Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

[The Sigil]

I feel that the old 'comic book code' approach to design and art should be re-instituted by WotC specifically and other publishers as well.

I don't know that we can go that far - it would make a huge amount of negative feedback.

However, if there were a system, such as "entry-level d20" or somesuch, THAT might want to have a "comic book code" attached - mature players know that some subjects are handled with "kid gloves" and if they know that going in, I think it helps immensely. FWIW, I've tried to have ALL of my products adhere to the CBC but it's certainly not for everyone - and some of the existing fan base may get annoyed if that's ALL that's out there, because they may feel like they're being "talked down" to.

It's probably not healthy to have just CBC-safe products. It is not healthy IMO to have just not-CBS-safe products. You need to have both, because tastes run the gamut; it would just be nice to have an easy way of marking the CBC-safe stuff for easy reference (that's not to say that CBC-safe book is useless for "mature" gamers - many books will be CBC-safe but also appealing to "mature" gamers, depending on content and subject matter).

To wit, I'm not thrilled that the Book of Erotic Fantasy exists. I would have hoped Valar had chosen to direct their energy elsewhere. That doesn't mean I would FORBID Valar to publish; it just means I won't buy it and will actively discourage others from doing so. If someone tried to forbid its publication, I would be right there fighting for its publication... "I may not agree with what you {publish} but I will defend to the death your right to {publish} it."

--The Sigil

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

Excellent Reply!

I don't know that we can go that far - it would make a huge amount of negative feedback.

However, if there were a system, such as "entry-level d20" or somesuch, THAT might want to have a "comic book code" attached - mature players know that some subjects are handled with "kid gloves" and if they know that going in, I think it helps immensely. FWIW, I've tried to have ALL of my products adhere to the CBC but it's certainly not for everyone - and some of the existing fan base may get annoyed if that's ALL that's out there, because they may feel like they're being "talked down" to.

It's probably not healthy to have just CBC-safe products. It is not healthy IMO to have just not-CBS-safe products. You need to have both, because tastes run the gamut; it would just be nice to have an easy way of marking the CBC-safe stuff for easy reference (that's not to say that CBC-safe book is useless for "mature" gamers - many books will be CBC-safe but also appealing to "mature" gamers, depending on content and subject matter).

--The Sigil

Thanks for the reply The Sigil. Looking at my post it does read that I wanted all publishers to go the the CBC. I didn't mean that. I think WotC should, for brand recognition alone, but not every publisher. Don't slap the D20 logo on and many publishers could certainly publish what they wanted.

 

[WinningerR]

Hello Ray!

First I'd like to say that I've always enjoyed the Dungeoncraft articles you wrote for Dragon. Those, more than anything, shaped how I approached campaign design. I still pull those issues out and read them. It was a sad day for me when someone else took over the column.

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed them.

Second, as pertaining to the above quote. Do you have any ideas on how to recruit newer players? I've gotten good ideas from The Sigil but wonder if there is something else. I would agree to approach the early to mid-teen age groups. It was pointed out above that there is an attitude of "I'm a mature gamer and want mature products". Sure a company could do those, but not WotC.

I don't really have any ideas on how to recruit new players on an individual level. But on the publisher level, the market could really use a strong intro product right now. I understand that WotC has a new intro product in the pipeline. I'm very interested in seeing what they're going to do with it.

 

[Maggan]

4) Perhaps most importantly, TSR waited to long to release a new edition of D&D. A high-profile, well-marketed new edition of D&D that continued to modernize the game for a new generation of players might have restarted TSR's economic engine.

Hmmmm... I've never thought about that before. In all the furor over the timing of the 3.5 release and such, the longevity of 1st and 2nd ed almost always are considered a positive thing, the signs of a good rules set.

This is for me at least, a new and interesting perspective.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[BruceB]

That's unusual. Any idea what drove that? Chain stores couldn't sell them, or something? After all, a jaunt to my local Borders or Barnes & Noble still shows a mighty big shelf of D&D fiction.

As I understand it, selling to the chain stores just is a brutal business. You see a big shelf, but you don't see the turnover in it - how much gets whisked off and shipped back to make space for the next batch, and how much the stores expect the publisher to give them credit toward the cost of that next batch. It's apparently really, really easy to get into a situation where you always owe them money, and if revenue ever dips, you end up suddenly flat-out taking a loss.

This doesn't just apply to TSR, or to gaming companies, but to anyone selling to the chain. I've heard comparable horror stories from small-press publishers in various fields. TSR undoubtedly made a few mistakes that helped it be worse than it had to be, but it's never good until you're a very, very large publisher.

 

[Desdichado]

barsoomcore, that's a very insightful observation, and one that I've come to independently in my efforts to get my wife to play. We did just that for her; gave her a pregenerated character so she could jump right into playing. Because of her nature, however, even that was frustrating. She's the type of person who doesn't like playing a game and not understanding all the rules. She gets a bit competitive in other games, and if she's making a move, she wants to make sure it's the "best" move, and she never feels like that when she doesn't know what any of the rules are. I tried to explain that the "best" move was an in-character thing that she would do in real life if she were that person, but she still struggled conceptually with the thought that I had books and books of rules and yet I was trying to explain that there were no rules that applied to what was "best" for her to do.

So, from my experience, a rules lite game engine is a perfect vehicle for introducing new gamers not only because it's easier for them to play, but also because conceptually it's a simpler paradigm to grasp.

If I can be permitted a small tangent from this already tangential discussion, I've been thinking about getting my kids into it as well. My oldest is 8 and the next is 6, about to start 1st grade, where she'll learn to read. Once she's old enough to read a little bit, I'm thinking I can run them through a Star Wars or Spy Kids, or something like that type of game. My engine of choice for introducing new gamers like this is The Window. Now, The Window is odd; it tries to push itself as a conceptual leap into the next generation of roleplaying, and therefore comes across as fairly elitist. I think, though, that the extremely rules light nature of the game (and the fact that evey type of dice I own will come into use, which is a bit of a novelty), and it's focus on roleplaying rather than gaming per se, makes it a perfect introductory product. And if my kids (or my wife!) gets into the concept from The Window, they can potentially move into D&D or something like that as they get older, if necessary.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If I can be permitted a small tangent from this already tangential discussion, I've been thinking about getting my kids into it as well. My oldest is 8 and the next is 6, about to start 1st grade, where she'll learn to read. I think that the extremely rules light nature of the game and it's focus on roleplaying rather than gaming per se, makes it a perfect introductory product.

Congrats! I'm really envious as I look forward to someday teaching my own kids to play.

But-- I dunno-- I'm just really hoping my kids are gamists.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, well, if I use The Window, they'll never get the chance to turn into gamists!

 

[buzz]

So, from my experience, a rules lite game engine is a perfect vehicle for introducing new gamers not only because it's easier for them to play, but also because conceptually it's a simpler paradigm to grasp.

This sentiment does make sense, conceptually, but I think it's a slippery slope that can lead to a common (and, as I see it, fallacious) argument that gaming would be hellaciously popular if only the industry made lots of rules-lite, collaborative storytelling type games marketed to Joe Average.

I think that it's more often the case that newbies have an easier time grasping games like, well, D&D, because it has clearly defined goals and is based on strong archetypes. The simple fact that it does have a lot of rules (and uses minis, and lots of dice) makes it more obviously a "game" and thus more easily grokked by the newbie.

This isn't to say that there don't need to be good *introductory* products that ease newbies into the hobby. However, I don't know if I would want a newbie's first experience to be Nobilis or Everway ("This isn't going to end with us toching each other's bottoms, is it?").

I think maybe the key is it tap into RPG-friendly trends and offer games that attract people who are interested in said trends, sort of like WW did with the goth subculture. It's too bad Decipher did such a shoddy job with the LOTR license...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This sentiment does make sense, conceptually, but I think it's a slippery slope that can lead to a common (and, as I see it, fallacious) argument that gaming would be hellaciously popular if only the industry made lots of rules-lite, collaborative storytelling type games marketed to Joe Average.

I've been reading too many good threads lately to remember, but wasn't it this very thread where someone suggested that the pre-d20 market trend towards storytelling was misguided?

Rules-lite collaborative storytelling game = mass market dud.

I think that it's more often the case that newbies have an easier time grasping games like, well, D&D, because it has clearly defined goals and is based on strong archetypes.

I think d20 settled this argument... decisively.

Now, there may come a time when our external gaming/leisure influences are not so gamist, but that time is definitely not now. Americans certainly aren't wired this way.

Anecdotal for sure, but I've just introduced the game to 3 new players, and every single one of them has not only embraced the game thanks to its concrete gamist underpinnings, but (more telling) was the fact that their apprehensions about D&D and roleplaying in general were rooted in prejudices against "storytelling." I had to work to convince them to play.

(Though of course, kids 8 and under haven't had a chance to be exposed to that prejudice yet.)

Now, maybe my own tendencies made me subconsciously seek out gamist players-- folks who were already on my wavelength.

But my hunch is that the majority will grasp (and enjoy) a gamist experience faster and easier than a "storytelling" one. That D&D 3.0 also seems to have tapped into this same realization is a strong reinforcement of my hunch.

Wulf