Geriatric Grumbling

[Drifter Bob]

Btw, I wouldn't call 83 people "1/4 of the members of ENworld" either.

I'm going to try not to be sarcastic about this, but your math seems to be off.

I am under 18 and I'd like a more mature DnD 3
I am 18-30 and I'd like a more mature DnD 40
I am over 30 and I'd like a more mature DnD 39
I am under 18 and I'd like to see a seperate mature version 1
I am 18-30 and I'd like to see a seperate mature version 11
I am over 30 and I'd like to see a seperate mature version 23


How does that add up to 83?

JR

 

[Drifter Bob]

Marketing. 1/4 of the members of ENWorld is absolutely, positively not even a blip on the radar. And I would hesitate to say that all of ENWorld bothered replying to this poll. We've got a LOT more than 444 people floating around here.

We don't agree in our interpretations of these numbers, obviously. Not that it really matters, and I don't claim to be an expert pollster for armitrage or something, but I did take statistics in college, and it seems to me that 1/4 of the posters to ENworld, who would probably be considered hard core D&D players, is probably representative of a similar proportion of the much, much larger group of D&D players out there. I'm sure I don't need to point out this is the basic method of statistical surveys... this is how Niellson ratings are determined, for example.

In any case, what you and others seem to be suggesting has morphed throughout the thread. A summary of the suggestions as I see them: 1) a separate "mature" or "expert" version with minor rules variations. 2) a re-tooling of the rules for the next edition to be more "mature"

You and other frenzied critics of the very concept of analyzing the game for areas of improving the maturity level seem to have jumped to several rather odd conclusions about the motives, methods, and aims of those of us who are interested in a more mature game. All we have done is attempted to discuss a few ideas, citing a few problems and begin to speculate about a few potential solutions. Nowhere in this thread will you find a manifesto. We were just bouncing a few ideas around. My original intention with the poll was to A) see if there was interest, and people who felt the same way I did about what I percieve as a problem, and then B) attempt to discuss the idea a bit further.

So since I have voiced no concrete ideas of what either your #1 or #2 above would entail, I really don't understand how you can categorically condemn them, except as some kind of panicked reactionary backlash against the very idea of changing the game, which as I have pointed out, WILL keep changing regardless of whether anyone wants it to or not. I would like to believe that you and a couple of the others have some actual point to make, but all I see right now is angry recrimination and backlash, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm not trying to screw up your game, I'm personally trying very hard to be polite. So please relax. Put it in perspective. Count to ten or something.

As for great players solving all problems, I agree. A brilliant, reasonable set of players and DM will have a fun game with (or in spite of) almost any rules system. I am talking about the bigger picture, the way the newer players are approaching the game, the way the game itself is evolving, and how that effects the market for suppliments etc.

I'm sorry if you can't grasp this, but there ARE plenty of independent RPG's out there, (and no, I'm not talking about Vampire) which have rules that tend to promote different styles of game pay than the current D&D. You and a few other folks seem to have this belief that rules have absolutely no effect on how the game is played, but thats not true. There are games out there with enhanced role playing, and games which are more mechanical. Games with more abstract combat ranging to more realistic and faster combat, games which are sillier and more childish and games which are more adult. The rules do effect the way these games are played, just as they do effect the way D&D is played.

Personally, I am afriad that the hyperconservative, canonical streak in the D&D audience will mesh with normal market driven forces and cause the game to once again stagnate and die out, which will drag much of the independent rpg community with it, and leave us with nothing but everquest and grand theft auto until some new outfit buys the DnD license and re-invents it yet again. After all, it's been run into the ground a couple of times before, and one thing which has always remained constant was the conservatism of the fan base.

The fact that we cannot even discuss the idea of improving the game in a civilized manner even in a relatively polite forum such as ENworld does not bode well for the future, IMO.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Role Playing Bonuses to Bluff Checks: The problem herein is that 'quality of roleplaying' is not a quantifiable entity. While I agree that the exposition within the core rulebooks does not promote a roleplaying atmosphere, I believe that it isn't practical to expect a set of rules to handle the sort of solutions that should remain within the capable grasp of DMs who choose to modify rolls based on such situational factors.

Why not? Why is that so different from detailing combat movement, attacks of opportunity, or the standard DC's for skills?

As most people know, DnD evolved from war games. As a result, the most detailed parts of the rules mechanics have to do with combat. Leaving aside for a moment what the overall optimal level of detail or complexity in the game is, why not have a few rules for some of the other aspects of game play which people seem to enjoy bringing to the game, and have just as many player-DM disputes about as combat?

For that matter, if current trends within the rules system seem to be pushing the game in the opposite direction, i.e. away from the level of role playing which seemed to prevail before, [as many people seem to feel] then why not adjust them back to restore the balance?

Besides, shouldn't we try to encourage a variety of playstyles, rather than try to force everyone to play the game in the manner that we choose to?

I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything. We were simply discussing the perception of a problem with the bluff system and I pointed out a house rule solution which I use.

I have to point out as well that I find it strange that you seem to feel that including a little role playing in your D&D game is such an extreme, alien and radical idea. That is where the RP from RPG come from, in case you were wondering...

As an aside: Bluff and Diplomacy, like most other skills, are dependent on expected bonuses to meet certain DCs. Would you up the Sense Motive DC for a particularly good lie if it come from an NPC?

If I as the NPC told a lie and the party seemed to buy into it 100%, then absolutely, why not?

There are other ways to promote roleplaying at the table than to force your vision of the game onto other people.

Again, who is forcing anything on anybody? If there was a rule whereby you could grant -4 to +4 for a Bluff check based on role playing, then how could this mess up your game? If you didn't like the idea as a DM then you would't have to do it. I certainly wouldn't be standing behind you with a mace in your hand demading that you do so. And if your players complain, then do what other folks suggested I do if I don't like all the DC examples in the PhB.

I'm sorry if I come off a little preachy. It's just that this line of thinking sounds awfully similar to 'punishing PCs with weird names at the table, rather than nipping it in the bud before play' idealogues.

You are not coming off preachy, but you are making assumptions about what is being proposed here. Your contribution to the discussoin is certainly appreciated, but please don't conduct both sides of the argument in your head before chiming in!

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

I think the main problem is that, even though I voted that I would like a more "mature" version of the game, I completely disagree with you on what would constitute a more mature game. I imagine a lot of other people who responded to the poll would as well.

Again, the only concrete suggestion, and it was only a suggestion, that I made was about bluff checks. The other points were a summary of a couple of the specific ideas that other people had raised in the thread. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what kind of ultimate system I would like to have. I haven't exactly spelled that out.

Since this seems to be a source of confusion, I'll take the plunge and speak my mind, and let the boulders fall where they may.

I hope I am not wrong in surmising that you prefer a generally more rules lite approach. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong). One idea I have thought of was some kind of scaled system which could be easily range from simple to complex, in many different facets of the game.

Thus, if you wanted a simple and abstract magic system, but a complicated combat system, like in The Riddle of Steel, you could do that. If you wanted a fairly sophisticated system for managing dialogue (bluff et all) and a simple combat system, like in the Dying Earth Rpg, you could do that. If you wanted simple combat and sophisticated spellcasting rules, you could do that.

If you wanted it all complex or all simple, you could do that. (The latter would make it easier to introduce new players) And you should be able to adjust the complexity in any or all areas of the game as your campaign progresses, and as the Dm and players become more comfortable with the rules, and / or develop different interests.

That way everybody could adjust the game as they liked, by moving these "levers" if you will up and down, rather than having to mix versions, pick and choose rules mods from d20 suppliments, and invent reams of their own house rules.

Ideally I'd like to see a system wherin all general tendancies could be accomodated, without forcing the others to blend into this melting pot which probably dosn't satisfy as many as it could.

How could we implement this? I don't know for sure. I'd like to discuss it, but I'm afraid I'll get burned at the stake.

Can you understand where I am coming from with this?

DB

 

[d4]

We don't agree in our interpretations of these numbers, obviously. Not that it really matters, and I don't claim to be an expert pollster for armitrage or something, but I did take statistics in college, and it seems to me that 1/4 of the posters to ENworld, who would probably be considered hard core D&D players, is probably representative of a similar proportion of the much, much larger group of D&D players out there. I'm sure I don't need to point out this is the basic method of statistical surveys... this is how Niellson ratings are determined, for example.

no, this is not at all similar to how accurate statistical surveys are made. in order for a small group of respondents to accurately predict the basic attitudes of a large group, that small group must be randomly selected from the large group.

you don't have that here. you don't have a random sampling of gamers.

you have a group of gamers who have chosen to answer your poll. which is a self-selected subset of the gamers who have read this thread. which is a self-selected subset of the gamers who visit ENWorld's message boards. which is a self-selected subset of the gamers who come to ENWorld. which is a self-selected subset of the gamers who have internet connections. which is a self-selected subset of gamers as a whole.

there's nothing random about this group at all, they are entirely self-selected. because of that, no meaningful predictions about the attitudes of the larger group can be made at all.

another point: as you said, the people here at ENWorld do tend to be the "hard core" gamers who take this hobby seriously. however, that attitude and commitment is not necessarily indicative of gamers as a whole, so therefore we ENWorlders cannot be used as a model of the gaming community. we are in many ways different from "average" gamers.

 

[Ourph]

Again, the only concrete suggestion, and it was only a suggestion, that I made was about bluff checks. The other points were a summary of a couple of the specific ideas that other people had raised in the thread. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what kind of ultimate system I would like to have. I haven't exactly spelled that out.

Sorry if it sounded like I had your version all figured out. That's not what I was trying to say. My main point is that there are probably lots of people who would like to see the game change in some way, but it's likely that they all want the game changed in a different way. Your survey is a good indicator that D&D fans have some changes they'd like to see made to the game, but it's not a good indicator of WHAT changes they'd like.

Still, it's an interesting topic that has generated some good discussion.
Ideally I'd like to see a system wherin all general tendancies could be accomodated, without forcing the others to blend into this melting pot which probably dosn't satisfy as many as it could.

How could we implement this? I don't know for sure. I'd like to discuss it, but I'm afraid I'll get burned at the stake.

One thing that occurs to me is that the bigger companies could very easily take advantage of the growing use of .pdf publishing to do just this. It would be almost impossible to do what you're suggesting with print rules, because as a consumer, I don't want to pay for a 320pg rulebook if the rules I want only take up 64 pages. The best you can hope for in a print ruleset is two versions, a rules-lite and a complete version. Otherwise, you're talking about breaking down the rules into numerous different books (one for combat, one for spells, one for character generation, one for feats, skills, etc.) and potentially breaking those books down into rules-lite, rules-medium and rules-complete versions. No publisher can afford to do that and most fans would balk at having to buy multiple individual books just to get a complete game (OD&D notwithstanding).

On the other hand, with .pdf publishing the "printer" can make almost endless versions of the same ruleset composed of individual units that can be recombined with almost no cost to tailor the product to the consumer. For example, D&D .pdfs could be divided as I noted above into products for combat, spells, character generation, etc. basically along the lines of the chapters in the PHB. Each of these "chapters" could be written in 3 different styles, rules-lite, medium and complete. The consumer could then purchase a version of the game that contained any combination of those chapters. For example, the order page might look something like this.

_____________lite_____________medium________________complete
Char. gen-----[ ]--------------------[ ]-----------------------[X]---
Combat-------[ ]--------------------[X]-----------------------[ ]---
Magic/Spells--[X]--------------------[ ]-----------------------[ ]---
etc.

The publisher would then assemble each of those individual files into a single .pdf and electronically ship it to the customer. Voila, instantly customized rules specific to the individual customer.

The main limitation being that .pdf files are not nearly as popular as print books, so the market for such a publishing strategy is still very small.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Now this seems to be moving into a positive direction!

Sorry if it sounded like I had your version all figured out.

No problem

That's not what I was trying to say. My main point is that there are probably lots of people who would like to see the game change in some way, but it's likely that they all want the game changed in a different way. Your survey is a good indicator that D&D fans have some changes they'd like to see made to the game, but it's not a good indicator of WHAT changes they'd like.

Agreed!

One thing that occurs to me is that the bigger companies could very easily take advantage of the growing use of .pdf publishing to do just this. It would be almost impossible to do what you're suggesting with print rules, because as a consumer, I don't want to pay for a 320pg rulebook if the rules I want only take up 64 pages. The best you can hope for in a print ruleset is two versions, a rules-lite and a complete version. Otherwise, you're talking about breaking down the rules into numerous different books (one for combat, one for spells, one for character generation, one for feats, skills, etc.) and potentially breaking those books down into rules-lite, rules-medium and rules-complete versions. No publisher can afford to do that and most fans would balk at having to buy multiple individual books just to get a complete game (OD&D notwithstanding).

On the other hand, with .pdf publishing the "printer" can make almost endless versions of the same ruleset composed of individual units that can be recombined with almost no cost to tailor the product to the consumer.

This is a very interesting idea. But I don't think it is the only way which could work. I have seen so many interesting innovations in the independent RPG's that I bet there are some suave ways you could make the system itself more efficiently scalable.

You have a point regarding the size of the rulebook, but lets think about that for a moment.

I don't have the 3.5 books yet, but my 3.0 Players Handbook seems to have fairly short sections on actual rules mechanics, and long sections which are just lists of various spells, feats, skills, weapons, armor, items, etc.

For example, the chapter on magic goes from p 147 to p 158. 11 pages. The lists of spells goes from 172 to 274... over 100 pages.

Now bear with me a moment. If you had a scaled magic system, the spell entries themselves would be the same for all three systems. For example a fireball would be listed as a level 3 spell, type 2 fire based evocation. Damage is listed as category 3.

In the simple system, that means 6d6 damage, period (2 x damage category).

In the intermediate system, category 3 means 1d6 damage per caster level, the target(s) get a reflex saving throw for half damage, and type 2 fire evocations are area effect spells with a range= to the 10 x the damage category (30'), and casting time is 1 standard action.

In the advanced system it means the caster has to make a spellcraft roll of DC 16 to cast the spell (level plus damage cateogry), the fire based damage is enhanced by casters with a fire affinity, and casting time is a function of the difficulty level (based on the spell type and damage category) and the characters fire magic rating.

Or whatever. These are just made up. The point is, a scaled system could theoreticaly only grow the book by a small amount, in the example above by increasing the magic chapter some. On the other hand, with more of the spell mechanics systematically handled by the system (as I've seen done in some other rpg's, like Burning Wheel) the spell descriptions themselves wouldn't have to include as many caveats and nerf proofing as they now do, and could acually be shorter. Right now the spell descriptoins themseleves actually contain a lot of the magic rules mechanics. It would be simpler and more efficient to have them in the centralized rules chapter which had general rules that applied to all spells.

The same of course applies to the other long lists in the PhB, as well as the Monster manual, with those lists of monsters, and the magic items in the DMG.

Just a thought....

DB

 

[Desdichado]

I'm going to try not to be sarcastic about this, but your math seems to be off.

I am under 18 and I'd like a more mature DnD 3
I am 18-30 and I'd like a more mature DnD 40
I am over 30 and I'd like a more mature DnD 39
I am under 18 and I'd like to see a seperate mature version 1
I am 18-30 and I'd like to see a seperate mature version 11
I am over 30 and I'd like to see a seperate mature version 23


How does that add up to 83?

It's not that hard; I didn't add the seperate (sic) mature version numbers. Even if I did, that gets you to around 100. There are roughly, what, 17,000 members of ENWorld? Let's not try to get sarcastic; I think your math is a bit more off than mine if you think roughly 100/17,000 is equal to 1/4.

Also, you claim to not be an expert on statistics, and while I'm not either, I can certainly see why you'd claim that. If you think your sampling in this poll is truly random, then yes, indeed, you would have something that more or less approximates the Nielson polls, for instance.

The problem is, the sampling is not random, it is a self-selected group of folks that for whatever reason were interested in the topic title you chose. Your initial post already has bias in it, because you describe your position. And, you still don't have enough numbers to make your poll statistically meaninful anyway.

EDIT: D'oh! d4 beats me to it. I'm glad you got my back, buddy!

 

[d4]

EDIT: D'oh! d4 beats me to it. I'm glad you got my back, buddy!

as a mathematician, i was duty-bound to respond.

 

[Woas]

For that matter, if current trends within the rules system seem to be pushing the game in the opposite direction, i.e. away from the level of role playing which seemed to prevail before, [as many people seem to feel] then why not adjust them back to restore the balance?

Then why not buy the old books with the rules you think are correct and use them? You're still allowed to use old D&D books... they don't go away after a new version comes out.

The fact that D&D has changed to appeal towards the younger crowd probably isn't an accident. Why do people buy tiny little cars that get really good gas mileage and have really low emmitions outputs? Those cars a pooh-pooh... a mature manly man wants a Dodge Dart, a Ford T-Bird.

I'm not trying to insult or anything and mean no ill feelings. I guess I just feel that there isn't a need for a new RPG/D&D rules to get the game any more gray than it is already.