Why D&D is slowly cutting its own throat.

[The Shaman]

Yes. One is rote, and the other requires thought.

One is focused on fast action, the other is focused on extreme precision.

There's no reason to be snarky about it, Storm Raven. It's a matter of personal preference. There is no argument to be won here.

Most people want to be able to customize their character more than "I'm the fighter with the longsword, not the battleaxe".

As I've stated several times, I'm not "most people," nor do I enjoy gaming with "most people."

In point of fact, TSR saw this too. That's why, for example, the original Unearthed Arcana was basically a bunch of character options. And the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide gave rules for skills (non-weapon proficiencies), and so on. Heck, the original supplements were about introducing new character options like the paladin, rogue, and ranger.

I didn't use a lot of the options then, either. Everyone has a comfort zone, Storm Raven.

Back in the day, when I was a wargaming grognard, I liked Squad Leader. Eventually I reached a cut-off point when it came to adding supplements and new rules - the increase in complexity began to take away from the pace of the game and the fun started to leak away as we spent more time figuring out LOS and hull-down conditions that we did on maneuvering our units. The same is true for me with roleplaying - when interpreting the rules takes up as much time as interpreting the action, there is a problem for me.

If you enjoy the style of game that D&D has become, that's great - have all the madbadfun you can stand and maybe a little more. Please leave me my quiet corner of the gaming universe to enjoy as well, without the disdain and derision that my point of view seems to engender in you.

 

[buzz]

So if you add the AD&D1 modules, the D&D modules produced AD&D1's lifetime, all the Judges Guild modules, and all the Mayfair modules, even those produced after AD&D1 was finished, then you arive at close to 200 adventures.

Ah, so 3e has seen as much or more adventures in a few years what 1e saw in 10.

 

[The Shaman]

This is a player issue, not a system issue. Powergaming/Munchkinism has existed since the dawn of RPGs.

To a limited extent I agree with you, but players also approach the game with knowledge of and preferences for particular system options, more so now than in the past with the number of systems and the range of options offered by the different systems.

The idea that twinks have always existed overlooks the fact that with a simple system there are simply fewer options to exploit. In 1e AD&D, the only way you could 'munchkin' was to fake your ability rolls or overpower you character with magic - every fighter had the same attack progression, every wizard the same spell-casting ability (and every spell the same effects, with allowances for level-dependent variations like duration or area of effect).

I don't think you can separate player issues from system issues as readily as some like to believe.

 

[buzz]

If you enjoy the style of game that D&D has become, that's great - have all the madbadfun you can stand and maybe a little more. Please leave me my quiet corner of the gaming universe to enjoy as well, without the disdain and derision that my point of view seems to engender in you.

Similarly, let's not disdain "what D&D has become", either. For many people, it's not the metagaming exercise you've described. For me, it's an improvement, and I would not consider myself a powergamer.

I think we're at the point where we need a group hug.

 

[Jim Hague]

Just for my obligatory chiming in - The World's Largest Dungeon has, AFAIK, sold very well for AEG and, I think, hearkens back to the early days of D&D. It's a dungeon hack. It's a ton of modules stuffed between two covers. There's story there, for the groups that want it. It's setting generic. There's enough material there to play D&D or a compatible game for 2+ years. And that's one product among the hundreds out there.

I really don't find Celebrim's argument compelling in the least - when industry professionals like Erik and Phil come on and say how the field look, I trust them. Both've presented good, cogent arguments and have been summarily ignored by the original poster because it seems those assertations don't fit whatever obtuse point is trying to be made.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by The Shaman
It's the difference between, "I'll attack the demon with my sword!" and "Lessee, with Power Attack I can reduce my BAB by 8 and still hit AC 23, and with the cleric's buffs I can do 2d10+42 damage." It's about stripping away mechanics and making the action its own reward.

Regardless of system...1Ed, 2Ed, 3Ed, HERO, RIFTS, etc...I tend to say what the character DOES rather than how the mechanics describe the action. That's a player style issue that has NOTHING to do with the particular RPG in question.

Originally Posted by Rogueattorney
By inexact count, JG did about 20 adventures for AD&D or OD&D through 1981 (about 12 for OD&D and 8 for AD&D) and then about a half dozen "generic" adventures in the last couple years before closing shop.

Judge's Guild is still out there kicking butt and taking names.
Judge's Guild

 

[diaglo]

I really don't find Celebrim's argument compelling in the least - when industry professionals like Erik and Phil come on and say how the field look, I trust them. Both've presented good, cogent arguments and have been summarily ignored by the original poster because it seems those assertations don't fit whatever obtuse point is trying to be made.

i totally agree with Erik and Phil assessments too. and you can ask anyone about my opinion of the current editions.

 

[philreed]

The World's Largest Dungeon has, AFAIK, sold very well for AEG . . .

I'd love to hear a real number with "very well." I mean, in this market very well could mean 1,000 copies.

Of course, 1,000 copies of a $100 book is still very well.

 

[buzz]

To a limited extent I agree with you, but players also approach the game with knowledge of and preferences for particular system options, more so now than in the past with the number of systems and the range of options offered by the different systems.

But this would seem to imply that the more options an RPG gives you, the more it engenders twinking and hinders roleplay, and I don't think that's evident at all. Even 3e, with all of its options compared to past editions, is incredibly restrictive compared to most other RPGs. And here you are talking about switching to another system!

The idea that twinks have always existed overlooks the fact that with a simple system there are simply fewer options to exploit.

I'm not sure I see how that matters. Just because it was obvious in 1e that you either played an elven f/m-u or used the stat-rolling method for humans from UA in order to make an uber PC doesn't mean that people didn't do it. Heck, every gol-dang character one of my buddes played in 1e was an elven f/m-u dual-weilding a longsword and shortsword.

And, really, calling 1e "simple" is just wrong. Simpler than 3e in many ways, maybe.

I don't think you can separate player issues from system issues as readily as some like to believe.

IME, there are player types, and they will act according to type no matter what system you use. Certain systems may encourage some behaviors more than others, but I've always found that it always starts with the person.

YMMV, I suppose.

 

[Storm Raven]

One is focused on fast action, the other is focused on extreme precision.

As I said, one requires thought, the other doesn't.

There's no reason to be snarky about it, Storm Raven. It's a matter of personal preference. There is no argument to be won here.As I've stated several times, I'm not "most people," nor do I enjoy gaming with "most people."I didn't use a lot of the options then, either. Everyone has a comfort zone, Storm Raven.

And your comfort zone appears to be "minimalist rules", which makes me wonder why you played D&D to begin with - since it has always been one of heavier rule sets out there.

If you enjoy the style of game that D&D has become, that's great - have all the madbadfun you can stand and maybe a little more. Please leave me my quiet corner of the gaming universe to enjoy as well, without the disdain and derision that my point of view seems to engender in you.

In that case, it seems odd to me that you would jump into a discussion that centers on whether "WotC is slitting its throat", and cite your own dissatisfaction as a data point in that argument. If your tastes are as idiosyncratic as you believe they are, doesn't the fact that the game is not to your liking kind of support the idea that others with more "mainstream gaming" tastes will like the direction the game is going?