Re: [DL] Deadlands Reboot 2004 [Shane]

["Michael Sprague" <mds@rochester.rr.com>]

Sorry for the long post Clint.  I did delete irrelevant stuff though.  :-)

~ Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brett Dixon" <balance@tubas.net>
To: <deadlands@gamerz.net>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [DL] Deadlands Reboot 2004 [Shane]


> On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 05:05  PM, Michael Sprague wrote:
>> Chuckle, I pretty much agree.  Fantasy Setting = D&D?  I don't think
>> so!  There are many Fantasy Game Systems out there, and D&D,
>>  while the most popular is _far_ from the best rules system.
>
> In an effort to hose this conversation down before the flames start,
> this is Michael's opinion, right Michael? Right?

I stand by what I wrote.  :-)

D&D _does_ seem to be one of the most popular systems, and while the rules
do work ... more or less ... there are indeed _better_ systems out there.  I
don't believe that is an opinion.  Better or not though, many of those other
systems still died, for a variety of reasons (many because of CCG's).  Mind
you, I have nothing against people who like D&D and want to play it ... so
long as they don't try and enforce it on me.  :-)  Still, I agree with Clint
when he wrote that Gamers like what they like, good or bad.

My key point though, was that a Fantasy Setting does not and should not
automatically mean D&D.  That's what got me going.  My mind was fairly
closed 10-15 years ago, and if something came out that was not for the
system I played, I didn't get it.  I missed out on some really neat stuff
... and while I still play my favorite system most of the time, I now have a
lot of other stuff as well.  I felt that assuming that Evernight was a D&D
setting and that D&D setting should use the D&D rules to be rather close
minded.


>> I started with D&D way back when.  But the rules, while pretty good
>> for when they were created, really sucked once you got past the
>> "this is really neat" phase.  AD&D and AD&D 2nd ed. fixed some
>> of the problems, but I still found them frustrating and not worth
>> playing.  There were such better rules out there, which I converted
>> the good D&D adventures (there are plenty of bad ones) to
>> systems I liked.  Around four or five years ago, I was talked
>> into playing D&D again ... after not playing it for over 10 years).
>> And with a really good group of people.  I lasted almost a year ...
>> mostly due to the good gamers in the group ... but the rules
>> (2nd ed.) finally drove me away, and I have not played it since.
>
> By my math that would have been around the time when 2nd
> edition really started to be kind of like Elvis in his later days.
> Fat, bloated, and very different from where it came from.

Hmmm, I think you could say the same about the previous editons as well.


> 2nd Edition was the first RPG I
> really owned and had noticeable support for. with the possible
> exception of the old Palladium TMNT game. The later incarnations of 2nd
> edition were quite different,, as many players seemed to consider
> everything that wasn't specifically setting-specific to be canon, so
> you had a pretty big blender of base rules, add-on books of varying
> quality, supplements, optional rulebooks, etc.

That was going on well before second edition.  :-)  And I can think of other
systems where this went on as well.  :-)


> It's important to remember that in the early 90s, I think the TSR
> release schedule for a good year would rival the entire Deadlands
> line in quantity...

It's good to be the king!  :-)


>> I took a quick look at the new d20 rules when they came out.  While in
>> general, they look much better than the old rules, they only caught
>> D&D up
>> to the mid 80's - early 90's when compared other gaming systems.
>
> I think d20 is a good system... for certain kinds of games. it's funny,
> though. A LOT of Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition is there purely for
> nostalgia value. There's the hardcore gamers, the type who post on
> mailing lists and forums, and there's a large group of people who
> wouldn't play an RPG if you payed them. There's a middle ground,
> though, and a number of those played once or twice in middle school,
> 'grew out of it' and moved on.

Chuckle.  RPG's, as we know them, didn't exist when I was in middle school.
I started D&D while in college ... dare I say that the first AD&D DM's Guide
came out in my first or second year at college?  While I grew out of D&D
(grew sick of it after 8 years, really) and moved on, I simply moved on to
other systems/games.  Granted our group now only meets once a month, as our
real lives (jobs, children and the like) have gotten more complex.

Chuckle, after a graduated from college there was this old guy who used to
game with us.  I always wondered what he saw in gaming with us youngsters.
Now ... _I'm_ that old guy.  :-)  Fortunatly, most of our group is older
too, so I don't really stick out that much.

> But if a few of them get grabbed back in
> by 3rd edition, possibly by some of their old friends whoa re hardcore
> gamers, a few of them will 'stick' realizing that RPGs can be a
> perfectly normal and fun 'adult' hobby, a way for a bunch of friends to
> get together. That's the ones d20 grabs.
>
> It's good for the industry as a whole either way.

I'm neutral on that opinion.  There is a lot of crap that is based on d20.
It's not crap because it's based on d20 ... it would be crap in any system.
Still, because it's d20, stores carry it, obscuring better stuff that is not
d20, and making it hard to find good d20 material.


>  From inspection, the d20 designers wanted to move beyond some elements
> of the old D&D but couldn't... Look at attribute scores. They are
> pretty close to worthless in this edition, as it's the modifier that's
> important. Without the need for a feeling of backward compatibility,
> the d20 system could have borrowed from Silhouette and identifed stats
> as 0 (average), +1 (better), -1 (worse), etc.
>
> Considering the number of 'retro' supplements they've released, WotC
> knows how nostalgia can sell, and hopes it sells to both us 'addicted'
> gamers and those who don't have a gaming monkey on their back.

Good summary overall.


> I don't buy d20 books unless I really have a good reason. The last I
> bought was a D&D 3e Monster Manual, and that was because it was under
> $15 on sale...

Same here.  I have no interest in the Monster Manual.  I tend to avoid d20
material in general, because so much of it is crap ... unless it looks
interesting and is really cheap.

Later!