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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5345958" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, true. But again, I think my point is being missed. Pathfinder could conceivably over-take D&D within the industry, but barring decades of time and/or something so out of the usual realm of possibility as to be <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UPvjPe4vcPY/S_bf3ljh0RI/AAAAAAAAAN0/oPlBs9vdXo8/s1600/kijinnmaru-inconceivable.jpg" target="_blank">inconceivable</a> (couldn't resist) it will never have the name-brand recognition of D&D outside of the industry. Does this matter? Yes, I think it does.I didn't say "only" lapsed D&D players but "mainly already established gamers, and maybe a few lapsed gamers." It is my view that D&D--because of its name--simply has more potential to re-gather the "flock", so to speak. As far as finding new "converts," that may be a different thing. I don't see anyone, WotC or Paizo, doing what it takes to truly make a game that is marketable to the masses.But to be honest, I don't think D&D will succeed at greatly expanding the industry because, even with the Red Box, they have not managed to create a truly good intro game. The Red Box is a big improvement but it is, like many WotC D&D products, deeply flawed. It is a trailer of D&D, really, rather than a primer. It needs to be both. It needs to be complete in and of itself for at least five levels. What I feel WotC just doesn't get--even after almost four decades of RPG history--is just how difficult it is for non-gamers to even get to the point of trying a game like D&D, not to mention penetrating the rules. This is why most new players are brought in by others; RPGs are a ghetto and require a steep learning curve.I am reminded of the problem of a techy type trying to talk about computers with a non-techy type; they almost always don't get that the non-techy type will not understand 99% of what they are saying. The same goes for not only gamers trying to communicate D&D, but the way the books are presented and, perhaps even more so, the complexity of the rules.I work at a private high school and when I explain what D&D/RPGs are about, most kids--many of whom you would never think would be interested--are quite curious. But most of them are, or would be, turned off by the density of the rules, the corniness of much of the art, and the general "in-speak" that dominates geek culture as a whole (not everyone thinks Monty Python is the height of comedy).I could be wrong, but I think roleplaying games have much vaster potential than anyone has seriously dreamed of. If we open up what a "roleplaying game" is to something broader and look at what it is in essence: an interactive story and a means by which imagination is exercised. The latter is what it has that World of Warcraft doesn't, can't simply by virtue of its nature. Think of the educational possibilities! (e.g. I am actually going to be teaching a World Building course to juniors and seniors in the Winter).Bringing it back to D&D, I think one approach that might work is to bifurcate the game between a simple, "basic" game and a more complex "advanced" game. But not like the old BECMI/AD&D streams that were essentially mutually exclusive, but two versions of the same game, fully compatible and modular. The "Red Box" should be all basic - just a very simple game without all the complexities that we game nerds love. No feats, no complex power or spell structures, only a few skills, etc. Just a bare-bones game that anyone can quickly learn over the course of an evening. Then from there you have endless possible options - advanced rules options, genre and theme options, setting books, etc. But that basic, core game could be played by just about anyone; it could be pulled out for family board game night instead of Monopoly. Now WotC seems to be trying to market more to the mainstream, not just with the Essentials (which doesn't go nearly far enough, imo) but also these new D&D board games. We'll see how they do but I imagine it won't be anything awe-inspiring. I really think that they need to go simpler; they need a new basic core game, which would, yes, form the basis of 5ed. And if it were simple enough, it could provide a solid foundation, or stepping stone, to just about anything.But I've gotten way off topic!</blockquote>

Verification