Holy Bovine
First Post
That makes me really sad. I am actually having a hard time imagining 25% of the adult population never reading a book. It is almost unfathomable to me.
Why aren't RPGs poplular
- Thread starter Stormonu
- Start date
That makes me really sad. I am actually having a hard time imagining 25% of the adult population never reading a book. It is almost unfathomable to me.
Desdichado
Hero
You'd... almost believe that?
The main thing that keeps down the popularity of RPGs, in my experience, is prejudice against gamers. The overwhelming number of people won't play PnP RPGs because it means associating with people they've been trained to regard as social outcasts. That people want to game is proven by the success of WOW. What WoW allows people to do is play an RPG while staying in the gaming closet. The WoW player doesn't need to associate with other gamers, so they don't have to feel like they'll be exposed to ridicule if anyone finds out about their gaming habit.
The second problem with attracting a wider audience to RPGs is that some of the stereotypes about us are sometimes true. There really are sexist, racist, extremely out-of-shape gamers with zero social skills and no conception of personal hygiene. If a newbie finds a group with just one of these gamers, they will tend to remember it because it fulfills their preconception of what gamers are like. The fact that the rest of the group is relatively attractive and stable people will often be forgotten, because generally people want to have their biases confirmed.
Now, let's say that someone overcomes their initial fear of social ostracism, and simply ignores any stereotypical gamers they actually encounter. Now the prospective new gamer is confronted with a 300 page rulebook that they have to read in order to play a game. A game that they will probably always be ashamed to admit that they play. At this point, the average person will simply give up.
I don't see how this situation is ever going to change. It's not as if Cosmopolitan is going to run an article extolling the sexiness of gamers. We can't kick the obnoxious people out of the hobby. And D&D is never going to be a rules light game in the future, because most of the money comes from complexity-loving hardcore gamers.
The second problem with attracting a wider audience to RPGs is that some of the stereotypes about us are sometimes true. There really are sexist, racist, extremely out-of-shape gamers with zero social skills and no conception of personal hygiene. If a newbie finds a group with just one of these gamers, they will tend to remember it because it fulfills their preconception of what gamers are like. The fact that the rest of the group is relatively attractive and stable people will often be forgotten, because generally people want to have their biases confirmed.
Now, let's say that someone overcomes their initial fear of social ostracism, and simply ignores any stereotypical gamers they actually encounter. Now the prospective new gamer is confronted with a 300 page rulebook that they have to read in order to play a game. A game that they will probably always be ashamed to admit that they play. At this point, the average person will simply give up.
I don't see how this situation is ever going to change. It's not as if Cosmopolitan is going to run an article extolling the sexiness of gamers. We can't kick the obnoxious people out of the hobby. And D&D is never going to be a rules light game in the future, because most of the money comes from complexity-loving hardcore gamers.
Last edited:
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I'm not entirely sure. I think a lot of people rationalize the chance of winning money as extremely important. Ask someone to spend 3 hours researching player statistics for their Fantasy Football League and they'll likely think, "I may have to spend 3 hours staring at numbers, doing math and thinking a lot...which I don't really like...but I could win 50 bucks if I try hard enough. So, at least it's for a good cause."
I've seen this in friends that are Poker players and people who like Fantasy Football. If you asked them to put the same amount of effort into a D&D game they'd probably look at you as if you'd told them to cover themselves in honey and lay in a field of fire ants.
The difference is that in one they feel the money is worth the effort whereas the DM saying "And the Orc dies" is not. Even if they don't win money, at least there was a chance of it. Playing D&D, the only thing they had a chance of winning was the mocking of their other friends who don't like D&D.
AntiStateQuixote
Enemy of the State
The main thing that keeps RPG's from being more popular is (relatively) few people enjoy pretending to be an Elf in front of other people. However, pretending to a Night Elf, alone in the privacy of your computer room, whenever you have a bit (hah!) of spare time, has proven to be exceptionally popular.
In a similar vein, the reason opera isn't more popular is (relatively) few people enjoy opera. But they love American Idol. There's no accounting for taste. Or rather, there is, but the numbers rarely add up to any sort of logical reasoning.
In other words, not everything will attract, or keep, a large, mainstream audience. Which is kinda ironic in this particular case, because RPG's have over the past 35 years, albeit not in their original pen-and-paper form.
In a similar vein, the reason opera isn't more popular is (relatively) few people enjoy opera. But they love American Idol. There's no accounting for taste. Or rather, there is, but the numbers rarely add up to any sort of logical reasoning.
In other words, not everything will attract, or keep, a large, mainstream audience. Which is kinda ironic in this particular case, because RPG's have over the past 35 years, albeit not in their original pen-and-paper form.
I have a feeling that the Cheech & Chong version of the Millenium Falcon would look sort of like a Maple leaf...but with a little something extra.
And given the way Bob & Doug's movie went, I could
Three words:
Night
Elf
MOHAWK!
Computer games have seriously encroached upon the heartland of RPGs to the point that RPG have diminished to the point of running rinkydink bingo parlors and casinos to keep themselves solvent.
Don't get me wrong, the clever and efficient companies are going to be able to keep running for pretty much forever, but it'll never revert to the days when they rode the land from horizon to horizon chasing herds of endless buffalo.
Night
Elf
MOHAWK!
Computer games have seriously encroached upon the heartland of RPGs to the point that RPG have diminished to the point of running rinkydink bingo parlors and casinos to keep themselves solvent.
Don't get me wrong, the clever and efficient companies are going to be able to keep running for pretty much forever, but it'll never revert to the days when they rode the land from horizon to horizon chasing herds of endless buffalo.
ExploderWizard
Hero
According to an actual MD, I am big boned.
I also happen to be fat.
No joke though...if I got down to about 3% body fat- you know, where elite athletes roam?- I'd still be about 28lbs overweight for my height according to the charts.
Thats because those charts are out of date. I think a great many people would be considered overweight at that body fat percentage. People are a bit larger on average than the official charts indicate. It reminds me of an old bit from MAD magazine in the early 80's that was about basketball players:
20 years ago a 6'5" player was a giant.
Now a 7' tall player is considered average.
By the year 2050 the most common injury will be the banging of kneecaps against the backboard.
delericho
Legend
TSR cancelled the Red Box.
Seriously, the (perceived) buy-in is just too great.
Take 4e: The three core rulebooks run to 832 pages and have an RRP of $105. In order to play the game, each prospective player has to be familiar with large chunks of at least the "Player's Handbook", and the prospective DM has to have read large chunks of all three. Then, each player has to create a character, made up of large numbers of complex options (many of which a new player simply will not understand), and the DM has to spend some amount of time putting together an adventure (or spend yet more money).
Or consider Pathfinder: The core rulebook and the bestiary together run to 880 pages or very dense text. Indeed, there may be as much as 50% more to core Pathfinder than to 'core' D&D 4e. And, again, there's the reading, the character creation, and the adventure generation.
Look at other RPGs, and you'll generally see much the same things over and over again: Vampire has two required books, one of which is very thick. Warhammer 3e has an RRP of $100. Shadowrun 4e is a thick book of complex rules and options. And so it goes.
Or, alternately, there's the Starter Set. A low-cost, easy-to-approach introduction to the game. Perfect, no?
Well, no.
Firstly, WotC made the mistake of releasing the Starter Set some months after the core rulebooks. Consequently, it usually gets displayed as one of 20-30 D&D products on a shelf, and doesn't exactly stand out from the crowd. Indeed, you might be forgiven for not even realising it exists. (Plus, a big shelf of endless supplements is every bit as intimidating as looking at the 832-page rulebooks that you 'have' to read before you get to play. ("You mean I have to buy all of that?"))
Secondly, the Starter Set doesn't have character creation rules. Thus, the game immediately loses one of its great selling points - the ability to play your own custom character.
Thirdly, Starter Sets past have not used the 'real' rules of the game, but instead a stripped down subset. (I don't know if this is true of the existing Starter Set.) So, when you graduate to the 'real' game, things are subtly different.
Fourth, and finally, the Starter Set becomes essentially worthless once you graduate to the 'real' rules. So, if you don't like the game, you've wasted $20 on the Starter Set, and if you do like the game, you've wasted $20 on the Starter Set.
(The reason I mention the "Red Box" above was that that was the last time the Starter Set seemed to be 'done right'. Although, even there it fell foul of using the wrong rules, since it was for BECM D&D and the 'real' game was AD&D.)
How to fix this?
Actually, I don't think the buy-in issue can be fixed with 4e, any more than it could be with 3e. The product line would require a fairly significant rethink, that almost demands a new edition to put into practice. Here's how I would do it:
Firstly, build the game around a single Core Rulebook, no more than 250 pages (fewer would be better). This would include a basic set of options (say four races and four classes, levels for the first tier, and basic sets of powers, magic items and monsters). Crucially, this would be the same Core Rulebook that is used both in the Starter Set and the 'real' game.
On release day, release two products in parallel. The main product, called simply "Dungeons & Dragons", would be a big boxed set aimed at new players. It should include the Core Rulebook, a quick-start guide, pre-generated characters, a book of pre-generated adventures (each suitable to be run in 3 hours or less with minimal set-up required), character sheets, dice, dungeon tiles, miniatures, and anything else that you might need to play. Heck, it should even include pencils!
The second product would be the Core Rulebook, sold separately. This would be aimed at converts to the new edition.
Moving onwards, I would support the Dungeons & Dragons set with additional expansions over time, each adding another book of adventures, more pre-generated characters (maybe), more dungeon tiles, more miniatures, and so forth. Maybe one or two of these per year, in a nice shiny box of goodies.
For the more traditional crowd, I would support the game with three circles of supplements. The first circle would be the "expanded core". This consist of between 3 and 6 additional books, and would put back all the 'missing' options that we're used to from our core game. Crucially, these are supplements to the Core Rulebook, not replacements, but they would also be designed on the assumption that you're using them together or not at all.
The second circle would consist of the supplements we're used to - splatbooks for the races and classes, pre-generated adventures, and so forth. These will also assume you're using the expanded core, but will also (mostly) work with just the Core Rulebook - they should serve to intrigue the core player to investigate the expanded core.
And the third circle would consist of things like the settings, perhaps also the DDI, and so on. Again, these would assume the use of the expanded core, but again they should mostly work with just the Core Rulebook. I think WotC have actually handled the settings lines mostly right with 4e - I would be inclined to support a setting a year, each with an intentionally limited run. (Perhaps a Setting Guide, a Player's Guide, maybe a Bestiary, and a couple of adventures.)
Regarding the Rules:
Character creation in 3e, 4e and Pathfinder is too damn complex. Players have to roll and then assign six stats (or use point buy, which is even more complex), choose from seven races, choose from eight classes, and then choose three different types of powers, each from their own unique lists, choose skills, choose feats, choose equipment, choose a name... why am I not playing WoW again?
(And, especially in 3e, Heaven help you if you make the wrong choices! You're a half-orc bard, are you? Cool, enjoy playing a character that doesn't work quite right for the next several months!)
So, I would strongly advocate bringing back the Basic tier (though not the ultra-fragile characters - 4e is right in eliminating these), and also making the choices less difficult up-front. Surprisingly, 4d6-drop-lowest in order may be the best 'default' method of attribute generation. The choice of race should probably be mostly cosmetic, at least at first (racial feats, powers or talent trees can expand this later). Each class should probably provide a fixed set of iconic powers for the first few levels, with options opening later. (And it should go without saying that any halfway-decent set of attributes, race and class should be at least reasonably effective. 3e, in particular, has too many rubbish options available to the unwary.)
Feats should be deferred to second level, while skills should probably be a matter of picking the ones you have (as in SWSE), rather than assigning ranks. I'm not sure what can be done about equipment - perhaps each class should include a list of half a dozen quick choices, each of three or four options (choose scale mail or chain mail; choose a longsword and shield, or a greatsword, or two shortswords...).
For all those experienced players who are reading this dramatic reduction in options and swearing they would never play such a game, provide sidebars offering the ability to customise the character even at low levels (just not as the default), and also advice for starting the game at the first level in the Expert tier. (The goal is not to strip out options for the sake of it - the goal is to make it easy for new players to get playing their own custom character without spending an hour on doing so.)
For the rest of the rules, a similar mentality should prevail: simplify!
Part of this will be forced on the design by only having 250 pages to work with, at least initially. Things like special combat maneuvers should be deferred to the expanded core. Stacking rules should be really obvious (perhaps even going so far as "you can only have one temporary effect on you at a time"). Conditional modifiers (and especially trivial conditional modifiers) should be reigned in or eliminated. Oh, and do away with "system mastery".
And so it goes.
Reduce the buy-in, getting people playing quickly, ensure your "Starter Set" retains its value, and then provide the options desired by the hardcore later.
Seriously, the (perceived) buy-in is just too great.
Take 4e: The three core rulebooks run to 832 pages and have an RRP of $105. In order to play the game, each prospective player has to be familiar with large chunks of at least the "Player's Handbook", and the prospective DM has to have read large chunks of all three. Then, each player has to create a character, made up of large numbers of complex options (many of which a new player simply will not understand), and the DM has to spend some amount of time putting together an adventure (or spend yet more money).
Or consider Pathfinder: The core rulebook and the bestiary together run to 880 pages or very dense text. Indeed, there may be as much as 50% more to core Pathfinder than to 'core' D&D 4e. And, again, there's the reading, the character creation, and the adventure generation.
Look at other RPGs, and you'll generally see much the same things over and over again: Vampire has two required books, one of which is very thick. Warhammer 3e has an RRP of $100. Shadowrun 4e is a thick book of complex rules and options. And so it goes.
Or, alternately, there's the Starter Set. A low-cost, easy-to-approach introduction to the game. Perfect, no?
Well, no.
Firstly, WotC made the mistake of releasing the Starter Set some months after the core rulebooks. Consequently, it usually gets displayed as one of 20-30 D&D products on a shelf, and doesn't exactly stand out from the crowd. Indeed, you might be forgiven for not even realising it exists. (Plus, a big shelf of endless supplements is every bit as intimidating as looking at the 832-page rulebooks that you 'have' to read before you get to play. ("You mean I have to buy all of that?"))
Secondly, the Starter Set doesn't have character creation rules. Thus, the game immediately loses one of its great selling points - the ability to play your own custom character.
Thirdly, Starter Sets past have not used the 'real' rules of the game, but instead a stripped down subset. (I don't know if this is true of the existing Starter Set.) So, when you graduate to the 'real' game, things are subtly different.
Fourth, and finally, the Starter Set becomes essentially worthless once you graduate to the 'real' rules. So, if you don't like the game, you've wasted $20 on the Starter Set, and if you do like the game, you've wasted $20 on the Starter Set.
(The reason I mention the "Red Box" above was that that was the last time the Starter Set seemed to be 'done right'. Although, even there it fell foul of using the wrong rules, since it was for BECM D&D and the 'real' game was AD&D.)
How to fix this?
Actually, I don't think the buy-in issue can be fixed with 4e, any more than it could be with 3e. The product line would require a fairly significant rethink, that almost demands a new edition to put into practice. Here's how I would do it:
Firstly, build the game around a single Core Rulebook, no more than 250 pages (fewer would be better). This would include a basic set of options (say four races and four classes, levels for the first tier, and basic sets of powers, magic items and monsters). Crucially, this would be the same Core Rulebook that is used both in the Starter Set and the 'real' game.
On release day, release two products in parallel. The main product, called simply "Dungeons & Dragons", would be a big boxed set aimed at new players. It should include the Core Rulebook, a quick-start guide, pre-generated characters, a book of pre-generated adventures (each suitable to be run in 3 hours or less with minimal set-up required), character sheets, dice, dungeon tiles, miniatures, and anything else that you might need to play. Heck, it should even include pencils!
The second product would be the Core Rulebook, sold separately. This would be aimed at converts to the new edition.
Moving onwards, I would support the Dungeons & Dragons set with additional expansions over time, each adding another book of adventures, more pre-generated characters (maybe), more dungeon tiles, more miniatures, and so forth. Maybe one or two of these per year, in a nice shiny box of goodies.
For the more traditional crowd, I would support the game with three circles of supplements. The first circle would be the "expanded core". This consist of between 3 and 6 additional books, and would put back all the 'missing' options that we're used to from our core game. Crucially, these are supplements to the Core Rulebook, not replacements, but they would also be designed on the assumption that you're using them together or not at all.
The second circle would consist of the supplements we're used to - splatbooks for the races and classes, pre-generated adventures, and so forth. These will also assume you're using the expanded core, but will also (mostly) work with just the Core Rulebook - they should serve to intrigue the core player to investigate the expanded core.
And the third circle would consist of things like the settings, perhaps also the DDI, and so on. Again, these would assume the use of the expanded core, but again they should mostly work with just the Core Rulebook. I think WotC have actually handled the settings lines mostly right with 4e - I would be inclined to support a setting a year, each with an intentionally limited run. (Perhaps a Setting Guide, a Player's Guide, maybe a Bestiary, and a couple of adventures.)
Regarding the Rules:
Character creation in 3e, 4e and Pathfinder is too damn complex. Players have to roll and then assign six stats (or use point buy, which is even more complex), choose from seven races, choose from eight classes, and then choose three different types of powers, each from their own unique lists, choose skills, choose feats, choose equipment, choose a name... why am I not playing WoW again?
(And, especially in 3e, Heaven help you if you make the wrong choices! You're a half-orc bard, are you? Cool, enjoy playing a character that doesn't work quite right for the next several months!)
So, I would strongly advocate bringing back the Basic tier (though not the ultra-fragile characters - 4e is right in eliminating these), and also making the choices less difficult up-front. Surprisingly, 4d6-drop-lowest in order may be the best 'default' method of attribute generation. The choice of race should probably be mostly cosmetic, at least at first (racial feats, powers or talent trees can expand this later). Each class should probably provide a fixed set of iconic powers for the first few levels, with options opening later. (And it should go without saying that any halfway-decent set of attributes, race and class should be at least reasonably effective. 3e, in particular, has too many rubbish options available to the unwary.)
Feats should be deferred to second level, while skills should probably be a matter of picking the ones you have (as in SWSE), rather than assigning ranks. I'm not sure what can be done about equipment - perhaps each class should include a list of half a dozen quick choices, each of three or four options (choose scale mail or chain mail; choose a longsword and shield, or a greatsword, or two shortswords...).
For all those experienced players who are reading this dramatic reduction in options and swearing they would never play such a game, provide sidebars offering the ability to customise the character even at low levels (just not as the default), and also advice for starting the game at the first level in the Expert tier. (The goal is not to strip out options for the sake of it - the goal is to make it easy for new players to get playing their own custom character without spending an hour on doing so.)
For the rest of the rules, a similar mentality should prevail: simplify!
Part of this will be forced on the design by only having 250 pages to work with, at least initially. Things like special combat maneuvers should be deferred to the expanded core. Stacking rules should be really obvious (perhaps even going so far as "you can only have one temporary effect on you at a time"). Conditional modifiers (and especially trivial conditional modifiers) should be reigned in or eliminated. Oh, and do away with "system mastery".
And so it goes.
Reduce the buy-in, getting people playing quickly, ensure your "Starter Set" retains its value, and then provide the options desired by the hardcore later.
Similar Threads
