What is THE NEXT BIG THING?

[Lanefan]

There seem to be two divergent opinions here, from reading:

1. Streamline the game to its bare basics and go for the mainstream mass market...get everyone playing.

2. Keep the game somewhat as it is and just market it better, aiming at people already playing other types of games (console, online, etc.).

Well, I put myself squarely in camp #2 here, if only because the boardgame/streamlining ideas all seem to be leading toward taking away the freeform-ness that makes the game fun, to be replaced with a much more pre-packaged and inflexible version. But then, I'm not exactly in the "mainstream"...

Lanefan

 

[Pilsnerquest]

VTT's (virtual tabletops) will devour the gaming scene.


Pilsnerquest

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Wolv0rine!

Since when has complexity choked and inhibited anything from gathering new interested people?

When they (meaning new or casual gamers) go into a shop and can't have the game demonstrated within a few minutes of their time.

Or when someone new to the game finds that theres a recommended 960 pages just to get you started.

New uninterested people, sure.

Someone could have an interest in Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and never be turned on to Dungeons & Dragons simply because you really need to be indoctrinated into D&D. I'd guesstimate maybe 1 in 10 players started without joining an existing group or someone who already knew how to play.

Programming isn’t exactly simple, but people keep getting interested in it. Even web coding could be a hell of a lot simpler, but web pages keep popping up.
I cannot agree that just because RPGs are a niche product that appeals to a limited sub-set of the population that it must become less complex to continue. On what are we basing our thoughts that if we make it easier and easier for someone with only a passing glimmer of interest and a 3rd grade reading level to understand that the gamer base will grow? Hopeful thinking

Thats not what I am saying at all. I'm more interested in boiling the rpg experience down to the fundamentals, rather than imposing a lot of the minutiae and paperwork. I think that will make it a lot more accessible.

The rules may have grown more interconnected and complex in their variance and scope (skills, feats, PrCs, AoO, blah blah) but the books themselves have grown less and less complex. The verbiage and phrasing, the presentation, the wrting has grown ever-more simplified. The books are being more and more written to be absorbable with no actual thought required to understand what’s being said.

Sure, they don’t need to be written with Gygaxian prose and uncommon word choice that prompts a young’un to pick up a dictionary. I’m not trying to imply that D&D books should be an IQ test or intentionally difficult to understand, I’m just saying that when the level of writing has become dumbed-down enough that I find my intelligence being insulted when I read it by the text itself presuming that I’m not very bright, I think it’s gone too far.

I think you are going off on a tangent. Its not about the complexity of the individual components, rather that there are too many components wasting time with minutiae and paperwork.

Its like why have 100 moving parts when you can build something which does the same job with 25 parts. Occam's Razor and all that. There are too many moving parts to make D&D time economical.

And just as an aside, do you mean that you think a skills system is a waste of time, or that you’d like to see a system that doesn’t make use of skill point spending implemented?

I think the current rules Re: Skills are far too time consuming, self-referential and the minutia of it is bordering on the banal.

Personally I would design something much, much simpler.

Ability Score Checks + class level (if its a skill relevant to that class) against the DC.

Plot out the fun to complexity graph and target the game where fun peaks? I’m sorry, I know that’s intended to come across as responsibly proactive and well-meaning and all, but that line of text in and of itself just seems to kind of want to suck ‘fun’ into it like a black hole.

Heh heh!

Okay, I was shooting in the dark there, but I am sure someone out there probably has done market research along those lines.

How in the name of all that’s holy is the game too complicated? What is the standard of ‘too complicated’?

I think I am comparing it to previous editions. Is 3rd Edition more 'fun' that 1st Edition - I think they are probably about the same (when you are playing that is). But in terms of minutiae that just gets in the way, 3rd Edition is far more complex in terms of the number of 'moving parts'. Which means that when you or I go to construct our own PCs, NPCs, Monsters (etc.) it takes much, much longer.

I know some people have grumped that with the rigors of grown-up life (work, family, other hobbies, all that stuff) that they don’t have the kind of time they used to have to devote to the game, but that’s just 2+2 kind of stuff. Of course you don’t.

I think thats just a minor excuse, but the real issue is the time consumption of minutiae, versus the time spent actually 'playing'. Skills, feats, potential laundry lists of items, spells.

I mean even looking at spells for a moment. Why not just have the same spell allocation table for every class? (Bard progression 2/3, Paladin 1/2 etc).

But I fail to see the appeal of making the game into some kind of out-of-the-box plug-and-play thing just to make that easier. That certainly isn’t what we got hooked on as kids that lead us here now. Why would we want to turn it into that, when that’s not what we got into it for?

I'm not saying 3.5 should just go away, but simply that a 4th Edition in the vein of 3.5 won't be anywhere near as successful as 3/3.5.

Just what exactly am I afraid of? Well, do you recognize the difference between playing a game of D&D and deciding to use minis, and playing a mini game that’s called D&D?

Yes, semantics.

Having tools that I may or may not decide to use I my game is great, having the game change to revolve around tools that were never a part of the game at it’s core is another.
If the game requires a board, it has become a board game.
If the game requires minis, it has become a mini game.

The game already revolves around minis and a board (or at least the acknowledgement of a grid/squares). Go take a look at the Combat chapter in the PHB.

(I had about 5 paragraphs where I went on about suggestions like pda/cellphone driven softwares, online versions, software integration, etc. In the end I don’t think it was worth the effort to go into them, but I will say that I feel those are much more limiting to your potential playerbase than the complexity of the rules))

I am in favour of online versions (a number of my friends have been raving about X-box live), and I think software utilities could certainly prove useful.

But how is an online version any different (in terms of strategy) to the boardgame approach. Both are moving away from the hardback supplement business model, which is something I don't see working again with another Edition.

In the end, what I’m afraid of is D&D no longer being even vaguely recognizable as the game that got me interested in Role-Playing anymore. I’d suddenly become an Ex-Gamer, and I’d hate for that to happen.

I think if the next Edition of D&D continues with the same approach the audience will continue to dwindle.

Yes, there is an uphill battle in getting new gamers interested in D&D (or RPGs in general) against more visually arresting and instant-gratification providing activities. But the question remains, at what point do we draw the line and say “I am willing to push the game this far, even though by pushing it this distance it is no longer the game I began pushing?”

I think that point is right now. Simply because I don't see a pen & paper based 4th Edition selling retreads of all the 3rd Edition books. Which means what the heck are you going to do after the PHB, DMG and MM. Are WotC going to try and sell me another Manual of the Planes or Forgotten Realms campaign setting? How are those things going to be markedly different enough to interest people this time around?

If I were WotC I would continue to support 3.5 but I would also attack the mass market with the simpler more visceral, collectible approach of the boardgame, as well as try to make strides into the online sector.

I’m unnecessarily restricting my market by suggesting that the books not be written for a grammar school level reading ability? Yeah, I suppose so. Didn’t the cigarette industry have a similar claim when people got in a big uproar about 5-10 year olds smoking?

Some restrictions aren’t that bad.

And it’s not like grammar school age kids can’t learn the game. I know kids in grammar school (or who were in grammar school when they started) who love the game, and play. Sure they may need an older person to help teach them (or maybe not), but if so… great, we call that ‘Mentoring’, it’s usually a good thing.

I just don't see a 4th Edition being a great business model if it just duplicates what we have already had with 3rd Edition. People might buy the 'big three' but I can't see 20% of the people who bought supplemental books buying them again with the new crunch bits integrated.

The way ahead has to be something different. The boardgame approach is that something, as is the online approach.

 

[Frostmarrow]

There seem to be two divergent opinions here, from reading:

1. Streamline the game to its bare basics and go for the mainstream mass market...get everyone playing.

2. Keep the game somewhat as it is and just market it better, aiming at people already playing other types of games (console, online, etc.).

Well, I put myself squarely in camp #2 here, if only because the boardgame/streamlining ideas all seem to be leading toward taking away the freeform-ness that makes the game fun, to be replaced with a much more pre-packaged and inflexible version. But then, I'm not exactly in the "mainstream"...

Lanefan

But this is where things get weird. I always thought it was easier to get people to play whimsical ad lib games that rely on personality than it is to get them to play a heavy wargame. -Which basically says that a D&D for the masses should emphasize role-playing and interviewing NPC and downplay moving minis on a map and rolling dice.

Isn't that how White Wolf managed to attract 50% females to Vampire Live?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

For me at least, it's because it's not what brought me into the hobby. RPG's fascinated me even before I started playing them because there was no board, no play pieces - everything is cerebral, it's all in the imagination.

When you add a board, it becomes no different than a more complex version of FFG's Descent boardgame. While that may be seen by some as the perfect form to draw new players in, for me it smacks a little of desperation if D&D has to incorporate those elements.

Good post. A board limits you on where you can go. Unless you have a blank board you have a defined environment to game in, that limits me way to much in terms of what I like to do in a RPG. Want to go to the Abyss? Fine! The Frozen wastes of the North to battle the Frost Barbarians? Fine lets go! But with a board you have to say, "well there is no Abyss space, and you rolled a 3 anyway so you have to go to the City." I'm not sure how a pre-defined playing space on a board goes with a free form RPG that takes place in the imagination. Board games and RPG's do different things and I don't see why one needs to be the same as the other. D&D could use some simplifying no doubt to gain more widespread appeal, but making the game a variant of Talisman isn't how to do it.

 

[delericho]

I'm suprised I haven't seen any mention of how to make the gaming experinece a more fully integrated part of a persons entertainment budget. My experience within the resturant & hospitality business is that if you have a quality product and aren't seeing the sales you expect then you need to concentrate on SERVICE.

And where does this come into play the most as far as affecting your game play? The DM. A highly qualified and experienced DM almost always makes the difference in how much fun you have at the table. Professional DMs and the products to support the business of entertaining the fan at the convention and online play will be the NBT.

I would be stunned if this was the case.

A few months ago, on one of the 'how much would you pay to play' threads, I posted a long analysis of what I would have to charge to make pay-for DMing worth my while. The answer, in short, was approx $150 for a half-day game (suitable for one 4-hour slot at a convention - how many of those do you get in the weekend), or $30 per hour for campaign play (equivalent to the online play you posited). That would be the minimum I could consider charging to be reasonably sure of delivering a quality product.

So, the question is: how many conventions have the budget to pay each DM that sort of money? How many groups would be willing to pay that on an ongoing basis for their online game sessions? I think I'll venture a guess here: no conventions, and less than 1% of all gaming groups worldwide.

The only market I see for paid-for DMs, except in exceptional cases, is in the case of a group of friends who used to game, but who broke up, and who fancy getting together for a one-shot "for old time's sake". If none of them ever really enjoyed DMing, it's entirely possible they might blow the $150 for a day's hire of a professional DM. Otherwise, though, I don't see it happening. There are too many DMs, and too many really good DMs, offering their services without charge for me to see it happening.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Flexor!

Good post. A board limits you on where you can go. Unless you have a blank board you have a defined environment to game in, that limits me way to much in terms of what I like to do in a RPG. Want to go to the Abyss? Fine! The Frozen wastes of the North to battle the Frost Barbarians? Fine lets go!

So then what is the incentive to buy the Manual of the Planes, Hordes of the Abyss, Frostburn supplements as opposed to say an Abyss boardgame supplement or a Frozen Waste boardgame supplement?

I have been contemplating the ideas of flexibility within the boardgame format and there are a number of things you can do. The first of which is, as you say have a blank board, or, more specifically a gridded tablecloth (possibly themed to the particular boxed set).

Also if the game has the room/corridor sections handled individually (rather than all in big 12 x 12 boards) then there is far more flexibility in the setup. Remember the pieces can be reversible, so you have double the amount of options.

So if you need an outdoor section, use the tablecloth grid, if you need an indoor structure, that can be easily assembled using the room/corridor pieces.

So even with a basic setup of tablecloth grid, rooms and corridors you can construct an unbelievable number of different setups and adventures.

Each new boxed set could cover different themes so maybe start with the basic Sewers/Dungeon and then Island/Volcanic Temple, Forest/Wizards Tower, Village/Vampire Castle, Sunken Caverns/Pirate Ship.

Dungeon Magazine would be great, they could include maybe a 'page' of new rooms/corridors each issue on top of new adventures/layouts and so forth.

But with a board you have to say, "well there is no Abyss space, and you rolled a 3 anyway so you have to go to the City." I'm not sure how a pre-defined playing space on a board goes with a free form RPG that takes place in the imagination. Board games and RPG's do different things and I don't see why one needs to be the same as the other. D&D could use some simplifying no doubt to gain more widespread appeal, but making the game a variant of Talisman isn't how to do it.

Well, you need the PHB, DMG and MM to start so thats potentially three boxed sets I could be allowed to cover the same ground. In such case I think we could duplicate an immense amount of possibilities.

I think there is a lot more flexibility in the format than you give credit to.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Hello Upper_Krust!

So then what is the incentive to buy the Manual of the Planes, Hordes of the Abyss, Frostburn supplements as opposed to say an Abyss boardgame supplement or a Frozen Waste boardgame supplement?

Well with the MOP I have a guide to a huge environment that I will modify to fit my game, or maybe use wholesale. It doesn't say "These 20 squares are the Abyss and this is what they look like and contain." It gives me a framework to let my imagination loose upon, or ignore compeltely. I can make up my own Abyss and have it drop seamlessly into the game system too.

I have been contemplating the ideas of flexibility within the boardgame format and there are a number of things you can do. The first of which is, as you say have a blank board, or, more specifically a gridded tablecloth (possibly themed to the particular boxed set).

Why have a board at all in that case? Isn't a cool part of a good boardgame excellent board art? A blank board requiring players to imagine what is on it seems to miss the point of a board game to me.

Also if the game has the room/corridor sections handled individually (rather than all in big 12 x 12 boards) then there is far more flexibility in the setup. Remember the pieces can be reversible, so you have double the amount of options.

You are still limited in what you can do, since you have x number of tiles that can only be assemlbed x number of ways.

So if you need an outdoor section, use the tablecloth grid, if you need an indoor structure, that can be easily assembled using the room/corridor pieces.

So even with a basic setup of tablecloth grid, rooms and corridors you can construct an unbelievable number of different setups and adventures.

Yet in the end the dungeons looks the same with the same feel and textures since you have 1 or 2 "styles" of tile that are supposed to look together. Every dungeon looks the same in the end, the rooms are just arranged differently.

Each new boxed set could cover different themes so maybe start with the basic Sewers/Dungeon and then Island/Volcanic Temple, Forest/Wizards Tower, Village/Vampire Castle, Sunken Caverns/Pirate Ship.

This could help remove the sameness of the tiles, and start to cost a bit of cash too. "Hey I want to run a dungeon in a black stone ancient temple...man that set is 39.99 so I better stick with the generic dungeon."

Dungeon Magazine would be great, they could include maybe a 'page' of new rooms/corridors each issue on top of new adventures/layouts and so forth.

Well, you need the PHB, DMG and MM to start so thats potentially three boxed sets I could be allowed to cover the same ground. In such case I think we could duplicate an immense amount of possibilities.

I think there is a lot more flexibility in the format than you give credit to.

Sure, I don't say they aren't flexible, but they are not nearly as flexible as my imagination. Heck we used to tweak the heck out of Talisman making up new cards and characters and all that stuff, but it could never come close to the varitey of play we got from D&D.

Do you think what you are discussing would be a richer gameplay experience than a well run RPG session as they are done now using only the imaginations of the players?

 

[WizarDru]

The Next Big Thing? Several ideas:

1) Increased Emphasis on Modularity: Recognizing how many players and DMs choose to use some rules, ignore others and add their own, D&D will adapt with much more segmentation of the rules coupled with guidance on how to add your own material into the system. Effects of changes will be documented in sidebars and explained in a 'behind the scenes' fashion, not unlike the SCAP's DM 'behind the scene' sidebars.

2) Incorporation of Everyway-like elements; Optional alternate resolution mechanics will be offered internal to the system, adapting more tedious mechanics to simpler solutions. Physical components like Everway's cards will be offered and expansions available for purchase to enhance your game.

3) Increased online integration options: beefing up even the excellent web offerings and PDFs currently available, WotC will add in more sophisticated tools for use, such as a PC generator and expansions that live up to the original 3.0 PCgen's promise. An online matching service for D&D players that goes far beyond the humble and unnattractive interface offerings of OpenRPG will appear, allowing remote playing over services like Webex and Xbox Live Arcade.

4) More physical components will be offered: Following the success of D&D minis, WotC will begin offering more and more sophisticated solutions that appeal to both the collectors and gamers alike. Dwarven Forge will be acquired by Hasbro, who will produce both more sophisticated set pieces and other items, such as equipment cards, Init tracker boards and specialized pieces that will work with D&D, D&D minis, a new combat system and incorporate Dreamblade.

You want more? I can get more.

 

[Ceresco]

A few months ago, on one of the 'how much would you pay to play' threads, I posted a long analysis of what I would have to charge to make pay-for DMing worth my while. The answer, in short, was approx $150 for a half-day game (suitable for one 4-hour slot at a convention - how many of those do you get in the weekend), or $30 per hour for campaign play (equivalent to the online play you posited). That would be the minimum I could consider charging to be reasonably sure of delivering a quality product.

I think I missed that discussion. I agree with your estimation of what a 1/2 day of my time is worth. I am a part time fine dining waiter. I won't work any place where I'd make less than $100 a shift. $150 is an average night for me. If I work a six hour shift I am averaging $25 an hour. This is what I expect to make as a starting nurse. But is it realistic to expect to pay a starting DM this much? Perhaps an extremely skilled DM. One who keeps me mostly entertained for the whole time.

So, the question is: how many conventions have the budget to pay each DM that sort of money? How many groups would be willing to pay that on an ongoing basis for their online game sessions? I think I'll venture a guess here: no conventions, and less than 1% of all gaming groups worldwide.

I believe that after the LiveJournal post from SPF I linked to in an earlier post Origins is seriously looking at this approach. I remember in the "good ole' days" of the RPGA when DMs were ranked, as well as players. I had the good fortune to have a couple of the top rated DMs (Jay Tummelson and Don Bingle) run me at a couple of different cons. I would have paid extra for the oppurtunity to have them as my DM. If you knew you could bid on getting one of the top ranked DMs running you for a six hour game would you?

I think that the idea Sean puts forth is making the DM the rock star. What do people pay to see their favorite actors, get an autographed picture at a con and spend a few minutes oohing and aahing? How many fans crowd seminars by their favorite authors? If you know that the best DM is coming to a con near you, what will you pay to play at their table?

The only market I see for paid-for DMs, except in exceptional cases, is in the case of a group of friends who used to game, but who broke up, and who fancy getting together for a one-shot "for old time's sake". If none of them ever really enjoyed DMing, it's entirely possible they might blow the $150 for a day's hire of a professional DM. Otherwise, though, I don't see it happening. There are too many DMs, and too many really good DMs, offering their services without charge for me to see it happening.

I think this is do-able by a subscription method of payment. MMORPGs have been pretty successful using this method. Online gaming is not my forte' but it seems with a platform designed specifically for the DM this could be a reality. I've looked at a few different online programs for running an online game. With minimum training and practice most people who would qualify as a quality DM could master them with little trouble.

Perhaps I'm delerious and delusional, but I choose to believe!