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: 4748606" data-attributes="member: 59082">Great thread, glad I started it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />. To respond to but a few of the many strong contributions...Yes, I agree. And I would say this could be 5th edition, if WotC (or whoever takes D&D over) plays their cards right. Yes, exactly. I'm in my mid-30s but just got into miniatures; but I've never bought an official D&D miniature and probably never well...I own mainly Rackham, some Reaper, and a few others. But I buy them mainly to paint, secondarily to use in my game; however, I don't like the fact that I have to use them in 4ed combat...mainly because of the reason you said, that they can and often do impeded "unleashing the imagination" (and am playing with the idea of modifying the rules so that I don't have to).And unleashing the imagination is what is at the essence of RPGs, imo. It is what sets it apart as a hobby; the disclaimer, of course, is that other activities unleash the imagination, obviously, and there are other important, enjoyable aspects of RPGs, but in my opinion this is The Essential Thing. Right. I think the main thing is the stereotype of the D&D player, or other variants of nerdom: unattractive, unhealthy, overly obese or emaciated, etc. And certainly the "shadow" of the RPG community has to do with a prevalent dissociation from the body, from being "in this world." Again, before someone gets offended I am not saying that all gamers or even most gamers are such, but that this sort of thing is quite common. I am also not saying that obese people are bad (hey, I could lose a few myself although am not quite obese <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />)--just that washing down a family sized bag of Doritos with a couple liters of Mountain Dew is...well, unhealthy.I couldn't agree more. The highlighted part, imo, is the future of RPGs: If they begin to really focus on this then they will survive and flourish and possibly morph into something else. Heck, we have Model UN at my school and that is a kind of roleplaying. I am also planning on teaching a class on World Building to high school kids--how cool would that be?The key, in other words, is the development of imagination and the usefulness of RPGs as a tool to do so.Yes you can. I would also add that healthy maturation does not involve the death of the child (in particular, play) but its enfoldment within a larger self. In truth, I would say that the antipathy towards D&D--and fantasy/SF in general--is not only about the overweight guys that hang out in game stores but a common dissociation from healthy forms of play. I've noticed that the high school kids that are the most aggressive towards D&D are those that are trying the hardest to be "adult". The adults that are the most negative towards D&D are those that have lost a sense of play (and often imagination).Ursula Le Guin wrote a great essay entitled "Why are Americans Afraid of Dragons?" Highly recommended; it is compiled in her beautiful book, The Language of the Night.Then you and your social circle are the exception, not the rule. D&D is not accessible to "normal people" (non-gamers). The baggage of rules and geek-trappings is excessive; you and I are used to it and have been wading through it for decades, but to someone who is not then it is extremely off-puting.It is not dissimilar to when a techy tries to explain to a non-techy how a computer works (or a car mechanic, etc): they often don't realize how something so easy and comfortable to them is complete gibberish to the other. This is why math teachers often suck <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I agree, the core audience should not be ignored. But what I think G. and I are agreeing on is that D&D (and RPGs in general) need a "softer" core product, which is why I like the idea of a Basic ruleset with countless Advanced options. Imagine this product:Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set*Player's Manual (basic rules, classes, races), 32 pages*Dungeon Master's Manual (incl. monsters, treasure, etc), 64 pages*DiceFully compatible with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which would be similar to the books we see now. How could we possibly get everything we need into 96 pages? Well, you only include the four archetypal classes--fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue--and the 3-4 main races--elf, dwarf, human, maybe halfling); then you simplify Powers to Attack and other "types" (how many different kinds of attacks do we need?); then you give the DM some nifty guidelines on how to skillfully use DM Fiat and come up with appropriate target numbers for skill checks, etc. You include only the classic monsters and a simplified group of treasures. It isn't that hard, really (and I'm tempted to try it myself, if I have the time).We wouldn't be losing anything, yet we'd be gaining a simple, core rules set that is accessible to anyone who wants to play.This is where the modular approach would excel. You have a simple, core and relatively "generic" fantasy game, Basic D&D. Then you have as many optional rule books and campaign settings and play styles as you like. I think 4E has gotten a little closer to this but is still requires too much start-up (the three core books).In the Basic/Advanced set-up, you could have entire splat books dedicated to different styles of play: Sword and Sorcery, Quest Fantasy, etc, as well as the usual class/power books, campaign guides, beastiaries, and rules expansions.Yes, probably true, but probably doomed from the get-go. D&D cannot compete with M:tG or World of Warcraft, or at least it cannot beat them at their own game. D&D has to develop its own strengths, its own unique qualities, which is--as G. said about--the power to "unleash the imagination." M:tG barely does this and WoW not at all (if anything it stultifies it). First off, I meant "doomed" lightly. On the other hand, there is a quote that goes something like "The Renaissance was a movement that only included about 1,000 people while it was happening"--but it changed the entire world. Secondly, I agree insofar as D&D is "just" a hobby. Even if no book was ever produced again we could keep on playing and having one hell of a time. In fact, it might even inspire us more because we wouldn't have someone else making stuff up for us! But I'm also interested in the larger picture, in how D&D--and what it represents--interfaces with culture as a whole, and whether there is something within it that can take root and grow. Yes, and a "good enough" set of rules, imo, would be one that is modular, that can be played in a relatively simple fashion but with whatever degree of complexity a given group desires. No RPG that I know of has been able to achieve this (maybe not even really tried).True. I'm reading over an adventure I'm running tonight and am baffled by a 7th level Elite half-orc that has 166 Hit Points! Or maybe it is just the simulationist part of me warring with the gamist tendency of D&D? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification