Geriatric Grumbling

[Drifter Bob]

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.

Because I don't necessarily think the older books are much better overall, and I'd rather not undo some of the good things which came from 3.E

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.

The point is, as I've said several times before, the rules WILL change. The question is, whether you or other folks here on forums like ENworld will effect this change.

Currently, the only criticism which seems to be acceptable, the only critique which cannot be shot down, are rules loopholes discovered by munchkins. Thus the game evolves to accomodate the munchkin player. I think this is a short sighted business practice, because it could easily cause the game to evolve out of the 'sweet spot' that it's audience can enjoy, as happened twice already in the past.

As for the specific issue of maturity, the audience for paper and pencil RPG's does seem to be aging some, no matter how many tattoos or piercings they put into the art. I'm not sure that "kiddyfying" the game even further is the direction to go in.

DB

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The point is, as I've said several times before, the rules WILL change. The question is, whether you or other folks here on forums like ENworld will effect this change.

Currently, the only criticism which seems to be acceptable, the only critique which cannot be shot down, are rules loopholes discovered by munchkins. Thus the game evolves to accomodate the munchkin player. I think this is a short sighted business practice, because it could easily cause the game to evolve out of the 'sweet spot' that it's audience can enjoy, as happened twice already in the past.

As for the specific issue of maturity, the audience for paper and pencil RPG's does seem to be aging some, no matter how many tattoos or piercings they put into the art. I'm not sure that "kiddyfying" the game even further is the direction to go in.

DB

I've been playing the game since the purple box Basic set came out, and I've played all the versions at some point since they came out (OK, technically I have not played 3.5 yet, but that's becasue we are waiting to end the current adventure we are in before converting). I personally do not see this "kiddifying" effect you are talking about. I see an improvement of rules that are more able to satisfy all kinds of players. I would think if they were "kiddifying" the rules, they would be dumbing them down, rather than making them more complex.

I acknowledge that the gaming audience for D&D is growing older and they should be careful not to alienate those of us who have been playing a long time. At the same time, it is poor business to not try and capture a new audience, so trying to find a way to intrigue, excite, and involve younger players is also a good thing.

I do not know of any changes made that everyone agrees are bad. Most changes made, I like. The ones I don't, I change- either eliminating the rule, changing it back to an earier version's rule, or slightly modifying it to suit me. I think it is easier to have WotC create a rule and let people decide to not use it, than it is to not make one and let everyone who wants it come up with something on their own. Perhaps all the next generation of rules needs is a little more emphasis on altering the game to suit an individual's gaming group's style of play. A few sidebars talking about things like how you can either use the Charisma skills as listed, or if you like a more roleplaying intense game, how you can modify them to allow the players own words and actions to influence the outcome more.

 

[Desdichado]

The point is, as I've said several times before, the rules WILL change. The question is, whether you or other folks here on forums like ENworld will effect this change.

Currently, the only criticism which seems to be acceptable, the only critique which cannot be shot down, are rules loopholes discovered by munchkins. Thus the game evolves to accomodate the munchkin player. I think this is a short sighted business practice, because it could easily cause the game to evolve out of the 'sweet spot' that it's audience can enjoy, as happened twice already in the past.

As for the specific issue of maturity, the audience for paper and pencil RPG's does seem to be aging some, no matter how many tattoos or piercings they put into the art. I'm not sure that "kiddyfying" the game even further is the direction to go in.

I'm not sure that you've demonstrated that it's been "kiddyfied" though. Since no one can agree really on what aspects of the game are kiddyfied (now it's the artwork?) I also don't know how you can hope for it to stop.

Personally, I'm completely unconcerned with future putative changes to the ruleset. For now, I'm very happy, although not really with the core rules per se. The OGL has provided me with all the rules I want, though, to replace thoe I don't. As long as the the books I have still work, and I don't foresee them failing anytime soon, then I'm good to go.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I like this idea. Would you be willing to post a summary of how you do this? I'm very interesting in stealing it for my campaign.

Absolutely. I'm in the midst of moving, so as soon as I've got my notes handy, I'll post them.

Really, they're not very interesting. Just an adaptation of the existing spells, which mostly require spellcraft checks, anyway. And I have no idea whatsoever if the whole thing is balanced. This is my first campaign ever as DM, and my characters have only just hit 4th level. The new rules haven't seen much use yet. They're mainly a reaction on my part to my campaigns as a player where we'd have to take a day off to figure out what the heck the items were all about. Seems silly that a scholarly mage like a wizard would need to blow a spell to figure out a magic item. The whole nature of the class points to a somewhat scientific approach to magic, after all, so there should be some standard scientific principles to apply. Of course, I didn't throw the spells out. They're still there, and they are more reliable than the skill check, at least until you get your spellcraft up pretty high.

Actually, I'll post them as a thread in House Rules so I can get some general feedback on them, and I'll post here to let you know when they're up.

Could be as late as Monday, unfortunately. Moving sucks.

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

Perhaps all the next generation of rules needs is a little more emphasis on altering the game to suit an individual's gaming group's style of play. A few sidebars talking about things like how you can either use the Charisma skills as listed, or if you like a more roleplaying intense game, how you can modify them to allow the players own words and actions to influence the outcome more.

I think you're right, my main problems with 3.x is that there isn't enough emphasis on role-playing, there's a lack of non-combat options, and the presentation is often juvenile. I'm no prude, but why do so many of the illustrations present characters and npc's dressed like exotic strippers? It just gets too silly.

This thread prompted me to pull out some of my old gaming stuff (at least what wasn't lost in 2 floods and numerous moves). I started with the Blue Box set, and for me at least, most of the adventures we played were quite a bit like the immature stuff I've purported to be against

What's changed the most is me. Sometime after a few years of min/maxing and hacking and slashing and fireballing my way through killer modules, it just started to get old and boring. Then, I went to college, started gaming with a new group and the emphasis changed. The game became fun again because I was exploring character development and using more group strategy. We stopped tanking our charisma scores because NPC interaction became a more important part of the game. This has been the style of play I've been using ever since, and it's the one I get the most satisfaction from. It also requires a more experienced and talented DM.

Even without the disputed poll results and conclusions, it sure seems obvious to me that the audience for DnD is getting older and the game should change a bit to reflect that older, experienced players tend to want something different than younger, inexperienced players. I'm not saying either style is better. I think most of us would agree that combat in 3rd edition can be wonderfully detailed in comparison to earlier editions. There are finally mechanics for doing so many of the things I had house rules for. Unfortunately, I think all the emphasis has been on the combat side. Again, all I really want is more non-combat mechanics and a less juvenile presentation. I don't want DnD to become Vampire the Masquerade, but I don't want it to become Hero Clix either.

 

[William Ronald]

Pierce Inverarity wrote:

Even without the disputed poll results and conclusions, it sure seems obvious to me that the audience for DnD is getting older and the game should change a bit to reflect that older, experienced players tend to want something different than younger, inexperienced players. I'm not saying either style is better. I think most of us would agree that combat in 3rd edition can be wonderfully detailed in comparison to earlier editions. There are finally mechanics for doing so many of the things I had house rules for. Unfortunately, I think all the emphasis has been on the combat side. Again, all I really want is more non-combat mechanics and a less juvenile presentation. I don't want DnD to become Vampire the Masquerade, but I don't want it to become Hero Clix either.

I think there needs to be a balance between various extremes, allowing room for individual DMs and players to create campaigns, settings, and characters that fit their vision of the game. I have seen many different playing styles, and can only conclude that people will play the way they want -- regardless of what you, the rules, or I think of what they are doing in their games.

A key question to me is how to keep the hobby viable over time. (The miniatures hobby, as I understand it, suffered from a lack of new players for a long time.) While there is a need to serve existing gamers, there is also a need to attract new players. I think the boxed set is a good step in this direction, as it is a relatively inexpensive way to introduce people to the hobby. Other possibilities include more support from the gaming industry and existing gamers to try to strengthen the hobby.

I have seen good examples in D20 products of encounters that will require role-playing. Perhaps future products can offer more in the way of guidelines to DMs and players. (In the end, the quality of all games depend on the DM and the players.) Although there has been a fair amount of disagreement on this thread, I think many of the people here want the same thing: a game that is flexible enough to fit their visions but does not limit other people's visions.

 

[Drifter Bob]

A key question to me is how to keep the hobby viable over time. (The miniatures hobby, as I understand it, suffered from a lack of new players for a long time.) While there is a need to serve existing gamers, there is also a need to attract new players. I think the boxed set is a good step in this direction, as it is a relatively inexpensive way to introduce people to the hobby. Other possibilities include more support from the gaming industry and existing gamers to try to strengthen the hobby.

I think the idea Oourph and I were discussing, of a scaled system, would help in this. I have brought a lot of new players into RPG's, but I had a hard time with 3.E character generation being so complicated. That has been a real stumbling block for me. If we are at all pressed for time I have to get them to role their characters using computer software, and there doesn't seem to be any of that available which is even halfway decent.

Along those lines, while going for the youth market is one tried and true way to keep an audience, going for a more mainstream audience is a good way too. A scaled or rules lite versoin of DnD, with less juvenile and less peurile presentation (I loved the suppliments by Avalanche Press but was often embarassed by those cheescake covers) would make this much easier.

Going for the goth / geek / comic book boy demographic may not ultimately be the best tactic...

I have seen good examples in D20 products of encounters that will require role-playing. Perhaps future products can offer more in the way of guidelines to DMs and players. (In the end, the quality of all games depend on the DM and the players.) Although there has been a fair amount of disagreement on this thread, I think many of the people here want the same thing: a game that is flexible enough to fit their visions but does not limit other people's visions.

Well said!

JR