General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Perhaps, but I also see 2e as having created grognards partially as the fallout from Gary's departure from TSR, and partially a reaction to bad modules and some of the design decisions in 2e. Also, 2e wasn't a big enough change that some groups saw it necessary.
Some of the 1E AD&D grognards I knew from that time period (ie. 1989-1990), were the people who thought 2E AD&D was purely a cash grab. They completely refused to participate in it under any circumstances, and stopped purchasing any new TSR products. The only TSR stuff they bought ever since, was mostly older 1E AD&D and BXCMI D&D modules they didn't have previously.
- "Complete Psionic" was essentially an "Expanded Psionics Handbook 2"
Nobody who's read Complete Sh-sorry, Psionic, could argue that ;p
I think it's important to note that 3.5 was experimenting with new stuff near it's end. Incarnum, Tome of Battle...they were looking at new ways to present new mechanics. It's stuff like that which ensures an edition continues. We'll see how 4e fares with it's desire to not have new mechanics ever.
Also, I find it rather odd that there's this view where tabletop gaming and technology cannot co-exist. If anything, as technology regarding AR increases, I think we'll reach a point where tabletop suddenly becomes much bigger. AR technology could allow players to sit at a table and throw some die together...even if they're miles on top of miles away from one another.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Here is my theory. When you are learning something new -and especially when you are not learning in an academic fashion- when you get involved with a new subject, the interest you have been generating exaggerates the actual possibilities as you still fail to perceive the limits of the functionality and applicability of your subject in real life. The creative process of learning does not leave or open the space right away to your senses to perceive the normal or stable range of the reactions your subject of study brings in life.
His words are full of exaggeration. I am guessing he is being involved in some professional project that deals with what he is talking about and he is still in the phase of being overly impressed by the field he is now interacting and trying to work with.
It is true that video games occupy space in people's modern lives and modern economy. It is also true that computers occupy a space in modern science, production and the organization of the economy. This does not mean we will stop to need to consume or to want to consume material food. Or have sex. Or play physical games. Or go to excursions out in nature. Because the physical world IS our nature. Video games do exist for more than 30 years. The internet does exist for more than 15 years. MMOs exist for more than 10 years. With the explosive rise of new economies and markets such as China and Korea their market has seen an impressively explosive expansion indeed. But because of this the explosoveness of the MMO economy in the long run, it is not much more than a fad.
Moreover, if he is working professionaly indeed in the MMO sector he would rather praise his field. Because you know momentum and stuff are important to promote business.
Nevrtheless what Ryan stays tabletop entertainment is not going anywhere. And MMOs or whatever virtual technology gets developed is not going to suck up the generations of the future and have the humanity living in the matrix movie.
Well, I happen to think RyanD is right, but the time-scales he's talking about are probably outside the scope of any relevance they might have to me, a mid-30's gamer.
4E vs 3E vs 2E vs whatever, DDI, GSL, PDF's.. those subjects are so utterly, utterly inconsequential to the future of the game in even the medium term that discussions about them now are simply noise.
Perhaps the market is essentially frozen and can only get smaller. Perhaps we won't have the *time* for another generational peak before technology essentially overtakes us. The table-top will remain what it's always been, a niche I happen to love, and I will continue to pump money into the pot, as long as the product interests me. Perhaps in my lifetime (all being well), virtual worlds that encroach upon, and then eclipse, our own imaginations will start to emerge... and y'know, I kinda hope they do, because I'd sure as hell like to see that.
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
Kids aren't buying traditional comic books for a number of reasons. Also, they are buying English translations of Japanese manga. In significant quantities, if the shelf space devoted to them at chain book stores is any indication.
Quote:
Also, what is the entry cost for D&D now?
When adjusted for inflation, the core 4e gift set offered by Amazon cost less than the core AD&D books I began with back in the mid-1980s.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I think it's important to note that 3.5 was experimenting with new stuff near it's end. Incarnum, Tome of Battle...they were looking at new ways to present new mechanics. It's stuff like that which ensures an edition continues. We'll see how 4e fares with it's desire to not have new mechanics ever.
Has anybody from WotC mentioned that this was official policy for 4E?
If this turns out to be indeed official policy, then it wouldn't be too surprising to see 4E running a shorter commercial lifespan than 3E/3.5E's eight years. This is also considering the rate at which WotC has been pumping out new 4E books so far, though not quite at the same pace as new 3.5E books were being pumped out during mid-2004 to 2007. As a rough count, there were around 80 hardcover 3.5E WotC books published from mid-2003 to 2008 (including the core books, Expedition to ..., Forgotten Realms, and Eberron titles), and around 13 softcover modules.
For the WotC 2000-2003 period during 3E (before 3.5E), the rate of books pumped out is considerably less than the 3.5E period. As a rough count, there were around 31 splatbooks (including the core books) and 11 modules released for 3E by WotC from 2000 to mid-2003, of which almost half of the splatbooks were published as paperbacks books of less than 100 pages. (After 2002, just about every WotC splatbook was published exclusively as a hardcover book of 160 pages or greater).
The rate of new WotC D&D splatbooks being published during 3E was approximately one new book published per month, while during 3.5E it was appoximately two new books published per month (especially during the mid-2004 to 2007 period). Looking at 4E so far, the rate of WotC splatbooks being published is back to around one new hardcover splatbook published per month. (Arguably if one takes out all the 3.5E Forgotten Realms and Eberron books in the rough counts, then the rate of 3.5E books being released by WotC goes back down to approximately one new book published per month).
Has anybody from WotC mentioned that this was official policy for 4E?
He might be thinking of how power works. There will probably not be an alternative "spellcasting system" ā la Psionics vs Spontaneous Magic vs Vancian Magic vs Warlock Magic vs Binder Magic. But 3E didn't venture out off classes, skills or feats either.
But within this framework, they seem to be wiling to do a lot of innovation and explore the system possibilities.
The Barbarians Rage, and now the Monks Full Discipline and even the Vestige Warlock Option are innovations within the system, and they shape how you play these characters.
I think we'll see a lot more exploring in the future. They basically have no other choice if they want to fill their PHBs.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Also, I find it rather odd that there's this view where tabletop gaming and technology cannot co-exist. If anything, as technology regarding AR increases, I think we'll reach a point where tabletop suddenly becomes much bigger. AR technology could allow players to sit at a table and throw some die together...even if they're miles on top of miles away from one another.
Computer-Facilitated Tabletop Roleplaying, to coin a term? This is what I've been expecting as well. Laptops at the table are too cumbersome, but once smart phones become even more ubiquitous, it'll be plausible for everyone to show up at game with their iPhone and play. Heck, two of my players currently use their iPhones to roll their dice. Players who are not present or have moved away could play via webcam.
DM content creation tools would be huge, and the game could be fully virtual, partly virtual/partly face to face, or fully face to face.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
Well, I happen to think RyanD is right, but the time-scales he's talking about are probably outside the scope of any relevance they might have to me, a mid-30's gamer.
4E vs 3E vs 2E vs whatever, DDI, GSL, PDF's.. those subjects are so utterly, utterly inconsequential to the future of the game in even the medium term that discussions about them now are simply noise.
Perhaps the market is essentially frozen and can only get smaller. Perhaps we won't have the *time* for another generational peak before technology essentially overtakes us. The table-top will remain what it's always been, a niche I happen to love, and I will continue to pump money into the pot, as long as the product interests me. Perhaps in my lifetime (all being well), virtual worlds that encroach upon, and then eclipse, our own imaginations will start to emerge... and y'know, I kinda hope they do, because I'd sure as hell like to see that.
Reading this post and some others makes me think that Wotc has failed strategically with D&D on the tabletop arena. It has failed to make a product that helps and inspires people to closely live fantastic adventures with their friends.
It has succeeded instead to produce a game, a functional game when running with the help of a computer that carries fascinating fantasy elements to artistically impress and please.
It still leaves the possibility of the freedom of a tabletop game in comparison to a computer game but fails in practice due to the time it needs when it runs.
To me, now, it is becoming more clear than ever that there is nothing that can be done to save the tabletop D&D if the next edition is nothing more than a game that plays in strict sessions (see combat) and not designed as an optimized product for a continuous dynamic of player interaction for the tabletop environment. As of today, I really find it ridiculous for a tabletop game to provoke questions about the use of skill challenges for roleplaying. Tabletop play is about thinking what you want to do and having the tool to do it. Not trying to play with a tool and see what you can do with it. This mentality exists in the realm of computers, not tabletop.
So it seems RDancey was right. The D&D as we want to think it today may only exist in the market as a hobby aking to railway-train modeling. If it wants to become a digital game it will not survive the competition because traditionally it is not made for this sort of thing, its philosophy is not that of a digital game. It will be a shame to see a tabletop game of a very strong brand name like D&D die because it somehow thinks it needs to be the most successful NeverwinterNights-like game and exhausts its efforts trying to achieve this goal.
Last edited by xechnao; 22nd June 2009 at 07:51 PM..
Reading this post and some others makes me think that Wotc has failed strategically with D&D on the tabletop arena. It has failed to make a product that helps and inspires people to closely live fantastic adventures with their friends.
It has succeeded instead to produce a game, a functional game when running with the help of a computer that carries fascinating fantasy elements to artistically impress and please.
You got that from my post?!
Don't mistake my jaded acceptance of the inevitable disappearance of tabletop RPG's with, well... anything you just said. I love 4E, it plays spectacularly well. It is enhanced by software elements, not ruled by them, and in my eyes, is an impressively designed piece of work. For almost a year, it most certainly *has* inspired fantastic adventures with friends, old and new, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
Quote:
It still leaves the possibility of the freedom of a tabletop game in comparison to a computer game but fails in practice due to the time it needs when it runs.
Eh? Fails in practice? You've lost me.
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
Don't mistake my jaded acceptance of the inevitable disappearance of tabletop RPG's with, well... anything you just said. I love 4E, it plays spectacularly well. It is enhanced by software elements, not ruled by them, and in my eyes, is an impressively designed piece of work. For almost a year, it most certainly *has* inspired fantastic adventures with friends, old and new, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
Eh? Fails in practice? You've lost me.
Yep, I fully got that from your post and I tried to explain. I also gave a couple of examples such as combat and skill challenges and how they are off the mark that the game should be designed to target. Btw I am not saying that you are not having fun or that the game is not for you. I am saying that the future designs of D&D, if D&D is to stay as a tabletop rpgame should be optimized as a tabletop rpgame, that is all. My point of comparison or standard is not 3e in case you are suspecting this. I have yet to see a mass market game trully optimized for tabletop. And I believe this is so because of the lack of competition in the past. Now, with WoW the competition is more dire for the gamer's time and a tabletop game should provide the full flexibility to enjoy the advantages of the tabletop environment at their maximum: to lose nothing of this potential and exploit it 100%.
I asked him to expand on the "forces of tearing apart RPG's" throw away line and this is what I got:
Quote:
MMOs are destroying the tabletop gaming networks. First and foremost, that's the root cause of all the other problems. This leads to several additional really bad things, like the best talent in design going to MMOs and not staying on the tabletop, and the acquistion engine for new players being almost completely obliterated. The growth for a "fantasy gaming nerd" now is Club Penguin -> Runequest -> World of Warcraft -> niche MMO. There's no point where they leave that track and pick up "TRPG" as a gaming option.
In addition to the monster eating the network, there are other factors at work as well that individually would be damaging but perhaps not ultimately fatal in the way MMOs are. Neighborhood culture is breaking down and kids are less able to group spontaneously but instead follow parent-programmed activity cycles. The D&D game has failed to produce a widely success mass market introductory product. Gender stereotypes which reduce the play of women are still afflicting the hobby. The accumulation of Grognards has reached epidemic levels so that new people to the hobby are likely to hear vastly more pessimism about how great things used to be than how great things are. The inflated costs of inventory carry have destroyed the fundamental business model of the full-line game store (despite a 400% increase in top line revenues in the past 15 years...)
Tabletop RPG as a hobby faced an inflection point right about 1990. Down one path it could have become something like the model train hobby - high end products purchased by upscale customers willing to support a niche hobby for the next 30+ years as they aged through their peak earning years and into retirement, and down another path it could try to stay relevant in the 16-24 year old demograhic that had been its natural home since inception. Unfortuantely, it picked the latter not the former, and when something came along which was simply vastly more suited to that age demographic, TRPG as a business had no possible response.
(It could still become a Model Railroad industry, btw. That door is far from closed.)
Unfortunately, @bcwalker, there's no fixing this. Instead, what's going to happen is that MMO are going to continue to evolve until they reach the point of being able to deliver a fidelity of experience better than the tabletop ever could - and then they'll keep evolving past that point to deliver experiences we can only just now begin to imagine. The technical limitations people often cite are going to just be blown away by the combination of Moore's Law and a business model that is about a million times more profitable than the tabletop model. Our kids will play in virtual worlds that would seem like hallucinations to us today - Clarke's Law will obtain, and this advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic in a lot of ways.
For people in my age demographic, we'll keep playing RPGs (when we can find the time and find a group, and find the interest) but there will never be a viable new generation of gamers coming up behind us.
I am saying that the future designs of D&D, if D&D is to stay as a tabletop rpgame should be optimized as a tabletop rpgame, that is all.
I'm not seeing how 4e's combat and skill challenges aren't optimized for tabletop play. They certainly seem that way to our group, which is to say they help provide an enjoyable gaming experience that is different and distinct from any online/CRPG experience.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
MMOs are destroying the tabletop gaming networks. First and foremost, that's the root cause of all the other problems.
I'd call MMO's a symptom. The root cause is a graying gamer population that's harder to assemble on a (frequent) regular basis, and simply has less time available to play.
Adult responsibilities are the root cause. MMO's neatly side-step them by allowing people to play whenever they can find the time.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I'm not seeing how 4e's combat and skill challenges aren't optimized for tabletop play. They certainly seem that way to our group, which is to say they help provide an enjoyable gaming experience that is different and distinct from any online/CRPG experience.
Not optimized for a tabletop roleplaying game. The experience is still different than playing online but it has many a price to pay -for example the time some people complain about- and in comparison less more to offer. Moreover there are tabletop games, such as board games that they too offer a different environment than playing online. Which brings us back to focus on the tabletop roleplaying game -nor just tableop, neither just roleplaying game but the unique qualities of the combination of the two which are the exact qualities that should be developed in design.
The problem I see with 4e's combat philosophy -which is built around a board game environment: rpgames should be dynamic games. Everchanging games. 4e combat philosophy is totally different. It is build on the encounter idea. Each combat is one full encounter. When you play you think of encounters and what you did or what you can do in these encounters. The rule frames not only respect but are mostly limited in this type of design. For example the choices you have to make for your character creation-development and much thinking process evolves around this. After some time it tends to become repetitive. Because either you like it or not the rules were designed with this repetition in mind. And the game you are playing is all about these rules. I am not talking about the time encounters take here which may be another problem or price to pay. I was mostly trying to make you see the importance of the mind frame behind the design of a game and why the game should be redesigned with a different one if it wants to be a mass market tabletop game. It should struggle to optimize the basics, that will appeal to the casual gamer, not the hardcore one.
Last edited by xechnao; 22nd June 2009 at 09:39 PM..
I'd call MMO's a symptom. The root cause is a graying gamer population that's harder to assemble on a (frequent) regular basis, and simply has less time available to play.
Adult responsibilities are the root cause. MMO's neatly side-step them by allowing people to play whenever they can find the time.
If that were the case, we'd expect to see declining league sports as well. Anybody got information on that?
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
I'd call MMO's a symptom. The root cause is a graying gamer population that's harder to assemble on a (frequent) regular basis, and simply has less time available to play.
Adult responsibilities are the root cause. MMO's neatly side-step them by allowing people to play whenever they can find the time.
This is why the game should not try to appeal to its traditional fandom but try to be an attraction for everyone, in other words the casual gamer. So to target its market for each generation.
This is why the game should not try to appeal to its traditional fandom but try to be an attraction for everyone, in other words the casual gamer. So to target its market for each generation.
How much of the casual gamer audience should they attempt to reach out to?
From the design of 4E, whether explicitly or implicitly, WotC may have possibly been trying to reach out to the MMORPG crowd. Though how successful they have been so far, is unknown.
If I was a kid today and went straight to MMORPGs like WoW, I don't know if I would even be attracted to pen and paper rpgs. Pen-and-paper rpgs may seem quite quaint in comparison to WoW, especially for kids with very short (or zero) attention spans.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
