Community

Jan 29, 2013 -- 11:18AM, Zombie_Babies wrote:

I think I need to hear more about why you think the way you do.  I understand your reluctance to elaborate but there's not a lot we can talk about without both of us knowing what it is we're talking about ... er, not that that's ever stopped me before. 

Ok this one time I'll explain why I feel its systemic not social. I have talked to just over 200 (edit) people at three different gaming stores over the last seven years, so this is hardly scientific evidence. These are just observations.

A little over one hundred people who play 3.X & 4E but either no longer player earlier editions or never played earlier editions. In the case of twenty five cases (some of these people I gamed with for years), the players in question started playing at AD&D 2nd Ed or earlier and were in there late twenties to forties. These player's in their own words all descibed themselves as having "adapted, changed strategies, etc" when converting to 3.X & 4E. These same players in addition to the other seventy eight (early teens to early thirties) all decry ealier editions and point out specific areas of the earlier edition rules that they claim are broken or ineffectual, while touting the greatess of later editions as they attempt to create the "most" powerful possible before the game starts.

Then I have talked to just under one hundred people (99) who play OD&D - AD&D 2nd Ed. all but six of these players have tried 3.X and/or 4E and all fifty four of them (late teens to late early fifties in on case) complained about different aspects of the later editions. Most common complaints were that there was "far too much emphisis on power and die rolls" and "its AD&D on steroids". There were six players who refused to advance higher than BECMI.

As for the last thirty nine, these people (early teens to late twenties) play on both sides of the fence, but often tend to complain about earlier edition play style, rules, various points that all seem to center around the lack of power whan compared to 3.X & 4E.

The reason I think its systemic not social is that there seems to be a healthy cross section of ages that play only  OD&D - AD&D 2nd Ed. and a healthy cross section of age who play only 3.X & 4E. Then there is the small group who on both sides of the divide. They seem to prefer later editions that focus on power.

The later editions  rules and menchanics are built around a mass power grab, with every supplement built contining mostly "crunch" and game mechanics designed to increase character power just that much more. 3.X was bad in that every splat book was built that way, but 4E went way over board by making every power increase core, and while it may not be manditory to use a specific rule, it gave the game the feel that every rule needed to be used. With a system built like this it is little wonder that later edition players focus on power over story. The game flow of later editions is built on mass power.

Earlier edition splat books tended to have more "fluff" and gave ideas for character development in terms of story and design rather than menchanics. The core books even stated that rules that bog down the game should be removed as to not interfere with the flow of the game. Earlier editions are built on story which is reflected in the players' mentality.

Even OD&D which was based almost solely on combat, focused heavily on story in the form of room descriptions. The was no mass power grab as the game was built on exploration and dungeon design.

These are the reasons for my conclusion.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 1:18PM, Zombie_Babies wrote:

Yeah, I can see some of that.  I mean, that there's a difference in expectation between earlier and later editions can't be denied, IMO.  I just don't think that the system influences peoples' approach to play as much as other factors.  Like I said, I've powergamed 2e and played oddball characters that totally sucked at combat in 3.5.  I've also, believe it or not, played a 4e Wizard in the least optimal way I could ... and then followed it up with a Hybrid WizLord Archlich that was nigh unkillable and a better striker than the actual dtrikers in the party.  So, IME anyway, I just don't see the game as being as influential where playstyle is concerned as you do.  I do, however, see how it could influene style.

Well I do not doubt that there are people out there, like who are not influenced by the editions mechanics and systems, I have spoken to many, on both sides who as far as I can tell, are influenced by the system. That's not to say you are wrong and I am right, its just the conclusion I have drawn from what I have seen.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 1:18PM, Zombie_Babies wrote:

I think these boards and others like them have more influence overall.  I know few players post but if even one in a group does the influence can be transmitted.  And if that player has more than one group ...  I say that because where I see what you're talking about is right here - specifically the 4e and 5e sections of the boards.  People will attack you until you quit posting if you don't want to play optimally.  People think I'm crazy when I say I don't need classes to be balanced - that the most fun I ever had was playing a 3.5 Beguiler who was basically useless in combat.  And when they tell me the reason I don't like 4e is because I'm upset that they nerfed my Wizard and I reply that I didn't really start playing spellcasters until 4e came out?  Well, I must be making it all up.  So yeah, I feel ya.  I just happen to think there's a lot more to it than that.  Can the system have some influence?  Of course.  Is it the main reason for the different approach?  I don't think so.

Well seeing as how these boards and similar ones were not something I factored in as I only recently discovered them. I may have to re-evaluate, but I'm not entirely sure if the boards play a big influence or if they are more of an outlet for an influence that already exists.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 1:18PM, Zombie_Babies wrote:

To sort of chicken and the egg this a bit, lemme give you a li'l history about these boards.  When 4e was announced this place was a warzone.  Nothing about the 5e boards even comes close to representing what happened basically everywhere during the runup to 4e.  In that time, a lot was rage 'discussed' ... and the developers listened.  4e was largely created in no small part to eradicate what many considered to be 3.5's faults.  I believe it's cuz those folks cried the loudest but who knows.    Anyhoo, the game you see in 4e is what a lot of this community asked for.  The balance, the sameness, everybody has powers, blah blah.  All of it was done to appease the folks what didn't spend any money on 3.5 (which, in all honesty, had long since run its course - too big to live).  So if that's true - and I believe it is because I was here - can't we say that 4e's playstlye was created by its future players?  The people focused on power and balance got their game and it plays how they wanted it to.  I don't think you can say 4e made people that way ... though you can because a lot of people play it who didn't post a word here or elsewhere before it came out. 

I believe every edition even the oldest ones suffered from bloat, and rules in excess of what was really needed to play and enjoy the game. If I had to pinpoint the exact difference in the mentalities, I would say that it is people tend to stick to the rules of a particular edition set and that help determine what aspect the game is the most fun. In third edition it was combat, and the rules tended to reflect that. Now I'm not saying that this makes the game less fun, interesting, or playable, but when there is a player who's major enjoyable experiences with the game are from a different aspect such as AD&D's focus of story, that player may very well find the 3.X edition less interesting and vice versa. This is why I think the system is the root cause of the divisional mindset between old and new editions.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 1:18PM, Zombie_Babies wrote:

... and taking it even further, 3.5 certainly placed an emphasis on power and combat contribution so who's to say that didn't influence the people who eventually whined 4e into what it became? 

Meh, that's why I think it goes far beyond the game itself.  But hey, what the hell do I know, right?  What the hell do any of us know? 

No you made some very valid points I had not considered and while my opinion has not swayed, the boards are something I'll take into consideration.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 1:48PM, Alaster337 wrote:

Well I do not doubt that there are people out there, like who are not influenced by the editions mechanics and systems, I have spoken to many, on both sides who as far as I can tell, are influenced by the system. That's not to say you are wrong and I am right, its just the conclusion I have drawn from what I have seen.

Sure, I agree that the system has influence.  We'll likely never agree how much, though - and that's perfectly ok. 

Well seeing as how these boards and similar ones were not something I factored in as I only recently discovered them. I may have to re-evaluate, but I'm not entirely sure if the boards play a big influence or if they are more of an outlet for an influence that already exists.

Well I can tell you that for 4e, at least, the game ended up being a whole lot like what the loudest voices demanded.  And I see these boards sort of infect people, too.  Folks that start out reasonable end up hardliners.  Simple peer stuff.

I believe every edition even the oldest ones suffered from bloat, and rules in excess of what was really needed to play and enjoy the game. If I had to pinpoint the exact difference in the mentalities, I would say that it is people tend to stick to the rules of a particular edition set and that help determine what aspect the game is the most fun. In third edition it was combat, and the rules tended to reflect that. Now I'm not saying that this makes the game less fun, interesting, or playable, but when there is a player who's major enjoyable experiences with the game are from a different aspect such as AD&D's focus of story, that player may very well find the 3.X edition less interesting and vice versa. This is why I think the system is the root cause of the divisional mindset between old and new editions.

You can create the same sort of feel in most editions, though.  My group did.  Er, until 4e anyway. 

No you made some very valid points I had not considered and while my opinion has not swayed, the boards are something I'll take into consideration.

I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about it.  I mean, there's loads more interesting things to contemplate, heh.    But yeah, this was interesting.