Yes, yes, they do. My change came after a few years of 1e, wanted something darker and grittier, so went to Warhammer. With 3.5, I found that system worked well with my home brew campaign.
Do Your Tastes Change?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Heh, interesting.
I don't think "of course they change" is reall all that true. The Shaman, for example, has stated that while he might try this or that game, his tastes have remained fairly stable.
I think I'm on the other end of the spectrum here. Every campaign is different from the last one. Different in style, focus, theme and actual play. Like I said, one campaign might be almost free form, high rp, amateur thespian hour while the next might be an old school dungeon crawl, exploration type game.
Even ranging back further, I know my tastes have ranged all over the place. I love the classic Gygax modules. With a passion. They were great. I also loved the Dragonlance modules too. And those two concepts are pretty darn far apart, even if they are both set in D&D.
Heck, in the past year I've either run or played the following: Savage Worlds - SF survival horror, Sufficiently Advanced - very conceptual based, highly philosophical, a variant of Sufficiently Advanced based on Terry Pratchett (hillarious and loads of fun), 3.5 D&D (Shackled City), 4.0 D&D (mostly fairly traditional D&D games).
I'm just all over the place.
I don't think "of course they change" is reall all that true. The Shaman, for example, has stated that while he might try this or that game, his tastes have remained fairly stable.
I think I'm on the other end of the spectrum here. Every campaign is different from the last one. Different in style, focus, theme and actual play. Like I said, one campaign might be almost free form, high rp, amateur thespian hour while the next might be an old school dungeon crawl, exploration type game.
Even ranging back further, I know my tastes have ranged all over the place. I love the classic Gygax modules. With a passion. They were great. I also loved the Dragonlance modules too. And those two concepts are pretty darn far apart, even if they are both set in D&D.
Heck, in the past year I've either run or played the following: Savage Worlds - SF survival horror, Sufficiently Advanced - very conceptual based, highly philosophical, a variant of Sufficiently Advanced based on Terry Pratchett (hillarious and loads of fun), 3.5 D&D (Shackled City), 4.0 D&D (mostly fairly traditional D&D games).
I'm just all over the place.
kensanata
Explorer
Raven Crowking
First Post
Before 3e came out, I had quit. I just stopped finding it fun to run games.
After 3e, I ramped up character complexity quite a bit, offering racial classes, extra races, etc. My "house rules" document was over 600 pages.
Now, I am working at paring back the complexity for a simpler, but robust, system.....sort of a 2.75, as it were. I credit the discussion of game design centred around 4e for helping me see what worked for me, what didn't, and how various factors fitted together.
So, yes, my tastes have changed in that way.
What I want in an adventure, or in a setting, however, hasn't changed all that much.
RC
After 3e, I ramped up character complexity quite a bit, offering racial classes, extra races, etc. My "house rules" document was over 600 pages.
Now, I am working at paring back the complexity for a simpler, but robust, system.....sort of a 2.75, as it were. I credit the discussion of game design centred around 4e for helping me see what worked for me, what didn't, and how various factors fitted together.
So, yes, my tastes have changed in that way.
What I want in an adventure, or in a setting, however, hasn't changed all that much.
RC
Remathilis
Legend
My changes have moved from set-in-stone to quicksand.
Before, I loved to tinker, house-rule, use the latest supplement, and tell sweeping epic stories of love, danger, and adventure on a grand scale...
I still love that. However, I've began flirting with a more old-school mixture as well: limited options (core only), rules-as-written, and more focus on adventures as self-contained stories rather than an epic sweeping opus.
Before, I loved to tinker, house-rule, use the latest supplement, and tell sweeping epic stories of love, danger, and adventure on a grand scale...
I still love that. However, I've began flirting with a more old-school mixture as well: limited options (core only), rules-as-written, and more focus on adventures as self-contained stories rather than an epic sweeping opus.
It depends. I'm prepared to try a wide variety of things, and always have been. Thus, my tastes are broad overall and don't really change. At different times though when I GM i'll want to play a particular style of campaign. That means that sometimes I'll be playing one particular style of game, and at other times another. I might be GMing one game in one style and playing in a different game a couple of days later in an entirely different style. If that to you means my tastes change, then yes is the answer to the question.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
I am generally open to a variety of play styles but I like to know what I'm getting into ahead of time. I also dislike random rolled character or background systems as I generally know what I want to play and prefer point buy systems. I was very happy when 4e went with point buy/array as the default.
A lot of it is personality type. Take a Myers-Briggs test and look up info even on a site like personalitypages.com and you'll see how differently people see things in general. Some people thrive on change, some are made very uncomfortable by it.
My taste in games change constantly. Its one of the few constants in my far too many years of gaming. My real challenge has been to get a group willing to suffer through my gaming system & setting ADD. So I guess the changes from crunchy games (Aftermath), to diceless (Amber), RP focused (Houses of the Blooded) to more mainstream like D&D are as much a product of my gaming groups as my personal tastes.
I've also found that the "age" of a game bears little impact on when I become interested in playing it. Some of my gaming groups and I jumped into games (like 3E) when they first came out, but avoided other games despite lots of hype and bling simply because it didn't fit our current (at that time) preferred style of play.
I've also found that the "age" of a game bears little impact on when I become interested in playing it. Some of my gaming groups and I jumped into games (like 3E) when they first came out, but avoided other games despite lots of hype and bling simply because it didn't fit our current (at that time) preferred style of play.
Hussar
Legend
Oh, Herschel - I totally agree with that. Different strokes and all that. Please don't take my posts as being some sort of badwrongfun sort of thing.
As I said in the OP, I think that a lot of the disagreements that occur on the boards have far less to do with actual mechanics or games, although that's certainly a part of it, and far more to do with play experiences.
As I said in the OP, I think that a lot of the disagreements that occur on the boards have far less to do with actual mechanics or games, although that's certainly a part of it, and far more to do with play experiences.
