We just need a "pro" role playing circuit so it can be televised.
Point.
I can finally make some money out of this hobby.
May I suggest it would be prudent to also have a plan B for your retirement fund...
Oh I do. The lottery.
|
We just need a "pro" role playing circuit so it can be televised.
That'll kick start the hobby.
Hey there! I'm Tiger Dave, and whether I'm cromping Drow in the Underdark, or trying to barter with that Gargantuan Red Dragon for my life, I like to drink PowerAle! Ahhh! Nothing like that cool, refreshing PowerAle to help balance my electrolytes, boost my CHA temporarily, and help me regain my focus.
|
Hey there! I'm Tiger Dave, and whether I'm cromping Drow in the Underdark, or trying to barter with that Gargantuan Red Dragon for my life, I like to drink PowerAle! Ahhh! Nothing like that cool, refreshing PowerAle to help balance my electrolytes, boost my CHA temporarily, and help me regain my focus.
I myself find that when bartering with said Gargantuan Red Dragon has gone pear shaped that my Nike Boots of Speed allow me a safe getaway. Of course after the daring escape the last thing I want is an unpleasant underarm smell. That's why I apply a Potion of Lynx for Dwarves (extra strength) before my adventuring day starts.
TigerDave you have started something truly horrifying...
S.
I offer to wear a jumper and allow RPG publishers to buy advertising space on said jumper.
I offer to wear a jumper and allow RPG publishers to buy advertising space on said jumper.
Plan C?
I offer to wear a jumper and allow RPG publishers to buy advertising space on said jumper.
You'd probably get more from selling advertising space for Cheetos and Mountain Dew... :P
There's also branded dice sets and character sheets to think of...
You may be right.
Exactly what all this talk was putting me in mind of.
Aww.... looky at the the doggy with the cute Book of Erotic Fantasy sweater!
Ooooo! Now that does make me feel all warm and fuzzy.
You mean, like since arcades in the '80s and the NES in the late '80s?Movies and video games are more mainstream than role playing, so I am not sure I buy that it has been turned on its head.video games only comparatively recently.
No I mean significantly more recently then that. Arcades did very poorly when considering the female demographic and the NES was primarily aimed at and utilized by young males.
Actually when I look over the statistics that have been gathered on this topic it appears that a mere 16% of WoW players are female (as of 2005 - which is the latest I have seen data of this type) which, while significantly better then historical standards for computer games can't really be considered a huge breakthrough.
|
|
You mean, like since arcades in the '80s and the NES in the late '80s?Movies and video games are more mainstream than role playing, so I am not sure I buy that it has been turned on its head.video games only comparatively recently.No I mean significantly more recently then that. Arcades did very poorly when considering the female demographic and the NES was primarily aimed at and utilized by young males.
Actually when I look over the statistics that have been gathered on this topic it appears that a mere 16% of WoW players are female (as of 2005 - which is the latest I have seen data of this type) which, while significantly better then historical standards for computer games can't really be considered a huge breakthrough.
Ok, gotcha. Mainstream only means "enjoyed by both sexes", not "widely popular, even if only with one sex".
I guess proffesional men's sports must not be "mainstream", then, even though most women aren't as into them (if at all) as guys are.
The awesome women of Pittsburgh PA excepted, of course. They're even more rabid over the Steelers than a lot of dudes from there I know.
If that's how you define "mainstream", then very little in our culture is "mainstream".
Bunch of dang whippersnappers....
Ok, gotcha. Mainstream only means "enjoyed by both sexes", not "widely popular, even if only with one sex".
...
If that's how you define "mainstream", then very little in our culture is "mainstream".
The advantage of this narrow of a definition is that it also means conversely that Oprah isn't mainstream...Just sayin.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[Actually when I look over the statistics that have been gathered on this topic it appears that a mere 16% of WoW players are female (as of 2005 - which is the latest I have seen data of this type) which, while significantly better then historical standards for computer games can't really be considered a huge breakthrough.
As opposed to WoW characters, which are 70% female.
(sorry, couldn't resist, cary on)
Ok, gotcha. Mainstream only means "enjoyed by both sexes", not "widely popular, even if only with one sex".I guess proffesional men's sports must not be "mainstream", then, even though most women aren't as into them (if at all) as guys are.
The awesome women of Pittsburgh PA excepted, of course. They're even more rabid over the Steelers than a lot of dudes from there I know.
If that's how you define "mainstream", then very little in our culture is "mainstream".
I see your point that mainstream can just mean one gender and I agree but I think its something of a side issue for RPGs and probably even MMORPGS. If these are to continue to grow significantly I think that they really have to move beyond being the preserve of just one gender.
For RPGs in particular I think you have to make them appeal to both genders if they are to move beyond being a niche product. In effect I don't think you rope significantly more males into the game until you figure out how to rope in some significant number of females.
|
|
I see your point that mainstream can just mean one gender and I agree but I think its something of a side issue for RPGs and probably even MMORPGS. If these are to continue to grow significantly I think that they really have to move beyond being the preserve of just one gender.
For RPGs in particular I think you have to make them appeal to both genders if they are to move beyond being a niche product. In effect I don't think you rope significantly more males into the game until you figure out how to rope in some significant number of females.
Dude, table top RPGs are stuck in niche status from here on out. Fact is, if you want to bring in the kids, story hour isn't going to do it, and, from what I can tell, there is a level of snobbery these days about "hack and slash" games. Kids, for the most part, like action, combat, stuff like that, they aren't looking to write the Great American Novel or the next Tony Award winner for Best Drama. They want GTA, WoW, Metal Gear Solid, and RPGs (1e AD&D in particular) used to play that way. I wonder why that was the best selling RPG ever...
Look at how we developed in the '80s. We went from hack and slash (usually with a healthy dose of Monty Haul thrown in) and DEVELOPED into role players. In other words, we grew into it. Modern tables expect everyone to just be role players. Frankly, that attitude is elitist and off putting, if the growth of the industry is a goal. 1e did well because it was fun, didn't need a huge investment from the players, and lent itself well to beer and pretzels play. Growth will come from casual gamers just looking for a fun time a few hours a week, not from amateur thespians.
Why do you think WoD players get such a bad rap and are stereotyped so much (you know it's true, stop denying it)? Because they tend to be elitist snobs, at least in my experience. It puts people who might be into a casual game off.
Sure, appealing to both genders is an important goal, but appealing to kids, who have a completely different perception of "fun" than older gamers, is even MORE important.
Look at how we developed in the '80s. We went from hack and slash (usually with a healthy dose of Monty Haul thrown in) and DEVELOPED into role players. In other words, we grew into it. Modern tables expect everyone to just be role players. Frankly, that attitude is elitist and off putting, if the growth of the industry is a goal. 1e did well because it was fun, didn't need a huge investment from the players, and lent itself well to beer and pretzels play. Growth will come from casual gamers just looking for a fun time a few hours a week, not from amateur thespians.
This is exactly how I feel. The tabletop community has, over the past few decades, withdrawn into itself. There has been a conscientious effort on the part of the community to label character interaction, socialization and development as "good" and hack-and-slash, beer-and-pretzels play as "bad". Even if those labels are not used as presented (though they often are), the tendency of the community to look down its collective nose at games that involve heavy combat as somehow lesser games is very harmful to the community's ability to expand. I've heard "Ugh, combat," way more often than I've heard things like "Ugh, character development," especially online, but in my experience this is because certain people view combat with elitist disdain, while the rest of the community just wants to play the game (and doesn't view character development with that same elitist disdain). In order to grow significantly, I feel, tabletop gaming cannot afford to take this attitude; it needs to be welcoming and accessible, above all else, and it's tough to find a trope more welcoming and accessible than diving headfirst into a dungeon full of kobolds.
If heavy character development, socialization and interaction are your thing, fantastic. But don't develop anything like an attitude that that's how the best games are played. And, if you're interested in building the community (as I feel all of us have a nagging moral obligation to do), make some room for truly accessible gameplay.
I am not trying to look down my nose at anyone. I just do not like hack-n-slash. If I did, I would playing one of a million computer role playing games. And that is why I do not think role playing games can compete with computer role playing games.
I admit I could be wrong. I have no evidence to back up my position on this. Furthermore, I am making the rather large assumption that every will think like me (in that computer role playing games make better hack-n-slash games).
You do not have to schedule time to play. The graphics are better. The sound is better. You do not have to worry about some arbitrary GM nerfing some beautiful exploit you discovered.
The advantage a human GM has is that they can improvise when a player tries something unusual. But I can not help but wonder how much that happens when you are going room to room in Paizo's latest delve? And is it worth it when it does happen compared to the ease of sitting down at your computer for a couple of hours?
I agree with you in everything except the following:
You do not have to schedule time to play. The graphics are better. The sound is better. You do not have to worry about some arbitrary GM nerfing some beautiful exploit you discovered.
This shows your lack of experience with computer games in general, and online games in particular.
But I won't go into it because I don't think that little error detracts from your points.
|
|
You do not have to schedule time to play. The graphics are better. The sound is better. You do not have to worry about some arbitrary GM nerfing some beautiful exploit you discovered.
You are completely right about this. RP cannot complete on the hack'n'slash niche. Computers are just better. Hack'n'slash is visual (4e has tried to compensate for this with 'miniatures play'), rolepalying is human interaction - something computers suck at. That is where the attraction and strength of RP's lay, not in a psuedo-viso-tactical emulation of a computer game.
All efforts should be made to push this side of the hobby verses computer based RPG's. In a head to head battle of action hack'n'slash 4e D&D vs World of Warcraft, well figures speak for themselves. But same battle based on non-repetitiveness, inventiveness, and face to face social interaction, 4e D&D for the win!
S.
PS: Unless you are in a hardcore raiding guild "logon and play" online MMORPGing is completely possible.
Hiya.
This is exactly how I feel.
Scott, 99/100 times I disagree with you...but this is that 1/100. :) As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to "If everyone's having fun at the table, you're doing it right". If the group does that every week, for years...excellent! If they do it every few months just to blow off steam...excellent!
I don't like 4e at all. However, I do think it has a decent chance of getting some of the MMORPG crowd to at least give RPG'ing a shot. It seems to be geared towards 'expected' results and conditions. If "a", then "b", else "c". This expected result/condition layout fits in perfectly with MMORPG players who are used to crunching number and "knowing" that if they use Power A, they will get Effect A every time. That said, I don't think 4e has anything to *keep* said MMORPG crowd folks from sticking with it. The end result is, IMHO, going to be a net result of 0. Some people may buy a book or two, play for a few weeks or couple of months, then go back to Warhammer Online, City of Heroes, Warcraft, Everquest, etc. This will all lead to the inevitable "5th edition" D&D in about 2 to 4 years from now. (you can quote me on that)
Hiya.
This is exactly how I feel.Scott, 99/100 times I disagree with you...but this is that 1/100. :) As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to "If everyone's having fun at the table, you're doing it right". If the group does that every week, for years...excellent! If they do it every few months just to blow off steam...excellent!
I don't like 4e at all. However, I do think it has a decent chance of getting some of the MMORPG crowd to at least give RPG'ing a shot. It seems to be geared towards 'expected' results and conditions. If "a", then "b", else "c". This expected result/condition layout fits in perfectly with MMORPG players who are used to crunching number and "knowing" that if they use Power A, they will get Effect A every time. That said, I don't think 4e has anything to *keep* said MMORPG crowd folks from sticking with it. The end result is, IMHO, going to be a net result of 0. Some people may buy a book or two, play for a few weeks or couple of months, then go back to Warhammer Online, City of Heroes, Warcraft, Everquest, etc. This will all lead to the inevitable "5th edition" D&D in about 2 to 4 years from now. (you can quote me on that)
They'll keep with it if they like the people they are hanging out with.
|
|
They'll keep with it if they like the people they are hanging out with.Hiya.
This is exactly how I feel.Scott, 99/100 times I disagree with you...but this is that 1/100. :) As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to "If everyone's having fun at the table, you're doing it right". If the group does that every week, for years...excellent! If they do it every few months just to blow off steam...excellent!
I don't like 4e at all. However, I do think it has a decent chance of getting some of the MMORPG crowd to at least give RPG'ing a shot. It seems to be geared towards 'expected' results and conditions. If "a", then "b", else "c". This expected result/condition layout fits in perfectly with MMORPG players who are used to crunching number and "knowing" that if they use Power A, they will get Effect A every time. That said, I don't think 4e has anything to *keep* said MMORPG crowd folks from sticking with it. The end result is, IMHO, going to be a net result of 0. Some people may buy a book or two, play for a few weeks or couple of months, then go back to Warhammer Online, City of Heroes, Warcraft, Everquest, etc. This will all lead to the inevitable "5th edition" D&D in about 2 to 4 years from now. (you can quote me on that)
And if they find they like sharing beer and pretzels with real people. :)
That really is the advantage of TTRPGs over MMOs. Chatting over the web, or even over some sort of VOIP set up isn't really social interaction. Spending time with people in the meat world is. Most of my games since I've been an adult have usually just been a pretext to get together, break bread and hang out, with the game being the centerpiece of the occasion.
|
Why do you think WoD players get such a bad rap and are stereotyped so much (you know it's true, stop denying it)? Because they tend to be elitist snobs, at least in my experience. It puts people who might be into a casual game off.
WoD.
Short for "Where's our Decisions?"
(ie; wake me up when the Dm's finished talking to himself)
Why do you think WoD players get such a bad rap and are stereotyped so much (you know it's true, stop denying it)? Because they tend to be elitist snobs, at least in my experience. It puts people who might be into a casual game off.
Oh man that's cold. Yeah it's a fluff-heavy narrativist game and definitely a different flavor and pace than D&D, but saying all WoD players tend to be elitist snobs is just as bad as saying all D&D players tend to be combat-happy munchkins.
WoD.
Short for "Where's our Decisions?"
(ie; wake me up when the Dm's finished talking to himself)
Et tu, gorgon?
Man, I'm so tempted to fire up a good old fashioned oWoD PbP here. I think my brain would explode though ...
|
|
Why do you think WoD players get such a bad rap and are stereotyped so much (you know it's true, stop denying it)? Because they tend to be elitist snobs, at least in my experience. It puts people who might be into a casual game off.Oh man that's cold. Yeah it's a fluff-heavy narrativist game and definitely a different flavor and pace than D&D, but saying all WoD players tend to be elitist snobs is just as bad as saying all D&D players tend to be combat-happy munchkins.
WoD.
Short for "Where's our Decisions?"
(ie; wake me up when the Dm's finished talking to himself)
Et tu, gorgon?
Man, I'm so tempted to fire up a good old fashioned oWoD PbP here. I think my brain would explode though ...
"Tend to be" is a far cry from "all". And I said "in my experience".
And, like I said, "get a bad rap and are stereotyped". Not "this is the absolute truth about WoD players."
:P
And, as to the "combat happy munchkins", when D&D was combat happy, it happened to be the biggest, baddest game to walk the planet. WotC would LOVE to have half the numbers 1e had. :)
Heck, WW would love to have a quarter of the numbers 1e had...
My point was, ultimately, that, for whatever reason (as in, this may just be coincidence) TTRPGs became much less popular around the same time "The Story" became the focus.
"Tend to be" is a far cry from "all". And I said "in my experience".
yep, I got that. That's why I put 'tend' in with the combat-happy quip as well.
And, like I said, "get a bad rap and are stereotyped". Not "this is the absolute truth about WoD players."
:P
Sure, and it's not absolutely true that all D&D players are combat-happy, but that's the stereotype and the 'bad rap'. Of course, seeing that I am a rabid D&D player, I am an exception to said rule myself.
And, as to the "combat happy munchkins", when D&D was combat happy, it happened to be the biggest, baddest game to walk the planet. WotC would LOVE to have half the numbers 1e had. :)
Heck, WW would love to have a quarter of the numbers 1e had...
My point was, ultimately, that, for whatever reason (as in, this may just be coincidence) TTRPGs became much less popular around the same time "The Story" became the focus.
I would posit that D&D and TTRPGs in general became less popular as a direct consequence of the video game and MMORPG explosion of the 90's and 21st Century. I myself spent close to six years playing in Everquest and World of Warcraft. The lack of a story is what eventually soured me on the whole MMORPG scene. If combat, killing and looting and hanging with your bros joking and smoking is what you like, WoW serves it up faster, with sweet visual graphics, less skull sweat and a quick in-and-out casual format (ie unlike Everquest you don't need to join some uberguild to get good gear). The only thing it lacks is the meatspace sociality, but more and more people don't really care about that anymore, and with Teamspeak or Skype you can bullsh!t and gab with your buds while creaming mobs just as if you were around a table. The only difference is you don't have to smell the gamer funk :P
I know that WoD has a bad rap, but it's a good game, different from D&D sure, but engaging in its own right. All I'm trying to say.
|
|
"Tend to be" is a far cry from "all". And I said "in my experience".yep, I got that. That's why I put 'tend' in with the combat-happy quip as well.
And, like I said, "get a bad rap and are stereotyped". Not "this is the absolute truth about WoD players."
:P
Sure, and it's not absolutely true that all D&D players are combat-happy, but that's the stereotype and the 'bad rap'. Of course, seeing that I am a rabid D&D player, I am an exception to said rule myself.
And, as to the "combat happy munchkins", when D&D was combat happy, it happened to be the biggest, baddest game to walk the planet. WotC would LOVE to have half the numbers 1e had. :)
Heck, WW would love to have a quarter of the numbers 1e had...
My point was, ultimately, that, for whatever reason (as in, this may just be coincidence) TTRPGs became much less popular around the same time "The Story" became the focus.
I would posit that D&D and TTRPGs in general became less popular as a direct consequence of the video game and MMORPG explosion of the 90's and 21st Century. I myself spent close to six years playing in Everquest and World of Warcraft. The lack of a story is what eventually soured me on the whole MMORPG scene. If combat, killing and looting and hanging with your bros joking and smoking is what you like, WoW serves it up faster, with sweet visual graphics, less skull sweat and a quick in-and-out casual format (ie unlike Everquest you don't need to join some uberguild to get good gear). The only thing it lacks is the meatspace sociality, but more and more people don't really care about that anymore, and with Teamspeak or Skype you can bullsh!t and gab with your buds while creaming mobs just as if you were around a table. The only difference is you don't have to smell the gamer funk :P
I know that WoD has a bad rap, but it's a good game, different from D&D sure, but engaging in its own right. All I'm trying to say.
Unless you're talking SSI games (and, frankly - and I'll probably get some flack for this - Pool of Radiance and Azure Bonds sucked ass...), RPGs hit their nadir before the "bad ass" RPG computer games came out (I'm thinking Final Fantasy VII type bad ass), and long before Evercrack was even a twinkle in its creator's mind.
That leaves "we all grew up and got jobs" or "god, why do I have to be a Drama Club alum to play a freaking game" in my mind as a reason for the decline. Oh, and Magic.
The industry is actually a bit healthier now than it was in the mid-Nineties, maybe because 3x (and 4e, and some other games) moved away from story time and just went back to the basics of kicking ass and taking treasure. Or not. Who knows. But I just call them like I see them.
Unless you're talking SSI games (and, frankly - and I'll probably get some flack for this - Pool of Radiance and Azure Bonds sucked ass...), RPGs hit their nadir before the "bad ass" RPG computer games came out (I'm thinking Final Fantasy VII type bad ass), and long before Evercrack was even a twinkle in its creator's mind.
That leaves "we all grew up and got jobs" or "god, why do I have to be a Drama Club alum to play a freaking game" in my mind as a reason for the decline. Oh, and Magic.
The industry is actually a bit healthier now than it was in the mid-Nineties, maybe because 3x (and 4e, and some other games) moved away from story time and just went back to the basics of kicking ass and taking treasure. Or not. Who knows. But I just call them like I see them.
Well, I think it's one of those complex real world things about the nadir occuring in the late Nineties (TSR mismanagement, rival systems, rise of home/computer video games, first wave of gamers from the 70s/80s busy getting established in the world, etc. etc.). I also would posit that the TTRPG games became healthier because of the advent of the OGL and the fact that gamers from back in the day had nostalgia for their old loves (raises hand).
There's always been a 'drama club' strain in TTRPGs. Heck, I played the HELL out of AD&D, and the games I was in went from 'monsters till you drop' to 'battle once a month.'. Any system is just a scaffolding that the players and the DM/GM/Storyteller project their desires on. This is one of the reasons I laugh at all the people who decry that 4E's rules somehow diminish the gaming experience. You can play any game in any style if you are dexterous enough. AD&D can be story-heavy, WoD can be a combat-heavy bloodfest (I and my old Ft Bliss Army group actually fought our way through a Sabbat Methuselah's lair under Mexico City in a buried Aztec temple, and let me tell you, there was very little talking! :P)
I guess what I am saying, is that people will play the way they want. Is WoD more 'acting'? Only if you make it that way. Is D&D purely 'hack n' slash'? Same thing, only if you want it to be.
|
|
I know that WoD has a bad rap, but it's a good game, different from D&D sure, but engaging in its own right. All I'm trying to say.
We're only joshing with you, no real hard feelings, I hope.
WoD games are actually a good example, for me, of a game engine that is very, very simple at its core*, but with reams of powers that add exceptions and special cases.
You can teach the core concepts to a new player quite quickly, and only add new complexity as the rate they're comfortable with.
As such, I fail to see why 4E is constantly denounced for this approach, accused of 'dumbing down' the hobby, yet White Wolf are praised for giving the hobby intellectual credibility, while doing the exact same thing?
*
|
|
Unless you're talking SSI games (and, frankly - and I'll probably get some flack for this - Pool of Radiance and Azure Bonds sucked ass...), RPGs hit their nadir before the "bad ass" RPG computer games came out (I'm thinking Final Fantasy VII type bad ass), and long before Evercrack was even a twinkle in its creator's mind.
That leaves "we all grew up and got jobs" or "god, why do I have to be a Drama Club alum to play a freaking game" in my mind as a reason for the decline. Oh, and Magic.
The industry is actually a bit healthier now than it was in the mid-Nineties, maybe because 3x (and 4e, and some other games) moved away from story time and just went back to the basics of kicking ass and taking treasure. Or not. Who knows. But I just call them like I see them.
Well, I think it's one of those complex real world things about the nadir occuring in the late Nineties (TSR mismanagement, rival systems, rise of home/computer video games, first wave of gamers from the 70s/80s busy getting established in the world, etc. etc.). I also would posit that the TTRPG games became healthier because of the advent of the OGL and the fact that gamers from back in the day had nostalgia for their old loves (raises hand).
There's always been a 'drama club' strain in TTRPGs. Heck, I played the HELL out of AD&D, and the games I was in went from 'monsters till you drop' to 'battle once a month.'. Any system is just a scaffolding that the players and the DM/GM/Storyteller project their desires on. One of the reasons I laugh at all the people who decry that 4E's rules somehow diminish the gaming experience. You can play any game in any style if you are dexterous enough. AD&D can be story-heavy, WoD can be a combat-heavy bloodfest (I and my old Ft Bliss Army group actually fought our way through a Sabbat Methuselah's lair under Mexico City in a buried Aztec temple, and let me tell you, there was very little talking! :P)
I guess what I am saying, is that people will play the way...
Yep. And we all grew into role playing. The point of this thread, I thought, was the younger gen and getting them hooked. If, when I was nine, D&D was all talking and play acting, I'd have stuck to playing sports and riding bikes. I really didn't get into the hard core "story" elements of Rping until college. I grew into it.
When I play with my nephews, if I get to wrapped up in the back story or the talking stuff, they just kind of drift off. When they're faced up against the ogres and evil wizards, they're full on focused. They don't mind a bit of story, but they want action. If I gave them too much story, they'd just go "Uncle D, um, you wanna play Socom?"
We're only joshing with you, no real hard feelings, I hope.
Oh none at all! I am just having a nice Sunday morning debate on the merits of both systems with HD, who I consider a good (though virtual) friend. We are usually on the same side of the fence on most issues, I just think that calling WoD players (even with the 'in my experience' or 'tend to be' qualifiers) elitist snobs a little much.
And you are very correct on the scaling of powers. Also, the 'power creep' could get real hairy, especially if your Storyteller was generous with the experience and looked the other way at diablerie (and what a concept that was! Imagine being able to drain a monster/foe of their powers and bolt them on to yourself!).
Once again, it really all boiled down to how the group/coterie wanted to roll. We were all army folk in my group, so we were more into the 'kill the Sabbat and take their loot and blood' kinda game. There was vert little 'bad dinner theater', although our Storyteller did make us start out as ourselves turned into vampires, so the roleplaying was fairly easy, :P..
|
|
We're only joshing with you, no real hard feelings, I hope.
Oh none at all! I am just having a nice Sunday morning debate on the merits of both systems with HD, who I consider a good (though virtual) friend. We are usually on the same side of the fence on most issues, I just think that calling WoD players (even with the 'in my experience' or 'tend to be' qualifiers) elitist snobs a little much.
And you are very correct on the scaling of powers. Also, the 'power creep' could get real hairy, especially if your Storyteller was generous with the experience and looked the other way at diablerie (and what a concept that was! Imagine being able to drain a monster/foe of their powers and bolt them on to yourself!).
Once again, it really all boiled down to how the group/coterie wanted to roll. We were all army folk in my group, so we were more into the 'kill the Sabbat and take their loot and blood' kinda game. There was vert little 'bad dinner theater', although our Storyteller did make us start out as ourselves turned into vampires, so the roleplaying was fairly easy, :P..
Yep. And we all grew into role playing. The point of this thread, I thought, was the younger gen and getting them hooked. If, when I was nine, D&D was all talking and play acting, I'd have stuck to playing sports and riding bikes. I really didn't get into the hard core "story" elements of Rping until college. I grew into it.
When I play with my nephews, if I get to wrapped up in the back story or the talking stuff, they just kind of drift off. When they're faced up against the ogres and evil wizards, they're full on focused. They don't mind a bit of story, but they want action. If I gave them too much story, they'd just go "Uncle D, um, you wanna play Socom?"
My bad man. I usually don't have the 4E threads open, I just caught Snorter's first post about 'when's our descision' on the main page. Didn't mean to derail the discussion. Please carry on.
And you are right, the RPing comes with time. The problem I see with expanding the audience is that the video/MMORPG games are hijacking the kids before we even get a crack at them. Sure, kids of gamers will be brought in, but I doubt there will be many 'just wandered in' kids like in the old days. TTRPGs just don't have the market cornered like in the Eighties, and kids today want graphics and a system that gives you comparable items and levels with millions of other folks. Plus WoW has Ozzy doing commercials (as well as Shatner) while D&D ... anyone? ... I haven't seen a D&D commercial since the early Eigthties ..
|
|
I guess what I am saying, is that people will play the way they want. Is WoD more 'acting'? Only if you make it that way. Is D&D purely 'hack n' slash'? Same thing, only if you want it to be.
That's great; I'm sure we'd get along fine.
You don't appear to be one of 'those' WoD players...I don't know how many times I've heard some emo (in person or in print) accuse D&D players of being power-gaming munchkins, which gets old really fast.
Obviously, playing a militiaman, whose home and family were squashed flat by a giant, and who only owns the clothes he stands up in, plus a suit of studded leather and a halberd, is utter world-breaking cheese, when I could be enjoying the pure, unadulterated character-driven experience of playing a thousand-year old immortal, whose beauty is enough to cause all women to faint, and straight men to offer up their bodies, whose voice is able to compel any human to his bidding, and can bench-press a Hummer, while out-running a bullet-train.
LOL
I guess what I am saying, is that people will play the way they want. Is WoD more 'acting'? Only if you make it that way. Is D&D purely 'hack n' slash'? Same thing, only if you want it to be.That's great; I'm sure we'd get along fine.
You don't appear to be one of 'those' WoD players...I don't know how many times I've heard some emo (in person or in print) accuse D&D players of being power-gaming munchkins, which gets old really fast.
Obviously, playing a militiaman, whose home and family were squashed flat by a giant, and who only owns the clothes he stands up in, plus a suit of studded leather and a halberd, is utter world-breaking cheese, when I could be enjoying the pure, unadulterated character-driven experience of playing a thousand-year old immortal, whose beauty is enough to cause all women to faint, and straight men to offer up their bodies, whose voice is able to compel any human to his bidding, and can bench-press a Hummer, while out-running a bullet-train.
LOL
LOL
Or you could play a guy who was drained and made into the sacrificial pawn of a vampire, only to break free after a battle kills his mistress and try to figure out WTF happened to him, while learning his new powers and getting immeshed in the power games of ancient beings that spend decades planning elaborate chess games involving people and empires...
Or you could play Blammo the fighter who crawls through a 10x10 tunnel killing monsters which have no appreciable right to exist underground or next to each other ...
LOL, it's all in your perspective. BTW, I don't even consider myself a WoD player anymore, I haven't played a game since 2000. I didn't follow them over when they put out their new edition, for much the same reason I didn't switch to 4E (you mean the $3,000 of books I bought are obsolete? WTF MAN!). I'd still play (oWoD), but I'd most likely have to go somewhere else to get a PbP together. I don't think WoD has a lot of fans here ...
|
|
Good Lord, the points I want to respond to are coming faster than I can write...
A counterpoint to the view that all old-school gaming is all hack and slash (or that all new/young players want is hack and slash) can be found here.
Of particular interest are the reviews of old adventures, which the blogger views as being good examples of open-ended play, or guiding DMs to include new rules and concepts.
There may be some surprises in that list for a few people.
Highlights for me include;
B2...The nature of the Keep itself means that in-character discussion between PCs and NPCs has to happen, and with none of the NPCs so much as named, a referee simply must start creating things either on the fly or before play begins, and every decision made starts to fill in details about this mysterious world that everyone is about to begin exploring. Hell, many people (never my group though) treated the Keep as yet another "dungeon" full of enemies and loot (and damn if the map provided of the guild didn't help this idea along...), and the beautiful thing is nothing prevents this from being just as proper as invading the Caves! Keep is often named by D&D detractors as being nothing but hack and slash, but the fact is that a group must come to a conscious decision to play it that way. It is impossible to play this module without engaging in basic world-building and character-defining activities unless you deliberately decide to (not) do so.
(emphasis mine)D1-2...That wild underground wilderness map, with all of its completely undescribed wilderness areas, cry out for personal invention and experimentation.
D3...And it demands intrigue and role-play - NOBODY hacks and slashes through that place. The D series are perfect inspirations, which is what modules should be.
I1...To adventure around this place, the referee must invent. The act of necessitated invention within a commercial product is a very powerful thing, and I think a stronger creative inspiration than doing so freeform with no previous structure.
S1...If you start characters at level 1 and actually conduct a quality campaign where all characters honestly and genuinely reach level 10-14, I don't think this place is such an unfair dungeon.... If you're a casual player and are given pre-gens or just make up some 12th level guys... yeah, you're f!*#ed.
S3...this module showed that strict fantasy wasn't all that could fit into the confines of D&D rules. I also loved loved LOVED the implication that so many strange critters weren't native to Greyhawk/D&D ... but that they're aliens. Rock on!
T1...within the town, there are all sorts of characters with their own agendas that the party can benefit from or fall foul of. Lots of gaming without ever going to an "adventure location." But I bet some people would think that phase of play falls into the three hours and forty minutes of unfun, eh? Some have said that the amount of detail provided to Hommlet is overkill, and that since it's not the main location for "adventuring activity" that the description is wasted. I disagree, and posit that this was intentionally done to highlight overall campaign possibilities and de-emphasize the idea that the game is simply all about the dungeon...
...they will interact with the populace and in all they will be starting a proper campaign just based on the 16 pages presented here... with not a hint of "you must do this!" plot attached. Awesome. Class act.I challenge myself, and everybody releasing modules that lay claim to be "old-school," to create modules that are something different, that add to the possibilities of the game, that focus on oft-ignored facets of the game, and that inspire something new within the people that are using the modules. We don't need anymore simple dungeon crawls. We don't. To focus on reproducing the worst and most cliche elements of traditional gaming is not a celebration of days gone by, but a bastardization of it, and it plays right into the hands of what the detractors ignorantly claim the game is all about.
|
|
Yeah, because all of us were deep thinkers when we were twelve...
So, I read the whole article. Says what I said: we grew into role playing. Even says what I said: game sold millions of copies when we had no idea what we were doing. I don't think Vampire: The Masquerade sold anything close to the numbers TSR enjoyed in the early eighties.
But, he comes to a silly, looking back through adult lenses assumptions. Capping on Goodman Games and 3x for abandoning the "Storyteller" stuff? Ok, whatever. Let's go back to 99 and the state of the hobby before 3x and the OGL, and forget the whole 3x thing and let the hobby die.
Wow, a 40 year old man assumes that kids now should play like a forty year old man. Not like we did when we were kids (as even he admits he played like when he was a kid).
Brilliant.
The point of his post wasn't that kids should play like us, the point is we're old enough now to play old school the way Gygax and co. (who were *gasp* adults back then) meant the game to be played.
We GREW into it. But we were hooked when we had no clue and had to figure stuff out.
Oh, well, like I said, elitism and "The One True Way" will put the final nails in the coffin. Console games don't make you feel stupid for wanting to kill stuff and take their loot. Snobs do.
Edit: And, Jesus, some of the comments about Goodman Game's DCC line. Like playing a few hours like we did as kids for s*!#s and giggles is such a f!!&ing crime...
|
|
Ouch.
I didn't actually link to that to disprove your point about growing into the role-play (which I agree with), but to counter the view (held by some elitist gamers) that any attempt to run a game of D&D (whether that be 3.5, PFRPG, 4E, BECMI, OSRIC, etc) is automatically doomed to devolve into moronic hack'n'slash, whatever the age or experience of the players, simply by virtue of being D&D.
My (possibly over-charitable) reading of the blog, was that the game itself, and many of the published adventures had far more potential than some give them credit for.
Whether most groups played them to their full potential, is, as you say, doubtful, given the ages of the players concerned.
But the important thing is, the potential was there, for those groups that saw it and wanted it.
And if modern writers are to attempt to recreate 'old-school' adventures, they should aim high, to match the best of the bunch, rather than come out with a mission statement that implies they want to focus on the worst.
I actually have all the DCC series, on (legal) pdf after the Xmas sale, but their tag-line ('don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed.')actually discouraged me from trying them for a long time, until I saw one on sale, and thoght 'Well, at least I could use the maps...'.
Fact is, it is misleading. And not just regarding TSR modules from even the earliest days, but to the DCC adventures themselves. Having skimmed them, I can confirm that they most certainly do expect the PCs to have non-violent relations with plenty of NPCs. They're actually much better than their cover statement implies.
So why go with that marketing angle? I suspect it was an internal office-joke that just got left on by mistake, so they decided to run with it. But it cost them print sales from me for several years.
|
|
Ouch.
I didn't actually link to that to disprove your point about growing into the role-play (which I agree with), but to counter the view (held by some elitist gamers) that any attempt to run a game of D&D (whether that be 3.5, PFRPG, 4E, BECMI, OSRIC, etc) is automatically doomed to devolve into moronic hack'n'slash, whatever the age or experience of the players, simply by virtue of being D&D.
My (possibly over-charitable) reading of the blog, was that the game itself, and many of the published adventures had far more potential than some give them credit for.
Whether most groups played them to their full potential, is, as you say, doubtful, given the ages of the players concerned.
But the important thing is, the potential was there, for those groups that saw it and wanted it.
And if modern writers are to attempt to recreate 'old-school' adventures, they should aim high, to match the best of the bunch, rather than come out with a mission statement that implies they want to focus on the worst.
I actually have all the DCC series, on (legal) pdf after the Xmas sale, but their tag-line ('no NPCs that aren't meant to be slain!')actually discouraged me from trying them for a long time, until I saw one on sale, and thoght 'Well, at least I could use the maps...'.
Fact is, it is misleading. And not just regarding TSR modules from even the earliest days, but to the DCC adventures themselves. Having skimmed them, I can confirm that they most certainly do expect the PCs to have non-violent relations with plenty of NPCs.
So why go with that marketing angle? I suspect it was an internal office-joke that just got left on by mistake, so they decided to run with it. But it cost them print sales from me for several years.
I should have specified that my post was 100% a reaction to the article you posted (actually to his assumptions, his characterization of the old school modules was spot on, imo), and zero percent directed at you. For that, I apologize.
It's funny, but the tag line for the DCC line was why I bought it. Of course, I made an assumption that, if they were faithful to what they were trying to emulate, the tag line would be kind of an in-joke, but I'm weird like that.
Another thing I find strange is the elitism I perceive from some in the old school movement. It reminds me of the Forum letters that drove me to distraction in The Dragon back in the day. That was where I first found the sentiment now called "The One True Way". That did and always will annoy me. Hack 'n slashers aren't lesser than "role players". They just have a different kind of fun. I don't care if people want to play in a theatrical way, a cinematic way, a simulationist way, a [insert whatever way floats your boat] way, or any combination thereof. I just care if the adherents of one style think others are doodooheads for liking a different style.
But, back on topic, I still think we should introduce kids to the game, but allow them to grow in the game organically, instead of trying to guide their style from the get go. It took a couple of years, but I eventually got bored with delving and started world building and developing more intricate plots for my players to unravel. 4e has potential, it's a fun game, even if it isn't the flavor I prefer to tell my fantasy stories. But it is PERFECT for bringing kids into the game, as there is a lot going on to keep their attention, with all the sliding and movement of the minis going on. That isn't to say it doesn't have a lot to offer older players, it's just a kinetic game, which makes it easier to keep a kid level attention span locked in. And the way the powers are structured makes keeping track of stuff less of a chore. Well, except marking and conditions, but I'm sure kids would ignore that like we did weapon speed factors and stuff, if it wound up getting in the way...
|
|
And as you put it;
"...[it's not] that kids should play like us, the point is we're old enough now to play old school the way Gygax and co. (who were *gasp* adults back then) meant the game to be played."
And if we 'know better', do we have a responsibility to pass that knowledge on (tactfully) to younger players?
Or should we sit back, and let them figure it out at their own pace?
Either approach could have pros and cons. You don't want to lecture them, and put them off, but on the other hand, you don't want potentially good role-players getting jaded, and leaving the game behind as 'a childish pastime'.
|
|
And as you put it;
"...[it's not] that kids should play like us, the point is we're old enough now to play old school the way Gygax and co. (who were *gasp* adults back then) meant the game to be played."And if we 'know better', do we have a responsibility to pass that knowledge on (tactfully) to younger players?
Or should we sit back, and let them figure it out at their own pace?Either approach could have pros and cons. You don't want to lecture them, and put them off, but on the other hand, you don't want potentially good role-players getting jaded, and leaving the game behind as 'a childish pastime'.
Well, if you're playing with the kids, you can add elements as they grow in the game. But, as I said above, let it happen organically.
I got my girlfriend into gaming, she's a smart woman, but she is still learning how to play. We were just talking about this as I was typing my previous post, and she thinks there's way too much going on in Pathfinder for her to fully grasp right now. So, I'm planning on running a 1e game so she can get the basic concepts down, then gradually add layers of options until she has a "whole game" view of what's going on, basically, give her an accelerated version of the last 30 years of my gaming life.
I'm doing the same for my nephews (well, the 14 and 8 year old, anyway), so when I decide to "Pathfinderize" them, it isn't too much at once, as they'll have the basic concepts down before I throw a bunch of character options at them. Organically.