D&D on CNN!

[nedjer]

OK . . . tabletop RPGs are more sophisticated than boardgames because . . .

A boardgame establishes a set of limiting rules, restrictions and boundaries to define a largely procedural gameplay.

A tabletop RPG proposes a set of guidelines, which are interpreted and revised in- and out-game, to lessen restrictions and boundaries that might limit players' imaginations. An emergent gameplay.

The trend towards tabletop RPGs that favour crunch and very lengthy rule sets is an attempt to proceduralise tabletops by making them more hexy, more combative and crunchy. However, this can never quite succeed, because it's the antithesis of what defines and distinguishes tabletop RPGs.

 

[Scribble]

Making no judgement calls on the relative merits of these two types of games what kind of glasses would one need to make that a matter of bias?

The kind which automatically assumes : " Its like a board game" = not a fantasy roleplaying game.

There are many ways in which the two are similar (and always have been.)

You seem to always want to boil things down into an is or is not sort of thing, when sometimes it's both.


Especially for someone who has absolutely NO idea what an RPG is at all. Starting with "It's kind of like a boardgame" at least gets them to break away from the preconception that it's all about sitting around in cloaks casting fake spells on each other as we worship the devil (in our mom's basement.)

 

[WheresMyD20]

Well, to be fair to WotC, having their cake and eating it are both vitally important to making a success of D&D. Hardcore fans provide the revenue stream that keeps the company afloat; casual players just don't spend enough. But without a way to draw in new blood (and new blood almost always starts out as casual players), the fanbase will slowly erode away.

So WotC needs to find ways of feeding the hardcore fanbase's appetite for new shiny, while also appealing to the casual player's desire for something simple and comprehensible. It is, as you say, a tall order.

I agree that having their cake and eating it too is vitally important to the success of the current D&D RPG. However, even if the current RPG was discontinued, D&D as a brand would still exist in other forms like books, board games, video games, and possibly a new version of the RPG at some point.

 

[Stormonu]

This arguing against a board game analogy is all pretty silly. The 1E PHB opening discussion of roleplaying uses a chess comparison. The 2E PHB opening goes into a long discussion starting with Snake & Ladders and building on it.

And then you have the likes of the D&D Basic/Challenger 5th edition boxed set, with the Dragon Den, Haunted Tower and Goblin Lair add-ons. I dare you not to make a board game comparison with those RPG products.

 

[Mallus]

A tabletop RPG proposes a set of guidelines, which are interpreted and revised in- and out-game, to lessen restrictions and boundaries that might limit players' imaginations. An emergent gameplay.

Definitions like this are precisely why it's a good idea to start off by saying "D&D is kinda like a boardgame".

However, this can never quite succeed, because it's the antithesis of what defines and distinguishes tabletop RPGs.

I don't know... my current campaign features rich characterization, several different kinds of satire, usually occurring simultaneously, a healthy dollop of Grand Guignol, and plenty of unadulterated 'smart guys having a lark' and it still resembles a board game frequently enough to warrant the comparison.

 

[nedjer]

Definitions like this are precisely why it's a good idea to start off by saying "D&D is kinda like a boardgame".


I don't know... my current campaign features rich characterization, several different kinds of satire, usually occurring simultaneously, a healthy dollop of Grand Guignol, and plenty of unadulterated 'smart guys having a lark' and it still resembles a board game frequently enough to warrant the comparison.

It may look like a boardgame, it may use a complex rule set as a springboard; but the very diversity of the gameplay you describe sounds like it's players' and your own imaginations that are running, and adapting, the show.

The rules and the boardgame qualities, perhaps, no longer a 'painting by numbers' set, but rather a canvas upon which you apply your own collective palette?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess D&D is kind of like a board game.

Hmm. The game uses dice too so it's a dice game too.

Ya know, 4E uses a lot of power and item cards, so lets call it a card game.

Gonna have to go with Dennis Leary on this one. D&D is like , its an rpg, a dice game, a board game, a card game, its , its everything!

 

[Emirikol]

Sigh..I miss the days when publicity came free from the religulous' wackos.

jh

 

[BronzeDragon]

It's a different argument but I don't agree that it is better. Do you have any reason to believe that there was a smaller percentage (note this choice of words) of younger players ten years ago than now?

Yes, I think I do.

Ten years ago people had been abandoning the game left and right (because of several reasons related both to 2E as a system and TSR's boneheaded moves), and the game wasn't attracting new players with any kind of force (at least not in my corner of the woods), which leads me to believe the fan base was actually a bit older than it is today. Perhaps not by much, but still.

My argument, or rather the counter-argument to my points, would be that these guys that were, I don't know, huge fans of 2E, eventually got tired of trying to fan the flames, since the results were clearly less than promising (i.e. very few people were actually buying the whole "3E sucks" argument).

What seems to be happening right now is that there is no such situation as diminishing returns on a flame war about the editions. The more fuel you use, the more the fires are stoked and the higher the flames fly, so it apparently is, right now, a much bigger split in the fan base than it was 10 years ago.

I remember loads of people that were at the very least concerned about the state of the game after the release of 3E, but these people either were eventually won over or got tired from the flame wars. The situation appears more serious now.

But, then again, this is mostly based on opinion, hearsay and anecdotal evidence, so YMMV...

 

[doctorhook]

I guess D&D is kind of like a board game.

Hmm. The game uses dice too so it's a dice game too.

Ya know, 4E uses a lot of power and item cards, so lets call it a card game.

Gonna have to go with Dennis Leary on this one. D&D is like , its an rpg, a dice game, a board game, a card game, its , its everything!

Well... it kinda is like everything. It can include elements of everything. But you can fold dice and cards into boardgames, because many (dare I say a majority?) boardgames use dice and cards anyway.

Tabletop RPGs are their own category. That said, many people aren't familiar with that category, and so "boardgame" is a stand-in, to help describe the game. And to be fair, it's not a terrible stand-in either, as long as you qualify that this game isn't about the board -- the board is optional, and always different.

Sigh..I miss the days when publicity came free from the religulous' wackos.

Really? Did you have a flameproof suit? Can you imagine what horror it would have been had there been internet message boards like this back then?