Tabletopocalypse Now - GMS' thoughts about the decline in the hobby

[ggroy]

3D chess in Star Trek.

 

[jonesy]

3D chess in Star Trek.

Much older than Star Trek:
Three-dimensional chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hussar]

What confuses me is how incorporating new ideas = designed obsolescence.

Do you honestly think that Gygax thought of, say, Action Points when he wrote the 1e DMG? That he had the entire idea in his head, but kept it secret so that it could be released at a later time?

Perhaps he also held onto the entire ruleset for GURPS, keeping it secret in cabalistic fashion until someone came along with the right secret handshake.

Games change ALL the time. Not because of "designed obsolescence" but because we, from time to time, learn new things and want to incorporate them into the game. It has nothing to do with putting out books while keeping key things back, it's about putting things out, letting them float out there in the sea of fandom for a while, and then going back and trying something new.

This is generally how almost everything works.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Then either we're talking about different games or you need to look closer to notice the lack of a piece that moves like the Queen; the inclusion of a piece that jumps spaces on the diagonal (which is not the same movement as the knight type piece, which is also present) AND only moves 2 spaces (IOW, not a bishop); pawns which cannot move 2 spaces at once (or en passant); no castling at all; and a White King whose initial position was not fixed.

Well if you concider changing 1% of a games design qualifies as a completely different game. then yeah were talking about different games.

 

[Lanefan]

What confuses me is how incorporating new ideas = designed obsolescence.

Do you honestly think that Gygax thought of, say, Action Points when he wrote the 1e DMG? That he had the entire idea in his head, but kept it secret so that it could be released at a later time?

Games change ALL the time. Not because of "designed obsolescence" but because we, from time to time, learn new things and want to incorporate them into the game.

And, in the case of Gygaxian 1e, because we were to a large extent told to change it and make it our own by the author of the game. From that perspective, 1e D+D might be the least static game ever published.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well if you concider changing 1% of a games design qualifies as a completely different game. then yeah were talking about different games.

1%?
A bishop with the power to cover the full diagonals as opposed to just 2 squares?

Replacing a piece with a move of 1 with the Queen?

Castling and radically different stalemate rules?

Sure, that and the other changes may account for 1% of entire text of the rules, but they completely revolutionized the game, overturned standard tactics...no, not the same game, and hardly minor.

Live by the wiki, die by the wiki: if you don't agree with the timeline in the article you cited to support your position, I can hardly accept you as an honest debater.

Done.

 

[Ghostwind]

Here is an interesting rebuttal.

The End is Nigh! « NeoGrognard

 

[Glyfair]

In my expanded circle of local gaming acquaintances, most niche rpgs are for most practical purposes "nonexistent". It's only the few really hardcore rpg gamers, which are even aware of anything beyond D&D.

For example, many of the casual gamers in my local gaming circles don't even know what Pathfinder is.

I have to admit I haven't played a lot of niche RPGs lately. However, I have a circle of acquaintances with whom I know I could get enough for at least a one-off of most RPGs, niche or not.

However, I have had a strong gaming store in my area since '81. It has always encouraged gaming on site (either in the store, or in the attached game club) throughout it's history. It also was started by a circle of friends. It also is lucky enough to be in a college town (Newark, DE).

In my experience (direct and from visiting other stores while traveling), that is the perfect storm of having a vibrant gaming community.

1) A hobby gaming store - It keeps RPGs available and handy. It also is a business with an interested in #2 below.

2) On site gaming - Important for creating a community of gamers that interact. With community interaction and a place to play, you can experiment with a lot of RPGs to see what you like without having to buy them all initially.

3) A college town - College students are the ones who have the necessary time and interest in doing something like gaming. There is also a steady evolution of the gaming groups as some graduate and move away and others come into town and join the community (of course, many graduate and stay around at some level). Most of the very successful gaming stores I have seen over time have been in college towns.

I admit, a strong gaming club without a retail store can be a lesser substitute for 1 & 2 above. However, a lot of these tend to be somewhat limited (for example, college clubs usually require members to be students). Also, you can't underestimate the ability to play in a spot where you can buy supplies on the spot (I know many dice sales have happened because someone forgot their dice), or decided to buy and try a new game from wandering the store and discussing something on the shelf before or after a game.

 

[Beginning of the End]

My math is just fine.

But your definition of "changed very little" apparently needs a lot of work.

Here's the problem with your position: Chess didn't spring forth wholly formed from the brow of Zeus. The game as we play it today was simply the dominant variant among many different variants, and it took nearly 800 years for that variant to appear.

D&D has been around for 30 years. Maybe we should give it a little more breathing room?

Plus, as someone else already pointed out, whatever game you're thinking of as "Chess" isn't the only popular game being played today that has been ultimately derived from that 1000+ year old game you're citing as the Dawn of Chess. And that's ignoring the thousands of fairy chess variants which are constantly being churned out by Chess enthusiasts every year.

Saying that D&D can't be a "real game" because it has a lot of variants and then pointing to Chess as your example of what a "real game" looks like is, frankly, ludicrous.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

1%?
A bishop with the power to cover the full diagonals as opposed to just 2 squares?

Replacing a piece with a move of 1 with the Queen?

Castling and radically different stalemate rules?

Sure, that and the other changes may account for 1% of entire text of the rules, but they completely revolutionized the game, overturned standard tactics...no, not the same game, and hardly minor.

Live by the wiki, die by the wiki: if you don't agree with the timeline in the article you cited to support your position, I can hardly accept you as an honest debater.

Done.

Sure dude, the board is the same, the peices are the same, the board is set up the same, a bishop still moves diagnaly, etc. but if you want to consider making a little change to how a couple of peices move a whole new game, thats up to you.

edit.. btw this thread is not about chess, if you want to continue discussing this topic i suggest a you make a new thread, or direct your posts back toward the threads oriignal purpose.