Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5413230" data-attributes="member: 59082">Let's get these two out of the way first before I hit the interesting stuff...And I know I'm sick of snarky comments that add nothing to a conversation.I think you missed the point of the thread, or at least much of the forest for specific trees.As a general rule I have preferred each new edition to the one prior to it. This does not mean that something crucial hasn't been lost in the process.Good points, Matt. I do, however, think you are missing something very key, which is that while 4E may be fun it can't possible compete with the style of funness (or funnity?) of World of Warcraft and other computer games. No matter what nifty gadgets and doodads it employs, no matter what modernized tropes it utilizes and idiosyncratic sacred cows it slays, it can't compete with CGI, with MMORGs, with Playstations and XBoxes. A tabletop RPG couldn't possibly have 25 million players in today's cultural context because of the advancement and prevalence of video games. Sure, they were around in the 80s but they weren't nearly so advanced or immersive, there was no World of Warcraft, and most kids didn't have home consoles (remember video arcades?).It is a very simple principle, really. If you are given the option of either a ton of organic ingredients to make your own gourmet meal with or you can order a pizza delivered to your house in 20 minutes, 90+% of people order the pizza 90+% of the time. The path of least resistance which, in the end, offers less reward. Now I hear and agree with you that WotC almost has to appeal to a new generation of gamers--and there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with that. I just think that "trying to stay relevant" is a doomed endeavor from the start, sort of like the 40-year old dorky dad who tries to be hip around his kid's 13-year old friends. In a sense we have at WotC a bunch of 40-year old dorky dads (or rather, aging geeks) who are trying to be hip, or create something hip, for 12-15 year olds. Will it work? Maybe to some extent, but I don't think so, not in the long run.(A quick aside: I remain open in general, but I do have some optimism for the board games to bring in new players. Board games as a classic endeavor that families can play together in a social and face-to-face way that can't be done with video games. If 40-year old dads who haven't played D&D since the 80s get their kids Wrath of Ashardalon, not only might their interest in all things D&D be rekindled, but their kids might get into it.)There's that famous phrase from an otherwise cheesy movie, Field of Dreams: "If you build it they will come." This is why I think the folks at WotC should never lose sight of the diehard fanbase, because we are the ones that know the game; we are the litmus test for its greatness; we have seen it all, done it all (or at least read about someone who has seen or done it all!). Obviously it isn't either/or, either try to please the diehard fanbase--who are ultimately unpleasable, at least as a group--or try to draw in a new generation of gamers, which won't happen to the degree that WotC hopes or, in my opinion, in the way that they have been trying to draw them in, at least outside of Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon. It is both. But I would focus on making D&D the RPG the best possible tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG that it can be, and for all of the frills--DDI, miniatures, and all the other doodads--to remain just that, frills, and thus optional and secondary to the tabletop game itself. And I would also create secondary products like boardgames and even video games to try to draw kids in.Yeah, I know, I agree with you--I was being facetious. Actually, the original post started as a purely comedy bit but then ended up getting more serious. Obviously WotC wants its old fans back - it needs its old fans because we are the folks that buy most of the product. I mean, it is generally known that a large percentage--50% or more--of all RPG sales are from a very small segment--10% or less--of the total gaming population. Just as in many (most?) gaming groups the regular DM buys and owns many times the number of gaming products than the rest of the group combined.What I am saying is that WotC has lost sight of and disenfranchised many old-timers through catering to some idea of what they think will draw in a new generation of gamers. In some ways I think the success of 3E screwed them up a bit because 3E did draw in a lot of newbies, and bring back a ton of retired players--many more than it pushed away. But this wasn't the case with 4E; first of all, a lot of folks stayed with 3.5--or went back to it after trying 4E out--or they eventually went to Pathfinder. And then a few drifted off to older editions or other games. Essentials seems to be mildly successful in drawing people back, but it may be too little, too late.You are probably right (see my "too little too late" above). That said, I refuse to believe that what I call the Holy Grail of D&D Editions: One Edition to Rule Them All, One Edition to Find them...meaning, an edition of D&D that appeals to everyone (OK, more realistically, most everyone, or more of everyone than has happened before). I think it is possible.That wasn't my intention. If anything I think that "kids these days" would be more drawn to a D&D that wasn't trying to condescend down to them as being video gaming ADHDers, but rather as trying to invoke and inspire their imaginations. It is my belief that most kids would actually enjoy a great game of D&D more than a video game session if they actually got a chance to play one, in the same way that an organic gourmet meal is actually more enjoyable than fast-food if you really sit down and taste what you are eating. I hope so! And I think you hit on a key word: enhance, which implies secondary rather than primary. My worry is that D&D is moving to the iPhones and laptops as primary, that DDI is becoming the new core and that, in essence, "5E" will be DDI-as-core. We're going to lose something precious if it does.I'm not against the technology and enjoy, for example, using the older versions of Monster Builder and Character Builder. But again, as long as they are enhancements. I want my books, I want my face-to-face table-top game, I want my imagination.Yes, as I said above. Hey, if <a href="http://www.kunstler.com/index.php" target="_blank">Howard Kunstler</a> is right, that might just happen!Interesting post, rounser. While I agree with much of what you wrote, I will turn something around on you: I think it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to disavow completely modern streamlined game mechanics (I'm not saying that you are saying that, but it seems you are pointing in that direction). I think there is a middle ground which 3E tried to do but it got a bit unwieldy, which is have a very simple core mechanic with endless possible exceptions, modifiers, and other rules added on. Where I think it went wrong is that it was too simple/complicated at the same time. The simplicity was good, but because of it the designers thought they could hang a ton of weight on it without getting out of control. But it did. 4E took a slightly different tactic where they kept the same simple core mechanic but expanded it out a bit so that the the second layer of rules was also simple, also elegant and streamlined and...well, formulaic. And so we go the well-intentioned and clever power structure, which ended up homogenizing the classes.I don't want to derail the thread, but my view is that the best way (that i can think of, at least) is a more modular design. You still keep the d20 core mechanic but everything becomes modular. You have a very simple basic game that anyone can play as is without adding further rules. This game would be as simple and old school--if not moreso--than OD&D. Then you'd have as many optional modules as you like from alternate class structures to power systems to feats, skills, etc etc as an Advanced game. This would be a toolbox approach to D&D. Everyone plays Basic D&D, but beyond that everyone has their own version, their own combination of factors. But I've strayed...</blockquote>

Verification