Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 5249430" data-attributes="member: 2303">IMO, you have already left 90% of the potential market behind by tying the idea of a role-playing game to a tactical game. Yes, this is where RPGs are today, and since recruitment is mostly mouth-to-mouth they are likely to stay in this niche, but I also think this is why RPGs have such a geek label. To truly reach their potential, RPGs would need to break out of this mould.Vampire almost managed to do this. It was touted as a &quot;storytelling game&quot; and not an RPG, and beneath all the hype it actually sold to a new audience because of its different focus. Sadly, it did not really live up to its potential; then rules were not fluid or well-written enough to really tell stories in. It was more of a poor tactical RPG if you analyzed the rules (all IMO, of course). Still, by having fluff that essentially said that all this tactical rules-wrangling really was not important, they managed to break into new areas. The sad part is that the market is developing a resistance to RPGs based on what they are now, not what they could be. Both retailers and potential consumers know that RPG is something neerdy that has to do with a lot of violence. In order to break into new markets, I think an icebreaker system needs to NOT call itself a role-playing game. To appeal to the romantic fantasy crowd, the hobby needs an entirely new name. To appeal to the My Little Pony (and successor) crowd, it needs to break completely with its wargaming roots. Such a game would probably not appeal to many of today's RPGers, but that's ok, its would not be targeted at us. But, most difficult of all, it would need to get into a marketplace that is increasingly hard to penetrate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 5249430, member: 2303"] IMO, you have already left 90% of the potential market behind by tying the idea of a role-playing game to a tactical game. Yes, this is where RPGs are today, and since recruitment is mostly mouth-to-mouth they are likely to stay in this niche, but I also think this is why RPGs have such a geek label. To truly reach their potential, RPGs would need to break out of this mould. Vampire almost managed to do this. It was touted as a "storytelling game" and not an RPG, and beneath all the hype it actually sold to a new audience because of its different focus. Sadly, it did not really live up to its potential; then rules were not fluid or well-written enough to really tell stories in. It was more of a poor tactical RPG if you analyzed the rules (all IMO, of course). Still, by having fluff that essentially said that all this tactical rules-wrangling really was not important, they managed to break into new areas. The sad part is that the market is developing a resistance to RPGs based on what they are now, not what they could be. Both retailers and potential consumers know that RPG is something neerdy that has to do with a lot of violence. In order to break into new markets, I think an icebreaker system needs to NOT call itself a role-playing game. To appeal to the romantic fantasy crowd, the hobby needs an entirely new name. To appeal to the My Little Pony (and successor) crowd, it needs to break completely with its wargaming roots. Such a game would probably not appeal to many of today's RPGers, but that's ok, its would not be targeted at us. But, most difficult of all, it would need to get into a marketplace that is increasingly hard to penetrate. [/QUOTE]

Verification