# D&D on CNN!



## Scribble (Jun 8, 2010)

Hey- D&D Encounters made it on to CNN.Com

Click Me!


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jun 8, 2010)

Good article.

The same cannot be said of the various comments, however.


----------



## mudbunny (Jun 8, 2010)

Why would you read the comments on a news article. Nothing will erode your faith in the collective intelligence of humanity faster.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 8, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> Good article.
> 
> The same cannot be said of the various comments, however.




Eh people are people. Give them a place to rage and thrash about and they will.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> The same cannot be said of the various comments, however.




The Edition Wars are alive and well, and living on CNN...


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 8, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Why would you read the comments on a news article. Nothing will erode your faith in the collective intelligence of humanity faster.




The exact same thing I say after I read comments on our local newspaper's website.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 8, 2010)

[article]
"The new version (Fourth Edition Rules) is about teamwork," explained Augie, who said he has been playing D&D since 1979. "I can whip up an Encounter in no time and players can be playing in about five minutes. In some ways, it plays out like a board game." [end quote]

Spokesmen like this aren't helping.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> [article]
> "The new version (Fourth Edition Rules) is about teamwork," explained Augie, who said he has been playing D&D since 1979. "I can whip up an Encounter in no time and players can be playing in about five minutes. In some ways, it plays out like a board game." [end quote]
> 
> Spokesmen like this aren't helping.



At least he didn't say it was like WoW without the video screen.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> [article]
> "The new version (Fourth Edition Rules) is about teamwork," explained Augie, who said he has been playing D&D since 1979. "I can whip up an Encounter in no time and players can be playing in about five minutes. In some ways, it plays out like a board game." [end quote]
> 
> Spokesmen like this aren't helping.



When you're the sort of person who gets his D&D news from CNN, this sort of commentary is _exactly_ what you want to hear - I can be playing in five minutes, and it's sort of like a board game, and I already know how board games work.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> [article]
> "The new version (Fourth Edition Rules) is about teamwork," explained Augie, who said he has been playing D&D since 1979. "I can whip up an Encounter in no time and players can be playing in about five minutes. In some ways, it plays out like a board game." [end quote]
> 
> Spokesmen like this aren't helping.




Well, maybe for the CNN audience, spokesmen like this ARE helping.  Anyone who is into D&D for the in-depth roleplaying is probably already comfortable with the game and doesn't need an article on CNN to spark their interest in returning to it.  For someone who might have played years ago who remembers spending tons of time on the game, time that they no longer have, a pitch like this one might actually get that person to check out D&D Encounters at their local store.

It doesn't help with the edition wars, sure, and it isn't how most of us on ENWorld who like D&D 4e would like to think about the game, but if it gets more players in the door because it sounds easy to pick up, I think it's a good thing.  Now, if those players always want it to be like a board game and never have any interest in roleplaying, okay, that's not great, but once they get into the game I think most people will naturally WANT the roleplaying.  That's been my experience so far, but maybe I've just been lucky.

Edit: Yep, what Dannager said!  Great minds think alike.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 8, 2010)

"In some ways it's like a board game" has been one of the staples of answering the _What is Roleplaying?_ question for years...

Start with the familiar- "Oh hey I know what a board game is!" 

Then move into the more complicated, "but it's different in that- blah blah."


But if you're out there trying to find edition war ammo, I'm sure you'll be able to twist anything into the right gauge.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jun 8, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Why would you read the comments on a news article. Nothing will erode your faith in the collective intelligence of humanity faster.




Sad but true. Now I'm tempted to quote Einstein...


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 8, 2010)

Cool - D&D is in the national news, and nobody had to get murdered first!


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Jun 8, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Cool - D&D is in the national news, and nobody had to get murdered first!




What about those poor zombies?  Right, already dead.... the orcs, then?  What about those poor Orcs?


----------



## nedjer (Jun 8, 2010)

The boardgame comment could have been a lot worse. But it does carry that boredgame label and RPGs are so far removed from boardgames it has to be revisited almost immediately.

The drama game idea is OK-ish but not quite? Adventure game, where you go exploring. Bit like a solo gamebook with more people and endless choices. But that requires them to know what a solo gamebook like Fighting Fantasy is like.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 8, 2010)

Scribble said:


> "In some ways it's like a board game" has been one of the staples of answering the _What is Roleplaying?_ question for years....




I hope not. 




Scribble said:


> But if you're out there trying to find edition war ammo, I'm sure you'll be able to twist anything into the right gauge.




Nope. Trying to get former players with fond memories of youthful D&D to pick up the dice again is a good goal. Advertising the latest offering as something akin to a board game is setting out to fail at that goal.

Boardgame familiarity is exactly the type of message you want to communicate to those without any idea what an rpg is. Since the article mentioned that the primary audience for the encounters program was former players the message was aimed at the wrong group.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Spokesmen like this aren't helping.



I think they might, especially with new audiences. Haven't boardgames being experiencing a resurgence over the past decade (or more)?  

Look, boardgame-like and WoW-like are only considered derogatory by pen-and-paper gaming nerds, particularly ones who're trying to strike an elitist tone.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 8, 2010)

Its a nice little article and it should give a boost to attendance at D&D Encounters.  I need to free up some time on a Wednesday so I can finally participate.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 8, 2010)

dogoftheunderworld said:


> What about those poor zombies? Right, already dead.... the orcs, then? What about those poor Orcs?




Yeah, they weren't evil, they were just contractors hired by the lich to flesh out his kingdom.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 8, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Cool - D&D is in the national news, and nobody had to get murdered first!



This was my take as well. 

I don't mind if the general masses are given small, palatable bits like this to get them interested.  Even if the story convinces a very small percentage of people to give it a try, getting new gamers into the fold, the size of the CNN audience makes this a very good thing.

Too bad the comments make gamers look like a**hats.

Wouldn't it be great if gamers all commented with things like "Give it a try! You may find a hobby you will be enjoying for years."  Who cares what edition they learn first, get them into RPGs and it's good for all D&D editions and RPG systems.

Bashing D&D (or the current edition) in article comments will ONLY serve to keep non-gamer type people AWAY from trying out RPGs.  That just sucks for everyone.

Get new gamers in, get them loving RPGs, and they will bring more in.  Please don't make us all look like petty, my-x-is-better-than-your-y jerks.

EDIT:  This doesn't specifically apply to this particular news article and comments, but in general when D&D is in mainstream news.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I hope not.




Sorry to crush your hopes and aspirations!


----------



## Scribble (Jun 8, 2010)

Shroomy said:


> Its a nice little article and it should give a boost to attendance at D&D Encounters.  I need to free up some time on a Wednesday so I can finally participate.




I wish it was on any other night then Wednesday nights... Wednesday just worked out to be a night I have to stay late at "the office" so I can never make it to a game.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 8, 2010)

Yeah, Wednesday Night is my mid-week night at home because I game with my son and his friends Tuesdays and with other friends Thursdays.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 8, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I wish it was on any other night then Wednesday nights... Wednesday just worked out to be a night I have to stay late at "the office" so I can never make it to a game.




Wednesday's are really tough for me too. I wanted to jump in on the Dark Sun D&D Encounters starting tomorrow night.


----------



## _NewbieDM_ (Jun 8, 2010)

I think the guy that made the boardgame comment was Auggie, from Auggies Games.  

How many D&D guys named Auggie live in Lawrenceville, GA?  

Plus, per the article the owner of the store where they are playing at is called Andrew... that's Auggie's real name as well....'

FWIW, he runs a great little website for buying and selling minis....

Auggies Games Home Page


----------



## Mark (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> [article]
> "The new version (Fourth Edition Rules) is about teamwork," explained Augie, who said he has been playing D&D since 1979. "I can whip up an Encounter in no time and players can be playing in about five minutes. In some ways, it plays out like a board game." [end quote]
> 
> Spokesmen like this aren't helping.





Someone who has been playing since 1979 and hasn't known the game has always been about teamwork might have said anything.  Shame this wasn't timed with the release of the actual D&D boardgame to further confuse things.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Spokesmen like this aren't helping.




Good thing he's not an actual spokesman and is instead a volunteer DM, eh?



> Look, boardgame-like and WoW-like are only considered derogatory by pen-and-paper gaming nerds, particularly ones who're trying to strike an elitist tone.




I was hoping we were passed this elitist nonsense here on ENWorld, but there appear to be those eager to keep it alive.


----------



## Electryc (Jun 8, 2010)

Any news is good news period, unless your BP.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 8, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> I was hoping we were passed this elitist nonsense here on ENWorld, but there appear to be those eager to keep it alive.




It's easier to criticise tabletop RPG players than to simply accept that tabletop RPGs are a more sophisticated medium than boardgames or videogames.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Boardgame familiarity is exactly the type of message you want to communicate to those without any idea what an rpg is. Since the article mentioned that the primary audience for the encounters program was former players the message was aimed at the wrong group.



_Encounters_ might be aimed at lapsed players, but we're not talking about Encounters. We're talking about _an article about D&D on CNN.com_. Your average reader on CNN isn't necessarily a lapsed player; more likely, they're simply someone with little to no exposure to the game at all, and in that case this sort of description does the most good by far.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 8, 2010)

plus, even if it doesn't attract new gamers to try it out.  at the very least, it might help lessen the stigma associated with d&d in general to be just another game rather than "*gasp* _that_ game"

(i was just watching an episode of Quantum Leap the other day and I completely missed it the first time it aired, but this particular episode had some high schoolers involved in a d&d like thing (demons and something, forgot the second word they used)... and, well, it was just put in an unfriendly light).


----------



## Treebore (Jun 8, 2010)

I'm glad WOTC is finally getting smart enough to do things along these lines. Kudos!


----------



## amysrevenge (Jun 8, 2010)

It's weird.

I'm the world's biggest D&D/4E fan,, but I went through the whole article, and all I could think was "this isn't news, it's an advertisement".


----------



## Festivus (Jun 8, 2010)

amysrevenge said:


> It's weird.
> 
> I'm the world's biggest D&D/4E fan,, but I went through the whole article, and all I could think was "this isn't news, it's an advertisement".




To be fair, this is in the "Living" section of CNN, alongside such great articles as "Job hot spots for the next decade" and "People who look like their pets".  Given that vein, it's not really news at all, but more like entertainment.  The LA Times has a similar section that is full of human interest stories... I think it applies.


----------



## Mark (Jun 8, 2010)

Festivus said:


> To be fair, this is in the "Living" section of CNN, alongside such great articles as "Job hot spots for the next decade" and "People who look like their pets".  Given that vein, it's not really news at all, but more like entertainment.  The LA Times has a similar section that is full of human interest stories... I think it applies.





Maybe they will do a "Players Who Tell Us About Their Characters" series of articles.


----------



## Saracenus (Jun 8, 2010)

amysrevenge said:


> It's weird.
> 
> I'm the world's biggest D&D/4E fan,, but I went through the whole article, and all I could think was "this isn't news, it's an advertisement".




Welcome to the world of business marketing/PR. The whole point is to get the name/brand out in the public. You can pay for it via ads and you can get it for "free" by press release and making your PR guys available for features like this one.

So, yes it was an advertisement. Nothing wrong with it, its a positive portrayal of our hobby which usually only gets in the news when someone does something awful and someone else blames RPGs and/or D&D. Of course the big target right now is video games...

My two coppers,


----------



## Mark (Jun 8, 2010)

Saracenus said:


> (. . .) its a positive portrayal of our hobby which usually only gets in the news when someone does something awful and someone else blames RPGs and/or D&D.





The only way to tie in with that is to _slash_ prices.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 8, 2010)

Dannager said:


> _Encounters_ might be aimed at lapsed players, but we're not talking about Encounters. We're talking about _an article about D&D on CNN.com_. Your average reader on CNN isn't necessarily a lapsed player; more likely, they're simply someone with little to no exposure to the game at all, and in that case this sort of description does the most good by far.




The article seemed pretty focused on encounters to me. Just about everything they were talking about revolved around how little a time commitment playing in these sessions involved ( a good selling point IMHO)The article did cover a bit of 4E as a whole but the focus was certainly on how easy it is to find time to play in and run the encounter program.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 8, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The Edition Wars are alive and well, and living on CNN...




Dude, I've seen D&D edition wars erupt in places utterly disconnected with D&D, RPGs, or any various fandom online or otherwise (truly bizarre places...). It has popped up where I work, it has popped up on trips to other states both for business and for pleasure. It's not just something small and isolated to fans on internet forums, it's a yawning fracture in the community.

That said, expanding the very notion of RPGs to people outside of the gaming community as a viable and fun hobby is good, regardless of what game or edition is doing it.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 8, 2010)

Well, the thing is D&D started pretty much as a board game with the old gold box. You just had to supply your own boards and playing pieces. And all editions can seem like a board game.

The grizzled old gamer in me remembers when you had to color your own dice with a crayon. And I still have my very first d20 from my very first game. It's so rounded though it's pretty much a plastic ball that doesn't stop until it hits a wall. 

On the other hand though, even board games like Monopoly can seem like a role playing game as well.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jun 9, 2010)

*Boardgame*

Way back in 1977, when I was a kid in school, I remember hearing about this new game that the big kids were playing called Dungeons and Dragons.  I asked a friend about it, and he said , 'it's a game where you use graph paper for the board'.

So I don't think the boardgame analogy is really new.

Ken


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 9, 2010)

deleted


----------



## jhilahd (Jun 9, 2010)

Yeah... and apparently my diplomacy skills on those comments don't work on Trolls. Drat.

As someone else posted, I don't understand why people would come along and bash our hobby because they don't like this edition of the game.
Seriously?!
Get people interested and then convert them to your favorite system.
"You like how easy it is to play 4e, well let me show you how much detail you can get with Pathfinder...." Y'know?

It's the whole "4e sux! Pathfinder forever" nonsense that just makes me cringe as a gamer.

Yeah the article is soft peddling the game, but at least it's getting a positive spin on a game that has been through the wringer in by-gone years and a change in perception won't hurt the hobby.
The people who are riffing on the Encounters option don't get it. The organized gaming community has been around for what seems like forever. I konw I played my first RPGA game in the early 90's and ran several tournaments, which are basically longer "enounters". 

Anywho... glad for the positive article and hope it spurs new players into the hobby!


----------



## Dannager (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The article seemed pretty focused on encounters to me. Just about everything they were talking about revolved around how little a time commitment playing in these sessions involved ( a good selling point IMHO)The article did cover a bit of 4E as a whole but the focus was certainly on how easy it is to find time to play in and run the encounter program.



I'm trying to explain to you that the target audience of the Encounters program is not necessarily the same as CNN.com's audience. The way people talking about the game present it to lapsed players is not necessarily the same as the way it ought to be presented to the wider audience.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 9, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> but why not take the next logical step and say...




I don't consider supporting two (or more, since everyone wants their favorite edition to be supported) mutually exclusive versions of the same game line from the same limited pool of resources to be logical. Quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 9, 2010)

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a fan of 4E. 

I thought that the article was pretty positive and did what it was supposed to do, which was put D&D (and RPG's) in a positive light, let people know that the hobby is still around and thriving, it also lets people who used to play that that there's a venue for them to come back. 

I'm not a fan of 4E as an RPG but I've pre-ordered the Ravenloft Board game from Amazon because I think the 4E system would be well suited to a miniatures skirmish game or a board game. I plan on teaching my son and a few of his friends how to play the board game and hopefully I'll be able to expand things using the 4E core books and my own collection of tiles. I think they'll enjoy it.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 9, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> That said, expanding the very notion of RPGs to people outside of the gaming community as a viable and fun hobby is good, regardless of what game or edition is doing it.




Agreed.  The most frustrating part about edition warring is that I have seen potential players turned off from the game entirely because of them.

I have been in the position before where I offered to DM a game of 4E for someone who was curious about D&D.  Instead, one of their friends started railing against 4E with the typical 4E bashing catch-phrases, and talked about how 3E and Pathfinder were superior, and took a rude and condescending attitude in regards to my offer to teach his friend how to play.

Now, this potential player has now been turned off from 4E entirely.  The thing is, this friend of his never actually helped him try any of these "superior" games, and this seemed to have snuffed out any flame of interest he had in the first place.

For crying out loud, let people game and try games out without burdening them with biases.  At the end of the day, we're all in a niche geek hobby, and there's no point in chasing away new blood with our nerd rage.  Don't take yourself (and the gaming) so seriously.  It's supposed to be for fun.

Along the same lines, I think people getting bent out of shape in comparing the game to a board game are taking the game too seriously.  It's still just a game, there's no need to put it on a pedestal.  There are many aspects that are like some boardgames, there's nothing wrong with the analogy.

Then again, last time I played Clue, I was role-playing my character, so my board-game experiences may be different than yours. ;-)


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 9, 2010)

N0Man said:


> For crying out loud, let people game and try games out without burdening them with biases.  At the end of the day, we're all in a niche geek hobby, and there's no point in chasing away new blood with our nerd rage.  Don't take yourself (and the gaming) so seriously.  It's supposed to be for fun.




I agree.  I don't play 4e but thought the article was good and might put D&D back in front of people who used to play years ago and get them playing again.  As you said, given the niche size of our hobby any positive news on a mainstream site is a good thing.

There is plenty of time to discuss editions once they are hooked again!  



			
				N0Man said:
			
		

> Along the same lines, I think people getting bent out of shape in comparing the game to a board game are taking the game too seriously.  It's still just a game, there's no need to put it on a pedestal.  There are many aspects that are like some boardgames, there's nothing wrong with the analogy.




I didn't see anything wrong with a reference to a board game.  I think they thing they are trying to push with that, especially for the Encounters sessions is that it is sort of like sitting down at a table for a board game as far as these sessions go. 

Folks that used to play might hear D&D and think back to lots of prep time or character building time and be less likely to try an Encounters session.  But if they hear board game they might be more likely to take a second look and see what D&D today is all about.

As with which edition to play, there is plenty of time to show how D&D is not *exactly* like a board game once they are hooked or actually show up to play that first session in years.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 9, 2010)

Hmmm...

Someone with the username *Razz*elmire made the following comment:
4E is just World of Warcraft on paper. It's a sad de-evolution of D&D. It has destroyed the continuity, lore, and "sacred cows" (like 9 alignments, Law vs Chaos, elves living for centuries, etc.) that the D&D mythology has put together for over 30 years. It's reliance is solely on combat as are 90% of the splatbooks released. 4th Edition is not truly D&D. The earlier editions were more true to D&D than 4th Edition ever will be.​I'm getting flashbacks.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 9, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> I am 100% totally cool with this...but why not take the next logical step and say...




Its Okay man, I accepted WotC has left me behind, I'm sure you can too.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Jun 9, 2010)

Quite clearly a puff piece, but I say tabletop role playing is well overdue for such treatment.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The boardgame comment could have been a lot worse. But it does carry that *boredgame *label and RPGs are so far removed from boardgames it has to be revisited almost immediately.
> 
> The drama game idea is OK-ish but not quite? Adventure game, where you go exploring. Bit like a solo gamebook with more people and endless choices. But that requires them to know what a solo gamebook like Fighting Fantasy is like.




Nice typo.  

The thing is boardgame audiences DWARF RPG audiences.  By an order of magnitude.  The first run of Trivial Pursuit sold in the tens of MILLIONS of copies.  If you were to put all the D&D sales in a bag, for all D&D products ever, you might equal the sales of that one game.  

And you want to compare it to things that are even smaller run?  Like the Fighting Fantasy books (sales in the tens of thousands)?  



nedjer said:


> It's easier to criticise tabletop RPG players than to simply accept that tabletop RPGs are a more sophisticated medium than boardgames or videogames.





ROTFLMAO!!  

Oh, wait... are you actually being serious here?  Really?



El Mahdi said:


> I am 100% totally cool with this...but why not take the next logical step and say...




Because selling to both of you isn't worth the time and effort?

I know that's harsh, but, at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to.  You're not going to sell 2e D&D to a lapsed gamer, because if he played 2e D&D, he wouldn't be lapsed in the first place.

The only real market for OOP versions of D&D are current players.  Selling to you isn't growing the market because they already got your money.  Nor is selling to me for that matter.  They want to sell to that guy who played twenty years ago and got out of the hobby.  

Trying to sell him the same product that he abandoned twenty years ago is not a solid business model.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jun 9, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Why would you read the comments on a news article. Nothing will erode your faith in the collective intelligence of humanity faster.




It's like a train wreck.  You know it's going to be horrible, but you just can't look away.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jun 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> They want to sell to that guy who played twenty years ago and got out of the hobby.
> 
> Trying to sell him the same product that he abandoned twenty years ago is not a solid business model.




Other than the D&D brand name and a few superficial similarities, 4e is nothing like the D&D of 20 years ago.  It's a totally different game that just happens to have the same name.

Trying to get someone to play 4e based on their love of 1e/2e is a tough sell.  A few might be interested, but I'd bet that most lapsed 1e/2e players wouldn't be interested because the game bears little resemblance to what they're familiar with.

It's like trying to sell a British football (soccer) fan on American football just because the two games are both called "football".  The two games are so different that being a fan of one probably won't have much bearing on being a fan of the other.

If WotC is serious about getting back lapsed players from 20 years ago, they should make a new version of D&D that resembles old D&D.  Since old D&D doesn't require large stacks of expensive rulebooks and large armies of expensive miniatures, I'm not holding my breath. 

My best guess is this "lapsed player" effort is probably aimed at getting lapsed 3e players to give 4e another look.  The 1e/2e crowd is probably out of reach.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 9, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Other than the D&D brand name and a few superficial similarities, 4e is nothing like the D&D of 20 years ago.  It's a totally different game that just happens to have the same name.
> 
> Trying to get someone to play 4e based on their love of 1e/2e is a tough sell.  A few might be interested, but I'd bet that most lapsed 1e/2e players wouldn't be interested because the game bears little resemblance to what they're familiar with.
> 
> ...




The problem is that your opinion here is just that.  Just because it's not your preference, and not what you think D&D is like, doesn't mean that it's a universal truth.

I am someone who first saw D&D in the AD&D form, became a regular player during 2nd Ed, and was playing during the release of 3E.  My sentiments are entirely the opposite of yours.  I felt that 4E more closely resembled the spirit of earlier editions than 3E did, but with a little bit of streamlining and the introduction of more modern game design ideas.

I could also argue some of the other statements are not really in line with my experience or perceptions as well, but it's pointless.  The things that bug you may not bother me, and the things I like, you may not care about.

Anyway, I have severe doubts about the success of bringing out a D&D game that resembled old school D&D.  I think it would appeal to a niche market, and turn off far more.

In fact, I think stagnation (or regression) is the best way to kill off the franchise.  Gaming ideas, designs, and tastes have changed a lot in the last 20 years.

I may not agree with every design decision, but in general, I think it was a good attempt to try to reinvigorate the game and draw in new players.  I think that Encounters (the events that this article was basically a press release to get PR for) is an interesting idea also, even though it doesn't really appeal to me.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 9, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Other than the D&D brand name and a few superficial similarities, 4e is nothing like the D&D of 20 years ago.  It's a totally different game that just happens to have the same name.



I think it depends on what you are looking at.

Certainly, the rules have changed. 

However (and IMO) the play experience is still pretty much the same.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 9, 2010)

Blah blah blah here we go.

The only difference in our community seems to be that it takes an extra three pages of comments before the edition wars grind into gear.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 9, 2010)

amysrevenge said:


> It's weird.
> 
> I'm the world's biggest D&D/4E fan,, but I went through the whole article, and all I could think was "this isn't news, it's an advertisement".



It's not News, it's CNN.


----------



## jbear (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I hope not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I live in Spain. Everyone I've told that I play D&D have heard of it. They relate it to something negative, most of them, and already have a biased 'I don't like that kind of thing' attitude towards it. Others, a minority, know of it and are curious about it but have no idea really how it works or what it's about.

Any largescale exposure which can alter, even in a small way, the negative prejudice or mistaken associations people have towards D&D has to be positive. 

I'd say even if that means boardgame and D&D are used in the same sentence with a like somewhere in between. Apart from wanting to attract former players back (via the new time convenience of the Encounters design) they want to attract new players as well. Never played D&D? Don't know what its all about? Well its kind of like a board game... you throw dice, you have a game piece which you move around something that likes not too different from a game board... but unlike monopoly the players aren't trying to kill or even bankrupt each other... interested? Let me tell you more...


----------



## jbear (Jun 9, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Other than the D&D brand name and a few superficial similarities, 4e is nothing like the D&D of 20 years ago.  It's a totally different game that just happens to have the same name.
> 
> Trying to get someone to play 4e based on their love of 1e/2e is a tough sell.  A few might be interested, but I'd bet that most lapsed 1e/2e players wouldn't be interested because the game bears little resemblance to what they're familiar with.
> 
> ...



I'm going to have to disagree with you. One of my staunchest players has only ever played 1e D&D apart from 4e, which is what we play now. When i put the idea of playing to him he didn't give a flying hoot about what edition/system. In fact he was blissfully unaware that there even existed other systems/editions. Those are just different rules which all guide to the  same thing: the game, the fantasy, the fun. All he cared about was the chance to play D&D again.

I'm going to have to disagree with your reference to football and soccer fans as well. I'm a hard core rugby union fan living in spain, the country who are odds on favourites to win the world cup soccer this year in SAfrica. Rugby gets no exposure here. It's all football. So what does a rugby starved sportsfan do in Spain. Well, he starts watching soccer, because that's all there is. It's not rugby. Sure. But it's sport. And it's better than nothing. And it's much much better than curling!


----------



## Subtlepanic (Jun 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Nice typo.
> 
> The thing is boardgame audiences DWARF RPG audiences. By an order of magnitude. The first run of Trivial Pursuit sold in the tens of MILLIONS of copies. If you were to put all the D&D sales in a bag, for all D&D products ever, you might equal the sales of that one game.
> 
> And you want to compare it to things that are even smaller run? Like the Fighting Fantasy books (sales in the tens of thousands)?




I'm afraid you're way off there: try 15+ million.


----------



## bagger245 (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> [article]
> "The new version (Fourth Edition Rules) is about teamwork," explained Augie, who said he has been playing D&D since 1979. "I can whip up an Encounter in no time and players can be playing in about five minutes. In some ways, it plays out like a board game." [end quote]
> 
> Spokesmen like this aren't helping.




Oh come on. If I were to tell a mainstream audience on what rpgs are, I would use the boardgame reference. Telling them straight up on roleplaying a character and they will think magical tea party. The one thing good about 4e is that it is the best edition to attract the mainstream crowd. The spokesman did fine in describing D&D. At least it doesn't come off as "an immersive game of make believe where players can lead to being delusional" ala the satanic issue back in the 80s. 

My mum is a staunch Christian, telling her D&D is just a normal boardgame helps sooth her.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2010)

Subtlepanic said:


> I'm afraid you're way off there: try 15+ million.




Well, wiki would like to have a word with you:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In North America, the game's popularity peaked in 1984, a year in which over 20 million games were sold. The rights to the game were licensed to Parker Brothers (now part of Hasbro) in 1988, after initially being turned down by the Virgin Group; in 2008, Hasbro bought out the rights in full, for US$80 million.[3]  As of 2004[update], nearly 88 million games had been sold in 26 countries and 17 languages. Northern Plastics of Elroy, Wisconsin produced 30,000,000 games between 1983 and 1985. An online version of Trivial Pursuit was launched in September, 2003.[4]




I think the numbers I stated were tens of millions for the first run.  Well, 20 is two tens.    Ok, overstated, but, still more than your 15 million.  And, in any case, it STILL dwarfs D&D, which was my point.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jun 9, 2010)

The theory that I was responding to was that 20 year lapsed players are going to coming back to 4e.  I don't see it happening.  I think there may be a handful that pick up 4e, but the vast, vast majority of 20 year lapsed players are gone for good.



N0Man said:


> The problem is that your opinion here is just that.  Just because it's not your preference, and not what you think D&D is like, doesn't mean that it's a universal truth.




Not a matter a preference.  Not trying to start an edition war.  I actually think 4e is a pretty good game.  However, it's quite different from 1e/2e.  I think that 3e forms a bit of a "bridge".  3e has a lot of similarities to 1e/2e.  4e has a lot of similarities to 3e.  If you remove 3e from the equation, however, it's a very big jump from 1e/2e to 4e.  To a 20 year lapsed player, 4e won't have a lot in common with the D&D he remembers.



N0Man said:


> Anyway, I have severe doubts about the success of bringing out a D&D game that resembled old school D&D.  I think it would appeal to a niche market, and turn off far more.




I think an inexpensive, Walmart-available boxed set similar to the old B/X edition, with a few minor tweaks, like ascending AC, has the potential to bring in a whole new generation of young players.  It might turn off the hardcore crowd, but WotC already has 4e to cater to the hardcore crowd.



N0Man said:


> In fact, I think stagnation (or regression) is the best way to kill off the franchise.  Gaming ideas, designs, and tastes have changed a lot in the last 20 years.




I'm not here to start an edition war.  4e is a good game.  I think, though, that WotC has taken D&D down a path were it now caters to a  niche crowd.  Over the last 10 years, the WotC business plan seems to have been to focus on the hardcore D&D players that will buy lots of rulebooks and minis and steer the design of the game towards them. 

There's a reason WotC is desperate to go after lapsed players.  Their player base is the smallest it's ever been and it's probably still shrinking.

The old B/X and BECMI editions brought a large number of new players into the hobby.  I know WotC is trying to do the same thing with Essentials, but I think in that case, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to release a simple version of the game that still contains all the complexity of 4e.  That's a tall order and I'm interested to see what they come up with.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jun 9, 2010)

jbear said:


> And it's much much better than curling!




Them's fightin' words, partner.


And now we've moved beyond the childish D&D edition wars, and inot something more serious - Sport wars.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 9, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> Oh come on. If I were to tell a mainstream audience on what rpgs are, I would use the boardgame reference. Telling them straight up on roleplaying a character and they will think magical tea party. The one thing good about 4e is that it is the best edition to attract the mainstream crowd. The spokesman did fine in describing D&D. At least it doesn't come off as "an immersive game of make believe where players can lead to being delusional" ala the satanic issue back in the 80s.
> 
> My mum is a staunch Christian, telling her D&D is just a normal boardgame helps sooth her.




Well then either the game is NOT the same and the ad copy is full of crap or the game IS the same and the spin is full of crap.

Which is it?


----------



## BronzeDragon (Jun 9, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Dude, I've seen D&D edition wars erupt in places utterly disconnected with D&D, RPGs, or any various fandom online or otherwise (truly bizarre places...). It has popped up where I work, it has popped up on trips to other states both for business and for pleasure. It's not just something small and isolated to fans on internet forums, it's a yawning fracture in the community.




Precisely.

The very fact that edition wars are still going this strong after a couple of years gives the lie to the idea that this is "just another round of the same that happened after 3E was released".


----------



## Mark (Jun 9, 2010)

The Internet wasn't as frequented a medium as it is now so I would be slow to make comparisons between edition wars of 2E to 3E vs 3E to 4E.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Jun 9, 2010)

Mark said:


> The Internet wasn't as frequented a medium as it is now so I would be slow to make comparisons between edition wars of 2E to 3E vs 3E to 4E.




I think Shemeska was pretty clear in pointing out it is *not* just about the internet. And that was my angle too.

Sure, you might argue that if we had the volume of comments in 2000 that we have in 2010 we might have seen more of a continuity in edition warring. What I tried to point out was the rapid diminishing returns on edition warring in say, 2003, compared to what happens now.

There's a better argument against my case which is the possibility that people might have just gotten older and tired of trying to fan the flames of 3Ev2E, while the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed crowd of today proceeds full steam ahead with 4Ev3.X/PF.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 9, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> The old B/X and BECMI editions brought a large number of new players into the hobby.  I know WotC is trying to do the same thing with Essentials, but I think in that case, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to release a simple version of the game that still contains all the complexity of 4e.  That's a tall order and I'm interested to see what they come up with.




Well, to be fair to WotC, having their cake and eating it are both vitally important to making a success of D&D. Hardcore fans provide the revenue stream that keeps the company afloat; casual players just don't spend enough. But without a way to draw in new blood (and new blood almost always starts out as casual players), the fanbase will slowly erode away.

So WotC needs to find ways of feeding the hardcore fanbase's appetite for new shiny, while also appealing to the casual player's desire for something simple and comprehensible. It is, as you say, a tall order.


----------



## mudbunny (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Well then either the game is NOT the same and the ad copy is full of crap or the game IS the same and the spin is full of crap.
> 
> Which is it?




That all depends on what pair of glasses you are looking at the game through, and what biases you are bringing to the looking.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 9, 2010)

BronzeDragon said:


> I think Shemeska was pretty clear in pointing out it is *not* just about the internet. And that was my angle too.




Yeah but aside from being a place to vent one's rage and frustration, the internet also allows people to see more easily that others are raging and venting, which in turn fuels their own rage and frustration. (YEAH WHUT HE SAID!) Which then boils out to your non internet activity as well.

Whereas before, even though you might have been frustrated, and angered by the change, it wasn't as easy to see that some other guy miles away in Topeka Kansas was ALSO raging along... So you vented a bit, then moved on to something actually fun. 

And without the voice of the internets you might not have even known to really bring it up as a thing to be really upset about.

"Man this new edition sucks..."

"Yeah... oh well."

but now...

"Man this new edition sucks!"

"Yeah- did you see that new website IHATENEWEDITIONSCUZTHEYSUXORS.Com???? It's a place where people like us gather and tell eachother how much it sucks."

"Wow other people in the world finds stuff sucky that I also think sucks??? Stuff must really suck!"

"Heck yeah! Lets go online and talk about how much stuff sucks!"

"Suck buddies forever!" *



* Line stollen from Penny Arcade.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 9, 2010)

Scribble said:


> "Man this new edition sucks!"
> 
> "Yeah- did you see that new website IHATENEWEDITIONSCUZTHEYSUXORS.Com???? It's a place where people like us gather and tell eachother how much it sucks."
> 
> ...




Hahaha.

I gotta spread some around.


----------



## mudbunny (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Hahaha.
> 
> I gotta spread some around.




As must I.


----------



## Mark (Jun 9, 2010)

BronzeDragon said:


> I think Shemeska was pretty clear in pointing out it is *not* just about the internet. And that was my angle too.







Scribble said:


> Yeah but aside from being a place to vent one's rage and frustration, the internet also allows people to see more easily that others are raging and venting, which in turn fuels their own rage and frustration. (YEAH WHUT HE SAID!) Which then boils out to your non internet activity as well.
> 
> Whereas before, even though you might have been frustrated, and angered by the change, it wasn't as easy to see that some other guy miles away in Topeka Kansas was ALSO raging along... So you vented a bit, then moved on to something actually fun.
> 
> And without the voice of the internets you might not have even known to really bring it up as a thing to be really upset about.





Yup.  That's part of my point.  To elaborate, as a gamer since the early seventies, I can say that although I got around to a number of gamestores and conventions even back then, and played in multiple groups and in game clubs, I would guess that over the span og twenty-five years or so I didn't interact with even a few percent of the people with whom I interact in a month or so in this day and age.  That number began going up with Usenet and the advent of the Internet and has taken off incredibly (and continues to do so).  Sometimes I will speak with Young Adults or burgeoning adults (early twenties down to teens) and I get the impression that there is little understanding of the kind of relative isolation that existed not more than twenty or just a dozen years ago.  It's amazing to think that even one hundred and fifty years ago the first US transcontinental telegraph system was still a year away from being officially established and the Pony Express was still the order of the day.  Can you imagine running a Play-by-Pony-Express game or rallying an edition war fervor via telegraph?  Anyway, . . .




BronzeDragon said:


> Sure, you might argue that if we had the volume of comments in 2000 that we have in 2010 we might have seen more of a continuity in edition warring. What I tried to point out was the rapid diminishing returns on edition warring in say, 2003, compared to what happens now.





That might have as much to do with the ability to find like-minded persons and easily establish your own communities rather than having a limited number of established gathering points and folks jockeying for control of those as opposed to striking out on their own.  Probably a bit of both and even more.




BronzeDragon said:


> There's a better argument against my case which is the possibility that people might have just gotten older and tired of trying to fan the flames of 3Ev2E, while the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed crowd of today proceeds full steam ahead with 4Ev3.X/PF.





It's a different argument but I don't agree that it is better.  Do you have any reason to believe that there was a smaller percentage (note this choice of words) of younger players ten years ago than now?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 9, 2010)

Mark said:


> Can you imagine running a Play-by-Pony-Express game or rallying an edition war fervor via telegraph?  Anyway, . . .




Heh- or being a Pony Express rider risking life and limb to be sure the ontime delivery of... the results of your perception check.


"Attention Mr Martin Merryweather of Merryweather Incorporated. Stop.  
Your game suxors. Stop.
Old Game forever! Stop.
Love, Angry Fan11!1!!Leet!  Stop."


----------



## nedjer (Jun 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Nice typo.
> 
> The thing is boardgame audiences DWARF RPG audiences.  By an order of magnitude.  The first run of Trivial Pursuit sold in the tens of MILLIONS of copies.  If you were to put all the D&D sales in a bag, for all D&D products ever, you might equal the sales of that one game.
> 
> ...




Hope you checked there weren't any tacks on the floor first.

Of course I'm being serious.   Give me five minutes and I'll go find out why . . . ?


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 9, 2010)

Cool. If it attracts people to the hobby, it sure will make them sooner or later wish for varying gaming experiences. I'm not into 4e, but I'm likely to see a benefit from the game's exposure so... it's win-win, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 9, 2010)

deleted


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 9, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> That all depends on what pair of glasses you are looking at the game through, and what biases you are bringing to the looking.




It is actually pretty cut and dried.

"The game remains the same" = fantasy roleplaying game.

" Its like a board game" = not a fantasy roleplaying game. 

Making no judgement calls on the relative merits of these two types of games what kind of glasses would one need to make that a matter of bias?


----------



## nedjer (Jun 9, 2010)

OK . . . tabletop RPGs are more sophisticated than boardgames because . . .

A boardgame establishes a set of limiting rules, restrictions and boundaries to define a largely procedural gameplay.

A tabletop RPG proposes a set of guidelines, which are interpreted and revised in- and out-game, to lessen restrictions and boundaries that might limit players' imaginations. An emergent gameplay.

The trend towards tabletop RPGs that favour crunch and very lengthy rule sets is an attempt to proceduralise tabletops by making them more hexy, more combative and crunchy. However, this can never quite succeed, because it's the antithesis of what defines and distinguishes tabletop RPGs.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Making no judgement calls on the relative merits of these two types of games what kind of glasses would one need to make that a matter of bias?




The kind which automatically assumes : " Its like a board game" = not a fantasy roleplaying game.

There are many ways in which the two are similar (and always have been.) 

You seem to always want to boil things down into an is or is not sort of thing, when sometimes it's both.


Especially for someone who has absolutely NO idea what an RPG is at all. Starting with "It's kind of like a boardgame" at least gets them to break away from the preconception that it's all about sitting around in cloaks casting fake spells on each other as we worship the devil (in our mom's basement.)


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jun 9, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Well, to be fair to WotC, having their cake and eating it are both vitally important to making a success of D&D. Hardcore fans provide the revenue stream that keeps the company afloat; casual players just don't spend enough. But without a way to draw in new blood (and new blood almost always starts out as casual players), the fanbase will slowly erode away.
> 
> So WotC needs to find ways of feeding the hardcore fanbase's appetite for new shiny, while also appealing to the casual player's desire for something simple and comprehensible. It is, as you say, a tall order.




I agree that having their cake and eating it too is vitally important to the success of the current D&D RPG.  However, even if the current RPG was discontinued, D&D as a brand would still exist in other forms like books, board games, video games, and possibly a new version of the RPG at some point.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 9, 2010)

This arguing against a board game analogy is all pretty silly.  The 1E PHB opening discussion of roleplaying uses a chess comparison.  The 2E PHB opening goes into a long discussion starting with Snake & Ladders and building on it.

And then you have the likes of the D&D Basic/Challenger 5th edition boxed set, with the Dragon Den, Haunted Tower and Goblin Lair add-ons.  I dare you not to make a board game comparison with those RPG products.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 9, 2010)

nedjer said:


> A tabletop RPG proposes a set of guidelines, which are interpreted and revised in- and out-game, to lessen restrictions and boundaries that might limit players' imaginations. An emergent gameplay.



Definitions like this are precisely why it's a good idea to start off by saying "D&D is kinda like a boardgame". 



> However, this can never quite succeed, because it's the antithesis of what defines and distinguishes tabletop RPGs.



I don't know... my current campaign features rich characterization, several different kinds of satire, usually occurring simultaneously, a healthy dollop of Grand Guignol, and plenty of unadulterated 'smart guys having a lark' and it _still_ resembles a board game frequently enough to warrant the comparison.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 9, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Definitions like this are precisely why it's a good idea to start off by saying "D&D is kinda like a boardgame".
> 
> 
> I don't know... my current campaign features rich characterization, several different kinds of satire, usually occurring simultaneously, a healthy dollop of Grand Guignol, and plenty of unadulterated 'smart guys having a lark' and it _still_ resembles a board game frequently enough to warrant the comparison.




It may look like a boardgame, it may use a complex rule set as a springboard; but the very diversity of the gameplay you describe sounds like it's players' and your own imaginations that are running, and adapting, the show.

The rules and the boardgame qualities, perhaps, no longer a 'painting by numbers' set, but rather a canvas upon which you apply your own collective palette?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 10, 2010)

I guess D&D is kind of like a board game.

Hmm.  The game uses dice too so it's a dice game too.

Ya know, 4E uses a lot of power and item cards, so lets call it a card game. 

Gonna have to go with Dennis Leary on this one. D&D is like , its an rpg, a dice game, a board game, a card game, its , its everything!


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 10, 2010)

Sigh..I miss the days when publicity came free from the religulous' wackos.

jh


----------



## BronzeDragon (Jun 10, 2010)

Mark said:


> It's a different argument but I don't agree that it is better.  Do you have any reason to believe that there was a smaller percentage (note this choice of words) of younger players ten years ago than now?




Yes, I think I do.

Ten years ago people had been abandoning the game left and right (because of several reasons related both to 2E as a system and TSR's boneheaded moves), and the game wasn't attracting new players with any kind of force (at least not in my corner of the woods), which leads me to believe the fan base was actually a bit older than it is today. Perhaps not by much, but still.

My argument, or rather the counter-argument to my points, would be that these guys that were, I don't know, huge fans of 2E, eventually got tired of trying to fan the flames, since the results were clearly less than promising (i.e. very few people were actually buying the whole "3E sucks" argument).

What seems to be happening right now is that there is no such situation as diminishing returns on a flame war about the editions. The more fuel you use, the more the fires are stoked and the higher the flames fly, so it apparently is, right now, a much bigger split in the fan base than it was 10 years ago.

I remember loads of people that were at the very least concerned about the state of the game after the release of 3E, but these people either were eventually won over or got tired from the flame wars. The situation appears more serious now.

But, then again, this is mostly based on opinion, hearsay and anecdotal evidence, so YMMV...


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I guess D&D is kind of like a board game.
> 
> Hmm.  The game uses dice too so it's a dice game too.
> 
> ...



Well... it kinda is like everything. It can include elements of everything. But you can fold dice and cards into boardgames, because many (dare I say a majority?) boardgames use dice and cards anyway. 

Tabletop RPGs are their own category. That said, many people aren't familiar with that category, and so "boardgame" is a stand-in, to help describe the game. And to be fair, it's not a terrible stand-in either, as long as you qualify that this game isn't about the board -- the board is optional, and always different.



Emirikol said:


> Sigh..I miss the days when publicity came free from the religulous' wackos.



Really? Did you have a flameproof suit? Can you imagine what horror it would have been had there been internet message boards like this back then?


----------



## BronzeDragon (Jun 10, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> I realized I now have absolutely no reason to visit the WotC website.  It used to be part of my daily routine.  But, I deleted WotC from my favorites/shortcuts because I just don't have a reason to go there anymore.




Ebay makes a quite good substitute for it.

I know I've been using it a lot...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 10, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2010)

Mallus said:


> my current campaign features rich characterization, several different kinds of satire, usually occurring simultaneously, a healthy dollop of Grand Guignol, and plenty of unadulterated 'smart guys having a lark'



Mallus, your posts always leave me very curious about your game! The reality of mine feels very vanilla compared to the description of yours!


----------



## Subtlepanic (Jun 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think the numbers I stated were tens of millions for the first run. Well, 20 is two tens.  Ok, overstated, but, still more than your 15 million. And, in any case, it STILL dwarfs D&D, which was my point.




Oh, I wasn't disputing your point about board game sales; I'm disputing your point about Fighting Fantasy sales. 

Fighting Fantasy gamebooks sold many, many more copies than the tens of thousands you're suggesting: at last count, just over 15 million copies worldwide.

Gamebooks served as a great introduction to D&D and other RPGs for thousands upon thousands of gamers, so I don't think they're a bad comparison. 

Anyway, to add my twopence to the topic, the comparison to board games shouldn't hurt anybody if it gets people playing. For the past three decades I've used "It's like a board game without the board" to get new players into the game, which usually gets some interest.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 10, 2010)

BronzeDragon said:


> But, then again, this is mostly based on opinion, hearsay and anecdotal evidence, so YMMV...




In my circle of gamers, and the connecting circles, I see and hear a lot less gripe over D&D4 than I did over D&D3.

And as far as I remember, there were quite a lot of people hammering on the suckyness of 3e for as long as there were any legs in that edition. Now they've probably moved on to 4e.

There are D&D sites that instituted a topic ban on 3e, and mentioning it by name is a moddable offense. 

There are a lot of fractures in the hobby. Some people like OD&D and hate everything else, some people love AD&D but hates AD&D + Unearthed Arcana, and so on so forth.

So from where I sit, comfortable in my armchair, the edition wars are nothing new, nor are they any more or less intense than before.

And as always, IMO, YMMV and all that.

/M


----------



## MoxieFu (Jun 10, 2010)

Emirikol said:


> Sigh..I miss the days when publicity came free from the religulous' wackos.
> 
> jh




I understand what you are saying, but I am afraid that the stigma the game has today is due to all that negative noise those people generated back in the 80's. It was great for fanning the flames and getting attention back then, but the long term effects have created the situation we have today. 

Many people today STILL think that there's a demonic connection in the game. People have a tendency to not let facts get in the way of what they want to believe.

I think the article was good publicity for all the "Normals" out there. I also think its a great idea for WotC to finally release a REAL Basic boxed set where you can actually roll up characters. 

Even though I am not a customer of WotC any more I am glad to see them taking steps in the right direction instead of shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2010)

Maggan said:


> In my circle of gamers, and the connecting circles, I see and hear a lot less gripe over D&D4 than I did over D&D3.
> 
> And as far as I remember, there were quite a lot of people hammering on the suckyness of 3e for as long as there were any legs in that edition. Now they've probably moved on to 4e.
> 
> There are D&D sites that instituted a topic ban on 3e, and mentioning it by name is a moddable offense.





Interesting.  Aside from Dragonsfoot which has no 3e or 4e forums (though it does support some OGL games like C&C), what D&D sites are you describing?  Do you have some links?  As someone who plays all editions and does visit a lot of D&D sites, I'm surprised to not have heard of this modding practice you describe.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Well then either the game is NOT the same and the ad copy is full of crap or the game IS the same and the spin is full of crap.
> 
> Which is it?




Neither?

No one has claimed D&D is "the same" as a board game. They've said that "in some ways, it plays out _like_ a board game." 

Seriously, each game consists of hundreds of disparate qualities that make up the whole of it. Is it really that hard to believe that the two types of games can share a handful of qualities without being identical on every level?

D&D is like a board game in that both involve sitting around a table, while people take turns and follow a series of detailed rules. That's the connection that is being drawn, and it is a solid one that the average person can easily understand.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jun 10, 2010)

MoxieFu said:


> Many people today STILL think that there's a demonic connection in the game. People have a tendency to not let facts get in the way of what they want to believe.



Regarding D&D, IMO it's more a case of "Did not do their research". AKA ignoring the "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" part, straight out of the manual.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled edition war.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 10, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Other than the D&D brand name and a few superficial similarities, 4e is nothing like the D&D of 20 years ago. It's a totally different game that just happens to have the same name.
> 
> ...
> 
> My best guess is this "lapsed player" effort is probably aimed at getting lapsed 3e players to give 4e another look. The 1e/2e crowd is probably out of reach.





Yet here I am, buying rule books for the first time since 2E and having a blast. It's the gaming experience that matters, not the rules set.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 10, 2010)

Mark said:


> Interesting.  Aside from Dragonsfoot which has no 3e or 4e forums (though it does support some OGL games like C&C), what D&D sites are you describing?  Do you have some links?  As someone who plays all editions and does visit a lot of D&D sites, I'm surprised to not have heard of this modding practice you describe.




I was thinking primarily of Dragonsfoot, but I also lumped in Knights and Knaves with them, which might be a capital offense to some.

I'll revise my statement, to appease your thirst for accuracy ... thus ...



> A D&D site called Dragonsfoot instituted a topic ban on 3e, and mentioning it by name is a moddable offense. Also, Knights and Knaves has a topic ban on any d20 game, which would include D&D3e.
> 
> Dragonsfoot • View topic - A D20 policy clarification
> 
> KNIGHTS & KNAVES ALEHOUSE • View topic - Welcome & Rules - READ THIS FIRST (Updated Feb 18, 2007)




Anything else I can help you with?

EDIT: Note that I don't challenge their policies. They have every right in the world to decide how their forums run, and the rules serve their members, which is the most important thing.

/M


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jun 10, 2010)

Well, this is better than having most of the information about upcoming products locked away behind a paid subscription plan!

Seriously, since WotC started Insider, I've heard very little about upcoming product releases, almost to the point that I forgot they were coming out.

I'm excited about the board game, actually. 4e's board-game compatible style isn't a complete negative to me.


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2010)

Maggan said:


> I was thinking primarily of Dragonsfoot, but I also lumped in Knights and Knaves with them, which might be a capital offense to some.
> 
> I'll revise my statement, to appease your thirst for accuracy ... thus ...





Not my thirst for accuracy, just an interest in such a claim and wondering if you were posting from actual knowledge or just bolstering your point.  Looks like the K&K policy isn't particularly a "topic ban on 3E" as you claim but rather a call to limit discussion to a handful of games and avoid the vast field of others inculding any d20 or more recent games from any company at all (WotC, WW, GW, etc.).  I'm rereading your first post and wondering why you chose this line to take a swipe in defense of 4e and against 3e when clearly 4e would be no more welcome at those sites than 3e.  Clearly, the people at those sites have not "moved on to 4E" as you mention.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 10, 2010)

Mark said:


> Clearly, the people at those sites have not "moved on to 4E" as you mention.




I think he means their griping has moved on. IE now instead of griping about 3e they gripe about 4e.

GRIPES!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Neither?
> 
> No one has claimed D&D is "the same" as a board game. They've said that "in some ways, it plays out _like_ a board game."




"The game remains the same" was not in reference to board games. It was a selling point of 4E camparing it to earlier editions. My point was that either that is a crock of crap (in which case D&D does not play like a boardgame) or the current D&D game does indeed play like a board game,in which case "the game remains the same" was untrue.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> "The game remains the same" was not in reference to board games. It was a selling point of 4E camparing it to earlier editions. My point was that either that is a crock of crap (in which case D&D does not play like a boardgame) or the current D&D game does indeed play like a board game,in which case "the game remains the same" was untrue.




Or the either or doesn't apply, as many have found that the game has ALWAYS played out like a board game in many ways (at least when explaining it to non D&D folk.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 10, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## Scribble (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> For some this is probably true. As presented by the game itself, not so much.




Ok.

I think this conversation has reached it's "we're just going to go in circles here" point.

Believe whatever you want man.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> For some this is probably true. As presented by the game itself, not so much.




So when people first played D&D, you honestly don't believe that they sat around a table, and took turns playing the game according to a collection of rules? 

Because guess what - _that is playing like a board game_. It was true then, it remains true now. Is D&D like a board game in every possible way? Of course not. But there are similarities, and specifically ones that are easy to explain to an outside audience.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> So when people first played D&D, you honestly don't believe that they sat around a table, and took turns playing the game according to a collection of rules?
> 
> Because guess what - _that is playing like a board game_. It was true then, it remains true now. Is D&D like a board game in every possible way? Of course not. But there are similarities, and specifically ones that are easy to explain to an outside audience.




Components are common to many types of game: table/ pitch or figure/ token. The distinction between a boardgame and a tabletop RPG is surely qualitative and more to do with how brains interact than pieces of card or the number of sides on the dice?


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> "The game remains the same" was not in reference to board games. It was a selling point of 4E camparing it to earlier editions. My point was that either that is a crock of crap (in which case D&D does not play like a boardgame) or the current D&D game does indeed play like a board game,in which case "the game remains the same" was untrue.



Holy moley, man -- you don't quit, do you?

D&D is *similar* to a board game in many ways. It is also *different* from a prototypical boardgame in many ways. Moreover, D&D isn't now meaningfully more or less like a boardgame than it has always been (despite the protestations of some edition warriors).

The boardgame comparison is for the benefit of people unfamiliar with tabletop RPGs. For those of us familiar with tabletop RPGs, including everyone here, we can (more accurately) admit that the differences between D&D and boardgames outweigh the similarities.

D&D has remained the same -- it is not a boardgame. However, saying that it's _like a boardgame_ isn't "a crock", because that's also true. "Boardgame" is a fairly arbitrary category, and D&D definitely falls along its fuzzy, grey border.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 10, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Holy moley, man -- you don't quit, do you?



"The only way to win is not to play" - W.O.P.R. 

That said, maybe I'll fork this thread so we can talk about comparing D&D to other things...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 10, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Holy moley, man -- you don't quit, do you?
> 
> D&D is *similar* to a board game in many ways. It is also *different* from a prototypical boardgame in many ways. Moreover, D&D isn't now meaningfully more or less like a boardgame than it has always been (despite the protestations of some edition warriors).
> 
> ...




I could argue that D&D is more of a dice game than a board game. I would be willing to bet that there are more play groups that play without minis and a map than play without dice. The strange multi-sided polyhedrals connect D&D through the ages as much if not more so than a map or minis. 
Some people play with a board, others don't but they all use dice. So D&D isn't a dice game but it is _like _a dice game. D&D fits along the fuzzy grey border of dice games too. 

This would be just as useless as board game to describe what D&D is about.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This would be just as useless as board game to describe what D&D is about.




So don't use the analogy when describing the game to non gamers you know. 

But some random person's choice to do so has no relevance whatsoever, on whether or not the game has remained "ze same."

Unless you're trying reallllly hard to argue that the game is no longer "ze same."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Unless you're trying reallllly hard to argue that the game is no longer "ze same."




Not my arguement at all. The statement is simply at odds with the boardgame comparison.

I'm using 4E to run my campaign and in style it is "ze same" as my 1E campaigns. 

Which is to say, nothing like a boardgame.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 10, 2010)

Mark said:


> I'm rereading your first post and wondering why you chose this line to take a swipe in defense of 4e and against 3e when clearly 4e would be no more welcome at those sites than 3e.  Clearly, the people at those sites have not "moved on to 4E" as you mention.




Hmmm, I'm not sure I follow you. "Swipe in defense of 4e and against 3e"?

I'm not ... or at least I labour under the belief that I am not ... defending 4e and swiping against 3e.

I've read some comments here and on RPGnet (sorry, no links, I don't have the time to search for individual posts to back it up) that claim that the rage versus 4e is unprecedented and has reached almost epic proportions (n.b. this is an exaggeration for effect, no epic proportions actually observed). I have made other observations in my own circle of gamers, and I believe that it is actually a fairly non-controversial comment to say that edition warring is nothing new, not related mainly to 4e versus everything else and that there have been fierce edition wars even between earlier editions than 3e and 4e.

Also, I would think it to be a logical conclusion that many of those who railed at 3e as not being true 4e, are now railing against 4e for the same reason. Not much fun hammering a game that isn't published any more.

But I'm not claiming omniscience, and I only have my own observation and my own bias to base my opinions on, and they are no more valid than those who have observed the opposite of what I describe.

Cheers!

/M


----------



## Scribble (Jun 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not my arguement at all. The statement is simply at odds with the boardgame comparison.
> 
> I'm using 4E to run my campaign and in style it is "ze same" as my 1E campaigns.
> 
> Which is to say, nothing like a boardgame.




You know that part in like every Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown goes Arrrrg!!!!?

Congrats.. you have now made me like Charlie Brown. In some ways. 

Wait no... cause then that would invalidate my status as a human being, since Charlie Brown is a cartoon and therefore nothing like a human, even though some people would be under the opinion that cartoon humans are like humans in many ways so maybe wait.... man I'm so confused right now.

Go Local Sports Team!


----------



## Herschel (Jun 10, 2010)

Isn't that kind of confusing because most of your local sports teams claim to be from other states?  (Giants, Jets)


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 10, 2010)

*ExploderWizard -- time to give it a rest.*


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think he means their griping has moved on. IE now instead of griping about 3e they gripe about 4e.





I should have asked him to clarify that too.  I don't recall Maggan posting so cryptically in the past.  Seems to be all over the place.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 10, 2010)

Mark said:


> I don't recall Maggan posting so cryptically in the past.  Seems to be all over the place.




Heh, well I was wrapping up an offer to a client and then heading out for dinner, so I rushed it a bit. 

And yeah, sometimes I am all over the place. 

/M


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Heh, well I was wrapping up an offer to a client and then heading out for dinner, so I rushed it a bit.
> 
> And yeah, sometimes I am all over the place.
> 
> /M





I could learn to read more closely, too.  Good luck with that client.  That is the important thing, after all, after the dinner.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 11, 2010)

Sometimes I explain rpgs as being similar to choose your own adventure books.


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 11, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Sometimes I explain rpgs as being similar to choose your own adventure books.



Pretty accurate, if you're talking to somebody who's old enough to remember those. Do they still make them? I haven't seen any in quite a while...

I've mostly introduced teenagers to D&D, and I sold them on it by saying it was similar to a video game, but played on a board. (Heresy! But I knew the people I was talking to; describing it as "storytelling" wouldn't have made them interested in playing.) FWIW, this was back in 3E days.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 11, 2010)

I usually describe it as a combination of impromptu acting, group storytelling, and dice.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 11, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> I usually describe it as a combination of impromptu acting, group storytelling, and dice.




 "all the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players,"


----------



## Scribble (Jun 11, 2010)

nedjer said:


> "all the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players,"




With dice.


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 12, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> I usually describe it as a combination of impromptu acting, group storytelling, and dice.



While I can appreciate the accuracy that statement might convey for some groups, from my own experience bringing people to D&D, I can categorically say that this description of D&D will turn away more potential "new blood" than it will attract. (I'll admit that this description was more effective on potential female players than on males, for whatever reason; we need more women in this hobby, anyway.)

IME, most new players are enticed by the chance to wield fictional power; there's a thrill to be had in decapitating a dragon with a sword, or melting an army of goblins with a spell. More specifically, it's exciting to visibly reap the rewards of your decisions, including decisions about what spells to cast and what tactics to use. Thus, the simplest comparison for D&D to make is to CRPGs, such as Final Fantasy or WoW, because these games use similar mechanics to D&D (derivative of D&D, though these CRPGs may be). Selling D&D to new teen gamers works best on this basis, because CRPGs are something these young gamers are mostly already familiar with and interested in.

That's the most effective strategy I've found for recruiting new players, and I'm certain WotC has figured this out too. After all, how many people here started with CRPGs? I bet a lot did. Myself, I met D&D through Baldur's Gate in 1999.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 12, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Pretty accurate, if you're talking to somebody who's old enough to remember those. Do they still make them? I haven't seen any in quite a while...




Yep, they just recently released the originals, you can order them here.  I was lucky enough to pick some up in my local Books-A-Million.

Now if they'd just reprint the old D&D ones...


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 12, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> While I can appreciate the accuracy that statement might convey for some groups, from my own experience bringing people to D&D, I can categorically say that this description of D&D will turn away more potential "new blood" than it will attract. (I'll admit that this description was more effective on potential female players than on males, for whatever reason; we need more women in this hobby, anyway.)




Maybe that explains why almost half of my gaming friends are female.  But actually to be fair that was the description I usually give to relatives who suspect 80s era Satanism games or whatever. 

New players to any game I've run have always been people already with at least their toes wet in the hobby. I've never had a total and absolute newbie. Everyone had either played D&D before, or played WoD, or knew about D&D via other media. Before I played the game I knew about it via the old AD&D Endless Quest books from the 80s, the D&D cartoon, and later Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate 2.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 12, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Now if they'd just reprint the old D&D ones...




Ebay and lots of patience (and lots of 1 second left auction sniping).


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 12, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Pretty accurate, if you're talking to somebody who's old enough to remember those. Do they still make them? I haven't seen any in quite a while...
> 
> I've mostly introduced teenagers to D&D, and I sold them on it by saying it was similar to a video game, but played on a board. (Heresy! But I knew the people I was talking to; describing it as "storytelling" wouldn't have made them interested in playing.) FWIW, this was back in 3E days.





I will admit that is an obstacle sometimes; I don't think those things are made anymore. I wish they were though. They were usually a lot of fun.
Usually, if they don't know what CYOA Books are, I describe rpgs like playing a part in a movie except they get to choose what their character does instead of the movie being scripted.

Occasionally I make the connection between rpgs and video games by explaning that a lot of video games figure out how much damage things are supposed to do by using formulas which are based upon concepts found in pen & paper games. However, if I do so, I usually use this in conjunction with something else because I don't like describing rpgs as being so combat focused. Combat is usually a big part, but not the only part.



The hardest question for me to answer is when someone asks "well, how do you win?" Sometimes it can be hard to convey the idea that a rpg (usually) doesn't have winners and losers in the same sense that a video game or a board game does. 


One big thing I've noticed is that the attitude you display when talking about games tends to help or hurt the ability to attract new players. I in no way act ashamed of my hobbies nor do I act in such a way to express any sort of social stigma associated with rpgs, and I've had pretty darn good luck getting people into the hobby. You'd be surprised at the type of people I've played with. 

I think the most amusing experience I ever had was having a player refuse to play D&D because it was 'Satanic' or whatever it was that he believed, but then being perfectly fine with playing Rifts and GURPS. I tried to explain to him that D&D didn't actually encourage anything potrayed by Jack Chick, but he was dead set against it. Apparently, playing a cold-hearted bootlegging mobster in a GURPS game and gunning down police while breaking the law was perfectly fine, but orcs and d20s were blasphemy.




Shemeska said:


> Maybe that explains why almost half of my gaming friends are female.  But actually to be fair that was the description I usually give to relatives who suspect 80s era Satanism games or whatever.
> .




Same here...

While my regular group is mostly male.  I've played with a fair amount of female players.  

Actually, just yesterday I sat down with the new g/f and some of her friends for a game of Cthulu Dice.  While that's not an rpg, it's not the first time I've showcased some of the games I own to them.  They're pretty receptive to trying the games I have to offer and roleplaying.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 12, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Same here...
> 
> While my regular group is mostly male.  I've played with a fair amount of female players.
> 
> Actually, just yesterday I sat down with the new g/f and some of her friends for a game of Cthulu Dice.  While that's not an rpg, it's not the first time I've showcased some of the games I own to them.  They're pretty receptive to trying the games I have to offer and roleplaying.




Putting a blog post together on girls and tabletop RPGs this morning but it's turning into a two or three parter. I'll never get it out today, because it's amazing how much 'we' the tabletop RPG majority do (often unwittingly) to turn girls and women away from the hobby.

As I continue to research, (yeah we do that, not after making idle comment here), I'm beginning to suspect part of 'the problem', (and I see it as a problem), is that in some ways girls are generally better at roleplaying, (at a younger age), and we guys react by delivering a 'culture' not dissimilar from the golf and cricket clubs which, (even today), try to exclude women or offer them admission providing they accept a system of apartheid.


----------



## ourchair (Jun 12, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Trying to get someone to play 4e based on their love of 1e/2e is a tough sell.  A few might be interested, but I'd bet that most lapsed 1e/2e players wouldn't be interested because the game bears little resemblance to what they're familiar with.



You're assuming that ALL people who've played 1e/2e require that a return to role-playing must be a system that is identical to what they played 10-20 years ago.

Now, I'm not saying those people don't exist. There are certain people who, upon a cursory glance at 4e, won't give it a chance or at the very least, will be put off by their first play, simply because of the disconnect they perceive between 4e and 1e/2e, much like how older people refused to read Ultimate comics because of the mental disconnect between their memories of their Marvel mainstream "616" continuity counterparts.

Then there are those people who stopped playing and want to get back into the hobby on more accessible terms. These people don't have the inclination to pick nits over why 4e is so different from 1e/2e. It's not that they don't notice those differences. It's because it really doesn't matter to them and the notion of digging up OOP materials and enduring the cumbersome prep that they used to do when they were teenagers with copious amounts of free time really isn't very appealing when compared to the pick up and play aspect of 4e.[/QUOTE]



			
				WheresmyD20 said:
			
		

> My best guess is this "lapsed player" effort is probably aimed at getting lapsed 3e players to give 4e another look.  The 1e/2e crowd is probably out of reach.



I like how this remark insinuates that there is a complete socio-psychological difference between 1e/2e players and 3e players.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> "Suck buddies forever!" *
> 
> * Line stollen from Penny Arcade.



I'm pretty sure that was from PVP Online.

My encyclopedic knowledge of PA knows it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 12, 2010)

nedjer said:


> As I continue to research, (yeah we do that, not after making idle comment here), I'm beginning to suspect part of 'the problem', (and I see it as a problem), is that in some ways girls are generally better at roleplaying, (at a younger age), and we guys react by delivering a 'culture' not dissimilar from the golf and cricket clubs which, (even today), try to exclude women or offer them admission providing they accept a system of apartheid.




I don't know if I'm buying all you're selling, but I agree that the RPG hobby is often a "boy's club" and sometimes, some of us boys get all territorial when the girls try to invade our space.

While I personally prefer to game with friends, regardless of gender or orientation, I've noticed that several of my past games (not all) took on the atmosphere of "Poker Night" or "Guy's Night Out".  All male groups taking the chance to get away from the wife/gf and kids for an evening and revel in geeky guyness (lots of off-color humor, and waaaaay to much flatulence).  It was interesting to observe our behavior when we thought we were alone, and how it changed when the hostess walked in to ask her hubby a question.  If one of our female friends had asked to join in the game, we would have happily invited her, but it would have changed the dynamic entirely and I don't doubt there would be some unvoiced resentment.

I know when I was a kid, the D&D games were a chance to escape from the cruel world we didn't fully fit into or understand, and that included girls!


----------



## nedjer (Jun 12, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> I don't know if I'm buying all you're selling, but I agree that the RPG hobby is often a "boy's club" and sometimes, some of us boys get all territorial when the girls try to invade our space.
> 
> While I personally prefer to game with friends, regardless of gender or orientation, I've noticed that several of my past games (not all) took on the atmosphere of "Poker Night" or "Guy's Night Out".  All male groups taking the chance to get away from the wife/gf and kids for an evening and revel in geeky guyness (lots of off-color humor, and waaaaay to much flatulence).  It was interesting to observe our behavior when we thought we were alone, and how it changed when the hostess walked in to ask her hubby a question.  If one of our female friends had asked to join in the game, we would have happily invited her, but it would have changed the dynamic entirely and I don't doubt there would be some unvoiced resentment.
> 
> I know when I was a kid, the D&D games were a chance to escape from the cruel world we didn't fully fit into or understand, and that included girls!




Still haven't signed off on the now multiple post. Players are entitled to play with who they like, but it looks very like those who might want more girls at the table, or more of the family to play, could make a big difference quite easily.

I may be biased here, as I've never conceptualised girls as distant or hard to understand. Closer the better suits me. So I'm not quite sure how a night of 'geeky goodness' stacks up alongside a night of subtle, perfumed, sultry gorgeousness.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jun 13, 2010)

ourchair said:


> You're assuming that ALL people who've played 1e/2e require that a return to role-playing must be a system that is identical to what they played 10-20 years ago.




Please read my quote more carefully.  I said "I'd bet that most lapsed 1e/2e players wouldn't be interested." (underline added)



ourchair said:


> I like how this remark insinuates that there is a complete socio-psychological difference between 1e/2e players and 3e players.




I'm not sure how you're making that leap when you jump to that conclusion.  I can assure you that any "socio-psychological" insinuations you're referring to are a product of your own imagination.

The point that I've been making is that there is a bigger jump from 1e/2e to 4e, both in rules and play style, than there is from 3e to 4e.

From my point of view, I don't think a lot of 1e/2e players will come back after 20 years.  Yes, there have been a couple of individuals who have posted that they did, but that is hardly evidence that 20-year lapsed 1e/2e players are coming back in large numbers.  Note that I never said that NO 1e/2e players would come back, I just said that I didn't think MANY would.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> (. . .) I don't think a lot of 1e/2e players will come back after 20 years.  Yes, there have been a couple of individuals who have posted that they did, but that is hardly evidence that 20-year lapsed 1e/2e players are coming back in large numbers.  Note that I never said that NO 1e/2e players would come back, I just said that I didn't think MANY would.





That's got little to do with editions and more to do with giving up this type of gaming entriely, I am sure, so lumping it all in with a discussion of the difference jumps from edition to edition is probably misleading and/or confusing.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 13, 2010)

Mark said:


> That's got little to do with editions and more to do with giving up this type of gaming entriely, I am sure, so lumping it all in with a discussion of the difference jumps from edition to edition is probably misleading and/or confusing.





There is also a not-so-small contingent of gamers who started with D&D, but have since moved to other systems.  For many people, D&D is their introduction to rpgs due to the popularity of the brand name.  Then, as time goes on, they try other similar games and possibly find a different game which suits their tastes better.  

It's like spending years drinking Pepsi and then one day deciding to try the local grocery store's cola only to find that you actually enjoy it more than the name brand.  Plenty of people will still continue to buy the name brand due to the strength of the brand.  However, there will be enough people who try the other brands to keep those brands and business and even possibly allow some of those smaller brands to become more well known.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 14, 2010)

As for the 20 year lapsed players not returning because it's a new edition, and they won't be comfortable with it...

20 years is a LONG time!

Around 20 years ago I spent 3 weeks in a little bed and breakfast in Germany. Apparently a whole bunch of people staying there played Parcheesi (I think that's how it's spelled) in the common area. They invited a bored little american boy to play the game, and even though I couldn't understand a word anyone was saying it was a ton of fun.

I haven't played Parcheesi since. I can't remember much about it, aside from it involving a board, some little peg things, and like landing on each other or something.

If someone invited me back to play an "updated" version I would probably have no clue which rules were new, which were old, and which were just rules a little american kid couldn't understand in the first place.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 15, 2010)

Scribble said:


> As for the 20 year lapsed players not returning because it's a new edition, and they won't be comfortable with it...
> 
> 20 years is a LONG time!
> 
> ...




Totally agree with this, of what I played 20 years ago, some AD&D I  only remember what it had in common with D&D and that not very well.  
TFT, remember the campaign, point buy character generation, d6 action  resolution could not tell you now if it was high or low was good.
Runequest, I kept breaking my axes and no memory of the mechanics.
Star Trek, lets see, my God but those ships are fragile and the  first officer mutinied. Mechanics, well we used dice...


----------

