The Myth of Games that Suck

[Imaro]

Dude, roleplaying is a *hobby*, not a job! Something you do for *entertainment* when you're NOT working so you can forget about The Real World for a while. The prep time is supposed to be part of the fun!

And yet so many people were happy when WotC cut down all that fun time in 3.5 they were having... why was that?

 

[Dannager]

I've been thinking about the recent backlash against WFRP3E. This is the second fantasy RPG that has faced a backlash over a new edition. Both WFRP3E ($100) and D&D 4E ($105) are very expensive games. One unarguable difference between Pathfinder and D&D is that the Pathfinder Core Rules cost $50 (or $10 for the PDF), while the PHB + DMG cost $70. Anadoctally, there is some evidence that the $10 PDF is selling the "luxery" of the printed rules.

You can get the PHB, DMG and Monster Manual for $66 on Amazon. The Pathfinder RPG and Bestiary costs you $57 from the same place. These are comparable prices. One is not significantly more expensive than the other.

I'm wondering if the difference between suck and brilliant isn't more a matter of price then quality. Fans of a game feel that they should keep up with the new product. When a new edition is priced out of affordability its fan base reacts by claiming that the edition is of poor quality, even if unaffordablility is the core reason. Had D&D 4th edition come out as three, $10 explorer edition sized books, might it have been hailed as new an innovative?

No. This is not only ridiculous, but alarming to boot. Either of these games costs as much as a single new video game, and that's not even going anywhere near the cost of a console to play the video game on. D&D, as a hobby, is so cheap it's ridiculous. Pennies per hour is what most people end up paying to enjoy it. Anyone complaining about the price of 4th Edition (or any other comparably priced game) doesn't understand what goes into it, and doesn't understand the cost of entertainment today.

Savage worlds has very few detractors.

Compared to 4e, Savage Worlds also has very few players.

Gaming has created the myth of the Grognard, the older gamer unwilling to try anything new. Somehow this doesn't seem to fit gamers who measure their collection by boxes and bookshelves.

As others have pointed out, grognardism is far from a myth. It's a reflection of human reality - that change is a thing to be feared, or at the very least approached with caution and skepticism. But you have its definition wrong. Grognardism is not characterized by an unwillingness to try new things. Plenty of grognards will try new games just to "prove to themselves" that it sucks compared to what they're already playing. What grognardism is really all about is an unwillingness (or inability) to appreciate new games.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

And yet so many people were happy when WotC cut down all that fun time in 3.5 they were having... why was that?

It wasn't the time it was the maths. 3rded prep was dull and I mostly found the system made life harder, 4th ed prep is a breeze as the system works for you.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It wasn't the time it was the maths. 3rded prep was dull and I mostly found the system made life harder, 4th ed prep is a breeze as the system works for you.

Ah, yes. Now I remember what people said: "It's a lot of fun spending hours and hours prepping for my 3.5 games; and it would be even more fun if there was less math involved."

Uh-huh.

 

[doctorhook]

Welcome to the boards, Dal Thrax! I hope your stay here will be pleasant, informative, and flame-retardant.

I've been thinking about the recent backlash against WFRP3E. This is the second fantasy RPG that has faced a backlash over a new edition.

In the ten years that I've been playing D&D, I can assure you that there was substantial backlash against 3E, 3.5E, and 4E in succession. I imagine that there's been a heck of a lot of other examples from other games, and from D&D prior to my introduction. (I've read there was quite a backlash against 2nd Edition AD&D, too, including from Mr Gygax himself.)

Both WFRP3E ($100) and D&D 4E ($105) are very expensive games. One unarguable difference between Pathfinder and D&D is that the Pathfinder Core Rules cost $50 (or $10 for the PDF), while the PHB + DMG cost $70.

I don't know about Pathfinder or WFRP, but I can assure you that you probably don't have to pay $105 to player 4E. A Player's Handbook is the only book that's necessary to play in someone else's game, and you can order that online for less than $30, IIRC. Even if you're running your own game, you can order all three 4E core rulebooks together for around $70, again IIRC.

 

[Celebrim]

It's just plain, old-fashioned, closed-mindedness.

Ahh... yes.

Just want to comment on this.

When someone issues the statement that someone else holds their opinion on the basis of 'closed-mindedness', it proves nothing about the internal thought processes of another person. But, ironically, it does reveal something very important about the internal thought processes of the person issueing the statement. What it reveals is that person denouncing other people as 'closed-minded' has never seriously entertained someone else's opinion, does not consider their position to be something reasonable people could hold, is unwilling to admit that anyone could disagree with them on a rational basis, and is willing to dismiss other people's opinions on the basis of an ad hominem attack.

Hmmmm....just an observation I've made about people who are quick to call other people closed-minded.

 

[Imban]

No. This is not only ridiculous, but alarming to boot. Either of these games costs as much as a single new video game, and that's not even going anywhere near the cost of a console to play the video game on. D&D, as a hobby, is so cheap it's ridiculous. Pennies per hour is what most people end up paying to enjoy it. Anyone complaining about the price of 4th Edition (or any other comparably priced game) doesn't understand what goes into it, and doesn't understand the cost of entertainment today.

D&D's corebooks might be. Splatbooks, I'm not so sure about. I've purchased a good few splatbooks in my life that weren't worth the price I paid, even compared to a movie, much less a video game, because I never wanted to use 90% or more of the things in it. Likewise for adventure modules that, after a careful read, turned out to be crap that I'd never want to play.

As others have pointed out, grognardism is far from a myth. It's a reflection of human reality - that change is a thing to be feared, or at the very least approached with caution and skepticism. But you have its definition wrong. Grognardism is not characterized by an unwillingness to try new things. Plenty of grognards will try new games just to "prove to themselves" that it sucks compared to what they're already playing. What grognardism is really all about is an unwillingness (or inability) to appreciate new games.

Hey, I'm all for change when it's for the better. I mean, maybe I like old things in general - and I do, my friends like to point out that my favorite video games are almost all over five years old - but I treat 4e D&D the same as I did Heroes of Might and Magic 4: a "new vision" for the series that was less fun than what came before. Maybe, like with The Gathering Storm, I'll end up having a lot of fun with something specific in 4e D&D that really speaks to me. Maybe 5e will be a lot better for me, just as Heroes of Might and Magic 5 is.

 

[Aus_Snow]

FATAL.

/thread

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Back in 1989, I remember the crankiness over the release of 2E AD&D was quite loud and vitriolic amongst friends who were hardcore 1E AD&D types. I didn't go to any gaming conventions that year, but I wouldn't be surprised if the crankiness was just as loud as what one would see online these days. (My friends who did go to some gaming conventions that year, mentioned the anti-2E sentiment was quite loud and pervasive).

It's been twenty years and I'm STILL cranky.

Grognards, not a myth. (I play board wargames too so I'm a double grognard )

Bad games, not a myth either. And I have the Atari E.T. video game cartridge to prove it.

 

[jmucchiello]

Hmmmm....just an observation I've made about people who are quick to call other people closed-minded.

And you making assumptions about whether someone who uses the phrase "close-minded" is incapable of considering another person's position says what about you? Your response is no less ad hominem than the statement you are belittling.