billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Since the 1e PHB doesn't seem to say that the PC must have two stats at 15 or over, I'm not seeing the problem.
No rule before its time?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Since the 1e PHB doesn't seem to say that the PC must have two stats at 15 or over, I'm not seeing the problem.
This would probably be similar to a writer, musician, etc ... being obligated to create something they are not particularly interested in, but is demanded by whatever contracts they previously signed.
Dragonhelm
Knight of Solamnia
Likewise, would some of the classic settings have done as well if introduced today? Would Greyhawk stand out against settings like Eberron?
To me, this is a non-issue. There are a dozen different ways to come up with ability scores. There are bonuses and negatives to each way. I like to roll dice because a) it's fun, b) some things are fun being random, and c) most DMs I know aren't jerks and will let you re-roll if you get a low ability score. YMMV, of course.
Bullgrit
Adventurer
Today, Greyhawk (my personal favorite) is too . . . normal/baseline. If it were released for the first time, today, I think it would not be popular with the latest generation of D&D gamer.Dragonhelm said:
In yesteryear, I think Eberron would have been too "out there" to be quickly accepted into this new gaming paradigm (RPGs). I think trying to introduce this whole new game genre (already "out there") with a world that is as different as Eberron would have been too much too soon.
Greyhawk is close enough to "real world fantasy" for people to grasp and start playing. "Just think 'medieval Europe,' a DM could explain to a new player." But trying to introduce new players to this new game with a world that is "fantastic fantasy" might have been a little much.
I think we, as a culture, nowadays, are more "accepting of the fantastic" than we were 20-30 years ago. We, as a culture, have been exposed to much more fantasy than we, as a culture, had been in the 70s. For instance, ask a non-fantasy reader about Lord of the Rings.
Heck, 20-30 years ago, my parents didn't know what LotR was. Now, even though neither have seen the movie, they know what it is (even if they don't know the story). Even look at Star Wars -- it was a cultural phenom in the late 70s, early 80s. But now? It simply is part of our culture, as much as any given sport.
Bullgrit
Last edited:
Absolutely. People were playing Balrog PCs with the TLBs.
If you marketed it as "D&D done Bladerunner style", absolutely! People were hungry for good campaign settings in the 80s, and Eberron is pretty kick-ass.
I don't see why not. VtM basically created it's own genre of roleplaying game out of thin air. I don't see why it would have been any harder to do that in the 70s than in the late 80s.
The half dozen or so teenagers I've introduced to B/X D&D in the last few years haven't had a problem with it.
Things that used to be acceptable in RPG but are no longer acceptable.
In my day half-orcs and (to a lesser extent) Half-elves were children of violence. But in todays world this topic is to extreme and those who use characters born in that light are seen more as deviants. (See making of half-orcs for 4E). So even though its a game of violence to a degree, this storyline is becoming unacceptable.
Slavery. Once accepted as a roleplaying topic is now unacceptable. No I am not being racist. I used to enjoy storylines where you were captured by the romanish army forced to fight in their gladiator leage or be killed, or the old slave auction girls.
I guess were moving into a less violent world than I was used to but for me the point in those days were these bad things existed but you were supposed to fight against them.
In my day half-orcs and (to a lesser extent) Half-elves were children of violence. But in todays world this topic is to extreme and those who use characters born in that light are seen more as deviants. (See making of half-orcs for 4E). So even though its a game of violence to a degree, this storyline is becoming unacceptable.
Slavery. Once accepted as a roleplaying topic is now unacceptable. No I am not being racist. I used to enjoy storylines where you were captured by the romanish army forced to fight in their gladiator leage or be killed, or the old slave auction girls.
I guess were moving into a less violent world than I was used to but for me the point in those days were these bad things existed but you were supposed to fight against them.
There's nothing all that extravagant about Eberron; especially when you consider that within the first decade of D&D we also had games and campaign settings like Metamorphosis Alpha, Warriors of Mars and Empire of the Petal Throne.
Compared to ERB's Barsoom and Barker's Tekumel, Eberron is practically pedestrian.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
This is actually a more interesting concept than I originally gave it credit for. I think the original poster does not give enough credit to the gamers of the 70's.
Eberron is not that original. In fact, by the time it appeared, it actually seemed a bit like the logical progression of the way games seemed to be pushing itself anyway, what with the ubiquitous magic, the item shops, and the way conversations revolved around the world D&D constructed, rather than if D&D reflected the world. Modern technology, only powered by magic, isn't that new a thing.
Would 4e have caught on back then? I'm not sure. For one thing the seeds of D&D germinated in the minds of simulationist wargamers. While 0 & 1st edition D&D was very abstract, it was still intended to model a real world, albeit a real world with something extra (magic). I don't think the early gamers would have been as friendly to a game that placed its own rule structure ahead of imaginable physical consequences. (essentially, when the old games failed to accurately model reality, it was an accident; when 4e does so, it is by design). However, I think if the 4e rules were introduced to the 2nd generation gamers, the ones who discovered the game in the early 80's, from watching the cartoon, or being entranced by Conan the Barbarian or Excalibur, now those guys would have liked something like 4e. But even then, I think the theatricality of it all would be toned down, much as the action movies of the 80's tend to be less outlandish than the Hong Kong inspired action movies of today.
Early gamers would have little trouble accommodating demon blooded player characters, vampires, or even dragons. In fact, the very first version of D&D included (very sketchy) rules for playing monsters as characters. Early gamers might be interested in playing one of the Green Men of Mars. But ultimately I think they would prefer to keep a humanocentric world, unlike 4e's default assumption. After all, what is the point of creating a character forced to live with the temptations of his demonic forebears, when the barkeep at the inn is a lycanthrope, the mayor is the scion of a underworld race, the hostler is a mechanical man, the local priest is possessed by the mind of an alien creature, and the princess you save might just be a race of animate rock. In other words, when everyone is "special", no one is. 4e's "every race is common and accepted" is a wonderful way to sell books, but it's not very good from a storytelling standpoint.
Considering the average wealth in the 70's & 80's being less than today, I'm not sure the expansion pack nature of D&D would have been all that appealling.
As to random attribute generation...there are people today who still play this way. Personally, I prefer point buy, but I can play in a random generation game.
Eberron is not that original. In fact, by the time it appeared, it actually seemed a bit like the logical progression of the way games seemed to be pushing itself anyway, what with the ubiquitous magic, the item shops, and the way conversations revolved around the world D&D constructed, rather than if D&D reflected the world. Modern technology, only powered by magic, isn't that new a thing.
Would 4e have caught on back then? I'm not sure. For one thing the seeds of D&D germinated in the minds of simulationist wargamers. While 0 & 1st edition D&D was very abstract, it was still intended to model a real world, albeit a real world with something extra (magic). I don't think the early gamers would have been as friendly to a game that placed its own rule structure ahead of imaginable physical consequences. (essentially, when the old games failed to accurately model reality, it was an accident; when 4e does so, it is by design). However, I think if the 4e rules were introduced to the 2nd generation gamers, the ones who discovered the game in the early 80's, from watching the cartoon, or being entranced by Conan the Barbarian or Excalibur, now those guys would have liked something like 4e. But even then, I think the theatricality of it all would be toned down, much as the action movies of the 80's tend to be less outlandish than the Hong Kong inspired action movies of today.
Early gamers would have little trouble accommodating demon blooded player characters, vampires, or even dragons. In fact, the very first version of D&D included (very sketchy) rules for playing monsters as characters. Early gamers might be interested in playing one of the Green Men of Mars. But ultimately I think they would prefer to keep a humanocentric world, unlike 4e's default assumption. After all, what is the point of creating a character forced to live with the temptations of his demonic forebears, when the barkeep at the inn is a lycanthrope, the mayor is the scion of a underworld race, the hostler is a mechanical man, the local priest is possessed by the mind of an alien creature, and the princess you save might just be a race of animate rock. In other words, when everyone is "special", no one is. 4e's "every race is common and accepted" is a wonderful way to sell books, but it's not very good from a storytelling standpoint.
Considering the average wealth in the 70's & 80's being less than today, I'm not sure the expansion pack nature of D&D would have been all that appealling.
As to random attribute generation...there are people today who still play this way. Personally, I prefer point buy, but I can play in a random generation game.
The Shaman
First Post
I dunno. It's been a long time since 3e came out, which is one of those watershed moments in the hobby, and we've certainly see a lot of different reactions among designers, including some designers changing their own approaches to roleplaying games within that time span. The wit and wisdom of Mike Mearls comes to mind; the guy's all over the freaking landscape at different times, slaying and resurrecting sacred cows by turns.
From what I've read, part of the design ethos of 3e was to put more control over the game mechanics which define the physics of the game-world in the hands of the players, to give players not just more options but more reliable options. It's not a bad goal - as to whether or not that was achieved, and what impact it had on the hobby, if any . . . well, that's a really big question and one which is sure to have a range of opinions.
But I think we have a hard time pointing a finger at a generation of gamers and assigning them an 'entitlement complex.' They played the games the designers and publishers put on the shelves, the same as gamers who entered the hobby during the mid-Eighties shift toward a strong emphasis on aping episodic TV plots defined the mainstream of gaming.
In both instances you saw designers who played earlier iterations of roleplaying games trying to take the hobby in a new direction, some for aesthetic reasons, some as a reaction to their own gaming experiences, and some because that's what was being sold at the time. It's kinda hard to point fingers at the gamers who entered hobby and absorbing the mainstream and accuse them of complexes.
In my opinion, as always.
Similar Threads
