The problem with traditional D&D and appealing to new players

This is an exchange from RPG.net that sums up my feelings on the subject:


Originally Posted by maedsl  
Is it any wonder new players are few and far between when they are confronted with 600+ page Rulebooks ???

Originally Posted by Spectralent

For the record, as a "new player" (having started in the 00s and not the 80s), the reason you might not be seeing many new players in your old-school campaigns is that a lot of people from my generation have expectations of games coming from video games or entertainment media rather than wargaming (I realise video games are entertainment media, but there's a bit of a difference between Skyrim and The Avengers). Poking tiles with 11ft poles and avoiding fighting to avoid wasting potions is less appealing, I typically find. We generally seem pretty good at drawing in new players with nWoD, GGG, FFG40k, and 4e, with varying degrees of appeal to storytelling, action, and combat tactics.

 

 
If the image in your head when you first come to D&D is Skyrim, the Avengers, or for that matter Desolation of Smaug, traditional D&D is bound to disappoint.

...whatever

thecasualoblivion wrote:

This is an exchange from RPG.net that sums up my feelings on the subject:

 

Originally Posted by maedsl  
Is it any wonder new players are few and far between when they are confronted with 600+ page Rulebooks ???

 

Originally Posted by Spectralent

For the record, as a "new player" (having started in the 00s and not the 80s), the reason you might not be seeing many new players in your old-school campaigns is that a lot of people from my generation have expectations of games coming from video games or entertainment media rather than wargaming (I realise video games are entertainment media, but there's a bit of a difference between Skyrim and The Avengers). Poking tiles with 11ft poles and avoiding fighting to avoid wasting potions is less appealing, I typically find. We generally seem pretty good at drawing in new players with nWoD, GGG, FFG40k, and 4e, with varying degrees of appeal to storytelling, action, and combat tactics.

 

 

 
If the image in your head when you first come to D&D is Skyrim, the Avengers, or for that matter Desolation of Smaug, traditional D&D is bound to disappoint.

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings as well. Dungeons skulking, approaching every single stone-tile as if it were a death trap, avoiding a group of Kobolds because your HPs are just so low that anyone of them could easily lay you low with their sling, and other such nuiances that are common tropes among older versions of D&D are just not my cup of tea. 

Because "Go play your videogames, kid" is really good for attracting new players  

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

thecasualoblivion wrote:

If the image in your head when you first come to D&D is Skyrim, the Avengers, or for that matter Desolation of Smaug, traditional D&D is bound to disappoint.


I'm also a player that started in '00s. A friend showed let me borrow his PHB and I read it cover to cover in a day. That being said, I am also familiar with "Old school" D&D (1st, AD&D, 2nd) - in the form of reading about the classic and iconic adventurers, the mechanics, etc. The problem I have with "traditional" or "old school" D&D is that to me it invariably felt like a DMs powertrip and little else. Dungeons (Tomb of Horrors) were straight up PC slaughter houses. The PCs weren't "challenged" they were completely outgunned and it was *supposed to be that way*.

"Hahaha! My completely undectable trap/ambush TPKd all your characters! Bwahah!"
If thats "Old school" D&D then old school D&D is garbage.

D&D needs to strike a balance between "realism" of a sort and gamism to a sort. The players need to be the focal point and they need to be awesome - but challenges also need to be real, lose-able, and meaningful.

"Old school"/Traditional D&D could be said to be too deadly, too unforgiving, and even anti-player.
"Videogames" might be too easy, too un-failable, and to ready to hand out everything without real work.

I think D&D next is going in the right direction.

Gatt wrote:

You cannot reconcile the two different groups at this stage.  What the 20-something and under crowd expects from an "RPG" is anathema to an actual RPG.  They have no understanding of what constitutes an RPG because video game companies like Bethesda and Bioware have been marketing action-adventure and shooter as "RPG" in order to sell a few more units.  The game that would have to be designed to acquire even a fraction of these people would be so different from an RPG that you'd never be able to sell it to a PnP player. 

 

I don't believe there's any value in trying to obtain the 20-something and late teens today,  they're a lost generation.  They expect instant gratification without consequences,  and are very strongly against most actual RPG elements.  Trying to appease this group would require the game to be so over-simplified that it would literally become a board game.

That is appalling horse ****.

ClockworkSaber wrote:

 

Gatt wrote:

You cannot reconcile the two different groups at this stage.  What the 20-something and under crowd expects from an "RPG" is anathema to an actual RPG.  They have no understanding of what constitutes an RPG because video game companies like Bethesda and Bioware have been marketing action-adventure and shooter as "RPG" in order to sell a few more units.  The game that would have to be designed to acquire even a fraction of these people would be so different from an RPG that you'd never be able to sell it to a PnP player. 

 

I don't believe there's any value in trying to obtain the 20-something and late teens today,  they're a lost generation.  They expect instant gratification without consequences,  and are very strongly against most actual RPG elements.  Trying to appease this group would require the game to be so over-simplified that it would literally become a board game.

That is appalling horse ****.

QFT

 

They aren't incompatible with tabletop gaming, though they very well might be incompatible with traditional D&D. Traditional D&D is mechanically and aesthetically alien to them.

...whatever

Gatt wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

This is an exchange from RPG.net that sums up my feelings on the subject:

 

Originally Posted by maedsl  
Is it any wonder new players are few and far between when they are confronted with 600+ page Rulebooks ???

 

 

Originally Posted by Spectralent

For the record, as a "new player" (having started in the 00s and not the 80s), the reason you might not be seeing many new players in your old-school campaigns is that a lot of people from my generation have expectations of games coming from video games or entertainment media rather than wargaming (I realise video games are entertainment media, but there's a bit of a difference between Skyrim and The Avengers). Poking tiles with 11ft poles and avoiding fighting to avoid wasting potions is less appealing, I typically find. We generally seem pretty good at drawing in new players with nWoD, GGG, FFG40k, and 4e, with varying degrees of appeal to storytelling, action, and combat tactics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with this.

 

But I don't think it's important.

 

The current 20-something and under crowd has had "RPG" defined for them by video games,  but there's *no way* to make them a PnP gamer.  If you reference video games,  you'll find a number of common trends...

 

-They believe they are the character,  and that no event should occur that is character skill dependent.  Any kind of dice roll is despised.

-They believe that an RPG is a game where someone talks to you.  So long as someone talks to you,  even if there's no actual Roleplaying you're just clicking a button to hear the next senetence,  it's an RPG.

-They hate turn based gameplay,  they do not understand that a round happens in the same "instant" and think their character is "Standing there letting someone punch him in the face".

-They do not want to read.  Anything.  Go look up the threads about reading dialogue on Bioware and Bethesda's boards,  it's quite depressing.

 

Further,  the gameplay of video games has conditioned them to...

 

-There's no reprocussions for your actions,  everything you do is perfectly fine.  Mass Effect 2 is an example,  you can murder someone in cold blood in front of the Paragon of Justice,  and no one cares.  You can be as antagonistic as you want to,  but you always get the reward.

-There's no exclusive choices,  you always can do everything you want to.

-You're always the star of the show.  You can do everything at all times better than anyone else in the world (The Elder Scroll games are a great example)

-You should never have to figure out where anything is located,  you should always have a magic compass to show you where to go so you don't have to explore. 

-You can't fail.  Miss a quest object?  Go back and it'll always be there,  or in some games like ME3 buy it after the mission from a random vendor. 

-On the same note:  You should never ever miss,  your spells should never fail to do damage even if you fireball a fire elemental.

-Your inventory should be large enough to pack a castle in.

-You should regain all of your health right after the battle.

-You should never have to search for anything,  it should blink at you to tell you it's there.

 

I've literally read the following statements from people on video game boards...

 

-"Why should I have to read a book just to play a game?  If I can't just pick it up and play it then it's stupid"

-"A wolf having treasure is stupid!" (The explanation of incidental treasure was met with more derision)

-"Turn based is stupid,  why is my guy standing around getting punched in the face?"

-"Why should I have to wait my turn?  I should being doing something all of the time!"

-"D&D's just a board game."

 

You cannot reconcile the two different groups at this stage.  What the 20-something and under crowd expects from an "RPG" is anathema to an actual RPG.  They have no understanding of what constitutes an RPG because video game companies like Bethesda and Bioware have been marketing action-adventure and shooter as "RPG" in order to sell a few more units.  The game that would have to be designed to acquire even a fraction of these people would be so different from an RPG that you'd never be able to sell it to a PnP player. 

 

I don't believe there's any value in trying to obtain the 20-something and late teens today,  they're a lost generation.  They expect instant gratification without consequences,  and are very strongly against most actual RPG elements.  Trying to appease this group would require the game to be so over-simplified that it would literally become a board game.

 

Take a visit to the Bioware and Bethesda boards and start reading on topics like voiced characters,  magic compasses,  consequences for actions,  turn based gameplay, and character based skill.  These people do not want to play RPGs,  they want to play action games with the letters "RPG" on the box.

 

Then D&D is near it's death knell because in the next 15 to 20 years and the 70's, 80's, and early 90's gamers are done or not as prominent in the market D&D won't be able to market to anyone else because certain philosophies are dying or gone. Now I believe D&D can be a game that CRPG'ers can grow accustomed to and enjoy, I also think they can market their game to a more specific appeal, and I believe that the people on message-boards are not a picture of the general concensus of most CRPG-players. Provide tactics, provide interesting and unique character options (elves, dwarves, and halflings just doesn't cut it anymore) that are consistant with current fantasy-like elements. A newer player might not be interested in playing an elf like Legolas or a Halfling like Bilbo Baggins but a character like Hell-Boy (Tiefling Fighter), a dour vampiric-like anti-hero akin to Blade (Dhampir option Rogue or Fighter), or even a staff-wielding acrobat who can throw charged cards full of eldritch/energy that explode (staff-using Wizard with perhaps a cantrip that deals ranged damage OR magic missile and has a decent Dexterity) then those options should be viable. 

 

If newer players want a form of D&D that promotes action-adventure, then the game should work to accomodate that playstyle. It doesn't need to be the only playstyle, but it should be an option.  

thecasualoblivion wrote:

They aren't incompatible with tabletop gaming, though they very well might be incompatible with traditional D&D. Traditional D&D is mechanically and aesthetically alien to them.

1.) What does QFT stand for?
2.) I already established that Traditional D&D needs to die (The kind where the GM is just roffle stomping his players for the fun of it).

ClockworkSaber wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

They aren't incompatible with tabletop gaming, though they very well might be incompatible with traditional D&D. Traditional D&D is mechanically and aesthetically alien to them.

 

1.) What does QFT stand for?

 

Quoted For Truth

 

ClockworkSaber wrote:

2.) I already established that Traditional D&D needs to die (The kind where the GM is just roffle stomping his players for the fun of it).

 

Agreed. I don't get the pull for "traditional D&D" but those that clamor for it can easily still purchase it (check out Drivethru RPG). However, asking the next version be similiar to those versions is poor judgement IMO.  

Gatt wrote:
*snip*

Old man Gatt shakes his fist at them darn young'ns and their newfangled videomabobs.

 

You're taking a non-representational selection of comments from a video game forum out of context and using it to deride and degrade an entire generation.  This is utterly reductive, ageist bigotry.  It has no place in game design considerations or on these forums.

 

And I speak as someone not of the generation you're villifying, just someone who has 20 years of D&D under his belt but still retains the ability to keep an open mind.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Gatt wrote:

 

souldoubt wrote:

 

Gatt wrote:
*snip*

Old man Gatt shakes his fist at them darn young'ns and their newfangled videomabobs.

 

You're taking a non-representational selection of comments from a video game forum out of context and using it to deride and degrade an entire generation.  This is utterly reductive, ageist bigotry.  It has no place in game design considerations or on these forums.

 

And I speak as someone not of the generation you're villifying, just someone who has 20 years of D&D under his belt but still retains the ability to keep an open mind.

 

 

It's really interesting that everyone on the thread has to resort to personal attacks again,  and apparently is unable to provide any evidence to counter-point me.  Of course,  we all know that's because you can't,  because 10 minutes in any Bioware or Bethesda forum will demonstrate you wrong.

 

What WOTC really needs to do is use this thread as an example for why they need to start perma-banning,  because quite honestly,  you all demonstrate why WOTC desperately needs to get rid of the community it currently has.

 

There isn't anything to counter-point. 

...whatever

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 There isn't anything to counter-point. 


QFT

Most of what is said in this thread is false.

 

Newer modern fans are okay with traditional D&D tropes.

The problem is they are often given the expectation of modern fntasy tropes as advertisement.

And if they then sit down and get traditional gaming, they get upset.

 

The modern gamer hates being lied to.

 

They have no problem with harsh deadly worlds. They have no problem being in the second fiddle plot of the world. They have no problem working up the ranks. They have no problem with PCs with clear weaknesses and flaws. But if you say the game is gonna have X and have pretty pictures of X and articles about X... That game better have X in it. Vidoe game developers and publishers will tell you that twice.

 

The real problem with traditionl D&D is that it tries to say it has all these features and has all these picture of monsters and battles...

then say "don't fight them" in their mechanics.

 

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I don't think anyone's wrong, but I also don't think it matters 'cause I just don't see a problem with a game being its own unique thing. Uniqueness, real, publically available uniqueness, is very hard to come by. D&D's got all kinds of little quirks, but the quirks don't have to exclude people, nor do they really get in the way of anyone playing.

 

I think a game like this should emphasise its uniqueness and show people how it's different, not try to emulate whatever other medium or product happens to be en vogue.

 

I just think D&D should be D&D. It shouldn't try to emulate what's in the movies or stories or any of that. It should be what it is without apology. I don't really think that it shouldn't change either (and it has, in many ways), but I don't think there's much good to come from aping whatever looks successful in the moment.

Orzel wrote:

Most of what is said in this thread is false.

 

Newer modern fans are okay with traditional D&D tropes.

The problem is they are often given the expectation of modern fntasy tropes as advertisement.

And if they then sit down and get traditional gaming, they get upset.

 

The modern gamer hates being lied to.

 

They have no problem with harsh deadly worlds. They have no problem being in the second fiddle plot of the world. They have no problem working up the ranks. They have no problem with PCs with clear weaknesses and flaws. But if you say the game is gonna have X and have pretty pictures of X and articles about X... That game better have X in it. Vidoe game developers and publishers will tell you that twice.

 

The real problem with traditionl D&D is that it tries to say it has all these features and has all these picture of monsters and battles...

then say "don't fight them" in their mechanics.

 

I disagree.

 

Playing modern(and for this modern goes back to the mid 90s) video games gives one an expectation of character customization that just doesn't exist in traditional D&D. A video gamer is also likely to be uncomfortable with a traditional level of DM empowerment, being used to sitting in the drivers seat. Modern gamers are more likely to be attracted to exotic races like. Dragonborn and Tieflings, and fantastic powers and are likely to be unsatisfied with just elves/dwarves/halflings or "swings a sword" turn after turn. 

 

To use your pictures analogy, it isn't just D&D painting a false picture. They bring this picture with them independent of D&D, having developed that taste from playing video games, watching anime or whatever, ect. They will want their D&D to fit their idea of fantasy and will be disappointed when. D&D doesn't deliver.

 

I remember me and my friends not being satisfied with traditional D&D, and wanting something more like Vampire Hunter D or Chrono Trigger. The year was 1996.

...whatever

kadim wrote:

I don't think anyone's wrong, but I also don't think it matters 'cause I just don't see a problem with a game being its own unique thing. Uniqueness, real, publically available uniqueness, is very hard to come by. D&D's got all kinds of little quirks, but the quirks don't have to exclude people, nor do they really get in the way of anyone playing.

 

I think a game like this should emphasise its uniqueness and show people how it's different, not try to emulate whatever other medium or product happens to be en vogue.

 

I just think D&D should be D&D. It shouldn't try to emulate what's in the movies or stories or any of that. It should be what it is without apology. I don't really think that it shouldn't change either (and it has, in many ways), but I don't think there's much good to come from aping whatever looks successful in the moment.

That isn't a growth strategy, and D&D is too big for that.

 

D&D isn't just D&D, due to its market position in the hobby it also represents generic fantasy. Its place in the tabletop RPG is too large for it to be limited to navel gazing. If people want a game limited to traditional D&D only, it would be better for them to splinter off into their own community, rather than demanding that everyone accommodate them.

...whatever

Gatt wrote:

You cannot reconcile the two different groups at this stage.  What the 20-something and under crowd expects from an "RPG" is anathema to an actual RPG.  They have no understanding of what constitutes an RPG because video game companies like Bethesda and Bioware have been marketing action-adventure and shooter as "RPG" in order to sell a few more units.  The game that would have to be designed to acquire even a fraction of these people would be so different from an RPG that you'd never be able to sell it to a PnP player. 

 

I don't believe there's any value in trying to obtain the 20-something and late teens today,  they're a lost generation.  They expect instant gratification without consequences,  and are very strongly against most actual RPG elements.  Trying to appease this group would require the game to be so over-simplified that it would literally become a board game.

 

I dont think it's correct to pidgeonhole an entire generation like that. D&D has never been a mainstream hobby, so comparing it to video games isn't a valid comparison. But there's actually a variety of things that the new generation style can teach us.

 

The first concept of "you should be able to pick it up and play" is a very good one. I remember back in AD&D, you didn't really need to know the rules, you just told the DM what your were doing and he told you what to roll. You didn't need to know how to count squares, avoid AoOs or any of the board gamey stuff. Sure, the DM needed to know the rules, but everyone else didn't. That's something we definitely want in D&D.

 

Regaining your health after ever battle? Why not? Seriously that's what people were doing with wands of CLW and healing surges in 4E. We've practically built health regen into the game anyway. 

 

As far as hating on turn-based play, the game right now is too turn based. And yeah, I realize that D&D has always been turn based, but consider that in AD&D, you had both sides declare their actions before they were resolved, so you got more of a sense of characters acting simulataneously. Now it really does feel like characters are standing still like idiots. Characters are able to react instantly to what's going on in the battlefield and there's really no sense of what stuff you were doing prior to your action. Even if your plan happens to be "everyone shoot the orc leader!", there are never any wasted shots. Every character knows perfectly when the leader drops, as if they were acting in sequence, not simultaneously. We can do better in our turn based combat system of emphasizing that things are going on at the same time. There needs to be cases where shots are wasted or where the spell you started casting is no longer relevant. 

 

 

The question here is rather unfair.  Why not let people decide not to play traditional D&D if they don't want to, but keep the game as it's loved by its fans for them?  No one is suggesting changing what the video games are.

SirAntoine wrote:

The question here is rather unfair.  Why not let people decide not to play traditional D&D if they don't want to, but keep the game as it's loved by its fans for them?  No one is suggesting changing what the video games are.

If the game wants to grow and attract new players it needs to keep up with the times. Players happy with how things are have no such needs. The needs of the game and of said players are different.
...whatever

In theory 5e wont force Fantasy Vietnam tropes merely support them for those who already like them .... well that is the theory.

 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 

Sorry, I don't think it's anything like as you describe. People who walk into a game expecting to play a character from a book or film are going to be disappointed no matter what for the exact same reasons someone who walks into a movie theatre to watch an adaptation of one of their favourite books isn't just the book on a screen with actors. Adaptation does not directly translate, and it never will.

 

D&D should just be D&D. It shouldn't try to be anything other than it is. Of course people should be mindful of what modern audiences expect and it should make allowances for that, but D&D being D&D doesn't preclude a modern audience enjoying it. People will accept things as they are because it's different. They'll get inspired by characters and images they see around them, and then they'll walk into a game and expect it to be a game. Modern audiences understand that not all games are alike and not all games allow people to just do what they see in the movies. In fact, most people I know who know about video games and play them expect them to be different, not the same.

 

But I haven't forgotten previous comments about arguing for argument's sake some months ago and I don't expect any kind of agreement from you for that reason. This whole topic could be seen as a trap to get folks arguing, and from the look of it, it's working. Congratulations? *shrug*

kadim wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 

 

Sorry, I don't think it's anything like as you describe. People who walk into a game expecting to play a character from a book or film are going to be disappointed no matter what for the exact same reasons someone who walks into a movie theatre to watch an adaptation of one of their favourite books isn't just the book on a screen with actors. Adaptation does not directly translate, and it never will.

 

D&D should just be D&D. It shouldn't try to be anything other than it is. Of course people should be mindful of what modern audiences expect and it should make allowances for that, but D&D being D&D doesn't preclude a modern audience enjoying it. People will accept things as they are because it's different. They'll get inspired by characters and images they see around them, and then they'll walk into a game and expect it to be a game. Modern audiences understand that not all games are alike and not all games allow people to just do what they see in the movies. In fact, most people I know who know about video games and play them expect them to be different, not the same.

 

But I haven't forgotten previous comments about arguing for argument's sake some months ago and I don't expect any kind of agreement from you for that reason. This whole topic could be seen as a trap to get folks arguing, and from the look of it, it's working. Congratulations? *shrug*

It isn't about about specifics, it's about generalities. I don't think people walk into games expecting to be able to play specific characters, though I have seen it many times. What people expect is to be able to play the sort of character that appeals to them in a general sense. To do the sorts of things characters in movies, video games, and anime do.
...whatever

Garthanos wrote:

In theory 5e wont force Fantasy Vietnam tropes merely support them for those who already like them .... well that is the theory.

 

The question is will it support high cinematic action and modern fantasy aesthetics to the same degree it supports Fantasy Vietnam, or to a comparable degree compared to other existing systems.
...whatever

thecasualoblivion wrote:

This is an exchange from RPG.net that sums up my feelings on the subject:

 

Originally Posted by maedsl  
Is it any wonder new players are few and far between when they are confronted with 600+ page Rulebooks ???

 

Originally Posted by Spectralent

For the record, as a "new player" (having started in the 00s and not the 80s), the reason you might not be seeing many new players in your old-school campaigns is that a lot of people from my generation have expectations of games coming from video games or entertainment media rather than wargaming (I realise video games are entertainment media, but there's a bit of a difference between Skyrim and The Avengers). Poking tiles with 11ft poles and avoiding fighting to avoid wasting potions is less appealing, I typically find. We generally seem pretty good at drawing in new players with nWoD, GGG, FFG40k, and 4e, with varying degrees of appeal to storytelling, action, and combat tactics.

 

 

 
If the image in your head when you first come to D&D is Skyrim, the Avengers, or for that matter Desolation of Smaug, traditional D&D is bound to disappoint.

 

And heaven forbid if you play first person shooters and the game just does not let you one shot the BBEG with your repeating crossbow loaded with exploding ammo. 

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Gatt wrote:

The current 20-something and under crowd has had "RPG" defined for them by video games,  but there's *no way* to make them a PnP gamer.  If you reference video games,  you'll find a number of common trends...

Wow... so much wrong with this post.     Video game players are as varried as table top gamers, and there are a TON of different kinds of table top games.

 

The problem is that "Traditional D&D" had images on the cover of warriors and wizards facing down deadly monsters (well, okay, the original box was just a guy on a horse but you get the idea) but in play you'd discover that, at least starting out, the smart thing to do was avoid combat and nab the loot. Which is also valid, and fun, but if you're expecting one thing and get another that can lead to problems.

 

A lot of people wanted to just bash down the door and fight, so subsequent editions made first level PCs a little less squishy and made it a little easier to survive fights at that level. That developed as a valid playstyle as well. And it is! If anyone tries to tell you that bashing in bandits' heads with a mace is not fun they're a filthy liar.

 

So if new players from videogames or other media have an expectation of D&D as a big heroic fantasy, the game should support that playstyle. But in theory it should be able to support Fantasy Vietnam as well. And story-heavy play, and sandbox play.

 

kadim wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 

 

Sorry, I don't think it's anything like as you describe. People who walk into a game expecting to play a character from a book or film are going to be disappointed no matter what for the exact same reasons someone who walks into a movie theatre to watch an adaptation of one of their favourite books isn't just the book on a screen with actors. Adaptation does not directly translate, and it never will.

 

D&D should just be D&D. It shouldn't try to be anything other than it is. Of course people should be mindful of what modern audiences expect and it should make allowances for that, but D&D being D&D doesn't preclude a modern audience enjoying it. People will accept things as they are because it's different. They'll get inspired by characters and images they see around them, and then they'll walk into a game and expect it to be a game. Modern audiences understand that not all games are alike and not all games allow people to just do what they see in the movies. In fact, most people I know who know about video games and play them expect them to be different, not the same.

 

You run the risk, however, of defining what D&D "is" too narrowly. It's a game about fantasy adventurers going into dangerous places full of monsters and getting loot. It's not 9 levels of spellcasting or The Great Wheel or fighters only being able to hit things. That's just cruft.

thecasualoblivion wrote:
It isn't about about specifics, it's about generalities. I don't think people walk into games expecting to be able to play specific characters, though I have seen it many times. What people expect is to be able to play the sort of character that appeals to them in a general sense. To do the sorts of things characters in movies, video games, and anime do.

Well in that case, it's actually even easier to say that D&D can just be D&D and generally folks can do things. Just looking at the core 4 you've got your magic using smart guy, your priest, your skilled ninja-sneak type, and your stalwart warrior dude.

 

You can generally play the type of character you want from more or less any fantasy genre just using that. The trick isn't making the game different at that point, it's showing people how the game works and inspiring them to use the game to do what they want. That's mostly done with marketting, and once they're in it's done by making it easy to pick up with a lot of advanced options for them to delve into once they've figured the game out.

 

Any table top game at all can do that.

Shasarak wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

This is an exchange from RPG.net that sums up my feelings on the subject:

 

Originally Posted by maedsl  
Is it any wonder new players are few and far between when they are confronted with 600+ page Rulebooks ???

 

Originally Posted by Spectralent

For the record, as a "new player" (having started in the 00s and not the 80s), the reason you might not be seeing many new players in your old-school campaigns is that a lot of people from my generation have expectations of games coming from video games or entertainment media rather than wargaming (I realise video games are entertainment media, but there's a bit of a difference between Skyrim and The Avengers). Poking tiles with 11ft poles and avoiding fighting to avoid wasting potions is less appealing, I typically find. We generally seem pretty good at drawing in new players with nWoD, GGG, FFG40k, and 4e, with varying degrees of appeal to storytelling, action, and combat tactics.

 

 

 
If the image in your head when you first come to D&D is Skyrim, the Avengers, or for that matter Desolation of Smaug, traditional D&D is bound to disappoint.

 

 

And heaven forbid if you play first person shooters and the game just does not let you one shot the BBEG with your repeating crossbow loaded with exploding ammo. 

 

Moving past your misrepresentation, what I was speaking of was an aesthetic, a look and feel. The look and feel of things like I described. 

...whatever

kadim wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:
It isn't about about specifics, it's about generalities. I don't think people walk into games expecting to be able to play specific characters, though I have seen it many times. What people expect is to be able to play the sort of character that appeals to them in a general sense. To do the sorts of things characters in movies, video games, and anime do.

Well in that case, it's actually even easier to say that D&D can just be D&D and generally folks can do things. Just looking at the core 4 you've got your magic using smart guy, your priest, your skilled ninja-sneak type, and your stalwart warrior dude.

 

You can generally play the type of character you want from more or less any fantasy genre just using that. The trick isn't making the game different at that point, it's showing people how the game works and inspiring them to use the game to do what they want. That's mostly done with marketting, and once they're in it's done by making it easy to pick up with a lot of advanced options for them to delve into once they've figured the game out.

 

Any table top game at all can do that.

I want it from the system. I want mechanics that model the idea I have in my head. Taking inspiration and going from there is not enough.
...whatever

thecasualoblivion wrote:

Modern gamers are more likely to be attracted to exotic races like. Dragonborn and Tieflings, and fantastic powers and are likely to be unsatisfied with just elves/dwarves/halflings or "swings a sword" turn after turn.

 

WotC thought that people would be more attracted to exotic races like Dragonborn and Tieflings so they were the featured races in the first two books in the series of "Players Handbook Races".

 

The series never got past the first two books.

 

 

Say what you will about Elves but everyone loves them.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

thecasualoblivion wrote:
I want it from the system. I want mechanics that model the idea I have in my head. Taking inspiration and going from there is not enough.

See this is the thing. You, veteran gamer who's been around a while and knows what they want in a system, wants a game for the system. Dave over there, who's staring at a game shop on the bus home and wondering about giving it a go, does not know what they want in a system and wants a game to play a game. They don't really want it for the system. They want that game to be easy to pick up with sufficient complexity once they get into it to keep them there. The actual peculiarities of the system are unimportant until they move from staring at the shop on the bus home to playing every week or two and then even further on to maybe running a game. Perhaps before that they decide they want to play a game that isn't D&D 'cause there are things they want to do, but I'm gonna put my money on Dave only really thinking the system through that far after a few months of playing, and then only if it becomes a regular hobby of theirs.

 

So yeah I can see that as a good reason why a veteran might not want whatever D&D is in 5e, but I don't buy it for Dave.

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 

kadim wrote:

I don't think anyone's wrong, but I also don't think it matters 'cause I just don't see a problem with a game being its own unique thing. Uniqueness, real, publically available uniqueness, is very hard to come by. D&D's got all kinds of little quirks, but the quirks don't have to exclude people, nor do they really get in the way of anyone playing.

 

I think a game like this should emphasise its uniqueness and show people how it's different, not try to emulate whatever other medium or product happens to be en vogue.

 

I just think D&D should be D&D. It shouldn't try to emulate what's in the movies or stories or any of that. It should be what it is without apology. I don't really think that it shouldn't change either (and it has, in many ways), but I don't think there's much good to come from aping whatever looks successful in the moment.

 

That isn't a growth strategy, and D&D is too big for that.

 

D&D isn't just D&D, due to its market position in the hobby it also represents generic fantasy. Its place in the tabletop RPG is too large for it to be limited to navel gazing. If people want a game limited to traditional D&D only, it would be better for them to splinter off into their own community, rather than demanding that everyone accommodate them.

 

Didn't they?  I sort of thought that's what PF is.  Or does "traditional D&D" stop at 2e?  I don't mean to be snarky; just looking for clarity in the term.

 

I have active games in every edition from 2e to 4e with PF taking the spot of 3.5.  In no edition have I ever experienced the problems ascribed to "traditional D&D".  If we wanted a meat-grinder of an adventure, we played one.  If we wanted something that was epically heroic high fantasy, we played that.  If the game didn't support what we wanted, we modded it.  If you embed the possibility for those mods into the base rule set, you've got a fairly attractive system whatever your underlying mechanics are.

 

That the face of fantasy is changing is undeniable.  Current fantasy tropes (video games and movies, mostly) are far different than those of the 70's - 80's.  Hell, even in the 90's, we didn't play conventional parties very often unless that was the theme.  We had custom classes and kits piled on top of custom races and weird humanoids.  I don't think that's a problem.  What is something that will have to change from most early editions (4.0 excluded) is having a base of cool power to build on.  Cool at-will powers and class features were my favorite parts of 4e, and I often include them or something like them in earlier edition games that I play.

 

I think D&D has lost market share because it failed to accomodate the old in its pursuit of the new.  Both won't be accessible unless the game is easy to modify to suit those different expectations.  To do that out of the gate, it will need to have a lot of those modifications embedded.  I hope the final product pulls it off well.

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 

ClockworkSaber wrote:

I'll just say what everyone is thinking and get the ORCs all up on my ass:

1st, AD&D, and 2nd Ed suck and 3.x got the closest to what D&D should be and Next appears to be moving in that direction.

I don't think the average, generic gamer (who comprises most of the market base regardless of what you think, with your niche fanboy hardon) wants to play fantasy vietnam. They want ultra customizable characters, who can impact the world in meaningful, albeit different ways (at different times, and with different levels of effectiveness).

Traditional D&D (1st - 2nd) were too gritty and 4th Wasn't gritty enough. Right now I'm picturing a picture of the 3.5 PHB saying "Miss me yet?" in Bill Clinton's voice.

 

Pathfinder already exists.

 

Tell me with a straight face that D&D Next isn't almost a clone of 3.5 - and I don't think its a bad thing. Taking the best from 3.5 and 4th and smashing them into one augmented rule set would be amazing. The character creation was superior in 3.5 but the ease of DMing in 4th ed is unquestionable. I think we can take the good ideas from those two editions and churn out something really great - which is what I think 5th edition is going to be. Even better than 3.5.

Orzel wrote:

Most of what is said in this thread is false.

 

Newer modern fans are okay with traditional D&D tropes.

The problem is they are often given the expectation of modern fntasy tropes as advertisement.

And if they then sit down and get traditional gaming, they get upset.

 

The modern gamer hates being lied to.

 

They have no problem with harsh deadly worlds. They have no problem being in the second fiddle plot of the world. They have no problem working up the ranks. They have no problem with PCs with clear weaknesses and flaws. But if you say the game is gonna have X and have pretty pictures of X and articles about X... That game better have X in it. Vidoe game developers and publishers will tell you that twice.

 

The real problem with traditionl D&D is that it tries to say it has all these features and has all these picture of monsters and battles...

then say "don't fight them" in their mechanics.

 

 

If you play a game like Skyrim and immediately go out to fight Giants and Dragons then you are going to get stomped (or shot into space).

 

Why should DnD be any different?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

kadim wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:
I want it from the system. I want mechanics that model the idea I have in my head. Taking inspiration and going from there is not enough.

See this is the thing. You, veteran gamer who's been around a while and knows what they want in a system, wants a game for the system. Dave over there, who's staring at a game shop on the bus home and wondering about giving it a go, does not know what they want in a system and wants a game to play a game. They don't really want it for the system. They want that game to be easy to pick up with sufficient complexity once they get into it to keep them there. The actual peculiarities of the system are unimportant until they move from staring at the shop on the bus home to playing every week or two and then even further on to maybe running a game. Perhaps before that they decide they want to play a game that isn't D&D 'cause there are things they want to do, but I'm gonna put my money on Dave only really thinking the system through that far after a few months of playing, and then only if it becomes a regular hobby of theirs.

 

So yeah I can see that as a good reason why a veteran might not want whatever D&D is in 5e, but I don't buy it for Dave.

But it is more important for Dave that the mechanics and system resemble the fantasy he knows and loves than that the mechanics reflect the aesthetics of 1979 or 1987.
...whatever

Orzel wrote:

Most of what is said in this thread is false.

 

Newer modern fans are okay with traditional D&D tropes.

The problem is they are often given the expectation of modern fntasy tropes as advertisement.

And if they then sit down and get traditional gaming, they get upset.

 

The modern gamer hates being lied to.

 

They have no problem with harsh deadly worlds. They have no problem being in the second fiddle plot of the world. They have no problem working up the ranks. They have no problem with PCs with clear weaknesses and flaws. But if you say the game is gonna have X and have pretty pictures of X and articles about X... That game better have X in it. Vidoe game developers and publishers will tell you that twice.

 

The real problem with traditionl D&D is that it tries to say it has all these features and has all these picture of monsters and battles...

then say "don't fight them" in their mechanics.

 

Can you give specific examples?

Haldrik wrote:

 

Orzel wrote:

Most of what is said in this thread is false.

 

Newer modern fans are okay with traditional D&D tropes.

The problem is they are often given the expectation of modern fntasy tropes as advertisement.

And if they then sit down and get traditional gaming, they get upset.

 

The modern gamer hates being lied to.

 

They have no problem with harsh deadly worlds. They have no problem being in the second fiddle plot of the world. They have no problem working up the ranks. They have no problem with PCs with clear weaknesses and flaws. But if you say the game is gonna have X and have pretty pictures of X and articles about X... That game better have X in it. Vidoe game developers and publishers will tell you that twice.

 

The real problem with traditionl D&D is that it tries to say it has all these features and has all these picture of monsters and battles...

then say "don't fight them" in their mechanics.

 

 

Can you give specific examples?

Aliens: Colonial Marine. Or did you mean a D&D example?

ClockworkSaber wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 

ClockworkSaber wrote:

I'll just say what everyone is thinking and get the ORCs all up on my ass:

1st, AD&D, and 2nd Ed suck and 3.x got the closest to what D&D should be and Next appears to be moving in that direction.

I don't think the average, generic gamer (who comprises most of the market base regardless of what you think, with your niche fanboy hardon) wants to play fantasy vietnam. They want ultra customizable characters, who can impact the world in meaningful, albeit different ways (at different times, and with different levels of effectiveness).

Traditional D&D (1st - 2nd) were too gritty and 4th Wasn't gritty enough. Right now I'm picturing a picture of the 3.5 PHB saying "Miss me yet?" in Bill Clinton's voice.

 

Pathfinder already exists.

 

 

Tell me with a straight face that D&D Next isn't almost a clone of 3.5 - and I don't think its a bad thing. Taking the best from 3.5 and 4th and smashing them into one augmented rule set would be amazing. The character creation was superior in 3.5 but the ease of DMing in 4th ed is unquestionable. I think we can take the good ideas from those two editions and churn out something really great - which is what I think 5th edition is going to be. Even better than 3.5.

From what I've seen of Next do far, character creation and customization is gutted compared to 3.5E, and there is this whole "bringing back the AD&D" vibe, in particular the drive for DM empowerment, that goes against the 3E I remember.

 

So no, I don't really see it.

...whatever

thecasualoblivion wrote:
But it is more important for Dave that the mechanics and system resemble the fantasy he knows and loves than that the mechanics reflect the aesthetics of 1979 or 1987.

Mechanics don't resemble fantasy. Mechanics don't resemble anything. They're just numbers and dice. Asthetics.. yeah, the asthetics can and should change, but there's also nothing wrong with keeping it more or less to the style of the game and including more. But that's done with things like artwork and presentation. The mechanics could literally be anything at all.

 

But sure, keep the artwork a good mix of old and new, keep the books looking fresh and well organised. Throw some new races in the mix, play around with classes. Make it distinct, and make it unique. But in attempting to create something that pleases everybody, a person more often than not turns out something that pleases nobody. D&D won't please everybody and isn't designed to please everybody. I can only take that as a good sign. Being aware of your audience is not the same as being subservient to it.

thecasualoblivion wrote:

 

kadim wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:
I want it from the system. I want mechanics that model the idea I have in my head. Taking inspiration and going from there is not enough.

See this is the thing. You, veteran gamer who's been around a while and knows what they want in a system, wants a game for the system. Dave over there, who's staring at a game shop on the bus home and wondering about giving it a go, does not know what they want in a system and wants a game to play a game. They don't really want it for the system. They want that game to be easy to pick up with sufficient complexity once they get into it to keep them there. The actual peculiarities of the system are unimportant until they move from staring at the shop on the bus home to playing every week or two and then even further on to maybe running a game. Perhaps before that they decide they want to play a game that isn't D&D 'cause there are things they want to do, but I'm gonna put my money on Dave only really thinking the system through that far after a few months of playing, and then only if it becomes a regular hobby of theirs.

 

So yeah I can see that as a good reason why a veteran might not want whatever D&D is in 5e, but I don't buy it for Dave.

 

But it is more important for Dave that the mechanics and system resemble the fantasy he knows and loves than that the mechanics reflect the aesthetics of 1979 or 1987.

 

The fantasy he knows, however, is not all he's likely to want or like.  Just like one novel is different from another, and one movie more realistic than another, albeit in the fantasy genre, no one is stopping the game from being its own thing.

Wow, Gatt. That was... horrible. There are a lot of posts on here that make me cringe or roll my eyes, but I abstain from commenting because it's not worth it or I have nothing to add to what's already been said. But that, I cannot let slide.

 

Gatt wrote:
The current 20-something and under crowd has had "RPG" defined for them by video games,  but there's *no way* to make them a PnP gamer.

Hi, I'm a 20-something. My first video game was Sonic the Hedgehog 2. I've been playing Pokémon ever since Red and Blue. I've seen Mario evolve and blaze trails. Chrono Trigger is my favourite Squaresoft game, although Final Fantasy VI is a close second (VII, IMO, is overrated (there, I said it)). I feel that The Last Story is what Final Fantasy should have become. I have spent hundreds of hours playing Monster Hunter 3 (and Ultimate). Right now, I'm totally enjoying Card Hunter and Mario & Luigi: Dream Team.

What I'm trying to say here is that I have a lot of experience with video games, dating back to nearly 20 years ago.

 

And yet, 5 or 6 years ago, I started a game of D20 Modern. No prior experience. Everybody at the table was brand-new to TTRPGs; the closest we ever got was the Forgotten Realms PC games. We moved on to 3.5, then 4e. I ran games for D&D Encounters for roughly 2 years.

Outside of D&D, I've played Scion, Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, Pathfinder, and I'm soon to join a Vampire: the Masquerade game. Recently, I've been itching to try all sorts of PnP RPGs. I really want to try 13th Age and Numenera.

I've also presented family and friends to PnP RPGs, most of them of the same age group and with a similar gaming background. I even DMed for kids ages 9 to 14 as an after-school activity, most of them asking if D&D was like Skyrim and whatnot, and one wanting to play an Assassin's Creed-type character. After a brief introduction, they became enamored with D&D 4e and Pathfinder, because they became hooked on "Skyrim, but with even more freedom". Heck a fair number of them joined a second game we started at the local game store.

 

Yeah, I know: that's just me and my anecdotal evidence. I'm not representative of a whole generation. And to top it all off, all these claims I just made are unverifiable to you; after all, I'm just another guy on the Internet. You'll have to take my word for it.

But saying "there's *no way* to make them a PnP gamer" is an outright falsehood. I'm sure you'll find a lot of people with similar stories.

 

Now, if that were all you had said, it would have been bad enough... But you go on, for some reason.

 

Gatt wrote:

If you reference video games,  you'll find a number of common trends...

 

-They believe they are the character,  and that no event should occur that is character skill dependent.  Any kind of dice roll is despised.

-They believe that an RPG is a game where someone talks to you.  So long as someone talks to you,  even if there's no actual Roleplaying you're just clicking a button to hear the next senetence,  it's an RPG.

-They hate turn based gameplay,  they do not understand that a round happens in the same "instant" and think their character is "Standing there letting someone punch him in the face".

-They do not want to read.  Anything.  Go look up the threads about reading dialogue on Bioware and Bethesda's boards,  it's quite depressing.

- For all intents and purposes, yes, the player is the character. Or rather, the character is an avatar for the player. It stands to reason that in the medium, player skill should trump character skill, as most video games have more limited input options (number of buttons, hardware limitations, etc.) and output possibilities (it is impossible for a computer to process every possible outcome, some limits have to be established). That is not to say, however, that players do not recognize "character skill". It simply works in a different fashion in video games. Link cannot fly, Master Chief can carry only two weapons. The character has certain skills and limits; the player's skill will make the most of what skills the on-screen character has. Also, randomness (dice rolls) is not despised. However, it is recognized that there a place and time for it, as the basic gameplay works on a different premise.

- Um, that's not my experience. I'll agree that the assumptions between a TTRPG and a CRPG are different, but I'd argue otherwise. IMX, a game where you're expected to gain Experience, level up and unlock abilities is said to be an RPG. Notice how it is said that more and more video games (notably shooters) intergrate what video gamers call "RPG-like elements". I think you got it all wrong on this point.

- It's not that they cannot understand abstraction (my young players picked up on it almost right away), but rather that it is no longer considered the norm. Turn-based strategy games and CRPGs still exist, but they're moved to their own sub-genre, in a sense.

- We now have the possibility of adding voice acting to games, and that's a big deal. Some people do indeed do not like to read, but that's for reasons that stand outside of video games. However, The Legend of Zelda has no voice acting, and Nintendo has even said they don't plan for it in the near future (and even if they were, they are adamant on not giving Link a voice). Despite this, each new iteration is among the best-selling and highest rated games. It could be said that fans of Bioware and Bethesda have such expectations of their favourite games, but they in no means represent a majority of gamers worldwide.

 

Moving on...

 

Gatt wrote:

Further,  the gameplay of video games has conditioned them to...

 

-There's no reprocussions for your actions,  everything you do is perfectly fine.  Mass Effect 2 is an example,  you can murder someone in cold blood in front of the Paragon of Justice,  and no one cares.  You can be as antagonistic as you want to,  but you always get the reward.

-There's no exclusive choices,  you always can do everything you want to.

-You're always the star of the show.  You can do everything at all times better than anyone else in the world (The Elder Scroll games are a great example)

-You should never have to figure out where anything is located,  you should always have a magic compass to show you where to go so you don't have to explore. 

-You can't fail.  Miss a quest object?  Go back and it'll always be there,  or in some games like ME3 buy it after the mission from a random vendor. 

-On the same note:  You should never ever miss,  your spells should never fail to do damage even if you fireball a fire elemental.

-Your inventory should be large enough to pack a castle in.

-You should regain all of your health right after the battle.

-You should never have to search for anything,  it should blink at you to tell you it's there.

- Blame hardware and software limitations. It's already impossible to account for every possibility, let alone code them all. Yeah, some strange things happen. So what?

- Wait, what? Even in the older games, some options would openup or become available based on previous events... Maybe you should elaborate?

- Well, that's what's called "being the protagonist". You're expected to be the star. Being able to do everything and being better, however, is another thing. Some games allow that, others don't.

- Some games have magic compasses, others don't. Metroid sure as hell doesn't tell you how to get from A to B. It's a case-by-case deal here.

- Quest objects are often required to advance. Not being to advance is detrimental to the experience in many games today, as the developpers expect you to be able to get through the whole thing. Back in the day, you had to either know the whole game inside and out (Sierra games come to mind) or inserting enough quarters until you get good enough to get to the end. The medium has changed, and expectations regarding it have changed as well. That, and they sometimes do that to allow progess despite bugs or glitches.

- Elaborate. AFAIK, elemental weakness, resistance and immunity has been a staple of fantasy and sci-fi CRPGs since they were made. So go even further; see Fire Emblem's weapon triangle.

- Huh? I get the hyperbole. I don't get the complaint.

- Some games allow that, yes. Others even allow full healing mid-battle (just hide under cover long enough). Your point being?

- As environments get more detailed and elaborate, it can indeed become harder to figure out what you can interact with, hence the shining / blinking. That doesn't mean it can't be hidden or accessible through specific means, though. Metroid is a great example of this. Items meant to be picked are evidently so, but getting to them is another matter entirely.

 

Gatt wrote:

I've literally read the following statements from people on video game boards...

 

-"Why should I have to read a book just to play a game?  If I can't just pick it up and play it then it's stupid"

-"A wolf having treasure is stupid!" (The explanation of incidental treasure was met with more derision)

-"Turn based is stupid,  why is my guy standing around getting punched in the face?"

-"Why should I have to wait my turn?  I should being doing something all of the time!"

-"D&D's just a board game."

Hey, some people are uneducated about the game and TTRPGs in general. Just like there are people who are uneducated about video games. Doesn't mean they're stupid or inferior. Just that they haven't experienced it yet, or haven't formulated a proper opinion. If that is their opinion, then that's all it is; not fact.

 

Gatt wrote:

You cannot reconcile the two different groups at this stage.  What the 20-something and under crowd expects from an "RPG" is anathema to an actual RPG.  They have no understanding of what constitutes an RPG because video game companies like Bethesda and Bioware have been marketing action-adventure and shooter as "RPG" in order to sell a few more units.  The game that would have to be designed to acquire even a fraction of these people would be so different from an RPG that you'd never be able to sell it to a PnP player.

And here we get to the core of your complaint. "A true scotsman"; "an actual RPG".

Consider this: CRPGs have evolved in a different way than PnP RPGs have, because they work on a different medium. And as it turns out, that medium has evolved and changed much faster than the "tabletop" medium. Those RPGs have become something else than what you're used to, and they will continue doing so. You cannot rewrite history, nor turn the tide. Genres change with time.

You'll just have to accept that CRPGs have become a sub-set of RPGs in general, in a similar fashion that CRPGs themselves are often split into other categories, like "Western" and "Japanese", or "Turn-based" and "Real-time".

 

IMO, it looks like you simply hold a grudge against Bioware and Bethesda for whatever reason, and taking it out on the whole hobby.

 

Gatt wrote:

I don't believe there's any value in trying to obtain the 20-something and late teens today,  they're a lost generation.

If you truly believe this, it sounds to me like you're willing to let the game die.

 

Gatt wrote:

They expect instant gratification without consequences,  and are very strongly against most actual RPG elements.  Trying to appease this group would require the game to be so over-simplified that it would literally become a board game.

 

Take a visit to the Bioware and Bethesda boards and start reading on topics like voiced characters,  magic compasses,  consequences for actions,  turn based gameplay, and character based skill.  These people do not want to play RPGs,  they want to play action games with the letters "RPG" on the box.

And what, may I ask, is inherently wrong with any of this?

 

It's been said before and I'll say it again: your whole post is reminiscent of an old man complaining about how this or that generation is ruining the world and championing how great things were "back in the day".

If it were only that, I would have overlooked your post.

 

However, you had to say all of this with a condescending tone, trying to demonize current and future generations of gamers by referring to ideas and concepts of which you show no adequate comprehension. Your entire post comes off as an insult, saying I don't know jack about my favourite hobby: gaming. I worked seven years as customer service rep for a cell phone company; I don't offended easily. But one thing you do not do is insult my integrity and my intelligence.

 

I'm 26, I play both video and PnP games, I know both types of games are not at odds, and I'm intelligent enough to know that the two mediums do not have the same history, expectations and possibilities. I suspect that most gamers my age are well capable of the same.

You do not get to villify an entire generation because you don't like something. And you certainly don't get to do so with poor arguments filled with falsehoods and value judgements.

 

Pardon the off-topic post. I'll see if I have something valuable to contribute once I cool down.

Topic locked