Will Dungeons and Dragons be the next Hobbit?
While Pathfinder continues to grow, folks should remember that to the non-RPG playing community, Dungeons and Dragons is the genre, not just one version of an RPG.
To most folks, Pathfinder is a brand of vehicle. Dungeons and Dragons is the whole game.
Will Dungeons and Dragons be the next Hobbit?
While Pathfinder continues to grow, folks should remember that to the non-RPG playing community, Dungeons and Dragons is the genre, not just one version of an RPG.
To most folks, Pathfinder is a brand of vehicle. Dungeons and Dragons is the whole game.
Edit: Never mind you beat me to it :) Reading now, thanks for link.
But I'm neither a social reject or an eternal virgin.
Then you're not the popular conception.
Good read.
Nice that they spoke to Satine Phoenix, she's great.
It was odd to see the writer of the Community episode criticizing part of the episode. Were her hands tied to write it that way? I guess so.
Also, did anyone else notice it seemed like the author of the article was under the impression that Game of Thrones was Tolkienesque fantasy full of Orcs and Elves?
|
Yeah was wondering about that myself heh. Eh, I was keener on addressing comments to the article. I think calling the tabletop scene D&D isn't going to go anywhere for some time. They were the big one, the one that had all the outcry. They've also had a huge line of NYT best sellers, comics, movies, games. Yes a lot of them are awful but nevertheless it keeps the brand on the mind of society.
I remember back when I used to work selling video games, I don't know how many parents came in asking for Nintendo Playstations heh. Just the way it goes :/
|
|
Though I will say, while the game isn't as culturally relevant as it was perhaps in the 70s to mid 80s, I think there is a lot of money going into this hobby. I don't mean to derail, but has there been any data on if the number of players has shrunk or grown since then? I'm sure Lisa and company have an inkling of this if they'd like to offer opinions =)
Or maybe it's just because I spend too much on it...don't we all though? ;p
With each new edition and pathfinder you would probably get a growth in large numbers of new players. At the start of each year, some new people entering universities with D&D/Pathfinder games join and have a go. Some of those pull away over time, and some people leave the hobby for various reasons after years of involvement. New editions may draw them back in later on in life.
320pp, 322pp, and 577pp core rulebooks do not help attract a wide audience. It's like homework.
A lot of us started with 64pp and 32pp rulebooks in the 70s and 80s.
Each new edition has too much baggage it needs to bring along to appeal to the long-time players.
That's one reason I like introducing people to simpler, shorter games. Then the hurdle becomes convincing them they won't be made fun of by others in the room.
Something like Fiasco is great IMO. It makes touchstones of some pretty popular media, like the Cohen brother's films, has little in the way of rules and has a built in time limit. Players don't even need a reference sheet.
Or a game like Dungeon World, where 100% of the things you need to make your character are on the sheet itself.
I still think a quote from this New York Times article says a lot:
If all you’re looking for is fulfillment of your wish to be an idealized projection of yourself who gains in wealth and power by overcoming monsters, there are lots of ways to do that nowadays. In the ’70s Dungeons & Dragons was the only game in town.[/url]
