What is THE NEXT BIG THING?

[schporto]

I wonder if you could make something from this:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/games/prague.ars
I think you could. Issue weekly 'missions', and players would need to complete those within the framework setup with the new WotC online tabletop game thing, and approved DMs. You could have clans (like current online games), or random groups. Each player gets his own experience. Their characters advancing. Probably several 'worlds' running concurrently.
I think Dancy's point was a new 'platform', and this would be a rather radical change from current play. It wouldn't replace current DnD, but rather extend it. A new release (4.0) of the books would facilitate that, just as 3.5 helped facilitate minis without requiring minis.
-cpd

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Think games qua games, not games qua merchandise.

MM, I "get" your point: The "RP" in RPG, and particularly the wide-open nature of play, are the critical differences.

It's my point, too: the "RP" in RPG, and particularly the wide-open nature of play, are the critical things holding RPGs back from mainstream success.

A balanced and competitive railroad that can be completed in two hours from chargen to a victory for one player, the players collectively or the GM who is competing with the players - assuming there's a GM involved? That's a mainstream game, right there.

Then you release expansions with new (balanced and competitive railroad) scenarios. That's a business model. Possibly you make them collectible, but that's definitely gambling for the big hit while risking a total flop.

But, you may say -! Doesn't this negate the advantages of tabletop over, say, an MMORPG?

First off, MMORPGs are highly *profitable* because of their business model, not because they're popular in terms of playerbase. Even WoW is a piker compared to the last five offline Final Fantasy games (its vaunted 6 mil amounts to about half the sales of a PS1 FF), much less the more successful non-RPG electronic games. And WoW is the only MMORPG that's even in the picture. The best of the rest only crack Platinum (1 mil) sales if they're a hit in the online-obsessed Korean market; most MMOs are considered smash hits if they manage a hundred thousand subscribers in the US and Europe.

Second, even those non-RPG electronic games pale in comparison to the sale of successful board and card games.

Apparently, board and card games still have something on electronic games. Namely, the one thing tabletop RPGs have that's actually marketable: face to face social interaction.

Any RPG that tries for mainstream success must 1. play fast (two hours TOPS, and that's pushing it), 2. be as easy to grasp as Monopoly, 3. be focused on one-shot rather than campaign play, 4. not take people out of their comfort zone, 5. have name recognition, 6. have a lot of marketing clout, and 7. be available in toy and department stores.

D&D has 5. and a bit of 6. and 7. Essentially no other RPG has *any* of them. The open-endedness gets in the way of 1. and 2., while the roleplaying hurts 1., 2. and 4. 3. is just a legacy design choice that has never been challenged in a product with even a modicum of 5. or 6.

 

[dougmander]

How about a way to combine D&D, online play, and the convenience of a play-by-post game?

What D&D really needs is the magical means to allow those of us with kids, jobs, and their share of reality a way to play the game on our terms. Sure, I checked out the local D&D meetup board (I'd never start my own; too bloody expensive for what the service offers). but there are so many people who cannot travel far to game, or who have cat allergies, etc.

My thoughts exactly. For over-forties like me, especially with kids, carving out some time to have a game is tough -- we manage it about once every two weeks, for about three hours. That's just not enough for me.

For me, the "magical means" you speak of turns out to be the online environment Second Life . I DM there every Friday night for three friends who live too far away to ever game together in person. If you're not familiar with it, SL is an online 3-D environment that is created and owned by its residents. I've been using it to build dungeon scenery, life-size "minis" to represent the monsters, spell effects, weapons, and so on. The players come to the game "in-character", with marvelous costumes and custom-made avatars. We use a chat-based dice roller, plus in-game notecards to keep track of hp, XP, and so on.

Right now there are dozens of people who want to play, but we have only a couple of active DMs -- we need more! If you're interested in coming to SL to see how it all works, let me know. It's free to join, and I can set you up with everything you need to run a game. Click on the link in my sig file to see some screen captures of my game in action.

 

[Raven Crowking]

3. is just a legacy design choice that has never been challenged in a product with even a modicum of 5. or 6.

Nice analysis, but I disagree with this point. "3" is where you get the best bang for your buck IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[Kaodi]

Does anyone ever try one of those brainstorming threads for a new CCG, sort of like they do sometimes for theoretically new campaign settings and other elements?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Nice analysis, but I disagree with this point. "3" is where you get the best bang for your buck IMHO. YMMV.


RC

I tend to like campaign play and, from the perspective of a publisher, would want players to be encouraged to buy new stuff for their characters. It's an impediment to casual gaming, though.

Making one-shot play the default and campaign play an option seems more marketable. Specifically, make campaign play available via its own sold separately set of advanced rules - which would still be vastly simpler than any version of D&D, of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I tend to like campaign play and, from the perspective of a publisher, would want players to be encouraged to buy new stuff for their characters. It's an impediment to casual gaming, though.

Making one-shot play the default and campaign play an option seems more marketable. Specifically, make campaign play available via its own sold separately set of advanced rules - which would still be vastly simpler than any version of D&D, of course.

Maybe. But it seems to me that campaign play is like a soap opera (sorry for anyone offended by the analogy) and soap operas simply aren't all that interesting as single episodes. Maybe you could use that sort of thing to drive short-term sales, but I think it would hurt sales overall in the long term.

You are right, though, that the amount of investment (both time and money) is a big factor in keeping RPGs out of the mainstream.


RC

 

[Nightfall]

Who ever suggested lesbians are the next hot thing obviously missed the latter part of the 90s...

 

[Lanefan]

Whatever the Next Big ThingTM in tabletop RPGs is, it needs to be marketed to college-age kids and gaming clubs, as that is where the long-term players come from.

As for what that NBT will be... ::shrug:: ...no idea here.

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

The next big thing will be for White Wolf's WoD 2.0 - Leviathan: The Aquatica.