Explain the State of the RPG Industry and 3.5... Please!

[Greatwyrm]

When the D&D GAME disappears into the D&D BRAND, all hope will truly be lost.

The thing is, D&D is no longer a game, it's a brand. It's been that way for a while. While the brand is closely tied to the game, the game now can (and probably will) outlive the brand. This is because of the OGL.

WotC can pull the d20 license, but not the OGL. They can stop printing D&D books any time they want. That doesn't mean that Arcana Unearthed stuff has to stop being made. Same with Mongoose's Conan stuff, AEG's Spycraft and a host of other stuff.

Sooner or later, Hasbro will decide the WotC division is no longer worth it. At that time, they'll either sell it off or let it die. Either way, I don't see them letting go of the patent on CCGs or the D&D brand, unless the price is really good. Even with that, the game itself, the mechanics, will live on. Merrily hacking and slashing around the world in third party materials until we're all sick of it, at which point, none of this will matter anyway.

As for the industry itself dying, I think it's way too premature to say it's over for rpgs. Sure, some companies have gone under or been bought out. That's business. Even the most successful internet companies have trouble turning a profit, but nobody is calling it quits for the 'net.

 

[EricNoah]

Let me guess

You're probably from RPG.net, right?

Your "commentary" would certainly feel more at home over there than here, thats for sure.

Now now, there's no need to be snarky.

Plus, the typical RPG.net d20 rant starts with "My hat of d02 knows no limit!'

 

[Nightfall]

In respect to the OGL, that's not quite true, as I understand it. That which has been released under the OGL is so bound in perpetuity. They can choose to not release things under it, but once it's out there, it's out there. It cannot be retracted, so there's a lot of "anythings" that they cannot do.

Exactly Umbran. It's like any other contract. They can terminate the "services". They can't terminate the existance of it. That's well out of their sphere of control since these are other companies.

 

[silburnl]

Plus, the typical RPG.net d20 rant starts with "My hat of d02 knows no limit!'

Tch kids today....

"My hat of D02 know no limit!"

Its important you get the grammar right (or rather, wrong) for the full 'Silent Wail' effect.

Regards
Luke

 

[MerricB]

Obviously it's still possible to play the game without miniatures, I just find it annoying that the books claim that it's not.

Only about 15% of people on these boards do not use a battlegrid + tokens/miniatures or some similar form of representation of combat. The same figure applies to players of 1E.

D&D is a game that the vast majority of people use miniatures or tokens with. It is also the easiest way to learn it.

But the "decency standards" sets a bad precedent, a precedent that says (insert sarcastic stupid voice here) "D&D IS FOR KIDS."

Balderdash!

No-one but extremely well-informed gamers and publishers is even going to be aware of the standards. To the average consumer, D&D is just a role-playing game.

Furthermore, for most people, the only D&D products they'll see are those published by WotC... and WotC are not bound by the standards. They will adhere to them in a general fashion, because they are the right thing to do for a game that is played in many cultures, but mature works for adults do NOT have to be filled with references to smut and pictures of naked elves.

Cheers!

 

[JasonT]

You have misread and misunderstood. It says nothing of the kind. It suggests that miniatures are the best means to visualize the action, that the game assumes their use and is written from that standpoint. It does NOT say that they are NECESSARY in order to even play.

I don't have a copy of 3.5 to check from, but if I recall, in the little list at the beginning of the new player's handbook, it actually does list "miniatures" and a "battle grid" as necessary items for playing, alongside dice and the rulebooks. Not "strongly recommended" but "necessary".

Obviously it's still possible to play the game without miniatures, I just find it annoying that the books claim that it's not. I've heard people who are only marginally aware of RPGs talking about how D&D has "changed into a miniatures game". To me this is bad P.R. Good for the price & availability of miniatures, bad for the overall image of "what role-playing is."

Of course, I can't deny it -- everyone has their own idea of "what role-playing is", and mine is just one opinion. There's vague, free-form rules systems which certainly don't require miniatures, and there's d20, which was always very miniatures-friendly and now, IMHO, has just crossed a little bit "over the line". Even people who come to D&D thinking "hey, this looks like a neat miniatures game" will end up absorbing some of the basics of role-playing.

And again your baseless fanaticism against miniatures blinds you from considering that the closer inclusion of miniatures might in fact EXPAND the game's mass market appeal.

"Come for the miniatures, stay for the role-playing"? I hope. Sure. Why not. Whatever gets people to play tabletop RPGs is good.

I just don't want the nature of RPGs to get lost behind a cloud of miniatures. I think the idea of "role-playing" can stand on its own merits. You don't need miniatures to explain to people what role-playing is. They’re just a gimmick, albeit one that, of course, you can sell more of than RPG sourcebooks.

Obviously this is extremely nit-picky of me but... (shrugs)

If you believe that there should be nothing standing in the way of publishers bringing the game down into an orgy of pornographic sex and violence and actually CONFIRMING the dribble of zealots who have made otherwise specious claims about the game for 20 years, I can only say you're again mistaken. Censorship is far from universally evil. And yet it doesn't make sense to you that they want to avoid that? To head off such a problem before it arises?

As they are currently written, I admit, the "decency standards" aren't that bad -- I'm more worried about a sign of a possible trend in the direction of watered-down, censored things like "Yu-Gi-Oh", where they don't even use the word "gun" (not that I have anything in particular against "Yu-Gi-Oh"). Frankly, I am very wary of self-censorship, in particular the kind of "market censorship" imposed by stores like Wal-Mart. Why not? Censorship is wrong. Yes, when I was 6-8 years old, one of the (many) reasons I liked D&D was because it was full of demons & monsters and blood & guts. Rock on. I'm sure there are kids today who feel the same.

I'm not suggesting that gore & scantily-clothed female characters (like those godawful Avalanche Press covers) is something Wizards should _encourage_. Frankly, when I play D&D, I like to play heroically with good-aligned PCs vs. evil NPCs, and I'd never have any cheesy pseudo-sexual content. But are RPGs really in such danger from negative publicity? Take the video game industry for example. Lo and behold that the most violent, messed-up games, the ones which get the most negative publicity from politicians (left- or right-wing) and parents' groups, are currently the MOST POPULAR! "Grand Theft Auto", "True Crime", "Counterstrike" -- yeah! I'd be SO HAPPY if politicians devoted as much air time to condemning tabletop RPGs as they do condemning violent video games. I mean this only half-sarcastically. Think of all the new players!

It's good of Wizards to release what they consider to be morally responsible products. If they don't want to do any more "Book of Vile Darkness" type products, that's their decision. Maybe they figure that they're already "edgy" (ot "at risk") enough with demons, gods, magic, etc. And since the "decency standards" are so loose in their current form, maybe Wizards is going to be a benevolent master and just stamp out the occasional game which they feel is dangerously sleazy, like the "Book of Erotic Fantasy".

But it is, frankly, short-sighted for them to clamp down on other d20 publishers in the process, for fear of negative publicity. Did "Vampire", the most popular game of the early-mid 1990s, suffer because it was full of sex & violence? No. It was a good game, and it attracted a whole new audience of new role-players. Is the market for D&D the same as the market for "Vampire"? No, but what I mean is, a RPG can be successful and still be "dark."

Of course, I realize that the whole existence of "open d20" and the "OGL" exists at Wizards' discretion (like the entire collectible-card game industry) and they CAN do whatever they want with it. I'm not disputing reality. "Can" and "should" are different things, though.

For the record, I think the open d20/OGL is the greatest thing Wizards did with 3rd edition. It's awesome and brilliant.

But the "decency standards" sets a bad precedent, a precedent that says (insert sarcastic stupid voice here) "D&D IS FOR KIDS."

Jason

 

[Cerubus Dark]

tell me RPGs are doomed, or tell me I'm a whiner, I'd be glad to hear from them.

Your a whiner.

Three points
Point 1. There are no Enforcer units going door to door forcing you and your players to use figures, coutners or anything of that sort. If there is we are all doomed!

Point 2. Get over the whole RPG's are doomed. They are not. They rise and fall with the times just like any other hobby. Personally I plan on teaching my kids to play (that is if I find the right woman to settle down with )

Point 3. Go read idiot central if you want an easy way out of the fun stuff. If not sit back, grab your dice and roll a will save vs new books!


The DICE made me do it honest!

 

[Cergorach]

Point 2. Get over the whole RPG's are doomed. They are not. They rise and fall with the times just like any other hobby. Personally I plan on teaching my kids to play (that is if I find the right woman to settle down with )

We of "Geeks will not breed! Not in a zillion years!" have always closely guarded the image of the rpger aka. geek, as being nerdie. Nerdie people will find the right woman and due to our serious culling... erm, cultivation techniques, the perfect woman will be driven away by the geek-speak(tm). Thank you for entertaining this message. ;-p

I think the point wasn't that rpgs are doomed, rather that D&D has moved further away from roleplaying with the release of v.3.5 and moved closer to tabletop wargaming. In that regard he is right, on some levels i think this sucks, on others i think this is great. Overall, the game is what we make of it. I most certainly don't want every adult/kid to play rpgs, i must have something to act elitist about... ;-)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Only about 15% of people on these boards do not use a battlegrid + tokens/miniatures or some similar form of representation of combat. The same figure applies to players of 1E.

D&D is a game that the vast majority of people use miniatures or tokens with. It is also the easiest way to learn it.

That still doesn't make it acceptable for the rules to claim they're "necessary" when in fact they aren't. There was nothing wrong with the "strongly suggested" miniatures.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the initial poster is right in all his points. And I love more of 3.5 than I dislike. But I never used minis in 1st or 2nd (except for very complex battles), because I dislike the wargaming feel they give the game (in my opinion), and I have no intention of changing that stance for 3/3.5.

So yes, the game can be played with them. I do so all the time. I have to agree that the rules shouldn't overtly claim otherwise.

 

[barsoomcore]

Do the rules in fact claim that they are necessary? I'm a little surprised at this accusation but it's certainly possible -- I having not read the introductory matter to 3.5 with any particular care.

If they do, then obviously they're saying something patently untrue, and while that's unfortunate, it seems a little much to blame the end of the industry on...