Death or Glory?: the Future of RPGs

[IronWolf]

I think the pregame tools are the best right now. They remove a lot of the tedious work that is done in traditional games, making encounters, making sessions, making characters. But they stay out of the main game where the imagination is still paramount.

Yeah, these supporting tools can be great. They don't really intrude on the play at the table, but offer faster ways to do some of the heavy lifting in game prep - both from the DM side of the screen and as a player.

Virtual tabletops have also come a long way to me, but they still don't allow enough customization in a short period of time. I have seen some beautiful landscapes and encounters built...but they take a while. I haven't seen a system that is seemless enough to allow the "encounter on the fly" type encounters that are ultimately needed traditional freedom.

I think VTTs already support these on the fly encounters. Sure, the map you produce on the fly might not be as intricate in detail as ones you had prepped for the encounter, but the same can be said for an on the fly encounter happening with a traditional battle mat or flip mat. Several of the VTTs allow you to draw on a blank map as needed, drop down a couple of textures for some flavor and grab a token from your resource library.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Death and Glory was a very nice game, but in no way is it the furure of RPG. It´s a bit old for that...

 

[nedjer]

I STILL haven't played 4E but I can say without reservation that you need to be careful with that brush. A TTRPG is still what WE decide to make of it every bit as much, if not moreso, than what its authors had in mind for us. In the 1E DMG Gary was quite clear about the idea that he wasn't trying to foist a "shrink-wrapped experience" upon anyone. Although he was trying to provide a common set of rules for disparate players to work from he fully expected and ENCOURAGED its purchasers to make of the game what THEY would have it be.

If that essay has accusations to make about the failings of TTRPG's it won't stick to the earliest visions of D&D formed by its creator as opposed to those who re-wrote it over and over. Even then, no matter what the authors expect - it is STILL what you decide you want to do with it that matters. Computer games, on the other hand, are BY DEFINITION limited in the experience they can offer players. I would never make claims to being more than a merely competent DM but there isn't a computer on the friggin' planet that can provide EVEN REMOTELY the kind of gaming experience that I can as a living, thinking human - and I'm not worried about the forseeable future changing that a whit. What they CAN do is offer a more convenient, if more limited, gaming experience than I can. And one that any company can find more profit in than TTRPG.

It's just a long post

Not really about 'accusations': "Tabletop RPGs offer personalisation, design activities and design gameplay opportunities as a matter of course. Some Tabletop RPG games also act as ‘springboards’ to creative, imaginative roleplaying, involving high levels of player choice, open-ended storylines, ‘house rules’, depth of characterisation and the construction of shared, imaginative narratives," is pretty much recognising what TRPGs can offer that's extremely difficult and hugely expensive to deliver through videogames.

I reckon we can only decide how we want to play if we have a full range of options to choose from. A veteran player/ GM has those options, new players don't until they get the 'support' to pull together a scenario in an hour and rough out a setting in two.

 

[JoeGKushner]

What's the difference between this question and the one we JUST HAD about the EXACT subject? That you threw the sims in there? Get a mod to close it down or merge it with the other one.

 

[Sunseeker]

I STILL haven't played 4E but I can say without reservation that you need to be careful with that brush. A TTRPG is still what WE decide to make of it every bit as much, if not moreso, than what its authors had in mind for us. In the 1E DMG Gary was quite clear about the idea that he wasn't trying to foist a "shrink-wrapped experience" upon anyone. Although he was trying to provide a common set of rules for disparate players to work from he fully expected and ENCOURAGED its purchasers to make of the game what THEY would have it be.

I dunno if I was talking about 4e in particular, or the fact that a lot of people I run into seem to be playing more and more often, pre-packaged stories. Maybe that the newer editions lend themselves to that kind of playing moreso than older ones, I'm not really sure. Maybe I was just thinking out loud.

To be honest not all of it makes it to the tabletop for players, a lot of it just rattles around in my head or ends up as background for short stories I write. I just enjoy putting new spins on old ideas, even if they're really not THAT new.

 

[eyebeams]

As far as the wider culture is concerned tabletop RPGs are already dead. What we are all currently participating in is a long tail effect. It's in our nature to dismiss it because of the type of selection that makes us a part of what is, from the larger perspective, a moribund scene.

For example, in the recent trademark action over the term "rift" between Palladium Books and Trion, one of Trion's arguments was that compared to MMORPGs, tabletop games were basically so pitiful as to not even count as active maintenance of an associated trademark. And given that things were forced into mediation in a context where Palladium is almost certainly going to be worse off, it was probably a pretty good argument.

Keep in mind, however, that many "dead" things are still relevant. The mass culture around comics is also pretty much dead but it's still influential in other media. RPG companies and scenes do seem pretty devoted to running a circus for their greying fans than making any serious effort in that direction, however, and may have already lost the opportunity through years of neglect.

 

[Ariosto]

These steps aren't about 'requiring' players to make their own scenarios, 'forcing' players towards a particular style of play or 'throwing any babies out with the bathwater'.

I did not write anything about forcing or babies.

This just keeps getting more bizarre, with more rambling buzz words.

Look, the 4e era so far represents only 5% of the history of D&D.

The paper and pencil game, even the brand itself, might not have much longer to be a Hasbro product. On the other hand, the last I checked, Wizards of the Coast was also selling Diplomacy.

The future of D&D as a Hasbro product is a long way from the future of RPGs as an industry, and further still from their future as a hobby (which preceded and created the industry).

 

[nedjer]

I did not write anything about forcing or babies.

This just keeps getting more bizarre, with more rambling buzz words.

Look, the 4e era so far represents only 5% of the history of D&D.

The paper and pencil game, even the brand itself, might not have much longer to be a Hasbro product. On the other hand, the last I checked, Wizards of the Coast was also selling Diplomacy.

The future of D&D as a Hasbro product is a long way from the future of RPGs as an industry, and further still from their future as a hobby (which preceded and created the industry).

They may be rambling buzz words but they're the same rambling buzz words all the way through.

You could help me out on which terms are coming across as buzzwords, because I've put forward pretty concrete examples on how AD&D has taken a series of steps in the direction of greater accessibility and design game territory over the last year.

Also while I haven't poured over every thread on the products concerned, there seems to be a pretty widespread and consistent view that these recent steps haven't don't any harm and are welcomed by many players.

As for anticipated future developments, there's not a lot fuzzy about giving players more control over content, drag and drop 'dungeon' design and styling games. These things already exist in RPGs and many other markets. They aren't commonplace in TRPGs yet, because there's a lag between implimenting the underlying technologies and making them readily accessible to players.

4e is, to me, more than 5% of TRPG history. That doesn't mean it eclipses everything else, but it's the end result of all the previous versions/ the sum of the parts in certain ways. The brand/ WoTC's influence remains highly influencial and shapes much of the wider industry.

 

[Ariosto]

You could help me out on which terms are coming across as buzzwords, because I've put forward pretty concrete examples on how AD&D has taken a series of steps in the direction of greater accessibility and design game territory over the last year.

You have written nothing whatsoever about events in the AD&D field over the last year.

Neither have you put forward pretty concrete examples of anything.

There, you have used words to make claims that are actually intelligible enough to be recognized as false.

Here...

Encounters = addressing the 'choking points' of forming groups and 'making' GMs
Essentials = a more accessible, easier to learn, lower price point styling
Fortune Cards = one mechanism for enabling more player choice
Slaying Stone = a more 'free range' (rather than the full sandbox) model for scenarios
DDI utilities = freeing up prep time to allow GMs to focus on imaginative design

... you have "defined" what I gather to be references to 4e products -- Fortune Cards being a lot less cryptic than "today's cards", which suggested a day at the races -- with what look like reminders that Glasgow is the centre of Scotland's advertising industry.

It's a slight step forward in isolated instances of sense. Not only are these very close to being actual English sentences, but taken individually they form roughly comprehensible statements.

It's in the department of having a train of thought in the first place that the whole immediately goes off the rails. What on Earth is your point?

Here...

These steps aren't about 'requiring' players to make their own scenarios, 'forcing' players towards a particular style of play or 'throwing any babies out with the bathwater'. They're about responding to the challenges presented by competing pastimes, making it easier to access the 'juicy' parts of scenario design and gameplay, helping GMs to concentrate on gameplay over refereeing, and encouraging both veterans and newbies to play more often.

... you write, in essence that "these steps" -- by which I presume you mean the products listed above -- are not meant to be nasty and unmarketable but are meant to be tasty and big sellers. That assessment of course will disappoint all the people in Renton working so hard to produce horrible stinky stuff.

Just how, again, is this supposed to spell the doom of RPGs unless everyone heeds your call to ... do what???

You seem only to contradict yourself post by post, to the extent that a post seems to convey an actual position on anything. There is very simply no sustained argument at all, much less one with apparent relevance to the thread title you posted.

 

[Jhaelen]

Tabletop ANYTHING has been dying for a while since the internet age. I'm certain there are quite a few here who have found they've begun to participate in more online RP sessions than IRL ones.

Well, I've found the opposite to be true. I used to be a big computer game fan and have played an MMORPG for a couple of years.

However, since then I've rediscovered the advantages of board games and pen & paper rpgs.
Sitting around the table with a bunch of friends is infinitely more fun than any MMORPG could ever be. It's the social event that counts. The gaming has become almost a secondary goal. It's just the reason to get together more or less regularly.

Playing online is a poor substitute drug, imho. I'd only consider it if there was absolutely no way I could meet with friends in person.