Gronan of Simmerya wrote:
The crybabies have won.
Respectfully, I disagree.
One wonderful thing about Gary Gygax's gift to us is that it continued to grow long after it was first created and continues to do so today. This is not an attept to defend WotC's decisions of D&D. I haven't been into gaming as long as you or many of the others here, but I suspect that in the very early years of D&D, the emphasis must have been that this is a Game. Your comparion to craps thus applies to that style of playing. However, as people kept playing, they gradually developed different gaming styles. The game was so much more than a game of craps. While seeing if your character would die or not was one aspect of the game that many enjoyed, others found that they appreciated other aspects of the game.I like long campaigns featuring the same party, heavy on roleplaying, mystery solving and character development and where dungeon crawls are far between. In these campaigns I've found that death disrupts the game. As a DM, it means I have to come up with new reasons for the party to stay together, pursue adventure hooks etc, and re-introduce NPCs. In later editions/at higher levels, rolling up a character takes longer so that really disrupts the game as well. As a player, I feel less compelled to develop my character in a campaign where PC deaths are frequent. One-shots and mini-campaigns is a different story, but as I said I prefer longer campaigns. IMO what it boils down to is different gaming styles, nothing else. Which should win out with new editions of D&D? I don't know, but I suppose "different from what was" will always be commercially viable...
BTW: I also feel that bike helmets and parents being more concerned about their children signs that the world is evolving so maybe I'm a just a big wuss...
Havard





