You might miss the boat

[danbuter1]

I'm playing DA:O right now, and I want an rpg for it. By the time it actually gets published, though, at least a good chunk of the players will have moved on to other games. Which means lost sales. I hope this doesn't happen, but the game really should have been ready by now.

[Iltsuger]

You could look at it that way. I guess I assumed that people who got finished with DAO would maybe replay it or hunger for different adventures. As people buy it and finish it (Christmas is still coming, some people might not get it until then) some of them will be into the world enough that exploring it through the pen and paper game might seem appealing.

I kinda wish, even if the approval process will take a while, that they'd start amping up the promotions though.

I wonder if there's any chance that they might requisition a flying monkey squad to assist them :) *shows flight cap*

[discuit]

I agree a little with the OP, as in right now ppl are playing and talking about DA a LOT, and thus impulse buys of the pnp rpg would probably be amazing at this point in time. Could this impact sales...probably..will it destroy the line...i hardly think so.

Having said that i'll buy it either way as i like the "concept" of it and the for the first time ever in my rpg'ing life i like the world and lore as is, i dont feel like i want to change a thing. Very unsual for me.

[Iltsuger]

Out of curiosity, what other RPG settings have you read about?

[enpeze]

I hate complicated roleplaying rulesets, (and I say this as vet with over 20 years intense rpg experience) so I think GR is on the right track with this approach for winning new gamers and old ones too. I am no fan of the other rp games of GR which are all too complex for my taste (big exception is freeport for savage worlds) but possibly there is now finally a trend to return to reasonable and playable rules in the rpg world.

I read several days ago the new pathfinder core book. Which super-nerds are playing such "games"? I dont get it: nearly 600p of needless complex rules just to see who hits whom?

No Sir. I would rater take a walk in the park or doing some housework than participating in a game with so many rules. So Kudos to Mr. Pramas who in the last interview has shown the only possible mindset how to handle modern rp rules.

[Jasca]

I read several days ago the new pathfinder core book. Which super-nerds are playing such "games"? I dont get it: nearly 600p of needless complex rules just to see who hits whom?

Great to see that there is are still people who find time to chant "badwrongfun!" when someone likes other *gasp* things than the they... Maybe "20 years of intense rpg experience" gives the right to rant when someone is having wrong kind of fun... I just have to wait couple more years, and I can start my own badwrongfun! rants...

[enpeze]

I read several days ago the new pathfinder core book. Which super-nerds are playing such "games"? I dont get it: nearly 600p of needless complex rules just to see who hits whom?

Great to see that there is are still people who find time to chant "badwrongfun!" when someone likes other *gasp* things than the they... Maybe "20 years of intense rpg experience" gives the right to rant when someone is having wrong kind of fun... I just have to wait couple more years, and I can start my own badwrongfun! rants...

its not about having "badwrongfun". IMO its important to give support to trends in roleplaying which you think is the right way to go. The problem with todays roleplaying is that there is almost no fresh blood in our hobby and one of the main reasons is that the rulesets are too complex for newbies (and many vets too). This awful trend should be stopped to enable our hobby to survive and I appreciate the initiative of GR to design a new rpg which does exacly this. I am taking the liberty to critique Paizos "other" approach which I think is ruining our hobby in the long run.

[SnowDog]

I thought that the PnP game was supposed to come out before the video game. Well, it seems that it is not the case...

On the other side of the topic about the rules. I, started playing and running RPGs at 1986 so I can say to be an old timer Personally I prefer reasonably light systems so this is good news for me. Still, if someone likes very complex rulessets who am I to blame them? It's a matter of taste, after all.

[Krovikan]

I like both personally, I care more about what the game is about then the system it uses. I play Vampire TM & Pathfinder (+Monte's Cook Book/Other book I forget) right now you have to realize Pathfinder core is both the DM guide and Player guide combined together for the core book with the monster still separate. So it is about the same size as DnD.

[sillyxander]

Wow those are some harsh words. I didn't think Pathfinder was ruining our gaming world. I've always like how much work they put into their products. Now some people like complicated games and others don't. I think there is room for all types out there. No should tell anyone that their idea fun is wrong.

[Iltsuger]

That's not what's being said. I think if I was just starting out in the hobby and saw a game as complex as Pathfinder I might be overwhelmed by all the mechanics. Stuff with a middle-ground approach, easy to learn but flexible to modding and modular add-ons, might bring the growth that everyone in the industry, Wizards, Paizo, whomever, have wanted, since it benefits everyone.

Dragon Age may do that, some of us think, because it seems to be keeping the mechanics pretty straightforward.

I still think Pathfinder's done some great things. And as a bit of a vet, I liked their new Oracle class that they're testing right now. That's the class I think I've wanted to play my whole life without realizing it :)

[SnowDog]

If I have understood it correctly then Pathfinder RPG is more or less pimped up D&D 3.5. Correct? If so, I agree that it is far from a system that I would try and learn as a first game. It would be a bit different with an experienced GM who already knows the system and can help with it. Personally I couldn't make myself to run d20 based games even when there were a lot of extremely interesting settings (for example Thieves' World, Black Company, Conan...). Fantasy Craft seems like a good candidate to make things so easy for a GM to handle that I might be willing to give it a try. But as it is shown it is just me a lot of people have bought and played/run D&D 3.x and probably enjoyed it.

Anyway, I am eagerly waiting to see the DA:O RPG and what kind of system it is.

[Ryngard]

Yeah, nobody is slamming D&D (I don't think).

I've been playing D&D for more than 20 years. I'm a huge fan of D&D. I've played almost all incarnations of the game, most notably 2e and 3e.

The game has progressively become more and more complex, just for the sake of being complex. Sure on the surface it makes sense, but when you actually play it takes forever to do anything.

I'm a very intelligent man. I understand the rules. It isn't about comprehension. Its about as I get older, I want to PLAY the game, not micromanage every possible maneuver with a minutia of rules, addons, etc.

I want simple, down and dirty, gaming! I haven't experienced that since 1e or 2e (if you don't add in a bunch of supplements). 3e and 4e are brilliant games, just not for me. Pathfinder is 3.5+. Its a great game... but not what I want.

Dragon Age: RPG sounds like EXACTLY what I and my aging gaming group, wants. We want to sit down and play the game. I want fights to not take 2-3 hours.

In 2e we would play all day and it felt like creating a story. Once we moved to 3e and it became more... slow. Very board game like (and that isnt a slam for minis, we're avid mini painters/users). But overall it just became less and less our game of choice.

Bring on DA:RPG Green Ronin! We want to game!

[enpeze]

Yeah, nobody is slamming D&D (I don't think).

Well I didnt slam 1st and 2nd edition DnD which are great for beginners and veterans alike. I slam 3x and pathfinder and the high fences they are raising in order to win new roleplayers. So if the 400p Gorilla with a market penetration of lets say 90% decides to release an insane complicated ruleset, which is unusable for newbies, then this destroys our hobby because no new players come in. Thats why I am against such monster games. I would not be against them, IF Wotc had released a light 100p set as standard rules for Mr. John Smith and another "advanced" one with 600p for the rollplayers which prefer 150 prestige classes and 1000 feats for their games. But they didnt and so they have deserved to be flakked because the result was that potential players didnt even bother with roleplaying because of the heavy rules. (considering the fact that most new potential customers have not much choice in choosing other lighter rulesets because they are not aware of their existence)

The game has progressively become more and more complex, just for the sake of being complex. Sure on the surface it makes sense, but when you actually play it takes forever to do anything.


I'm a very intelligent man. I understand the rules. It isn't about comprehension. Its about as I get older, I want to PLAY the game, not micromanage every possible maneuver with a minutia of rules, addons, etc.

Yep. So if even you as a intelligent guy and veteran DnD player dont want to play with complex 3x rules, why should a newbie want to do this? The result is the sad state the roleplaying hobby is at the moment.

We blame MMO and other media to be responsible for the shrinking numbers of our hobby. But thats not true in many cases. I would even say that its the opposite. Never in history has the number of potential young people which could be interested in roleplaying be greater than today due to the new medias and the increasing cultural acceptance of fantasy. WotC (and some other companies) with its inaccessible rulesets are responsible that this potential is negated.

IMO our hobby needs games like Dragon Age like a thirsty desert walker an oasis.

[wolfram_stout]

Yeah, nobody is slamming D&D (I don't think).

Well I didnt slam 1st and 2nd edition DnD which are great for beginners and veterans alike. I slam 3x and pathfinder and the high fences they are raising in order to win new roleplayers. So if the 400p Gorilla with a market penetration of lets say 90% decides to release an insane complicated ruleset, which is unusable for newbies, then this destroys our hobby because no new players come in. Thats why I am against such monster games. I would not be against them, IF Wotc had released a light 100p set as standard rules for Mr. John Smith and another "advanced" one with 600p for the rollplayers which prefer 150 prestige classes and 1000 feats for their games. But they didnt and so they have deserved to be flakked because the result was that potential players didnt even bother with roleplaying because of the heavy rules. (considering the fact that most new potential customers have not much choice in choosing other lighter rulesets because they are not aware of their existence)

The game has progressively become more and more complex, just for the sake of being complex. Sure on the surface it makes sense, but when you actually play it takes forever to do anything.


I'm a very intelligent man. I understand the rules. It isn't about comprehension. Its about as I get older, I want to PLAY the game, not micromanage every possible maneuver with a minutia of rules, addons, etc.

Yep. So if even you as a intelligent guy and veteran DnD player dont want to play with complex 3x rules, why should a newbie want to do this? The result is the sad state the roleplaying hobby is at the moment.

We blame MMO and other media to be responsible for the shrinking numbers of our hobby. But thats not true in many cases. I would even say that its the opposite. Never in history has the number of potential young people which could be interested in roleplaying be greater than today due to the new medias and the increasing cultural acceptance of fantasy. WotC (and some other companies) with its inaccessible rulesets are responsible that this potential is negated.

IMO our hobby needs games like Dragon Age like a thirsty desert walker an oasis.

I agree with both of you. My current system of choice is Castles and Crusades, but the company is not able to really push it out there. I think they lost a golden opp to take advantage of the D&D edition change.

While I love Paizo, Pathfinder is a monster that I get tired just thinking of learning it all (and I played 3.x for 9 years).

I have played since 80ish. I can't wait for this to come out. 64 page player book that covers 5 levels.

AMEN.

Wolfram

[Krovikan]

In reply to: enpeze

Just because you don't like DnD 3, 3.5 and 4 and Pathfinder doesn't mean their isn't a market and that is the flaw of your argument. I find it hard to play Vampire because DnD and Pathfinder is so popular in my city. Complex rules are good for those games and I enjoy them. To claim your favorite market is the only one is ignorance of the true complexity of any market place.

[Irontruth]

I believe the Dragon Age video game is going to be a trilogy, so I think there's plenty of time for the PnP game to come out and take advantage of that.

Also, I don't think Paizo is doing anything to harm the industry. 3.X was one of the most successful RPG's ever, it was so successful, it spawned a glut in the industry (that quickly died out). Paizo is publishing a large quantity of quality adventures, which are one of the biggest helps for busy gamers who have jobs and families. Their rulebook may be huge, but it took the place of 2 books. It also actually simplified many of the rules from 3.5, so I don't think complaining about it's complexity really helps the conversation.

If you don't like, fine, just leave it alone, this isn't a forum about Pathfinder anyways.

[enpeze]

In reply to: enpeze

Just because you don't like DnD 3, 3.5 and 4 and Pathfinder doesn't mean their isn't a market and that is the flaw of your argument. I find it hard to play Vampire because DnD and Pathfinder is so popular in my city. Complex rules are good for those games and I enjoy them. To claim your favorite market is the only one is ignorance of the true complexity of any market place.

I hate to repeat me, but again: Its not about dont liking this or that. Its about the impact overcomplex systems have on shrinking of the roleplaying market. I have nothing personally against 3.5 or pathfinder. I would postulate the same if I would like and play it. I know some people dont have this ability of differenciation. For them: If they like a system its always good for the hobby. If they dont like it is always bad for the hobby. But this simplified view is not true for me.

[Crimfan]

I'm dubious of the notion that it's the rulesets as the first decimal place describing the issue of a declining hobby. Complex rulesets that keep out new players might be the second decimal place, but the fact that substitutes with massively lower costs is definitely the first (costs not as in money but as in opportunity costs, coordination costs, etc.---all those things an economist would think of) is surely the first.

IMO it's really the fact that as people have gotten more and more scheduled in their lives, options like MMOs or CRPGs scratch the itch of many players. Some of my old gaming buddies from college play WoW not because it's really all that great (they'll tell you as much), but as parents with young children it's all they can manage, essentially playing after the kids have gone to bed. The computer options have gotten really good, so much so that nowadays my preference ordering would be Good Tabletop Group > Computer Game > Bad Tabletop Group. (I prefer single player games, though.) As I recall, some of the groups I played with back in the old days weren't all that great....

Look at it this way: I've played DA:O an order of magnitude more than tabletop recently (I'm not kidding!) not because I don't like tabletop but because I can't get my group together due to schedule conflicts.

[Iltsuger]

You make some good points, Crimfan. It's a lot easier to get together with folks when the world isn't so interconnected and demanding, like it was when I was growing up.

The prices, too, prevent people from even seeing the rules. The rules do factor in, definitely, but there's a lot more going on. Also, I think that because the pen and paper world keeps changing, it's hard for people to pass the hobby on. To me a lot of the games are unrecognizably different in some fundamental ways than when I grew up with the hobby, so I feel more that I'm learning from the youngans than teaching them anything.

Without that generational passing on, like you would easily do with video games (because the game is doing a lot of the number crunching for you), you miss out on another way to introduce it to new players.

[enpeze]

I'm dubious of the notion that it's the rulesets as the first decimal place describing the issue of a declining hobby. Complex rulesets that keep out new players might be the second decimal place, but the fact that substitutes with massively lower costs is definitely the first (costs not as in money but as in opportunity costs, coordination costs, etc.---all those things an economist would think of) is surely the first.

IMO it's really the fact that as people have gotten more and more scheduled in their lives, options like MMOs or CRPGs scratch the itch of many players. Some of my old gaming buddies from college play WoW not because it's really all that great (they'll tell you as much), but as parents with young children it's all they can manage, essentially playing after the kids have gone to bed. The computer options have gotten really good, so much so that nowadays my preference ordering would be Good Tabletop Group > Computer Game > Bad Tabletop Group. (I prefer single player games, though.) As I recall, some of the groups I played with back in the old days weren't all that great....

Look at it this way: I've played DA:O an order of magnitude more than tabletop recently (I'm not kidding!) not because I don't like tabletop but because I can't get my group together due to schedule conflicts.

Maybe this is the truth with "older" players. But the young still meet and get together. Only the ways are different today but they still meet each other.( I see this live with my kids) The prob with kids today that they dont play rpgs like we did. And why? Because the entry point is too high with 3.5. or 4. The kids today would play if they had a game which

a- is build on a popular franchise (and dragon age is popular)
b- is easy to get in (which I hope is dragon age)

In the 80ties we had to fight for acceptance of fantasy. It was a weird and nerdy hobby and the players were accused of having a minority complex, beeing childish or even holding satanic rites and it was not easy to get any cultural acceptance for playing even dnd.

Today we are in a fantasy paradise. There is even not much prob if you tell everybody at work that you are a "harry potter" or "tolkien fan" or play roleplaying games. Fantasy is more popular than ever and has almost no acceptance problems. The reason because of this is of course WoW, the Peter Jackson Trilogy and the Harry Potter success story.

For me its a fact that we could have ALOT more players among us. But we dont because no beginner wants to read more than lets say 100p rulebooks for just playing a game.

Oh yes its easy to blame video games for everything. But the failure is not the video games. Its the roleplaying game companies which obviously cater only for the nerds who have no problems to read 1000p of rules and dont take the financial risk to produce AND actively promote games for beginners.

[Ryngard]

COMPLETELY agree with the above post!

That said, my group use to play D&D, WEG Star Wars, and various games over the years. In the 90s we all had plenty of time to play and had two weekly games (Wed night and Sat afternoon) as well as the occasional Fri night game where we'd test out new systems.

We've tried to keep it going in the 00's but haven't had much luck at all. Our lives have become super busy, with the economy we're working more often.

The games (we've updated each system) have become more and more complex and time consuming. We're a very intelligent group, but we all miss our simple systems that allow us to frakin' play the game, instead of feeling like we're doing homework!!!

I miss old school gaming and I think Pramas is trying to get Dragon Age back to those roots. I hope he succeeds, it might just save our gaming group.

[Congzilla]

I read several days ago the new pathfinder core book. Which super-nerds are playing such "games"? I dont get it: nearly 600p of needless complex rules just to see who hits whom?

Great to see that there is are still people who find time to chant "badwrongfun!" when someone likes other *gasp* things than the they... Maybe "20 years of intense rpg experience" gives the right to rant when someone is having wrong kind of fun... I just have to wait couple more years, and I can start my own badwrongfun! rants...

its not about having "badwrongfun". IMO its important to give support to trends in roleplaying which you think is the right way to go. The problem with todays roleplaying is that there is almost no fresh blood in our hobby and one of the main reasons is that the rulesets are too complex for newbies (and many vets too). This awful trend should be stopped to enable our hobby to survive and I appreciate the initiative of GR to design a new rpg which does exacly this. I am taking the liberty to critique Paizos "other" approach which I think is ruining our hobby in the long run.

You do realize that the Pathfinder book is the Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual all in one book right? It is basically D&D 3.75.

There are other really good games with monstrous books, Dark Heresy and Rogue trader come to mind. But in most of these books you will find that the actual rules to play the game take up a very small portion of the page count. Most is character creation and world fluff.

[Congzilla]

Also, most games today have some sort of quick start rules version which is either cheap (D&D 4e) or free (Shadowrun, Battletech, all White Wolf games). These are condensed down to only a few pages.

The idea that a game is overly complicated because the rulebook has a high page count is a total fallacy. For most people, reading the books is part of the hobby.

[Crimfan]

Maybe this is the truth with "older" players.

True 'nuff.

But the young still meet and get together. Only the ways are different today but they still meet each other.( I see this live with my kids)

Indeed younger people have more time than money (and us older folks have more money than time). I've long suspected that many games were written not to be played but to be purchased and read by older players like me who'd love to run a game... if only we could manage to get the group together. :/

The prob with kids today that they dont play rpgs like we did. And why? Because the entry point is too high with 3.5. or 4. <snip>

Essentially this is the same argument that goes around for the death of traditional wargaming---the market became dominated by the hardcore players who got more and more into the likes of ASL and stopped making playable games. (Let us not forget what displaced this market....)

Edit: Also I think that traditional wargames (Napoleonic and World War II, mostly) lost out because people simply lost interest. Those eras didn't speak to players anymore in the late 60s and early 70s environment out of which fantasy games emerged.

I don't really buy the complexity argument. Back in the old days, someone was bright enough to learn the rules and bring everyone else along. Furthermore, TSR and then WotC have attempted, over and over, to make bridge products, which, so far as I can tell, don't go. (Perhaps I'm wrong.)

However, I think you're missing my point:

Competition for attention (the crucial resource) back in the old days was much lighter. For someone who was interested in fantasy outside of a novel, there really weren't all that many options outside D&D (etc.), basically you had Parker Bros. or nothing. Considering only close substitutes for D&D:

-Computer RPGs (single player and MMO) are now really quite solid, graphically pretty, take care of all the irritating DM work for you and require no physical presence---you can play with people who are hundreds or thousands of miles away from you.
-Collectible games: CCGs like Magic, etc., and mini games (Clix, Warhammer, etc.). These both help solve the scheduling problem because you can play pickup games with no trouble.
-Eurogames like Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, etc. Again, good for more casual players who might have played RPGs in the past but don't anymore.

Furthermore, for many, the big interest of tactical "beat 'em up" play is satisfied quite nicely by these other types of games... and let's face it, many players' primary motivations is ass kicking. (Well in a Eurogame you don't really kick anyone's ass but, still, there are winners and losers.)

In short, I stand by my claim: Better entry level products could help, but I doubt it is going to affect the first decimal place much, though it might well help the second. That alone would be no small feat or favor to the tabletop RPG community.

Make a solid, simpler, lighter game based on a recognizable product with an intricately detailed world? Sure, I'm all for it. As tabletop RPGs go it could sell well... but D&D4 ain't selling remotely as well as D&D3 did.