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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Keldryn" data-source="post: 5505407" data-attributes="member: 11999">Fair enough.  I don't know that there is any particular point beyond I find this stuff interesting and I'm hoping that others might as well.  I worked for a few years as a game designer in the video game industry, so I tend to spend far too much time thinking about these type of things. This exercise primarily came about as a means of deciding which version of D&D to use for my current group, which consists of:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> my sister, who started playing with the Mentzer Basic Set around the same time that I did (1987)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> my wife, who had never played D&D before but has read hundreds of fantasy novels and plays some console RPGs.  She's mainly playing because we have a 1 year-old daughter and she wants some adult socialization.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> a friend, who started playing with 3.5, but is a walking encyclopedia of 3.5 and 4e rules knowledge</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> my sister's boyfriend, who thinks he might have played some version of D&D when he was in high school a couple of times (probably 2e).  He's playing because my sister would like him to, and would have no interest whatsoever otherwise</li> </ul>It's a group with a diverse range of experience and interest in the game.  We started with 4e and played through 3 sessions before breaking for the holidays.  The two more casual players weren't having that much fun, as they found it too complicated.  My sister was indifferent about it.  The other player liked it.We played two sessions of Basic D&D, and the two more casual players had a lot more fun.  My sister thought it was refreshingly fast-playing.  The other player said he was finding it limiting and that he'd get bored with it very quickly.I found that the exercise of writing down what each version of the game requires a new player to understand from the get-go to be very enlightening and useful in figuring out the right fit for my group.  When I see the assumptions in writing, and the minimum amount of information that needs to appear on a character sheet, it paints a very clear picture for me.Well, the assumption was that they had heard of D&D, and had possibly played it a long time ago but didn't remember much about it.  It was a nod to reality, and also a way of avoiding addressing the "what is roleplaying" stuff.I agree with you that the main target market for most RPGs is the existing gamer market.  It's the same with the market for "hardcore" video games as well.  However, RPGs (and video games) are a very time-consuming hobby, and many people reach a point in their lives where they don't have time for it anymore.  Or the members of a group just can't coordinate their schedules, and they just stop playing.  They may be targeting current gamers, but that's not a sustainable business model.We've had endless discussions on these boards about the complexity of the different editions.  I'm trying to narrow down that focus to what each edition expects from the player in order to be able to sit down and play with the most straightforward character types supported by the system.  It's not necessarily the same thing as the complexity or number of rules in the system.  It's the whole "easy to pick up and play, difficult to master" idea.  Earlier editions were much more approachable, and the complexity tended to increase more gradually as you continued to play the game.  Modern versions throw a lot more at you right from the start, which is likely to turn away many potential players.I do tend to ramble.At the very least, it was kind of fun spending a few minutes here and there putting this together.  If other people find any of what I've written useful and interesting, then that's great.  If nobody finds it interesting and I'm just sitting here replying to myself, then that's fine with me too.  This exercise has helped me see my own preferences much more clearly.</blockquote>

Verification