The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future

[Umbran]

Ryan Dancey is quoted as saying that tabletop RPGs will go the way of model trains. I would be interested to hear what people think about that.

Well, clearly he's got it wrong in one major aspect - the price issue. I, at least, don't see anything like the rise of the cost of entry that he suggests. The typical video game is running like $50 when first out, so RPGs are quite competitive, as the book a player needs is still only $30 or $40. And with electronic distribution, the cost of getting products out to folks is apt to go down, not up.

Tabletop RPGs may go the way of the dodo, but not because they price themselves out of entry.

And, I think he misses a major point - human beings still have a need for actual in-person interaction. When every person has A/V gear that comes close enough to having a real, breathing person in the room with you, then maybe.

 

[Pour]

They might. I wouldn't be shocked honestly. As tech keeps pushing the boundaries eventually they will start having games that work so well with the computer playing the part of the GM there will be no need. How soon that happens is anyone's guess though.

I think I'm going to have to take the exact opposite stance here. As technology keeps pushing the boundaries of social interaction, facilitating conversation and cooperation from anywhere at any time, RPGs will experience a golden age like nothing prior. I hope it'll be D&D that does this, but it could be anyone, even a current unknown.

I don't believe AI will ever eclipse the living DM, at least not until I have a robot butler and machines headline comedy clubs, but I think I know what you're alluding to from a rules/calculations standpoint and I think Mearls addresses this need to return to the DM as creative font AND arbiter. For many of us, though, I don't think that's a problem, but he's talking about making it the baseline assumption of all games... tricky if you don't have a skilled DM. Just one of the many balancing acts he's left with.

RPGs through social media is the natural evolution of a very social hobby, with many benefits and really no draw backs (you can still play in person, too). I've played online since high school, and it's provided me with steady, creative games, and a certain ease of play/interaction that live games weren't able. Now, more than ever, I have the tools to run some really visually games, with all manner of short cuts and aids, though it worked even back in 2000 with mIRC and FreeDraw (I still use mIRC, actually, hehe).

I see people all over playing turn-based games on phones, handhelds, and consoles, as well as live matches, throughout the course of their days and in their free time. There is an essential human element, and a spirit of cooperation or competition, that really engages us. I think that's the heart of RPGs, as well, which gives me hope they'll be moving hand-in-hand with social media into the future. Right now we're seeing the awkward first steps, is all, as old media companies try and utilize the confounding new medias in a way that engages the public. Like I said topside, so long as there's a love of fantasy, science fiction, horror, imagination in general, there'll be people working to unite our loves and technology.

The nice thing, is, when they do, there will still be a need for places like EnWorld and people like us, familiar with the roots, adept in gaming, even if the particular methods have changed. There will always be such things as a great game, that feeling we get, plots, NPCs, treasure, monsters, traps. That's not going anywhere. All that changes is accessibility, which should really only threaten the abnormal elitists.

*leaps over Dancey and onto the pulpit* Let go of your fear, my friends! We are not obsolete! We are COMPATIBLE! Social media, technology, will breathe MORE life into this glorious hobby.

 

[bhandelman]

I played Chainmail before (O)D&D was even available. Lots. But how much of the three little books are devoted to combat?

I wasn't arguing page count, I was showing that a focus on using tabletop miniatures has always been there, something you inferred was new to 2008. You were expected to use a wargaming system to play it originally, so I'm not sure how intending you to use miniatures in 1974 could be understood any other way.

The alternate system they give comprises the lower half of page 19 and upper half of page 20 of Men & Magic. But just to be clear, there is stuff on other pages that feeds into this. It's just not as much a focus of the three little booklets as the 4E rules devote to combat. Even if we include the 45 pages that make up Chainmail (setting aside that which pertains to mass combat) to the 120 pages of (O)D&D, the combat system is not a huge focus. For another clue to focus, take a look at spell lists from various editions and games and estimate for yourself what percentage of the spells are designed to be used in combat situations (keep a side tally of those that are useful both in and out of combat). It's easy to do with the page and a half of spell tables in (O)D&D but I leave it to you as I am sure you have the three little booklets right beside your well-worn copy of Chainmail as I do . . . if memory serves.

I actually do have copies of the three books from the white box (6th printing, mine refers to haflings and such), but not Chainmail. I haven't been able to buy it, though I have gone through copies owned by others. If you are willing to part with yours for a reasonable price I would be more than interested.

All of your stuff about combat focus I don't find very valid. I've never seen a DnD game that didn't focus on combat, whether using miniatures or not. Again, it goes back to those arguments I always heard people make about gaming sessions where nary a die was thrown.

My point was that tactical combat with miniatures was how the game started out. The idea that DnD shouldn't focus on combat or didn't before 2008 is silly to me, considering one of the three main books has been dedicated just to monsters you would encounter in combat since the beginning.

 

[enrious]

I think computers will replace tabletop games when Poker becomes online only.

(There's a lot of reasons why people play tabletop, but when it comes down to it IMO, it's the social aspect. Just like Poker. Only hopefully with less knives drawn or bottles broken.)

 

[enrious]

I think computers will replace tabletop games when Poker becomes online only.

(There's a lot of reasons why people play tabletop, but when it comes down to it IMO, it's the social aspect. Just like Poker. Only hopefully with less knives drawn or bottles broken.)

 

[Lum The Mad]

Interestingly, I played a couple of games of Chainmail just last March at Gary Con and will likely play again this March. I also played a number of games of each edition (except 2E) of D&D in 2011. It's interesting to play them all in such a short span and get the chance to compare them more closely.

I would very much like to hear about that!

 

[Mark CMG]

I wasn't arguing page count, I was showing that a focus on using tabletop miniatures has always been there, something you inferred was new to 2008. You were expected to use a wargaming system to play it originally, so I'm not sure how intending you to use miniatures in 1974 could be understood any other way.

Ah, the risk of something "inferred" is the problem. Truth be told, minis were used very little in early D&D. As someone who played in Lake Geneva in the GenCons in the D&D and AD&D games run mostly by TSR employees and those pressed into service by TSR, I can say that minis were mostly just used for marching order and for showing basic positioning of the characters in rare situations when things were very complex. It's also how we handled things in our home games back then for the most part. This, very unlike our Chainmail games which were every bit treated as tactical wargames, moving the figures according to their movement rates and checking ranges and determining who could get into melee combat, etc. Sound familiar? It wasn't until 3.XE that I saw this used prevalently on tabletops during RPG sessions as a general rule at home, gamedays, and conventions. Some few did but it wasn't the norm. As to the page count and looking toward things like spells, those are merely clues to the focus of a game though they are born out in the cases I mention.

I actually do have copies of the three books from the white box (6th printing, mine refers to haflings and such), but not Chainmail. I haven't been able to buy it, though I have gone through copies owned by others. If you are willing to part with yours for a reasonable price I would be more than interested.

Funny guy.

All of your stuff about combat focus I don't find very valid. I've never seen a DnD game that didn't focus on combat, whether using miniatures or not. Again, it goes back to those arguments I always heard people make about gaming sessions where nary a die was thrown.

My point was that tactical combat with miniatures was how the game started out. The idea that DnD shouldn't focus on combat or didn't before 2008 is silly to me, considering one of the three main books has been dedicated just to monsters you would encounter in combat since the beginning.

Tactical combat with miniatures was how Chainmail started out and how it was focused. But the first RPG merely used Chainmail as a framework for the combat portion of the game and was meant to be a different type of game in other respects. Monsters *&* Treasure is devoted to more than just monsters (which makes up about half the book) but are you saying that you only ever played in games where "monsters" were combatted? Depending on your alignment, many of the monsters would be things you would not wish to fight. Many of the monsters are better not fought, depending on your level, and negotiating would be the path to take in any number of remaining situations. Anyway, like I said in the previous post, much of what is on the other pages can feed into combat but that's not the focus of the game so much so as exploration. That's really just a matter of the rules as written, though, and cannot take into account how you specifically played it (and I've written up thread regarding my stance not being about how any individual happens to play).

 

[Morrus]

I'm of mixed feelings about these articles.

I don't actually disagree with anything anyone said (except maybe Ryan Dancey), but it does look like the first two articles were carefully written to criticize 4E and doesn't include any quotes from anyone who isn't a direct competitor of the game. What did they *expect* Erik Mona to say?

The third article does include Mike Mearls, so at least we get a more balanced viewpoint. And that, to me, reads as a "paving the way for a new edition" article, in the same way that recent DDI columns seem to be.

Dunno. All in all, I don't think it's a particularly useful or informative series of articles. It tells us that the publishers of Pathfinder and Mutants & Masterminds don't think 4E is all that great, and that Mike Mearls is looking at why folks complain about 4E - something that has been clear for a long time given the tenor of various DDI columns over the last few months by both him and Monte. No real information there at all.

All in all, the articles don't actually say anything at all. The folks who write Pathfinder aren't keen on 4E, and Mearls has been looking at what the issues are? Yeah. We know.

 

[Mark CMG]

I would very much like to hear about that!

Paul Stormberg has run a number of scenarios at Gary Con using the Chainmail rules including last year's Battle for the Brown Hills and the previous year's Fight for the Moathouse, both of which will ring familiar to gamers (or can be googled for their significance).





Here's what he is running this year -

http://www.garycon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=746

 

[Gentlegamer]

My point was that tactical combat with miniatures was how the game started out. The idea that DnD shouldn't focus on combat or didn't before 2008 is silly to me, considering one of the three main books has been dedicated just to monsters you would encounter in combat since the beginning.

Monsters *&* Treasure is devoted to more than just monsters (which makes up about half the book) but are you saying that you only ever played in games where "monsters" were combatted? Depending on your alignment, many of the monsters would be things you would not wish to fight. Many of the monsters are better not fought, depending on your level, and negotia.

The Giant's Bag, a D&D encounter from 1975, refereed by Rob Kuntz, players, Gary and Ernie Gygax.