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.
Ideally, a 5E would have multiple types of characters, each using different mechanics, to capture an even larger segment of the potential playerbase. Instead of everyone functioning on a three tier 'daily, per encounter and at will' scheme, different classes and roles would function differently tactically, with some being resource-management base, some being 'all day long' based, and some using other schema entirely.
We could call one a 'Warlock,' and it could be an 'all day long' sort of character, while another could be called a 'Wizard' and have a finite number of spell slots changeable daily, and another could be called a 'Psion' and have the ability to micromanage individual power uses via different gradations of expenditure of some finite resource pool we'll call 'power points.' Other classes could have different sorts of situational adjustments, so that a 'Rogue' might be able to outdamage many other classes, but only if certain pre-conditions are met, and these pre-conditions would vary from class to class, with 'Scouts' getting bonuses when fulfilling another condition, 'Rangers' getting bonuses against certain types of target, etc., etc.
It will be brilliant! There could be classes to appeal to each different style of play!
That sounds awesome, I'd totally play a game like that!
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Do online-games really destroy pen and paper roleplaying games or push them aside? I think we are talking about two different kinds of games here. In WOW there is no roleplay, it is not a roleplaying game. DnD is.
Is there a significant amount of people who would belong to the roleplaying game target group but are not playing roleplaying games but play online games instead? Again, where are the numbers to support this?
No hard data, just anecdotal evidence, but I would say yes.
Most of my D&D experience lies with the RPGA. In the SF Bay Area, we had a community of several hundred people who play together at home, game stores and local conventions.
I distinctly recall losing track of several dozen people in the community when WoW first came on the market. They stopped attending local games due to playing WoW.
Does WoW involve a lot of role playing? For the most part, no. Is it a role playing game? Yeah, it is. People are just as dedicated to their wow characters as some D&D players are. So it draws from the same pool of people who are likely to play D&D.
The biggest attraction to WoW (and other MMOs), is the convenience, as many have pointed out. But almost as great a draw is the sense of community. You form very close bonds with people in your guild. Even if you never meet them face to face, the fact that you spend several hours a week hanging out with people online, talking through headsets, creates the same sort of camaraderie that you would find in a long term tabletop home group.
But WotC is looking to span that gap in community. A stronger RPGA. Greater support for local gamestores running events. Their digital initiative (though stalled slightly, it is still going strong and is likely to expand).
Do I agree with Ryan that MMOs have cut into D&D's market share? Yeah, in the short term, because it offers convenience that currently cannot be matched by tabletop games. Do I share his doom and gloom regarding the tabletop industry? No, I don't. I can easily envision ways for D&D to stay relevant in a world with MMOs. If anything, MMOs will eventually bring more people to playing RPGs (albeit online games). If even a fraction of a fraction of those start playing tabletop RPGs, then I would think the industry as a whole will grow.
__________________ A free online fantasy humor comic.
I'm neither a new or an old gamer. I've been gaming for only 8 years and quite infrequently before 4th edition came out. Infact your stab at MMO players is odd too since everyone in my gaming group plays MMOs, but as plays PPRPGs. One of our players used to only play MMOs, but now also plays a number of PPRPGS with us. So I have seen that the rise of MMOs has only increased our players not decreased them.
So are you saying the roleplaying tabletop population is increasing? Because the consensus of the thread regarding Dancey's post is that tabletop rpgames as they are, are becoming harder and harder to stay afoot when they have to compete for people's gaming-hobby time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alikar
I've also noticed your avoiding your core premise that Wotc failed to make an RPG that you can't have fun in. Its just a different rule set. Heck I'm sure I could make an interesting and dynamic fantasy world based on using a quarter to determine fate. It wouldn't be as interesting rules wise, but there is no reason the story couldn't be good.
I am not avoiding my core premise cause this is not my core premise
My premise is that Wotc failed to make a game that is especially build to especially promote the fun of the tabletop experience in front of the MMO games for the most basic or casual modern consumer level of entertainment. For who is educated, informed and has passed the learning curve of the tabletop rpgs we have had till now 4e may be the best game in the world right now. Same for who has the possibility of the available time needed to make most out of 4e. But is 4e enough to compete with MMOs for the casual gamer? One that is not allready invested in fantasy gaming but he could be interested or fascinated to give it a small bit effort? Today the smaller this bit of effort has to be, the more MMOs seem to win over D&D. In other words D&D faces an uphill battle. It should play on its strengths and try to keep what it can keep. To secure the possibility to be able to permanently achieve this it should be optimized to thrive on the land it draws its strength from. This is my core premise.
I am not avoiding my core premise cause this is not my core premise
My premise is that Wotc failed to make a game that is especially build to especially promote the fun of the tabletop experience in front of the MMO games for the most basic or casual modern consumer level of entertainment. For who is educated, informed and has passed the learning curve of the tabletop rpgs we have had till now 4e may be the best game in the world right now. Same for who has the possibility of the available time needed to make most out of 4e. But is 4e enough to compete with MMOs for the casual gamer? One that is not allready invested in fantasy gaming but he could be interested or fascinated to give it a small bit effort? Today the smaller this bit of effort has to be, the more MMOs seem to win over D&D. In other words D&D faces an uphill battle. It should play on its strengths and try to keep what it can keep. To secure the possibility to be able to permanently achieve this it should be optimized to thrive on the land it draws its strength from. This is my core premise.
If D&D wanted to play to its strengths, it should build a fun action-fantasy combat based game. Like 4E.
I am not avoiding my core premise cause this is not my core premise
My premise is that Wotc failed to make a game that is especially build to especially promote the fun of the tabletop experience in front of the MMO games for the most basic or casual modern consumer level of entertainment. For who is educated, informed and has passed the learning curve of the tabletop rpgs we have had till now 4e may be the best game in the world right now. Same for who has the possibility of the available time needed to make most out of 4e. But is 4e enough to compete with MMOs for the casual gamer? One that is not allready invested in fantasy gaming but he could be interested or fascinated to give it a small bit effort? Today the smaller this bit of effort has to be, the more MMOs seem to win over D&D. In other words D&D faces an uphill battle. It should play on its strengths and try to keep what it can keep. To secure the possibility to be able to permanently achieve this it should be optimized to thrive on the land it draws its strength from. This is my core premise.
Do you think games like Spirit of the Century, Mircolite D20, or the Song of Ice and Fire would fullfill your requirements? How many different RPG systems have you tried?
__________________ "At best and at worst, it is a waste of time." A Mormon bishop on Dungeons and Dragons
If D&D wanted to play to its strengths, it should build a fun action-fantasy combat based game. Like 4E.
I would say a tabletop roleplaying game that can deliver the most fun action-fantasy combat. And we are not there yet, I think. Many D&D gamers like you may think we are. Come 5e, you may change your mind and like the newer edition even better. This is normal, no? I am just trying to tell my opinion on what the vision of the future of the game should be and why, give my reasons why I think what I think for the evolution of the game.
Mystery files: Amazon.com should have gone out of business in 1994. Why didn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Dancey at Pundit's Blog
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedgeski
Perhaps in my lifetime (all being well), virtual worlds that encroach upon, and then eclipse, our own imaginations will start to emerge...
No offense, but unlike you I had a hard time to not burst out laughing at that part in Ryan's blog post.
Take a step back and try to discern a single difference of the bit I quoted to:
Quote:
Oh yeah, movies distributed on videotape/internet/[insert random IT'S TECHNOLOGY - FROM THE FUTURE! here] are so going to transplant people's own imagination. No books in tomorrow's world!
The brilliance of playing a P&P RPG is that you, the player, supply the visuals. What makes them gratifying isn't solely the quality of the visuals but also the fact that YOU supplied them when no one else could. When you would let no one else have done that for you. Factor in the social experience of sharing these personal imaginings with friends, and you already have two things which MMOs don't and won't simulate because that's not what people will ever want or need them for.
External visual culture is rampant in our own day, and will be on the increase. But it doesn't ever stand a chance of supplanting internal visual culture. Not as long as there are people who appreciate the difference. Everyone who ever read, and was captivated by, a book knows the difference. So don't let Ryan fool you into thinking that one day that difference will go away.
Last edited by Windjammer; 23rd June 2009 at 01:07 AM..
I would say a tabletop roleplaying game that can deliver the most fun action-fantasy combat. And we are not there yet, I think. Many D&D gamers like you may think we are. Come 5e, you may change your mind and like the newer edition even better. This is normal, no? I am just trying to tell my opinion on what the vision of the future of the game should be and why, give my reasons why I think what I think for the evolution of the game.
I just listen to your gaming opinions and what you want out of a game and it doesn't really sound like any D&D I've ever known.
Do you think games like Spirit of the Century, Mircolite D20, or the Song of Ice and Fire would fullfill your requirements? How many different RPG systems have you tried?
It would be interesting I guess to see a game that draws the strong elements of spirit of the century and tries to have its take in a fantasy world of surviving monsters like D&D. Not necessarily using the mechanics of the fate system, a simpler core system like throw a D20 or D6 versus a target number that dictates what further options you may choose based on the result of your roll. Perhaps a game that mixes the interface of Sotc and the traditional options or even expands these options of a traditional fantasy world such as D&D.
I just listen to your gaming opinions and what you want out of a game and it doesn't really sound like any D&D I've ever known.
You are correct in your assertion. In fact I tried to touch on this at some point. I think that D&D never really tried as hard as it could to reach the potential of being able to provide as smooth a tabletop experience as it could because it had space to expand its market and thus the game's market approach was focused to expanding the game that was already under hand. Only 4e so far has tried to make some big steps in re-designing the game. However it could not go incredibly far at one shot because the fans would be more than surprised. But I believe the game has yet room to evolve.
The brilliance of playing a P&P RPG is that you, the player, supply the visuals. What makes them gratifying isn't solely the quality of the visuals but also the fact that YOU supplied them when no one else could. When you would let no one else have done that for you. Factor in the social experience of sharing these personal imaginings with friends, and you already have two things which MMOs don't and won't simulate because that's not what people will ever want or need them for.
External visual culture is rampant in our own day, and will be on the increase. But it doesn't ever stand a chance of supplanting internal visual culture. Not as long as there are people who appreciate the difference. Everyone who ever read, and was captivated by, a book knows the difference. So don't let Ryan fool you into thinking that one day that difference will go away.
I think the process of supplying the visuals - ie imagining, seeing pictures with the mind's eye - is worthless. It's worthless because it's too easy, anyone can do it.
What's worthwhile imo is creating the initial idea and, to a lesser extent, describing it at the table. That's worth something because it's actually challenging. I may well fail to create a striking visual for a monster or character, in fact I probably do fail around half the time. But that's what makes it a worthwhile endeavour.
Take HP Lovecraft. He was a bad, bad writer. But he had a genius for creating visual monster concepts such as Cthulhu or the shoggoth. He described his monsters clumsily but the initial idea of their physical forms was fantastic, as artists have subsequently demonstrated. Not everyone can do what Lovecraft did, in fact most people can't.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
The brilliance of playing a P&P RPG is that you, the player, supply the visuals. What makes them gratifying isn't solely the quality of the visuals but also the fact that YOU supplied them when no one else could. When you would let no one else have done that for you. Factor in the social experience of sharing these personal imaginings with friends, and you already have two things which MMOs don't and won't simulate because that's not what people will ever want or need them for.
WOW works because it gives the common gamer what he wants. He doesn't want someone else to make him do anything other than work the controls; if he has to do work, he's out. That includes supplying the visuals himself.
Quote:
External visual culture is rampant in our own day, and will be on the increase. But it doesn't ever stand a chance of supplanting internal visual culture. Not as long as there are people who appreciate the difference. Everyone who ever read, and was captivated by, a book knows the difference. So don't let Ryan fool you into thinking that one day that difference will go away.
It will; making your own is work, work that most people neither want nor need to do, and anything isn't either compelled from you or enjoyed by you gets done. It will come about because most people will willinglly cede that work to those that like and enjoy doing it; our successors will cede it to the specialists, and reward them for it.
I think the process of supplying the visuals - ie imagining, seeing pictures with the mind's eye - is worthless. It's worthless because it's too easy, anyone can do it.
What's worthwhile imo is creating the initial idea and, to a lesser extent, describing it at the table. That's worth something because it's actually challenging. I may well fail to create a striking visual for a monster or character, in fact I probably do fail around half the time. But that's what makes it a worthwhile endeavour.
Take HP Lovecraft. He was a bad, bad writer. But he had a genius for creating visual monster concepts such as Cthulhu or the shoggoth. He described his monsters clumsily but the initial idea of their physical forms was fantastic, as artists have subsequently demonstrated. Not everyone can do what Lovecraft did, in fact most people can't.
But that idea you are talking about comes from visuals. I mean anyone can think of ideas. What one is capable of thinking of and what ends up in the top ten charts of pop culture is something that is not really relevant in the way you make it to be, I think. IMO the most impressive thing about tabletop rpgs is that it is a medium or a tool whose function is to let people share their visions together. It is about (living) this collective process through the dynamics that the medium offers that makes this medium, that is rpgs what they really are or can be.
You are correct in your assertion. In fact I tried to touch on this at some point. I think that D&D never really tried as hard as it could to reach the potential of being able to provide as smooth a tabletop experience as it could because it had space to expand its market and thus the game's market approach was focused to expanding the game that was already under hand. Only 4e so far has tried to make some big steps in re-designing the game. However it could not go incredibly far at one shot because the fans would be more than surprised. But I believe the game has yet room to evolve.
The issue I see is this:
There are different kinds of RPG players, like for example hack and slashers or "serious" roleplayers, and they often want different and contradictory things from their game. Some of the ideals you pointed out are things I definitively don't want in my game, and would be reasons for me to refuse playing said game.
One game can't please us all, because we want conflicting things. I want a game with engaging tactical combat, a class based system, strong game balance, doesn't bog down roleplaying with too much mechanics, and interesting character creation and progression. 4E delivers that. If 4E had freeform classless character creation and more narrative combat as opposed to tactical boardgame combat, I would like it less and most likely play something else.
We can't all have what we want, and moreso we don't all have the right to demand that D&D be what we want it to be. What you want may be what others don't.
It will; making your own is work, work that most people neither want nor need to do, and anything isn't either compelled from you or enjoyed by you gets done. It will come about because most people will willinglly cede that work to those that like and enjoy doing it; our successors will cede it to the specialists, and reward them for it.
Humans constantly need to learn and adapt. This follows the fact that humans are not perfect. They are trying to survive but they cannot see the future for example. The fact that humans are not perfect is remedied by the fact that they create internal visions (not only optical, the full spectrum of senses is involved). Best example of this in practice are human bonds. Humans build bonds among themselves and live themselves, live their own life in a social way. Visions change all the time and there is a constant feedback of what you call internal and external. The problem with digital is that it will never reach a technological level where it can be a medium for such a feedback unless we first totally harness the natural environment itself and this will never happen since we are imperfect beings.
Humans constantly need to learn and adapt. This follows the fact that humans are not perfect. They are trying to survive but they cannot see the future for example. The fact that humans are not perfect is remedied by the fact that they create internal visions (not only optical, the full spectrum of senses is involved). Best example of this in practice are human bonds. Humans build bonds among themselves and live themselves, live their own life in a social way. Visions change all the time and there is a constant feedback of what you call internal and external. The problem with digital is that it will never reach a technological level where it can be a medium for such a feedback unless we first totally harness the natural environment itself and this will never happen since we are imperfect beings.
I don't know. There is such a thing as being too esoteric. Your statement makes me want to crack a beer and watch The Fast and the Furious again.
Seriously, is there such a thing as taking things too seriously? I think there is wisdom in "relax, its just a game".
What do you expect, though? I got sticker shock when my 6 year old daughter wanted a spiderman comic-she was into superhero's for a while. After seeing the price of almost $4 for a comic, I can see why kids dont buy them.
Growing up comics were $1-$2 tops at the time. I cant see kids having the income to buy comics nowadays.
:-) now I feel old. I remember 35 cent comics.
__________________ I have a sneaking suspicion that I may become the 'diaglo' of 3.5E.
"If I reject Jedi situational ethics, does that make me a Sith?"
Some of the ideals you pointed out are things I definitively don't want in my game, and would be reasons for me to refuse playing said game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion
One game can't please us all, because we want conflicting things. I want a game with engaging tactical combat, a class based system, strong game balance, doesn't bog down roleplaying with too much mechanics, and interesting character creation and progression.
Sure, I like these ideals too. These possibilities make part of what I have in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion
If 4E had freeform classless character creation and more narrative combat as opposed to tactical boardgame combat, I would like it less and most likely play something else.
I do not like freeform myself either. Narrative control and GM fiat, as I have known of them, leave to loose a game and I want something more solid. Yet, on the other hand the board is limiting in as something too artificial for me and I too often have the impression that it bogs and bores me down a bit. I want something solid but without artificial limits. I am sure that there must exist limits and that they have to be abstract but I would like to work with something more natural and optimized for delivering gameplay as fast and fluidly as possible in the tabletop environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion
We can't all have what we want, and moreso we don't all have the right to demand that D&D be what we want it to be. What you want may be what others don't.
Heh, I have been just stating my opinion here -do not shoot!
Anyway, the way you reply here makes me think of the problem of the feelings of hardcore fans or players which is always a strong force to consider. Nevertheless 4e has been doing relatively well with the hardcore camp I think even if it were a revolutionary step. The successfull possibility of such kind of steps regarding the acceptance of the hardcore base is something positive I would think and a good omen for the future evolution of the game.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
