Gaming Pornography: Will 4th Edition lead to a more Realistic and Useful Game?

[outsider]

I think the OP made some excellent points, however, I think there must be a better descriptor available than gaming porn.

The only real point the original poster made was that D&D has a different feel back in 1st edition than it does now. He then proceeded to imply that the old way is more intelligent and less juvenile than the new way.

How, pray tell, is "lets pretend to be gnomes and magic-users!" less juvenile than "lets pretend to be war forged dwarves and shadowdancers!"? It's like saying that playing "Cowboys and Indians" is more intelligent than playing "Cops and Robbers". If you prefer the old flavor over the new one, that's fine with me. Just don't go around telling people how much smarter that makes you.

1st ed D&D is not intrinsically more "useful" than modern D&D simply because it is more focused on the "reality" of the middle ages and ancient mythology. The odds that knowing the difference between a Ranseur and a Guisarme is going to be useful to me are pretty much nil.

And to say that 1st ed D&D is true to ancient mythology is blatantly untrue. D&D's elves are -nothing- like the elves from ancient mythology. What are they like? Tolkien's elves. Halflings? Never even existed in ancient mythology, they were taken directly from The Lord of the Rings. The "memorize spells" magic system? I sincerely doubt you'll be able to point to anything in ancient mythology that looks like that. It was taken straight from Vance's novels.

1st ed definitely was -not- closer to ancient mythology. What it -was- closer to was fantasy fiction of the 70s and early 80s. If you grew up reading that fantasy fiction, of course 1st ed is going to seem more evocative to you than modern editions. It certainly does not make it closer to "ancient mythology", "realistic", "useful", less "juvenile", or less "vapid". If you were exposed to that sort of fantasy at a young age, you will find it easier to suspend disbelief when you encounter it in D&D, and you'll find it harder to suspend disbelief when you encounter something from more modern fantasy. Kids growing up today are exposed to a very different kind of fantasy, and they are frequently exposed to it in very different ways(ie video games). Thus, modern D&D will be more appealing to them. Just because it's different than the approach you want, it doesn't make it "vapid".

Finally, I'd like to note that the Shadowdancer is probably closer to ancient mythology than elves, halflings, and "fire and forget" magic. Take a look at Japanese ninja myths sometime. My guess is you'll find much of what a Shadowdancer is capable of in those myths. Is mythology about mystic shadowy assassins somehow sillier than mythology about wizards creating objects out of thin air? I certainly don't think so.

 

[heirodule]

1E was a tough game, as much a test of the player as the PC, with disease and insanity and starvation right there in the DMG next to more fantastical dangers.

Thats a great point. Roll every game month for a chance to get a disease! Tough world.

 

[Nifft]

Strange I find much of what has been added to the game in terms of warforged etc would have been more appealing when I was 12, not so much now that I am nearly 40.

Well, of course! Anything is fresh and exciting when you're 12. Even old editions seemed good back then!

But I totally agree with your other point -- "game porn" seems needlessly inflammatory, especially if he's not going to actually provide any porn.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Blackthorne]

The only real point the original poster made was that D&D has a different feel back in 1st edition than it does now. He then proceeded to imply that the old way is more intelligent and less juvenile than the new way.

How, pray tell, is "lets pretend to be gnomes and magic-users!" less juvenile than "lets pretend to be war forged dwarves and shadowdancers!"? It's like saying that playing "Cowboys and Indians" is more intelligent than playing "Cops and Robbers". If you prefer the old flavor over the new one, that's fine with me. Just don't go around telling people how much smarter that makes you.

1st ed D&D is not intrinsically more "useful" than modern D&D simply because it is more focused on the "reality" of the middle ages and ancient mythology. The odds that knowing the difference between a Ranseur and a Guisarme is going to be useful to me are pretty much nil.

And to say that 1st ed D&D is true to ancient mythology is blatantly untrue. D&D's elves are -nothing- like the elves from ancient mythology. What are they like? Tolkien's elves. Halflings? Never even existed in ancient mythology, they were taken directly from The Lord of the Rings. The "memorize spells" magic system? I sincerely doubt you'll be able to point to anything in ancient mythology that looks like that. It was taken straight from Vance's novels.

1st ed definitely was -not- closer to ancient mythology. What it -was- closer to was fantasy fiction of the 70s and early 80s. If you grew up reading that fantasy fiction, of course 1st ed is going to seem more evocative to you than modern editions. It certainly does not make it closer to "ancient mythology", "realistic", "useful", less "juvenile", or less "vapid". If you were exposed to that sort of fantasy at a young age, you will find it easier to suspend disbelief when you encounter it in D&D, and you'll find it harder to suspend disbelief when you encounter something from more modern fantasy. Kids growing up today are exposed to a very different kind of fantasy, and they are frequently exposed to it in very different ways(ie video games). Thus, modern D&D will be more appealing to them. Just because it's different than the approach you want, it doesn't make it "vapid".

Finally, I'd like to note that the Shadowdancer is probably closer to ancient mythology than elves, halflings, and "fire and forget" magic. Take a look at Japanese ninja myths sometime. My guess is you'll find much of what a Shadowdancer is capable of in those myths. Is mythology about mystic shadowy assassins somehow sillier than mythology about wizards creating objects out of thin air? I certainly don't think so.

You, sir, are a genius.

 

[Fifth Element]

The only real point the original poster made was that D&D has a different feel back in 1st edition than it does now. He then proceeded to imply that the old way is more intelligent and less juvenile than the new way.

How, pray tell, is "lets pretend to be gnomes and magic-users!" less juvenile than "lets pretend to be war forged dwarves and shadowdancers!"? It's like saying that playing "Cowboys and Indians" is more intelligent than playing "Cops and Robbers". If you prefer the old flavor over the new one, that's fine with me. Just don't go around telling people how much smarter that makes you.

1st ed D&D is not intrinsically more "useful" than modern D&D simply because it is more focused on the "reality" of the middle ages and ancient mythology. The odds that knowing the difference between a Ranseur and a Guisarme is going to be useful to me are pretty much nil.

And to say that 1st ed D&D is true to ancient mythology is blatantly untrue. D&D's elves are -nothing- like the elves from ancient mythology. What are they like? Tolkien's elves. Halflings? Never even existed in ancient mythology, they were taken directly from The Lord of the Rings. The "memorize spells" magic system? I sincerely doubt you'll be able to point to anything in ancient mythology that looks like that. It was taken straight from Vance's novels.

1st ed definitely was -not- closer to ancient mythology. What it -was- closer to was fantasy fiction of the 70s and early 80s. If you grew up reading that fantasy fiction, of course 1st ed is going to seem more evocative to you than modern editions. It certainly does not make it closer to "ancient mythology", "realistic", "useful", less "juvenile", or less "vapid". If you were exposed to that sort of fantasy at a young age, you will find it easier to suspend disbelief when you encounter it in D&D, and you'll find it harder to suspend disbelief when you encounter something from more modern fantasy. Kids growing up today are exposed to a very different kind of fantasy, and they are frequently exposed to it in very different ways(ie video games). Thus, modern D&D will be more appealing to them. Just because it's different than the approach you want, it doesn't make it "vapid".

Finally, I'd like to note that the Shadowdancer is probably closer to ancient mythology than elves, halflings, and "fire and forget" magic. Take a look at Japanese ninja myths sometime. My guess is you'll find much of what a Shadowdancer is capable of in those myths. Is mythology about mystic shadowy assassins somehow sillier than mythology about wizards creating objects out of thin air? I certainly don't think so.

Exceptionally well-said. Well done.

 

[Reynard]

Thats a great point. Roll every game month for a chance to get a disease! Tough world.

Not that everyone wants to play that way. But it does illustrate the "realism" issue (which is a horrible word for what were actually talking about, by the way) and how it relates to different editions.

 

[Mallus]

Any game which consumes a significant fraction of your life should add some value to your life other than "gosh, this is cool fun".

And drinking martinis should make you younger.

A less obvious element of "realism" in the game is exercising our intellectual and moral capacity.

I prefer my games amoral, but then I played a lot of chess as a kid.

Later editions moved away from history, literature and humanism--and more and more towards the overtly fantastic.

Older editions had the wandering prostitute table and dungeons with badly-drawn killer robots on the bottom levels (well, Blackmoor did). What can we learn from this?

The literary focus of 3e...

Is nonexistent. As it was in the earlier editions. Whatever literary elements exist in the game (and FYI, my own campaign is positively littered with literary references) are put there but the individual groups.

 

[outsider]

You, sir, are a genius.

Indeed I am. I got that way because of all my years of playing AD&D 2nd edition, which is of course the most intellectually useful version of D&D. Studies have shown that every session of 2nd ed you play increases your IQ by 5 points. Unlike the other editions, 2nd edition isn't a game meant for fun, it's a tool meant for intellectual development. 1st edition's roots as a wargame are obvious. 2nd ed wisely cut ties with it's wargaming past, because as everybody knows, playing a "game" is juvenile and is meant for children and the mentally incompetent. Unfortunately Wizards of the Coast went totally in the wrong direction with 3rd edition, pandering to those who enjoyed videogames, which are just as mentally defficient as those who enjoyed wargames.

My hope for 4th edition is they stop calling it a roleplaying game. It should be called a "Role Playing Intellectual Development Training System". Hopefully that'll keep out all those stodgy, senile wargamers and vapid, juvenile video gamers.

 

[(contact)]

Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.

pwned.

Well played, sir. (golf clap)

 

[Wormwood]

The only real point the original poster made was that D&D has a different feel back in 1st edition than it does now. He then proceeded to imply that the old way is more intelligent and less juvenile than the new way...<snip>

Add my "amen" to the pile.