Gaming Generation Gap

[Reynard]

Could you give some examples? I actually think d20 D&D has fewer Eastern influences than 1e. The only one I've seen is a picture of a hair horror J-ghost in 4e's Open Grave - Secrets of the Undead, and that's pretty obscure.

"Anime" is, i think, very often a shorthand term used to describe a tone (much in the same way that "videogamey" or "WoWism" are). The thing is, the exact meaning varies from person to person, depending on their views of "anime", which "anime" they have encountered and so on. This means, the liklihood is pretty good the speaker/writer and the audience/reader are not on the same page, sparking disagreement, maybe even offense.

We (and i definitely include myself, first in line) should probably stop using that kind of short hand (this goes for "old school" and "grognard", too) if we want to have valuable, reasonable discussions with each other.

 

[coyote6]

And I find myself incredibly frustrated with gamers who think that we really, REALLY need fifteen types of polearms with individual stat lines for each, but who also think that the addition of a katana is not only somehow bad but actually unnecessary when we have a longsword.

Some of that may be backlash from games that stat up the katana and make it way better than every other weapon, seemingly just because katanas are cool. (I'd have to agree with the cool part, but Highlander is one of those movies I've seen a zillion times, so... )

Anyways, so after one too many trenchcoat wearing vampires with a katana, sometimes people overcorrect, and you can get snide dismissals of even needing stats for one kind of thing -- "It's just like X!" -- and instead obsessively details some other area.

(Of course, depending on the game system, sometimes it really is just like X, because the game's weapon stats aren't granular enough for differences to show up. For example, I doubt there's room for much differentiation between longsword, broadsword, katana, & bastard sword in M&M. But in GURPS, or D&D 4e, sure, you could probably tweak stuff.)

***

FWIW, I'm 38; I'm not sure what my "formative fantasy" influence was. I read all kinds of stuff -- Pern, Hobbit, LotR, Larry Niven, John Carter, Thieves World, even some of the Gor books. Actually, my formative fiction was probably comic books -- Spider-Man, Uncanny X-Men, Avengers, JLA, LSH, etc.

 

[Cadfan]

People have their preferences, to be sure, but I think generally speaking the kind of player that would enjoy really granular weapon stats would probably appreciate the inclusion of said stats for a wide variety of weapons.

I'm not actually convinced that a preference for many, many types of polearms is indicative of a preference for granularity. Hopefully, in this thread of all places, with its extensive discussion of formulative experiences and preference formation, I can get away with suggesting that this may be merely a contingent effect of one's initial RPG experiences?

 

[Reynard]

I'm not actually convinced that a preference for many, many types of polearms is indicative of a preference for granularity. Hopefully, in this thread of all places, with its extensive discussion of formulative experiences and preference formation, I can get away with suggesting that this may be merely a contingent effect of one's initial RPG experiences?

To be sure. If we're moving beyond literary and other pop-culture influences (which I think we have) and moving in the direction of "formative gaming" I'd say that those initial experiences are as likely to produce positive preferences as they are negative ones. I am sure there are many people who, upon first encountering D&D or other rpgs, thought "Awesome, I get to be a mighty thewed barbarian/demon-sword wielding albino/boy wizard/whatever" and end up *not* getting to do those things and being disappointed. Assuming that person came back to the table, that initial disappointment is going to color their feelings about RPGs for some time, maybe even forever.

Likewise any assumption or hope about gaming before actually engaging in it, from the joy of medieval simulation to kick-ass cinematic combat to deep immersion storytelling. The lucky ones, I think, are those who discover the game for themselves and form their own way to play from the outset (I am in this group*) or those that observe the game from outside, like what they see and are able to join in. There's still surprises, to be sure, in either of those cases, but I think disappointment and negative experiences are less likely.

To veer back toward the OP a little bit more, after thinking on it some I would guess that the relationship between genre preference and gaming preferences are not just related, but interconnected and constantly informaing one another. While I read the Hobbit and some other fantasy before I played D&D, finding D&D and falling in love with it led me to indulge in more fantasy, from the "old generation" classics like REH and LotR to "new generation" (at the time) stuff like the Dragon Lance Series and Feist. Add to that movies, video/computer games and comics, both old and new. It's a continuing process.

* My father brought home the Red Box when I was 10. Myself and my two brothers played together, occassionally with friends, for years before adding anything to our arsenal outside the next box (blue, green, black and gold, baby!). We created our own adventures, toyed with the rules and played "our own way". To this day, I still have trouble running modules, as we never used them.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Twin Bahamut, the DMG references to Boot Hill and Gamma World were partly a matter of marketing. Gygax naturally was not going to write, "Interested readers should pick up Dave Hargrave's Welcome to Skull Tower for the Gunnery Charts, Star Powered Mages, Rune Singers, and other groovy goodies."

You know, at this point I can only throw up my hands and repeat what I said before. I wasn't born yet when all of this took place. I don't have the context to understand what you are talking about. Sorry, but I just don't. You are going to need to be a lot more verbose and descriptive if you want me to understand what you are exactly talking about.

Either way, until we see something like "PHB 4: Modern Heroes" and "PHB 5: Future Heroes", I think my biggest point still stands. D&D simply doesn't support the freeform combination of traditional fantasy, non-traditional fantasy, modern settings, and futuristic settings in a way that is really necessary for it to perfectly match up with the broad definition of "fantasy" that has become so much more common over the last several years. Whether 1E supported it or not, the segregation between D&D and D20 Modern in the 3E era, and the lack of even basic firearms rules in the 4E rulebooks so far, are reason enough for me to make my point.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Is there a gap? Yes. I dont think that can even be questioned. But what IS the gap?

I recently got my grubby hands on a classic 2e PHB, and was pleased at how many references there were to historical figures and notes advising players to go to the library and read up on such things. The book didn't just assume players would know generic fantasy archtypes, but fictional and classic characters defining their archtype. So Merlin, Medea, and Circe are mentioned under wizards, and the fighter section has long lists of not just classic fighter types, but also generals and leaders - and again the mention on visiting your library to read up on stories.

On the other hand, last few times I've worked with kids, none of them knew what a library was.

 

[jmucchiello]

Either way, until we see something like "PHB 4: Modern Heroes" and "PHB 5: Future Heroes", I think my biggest point still stands. D&D simply doesn't support the freeform combination of traditional fantasy, non-traditional fantasy, modern settings, and futuristic settings in a way that is really necessary for it to perfectly match up with the broad definition of "fantasy" that has become so much more common over the last several years. Whether 1E supported it or not, the segregation between D&D and D20 Modern in the 3E era, and the lack of even basic firearms rules in the 4E rulebooks so far, are reason enough for me to make my point.

The 3.0E DMG (pg164) had combat statistics for archaic and modern handguns. It also had stats for futuristic weapons like "laser pistols" with "energy packs". If you create a 3e fighter or rogue and arm them with pistols (gunpowder or laser), you can play any sci-fi genre you want. Cyborgs and robot? examine Eberron's warforged for an example of adding such "races" to your game. Reskinning a Mind Flayer as an alien race is trivial. D&D supports genre-bending as well as it supports high fantasy or low fantasy. Sometimes you (yes, you) have to do some legwork to get the feel you want out of it. But the tools are there inside the core books of every edition.

That is was old-school truly is all about. Forget about player-skill vs character-skill. Forget about deathtraps and rolling up new characters twice a session (or not). Old-school had rule 0 just like 3E. But in the old-school way of playing rule 0 was also rule 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and up. The books were a distant second behind the do it your way meaning behind rule 0. I played in 1E games with lasers, with flying ships, in worlds populated with elves and worlds where every intelligent being was human, games entirely within a single dungeon, games that had no underground environments, underdark locales, as generals on battle fields, with cities where for a few coppers you could teleport to its sister cities on the moon!

All of it was possible because each DM had his own ideas of what a "fantasy" world was like. And that was just 1E. And to support all those different elements the DMs had a single DMG, a single PHB, a single player's option book (Unearthed Arcana), and 3 slim monster manuals (MM1, Fiend Folio and MM2). All of those books are 128 pages except the DMG weighing in at 240.

So how did someone have lasers and how did ships fly? The DM made it up. You want firearms in 4e. Make it up. Or hunt around the Internet I'm sure someone has made it up. Any martial character should be able to substitute a firearm in the place of a (W) power. Or make it more 4E-ish if you wish, create a "tech" power source and make up some classes that know how to use futuristic gadgets that "ordinary" folk can't comprehend. Yes, this is work you would have to do. But if you did would you still be playing 4E? Of course.

Ultimately I'm saying the old-school definition of "support" is much-much-much broader than apparently what modern players mean when they say "support". 3E was similar. That's how all those 3rd party splatbooks got sold. (I even sold a few.)

When you pick up your 4E PHB don't you ever think about modifying some of the classes? Modify the rogue's allowed weapons to be falchion and scimitar, reskin his charisma powers to constitution and call him a whirling dervish. Or change his allowed weapons so he can use a laser pistol and a stungun and call him a futuristic bounty hunter. I'm making these up off the top of my head and have not looked at the PHB in months so these specific example may make no sense. The point is the rulebooks should be a gateway to imagination not a set of regulations you must follow.

I've probably rambled to long and I think I'm repeating myself so I'll stop here. Remember: there is no wrong way to play and your badwrongfun might be my goodperfectfun. To each their own.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

My early (pre-DnD) literary influences include: Tolkien; Greek, Norse, Chinese and Japanese mythology; King Arthur (in many forms from T.H. White to Disney to the musical Camelot to Exalibur to the old King (?) Cartoons cartoons.) There were kiddies books as well although I have trouble remembering anything specific now. (Have this vague recollection, from about age 6, of a series of stories with characters with names like The Blue Pirate and The Golden Gryphon.) Oh and let's not forget Grimms Fairytales and Hans Christian Anderson. Also a lot of Sci-fi. Star Wars and Star Trek, Asimov and Bradbury. Oodles of TV shows, movies and super hero cartoons (TV shows, rarely able to get the books, they cost money.)

The suggested reading list in the back of the DMG was a great thing. Really helped expand my geek reading list. Moorcock, Howard and Lovecraft were my introduction to pulp. Loved them then, love them now. Ursula Le Guin and the Prydain books too. Can't think what else was on that list but I know I read as many as I could find.

And I continue to read sf&f. Because it's great.

Just read Perdido Street Station. Excellent. (Although I can't help saying the plotting was a bit clunky in places. But more than made up for by great characterisation, a beautifully imagined setting and a real gift for language.) Stephen Hunt and his Jackals books are brilliant: another really beautiful world with great characters and rip roaring adventure. Naomi Novik and JV Jones also excellent authors who create very enjoyable characters. Harry Potter, great kids books and Pullman's His Dark Materials stuff are the best kids books I've ever read.

I'd just like to say at this point that "kids books" is by no means a derogatory term. A lot of literature aimed at younger audiences deals with much more difficult topics in more thoughtful ways than a lot of adult literature.

Formative Gaming: my earliest RPG experience, at age 12, was the Tomb of Horrors. Despite this I continued to game and, 27 and a bit years later, still am.

How has all this effected my gaming style? No idea. Well, I hate 'trick/trap' dungeons and monsters. That's Tomb of Horrors (and many other similar experiences) speaking. I like more role playing in my games but certainly want some combat and dice rolling and such. I prefer games set in cities with lots of NPC interaction and social encounters. But I hate to think I'd never go down into a dungeon again. I do have a preference for 'Down and Dirty' over 'Wahoo,' certainly in the fantasy genre. But I love the Supers genre and am all for extra wahoo there.

One thing I note that sets me apart from many of the younger gamers round here: I can't say video games have influenced me much. I haven't played the RPG ones much (although my Mum and Dad are big fans of them) and the games I did play obsessively as a boy were things like Space Invaders (back when it first came out.) Not really the thing to inspire great adventures. Mmmm, now trying to think of a way to create an encounter like a Space Invaders game.

About that 15 types of polearms thing: you've got to remember (or hear for the first time, which ever is applicable) that back in the day there was a paucity of stats and stuff. So new stats/stuff was good, even if it was rather niche and a tad, er, exhaustive/OCD/train spotter. But you must admit, the cliche of a bunch of 14 year old gamers sitting around a table arguing about whose character is cooler takes on a new level of hilarious when it's "I've got a Fauchard-Guisarme!" "Oh yeah? Well I've got a Bohemian Ear Spoon!"

ProfessorCirno wrote:
On the other hand, last few times I've worked with kids, none of them knew what a library was.

Now this makes me cry.

 

[TwinBahamut]

You know, jmucchiello, it may not be your intent, but your post comes across quite strongly as a big rant on how lazy younger gamers are (with a very clear implication that my criticisms are simply a result of my own laziness). Which, frankly, is really insulting. I'd appreciate it if you dialed back the implications that I (or other people who are not "old-school") don't have enough imagination or will to create something new and interesting.

Of course you can always just make things up. But that is not what I have been talking about. When I say that D&D doesn't support certain things, I am not even remotely saying that it is impossible to play a D&D game that involves things like guns or robots. What I am saying is that the game as written doesn't really help you do such things.

Currently, D&D is very much locked into a certain mindset of "traditional fantasy". As far as actual WotC books are considered, all D&D campaigns take place in a vaguely European medieval society full of knights, elves, orcs, and wizards. Elements inspired by non-European cultures are less common (in fact, anything more specific than vaguely European is less common), guns don't exist (to an extent that counters the historical presence of gunpowder in the medieval world), and the entire world is governed by generic polytheistic gods and magical planes of existence.

I don't think that having a baseline like that is a problem in of itself, but it gets to be a problem when WotC would rather publish really weird and non-iconic races and classes within that framework rather than expand outside of the framework. We get crazy things like genasi, wilden, and the like, but we don't get support for more iconic things like gunslingers.

Of course, I do again need to repeat that the basic baseline of D&D simply is not the basic baseline of the kind of fantasy I most encounter outside of D&D. In videogames, I see gunslingers and robots mixed with fantasy more often than I see orcs and elves. So, basically, I have to ask one thing. Why do I need to invent stats for guns and robots on my own? Instead, couldn't I get the guns and robots that I want, and you could leave it up to the fans to create orcs and elves for themselves? Of course, I don't really expect that situation any time soon, but I think it is an interesting question for people to think about.

Ultimately I'm saying the old-school definition of "support" is much-much-much broader than apparently what modern players mean when they say "support". 3E was similar. That's how all those 3rd party splatbooks got sold. (I even sold a few.)

Well, when I have used the term support in this thread, I have entirely meant official WotC D&D products. I also imply detailed and useful support, that allows such material to be easily integrated into all aspects of the game. So I am setting a pretty high standard.

I've probably rambled to long and I think I'm repeating myself so I'll stop here. Remember: there is no wrong way to play and your badwrongfun might be my goodperfectfun. To each their own.

Err... When did that "badwrongfun" stuff get pulled into this conversation? I never said a single thing about play styles, and certainly I never said that someone was playing the game wrong or anything like that...

 

[Scribble]

D&D 3e and 4e undoubtedly have lots of anime influences... because there's lots of action/adventure anime movies and TV shows from the past 15 years or so. If they had been around to the same extent in the 70s in North America I guarantee they'd have been part of 1st edition. The old Kung Fu TV show with David Carradine was the inspiration for the 1e Monk. Cowboy movies and Sci Fi flicks all got their bits and pieces thrown into the D&D pot too (with rules in the DMG).

If some new style of action/adventure movie becomes really popular in the future, I'm sure it will influence future RPGs as well.

To me, this has always been the best thing about D&D. It never tried to have a clear "this is the look/feel of D&D." It was Conan mixed with Lord of The Rings, mixed with Star Wars, and Kung Fu, and Ray Harryhausen, and weird 1950s sci-fi and planet of the apes, and mythology, and fairy tales and horror films and books... All of it rolled up into a strange little ball of imagination.

It didn't try too hard to focus the game into how it "should" be seen, and as a result was almost literally ANYTHING a young kid could imagine between two covers.

Thats why it always amuses/bugs me when people say things are core concepts of D&D or that a certain look/feel has no place in D&D. It does. Pretty much anything/everything does.

It's fine if your game wants to focus on a specific look/feel/idea. Take WoD games. They do one concept and they do it really well (imo.) But that's not the strength of D&D. The strength of D&D is that it doesn't do any one part very "well" but together that makes the experience excellent.