What do you think are the most damaging ideas in the hobby?

[Paradigm Shaft]

(this is accidentally DnD-centric)

I mean this from the perspective of getting new people interested in playing games, having gaming become a more mainstream pursuit (as I believe has actually been happening thanks to podcasts and YT shows in the last several years). For me, I have run into this idea online that people who play DnD only do so because they do not know there are alternatives.

I think this idea is quite pervasive among younger people and I constantly see tweets or posts like 'There are other TTRPGs than Dungeons and Dragons. Explore them!' I actually have no idea if people who do not know DnD exists are a thing. But to me this idea that DnD players are simply ignorant of the many options out there is not one I believe is particularly helpful.

I like some DnD now and then and 5e has certainly helped with engagement. But most people I know who play DnD do so because they really love the game. They also play other games on occasion. I think linked to this is the notion that DnD can't do everything, or the idea that it cannot do anything apart from combat. Which, if you are a roleplayer you must know is just silly. Even the most barebones rules system has everything you need for an adventure. Like, there are systems that are great at specific things. This is true. But you don't need them. We can make our own fun.

What do you think? Am I off the mark?

 

[Teotwawki]

What do you think? Am I off the mark?

As far as damaging, I think the specific issue of not knowing there are multiverses beyond DnD, what is worse than not knowing is for myriad companies who would not otherwise do so, make 5e versions of other games. In what is almost always a financial decision to do so over artistic or even filling a perceived vacuum, altering a property to fit 5e's audience is in essence saying to the industry and its players, "There doesn't need to be anything else. One flavor suits all."

Capsule of deeper issues, to be sure. But it's what I think is reflective several damaging ideas in this hobby; that any one perspective is all you need. There is a cultural shift of including of spectrum of cultures within game worlds, why conform to the lure of one system to play?

Not knowing that other rpgs exist can be immediately remedied. Undoing homogenization takes a while.

 

[Paradigm Shaft]

As far as damaging, I think the specific issue of not knowing there are multiverses beyond DnD, what is worse than not knowing is for myriad companies who would not otherwise do so, make 5e versions of other games. In what is almost always a financial decision to do so over artistic or even filling a perceived vacuum, altering a property to fit 5e's audience is in essence saying to the industry and its players, "There doesn't need to be anything else. One flavor suits all."

Capsule of deeper issues, to be sure. But it's what I think is reflective several damaging ideas in this hobby; that any one perspective is all you need. There is a cultural shift of including of spectrum of cultures within game worlds, why conform to the lure of one system to play?

Not knowing that other rpgs exist can be immediately remedied. Undoing homogenization takes a while.

Perfect, yes. I agree with that as well. There is an absolute kaleidoscope of content out there for groups to play. I can definitely get behind this idea, for sure.

 

[Ravenswing]

However much I agree with the sentiment in terms of my personal tastes, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. D&D is the sole RPG that's ever had wide name recognition for the general public. It's been the market leader for the entirety of the hobby's history. (Pathfinder me no Pathfinder, that's D&D with a mask on.) I ditched GMing it over 40 years ago, and it's approaching 30 years since I was even a player in a D&D campaign, but it's a completely defensible case that the good of D&D and the health and growth of the hobby are inextricably linked.

But other than that, what do I feel are the most damaging shibboleths in the hobby?

* One True Wayism in any form. The purpose of rules is to adjudicate our actions, and give a framework to play. There are obviously many ways to do this. None of these are divinely inspired, and God will not kill a kitten if you vary from RAW. I concede that my views come from the era in which everyone knew that playing RAW was not only self-evidently stupid, but the Gygaxes of the world said outright that the gaps were for us all to fill in as suited us.

This extends towards various elements of play. Over the years, I've riffed on a lot of elements of this system or that: alignment, character classes, random gen, economics, religion. And a lot of people have angrily retorted that The Way Things Were Done were not only immutable, but integral to the game. And that's bullshit. There are too many games out there doing too many things in too many different ways to pretend that any one element is sacred. However ...

* Gamer ADD. We all have our comfort zones. We know what we like, and we like what we know. Judging from the thousands of threads on the subject over the years, between Edition Wars and Why Won't My Crew Try This Great New Game I Just Bought?, too many folks just don't understand this or want to.

 

[Stan]

The idea that the rules have to cover everything and give hundreds of options for players. Most people balk at having to read a textbook just to play a game. This leads to companies making more and more books for fewer and fewer people.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

The geek social fallacies.

 

[TristramEvans]

The most "damaging" idea overall that I can think of is the comparison of RPGs to storytelling and the likewise conceptualization of RPGs defined as "the joint creation of a story" and the promotion of GM as "auteur"

 

[raniE]

That roleplaying games are technology like cars or software and that they have substantially improved since the 1980s.

The most "damaging" idea overall that I can think of is the comparison of RPGs to storytelling and the likewise conceptualization of RPGs defined as "the joint creation of a story" and the promotion of GM as "auteur"

To me, even worse than this is the idea of the GM as simply a mediator of someone else's story through the medium of adventure paths. An entire campaign all planned out in advance by someone who doesn't even know your table or the specifics thereof.

 

[TristramEvans]

That roleplaying games are technology like cars or software and that they have substantially improved since the 1980s.

oh yeah, that's a good one.

 

[Necrozius]

That roleplaying games are technology like cars or software and that they have substantially improved since the 1980s.

Yeah it’s funny how people view such a product of it’s time as “flawed” because it isn’t graced by what developments came after. I mean, do we view all music from the past as incomplete as well?

Sure we discover some better ways to do things (some OSR books are inarguably better written, organized and laid-out than some original D&D stuff), of course.

 

[raniE]

Yeah it’s funny how people view such a product of it’s time as “flawed” because it isn’t graced by what developments came after. I mean, do we view all music from the past as incomplete as well?

Sure we discover some better ways to do things (some OSR books are inarguably better written, organized and laid-out than some original D&D stuff), of course.

We usually knew good layout and writing at the time though. People were complaining about D&D being difficult to understand at the time (that’s where Tunnels & Trolls came from). The big technological advances we have had have been desktop publishing and PDFs. Those have made it much easier to publish RPG material.

 

[Necrozius]

We usually knew good layout and writing at the time though. People were complaining about D&D being difficult to understand at the time (that’s where Tunnels & Trolls came from). The big technological advances we have had have been desktop publishing and PDFs. Those have made it much easier to publish RPG material.

Fair enough.

Sometimes, editions can get things "wrong" for larger groups of the target audience. Whether they made these changes to the previous design out of pure theory ("I'm sure that WFRP players will be fine with moving away from d100 and try our new cool dice!") or flawed user research and outreach (while some loved what 4e D&D did, many other didn't, as evidenced by the existence of Pathfinder and 5e).

But as with many consumers in the mainstream, NEW > OLD, for just about everything (even outside of technology, which is designed to become obsolete eventually).

While I have gripes with the desktop publishing qualities of Advanced D&D core books, they're solidly built (physically) and brimming with neat ideas and inspiring words.

 

[Ladybird]

As far as damaging, I think the specific issue of not knowing there are multiverses beyond DnD, what is worse than not knowing is for myriad companies who would not otherwise do so, make 5e versions of other games. In what is almost always a financial decision to do so over artistic or even filling a perceived vacuum, altering a property to fit 5e's audience is in essence saying to the industry and its players, "There doesn't need to be anything else. One flavor suits all."

Capsule of deeper issues, to be sure. But it's what I think is reflective several damaging ideas in this hobby; that any one perspective is all you need. There is a cultural shift of including of spectrum of cultures within game worlds, why conform to the lure of one system to play?

Not knowing that other rpgs exist can be immediately remedied. Undoing homogenization takes a while.

That's just capitalism for you, though - if you're at the stage where you're dealing with major licenses, you need a good reason why not to try and get into that huge D&D market (Like a proven record of working with a different game engine, not that I'm thinking of any recent kickstarters or anything). Artistic integrity is great, but it doesn't pay the rent.

---

Fair enough.

Sometimes, editions can get things "wrong" for larger groups of the target audience. Whether they made these changes to the previous design out of pure theory ("I'm sure that WFRP players will be fine with moving away from d100 and try our new cool dice!") or flawed user research and outreach (while some loved what 4e D&D did, many other didn't, as evidenced by the existence of Pathfinder and 5e).

But as with many consumers in the mainstream, NEW > OLD, for just about everything (even outside of technology, which is designed to become obsolete eventually).

While I have gripes with the desktop publishing qualities of Advanced D&D core books, they're solidly built (physically) and brimming with neat ideas and inspiring words.

I actually think D&D4e is a great example of new > old, and learning how to do things better. 4e shook up D&D in a pretty big way and threw in a ton of new ideas, but it took later games building on it's chassis and stealing it's parts - Pathfinder 2e, D&D5e, 13th Age, The One Ring, etc - to really show how they shone.

---

I think it's exclusionism; "those sorts of games don't count as RPG's", and oddly enough it's almost always games the writer doesn't like that don't count. Like whatever you like; that's totally cool, nobody is going to abduct you and force to to enjoy a game of Dungeons in the Dark (And if they do, call the fucking cops, that shit's illegal). But spending so much time coming up with reasons why it shouldn't be included just feels like... such a waste of time. Do something productive; write something for a game you like.

dungeons in the dark is such a fucking great name and someone should totally write that hack

 

[Gabriel]

Most damaging ideas?

One true wayism.

The whole idea that fun must be EARNED somehow. The idea that players are not entitled to have fun until they pass some test or clear some bar.

The idea that RPGs are ELITE, and they must be gatekept against the rabble, that being able to learn and play an RPG is some kind of rite of passage and sign of distinction.

 

[Lofgeornost]

That roleplaying games are technology like cars or software and that they have substantially improved since the 1980s.

That's certainly one that comes to mind. The comparison to technology has some plausibility, in that rules are in a sense tools. Since they are tools to be used in the creation of something personal and subjective (pleasure), that plausibility doesn't go very far.

In years gone by, I would have had a good deal to say about 'damaging ideas'--I can remember getting exercised over the idea of 'fantasy heartbreakers' for instance. Maybe I've mellowed, but I guess at this stage the only 'damaging idea' that comes to mind is that rpgs are more than a hobby, and a pretty silly one at that. I love them, but ultimately I don't think they're very important, beyond whatever joy people find in them.

Of course, for some people on this board, creating games is their profession and others are engaged in academic study of them, and publishing about it. I'm not criticizing them; they have good reasons to take games more seriously than I do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What do you think? Am I off the mark?

Not necessarily. If people do in fact enjoy D&D more than other games, then they should spend their time playing D&D.

However, I do think there are plenty of examples of people who have only ever played D&D and aren't really aware of what other games may offer. I think that this is something that is getting better with time and the impact of the internet and online gaming and other factors, but I think it's still a thing, and there are online communities I could point to where this is on full display.

If I had to pick something as the most damaging, then I'd echo what others have said about gatekeeping and one-true-wayism. The more kinds of gamers and the more kinds of games there are, the better off the hobby will be.

 

[Gabriel]

That's certainly one that comes to mind. The comparison to technology has some plausibility, in that rules are in a sense tools. Since they are tools to be used in the creation of something personal and subjective (pleasure), that plausibility doesn't go very far.

I see your point. I don't agree with it. I definitely support the general idea of RPG systems as technology, and advancements can and are made. But I can also see how that position can be warped.

I mean, after all, we still use levers and wheels.

But I think the particular OSR stance that everything meaningful that could be developed was already developed back with Gygax and OD&D is just as damaging.

There are extremes. The truth is somewhere in between.

 

[under_score]

I think gatekeeping is an overblown concept. There are effectively zero barriers to entry.
I think that trying to force some big umbrella RPG community is a bad idea. It's pretty clear from the years of forum spats that what group A is doing and is interested in has nothing to do with what group B is doing and is interested in, so why does everyone insist on mashing them all together?
Unity is a mistake, division is the way.

 

[Bunch]

Not necessarily. If people do in fact enjoy D&D more than other games, then they should spend their time playing D&D.

However, I do think there are plenty of examples of people who have only ever played D&D and aren't really aware of what other games may offer. I think that this is something that is getting better with time and the impact of the internet and online gaming and other factors, but I think it's still a thing, and there are online communities I could point to where this is on full display.

If I had to pick something as the most damaging, then I'd echo what others have said about gatekeeping and one-true-wayism. The more kinds of gamers and the more kinds of games there are, the better off the hobby will be.

Up to the limit of that adding more one true ways and gatekeeping with each new style/player.

Which is to say the worst thing about roleplaying is the issues people bring to it.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Mod:

Drop the inclusion/exclusion tangent please. There's no way it won't go into political directions.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

But I think the particular OSR stance that everything meaningful that could be developed was already developed back with Gygax and OD&D is just as damaging.

There are extremes. The truth is somewhere in between.

Honestly, I think that's about 1% of overly vocal OSRers. I think much more common is the view that there were worthwhile elements in old school gaming that people enjoyed and were worth having as an option.

 

[raniE]

I see your point. I don't agree with it. I definitely support the general idea of RPG systems as technology, and advancements can and are made. But I can also see how that position can be warped.

I mean, after all, we still use levers and wheels.

But I think the particular OSR stance that everything meaningful that could be developed was already developed back with Gygax and OD&D is just as damaging.

There are extremes. The truth is somewhere in between.

I think very few people have that view. Look at it like music. If you are a big fan of progressive arena rock, of course you're going to gravitate more toward 70s music than toward more modern stuff, and if you are a huge fan of rap, 70s music just isn't going to cut it. New things happen, developments are made, no one is disputing that and anyone who does doesn't know anything about music. But that doesn't mean the new music is better than the old music, it's just a different style of music.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Up to the limit of that adding more one true ways and gatekeeping with each new style/player.

Which is to say the worst thing about roleplaying is the issues people bring to it.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying in the first sentence.....

But I think I largely agree with the second.

 

[Winterblight]

I played D&D for a many years unaware that there were other RPGs out there. That was before the Internet, however.

 

[Ravenswing]

Apologies, by the bye, for including my own political tangent -- sometimes I just forget that politics is a no-no here.

Yeah it’s funny how people view such a product of it’s time as “flawed” because it isn’t graced by what developments came after. I mean, do we view all music from the past as incomplete as well?

I've long since been bemused both by edition warriors and the retroclone movement. On the one hand, my answer to "Those bastards ruined the new edition!!!" is "Who demanded that you play it?" Don't like the latest edition, play whatever one you like. Those rules still do the same things they did when they were first printed.

And on the other, well ... okay. So there's a lot of nostalgia for OD&D out there. So why bend yourself into knots trying to come up with something that Works Just Like OD&D? Why not just play OD&D? It still exists, after all.

The most "damaging" idea overall that I can think of is the comparison of RPGs to storytelling and the likewise conceptualization of RPGs defined as "the joint creation of a story" and the promotion of GM as "auteur"

Why so? I know that a lot of people out there have this reflexive and terrible fear of Those! Storygamers!, and treat them like ghastly bogeymen who'll melt down your polydice or something. But unless they're trying to tell us how we ought to be playing, why should we tell them how they ought to be playing?

 

[Lofgeornost]

I see your point. I don't agree with it. I definitely support the general idea of RPG systems as technology, and advancements can and are made. But I can also see how that position can be warped.

I mean, after all, we still use levers and wheels.

But I think the particular OSR stance that everything meaningful that could be developed was already developed back with Gygax and OD&D is just as damaging.

There are extremes. The truth is somewhere in between.

I think that's true. On the 'rules as technology' side, it's trivially easy to imagine rules that are just bad--that actively get in the way of playing the game. To give an over-the-top example, a set of rules that randomly shifted from one language to another--this paragraph is in English, the next in Chinese--would not be usable unless you had a very polyglot audience.

Personally, I don't think the 'rules as tech' side of the equation can get us too far, though. For most tools, there is an agreed function or use, and fairly objective ways of measuring whether the tool enables that function or not. So, if you are designing a catalytic converter for cars, you know you want to absorb pollution in the emissions, and you can measure how well your new type of converter does that.

But for rpgs, the ultimate purpose of the rules is to allow people to have an enjoyable game. This will be very subjective--what one group enjoys another will despise. Hence the frequent refrain in internet discussions of flaws in rules: 'that's not a bug, it's a feature.'

More importantly, for many rpgs, the actual experience at the table depends a lot less on the rules being used than it does on other factors: creative work done by g.m. or players to sketch out the imaginary game world, skill and interest of all parties concerned in roleplaying, even just the personalities of those at the table. Given this, it can be very hard to know how much influence the rules have on the enjoyment of any given session, or even campaign.

I agree that it is wrong to think that everything worth doing in RPGs had been done by 1977 (or 1985, or 1995, or whatever year one chooses). There's always room for new approaches and tinkering with rule-sets, and other things too. But for the most part this seems to me more like the kind of change one sees in other creative media rather than technological progression.

 

[Ravenswing]

Gatekeeping has always been a small part of nerddom, rpgs seem to have about the same amount as comics and everything else. I remember reading a letter from Asimov in the late 30's to the effect that girls should not be part of the SF community. I kinda get why some would gatekeep but it's a concept I could never quite grok. Why would you want fewer people enjoying a thing that you enjoy?

Deserves a separate answer. Two things.

First off, like any other human being, we're a tribal lot. The notion of the world being divided into Us and THEM!! is encoded in our DNA. We're polarized into making so many choices -- often based on the first thing of that type we encounter -- identifying with them out of reflex, and defending them to the death ever after. No one can possibly like a choice we reject, be a member of a group we're not or prefer a lifestyle different from our own without it taking away somehow from our own sense of self-worth.

So, somewhat reflexively, we identify Our Way of doing things as the only REAL way, and everyone else is on the wrong side of the divide. Storygamers aren't REAL roleplayers. LARPers aren't REAL roleplayers. MMORPG players aren't REAL roleplayers. Etcetera.

The other part of gatekeeping is that for the most part, we all want to be big fish, and it's tougher to do that if the pond isn't small. Any newbie who shows up is a potential threat to the status of any oldbie who isn't already the alpha dog, and people leap out to assert themselves. How many times have you seen it -- at the college SF club, at the FLGS gaming table? Some newbie walks in, shows some interest, and immediately one or two people hop up and start with the dick wagging, if not the outright sneers.

My longstanding observation is that for the sheer viciousness of its internecine fights, exclusionary antics and dominance games, the nerd/geek/SF/gaming culture is exceeded in scope only by junior high school. (And they at least have the excuse of going through puberty.)

 

[ffilz]

I've long since been bemused both by edition warriors and the retroclone movement. On the one hand, my answer to "Those bastards ruined the new edition!!!" is "Who demanded that you play it?" Don't like the latest edition, play whatever one you like. Those rules still do the same things they did when they were first printed.

And on the other, well ... okay. So there's a lot of nostalgia for OD&D out there. So why bend yourself into knots trying to come up with something that Works Just Like OD&D? Why not just play OD&D? It still exists, after all.

Absolutely. I love that RuneQuest Glorantha is out there, and really I think most people new to RQ and Glorantha should play that. But I've still got my 1st edition and that's what I play. I'm absolutely thrilled it's available now in PDF and POD.

And yea, why re-invent the wheel on D&D? That said, I think there's a good space for many of the OSR games that are taking the original games in new directions even if it's just incorporating house rules into the text.

 

[Bunch]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying in the first sentence.....

But I think I largely agree with the second.

Oh just that as more people come to anything and have a new or different take some fraction of those will be the obnoxious asshats who say it's the best and only way and everyone else is a fool for not doing things their way.

Really isn't just assholes inhabit everything and everywhere and they tend to be vocal.

I can see how the vague until statement might have been construed as political or taking a side on identity issues. That wasn't what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about humanity produces asshats and every subgroup gets a few.

 

[raniE]

Apologies, by the bye, for including my own political tangent -- sometimes I just forget that politics is a no-no here.



I've long since been bemused both by edition warriors and the retroclone movement. On the one hand, my answer to "Those bastards ruined the new edition!!!" is "Who demanded that you play it?" Don't like the latest edition, play whatever one you like. Those rules still do the same things they did when they were first printed.

And on the other, well ... okay. So there's a lot of nostalgia for OD&D out there. So why bend yourself into knots trying to come up with something that Works Just Like OD&D? Why not just play OD&D? It still exists, after all.



Why so? I know that a lot of people out there have this reflexive and terrible fear of Those! Storygamers!, and treat them like terribly bogeymen who'll melt down your polydice or something. But unless they're trying to tell us how we ought to be playing, why should we tell them how they ought to be playing?

Well, a lot of the time old games are actually difficult to get hold of. D&D was like that for a long time, and it was in that time that the OSR movement kicked off. Further, some OSR stuff came to be because someone wanted to publish adventures for old editions of D&D, but needed an existing game that wasn’t an old edition of a game not owned by them to publish the adventures for. That’s both OSRIC and LotFP I think.

 

[SavAce]

I think, as far as attracting new people to the hobby goes, one of the more damaging ideas is: That it's reasonable to expect a kid who is excited about space, wizards and super heroes to consume a 500 page or 900+ page core game.

By comparison, I think back to groovy boxed sets and RPGs that got it all done for way less page count: Original D&D in 3 booklets coming in around 100pg. B/X both together adds up to 128pg rules, 64 of adventure. Star Ace at less than 120pg. Marvel Basic, 16 page Battle Book, 48 page Campaign Book, 16 page Adventure. Conan at 32pg. rules, 16pg reference, 48pg setting. Ghostbusters with a 24pg Player/Main rules book, 48 page GM/Adventure book. Street Fighter at ~175pg. DC Heroes 3e at ~185pg. TMNT at about 110pg. Cadillacs & Dinosaurs at ~140pg. Traveller coming in around 120-ish (but smaller pages).

Some of these games opened up vast worlds, but they did it while keeping things feeling light. But... the now current D&D 5e core books push towards 1000 pages. If the game is not, like, 8x better than B/X or Traveller, why is it weighing down my book bag so much?

I'm being opinionated, but I think there are a decent amount of games suffering from bloat. There are still plenty of small games, especially in the indie space, but there are 300+ page games that would be better at 64 or 128. I'm thinking from the perspective of 7-14 year old me who was digging young adult fiction and "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. Smaller, concise games and books delivering the goods straight away.

 

[TristramEvans]

Why so? I know that a lot of people out there have this reflexive and terrible fear of Those! Storygamers!, and treat them like terribly bogeymen who'll melt down your polydice or something. But unless they're trying to tell us how we ought to be playing, why should we tell them how they ought to be playing?

Exactly because it presents the idea that there is only one way of playing

 

[VisionStorm]

I think, as far as attracting new people to the hobby goes, one of the more damaging ideas is: That it's reasonable to expect a kid who is excited about space, wizards and super heroes to consume a 500 page or 900+ page core game.

In fairness, same could be said about many experienced Grognards. I think that overly long and bloated text are a detriment to the hobby in general and tend to primarily appeal to a very specific subset of players. But in practice it just increases bookkeeping and makes it more difficult to find specific information or parse through all the rules when initially taking them in.

I think that this may have become compounded by crowdsourcing, since a lot of crowdsourcing campaigns tend to be marketed around getting the most bang for your buck--the more backers there are pouring money into this hypothetical speculative product and the more "stretch-goals" are reached, the "more" product all backers will get. And in TTRPGs, more product = more page count.

 

[Sloth_in_a_bowl]

I'm pretty much a play how you want to kind of person. There are certain games, systems and ideas that I am not a fan of, but I understand why other people dig them, with one exception.

Metaplot. Why as a GM or player would you be happy with a game where the writers of that game have a long term plan in progress to change stuff that you may love and add stuff that you hate while promoting their version of all the important stuff that can and will change the world. Games with metaplot are a way to cause frustration and disappointment in their core fan base and sabotage long term good will towards that particular system and background.

If somebody can tell me of a game where they got to the end of a multiyear metaplot and thought that it was a triumph of plotting, rules and play experience then I will be gobsmacked.

 

[raniE]

In fairness, same could be said about many experienced Grognards. I think that overly long and bloated text are a detriment to the hobby in general and tend to primarily appeal to a very specific subset of players. But in practice it just increases bookkeeping and makes it more difficult to find specific information or parse through all the rules when initially taking them in.

I think that this may have become compounded by crowdsourcing, since a lot of crowdsourcing campaigns tend to be marketed around getting the most bang for your buck--the more backers there are pouring money into this hypothetical speculative product and the more "stretch-goals" are reached, the "more" product all backers will get. And in TTRPGs, more product = more page count.

This is why I like doodads like miniatures, battlemats, character sheets, extra dice etc. It gives somewhere for all the stretch goal money to go, is often immediately useful and yet adds no complexity to the game.

 

[chuckdee]

That roleplaying games are technology like cars or software and that they have substantially improved since the 1980s.

I think that goes to One True Wayism- to the point that the new is better, and not just different. Different people want different things, and the way it was done in the past was just different, and many today view that through the lens of better rather than personal preference.

 

[Moonglum]

There are just too many unique core rules sets, and too many games that offer only core-rules revisions without significant creative content. It's like pulling out Trivial Pursuit at a board game party only to discover that every box has its own unique rules that no one at your party knows. This is a component of the general gamer ADD problem, but is its own particular kind of poison.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh just that as more people come to anything and have a new or different take some fraction of those will be the obnoxious asshats who say it's the best and only way and everyone else is a fool for not doing things their way.

Really isn't just assholes inhabit everything and everywhere and they tend to be vocal.

I can see how the vague until statement might have been construed as political or taking a side on identity issues. That wasn't what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about humanity produces asshats and every subgroup gets a few.

Gotcha. I didn't take it as political or anything like that.....just wasn't sure what you meant. But yeah.....a large part of it is human nature, and that means sometimes you need to deal with assholes.

I think, as far as attracting new people to the hobby goes, one of the more damaging ideas is: That it's reasonable to expect a kid who is excited about space, wizards and super heroes to consume a 500 page or 900+ page core game.

The move toward Quickstart rules is, I think, a great thing. Especially when they're available for free, or at very low cost.

 

[AsenRG]

I like some DnD now and then and 5e has certainly helped with engagement. But most people I know who play DnD do so because they really love the game. They also play other games on occasion.

And I know enough people who refuse to play anything but D&D (for various reasons), so yes, you're off the mark.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And I know enough people who refuse to play anything but D&D (for various reasons), so yes, you're off the mark.

I wouldn't really say that anyone is off the mark. There are people who genuinely like D&D and prefer it to other games (crazy, I know) and there are people who go to D&D more out of habit than anything else, and there are people who don't really get exposed to anything other than D&D, despite how odd that may seem for enthusiasts like us.