Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[Storyteller01]

They try to do so. Only sometimes do they actually succeed.

Note how those same advertising people and psychologists still cannot predict with any real certainty which TV shows, movies, or books will be hits? That's because the manipulation you can do in a short advertisement doesn't carry over into a longer work.

Ads actually succeed quite well. If they didn't, there wouldn't be such a huge budget for them. The idea is to leave some remnent or memory is you head (like those big flashy pictures and comments of dominating your foes). Whether you consciously remember the commericial or not, your still inclined to purchase if you see it. the fact that Gen Y ignores most commercials just makes it easier in this regard (kind of like singing a song you heard on the radio, but didn't really listen to. Or wanting McDonald's when you smell a Barbeque).

Scary part is, the more they push a product, the more likely you are to not need it (why advertise for something if they have to buy it?)

That aside:

Some trivia for you: What company has run one, and only one, commercial but is still is business?

Masterlock (remember the rifleman shooting the lock, and it still held?)

 

[Umbran]

They may be in the minority, but they are a very vocal minority, and appear to be very influential on people's perceptions of the game.

Well, here is somewhere we can reach another point. Do you think this vocal minority has great influence on the perception of the game in the eyes of:

1)The World
2)Gamers
3)Gamers who read message boards.

Because, you see, even if you pack WotC and EN World together, you don't have a large segment of the gaming population, most of whom have never even heard of En World, much less posted here. If you have to go to one particular corner of the WotC boards to see them, I don't think they are really all that influential, overall.

Yet, here we are with constant discussion of 'broken', 'nerfed', and imbalanced elements. I don't know if the issue is with the design, the players, the supplements, or cosmic radiation, but it's something I'd like to see explored.

Well, constant discussion doesn't make it so. We're a bunch of opinionated people, but that doesn't mean were right most of the time.

 

[Akrasia]

...
The people who hark back to "the good old days" are seeing the past through rose-colored glasses. 1e/2e had far too problems. ...
...
You guys arguing that the "feel" was better really have to sit down and mentally go through one entire typical evening of one of your old games, not just cherry-pick the best memories over 20 years of playing.

Congratulations!

You have managed to come across as both ignorant and condescending in this post!
:\

I will be sure to take off my rose tinted glasses next time I remember how much fun I had in my old games, since, no doubt, you have a better understanding of my past experiences than I do.

Indeed, I will also revise my more recent memories, Two years ago I played a number of games with the Rules Cyclopedia D&D (a very coherent, fast-paced, and rules lite version of D&D in my 'rose tinted' POV). I had more fun DM'ing those games than I ever had DM'ing 3.x. (But of course my memories are faulty here, as you so interestingly point out.)

So that you were in competition with other players? So that accusations of DM favoritism were virtually guaranteed?

Well I guess I had the good fortune not to play with complete jerks.

(But I am sure you'll be quick to point out that I'm just wearing 'rose tinted glasses' here too?)

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Gods, is anyone else getting tired of all these threads devloving into editions wars?!

 

[hong]

Mang, rangers got teh shaft.

 

[Akrasia]

Gods, is anyone else getting tired of all these threads devloving into editions wars?!

Well, I certainly wasn't trying to engage in any 'editions wars' (which tend to be futile for the most part), but merely expressing my profound irritation at the arrogance of another person presuming to tell me about my past experiences involving earlier versions of the game (or telling me about my past experiences concerning anything, for that matter).

Time to head out to the pub...

 

[Doug McCrae]

If it's ignorant and condescending to believe that nostalgia exists then chalk me down as another ignoramus.

 

[Akrasia]

If it's ignorant and condescending to believe that nostalgia exists then chalk me down as another ignoramus.

Now you're just being silly.

Nostalgia exists. (Heck, I'm listening to the "Best of Roxy Music" as I type this.)

But to claim that other people's judgements and evaluations about their past experiences are necessarily shaped by nostalgia -- and that their judgements and evaluations would be different were it not for nostalgia -- is ignorant and condescending. It presumes that you are in a better position to evaluate people's judgements about their past experiences than the people who actually had them.

Imagine if you told me that you really liked the LotR trilogy, and I dismissed your judgement as 'mere nostalgia' given that you first read the trilogy when you were 12. This would be arrogant on my part. Presumably you are in a better position than I am to determine your actualy feelings about the LotR trilogy, and to judge how much influence nostalgia has on your judgement.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But to claim that other people's judgements and evaluations about their past experiences are necessarily shaped by nostalgia -- and that their judgements and evaluations would be different were it not for nostalgia -- is ignorant and condescending.

Condescending perhaps. Not ignorant as I understand the word.

It presumes that you are in a better position to evaluate people's judgements about their past experiences than the people who actually had them.

You're assuming that this is a faulty line of reasoning, which it isn't necessarily. People who are emotionally close to something often aren't as capable of evaluating that something, as a detached third party. This isn't to say that the previous poster necessarily is that detached third party better able to evaluate (that's where the condescension kicks in,) but it's not a nonsensical line of thought.

Imagine if you told me that you really liked the LotR trilogy, and I dismissed your judgement as 'mere nostalgia' given that you first read the trilogy when you were 12. This would be arrogant on my part. Presumably you are in a better position than I am to determine your actualy feelings about the LotR trilogy, and to judge how much influence nostalgia has on your judgement.

Yes, it would be arrogant. But you're making an assumption when you suggest that an individual is always the most knowledgeable about the state of their own feelings. It's often not the case.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yeah, but I see this in 3e just as much. It's fun to get more stuff. But in anycase I never defiened my characters by their stuff. That's one of the reasons I like starting at lower levels. I feel more connected to a character that I've grown into. Not because of the stuff he has or the abilities he has. But because I've grown his personality and his traits. To me the adventure comes from the story being told rather then the stuff you have...

A perfectly reasonable attitude. But I do not see how 3e accomplishes this less well than any previous editions. In fact, I would think the ability to customize the PC by feats would be a huge plus to you.

All I am saying is that the assertion that the potency of 3e PCs are more determined by their magic items than previous editions seems completely wrong based on my personal experience.

Playing a low or no magic campaign with 3e seems like it could be very enjoyable to me. I would not want to play that kind of campaign with 1e/2e rules; the characters would be too mechanically similar for my tastes and it would require extra work on my part to maintain character.