Death of pen-and-paper RPG

Visual Novel Community Anime/Otaku Discussions
#1

Is it just me, or does it seem like pen-and-paper RPG’s are dying fast… and I mean REAL fast…

Many companies are turning to miniatures - although that market is having it’s own issues too. For example DP9. :frowning:

I know WotC is going to be releasing a 4th edition SRD… but I think that’s just a cheap ploy for more money. Like how they had a 3.0 and 3.5 - basically minor adjustments to the same system. Especially since the 4th edition has already been released - or at least a form of it - with the new Star Wars RPG.

#2

Was it ever a really vibrant market? I would assume it was always somewhat small and tended to ebb and flow… (Remember back when TSR wasn’t WotC?)

for me, I’ve gotten old enough that the prices now seem out of scale (“In my day these books only cost $20!”) and I have an enormous collection of books, many of which I’ve never even gotten around to using.

My happiest gaming purchase in recent years? Finding someone had dumped ALL THE ORIGINAL D&D BOX SETS in a charity shop. And half the modules, too. I am currently running people through the Palace of the Silver Princess. It’s stupid. But it’s fun. :slight_smile:

#3

True… it’s always been a niche market… But it seems rather common now, for the big companies to be faltering these days.

FASA is dead. Guardians of Order is dead. Dream Pod 9 almost died, but the people in charge these days don’t appear to be the same ones that were the ones who founded it - plus they rebooted everything. Palladium Books almost died (I’m of the mind it should have died).

The list goes on and on.

White Wolf seems to be hanging in there - although I believe that’s due to their ingenious market strategy: they jumped aboard the PDF bandwagon when it was getting good, and now are leading the effort.

Sometimes I wonder if the OGL thing with the d20 SRD was a good thing… it kinda over saturated the market.

All these “system reboots” (2nd editions, 3rd editions, 4th editions) are NOT a good thing IMHO. Sure… they’re raking in money, but they’re also fustrating as hell for a buyer. Fork over another $39.95 for a new rule book?

I’m like you. Pass. No thank you.

[ 11-02-2007, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]

#4

White Wolf is digging its own grave, they dumped the whole Vamipre: The Masquerade and made Vampire: The Requiem. When I heard that I nearly had a heartattack. For curiositys sake I bought the Requiem and let me tell you its BAD. White Wolf is going to fall big and hard…shame.

Side note: I’ve got a shelf full of pen-and-paper
games, but my first pc made me froget about them.

#5

Despite my love for gothic settings, I have yet to checkout Vampire. However my understanding, is that WW rebooted their mainlines, because things got too out of hand with the sourcebooks and additional info: basically they over saturated their stuff into crap beyond crap. So wasn’t the reboot was supposed to be a good thing?

Meh… I personally hate reboots in the Pen-and-Paper RPG market: it means paying for more of the same stuff that’s just been recycled. I’m all for improvements and corrections… but not at $40 a pop. :mad:

In any case… WW owns the DriveThruRPG site. I hear that’s making lots of $$$ - and one of the few things in the PnP market that’s actually profitable, and not just breaking even.

Yea. PC and Console are killing the Pen-and-Paper: not that have anything against the electronic versions. I love 'em too. However I believe it’s the MMO that’s seriously driving a nail in the coffin.

#6

Heh…I once went to register online at WotC to try and find another person (in this area) who wanted to play RPGs the “old school” way…

I found only one registered in my field search. Not in this metro area, but in the entire state.

Pity, it used to be fun sitting around playing some of the old mods.

#7

I’m not sure about the appeal of pen&paper RPGs for teens nowadays, truth to be told. As for oldtimers… in my club, we’re still playing RM2, Stormbringer 4th and that kind of games, i.e. games of the 80ies~

P&p RPGs require effort, imagination and reflection to be truly enjoyable, when MMORPGs don’t. Easier to play, nothing much to think: there’s no wonder it gets more success.

…not that I care anyway, since I’m still playing and enjoying my games of yesteryear. :wink:

#8

Actually, I’ve looked at what they’re saying about 4th, and it actually sounds GOOD. Iron Heroes and Arcana Unearthed were both good systems, and as I understand it both of those kind of were testing grounds for ideas they wanted to use for 4th.

3rd was good, but still has balance issues; they also significantly improved things from 2nd in terms of flexibility and fewer “you just can’t” rules. 4th looks to continue that. And they’re sanitizing the magic system!

(I mean, consider this build for 3.5: Lv1Sorc / fighter, specializing in Sunder. Take True Strike as your spell, get an Adamant weapon, and you can damn near one-shot anything. If it hasn’t got Hardness 15, max out Power Attack on a pure damage build … with True Strike, you don’t have to worry about hitting anything, it takes damage normally – and most items only HAVE 10 HP or so – it’s toast.)

[ 11-05-2007, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Nandemonai ]

#9

“Balance” issue is a stupid “modern” concept in RPG anyway. Balance IRL isn’t made by any kind of balance between professions, even nowadays: it’d be inane to think a farmer is “balanced” compared to a senior executive to a depute nowadays, the way it’d be inane to think a cleric was “balanced” compared to a knight compared to a peasant in medieval times.

Balance in a world is more than balance in the profession (“class”) you have. It’s why not everyone is a Prime Minister, nor everyone was a Knight during medieval times. Social background, money, relationships, abilities, access to facilities, those are what makes balance. Balance is created by the world, not the rules.

To take a medieval example, if you’re the son of someone so famous every little highwayman in the country knows him and you, including non-human beings, I can assure you you risk less than most big, strong, powerful adventurers because, aside the fact most people would want to protect you, the criminals themselves would rather capture you alive and treat you well instead of killing to be able to discuss with your father. Or if you’re a mere cleric of a religion that is well-known for helping anyone in need, no matter his race or alignment, anyone save the most insane would try to avoid hurting you. Even highwaymen may capture you, but they wouldn’t treat you badly, rather bringing you with them to heal them as needed.
Once again, background, personality, fortune, inherent talents, social relationships, those are what determined a character’s “power”, not abilities earned through a “class”.

[ 11-06-2007, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol ]

#10

Aye. I’m with OLF on that idea.

Originally D&D was based exclusively on things like Lord of the Rings and the Grey Mouser. In those settings, a “high level” wizard is vastly more powerful than a “high level” warrior. I mean take Conan for example – most badass barbarian (although is he really just a barbarian?) you will ever met in the Hyborian Age. Yet time and time again, Conan craps in his pants whenever someone mentions he has to take on a wizard. That he wins against them is always luck, not skill.

So in the earlier D&D systems, a low level fighter was more powerful than a low level wizard… but the wizard would eventually outstrip that fighter – as it should be. The “balance” took back seat to the “flavor” of the source material – and some argued that the fighter being more powerful in earlier levels, and then the wizard being more powerful in later levels, was the balance in of itself. Basically in old school D&D: fighter swings sword and wears armor, wizard rips and rends reality. No contest really. :smiley:

So now we come to 4th edition… which is attempting to “balance” the whole damn thing together – i.e. Western inspired wizards with Eastern inspired fighters being equal. And to be honest, I think it ruins everything… because you lose a little something of both in the process. Not to mention, that balance does not equate to fun. Sometimes being more powerful – or being more weaker – than everyone else is more entertaining.

#11

It’s becoming an habit, you know? :smiley:

#12

Hmm…

I know when I played GS for years balance became a huge issue. For me personally I like the idea of balance just for PvP instances.

The only time class had a bearing was against social or wordly entities; ie, a ranger would have a clear advantage fighting a woodland creature in a forest. Less so in an urban situation or versus an elemental creature, etc.

That same ranger, thrust into most social situations, was at a great disadvantage. Moreover, the best human diplomat would find conversation with woodland creatures impossible; the ranger his or her savior in that instance.

Time, place, skills. Clear advantages for class, but when infighting takes place desire, cunning and boldness rule.

#13

And firepower. When there are tales of battles won with the winning side armed with obsolete equipment, modern warfare proved that victory is in most part due to good logistics and superior firepower.

#14

But it is the MMOs that have created the need in PnP for “balance”.

MMOs need “balance” so that there are multiple choices that are “efficent” builds. Why? Because they don’t have a referee who can tailor the adventure to give everyone something to do.

In PnP playing, the “balance” is play time and play opportunity. If your ref gives everyone equal time and equal opportunity for fun over the lifetime of the campaign (because, you cannot always give equal time and op for each session), then it’s all good. But if one player constantly dominates and none of the other players get much time/fun, the balance is off.

#15

I know it isn’t “officially” a pen-and-paper setting, but Warhammer 40K have to be the coolest “space opera” setting ever!

Thank God it’s still hanging in there. :slight_smile:

:smiley:

#16

So, in the end, MMOs are the evil that ruined our RPGs! :wink:

#17

Hmmm… well thinking about it…

It might have been the “point system” games that really started it. Companies like FASA - Battletech and Shadowrun for example - put a lot of emphasis on “fair and balanced” for everyone involved.

All MMO did, was introduce the mainstream crowd. RTS probably had a hand in it as well - with the craze to make every side as balanced as possible - along with “ladder scoring games” like Diablo.

#18

Battletech was NOT an RPG. It was a Mech Table Top Combat— and it rocked! DEATH FROM ABOVE!!

All point systems were highly exploitable. That’s the main problem with them. Most game designers felt that once a GM/ref became sufficently experienced, they’d ban all the major exploits.

I found Shadowrun to be relatively “balanced”, so long as you avoided the “lone character doing something” problem (decker on a data run, mage on an extended astral scout, etc) and all the major players had near the same level combat reflexes. But I haven’t done Shadowrun since mid-second edition. No clue how crazy things might have got since then.

Again— in a PnP RPG, the balance is in play opportunity and ref time. In MP combat (PvP), you effectively want a rock/paper/scissors if you want a purely “fair” or “unexploitable” system. If you make it pure rock/paper/scissors, it will be boring and not unique— so of course, you need more and then you get back into needing “game balance”, because some combination is just to strong compared to other things, or some combinations are just to weak and cost-inefficent.

#19

But it’s not about what we’re talking. We’re talking about balance between characters, when IMO you’re talking about balance between players.

#20

You beat me to it OLF. The topic you are bringing up is a “whole other can of worms” related to games and gaming.

Brings back memories (at conventions) of all night bickering sessions over it. The ale helped smooth things over though :wink: