MGibster]

I feel like a lot of older games used math as a gatekeeping device, a way to keep certain people out (or at least, to limit their enjoyment.) Including algebraic expressions like this implies a certain level of education...which implies a certain age, and certain other factors. It's a good way to, um, limit the game's player base. IfyaknowwhatImean.

More likely it was that those games were created by people with that certain level of education and they just assumed it'd be of interest to others with the same level of education. i.e. They really weren't concerned with appealing to the masses. Roberta Williams of Sierra Entertainment fame (King's Quest, Police Quest, Phantasmagoria) talked about changes in the demographics of computer game players over the years. When Sierra was founded in 1979, and their target demographic were college educated, middle class people. These were going to be the folks most likely to own a home computer throughout most of the 1980s and into the 1990s.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But Dragonlance, despite adding more story elements, didn't change the focus directly away from mechanics like the likes of Vampire did. The underlying D&D system was still in the designer/DM mindset of simulation, not storytelling (over mechanics).

I had an entire Vampire campaign were I can't remember any dice being rolled. Not session - campaign. Can't imagine that happening with the likes of D&D.

That's why I loved 2e. Simulation-based mechanics, but written to encourage doing it however you wanted.

 

[Parmandur]

I'd point out that if you went back in time, Lord of the Rings was associated more with hippies and counter-culture than any sort of geek culture - Frodo Lives buttons and graffiti, Led Zeppelin songs, Gandalf's Garden, and so on.

That's the thing, you go back and see that LotR or Spiderman sold like hotcakes. Talking about liking it was socially fraught, but liking it was common

 

[MGibster]

Elsewhere, I have noted that White Wolf made it clear that these differences existed in the market. But, there's solid evidence before then. DL1 - Dragons of Despair, the first Dragonlance module, was published in 1984. White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade didn't hit shelves until 1991.

I just purchased 1989's Greyhawk Adventures, and in the Greyhawk: Gem of Flanaess book, the authors talk about what different gamers wanted including role players, problem solvers, adventurers (folks who like combat and other physical challenges), etc., etc. and how the DM can make all of them happy. You're right, White Wolf didn't invent the concept of story for RPGs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure. We don't need to say that boardgames are dominated by the big complicated things to accept that complicated games are socially okay, though. If more people are playing (I think) better boardgames, honestly, they are less likely to get weirded out by the more complex end of the spectrum.

I guess the question is what was "socially unacceptable" about them before, and I'm thinking more about trying to convince people to play them and so on, and I feel like people, even big nerds, are actually less likely now, in 2024/2025 to be convinced to play something like GoT, let alone XHaven than they were, say, 5-10 years ago. YMMV of course.

 

[Umbran]

But Dragonlance, despite adding more story elements, didn't change the focus directly away from mechanics like the likes of Vampire did.

I have always felt that the mechanical aspects of how World of Darkness moved towards story were overstated. The Storyteller system is a pretty crunchy thing, with lots of opportunity for, say, combat min-maxing, and very few mechanics that actually interact with story, per se.

Where they differed from most of the games that came before them was in the fictional positioning of the PCs within the setting. In bog standard old D&D, adventuring was like going to Las Vegas - what happened in the dungeon largely stayed in the dungeon. But in WoD, the actions the PCs had to take to get by were interactions in the world at large, with factions that had memory.

I had an entire Vampire campaign were I can't remember any dice being rolled. Not session - campaign. Can't imagine that happening with the likes of D&D.

Yes, but there's not much in the mechanics to enable that play. It is a mindset and playstyle thing.

 

[Mannahnin]

But Dragonlance, despite adding more story elements, didn't change the focus directly away from mechanics like the likes of Vampire did. The underlying D&D system was still in the designer/DM mindset of simulation, not storytelling (over mechanics).

Sort of. When the modules outright tell the DM to resurrect important NPCs if they happened to die in a previous installment, they're overriding the baseline mechanics in service to the story.

I had an entire Vampire campaign were I can't remember any dice being rolled. Not session - campaign. Can't imagine that happening with the likes of D&D.

Yeah, I'd have a hard time seeing that with D&D, but there are definitely a sub-set of gamers who wanted to play that way. Remember Amber Diceless RPG? Came out the same year as Vampire.

That's why I loved 2e. Simulation-based mechanics, but written to encourage doing it however you wanted.

I have a hard time characterizing any form of D&D as simulationist. 2E did a fair bit to rationalize and clean up 1E, but it's still the same core structure. Which Gary was explicit in saying was designed to prioritize heroic action over realism. He doesn't name any of the competitors he was referring to with the following passages from the 1979 DMG, but he's talking about stuff like Chivalry & Sorcery, or the more complex and detailed Perrin Conventions for D&D combat, which became the RuneQuest game system.

Gary Gygax, DMG p9 wrote:

APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-thon-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

The 2E DMG, in The Fine Art of Being a DM, at the front, tells the reader that...

Being a good Dungeon Master involves a lot more than knowing the rules. It calls for quick wit, theatrical flair, and a good sense of dramatic timing, among other things. Most of us can claim these attributes to some degree, but there's always room for improvement.

Fortunately, skills like these can be learned and improved with practice. There are hundreds of tricks, shortcuts, and simple principles that can make you a better, more dramatic, and more creative game master.

Of course, most of the how-to advice for that was pushed to the widely-loved and acclaimed Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide by Jennell Jaquays, including stuff on pacing, drama, props, mood music, "When Rules Get in the Way", "Fudging or Constructive Cheating", and "Leaving the Rules Behind".

One of the most interesting tensions in 2E, and for me I think the reason why it no longer appeals to me despite it being the TSR edition I played the most of back in the day, is how the gamist rules structure conflicts with the story-forward Trad approach that had become dominant in TSR's adventure design and advice for DMs. This was the main reason I never wanted to DM when I was young, I think, because I couldn't figure out how to make the game the dramatic story I expected it to be while playing by the rules. You practically had to fudge to avoid an excessive death rate. 3rd ed gave better tools, and 4E made adventure design outright easy, so those were where I really cut my teeth as a DM.

 

[trappedslider]

I think acceptance was the thing I was after. And with acceptance comes some sense of peace I guess.

[/QUOTE]

Where I work this is far from the truth. I work in a very homogenous workforce where sports, cars and alcohol is the only thing worth discussing.

I'm sorry to hear that

 

[Mannahnin]

I have always felt that the mechanical aspects of how World of Darkness moved towards story were overstated. The Storyteller system is a pretty crunchy thing, with lots of opportunity for, say, combat min-maxing, and very few mechanics that actually interact with story, per se.

Where they differed from most of the games that came before them was in the fictional positioning of the PCs within the setting. In bog standard old D&D, adventuring was like going to Las Vegas - what happened in the dungeon largely stayed in the dungeon. But in WoD, the actions the PCs had to take to get by were interactions in the world at large, with factions that had memory.

----
Yes, but there's not much in the mechanics to enable that play. It is a mindset and playstyle thing.

I think there's a lot of truth to that, but there were definitely some mechanical elements which pushed the character and theme. Nature determined how your character regained Willpower, so roleplaying was key to recovering one of the most important character resources. Humanity and Virtue scores mechanized behaving in humane ways, and created a spiral of losing control and becoming a monster if and as your behavior became more callous and destructive. As these attributes decremented you became less and less able to control monstrous impulses like Frenzy.

Certainly the degree to which the Storyteller system was really about telling stories about Anne Rice-style romantic monsters as opposed to Supernatural Superheroes was very dependent on the table, because a lot of the mechanics tended to push the latter more.