Roleplaying since the 80s and I'm really tired!

[Orius]

Only if you follow it with the Forest Oracle. First kill them, then confuse the living crap out of them, and the DM.

How does that help to expand the player base?!

As for me, I started nearly 20 years ago. Kicked off my own gaming with a bit of Basic, but moved right into 2e, as Basic pretty much was dying off at that point. Played 2e right up to the release of 3e, when I dutifully moved over, as 3e at first was building on a lot of stuff 2e had been doing.

I feel kind of burned out on the supplement treadmill myself. I wasn't happy about the 3.5 revision not that long after I had bought the initial 3e books, and I was still picking up the 3.0 matrial here and there. The differences weren't big enough to make moving across the revision too dificult, but there were so many fixes that it was at best inconvenient to try running a 3.5 game with 3.0 books, even with the SRD at one's fingertips. Splats made things worse; not everything in the 3.0 splats was converted, and the stuff that was was scattered through the 3.5 splats. Last time I tried running a game, I went with 3.5 and it was more than a little annoying trying to figure out what was converted and what wasn't. I don't like sticking completely to core as a DM, I like to give my players at least a few extra goodies to play with. I also really didn't care for some of the flavor shifts that were occuring. Nor the new classes that were introduced as well, I prefered sticking with the PHB classes and customizing them with PrCs rather than adding all new core classes that felt gimmicky to me (and I think these classes contribute to the whole Tier problem as well).

I never bothered getting into 4e. At first I was rather displeased about how stuff was broken up across multiple rulebooks as well. And doesn't help that I didn't exactly like the idea of "PHB/DMG x" in 3.5 the way it was. I mean all the rules the players and DM need should be in the 1 book for each of them at most, extra PHB/DMGs make it feel like the earlier books were incomplete (moreso in 4e when they were leaving out classic game elements in favor of stuff like dragonboobs). The MM is different, since monsters are far more modular. Didn't care for the more radical changes I read about either. And then there's flavor; some flavor elements seem to be strongly welded to the rules, probably a reaction to some player's dislike of 3e's lack of flavor which was one of the things I liked most about the system. Some of the problems see to have been addressed in the Essentials stuff, but at this point I don't see a compelling reason to bother with all this talk about 5e.

So I'd probably stick with either 2e or 3e, maybe going down to Basic for one shots and the like as a DM. The original game is a bit too bare bones for my taste and too much of a suppliment for wargaming, 1e sounds like it can be pretty damn convoluted at the time (though I wouldn't be adverse to running a PC in it), and I have no interest in 4e.

 

[Ryujin]

While I agree with you in general about the less-time-now-than-before thing, I am not so sure about the adventure support problem. Alternity was 15 years ago. Games that come out now tend to have more PDF support, something that was not a factor back then. From big games like Pathfinder and 4E, to small games like ICONS, there is quite a bit of PDF support, from adventures to adversaries, for a lot of games. Head over to something like DriveThruRPG and take a look and you might be surprised.

I mentioned Alternity not because it was a recent offering but because it was something a bit different that I found to be very playable, that got very little after release support. Dark Conspiracy had similar issues, being of around the same vintage.

I tried Pathfinder. I like running the game. I like the subtle fixes to the 3e system. I like the adventure path concept. I didn't like having to pick through story text at key encounter moments to find critical information, that really should have been stated, or at least restated, in encounter text. It's incredibly frustrating to have read a module 2 or three times, know that you read something somewhere, and not be able to find it when it's important. If I had the time to develop my own adventures, I'd likely be running a Pathfinder campaign. I may even go back to it, if I can work around the previously stated issue. At the moment I'm running out the final levels of a 4e Epic campaign.

We're currently considering ICONS, with another one of our group considering the running of it. The issue from where I sit, though, is that the glossier, better developed, large publishing house games tend to involve the release of the game itself, a few pieces of world support material, then not a bloody thing else. I was quite let down by a Star Trek game that came out a little while back, that had a simple d6 + skill mechanic, that provided a metric tonne of glossy faction and ship books, but no adventure support. It looked like it might be infinitely playable and have simple mechanics that would leverage role play over roll play, but it went nowhere. Yes, I know; 10 years ago.

 

[Lwaxy]

Personally, I love splat books, and we're good to make even broke stuff work by adapting our house rules. I often think we have a different game altogether. We strung rules together over the editions and added our own as we went along. Even with 3.5 to PF we had little issues adding the stuff we wanted in. The problem always comes when there are new players, who have to learn this different game of ours.

With the 5e play test, in my core group(s) we've agreed to do some heavy cutting in regards to rules. This is mainly to cut down the time to make and update PCs. Because that's become the main complaint of everyone, especially in the groups where people have more than one PC. I don't think I'll start any more games before this is complete. After that, I doubt we'll ever care much about any new rules set. We'll stick with what works for us.

We'll still buy world info and other stuff though

 

[Lwaxy]

I was quite let down by a Star Trek game that came out a little while back, that had a simple d6 + skill mechanic, that provided a metric tonne of glossy faction and ship books, but no adventure support. It looked like it might be infinitely playable and have simple mechanics that would leverage role play over roll play, but it went nowhere. Yes, I know; 10 years ago.

We're still running that. 7 seasons and 100 something episodes later it's still fun Although we recently started with a new series in a closer crossover with the Romulans. If you ever need adventure ideas, let me know

 

[Ryujin]

We're still running that. 7 seasons and 100 something episodes later it's still fun Although we recently started with a new series in a closer crossover with the Romulans. If you ever need adventure ideas, let me know

Good to know that someone has been able to make use of it. Maybe you should look into publishing rights

 

[Umbran]

I did say "renting", but I said nothing for nor against computers. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

Don't mistake misunderstanding for an attempt to put words in your mouth. It read to me like you effectively had a thing against computer-based character and character sheet management.

say I'm tired of eating fried steak and someone decides offering me broiled steak and a steak burger are "new" ideas, am I going to be wrong for being disappointed about that

Don't want words put in your mouth, don't do it to others. Where did I say anything like "you are wrong to like..."? I didn't. I'm saying that the market, as an aggregate, needs some things for a game to be really viable. Those things may run contrary to your personal tastes. Sorry, but that's the way things go some times. I, personally, would like to fly without aid of large machines - damn that law of gravity!

Maybe for not being clear enough with what I want, but so far, the menu only contains 'steak'. A hundred different ways for steak, and a few salads. (Man, I could go for some steak...)

Well, that depends. You were really thin on defining "successful", "robust" and "viable". I answered those with a particular image in my head of what those terms mean.

However, there's a whole bunch of small games out there that are perfectly nice. They may lack a little in robustness (insofar as they are narrowly focused in genre and scope), or successfulness (I have zero expectation of ever just running into a group for one of these games - I'd have to bring the game to them and teach it to them). But they are still awesome games that fit in one book - that book may be over 100 pages, but it is still just one book.

You want a nice short, rules light game, go look at "Old School Hack". No, really, go look at it. It is completely free, and only 26 pages. We'll wait....

Meanwhile, for X-mas my wife gave me a one-book indie game called "How We Came to Live Here" which is designed to have games inspired by the myths of the Native Americans of the southwest. Odd thing, has, in effect two GMs, and a number of novel mechanics...

Also meanwhile, I'm reading a draft of the upcoming "Atomic Robo" rules from Evil Hat Productions. FATE-based, it too is likely going to be a single book game, and it has one of the most creative science mechanics I've ever seen, and a really novel way to deal with development of not just the PCs, but the organizations the PCs work for, by way of hooking into, of all things, the combat mechanic!

None of these games will be major economic successes like D&D or even a White Wolf game. None of them will appeal to a gearhead. But they all have novel mechanics and good play experience for the right kind of players.

Do you still want to continue asserting that there's only steak out there? Because in so saying, I think your ignorance of the offerings is showing.

Maybe its time to reinvent the market. But that's not likely to happen if the menu never changes. (Again, more steak. )

I think I have already pretty much put a hole through your "there's only steak out there" idea.

But, that being said, you cannot actually reinvent the market. That's a marketing-speak fallacy. "The Market" is people. You can't reinvent the people (short of hitting "the Singularity", or massive genetic engineering programs, or something, but anyway...). You can reinvent the game so that it is appealing to more people. And guess what? That's already happened! World of Warcraft, and every other MMORPG (see that RPG in there?) is a re-invention of tabletop RPGs. It is so reinvented such that the play experience is really very little like the tabletop experience.

That's nothing more than a denial than a willingness to address a possible problem with no easy (or risk-easy) solution. There must be a way!

See above referenced games. Simple games exist. Lots of them. If you don't recognize that, then you are the one in denial. They don't come to the forefront because the things their qualities also limit their economic potential and broad market appeal.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Please, no one respond to Umbran's response. Seems he has personal issues to address, and quite frankly, I don't appreciate the tone, or the hostility, of his reply. It seems not only overly harsh, but also uncalled for especially from a MOD! I am willing to let it drop here for the sake of the discussion with more pleasant people, including those who can express their differences much more nicely than this. I appreciate everyone's conduct up until this point, and hope we may continue like intelligent people should. Thank you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You could go from 1e to 2e to 3e relatively painlessly*, at least as far as races were concerned, but you couldn't go from a 3e core ruleset to a 4e core ruleset in the same campaign without a major reset or rewrite, which I think really dissuaded a number of people from making the jump at all.

Exactly.

Speaking from personal experience in a gaming group with one active campaign going back to the mid-1980s, and a few other campaigns as well, that was definitely a factor in turning off some of the guys in the group, myself included. I eventually bought a decent amount of 4Ed product, but ONLY because a new guy joined us, wanting to run a 4Ed game. (And of the 10+ gamers in the group, I am one of only a couple of guys who bought any.)

I came to find 4Ed enjoyable enough as a player...but that's the extent of it. Won't be DMing it, ever.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Jacob, having read your initial post but skipped most of the rest of the thread, do you mostly mind the financial cost? Or the time investment, in learning / purchasing books for a new edition. I personally only mind if I feel like I've wasted my money. I definitely felt that way for 3.5 (which I played once), but Pathfinder, which I played mostly for a year and a half before the groups I was involved with split up for the summer, I got tons more excitement and fun out of reading them than all my 4e collection, which all told, including subs, I spent probably a thousand dollars on. Those books are collecting dust, and the errata makes me think they are unusable even were I willing to do so. Even the tiniest little change to a class feature or a feat or a power or item, can wreck your entire build, and there are so many that it feels like the physical books are an anachronism. Also, aside from a few classes, I didn't care about / enjoy reading any of the other classes, whereas in Pathfinder, I found so many interesting archetypes and things to think about, that even if I never play Pathfinder again (I will, probably, at least until DDN comes out), I can still gain inspiration from lots of the material in there, even the mechanics and spells, since the spell system is more like classic D&D and I assume in DDN you are free as a wizard to invent your own. If I'd tried to roll my own powers on the fly, my 4e DMs would roll their eyes and assume I was powergaming and trying to gain unfair advantage because I knew the quirks of the rules better and spent inordinate amounts of time in the char op forums. So yeah, I don't want that to happen again. If I ever want to tinker with a class concept to see how it might work out mathematically, I'd always start with the OCB then tweak that. Unfortunately the digital tools that wizards came up with stuck a knife in the ideal of rolling your own houseruled powers and so on, something the offline tool could easily do but they nuked that, as we all know. Now I'm still left with all this useless knowledge about a game I will never play again, at least I now know what I don't want : waste my time, money, and my patience with obtuse rules and rulebooks that you can't rely on because 1/2 the stuff in it has been torn to shreds metaphorically, post-purchase.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Jacob, having read your initial post but skipped most of the rest of the thread, do you mostly mind the financial cost? Or the time investment, in learning / purchasing books for a new edition.

A little of column A, and a little of column B.

I've been playing and reading games like these for a long time, so its not unexpected that they require some amount of time and investment. Some take more than others, obviously. And some seem to over-complicate just for the sake of always having something more to sell but does very little for the game. A good game needs to be designed not only for content, but for playability. If a table full of veteran players is still taking too much time deciding on what to do because a) there are too many options, or b) they must often search for known but obscure rules, then there might be a better way to make the game. And it seems to me that most designers in this genre have only one model to follow for success rather than try to innovate with new ideas. A worthwhile investment, to me, does not waste my time or money, including my time playing their game.