Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shadowslayer" data-source="post: 2555209" data-attributes="member: 8400">I've been reading this thread re: library programs for D&D and I think thats a cool idea.  To go one better though...how about having WOTC sponsored demo days at some of the large chain bookstores that actually sell the books? I'm Canadian, and the only real "big" bookstores in my area are called Chapters, and all of them (or at least most of them thet I've been in) have a Starbucks attached, as well as a fairly large area of tables to sit and have your coffee. This would be great place for in store demos or contests. And the Chapters stores here seem to do pretty well with the D&D line, miniatures included.  Anyway, I'm presuming that the chain shops in the States, like Barnes and Noble etc, are built from the same mold and would be able to do it as well.I'm also of the opinion that, for RPGs to take off even more that they have, they'll need to focus a bit more on basic rules and visual representations like minis, dungeon tiles etc, just to increase the "cool toys" factor.What I'd envision really is a meld of the miniatures game and the basic game. SOmething like what they've got, but with some nice dungeon tiles, and a cd full of additional PDF dungeon tiles that players can print off and cut out to create their own dungeons.I think they need to do a "basic" game, as someone already pointed out, that goes all the way up to top levels, rather than the current one that is intended to feed them into the main game. If I didn't know anything about RPGs already, and someone handed me a PHB, Id probably take a look at the size of the book, then run the other way. Gimme the instructions on a couple pieces of paper or a small booklet please.Also, I think if they came out with that basic game, they'd need to present it with the express notion of "this is how this particular game is meant to be played"  To expand on that, one of the problems I see when I'm surfing the boards is the "roll playing vs Role playing" argument. I think, and this is in my opinion only, this is one of the major problems in RPGs today...so many varying styles of play, even in one game, can be confusing for newcomers.I think the core assumptions of the game, any game really, need to be stated plainly. ie "either a player IS required to speak in character or he is NOT" "either the player is required to act out a bluff attempt or he isn't" "either the player is required to provide backstory or he isnt"Understand, I'm not advocating one style over another. I feel however that the core assumptions cannot merely be assumptions...it should be stated plainly.Hey, groups can toddle along and play any style of game they want, and are free to make up their own rules. But I've seen and met so many folks that believe the way they play is the only true way to do it. ANd even if they don't say it outright, they still believe it and it shows. And that's just wrong.Game designers need to be clearer as to what the game experience is intended to be.  This way new players just finding their style can say "well we added a rule saying you need to act out the Bluff attempt" rather than "Real roleplayers act out the Bluff attempt"Kinda like saying "when we play Monopoly, all the Chance card fines and payouts go to the Free Parking square and whoever lands there gets it"   I know lots of folks that play that way, but they'll freely admit that its not in the instructions, and they just added the rule to spice up the game.Anyway, hope I'm making sense. I'll stop talking now.</blockquote>

Verification