Question for 20ish and teen gamers

[Gaming-Poet]

I have spent most of my gaming life in fairly diverse "cross-generational" gaming groups, where there was usually at least one player still in high school and one in grad school or already in his/her career. It's always good (though not necessary) to have both an older player with plenty of experience and a sense of lived history and a young player with fresh ideas and untried -- therefore uncensored -- perspectives.

Ten or so years ago, it became more difficult to find new high school age or college age players. The most common reaction was, "Why would I want to waste my time playing tabletop when I have Halo/Starcraft/World of Warcraft/etc to play?"

A couple of years ago, I suddenly found a number of players in their late teens and early twenties who were eager to experience an AD&D game "as close to what it was like back then as possible" (except with fewer character deaths!). They ask most about AD&D when it was in its last days as king of the game systems, not about D&D 3.5 nor D&D 5th edition, and not about the original World of Darkness craze that supplanted D&D for a while.

I have asked my 20ish and teen friends why the sudden interest in a game system that ceased publishing before some of them were born, but none of them had idea (so of course we just grabbed a few more slices of pizza and began rolling dice for the game session again).

But Giants in the Playground has a good share of posters who are up to answering abstract and sometimes fairly heady questions.

So I thought I'd ask here. What's the sudden interest in AD&D (or retro in general) after more than a decade of people gloating that computer and online gaming had allegedly killed tabletop off and good riddance to it?

[Yora]

I am a bit older than the age group you mention, but I started giving any attention to oldschool games only pretty recently. I've always been playing D&D 3rd edition, Star Wars Saga, Shadowrun and things like that and those are what I've always know.
But now I feel the oldschool approach to running a games and game rules is actually qualitatively superior. From the late 90s to the start of the 10s, RPGs appear to have become increasingly focused on tactics and character customization, creating more and more detailed rules with more numbers and dice and longer character sheets. But these do get in the way of story and exploration. And when most people get introduced to RPGs, what they hear is "Let's go on an adventure, visiting magical places and encountering fantastic beings". Few people get exciting about the idea of "writing a lot of numbers, rolling a lot of dice, and making complex calculation to see if you beat the GM". And many of the prominent and vocal people who talk about oldschool games are promising just that: Ditching all that number and dice stuff and instead having actual exploration and mystery. If you try to run Basic as a tactical combat game, you're probably getting bored with that by the end of the first session. The fun and entertainment obviously has to come from somewhere else. And when the GM is not worrying about monster stats and wealth by level the whole time, he also is much more free to make some effort at thinking about the backstory of the places and beings the players encounter and can easily adjust as the players are changing things.

[The Evil DM]

I will lead into this answer with a little history about myself because the perspective does provide some influence on my views.

I am one several active gamers on this board who has been around through the entire history of role playing games. I cannot say I have played every role playing game that has been created but from the beginnings as Chainmail to what is on the market now I have played a solid share.

I have also been involved with game design, both paper and digital. However, for most of my work I have left commercial game design and got into government simulations in the defense industry.

I was born and raised in the Pacific Northwest and have known people from WotC since the very beginning of Magic the Gathering. I helped playtest 3.0. (was a dissenter on many choices) and if anyone owns a digital copy of the Atlas of the Forgotten Realms released in the late 1990s and created with Campaign Cartographer, I produced several of those drawings.

Between work and gaming I spend upwards of 60 hours per week thinking about gaming.

With that behind me here is my perspective.

In the beginning of role-playing games, the game itself was a shift in entertainment culture. It emerged prior to home PCs, and it was quickly latched onto by the more cerebral element of the youth. Not many high school and college sports stars spent Friday evenings role-playing. The highly creative nerd/geek element latched onto role playing and ran with it. That early stigma of being a Nerd’s game plus misunderstandings on “How do you Win?” kept growth within an intellectual counterculture.

In the early years of Role-Playing games, the video games were interesting but not nearly what they are now. If you have played Atari or CalecoVision they were ok but these games just didn't draw you in. In the early days of gaming a computer couldn't compete with a GM for keeping the game interesting and telling a story. In the 1990's nerds and geeks deeply rooted in the role-playing game culture began to mature and contribute to the video gaming world. Characters began to drive game design. Zelda, Final Fantasy and story based video gaming began to draw people in.

Soon the computers became better and faster and you could play an exciting game on a console or pc without needing to learn all the rules that determine how the game functions. Video games are easier to master, and provide faster positive feedback than a GM can.

The increasing popularity of video games then subsequently enticed people to look at where the games come from. Video gamers found interest in pen and paper gaming but in the case where games were not well written or difficult to master the rules there was less interest. Pen and Paper game design began to respond to the video game model and I think the culmination of that response is the disastrous D&D 4th ed. The rules in that system are written almost like software pseudo code.

I think the resurgence of younger gamers looking back to the origins of role playing is the realization that role playing is not video gaming. There are many gamers who approach a role playing game like a video game and that is fine, but when that happens, the gamers are leaving out what is the real core nugget of pen and paper role playing

A computer cannot yet recreate - Human Creativity.

The more role-playing games have built larger frameworks of rules, the more human creativity begins to become limited. The inverse is true and in an effective role playing game a balance of rules and creativity must be struck. I think original AD&D - with all its flaws - did a good job of achieving some balance in this area.

There are enough rules to play by without so many rules that creativity is stifled and this is driving players to look back to AD&D

[Anonymouswizard]

At least here around London there are two types of young gamer, the tabletop gamers and the 'all tabletop games are D&D' gamers, with only two people I've met being both computer and tabletop gamers. The two groups can get at each others necks, because the video gamers will get pissed at the implication that they aren't doing enough for tabletop gamers (an actual conversation went 'you do two, sometimes three, events for video games a week, in addition to the social, doyou mind booking a room for board games once a week, if I stay and monitor it?' 'No, you already get to play card games in socials, stop trying to be more special than other types of games' 'what about the introduction to roleplaying event you said you'd run?' 'We never told you that you were supposed to organise it, but we are going to say so'), while tabletop gamers would love to get groups together without it taking months. But this is just me ranting.

Among the tabletop gamers there are two types, 'anything goes' and 'moved beyond D&D'. The second crowd has got annoyed by the fighting focus and over complex crunch, welcoming the problem solving approach of older editions along with the less complex (but poorly organised) rules.

[Milo v3]

I'm actually surprised by this thread since my experience has been the opposite. At both my high school and university, about 95% just played 3.5e or Pathfinder (though one group tried to do a nWoD game once). None have wanted to play older editions.

[CantigThimble]

Well, I can list my reactions to all editions of D&D in chronological order:
D&D 3.5: This is fun! Lets play until my ears fall off.
D&D 4th: This is like 3.5 but all my combat options are stupidly complicated and my non-combat options are stupidly simplistic. Ugh, why did I preorder these books?
AD&D: This is like 3.5 but theres pointless difficulty like needing to roll absurd stats to be a paladin and really low hit points.
D&D 3.5 on the internet: Apparently there are tiers of characters, I'm on the bottom, and everyone is referencing 18 books I've never heard of. NOPE.
D&D 5th: Huh, this is like 3.5 but with much better everything. Why didn't they make this sooner? I love it!

Computer games were fun, but they never replaced any tabletop game in my life. I mostly played them because I didn't have a gaming group available.

This spans the ages of about 12-17, I don't know if any of this answers your questions but I figured I'd give another relevant data point.

Spoiler: Random Extra Point

Show

Just to illustrate how different my 3.5 playing experience was to what is apparently the case for people on here, I once posted a story about one of my games which sprung into a massive off topic discussion about how my claim that my level 3 TWF, bastard-sword/pistol wielding fighter rogue could have easily dispatched the sorcerer and cleric in my party was objectively false. The claim being that the casters would obviously use the so called 'save or suck' spells like glitterdust and daze and didn't believe that I could stand any chance. This was not remotely the case. (also if you have any questions about this feel free to PM me, I don't want to derail another thread with that discussion.)

[darkscizor]

Well, I'm in High School, and I usually play 5e or the RPG of my design with my friends. It may be me, but there's some extra fun to be had in a game that hasn't perfected all of its rules, is just coming out, or is just a new game to try. With 5e, the players in my group had fun, but we also had fun playing my RPG, and everyone liked the feeling of starting new with a system that they didn't have any experiance with.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Lord Raziere]

D&D 3.5 on the internet: Apparently there are tiers of characters, I'm on the bottom, and everyone is referencing 18 books I've never heard of. NOPE.

My reaction to 3.5 in a nutshell.

as for me, I'm weird for 21 year old gamer. I didn't start roleplaying with any system at all. I started roleplaying freeform on a forum, I always knew that videogames and roleplaying are two very different things. mostly because customizability. my imagination does things no computer can. heck, I've only ever been in one real life rpg game in high school, only one year of dnd 3.5, sure it was cool, I got to be a rogue/sorcerer elf prince who accidentally invented a blimp that I used to throw two bombs out of and was lucky as all get out, but a vast majority of my roleplaying has been online and freeform, and I can count the number of successful campaigns pbp campaigns I've had even in freeform on one hand.

but point is, if I want to play game, I have videogames for that. the 3.5 paradigm of learning the system until you master it utterly is too videogamey for me in my experience, because it reminds too much of all the videogame optimizers always searching for the best loot in the pile to up their numbers a little more, or the pokemon people who breed pokemon over and over again until their IV's are just right. if I want to roleplay, I go for Fate or M&M, things like that. but AD&D? psh. I don't want to deal with its flaws both crunchwise and fluffwise. I'm too much of a modern social justice guy for that.

[Karl Aegis]

You're dealing with hipsters. Jump out of that boat before it's too late.

[Anonymouswizard]

My reaction to 3.5 in a nutshell.

as for me, I'm weird for 21 year old gamer. I didn't start roleplaying with any system at all. I started roleplaying freeform on a forum, I always knew that videogames and roleplaying are two very different things. mostly because customizability. my imagination does things no computer can. heck, I've only ever been in one real life rpg game in high school, only one year of dnd 3.5, sure it was cool, I got to be a rogue/sorcerer elf prince who accidentally invented a blimp that I used to throw two bombs out of and was lucky as all get out, but a vast majority of my roleplaying has been online and freeform, and I can count the number of successful campaigns pbp campaigns I've had even in freeform on one hand.

but point is, if I want to play game, I have videogames for that. the 3.5 paradigm of learning the system until you master it utterly is too videogamey for me in my experience, because it reminds too much of all the videogame optimizers always searching for the best loot in the pile to up their numbers a little more, or the pokemon people who breed pokemon over and over again until their IV's are just right. if I want to roleplay, I go for Fate or M&M, things like that. but AD&D? psh. I don't want to deal with its flaws both crunchwise and fluffwise. I'm too much of a modern social justice guy for that.

Huh, I'm almost the exact opposite, despite being the same age. I started with Baldur's Gate before playing two sessions of the old BD&D red box at 12 (first as a cleric, second as an elf, if I played it again I'd go for Cleric or Dwarf), then ran a few sessions of 3.5 at around 14, then couldn't play until university where I had one session of 3.5, then an entire campaign of unknown armies (plus a handful of games I've GMed), where I've come to appreciate crunchy systems as long as they are done well (and, in my opinion, 3.5 fails at this more than AD&D), so I'll tend towards White Wolf (for the fluff, I intend to hack it all into another system at some point), Shadowrun, Dark Heresy and GURPS.

As has been pointed out, I tend to be the power gamer in the group, due to paying attention in character creation and being mathematically competent, leading me to have been in cases where my character significantly overpowers the others (I'm the only person in my group who has managed to work out how arrays in M&M work, which means I can dance around most GMs in one group as long as I avoid the term magic) despite me finishing Character Creation half an hor early, or if I'm lucky, I'm in a group of other engineers and scientists, where my characters tend to blend in (it also helps to know the GM). This is not from mastering the system, but from just reading through it and doing some quick calculations (a white wolf vampire twinked for dominate 1 is wielding the best SoL in the entire core book) which leads to mid op characters in low op groups (I'm developing an aversion to high op after having seen someone dodge bullets in a game meant to be 'like reality unless noted').

I've noticed players in their 20s are split into three types: 'let's see where the narrative is going', 'it's what my character is like', and 'shut it I want to kill somebody already'. The third group tends towards D&D because they don't care about the system, the middle has no preference, and the first tends towards more streamlined systems (or GURPS, the biggest narrative player I've met loves running GURPS). The ages for this sample group range from 16 to about 25.

AD&D isn't really a hot thing, with interest only every being expressed if prompted (I surprised someone by borrowing their books and falling in love with the system myself).

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, I only barely qualify for this category (and were I not ill from plague, I'd drown my sorrows of getting older with ice cream) I would firstly ask your younger players, "So, what do you think of games like Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale?" and see what their reaction is. I admit there's a good chance I'm wrong, but I imagine with a lot of older games popping up on Steam and Good Old Games, there's a larger interest in both this system and this era of gaming.

But then again, I'm also the sort of person who wants to know the lore of everything in a game and the history of it. Yes, even for things like Orcs Must Die. So take that with a grain of salt, because I need to go read more of the books from Skyrim and compare them to the ones from Daggerfall.

[Pluto!]

There are like 6,000 pages of monster manuals compatible with TSR D&D, plenty of pregen adventures and minimal character building (for D&D).

[Ralanr]

As a 20ish player, I can say I've wanted to try games like D&D since I was maybe 12. Though it was probably because the game had been referenced a lot in pop culture I watched (yay cartoons). I can't name specifics off of my head, but it's also the same reason as to why I played games like World of Warcraft. Probably why I got into gaming in general (Not that I don't regret coming into gaming at all. Great times and hopefully great future!).

"Nerds" and "geeks" are often those behind a lot of that stuff. So it stands to reason that it spreads around.

Course it could be hipsters. But if everyone has fun then who cares?

[Brendanicus]

As video game technology has advanced, telling more complex stories became possible. Many modern Western RPGs in particular now are able to hsve player choices make a significant impact on the story. These games are extremely popular, but all video games have their limits.

In.tabletop, literally anything can happen, as you are only limited by your imagination, not a million dollar development budget. Players get morr options to make customizable characters and meaningful choices than in, say, Fallout.

Additionally, TTRPGs can combine the storytelling and self-expression of videogame rpg's with the fun of multiplayer, something that has yet to truly come together in videogames.

[mephnick]

D&D 3.5 on the internet: Apparently there are tiers of characters, I'm on the bottom, and everyone is referencing 18 books I've never heard of. NOPE.

I'm 30, but yeah, the internet completely ruined D&D 3.5 for me and my regular group (though we started with AD&D and 3.0). I went from having a bunch of friends messing around having hilarious adventures to a group of power-gamers obsessed with tiers, class dipping and spell abuse.

It's like playing a casual party game like smash brothers on N64 with friends and then going online with the WiiU version and realizing people have actually spent time perfecting frame attacks, juggling abuses and shifting or whatever. Why? Why would you do this? Why do you have the time to do this? Who cares? It's a party game!

Thankfully 5e has simplified and opened up the game enough that I can actually play it again, even with former munchkins. Despite the dumb rules, the older systems had that feeling to them. The games that support simple creativity are what bring people into the hobby.

[Milo v3]

I'm 30, but yeah, the internet completely ruined D&D 3.5 for me and my regular group (though we started with AD&D and 3.0). I went from having a bunch of friends messing around having hilarious adventures to a group of power-gamers obsessed with tiers, class dipping and spell abuse.

It's like playing a casual party game like smash brothers on N64 with friends and then going online with the WiiU version and realizing people have actually spent time perfecting frame attacks, juggling abuses and shifting or whatever. Why? Why would you do this? Why do you have the time to do this? Who cares? It's a party game!

Thankfully 5e has simplified and opened up the game enough that I can actually play it again, even with former munchkins. Despite the dumb rules, the older systems had that feeling to them. The games that support simple creativity are what bring people into the hobby.

Wait... So other people examining the mechanics of a game you play, ruined how you played the game. That's like not playing pokemon because smogon exists.

[CantigThimble]

Wait... So other people examining the mechanics of a game you play, ruined how you played the game. That's like not playing pokemon because smogon exists.

It's human nature to make the better choice over the worse choice, when you know what 'the better' choice is then you have to make a conscious effort to not power game, at least a bit. And if people in your party ARE power gaming and you're just playing casually, then that just cuts the enjoyment down a lot. I very deliberately do not look up strategies or try to optimize how I play games because they just stop being relaxing and start being work.

[Slipperychicken]

\What's the sudden interest in AD&D (or retro in general)

I think it's because editions older than 3rd have an almost mythical status in the dnd community, as precursors to modern dnd. People tell stories about old dnd (before 3e) and their weird mechanics, complex history and origins, their "hardcore" and quite lethal games, but few new gamers have actually run it. There are occasional references to "old-school" gameplay, along with some nostalgia for it. People who have played AD&D are almost universally considered "true gamers" and RPG-veterans by the community. There's also a desire to see what dnd was "originally" like, before the introduction of ideas like class balance, narrative gameplay, and player empowerment. At least in part, it's a sort of historical or antiquarian curiosity.

[Milo v3]

It's human nature to make the better choice over the worse choice, when you know what 'the better' choice is then you have to make a conscious effort to not power game, at least a bit. And if people in your party ARE power gaming and you're just playing casually, then that just cuts the enjoyment down a lot. I very deliberately do not look up strategies or try to optimize how I play games because they just stop being relaxing and start being work.

Huh, fair enough. I generally just try to go for whatever's cool. Which generally ends up Awesome but Inefficient.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm older then the target question, but I DM for lots of younger gamers.

There was a time where there were few young gamers. And it was all because of video games. All the ''good'' graphic (not) RPG's came out, and everyone played them like zombies. Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Halo, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, World of Warcraft, and so on. The younger folks just loved them games like crazy....for a while. It wore off eventually though, as a game is only as good as it's programing. A video game is good for what it is ''easy, brain truing off entertainment'', but you can only ''do'' so much in any video game. You can only do what the game is programed to do. For many, the limited video games were enough.....but a lot of people wanted more, and that lead to them coming back to book RPG's.

A typical conversation might go like this:

Video Game Teen: ''Wow guys I was up all night playing Zap! I got to the secret zombie room! And got to level 1001! "
Others: "Um, ok"

Gamer Teen: "My character Tobin the Brave fought an evil lich king on the side of a volcano!''
Others: "What?"
Gamer Teen: "It was a tough fight, the lich cast a spell that...''

And the gamer teen could go on for several minutes describing a true unique and personal adventure, not just a copy of what many others have done to get to ''x'' in a video game.

This drew lots of gamers back to the game.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't play RPGs because I don't have the skills for it. I'm not talking about the understanding of basic math, reading comprehension, or the ability to speak clearly. It's the improv writing. A piece of backstory is something I'll stew over for hours, not a detail to come up with on the fly. To successfully RP a good character, I'd have to write a novel as their backstory first - just for personal reference - so I don't ever have to fudge details. So in reality, I write things that aren't for RPG characters when I want to write, and play video games when I want to play a game.

[neonagash]

I'm a bit outside of the age group (32) but I started with ad&d and had a reversion to older styles a few years ago, so maybe Im close enough.

Anyway I agree with evil dm in a lot of ways here, but I think a lot of it is just nostalgic.

I always preferred white wolf to d&d as a system because I don't like class and level as a concept as much. But I will play or run pathfinder.

Anyway i have a special place in my heart for old school editions. Those were up all night with my best friends ever, first time with a girl with the cute Goth chick in the group, first time drunk when my best friends older sister bought us a case of Milwaukee's best for the game and we were 15.

Just a whole lot of good first times and great memories around old school games.

Also like that they are simpler.

[Kitten Champion]

I've no real impetus to play anything other than whatever our group is playing, which is mostly Pathfinder and recently 5th addition. I prefer Pathfinder because I have the core books and I don't have to spend much time thinking about the rules. I don't have much in the way of disposable income, so a solid go-to game is much more attractive than whatever fad that people are going to get bored with after a month.

However, I could see myself being moderately interested in AD&D simply because so many of the cRPGs use it as a base. I may not have played Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, and Planescape: Torment when they came out, but with GOG I've suddenly been inundated with some pretty enjoyable AD&D-related experiences -- granted little of that has to do with the RPG system itself.

[Freelance GM]

I'm a 20-year old college student whose declared major is actually "Interactive Design/Game Development," so my interest in AD&D and older editions comes from almost a pathological look at it.

"Ok, this was the granddaddy of RPG's. What made it good? What influence did it have on future games? What can I learn from it?"

I think the surge of disinterest, then interest again is because for a while there, we were getting really good video games.

I mean, around 10 years ago, video games were pretty great. WOW was getting big, Halo just revolutionized shooters, and RPG people like us had KOTOR and Oblivion, which were all pretty groundbreaking in their own ways. (Ok, so Oblivion was actually only 8 years ago, but still.)

The games were good enough to be a worthy substitute at the time.

That's not the case anymore. The games are still fun, but not as fun. Also, having to pay for new consoles and DLC eventually makes tabletop gaming a more cost-effective option. So, now those people who enjoyed CRPG's have to switch to tabletop to get their fix. Chances are in another 5-10 years, the pendulum will go back to video games being better again, but for now, I say we just enjoy it.

I mean, the competition between tabletop games and video games is only going to make both genres better in the long run, so more fun for us.

[INDYSTAR188]

Pen and Paper game design began to respond to the video game model and I think the culmination of that response is the disastrous D&D 4th ed. The rules in that system are written almost like software pseudo code.

You had me until this point here. I am always shocked to hear people say how much they hated 4E. I've played 3.x, 4E and 5E and I loved them all.

I thought the A/E/D/U power system of 4E was easy to use but somewhat limiting in terms of creativity, but the intentions were good. Give the non-casters the same ability to impact play but with their own power-source. I don't think the system did anything to restrict role playing and you can have just as much fun playing 4E as any other system.

I find the amount of options and rules and sub-rules in 3.x really take away from my fun. I find that the 4E system gets a little stale and it makes combat take way too long. I am ecstatic about 5E and I cannot wait to fully make the switch (I'm finishing a level 1-30 4E campaign, then a friend is going to run a 3.5 campaign, THEN we're on to my planned 5E game).

Regarding the main topic, I am most excited about 5E because of the renewed 'old-school' feel the system brings while streamlining rules.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm a 20-year old college student whose declared major is actually "Interactive Design/Game Development," so my interest in AD&D and older editions comes from almost a pathological look at it.

"Ok, this was the granddaddy of RPG's. What made it good? What influence did it have on future games? What can I learn from it?"

I think the surge of disinterest, then interest again is because for a while there, we were getting really good video games.

I mean, around 10 years ago, video games were pretty great. WOW was getting big, Halo just revolutionized shooters, and RPG people like us had KOTOR and Oblivion, which were all pretty groundbreaking in their own ways. (Ok, so Oblivion was actually only 8 years ago, but still.)

The games were good enough to be a worthy substitute at the time.

That's not the case anymore. The games are still fun, but not as fun. Also, having to pay for new consoles and DLC eventually makes tabletop gaming a more cost-effective option. So, now those people who enjoyed CRPG's have to switch to tabletop to get their fix. Chances are in another 5-10 years, the pendulum will go back to video games being better again, but for now, I say we just enjoy it.

I mean, the competition between tabletop games and video games is only going to make both genres better in the long run, so more fun for us.

I've also noticed a tendency for games for decent gameplay with great graphics rather than great gameplay with decent graphics (and I've been told that I'm stupid for seeing nothing wrong with the 360's level of graphics), with some exceptions such as Dark Souls with it's challenging but rewarding gameplay (that doesn't punish me for having dyspraxia due to the relatively slow speed of combat with attacks taking at least a second) and TES which blends good gameplay (if you like first person) with an open world. Tabletop RPGs have, in contrast, have focused on either mechanics or setting, giving us games which feature good gameplay without hiding the mechanics (this is what bugs me about video games and why I'll have Baldur's Gate show attack rolls). This means that several of the current games are style over substance with games appearing good but failing to be as fun as old games (I still think that Persona 4 is better quality than any Xbox 360 game I own, despite it's mechanics being just a refined version of Persona 3's, because the mechanics were good if not as good as Lucifer's Call was in that department).

Talking to the Games Design students at my university the difficult and mathematical mechanics portion is actually being pushed to the side in favour of the style portion, despite several genres (WRPG, ERPG, TBS, and RTS) requiring if not tight at least well developed and fairly balanced mechanics, ending with me getting in arguments with people on that course over which is more important (I design tabletop games as a hobby, which has caused me to think of mechanics as the most important part).

[The Evil DM]

You had me until this point here. I am always shocked to hear people say how much they hated 4E. I've played 3.x, 4E and 5E and I loved them all.

Please don't attribute something I didn't say to me. I did not say I didn't like 4th ed. I said it was a disaster. And it was a commercial disaster.

Sure the was a segment of gamers who enjoyed it. But a large segment of gamers defected from the WotC brand towards Paizo.

Also I am not trying to compare 4th ed to any particular video game but it was clearly marketed using language in attempt to lure video gamers into the game. I think the way they wrote some of the rules was as a test drive for possible inclusion into a digital game in the future which is why it has a pseudo code feel to me.

[The Evil DM]

I've also noticed a tendency for games for decent gameplay with great graphics rather than great gameplay with decent graphics (and I've been told that I'm stupid for seeing nothing wrong with the 360's level of graphics), with some exceptions such as Dark Souls with it's challenging but rewarding gameplay (that doesn't punish me for having dyspraxia due to the relatively slow speed of combat with attacks taking at least a second) and TES which blends good gameplay (if you like first person) with an open world. Tabletop RPGs have, in contrast, have focused on either mechanics or setting, giving us games which feature good gameplay without hiding the mechanics (this is what bugs me about video games and why I'll have Baldur's Gate show attack rolls). This means that several of the current games are style over substance with games appearing good but failing to be as fun as old games (I still think that Persona 4 is better quality than any Xbox 360 game I own, despite it's mechanics being just a refined version of Persona 3's, because the mechanics were good if not as good as Lucifer's Call was in that department).

Talking to the Games Design students at my university the difficult and mathematical mechanics portion is actually being pushed to the side in favour of the style portion, despite several genres (WRPG, ERPG, TBS, and RTS) requiring if not tight at least well developed and fairly balanced mechanics, ending with me getting in arguments with people on that course over which is more important (I design tabletop games as a hobby, which has caused me to think of mechanics as the most important part).

The industry is driven by market. How many people have purchased a slick looking game only to be disappointed.

This is the video game equivalent of sex sells - graphics sells. Game play is for the minority percentage who want some challenge.

[Anonymouswizard]

The industry is driven by market. How many people have purchased a slick looking game only to be disappointed.

This is the video game equivalent of sex sells - graphics sells. Game play is for the minority percentage who want some challenge.

Oh, I totally get this, but If a game is meant to be part of a series then poor gameplay can kill the sales of later titles (also known as why I'm not buying Dragon Age Inquisition until I find a copy for £10 or less). The fact that 90% of people will buy a game based off of how pretty it is has allowed me to buy great games for £5 occasionally.

[Kriton]

I started tabletop gaming when I was 17, and have been at it for 13 years. My gateway drug was DnD 3.0, and I think it was the crunchiness of the system, and the social aspect of the game that kept my interest long enough to get hooked on it.

In my experience with tabletop gaming, I have come across many first time players, in various systems and for the vast majority of them it was the social invitation that brought them to table for their first session. If the experience of that first session was sub-par(due to DM, or gaming-group failings), then the whether the first time gamers would continue to try to play or not, seemed dependent on the how interested they were in the fluff of the game. If the experience was good they would roll with whatever system they got first introduced with, until they or another member of the social group felt restricted by the system and propose to the group to try a new one.

What I'm trying to say is that, I have never encountered a newcomer to PnP-RPGs that actually expressed any preference for one system or another, and it would seem very strange to me if they did.