WayneLigon said:
(...)
D&D should have had a real skill system at least a decade ago. It should have de-emphasized or eliminated Vancian magic long ago.
So we should agree to disagree. Personally, and I've played AD&D since 1982, and various wargames since 1979, I think that a proper skill system and dropping of the Vancian system is exactly what AD&D did not need. Not only that, from a marketing point of view it would have been a bad move to make AD&D more like other games. But those are simply disagreements on rules design philosophy, as well as on what constitutes the best role-playing experience, from one's point of view. They are not reasons to disrespect or insult someone. I don't think you're an idiot because you prefer a skill-driven game or a non-Vancian magic system. I simply think that you have different opinions than mine on what is the proper way to hanlde AD&D.
I've never really made the transition from 1st to 2e or 3rd, but it didn't stop me from buying most rulebooks of those editions, to mine for ideas, or to simply adopt some rules from them as houserules for my game. The fact I didn't transition to 3rd doesn't mean that I don't think it is in fact a superior design than 1st. Of course, the issue here is whether "superior design" is a better thing for a game like AD&D. I happen to think it is not, and that it is preferable to have a more clunky, less logical, more organic game that encourages DMs to create houserules and improvise rulings on the fly, rather than handing them all the answer in an easy package. But I have nothing against people who do not agree with this. In fact, I play other games where I prefer to have a more detailed set of rules, or a structurally well designed system that has one core mechanic. I play GURPS on a regular basis and have nothing against it.
I am also aware that the younger generation of gamers may not exactly have the same taste than I have for adventures or rules. Well, tough. For me or them.
But....
Due in part to my job, I despise people who refuse to change simply because they've always done something a particular way and don't want to change to a better way of doing things. They're deadwood who need to be fired, so the rest of us can actually get something done and grow our agency. We have people who have been settled in the same position since the place was formed 32 years ago, and see no reason to hit a lick at a snake; they do just enough that they can't be fired for cause. They long since topped out in the salary for their position, so it doesn't matter how badly they do on their evaluation. I hate them. They sit there and suck up resources that could better be used on others; we could hire three guys in their 20's for what one of these parasites makes and actually be able to meet some deadlines.
1. What you're describing seems to me to be more of a failure of your management than a failure of the people you're talking about, the "deadwood" so to speak. I'd probably fire the managers first to see why it got to that point.
2. "Deadwood" still have wives, kids, mortgages, and it sounds harsh on your part, perhaps even callous, to say that they need to be fired. There are certainly reasons why it got to that point, but the truth is that perhaps in 20 years you'll be in the same place and would resent being called deadwood and fired.
3. The terms or explanations you're giving for why you would fire these people, are EXACTLY the same ones that Loraine Williams once used to describe the "deadwood" like me who did not want to transition to the new game. Idiots, who were standing in the way of progress, and preventing her company from reaping the profits she just so deserved (she wasn't talking about me, obviously, as I never told her I didn't play 2nd edition). Peter Adkinson once told me that he had tried to implement a dept. at WotC to handle contact and support for gamers playing older versions of the game, but he was vetted. I think that was a damn pity, because the older gamers still represent a potential source of revenue, if only because they'd probably be willing to buy 2-3 AD&D 1st edition modules a year, which could easily and cheaply be produced by WotC, at an almost infinite benefit in terms of goodwill (as opposed to the present situation).
You say you hate people who do not want to change simply because they've always done things the same way. Well, I say I am suspicious of people who want to change just for the sake of changing, and set up systems that depend on continuous change to survive.
Why should we have to switch systems every few years or so? It's hard to deny that the system has worked for a long time, and was simply in need of some revisions in specific areas. Perhaps an optional skill system. 2nd edition NWP didn't work. Well, why not create a new system? In my opinion, for example, the reversal of ACs and hit bonuses in 3rd is an excellent example of a change that didn't significantly change the system but made great sense from a design point of view. But why make other changes, just for change's sake? Presently, a new gamer entering the game knows he will be required to change systems again (and buy the whole thing again) in a few years. Is this good advertising? I realize that few people continue gaming after 4-5 years time, but some do (I have been playing for 25 years). What you're really saying is that you don't care about long-term customer relationship, and you're willing to forget about someone after he has bought from you the first 1-2 years of products. You're not a long term customer, you're a source of revenue, and since you'll stop buying from us in 3 years, we'll ditch you right there and then.
I have to say I object to almost everything you said as well as the way you said it. But I acknowledge that your opinions in terms of editions or rules are other ways, and legitimate ways, of looking at things. I am simply saying that EVEN if you were right in terms of "innovation", "better game design" or whatever, the attitude of those who criticize grognards is still wrong. This is a game. It's not some life-and-death technology or financial deal for us. It's A GAME. We' re supposed to have fun, and thus it's entirely acceptable for me or anyone to stick to an older, less perfect design of the rules, if it's what we're comfortable with and what we're used to playing and what makes our game flow better. We're in our rights to state why we believe the older versions of the game were better and the newer ones probably unneeded, except as sources of revenue. Just because a lot of people started gaming with 3e and a few old timers switched to it doesn't mean that everybody has to switch. It doesn't also mean that the company who put out earlier versions of the game couldn't have continued providing some level of support for it.
