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.
For the common gamer, who isn't a GM, WOW is better than D&D for what he wants. The minority that are GMs, for all intents and purposes, are little more than a talent pool for the e-RPG companies to recruit from. TRPGs, as they are now, are nothing more than a farm league for the real players in the RPG business.
For the common gamer, who isn't a GM, WOW is better than D&D for what he wants. The minority that are GMs, for all intents and purposes, are little more than a talent pool for the e-RPG companies to recruit from. TRPGs, as they are now, are nothing more than a farm league for the real players in the RPG business.
???
I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
For most gamers I know, CRPGs are nothing but a fix for those who don't happen to be able to play TRPG with a group.
Several of my current players have been won over from CRPGs to the real thing. Once I managed to get to play regularly in a TRPG I actually stopped playing computer games altogether. If we don't manage to get together for TRPG we'll meet to play a board game. It's more fun than any CRPG could ever be.
For the common gamer, who isn't a GM, WOW is better than D&D for what he wants. The minority that are GMs, for all intents and purposes, are little more than a talent pool for the e-RPG companies to recruit from. TRPGs, as they are now, are nothing more than a farm league for the real players in the RPG business.
Clearly someone has to do their research...
My wife who knew nothing about 1st edition D&D, picked up Unearthed Arcana (1st edition) and remarked "They use all of the WOW abilities in this spell list...Cool". Mostly right, jsut reverse the order.
WOW is simply table top brought to the computer screen, albeit in a way that cannot capture what real RPG's are about.
I'll be the first one to say it is obvious how much 4e mechanics take after video games, yet there is still way more you can accomplish as a character in a table top 4e game than in the WOW game.
Oh you can surely beat the lich king in WOW... but funny enough he keeps coming back in the same place... over and over and over again. SO other people can kill him as well.
In a Tabletop RPG, when you rescue the princess, the princess is truly rescued and the monarch thanks you and you have his eternal gratitiude.
In an MMORPG when you rescue the princess, she thanks you... the monarch thanks you... and she winds up back in the pit from where she was originally rescued. So that she can be rescued again.
My wife who knew nothing about 1st edition D&D, picked up Unearthed Arcana (1st edition) and remarked "They use all of the WOW abilities in this spell list...Cool". Mostly right, jsut reverse the order.
WOW is simply table top brought to the computer screen, albeit in a way that cannot capture what real RPG's are about.
WoW undeniably evolved from tabletop gaming, as did most MMOs; but to claim that WoW is "simply" tabletop brought to the computer screen is absurd. The modern MMO is very much its own beast, designed for its own medium.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with what Corinth was saying. His statement was that WoW was, for the "common gamer," a better choice than tabletop for what that gamer wants. I would replace "common" with "casual," but otherwise I agree: WoW is easier to learn, more fast-paced, has prettier visuals, and requires much less in the way of real-world logistics (finding people to play with face-to-face, finding someone willing to put in the time to run the game, scheduling a time to play every week). It's also more consistent. Tabletop play is a joy with a good DM, but with a bad DM it's abysmal, whereas the MMO always delivers.
WoW was built to draw in casual gamers, and it does that brilliantly. D&D was built by and for people already steeped in wargaming culture, and for all the edition changes, it is still heavily loaded with the legacy of that culture. For those of us who love it, it provides an experience no MMO can match, but there's a substantial investment both up front and ongoing.
Last edited by Dausuul; 24th June 2009 at 09:15 PM..
I'm on the scene, and I have been for years. I do both, I talk to people that do both, and I do so on a wide scale. It's the naysayers that are in the dark.
Quote:
My wife who knew nothing about 1st edition D&D, picked up Unearthed Arcana (1st edition) and remarked "They use all of the WOW abilities in this spell list...Cool". Mostly right, jsut reverse the order.
WOW is simply table top brought to the computer screen, albeit in a way that cannot capture what real RPG's are about.
And yet WOW is far more popular and enjoys far great commercial success than D&D ever has, or ever will. The reason is that, quite frankly, players in general prefer what WOW offers over the tabletop counterpart. They don't care nearly so much about fictional continuity as they do about engaging gameplay, convenience of play, and the expansive user network that they can tap into at will. When WOW guilds start holding their own conventions (and they do; mine's on its second annual convention this year), that's when you have something that the common gamer actually wants. WOW (and all other CRPGs & MMORPGs) may not provide what TRPGs are about, but their superior commercial success and popular acceptance means that what TRPGs are about is not what the common gamer wants.
Quote:
I'll be the first one to say it is obvious how much 4e mechanics take after video games, yet there is still way more you can accomplish as a character in a table top 4e game than in the WOW game.
It doesn't matter if I can't play when I want, how I want, because I have to herd a bunch of cats into the same space at the same time. Time not spent playing is lost value; anything utterly dependent upon Network Externalities derives most of its value from not only the size of the user network, but also by how frequently you can utilize that network. I can play WOW damn near at any time, and I will be able to get a group for any group content I wish to enjoy; I can't do that for any TRPG. If I want to play the game, and the common gamer does, the option that provides me superior convenience of access wins.
Quote:
Oh you can surely beat the lich king in WOW... but funny enough he keeps coming back in the same place... over and over and over again. SO other people can kill him as well.
In a Tabletop RPG, when you rescue the princess, the princess is truly rescued and the monarch thanks you and you have his eternal gratitiude.
In an MMORPG when you rescue the princess, she thanks you... the monarch thanks you... and she winds up back in the pit from where she was originally rescued. So that she can be rescued again.
That just means, to the common gamer, that you can play through that RPG scenario again. It's a feature, not a bug, and actually adds value for him; if were really that bad, no one would do it- and yet it's still the thing that put (and helps to keep) WOW on the top of the MMO heap.
The TRPG market is better off letting the current common gamer go entirely, and instead targeting a new audience that actually clamors for TRPGs in the same way that common gamers clamor for MMOs, but that requires that the businessmen in the TRPG business reassess what it is that they product truly offers vs. what it takes to actually use it (and to stop arguing in favor of the competition).
I can't help but wonder if we are thinking of the same WoW when we use terms like "casual" to describe the target base. Especially at high level. I don't honestly think Wow vs. D&D can really be measured on a casual vs. hardcore spectrum.
I think the term I would use is "accessible". Today, in 2009, more poeple own computers than the rulebooks to D&D. Additionally, when the mood strikes someone to play, they can install WoW and begin their journey, whereas to play D&D they will have to find a group. also, many D&D campaigns go on for a long time and come to require a consistent commitment from all involved for that one day a week. Of course, as someone who gives up 4 hours of his evening 3 nights a week and has done so somewhat consistently for about 3 years now I'd say the same is possible in WoW.
Ironically, one of the things I like about wow is how it can at times be sort of impassionate towards the given player. Sure there are quests but you're not really obliged to complete them, and as long as you have the level (and maybe if you don't) you can walk into any zone and see what it has to offer. Could you imagine a DM laying out a map of a world and sort of bracketing off what level monsters would be found where? Meanwhile, i often see an eagerness to have D&D take on the same feel, a "sandbox" we call it. I would say even with it's eternally spawning princess, WoW makes a pretty good sandbox.
[quote=Badwe;4840694]I can't help but wonder if we are thinking of the same WoW when we use terms like "casual" to describe the target base. Especially at high level. I don't honestly think Wow vs. D&D can really be measured on a casual vs. hardcore spectrum.[quote]
Keep in mind that something like 95% of players will never see end game content.
__________________ Looking for gaming in Springfield, IL? Check out my Meetup Group.
I can't help but wonder if we are thinking of the same WoW when we use terms like "casual" to describe the target base. Especially at high level. I don't honestly think Wow vs. D&D can really be measured on a casual vs. hardcore spectrum.
Any popular game is going to have hardcore enthusiasts. The U.S. has a televised national Rock-Paper-Scissors Championship, for Pete's sake.
However, WoW makes a point of being friendly to the casual gamer. D&D tries, but due to a combination of inherent limitations in the tabletop genre and the aforementioned wargaming legacy, I don't think it succeeds all that well - certainly nowhere near as well as WoW.
Any popular game is going to have hardcore enthusiasts. The U.S. has a televised national Rock-Paper-Scissors Championship, for Pete's sake.
However, WoW makes a point of being friendly to the casual gamer. D&D tries, but due to a combination of inherent limitations in the tabletop genre and the aforementioned wargaming legacy, I don't think it succeeds all that well - certainly nowhere near as well as WoW.
Still it succeeds better than any other RPG, and I would add that 4E is more friendly than 3E was.
However, WoW makes a point of being friendly to the casual gamer. D&D tries, but due to a combination of inherent limitations in the tabletop genre and the aforementioned wargaming legacy, I don't think it succeeds all that well - certainly nowhere near as well as WoW.
And I repeat. They should change this. They could make a tabletop equally interesting regarding archetypes and tactical or strategic gameplay but with a rules interface that could avoid the need of half the rules referencing that the game has now. The set up of the gameplay should have the less baggage possible. Make this the business plan priority of the new edition. Selling add-ons such as miniatures should not be the primary goal cause this way the future of the game wont be so long. Do not care about legacy and sacred cows that come in the way. If it would be simpler with a different set or organization of character attributes for example then change them. Think of gameplay and tabletop first, then of dungeons&dragons and whatever side product revenue you want to be making out of the market.
Still it succeeds better than any other RPG, and I would add that 4E is more friendly than 3E was.
Cause of the hardcore fanbase. The reasons are historic, not functional. 4e is important because of this and the marketing power that comes with it. And even in the case 4e is more friendly than 3e, it is not friendly enough.
And I repeat. They should change this. They could make a tabletop equally interesting regarding archetypes and tactical or strategic gameplay but with a rules interface that could avoid the need of half the rules referencing that the game has now. The set up of the gameplay should have the less baggage possible. Make this the business plan priority of the new edition. Selling add-ons such as miniatures should not be the primary goal cause this way the future of the game wont be so long. Do not care about legacy and sacred cows that come in the way. If it would be simpler with a different set or organization of character attributes for example then change them. Think of gameplay and tabletop first, then of dungeons&dragons and whatever side product revenue you want to be making out of the market.
The thing is, there is another side of casual play that gets lost here. And that is cool stuff. People want to do cool stuff, like shooting laser beams out of their hands and mind control. As good as AD&D was, this was one of the places it was a let down. AD&D couldn't compare to White Wolf or videogame RPGs in providing kewl powers. Me and my friends houseruled kewl powers into AD&D when we were playing it, and I don't think you could call us anything but casual players.
Simplification is good and all, but you can't simplify kewl powers out of the game either.
Cause of the hardcore fanbase. The reasons are historic, not functional. 4e is important because of this and the marketing power that comes with it. And even in the case 4e is more friendly than 3e, it is not friendly enough.
4E has:
1. A hardcore fanbase that is easy to find. A new player will have a far easier time finding a D&D/4E player. Biggest impediment to tabletop RPGs is finding people to game with.
2. The rules really aren't that bad. The base combat rules and the complexities of a 1st level 4E character isn't that much of a rules investment. Learning how to play your character(and just your character) isn't much harder than learning Settlers of Catan, and its something you can learn while you play.
3. Brand recognition. Everybody's heard of D&D.
4. Balance. A new player can throw together a character while not knowing what they are doing and still have decent results, even if playing in a game with pros.
5. Kewl Powers! 4E characters have kewl powers, and they have them starting at level 1.
Simplification is good and all, but you can't simplify kewl powers out of the game either.
I get it that the kewl powers you are talking about are about the setting and the archetypes that come with it. Why cant you implement kewl powers in a way that takes no rules cross-referencing? Why cant you implement kewl powers in a direct and elegant way? If you want to fire laser beams you just want a sci-fi war setting. If you want to throw fireballs you just want a fantasy setting.
I get it that the kewl powers you are talking about are about the setting and the archetypes that come with it. Why cant you implement kewl powers in a way that takes no rules cross-referencing? Why cant you implement kewl powers in a direct and elegant way? If you want to fire laser beams you just want a sci-fi war setting. If you want to throw fireballs you just want a fantasy setting.
Because if you make it too elegant than it doesn't really go anywhere. Look at the dumbed down accusations of 4E, and that all powers do the same stuff. I disagree with that, but its the same thing. A casual player needs differences and complexities, because they haven't yet gained the roleplaying sophistication to add it in themselves.
In other words, they need the game to provide kewl powers for them, and to make these things mean something in game.
Because if you make it too elegant than it doesn't really go anywhere. Look at the dumbed down accusations of 4E, and that all powers do the same stuff. I disagree with that, but its the same thing. A casual player needs differences and complexities, because they haven't yet gained the roleplaying sophistication to add it in themselves.
In other words, they need the game to provide kewl powers for them, and to make these things mean something in game.
These are complains of the hardcore fanbase invested and trained in 3e. I doubt that they make any real sense as you put it here. OTOH 4e is have an encounter based design and people may find that encounter after encounter things do not change much and the game feels repetitive. Their options or their powers feel repetitive. This is not about kewl powers though: it is a design matter. 3e wanted in theory to respect a continuous gameplay development approach but perhaps it failed in practice. Nevertheless it seemed different on this matter. This is where I think these complaints may be coming from.
EDIT to add: The grind also some are complaining about seems to be a factor that does make it worse.
Last edited by xechnao; 24th June 2009 at 11:43 PM..
These are complains of the hardcore fanbase invested and trained in 3e. I doubt that they make any real sense as you put it here. OTOH 4e is have an encounter based design and people may find that encounter after encounter things do not change much and the game feels repetitive. Their options or their powers feel repetitive. This is not about kewl powers though: it is a design matter. 3e wanted in theory to respect a continuous gameplay development approach but perhaps it failed in practice. Nevertheless it seemed different on this matter. This is where I think these complaints may be coming from.
EDIT to add: The grind also some are complaining about seems to be a factor that does make it worse.
You miss my point. You seem to be asking for further abstraction and simplification, and I'm saying that for the new/casual gamer there is a point beyond where going simpler and more abstract becomes counter-productive.
A casual player needs differences and complexities, because they haven't yet gained the roleplaying sophistication to add it in themselves.
RPGs have often implicitly or explicitly presented this idea that roleplaying is something difficult or advanced that you add on after mastering the rules. I think the opposite is true -- imagination and storytelling is a basic human trait, while following game rules of the complexity of traditional RPGs is a learned and relatively difficult one. Most RPGs are as pointlessly complex as they are first because of their origin in wargaming, and second through the vicious circle of the sell-lots-of-supplements-to-a-small-devoted-audience business model. 200- or 300-page rulebooks will put off most normal people from playing -- that, unlike imagining fictional events, is outside their experience.
No one is going to think you need fiddly rules to do cool stuff unless you teach them.
You miss my point. You seem to be asking for further abstraction and simplification, and I'm saying that for the new/casual gamer there is a point beyond where going simpler and more abstract becomes counter-productive.
I got what point you are trying to make. I just do not see it.
The new-casual gamer needs to be inspired and as directly as possible comprehend and understand the game without any effort that may seem unattractive to him. If the game is interesting and offers him something that he cant attain somewhere else he will pick up the game. But if he has to make any short-run effort, then the more short-run effort he will have to make the more the value of the game will be dropping and the more probable will be that he will find another value to invest his time (wow for example).
I think you aren't giving people enough credit. 4E isn't hard to pick up. Hell, I'd argue that 3E wasn't too hard to pick up, though it was hard and required a steep investment to get the same results as experienced players.
I think you are putting "inspiration" on a pedestal here, and particularly putting too much on fluff. Mechanics say more than fluff, because actions speak louder than words. Its one thing to say or imagine something, and its another to actually do it. In game mechanics terms, to take an action and see it have an effect on the game world. Mechanics provide that.
To add to this discussion, one thing casual play absolutely must have is the ability to accomodate a bad DM. This is important for spontaneous game generation, where a group of kids gets together, buys a few books, and starts playing without any outside input. Or, when a fresh faced player walks into a semi-public event like RPGA. A game that can produce acceptable results with a mediocre or inexperienced DM is a better fit for serving casual players.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
