Quote from: JasperAK;523209Heck, I try to tell her she is a gamer. But in all seriousness, her only reason for rolling dice is the friends they bring to drink and watch movies with. She would probably be happy if she never had to roll for init (which one do I roll?) again. Six ability scores, race, and class are too much trouble. She just wants to know if she is wielding a two-hand Axe or Sword--she can't be bothered to make the choice, I HAVE TO MAKE IT FOR HER. Don't get me started on skills.

So yeah, she rolls dice, but she would much rather the same people sit on our couches and watch something like Buckaroo Bansai in the Eighth Dimension or Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness. Or Monty Python. I love my wife. Bet she wouldn't expect me to admit that...

Sounds fine to me but then again I'm into gaming far more for the social aspect than the game itself much like your wife.  I'm more focused but yeah I'm like her in that I can't be bothered about elaborate tactics, I just want to know "did my fireball hit it? ". I like 1/2e for that simplicity so that it allows casual player's like myself and your wife to fully participate with the group without ruining it for the hardcore gamers in the group.

Quote from: Marleycat;523215Sounds fine to me but then again I'm into gaming far more for the social aspect than the game itself much like your wife.  I'm more focused but yeah I'm like her in that I can't be bothered about elaborate tactics, I just want to know "did my fireball hit it? ". I like 1/2e for that simplicity so that it allows casual player's like myself and your wife to fully participate with the group without ruining it for the hardcore gamers in the group.

Quite frankly, if 5e (fuck "D&D Next") can bring people like my wife and I to the same table then it has a chance in my house. I wonder if WOTC realizes that people like me could prompt their group to try 3e (and reject it for our B/X-1e-2e mashup) and not bother with 4e after that bullshit intro module KOTS, that the market may be there. If we are the market.

That's why I liked your post. I am the type to play either a Cleric or Magic-User. She plays Fighters (and an occasional Ranger or Paladin) exclusively. The day that Heinsoo et all pushed my wife out of the game, I had to follow. I don't think I am alone.

Quote from: JasperAK;523229Quite frankly, if 5e (fuck "D&D Next") can bring people like my wife and I to the same table then it has a chance in my house. I wonder if WOTC realizes that people like me could prompt their group to try 3e (and reject it for our B/X-1e-2e mashup) and not bother with 4e after that bullshit intro module KOTS, that the market may be there. If we are the market.

That's why I liked your post. I am the type to play either a Cleric or Magic-User. She plays Fighters (and an occasional Ranger or Paladin) exclusively. The day that Heinsoo et all pushed my wife out of the game, I had to follow. I don't think I am alone.

You're NOT alone, hence we're talking about 5e not 4.5e.

*I stick with Wizards,  Sorcerer's, and GISH characters myself, image my horror at what happened in 4e. With wizards in particular they took my resource management minigame away that helped keep my mind in the actual game at the table..

I would be characterized as a poor wizard player given I prefer Evokers with my own personal twist but optimized they aren't, neither do I care for that minigame.  I prefer magic users because they require less tactics to me.

That a story occurs in a roleplaying game is a feature, but it is one that occurs after the fact. But that's more like a recounting, or a reminiscing -- which is something people do even with CCGs and sports. I think rpg's game aspect, that which is undecided until it plays out, should be emphasized so that it can prevent thwarted authors from making bad GM experiences. The world could use far less crappy modules, at the very least.

The big issue with story in RPGs is using it as a restricted template where players are only allowed to meaningfully go. When it becomes Calvinist in predetermination then there's no real free will, which is the hallmark of RPGs core strength and difference versus other media. And sharing GM authority for storytelling mechanics that provide "narrative cut-scenes" becomes a dissociative experience where immersion through role is disrupted for others. Neither of these things I feel have been a boon to the rpg genre recently.

However it has been a boon in spinning off a new genre of storytelling games that could accommodate those who really weren't aware why they were dissatisfied with the rpg experience before.

Quote from: Opaopajr;523319However it has been a boon in spinning off a new genre of storytelling games that could accommodate those who really weren't aware why they were dissatisfied with the rpg experience before.

Which I think is great, except...In some cases those games are not claiming to be anything other then RPGs, and there are vocal people who support those games claiming they are traditional - just like games that do not include the narrative mechanics, something that is disingenuous at best.

Look at Mistborn and how it is advertised.  That game has the balls to stand on what it is.  MHR - not so much.  

and don't even get me started on what this shit did to WFRP3.

Quote from: CRKrueger;523323Which I think is great, except...In some cases those games are not claiming to be anything other then RPGs, and there are vocal people who support those games claiming they are traditional - just like games that do not include the narrative mechanics, something that is disingenuous at best.

Look at Mistborn and how it is advertised.  That game has the balls to stand on what it is.  MHR - not so much.  

and don't even get me started on what this shit did to WFRP3.

You will probably enjoy the fact that I managed to christen MHR in our gaming club "Hulk in the Vineyard" .

Other then that - shees, do we need 2 threads to speak about doom of the industry? I know that this thread was never more of a joke, but c'mon.

Quote from: Marleycat;523215Sounds fine to me but then again I'm into gaming far more for the social aspect than the game itself much like your wife.  I'm more focused but yeah I'm like her in that I can't be bothered about elaborate tactics, I just want to know "did my fireball hit it? ". I like 1/2e for that simplicity so that it allows casual player's like myself and your wife to fully participate with the group without ruining it for the hardcore gamers in the group.

In my experience, there are a lot of gamers who aren't interested in learning a lot of rules or in tactical play. They just want to say what their character is trying to do and have the GM tell them what to roll to see if they succeed. Recent editions of D&D no longer handle this well. "System mastery" and related crap get in the way. Even creating a character requires lots of system knowledge and too many choices based on that. WOTC has captured the "hardcore market" but lost a lot of the non-hardcore market. Heck, there are so many choices in 4e that most players choose to use computer software to help them create a character.

Quote from: RandallS;523339In my experience, there are a lot of gamers who aren't interested in learning a lot of rules or in tactical play. They just want to say what their character is trying to do and have the GM tell them what to roll to see if they succeed. Recent editions of D&D no longer handle this well. "System mastery" and related crap get in the way. Even creating a character requires lots of system knowledge and too many choices based on that. WOTC has captured the "hardcore market" but lost a lot of the non-hardcore market. Heck, there are so many choices in 4e that most players choose to use computer software to help them create a character.

This part of the market has also been picked up by some of the rules light companies out there. That is one reason i think games like savage worlds have some popularity. There are some things i dont like about SW rules but i can make a character quickly and once play begins it moves fast, no struggle with bogged down combats.

Quote from: JasperAK;523229Quite frankly, if 5e (fuck "D&D Next") can bring people like my wife and I to the same table then it has a chance in my house. I wonder if WOTC realizes that people like me could prompt their group to try 3e (and reject it for our B/X-1e-2e mashup) and not bother with 4e after that bullshit intro module KOTS, that the market may be there. If we are the market.

That's why I liked your post. I am the type to play either a Cleric or Magic-User. She plays Fighters (and an occasional Ranger or Paladin) exclusively. The day that Heinsoo et all pushed my wife out of the game, I had to follow. I don't think I am alone.

Same thing with my wife when she played her first fighter at Red Box Vancouver: it was 3d6 in order and I don't think she would have considered playing one otherwise. But it was a revelation to her in the sense that she could just DO stuff and not worry about rules and options within options and all that stuff.

This is why the idea that all classes in the D&D  game should function exactly the same way, with the same amount of rules to "back them up", is a totally retarded notion. The game appeals to different people because the game provides different archetypes with different amount of rules and different types of game play behind them. Get rid of that, make all the classes the same, and you end up with a game that only appeals to one specific subset of the fandom. It is a bankrupt idea.

I'm glad it's been tried, so that the insanity of such an idea could be demonstrated. Now let's get back to an inclusive, sane game that welcomes people like my wife or yours, instead of assuming all gamers want the same thing out of the game.

Quote from: Benoist;523360Same thing with my wife when she played her first fighter at Red Box Vancouver: it was 3d6 in order and I don't think she would have considered playing one otherwise. But it was a revelation to her in the sense that she could just DO stuff and not worry about rules and options within options and all that stuff.

This is why the idea that all classes in the D&D  game should function exactly the same way, with the same amount of rules to "back them up", is a totally retarded notion. The game appeals to different people because the game provides different archetypes with different amount of rules and different types of game play behind them. Get rid of that, make all the classes the same, and you end up with a game that only appeals to one specific subset of the fandom. It is a bankrupt idea.

I'm glad it's been tried, so that the insanity of such an idea could be demonstrated. Now let's get back to an inclusive, sane game that welcomes people like my wife or yours, instead of assuming all gamers want the same thing out of the game.

I tend to agree and certainly when i run games for my daughter I just use a very rough core where she chooses what she wants to do and I adjudicate.

However, the wives of gamers who might like to sit down occassionally to see their husbands and humour their bizzare hobby  are not a big market segment.
If you are selling games as a business then writiing games for people that don't want a lot of rules and have no intention of actually buying games is a poor marketing decision.
There are numerous independent games out there that are free. Players as casual as you identify, players who would never play unless their SO was playing, are not a viable market for RPGs, therefore if you are designing a comerial game you really can't consider them too much.
So by all means produce a traveller lite, or a D&D lite that a gamer can play socially with their non-gamer friends, there may be a market for that , but your core offering has to have enough rules and content that it will make an impact and will generate enough revenue from the 100,000 active gamers that it can make a profit.

I could write a viable fantasy RPG in about 30 pages, most people on this site could. But if you write a 30 page RPG and you sell it for $5 you will not support a professional company that produces RPG because the potential playbase is too small.

So yeah lightweight games with  few rules are good (I wrote an Amber mod for Star Wars - 2 sides A4) but I don't think they are comercially viable.

Quote from: Benoist;523360Same thing with my wife when she played her first fighter at Red Box Vancouver: it was 3d6 in order and I don't think she would have considered playing one otherwise. But it was a revelation to her in the sense that she could just DO stuff and not worry about rules and options within options and all that stuff.

This is why the idea that all classes in the D&D  game should function exactly the same way, with the same amount of rules to "back them up", is a totally retarded notion. The game appeals to different people because the game provides different archetypes with different amount of rules and different types of game play behind them. Get rid of that, make all the classes the same, and you end up with a game that only appeals to one specific subset of the fandom. It is a bankrupt idea.

I'm glad it's been tried, so that the insanity of such an idea could be demonstrated. Now let's get back to an inclusive, sane game that welcomes people like my wife or yours, instead of assuming all gamers want the same thing out of the game.

That's a good point. Different classes can map to different preferences/personalities in some ways.

For example, the basic D&D fighter could appeal to Robin Laws' Butt-kicker . . . just wants to roll dice and kick butt without worrying about so many rules and devising strategy/counting squres/interrupts/feat chains/etc/etc. Perfect character class for the butt-kicker.

Quote from: jibbajibba;523365However, the wives of gamers who might like to sit down occassionally to see their husbands and humour their bizzare hobby  are not a big market segment.

Well first, my wife isn't "humoring my bizarre hobby". She likes gaming, she's a gamer. Let's be clear about that. What I'm saying is that precisely, there are different types of gamers who are searching for different types of experiences playing a game like D&D. The game should acknowledge them. If the game doesn't please half the gaming group, it's just not played in favor of another game that will. So cattering exclusively to OCD gamers is a very, very bad idea for a game's design.

Second, gamers are growing older. They have families of their own. The demographics of the hobby are changing. Gamers DO game with their wives, children, neighbours. That's a new reality of gaming that is only going to grow from now on. It's about time for the game to acknowledge that and allow everyone to have fun around the game table. Not just the OCD type.

Quote from: jibbajibba;523365If you are selling games as a business then writiing games for people that don't want a lot of rules and have no intention of actually buying games is a poor marketing decision.

You're making a leap here that doesn't make any sense. It's not because you don't want too many rules that suddenly you don't care for those that exist, for the universe that is presented via the game itself, or don't care for games that could appeal to your sensibilities.

It's a nonsensical argument.

Quote from: 1989;523373That's a good point. Different classes can map to different preferences/personalities in some ways.

For example, the basic D&D fighter could appeal to Robin Laws' Butt-kicker . . . just wants to roll dice and kick butt without worrying about so many rules and devising strategy/counting squres/interrupts/feat chains/etc/etc. Perfect character class for the butt-kicker.

That's it. From what I experienced, the TSR-era fighter appeals to two types of people, basically: the butt-kicker, who wants to do stuff, kick ass, without a lot of strings attached in terms of rules and management, and on the opposite, the tactical type who likes to use tactics at the level of the game world, by choosing the manner of the engagement, managing men at arms on the battlefied and so on. The tactical type that plays actual tactics in the game world, not the rules in a vacuum. Thedungeondelver is one of those guys. I am another.

Quote from: Benoist;523383From what I experienced, the TSR-era fighter appeals to two types of people, basically: the butt-kicker, who wants to do stuff, kick ass, without a lot of strings attached in terms of rules and management, and on the opposite, the tactical type who likes to use tactics at the level of the game world, by choosing the manner of the engagement, managing men at arms on the battlefied and so on. The tactical type that plays actual tactics in the game world, not the rules in a vacuum. Thedungeondelver is one of those guys. I am another.

And so am I.

Quote from: Benoist;523383That's it. From what I experienced, the TSR-era fighter appeals to two types of people, basically: the butt-kicker, who wants to do stuff, kick ass, without a lot of strings attached in terms of rules and management, and on the opposite, the tactical type who likes to use tactics at the level of the game world, by choosing the manner of the engagement, managing men at arms on the battlefied and so on. The tactical type that plays actual tactics in the game world, not the rules in a vacuum. Thedungeondelver is one of those guys. I am another.

See I don't agree with that I think the fighter appeals to people who want to role play a figther.....

I don't make a decision of what I play based on meta data about how the class performs in play and the nature of what it does. I read a book with a guy in it like Whirrun of Bligh and I decide wow that woudl be a cool kind of guy to play in a game. ....