MtG, D&D and Me TITLE NAME EDIT-The thread where Joe apparently offends everyone
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
Dang.
I still lurk and read a few times a week, I just don't participate in any discussions. I am mostly over on www.therpgite.com nowadays. It seems a better fit for me. Plus my blog. I was surprised and pleased to get xp from 2 people on a thread i last posted in months ago though.
Thanks!Joe, I like what you had to say. I don't see it as a rant about 4e or MtG, or an intergenerational thing.
I read it as being about story v. game rules. Perhaps because I was pondering this myself yesterday.
I think there's always been two fathers of D&D. The Gygax who loved history, loved pulp fantasy, and played sneaking around in the closed down sanitarium in his hometown -- the imaginative story hound Gygax. And the Gygax who loved wargaming rules and board games, and sold insurance for a living -- the number-crunching, competitive Gygax.
In gamer terms, it comes down to the story-focused or role-play focused player, versus the gamist who wants to win. Fluff v. Crunch. I think most of us have a bit of each in us.
But I agree with Joe that Crunch seems to be on the ascendant, and I agree that I don't like it. In the OGL era, there were metric tonnes of adventures and settings in the early days, and towards the end, metric tonnes of splatbooks with extra crunch. In the GSL era, I see mostly rules, less story. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I see and I don't like it. Take that as possibly incorrect personal opinion, not as being mad at kids or even 4e -- it started before 4e.
To me, D&D had two golden ages -- 1979-1984 and 2001-2007. Maybe I'm just old and crotchety, but it's stuff from those two eras that holds my imagination, and those of my friends. Yup, I'm just old -- those were the two eras when significant amounts of Greyhawk Fluff were being published. Thanks for the former, Gary, and for the latter, Eric.
I read it as being about story v. game rules. Perhaps because I was pondering this myself yesterday.
I think there's always been two fathers of D&D. The Gygax who loved history, loved pulp fantasy, and played sneaking around in the closed down sanitarium in his hometown -- the imaginative story hound Gygax. And the Gygax who loved wargaming rules and board games, and sold insurance for a living -- the number-crunching, competitive Gygax.
In gamer terms, it comes down to the story-focused or role-play focused player, versus the gamist who wants to win. Fluff v. Crunch. I think most of us have a bit of each in us.
But I agree with Joe that Crunch seems to be on the ascendant, and I agree that I don't like it. In the OGL era, there were metric tonnes of adventures and settings in the early days, and towards the end, metric tonnes of splatbooks with extra crunch. In the GSL era, I see mostly rules, less story. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I see and I don't like it. Take that as possibly incorrect personal opinion, not as being mad at kids or even 4e -- it started before 4e.
To me, D&D had two golden ages -- 1979-1984 and 2001-2007. Maybe I'm just old and crotchety, but it's stuff from those two eras that holds my imagination, and those of my friends. Yup, I'm just old -- those were the two eras when significant amounts of Greyhawk Fluff were being published. Thanks for the former, Gary, and for the latter, Eric.
I'll not argue (though I disagree) about the dragon-men, but surely, the dragon-ladies with boobs are too ridiculous to allow for any subtlety or nuance?
MichaelSomething
Legend
People vote with their wallets; plain and simple. RPG companys will make what sells, and crunch tends to sell better then fluff. However...
There is fluff out there if you're willing to look for it.
Rule companies make rules, because they want to sell more rules. WOTC is a rule company, with a monopoly on official D&D rules. They have every incentive to churn out a lot of rules, assuming they are making a decent profit on them.
But not all RPG companies are WotC.
For a company like Goodman Games, they churn out story, because that's what sells for them (likely lower start up costs and less flop risk than trying to compete in rules). I don't think Goodman would increase their profits by trying to do the GSL PHB 3, Goodman version . . .
I think the start up costs for "story" must have been low and the chance of some success -- perhaps not financial, but personal fulfillment -- fairly decent in the early days of OGL, when 8 bazillion people put out modules. Not sure what's changed -- perhaps the authors just got bored, or the FLGS and game-buyer communities got more picky.
Um, wasn't one of the reasons why WOTC got back into the adventure-producing was the realization that there WASN'T that many OGL adventures being produced.
I distinctly remember a post from Dancey stating they hoped that the OGL would mean WOTC wouldn't have to do adventures anymore yet by 3.5, they had to start cranking them out again.
pawsplay
Hero
What he said was that they would rather do fewer, not none. Modules are often mony sinks. But they can be profitable if they are well produced and marketed, and in any case, some modules are needed as a level of customer support. Also, if you don't write any, who's left to set the bar?
Who you happened to notice when you were in the store doesn't say much.
What Barnes and Noble is dedicating shelf space towards, that might be something.
Mayhaps gaming needs to take a peak at Manga in terms of content , game play and layout.
I think there is something to that.
Similar Threads
