Old Gamers and Open Minds???

[Joe]

I have found that many folks that have played many games for many years are....OLD!

But thats not my question. I have found that the longer we have gamed the deeper entrenched we are with opinions and bias. (Yes this includes me.)

Some folks have an opinion of whether they will like a product or not well before they are even exposed to it.

I have found that noobie gamers come with a much more fresh and open mind concerning such things. sure, some of their ideas are naive and silly when compared to others, but at least they are ideas.

Has this been your experience?

Who provides you with more constructive feedback. New gamers, or old gamers?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[serleran]

No one (or, rather, few people) provides me with feedback. Just look at the Rules forum. Hehe.

Seriously, maybe, and in all honesty... my wife. She has played two RPGs ever, not counting console games. Beyond that, I provide my own feedback. Having played or read countless game systems, I can often look at my stuff and think... damn, so-and-so did that better.

I really don't care what other people think about a game (or much else for that matter) so I don't ask opinions about if they like it... I ask more how it is played. I can decide on my own if I like something.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Secret Skeleton]

This is true with everything. Who is more badass, a WWII Marine or an Iraqi Freedom Marine? It depends on which of the two you ask, and the answer will be different for both of them.

I grew up with one set of shit, and other people grew up with their shit, respectively. Sometimes people get into new shit and subsequently like the old shit better, but most do not.

It has been to my experience, however, that people into the new shit never even give the old shit a chance before condemning it. People into old shit who denounce new shit usually do so from having seen shit just like it that sucked years ago.

[Treebore]

I don't think being older necessarily means not being "open minded", even though it often is, but its also simply a matter of "been there, done that, and I know better now."

Then there is the young crowd, who all too often think they know what they are doing, and don't, but also are taking a fresh look at old things, and can have an original view on a very old topic. To keep things confusing, some do know what they are doing, but not nearly as many as the ones who think they know.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Julian Grimm]

My philosophy is to try it before I say if I like it or not. That is why I never said much about 4e (Which has it's good and bad points but, not a winner in my book). I feel you need to be informed before making a statement.

Now, I can say that if I see an RPG based on Oprah or Days of our Lives I will have no interest due to the subject matter. If it is fantasy or sci-fi, however, I will give it a fair shake.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[shadoes]

I have actually found the opposite to be true. The older gamers are far more willing to try different systems than the ones who started with 3 or 3.5 D&D. For the most part I find 3.5 players think there is only one system period... no other.. everything else is crap. Have been told this more than once.

with that having been said there are ALWAYS execptions. People from both camps who are both set in their ways or open minded.

[Breakdaddy]

I am pretty open to any game that RAWKZ
I love old and new systems more or less equally. I have noticed some of what shadoes is talking about though. Some of the new school gamers show open disdain for old school games or styles of play. This may just be because the old dudes arent on the intarwebz to bitch as much about how crappy the new school is

[Pale Writer]

I've found that most of the folks around my age (37) don't want to spend the time one needs to invest in learning a completely new system. (I do. I'm an RPG system collector ).

I've also found that the younger crowd I've been exposed to always this artificial wall of what's "official" or not.

I personally miss the heady days of finding new RPGs and then learning a new system. Dr. Who, Tunnels and Trolls, Villains and Vigilantes, Gamma World, Judge Dredd, Shadowrun (my favorite), Storyteller system, GURPS, In Nomine, Deadlands, Chill, Call of Cthulu, Elric!, Earthdawn, Mechwarrior, Marvel Superheroes, D.C. (mayfair), Golden Heros, Champions, Runequest, Middle Earth Role Playing, Rolemaster, Harn (most hated by me ) . . . and those are the ones off the top of my head.

I grew up with that, all of us old punks grew up with that. A lot of the younger crowd grew up with "If it ain't D20 AND from WotC, it SUCKS!" If you don't believe me, go read some certain boards that I won't mention but we all know which boards I'm talking about.

[Joe]

I'm not trying to sling mud, nor start an old school new school debate.

I for one detest using labels such as old school, retro, and what not simply because it projects different things for different people.

I am OF COURSE dealing with generalities and I am glad everyone seems to realize that.

I am mostly expressing what I have experienced of late.

I almost forgot about the closed minded newbies since it's been over a year since I touched D&D in any form but now that you mention it the same can be true for both groups.

I find it really odd that such a fringe group as role players will contstruct artificial fences and barriers but we do.

The artsy WOD snub D&D...while D&Ders may snub having to learn a whole new language just to play the artsy games.

New School may snub old school and vice versa.

Classic gamers snub indie games.

The most ridiculous I have seen is old school snubbing other old schoolers.

But I think I am digressing and maybe the thread too.

One common thread I am noticing is that each person seems to perceive and compare everything to what they started out with. For each of us, that foundation is different.

I personally think a clean slate, or a decision to be of open mind makes all the difference in the world.

The "Been there done that" attitude is exactly what I am alluding to. Sorry old chap...but you(I) have not been there done that...you just think we have.

It's like when players try to point out issues in a particular game. They may be nice about it but what they are saying is "A part of your game sucks bro, and this is the part that sucks."

We in our infinite and superior been there done that attitude automatically assume it's just because the player doesn't quite "get it" when in fact it is the GM with his huge ego and been there done that attutude is the one that is not getting it.

I have seen it time and again with GMs over and over and yes, I am guilty of it too.

I also see it with experienced gamers that fixate on things that rub them the wrong way instead of just having fun. They allow their fun, and the fun of others to be ruined just because they can't let it go and just relaxe and have fun.

In my opinion both "new school and old" are experienced players and it is this experience that brings preconceived notions.

When I am talking about folks new to gaming I don't mean folks that are experienced with a newer game...but new to gaming.

My wife is a perfect example. An element in a game is not compared to this game or that because she has no reference point to compare. All she knows is that trying to weed thru 3.x rules has driven her to tears whereas the new game we are playtesting does not.

Rather than being intimidated and overwhelmed by huge books and complicated rules she is active in helping me create simple intuitive rules.

She does not compare the new rules to old rules but just weighs how the rules play out at the table. I will deny if anyone ever repeats this to her, but her "naive" input has been more valuable to me than the feedback of the old goats.

The oldies tell me how they would do it while the wife just provides feedback of what is in front of her.

In other words the experienced seem to be projecting while the wife seems to be actually reflecting.

I am trying to balance them both into something cohesive I can use.
It's getting late and I am rambling.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Secret Skeleton]

I won't play any game that does not use d16's.

[Pale Writer]

Secret Skeleton wrote:
I won't play any game that does not use d16's.

Heretic. D2s are where it's at. Stick with the original random decision maker!

On topic, I see what you mean, now.

However, when I'm introducing a brand-new role player to the hobby, no matter what the game is, I pretty much break it down into a "rules light, DM-May-Care" game.

That's pretty much how we did it back in the day with any system. Just about every session with a new* game began with one of us saying "So I was reading the rules and we've been doing (such and such) kinda wonky. Do we keep doing it the way we've been doing it or go by the book?"**

All of that having been said: Core rule books should follow the old "Keep It Simple, Stupid" rule. Especially when it comes to combat. Comabt sections get an automatic skip from me on first read-through and I hope like hell that skill resolution and combat dovetail.
* The only games we played long enough to not be "new" were Shadowrun and D&D 1E

** And thus how our houserules were born

[Treebore]

Well, I agree your wife's perspective is useful, but so is the one from someone like me, who has played dozens of different RPG's and seen many good and bad ways to do things. Your wife has no experience to tell her that what she is seeing may or may not be the better way to do things, because she has nothing to compare it to. So what makes her views valuable is it gives such a good contrast with which to compare to the "been there, done that" crowd. That contrast is whats giving you the extra insight.

Plus that is one important thing to realize. Most things come down to personal preferences, or tastes. The trick with anything, whether RPG, food, novel, movie, is to appeal to as broad a range of preferences as possible to be "successful".

For example, its obvious to me that the SIEGE engine allows me to throw away lists of skills, feats, powers, whatever you wish to call them, and in exchange I get a real nice universal way with which to still have all of that, but now I have to accept some occasional wonkiness that is inherent to the SIEGE system. I can accept that wonkiness, because I like the pay off of getting rid of all of those lists. Others cannot. Preferences.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[finarvyn]

Like any other facet of life, those who have experienced things tend to want to tell others about it.

If game X uses some "new" game system that I've seen fail in the past, I hate to just let others find out on their own but would rather relate my experinece with that type of system so they are forewarned.

On the other hand, what fails for me may work well for you.

I think that older gamers in general become set in their ways, having tried things and rejected them. In that way they are harder to convince. New gamers think that everything is amazing because they don't know that it was tried before.

As a teacher in the real world, I see this trend in Education all the time. Someone comes up with some "new" way to teach, but old-timers know that it was done that way for a while, then switched as someone else changed it, and is only now returning to that "new" school of thought.

In gaming, these things come and go. OD&D was simple but T&T did it differently. SOme folks said that OD&D was too simple and so Chivalry & Sorcery and RoleMaster were so detailed that they tended to beat reality to death. Those games mostly died out from mainstream gaming but later 3E and 4E brought back highly detailed gaming.

I know that it doesn't really answer the question, but at least offers an explanation as to why older gamers are so set in their ways.
_________________
Finarvyn

Lord Marshall, Earl of Stone Creek, C&C Society

C&C Playtester in 2003
OD&D player since 1975

[Piperdog]

I don't know...I have seen young and old gamers alike who are closed to anything new or are open to try anything once. I also think it is about time investment. If you learned one system and play infrequently, or the only group you know plays system x, then that is what you may be into. Learning a whole new system can be daunting, especially for new players, and no matter how cool it is, they are going to pass on it for those reasons. I have a group of guys that I play Gurps with, all of them buddies from high school, and over the years they stripped away other systems until it was just Gurps. They aren't against other games, but bring up valid points. Being so busy with careers, wives, and children, who has the time to game anymore, let alone learn new systems? My buddy Brian, who GM's half the time, said it's a matter of practicality. Everyone knows Gurps in the group forwards and backwards, and the system can be used for any genre. Why learn anything else? He's an attorney, so what do you expect? lol.

So....as a systems addict myself, I had to start gaming with some other guys once in a while, a nice group of really old Grognards and their adult kids. Lots of retro stuff with these guys (and CnC!) It's funny though, because one of my friends, a 50 year old Grognard, is now strictly S&W and occasional LL or C&C. His son, 25yr old, just got into Pathfinder, and he contanstantly berates his son about it (in good humor). "You try to be a loving parent, guide your kids in right and wrong, teach them morality....and they go and break your heart by getting into Pathfinder"
_________________
When in doubt as to who is in charge on the battlefield, listen to the man with the bloodiest sword.

[Breakdaddy]

Joe wrote:
... I will deny if anyone ever repeats this to her, but her "naive" input has been more valuable to me than the feedback of the old goats...

OLD GOAT:

[Piperdog]

_________________
When in doubt as to who is in charge on the battlefield, listen to the man with the bloodiest sword.

[Julian Grimm]

Please, please, please, tell me he is wearing more than a shirt.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Breakdaddy]

Julian Grimm wrote:
Please, please, please, tell me he is wearing more than a shirt.

You DON'T want to know...

[Joe]

You guys are awesome!

Gives me much food for thought.

I may be an old goat myself...but after seeing that pic I realize it could be much worse.
Thanks for the feedback...I am finding all of it valuable. I love this forum...
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Aladar]

I take my RPGs one at a time. I play 'em, if I like 'em I keep playing, if not I don't.

If I didn't try new stuff, I wouldn't have found C&C to be so much fun.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

[neuronphaser]

Joe wrote:
Has this been your experience?

Who provides you with more constructive feedback. New gamers, or old gamers?

For me, I know part of why I'm entrenched in my beliefs is because I tried damn near everything, and found what I like. I've been gaming since the mid 80s and while I was growing up, I spent every red penny I could find for the longest time on gaming.

I've been through so many books, systems, settings, and whatever that I just can't even count. But out of all that, the thing of it is that -- only recently, mind you -- I figured out more or less exactly what I want out of a game, as a player or as a DM. And it's worth noting that as a player I want one thing and as a DM I want something slightly different.

Anyway, armed with that knowledge, and armed with having read so frickin' many game books, I'm pretty well capable of reading a quick blurb or a short review and know whether something's for me or not. A few games or books are poorly marketed, requiring either more research or flying under my radar when they otherwise wouldn't, but that's okay. I know now where to get my fix, and thus don't spend money on nearly as much crap, and have been able to parse my collection of books down to something that's both manageable and was able to be transported (in one trip) across the U.S. in the smallest Uhaul I could get

[Joe]

You see I never read that many.

I liked what I liked and stuck with it.

Always came back to D&D in it's incarnations mostly just because thats what everyone was playing.

I could never find folks to play the less mainstream unless I ran it for them.

My opinions have alway been heavy. When I was a kid it was all about Tolkien. Everything else was a pale copy.

Now I find myself ironically willing to try more stuff, but my time is limited.

I think my preferences were well honed well before I became an old goat.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[moriarty777]

I think it's all relative and different things will push different buttons for different people. But I agree that how one started will impact on some of this.

In my case when I started playing 'D&D' ... it basically was at the outset of AD&D 2E supplemented with the BECMI D&D sets and a whole bunch of AD&D 1E material. It was 'all D&D' as far as I and my fellow gamers/friends were concerned. We had no problem playing different games and enjoying trying new ones or ones we just hadn't tried before.

A lot of the attitudes changed with 3rd Edition largely because it proved to be much larger step away from previous editions / versions that came before it and somehow, it seems that this mentality stuck with some people. With the multitudes of 'clones' and other OGL games, a lot of it seems to be the same but people seem to narrow their focus on a particular branding to the exclusion of all others. It's like sticking exclusively with chocolate chip ice cream but not even daring to give chocolate ripple a second glance.



Naturally, it may come down to a minor preference and it could be as simple as layout, writing style, or art that is used. One can't really comment too much on opinion and everyone can have one -- I just don't understand some of the extreme reactions I see here and there.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Coleston the Cavalier]

Chocolate Ripple Sucks.
_________________


John Adams