Why D&D?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Then there's his inherent narcissism and mental illness. I don't say these as character impugning things, but rather as simple factors that caught up with him.

You mentioned this as a side factor, but I actually think his mental illnes played a huge part in his self-destruction. I have a serious mental illness and don't see it ever going well if I tried starting a Youtube career. The amount of stress would simply get too much.
Even well-functioning Youtubers fold regularly under the stress.

I discovered Spoony via the AngryJoeShow channel. He featured in some of AngryJoe's videos. AngryJoe also seems a bit burned out be now. Joe actually made me sad, when he in one video said that there were losts of games he wanted to replay, but he simply didn't have the time.

For many Youtubers what starts as something they do for fun, quickly becomes more about just doing if for the money. This eventually means they lose their passion and eventually burn out.

Now I'll let you people return to D&D.
 
Remind me, who was the guy who'd written "the greatest rpg ever" that was never going to be published because the world wasn't ready for his genius? He was a frequent poster on therpgsite back in the day and I've quite forgotten his name. It wasn't me, my genius isn't ready for the world which is an entirely different form of hubris.
Brian Gleichman and it was Age of Heroes.

And I have a copy. :smile:

20200801_104335_HDR.jpg

He never replied to me after I acquired it.

What it like?.
Dense very very dense. The RPG that it is more like in terms of quality and complexity is Dragonquest not bad but an acquired taste. It been a while so I don't remember all the details. But here is a review.
 
Let's just say that some of us felt 4E was more true to what we had wanted out of D&D for decades and enjoyed playing it for the 6 years it existed ... and that others didn't ... and no one in the entire affair was 100% correct ...
Oh, absolutely. And that's why I think they should have put it out with the D&D branding, but not as fourth edition D&D. It would have allowed people like you to actually get the game you wanted without being dragged into edition warring by people who were expecting something more like standard D&D. Put out as a game in its own right (and there's a lot of D&D spinoffs over the years) I think it would have got a fairer shake.
 
What follows may be written in a very compressed fashion, without the usual disclaimers and nods to exceptions, that could ruffle some feathers
Ok, but that just tells me some people didn’t like it.

I think it is useful distinction, for example in D&D 3e, the DC of a jump IIRC is the same as the width of the obstacle in feet, and since you normally work in 5’ squares that make it 5 / 10 / 15 and so on. In GURPS, there is an equation where feet and inches are used to generate a penalty instead. In Fate, you would be more likely to think of a gap in terms of ‘you would need to be good to jump this reliably’.

D&D’s answer is from the perspective of what makes a good game experience at the table, GURPS is an attempt to simulate the real-world challenge, whilst Fate cares about the kind of person who would be able to handle it.

I think that is a useful way of looking at their mechanics and design decisions, and I’m not hearing any different.

I don’t say that to be argumentative, I’m just not willing to give on a concept because some people fell out over it in the past.
 
Last edited:
Nah, I'm just trying to be funny. If you want to see edition warring ask me about Rolemaster. But the thing is that just because something is theoretically good or ideal (game balance, structure, uniformity experience of play, easier to DM) doesn't mean it's what people want or need. D&D's greatest strengths are its greatest weaknesses. The flexibility that lets everyone tailor it to their own play style is also the reason so many people can't figure the game out by reading the rules (well, that and Gygaxian prose for AD&D) and why so many new DMs and players have bad experiences.
Ahh, okay. I retract my criticism. Didnt get it eas meant as humor. Sorry
 
Brian Gleichman and it was Age of Heroes.

And I have a copy. :smile:

View attachment 20588

He never replied to me after I acquired it.

What it like?.
Dense very very dense. The RPG that it is more like in terms of quality and complexity is Dragonquest not bad but an acquired taste. It been a while so I don't remember all the details. But here is a review.



For a second I wondered what forum you were on....then I remembered that The Pub has a "light" option....
 
Ok, but that just tells me some people didn’t like it.

I think it is useful distinction, for example in D&D 3e, the DC of a jump IIRC is the same as the width of the obstacle in feet, and since you normally work in 5’ squares that make it 5 / 10 / 15 and so on. In GURPS, there is an equation where feet and inches are used to generate a penalty instead. In Fate, you would be more likely to think of a gap in terms of ‘you would need to be good to jump this reliably’.

D&D’s answer is from the perspective of what makes a good game experience at the table, GURPS is an attempt to simulate the real-world challenge, whilst Fate cares about the kind of person who would be able to handle it.

I think that is a useful way of looking at their mechanics and design decisions, and I’m not hearing any different.

I don’t say that to be argumentative, I’m just not willing to give on a concept because some people fell out over it in the past.
No, that’s not the distinction at all. The idea was you could have a game or a GM where things happen (or would have a likelihood of happening) because that’s how they would happen, or you could have one where things happen to satisfy a non-internal cause. To the simulationists it didn’t matter what the cause was, really, but their initial argument was with someone who wanted games to follow a dramatic arc. Then someone else (probably Brian) popped up who wanted games to be fun in a more game-like way.
 
No, that’s not the distinction at all.
I think I get to say what I was meaning when I wrote my post :grin:

What I am taking from this is that it is different from what ever you or ‘they’ were referring to in the past.
 
Given how much of it they kept for 5e, evidently somebody at WotC agrees with you :smile:
5e seems to be a good blend. I am happy they seem to have got it right.
It's not my favorite edition, but it is enjoyable. I would love to see an Advanced 5th edition with some more depth to it and options, but that's just me.
 
I think I get to say what I was meaning when I wrote my post :grin:

What I am taking from this is that it is different from what ever you or ‘they’ were referring to in the past.
Then you’re not even participating in this conversation, since nobody cares about meters or feet or rough guesstimations.
 
BTW I have considerable respect for Brian even though he can be a tough person to interact with.
No idea what he's like as a person and not really bothered. But his critique of GNS theory was seminal and the best one out there.
 
You mentioned this as a side factor, but I actually think his mental illnes played a huge part in his self-destruction. I have a serious mental illness and don't see it ever going well if I tried starting a Youtube career. The amount of stress would simply get too much.
Even well-functioning Youtubers fold regularly under the stress.

I discovered Spoony via the AngryJoeShow channel. He featured in some of AngryJoe's videos. AngryJoe also seems a bit burned out be now. Joe actually made me sad, when he in one video said that there were losts of games he wanted to replay, but he simply didn't have the time.

For many Youtubers what starts as something they do for fun, quickly becomes more about just doing if for the money. This eventually means they lose their passion and eventually burn out.

Now I'll let you people return to D&D.
Official The Mad Hatter YouTube GoFundMe Campaign
 
I'm curious, what sort of depth and options do you feel are missing?
I liked feats that allow you to fundamentally alter the class, but not the way they are implemented in 5th. Mostly just more options.
Once you reach third level all decisions for your character are done. Its just a matter of leveling and selecting spells. It's just way too limiting for me.
In the games I've been in, all characters of a certain class become cookie cutters of their class peers. That's not something easily done in 3.x where every couple levels meant making a fundamental decision for your character's growth.
I also miss a gold economy.It needs better magical items and more reasons to spend gold than it has. Other editions, gold burned a hole in belt pouch. in 5th... I was looking for something... anything... to spend it on other than the usual food and lodging.

5th just seems to play it safe at the expense of depth. I understand a lot of the reasoning behind it, but I also disagree with a lot of the reasoning behind it.

tldr: I get bored of my character after a few sessions because there is no reasonable way to dynamically change it as you level.
 
However what infused the Pundit with white hot rage was this post by Stuart Marshall by one of the authors of OSRIC. Ever since Pundits tried to reign nuclear Armageddon on the OSR.
That exchange is amazing and I strongly advise anyone who enjoys laughing and pointing to read the followup argument.

"Actually, I didn't mean whose game sold more because yours doesn't count".
 
Note that I was a participant in this.
As was I.

Wasn’t it more influenced by T&T?
Yeah, I shoulda said 'fantasy heartbreaker,' but he directed his ire at not taking the market by storm at the OSR nonetheless, for the unforgivable sin of making games old school gamers actually liked.

He later demonstrated the strength of his design convictions by jumping on that bandwagon faster than a jackrabbit in heat.
 
Last edited:
@ Faylar Faylar You should probably stick to 3x and Pathfinder.
Yes and no. Pathfinder is a little too bloated imo. Less option bloat, and too much core bloat (If that makes sense)
Also, I do really like a lot of the changes that 5th made and would love to see that line of thinking married to the 3.x depth of options.
5th is a move in the right direction, but it also leaves a lot behind that doesn't necessarily need to be left behind. It has the ability to cater to other crowds with supplements while retaining its core. They already have a 1 or 2 supplement book limitation on most official campaigns anyways, so there is nothing stopping a AD&D, or 3.x like supplement from appearing as well.
 
Yes and no. Pathfinder is a little too bloated imo. Less option bloat, and too much core bloat (If that makes sense)
Also, I do really like a lot of the changes that 5th made and would love to see that line of thinking married to the 3.x depth of options.
5th is a move in the right direction, but it also leaves a lot behind that doesn't necessarily need to be left behind. It has the ability to cater to other crowds with supplements while retaining its core. They already have a 1 or 2 supplement book limitation on most official campaigns anyways, so there is nothing stopping a AD&D, or 3.x like supplement from appearing as well.

On the whole, 3x thing, does anybody here still play any Microlite20? I ran that system a great deal when it came out, and still have fond memories of it.
 
Brian Gleichman and it was Age of Heroes.

And I have a copy. :smile:

View attachment 20588

He never replied to me after I acquired it.

What it like?.
Dense very very dense. The RPG that it is more like in terms of quality and complexity is Dragonquest not bad but an acquired taste. It been a while so I don't remember all the details. But here is a review.

I remember Gleichman, a good essayist actually but I found this part of his 'Gamer's Manifesto' absurdly absolutionist:

"I reject the concept of play without the equal of a map and miniatures together with solid rules covering the elements of range, line of sight, and terrain. Any other style of play is lazy and nothing more than dependence upon GM handouts." (my bold)
 
I remember Gleichman, a good essayist actually but I found this part of his 'Gamer's Manifesto' absurdly absolutionist:

"I reject the concept of play without the equal of a map and miniatures together with solid rules covering the elements of range, line of sight, and terrain. Any other style of play is lazy and nothing more than dependence upon GM handouts." (my bold)
See, I'm fine with that because he calls it a "manifesto" not "game theory". Manifestos are supposed to absolutionist and polemical.
 
Was Gleichman the fellow who had the little dancing chap as an avatar?
 
If the group is focused on collaborative storytelling using the mechanics of a game? Then you are playing a narrative system.

If the group is focused on pretending to be character having adventures in a setting the you are playing a roleplaying system.

If the group is focused on achieving victory conditions in a scenario the you are playing a war game or board game.

It not complicated unless the referee or group can‘t articulate why the hell everybody is there for.
Most games do all three of those things at once in some mixture. That's why I think the forge labels are goofy. They might describe a particular mechanic fairly well, but I think they fail in some significant ways to define entire rules systems in a useful way. YMMV.
 
Most games do all three of those things at once in some mixture. That's why I think the forge labels are goofy. They might describe a particular mechanic fairly well, but I think they fail in some significant ways to define entire rules systems in a useful way. YMMV.
Yeah. I think the original Threefold can be useful, especially if you see it as either a specific GM decision or game mechanic. As a way of describing a RPG, not so much.

With GNS theory, the idea that the three goals are mutually exclusive is so baked in that it's near impossible to reject that without rejecting the whole model.

In both cases I'd criticise them for not separating simulation from genre emulation.
 
44620985125_8c0e015e9e_z.jpg


44620984845_ac49250087_z.jpg


43717596230_c6bac575f3_z.jpg


44620984735_1cb95d9a1f_z.jpg


44620984995_937478902a_z.jpg


43717596030_e147dfcfb6_z.jpg
 
There's also the old LARP categorisation of gamer/actor/roleplayer although that was never really fleshed out enough to call it a theory.

I don't mind using these kind of terms to describe players, as long as we're aware that we're talking about preferences, not hard and fast gamer archetypes. I use that a bit when casting one shot theatre style LARPs.

If I describe Georgio as an "actor" I don't mean he won't stick to the rules or enjoy roleplaying his character. It's shorthand for the fact he'll enjoy a character that's centre of attention and is happy being loud, but is unlikely to care whether he achieves his IC goals or not. So if I have a character that's doomed to failure but gets to strut their stuff (a lot of Nazis in comedy games fit this) he's a perfect choice for that.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top