D&D 5e has failed

[hamstertamer]

Did you lose your kilt somewhere?

I hate to ask, but what the fuck does that mean?

I think he's trying to say something about "No True Scotsman"

Oh okay, so nothing to do with what I posted. Just a snarky drive by.

[virgil]

Seeing as how you were being loquacious calling nerds/geeks 'fake', I consider it fairly relevant.

[hamstertamer]

Seeing as how you were being loquacious calling nerds/geeks 'fake', I consider it fairly relevant.

So you're that kind of idiot? First of all trying to sell to "geeks," and only "geeks" is a bad business strategy. Let me show you how stupid you sound to me, I'll try... I'm a horse saddle salesman, and you come up and give me advice that I should focus on selling only to people who wear cowboy hats and cowboy boots because they are cowboys and cowboys have stuff to do with horses. And you don't believe that I have the right to call some cowboys fake. That's how stupid you are. Obviously wearing a cowboy hat does not mean you live on a ranch, have cows, ride horses, or anything normally equated with what people believe about cowboys. Wearing a cowboy hat is literally just a fashion statement in America, or more precisely(and often times temporary) identity statement. And furthermore, and more importantly, "cowboys" (or people with cowboy hats) aren't the only ones that potentially own horses and thus need saddles. Which makes it stupid for M. Mearls to try to focus on selling D&D to geek identity people. Like I said it would be like a person trying to focus on selling saddles to people with cowboy hats.

[virgil]

That was a tortured and poorly written analogy. Your earlier point *might* have done better had you not focused as much as you did on segregating the real geeks from the fake ones.

You would still be wrong, of course. It's already been postulated that prior starter kits & interactive tools failed because they weren't actually written for people new to the hobby. Your rant(s) completely fail to acknowledge this.

You say that "complexity is a barrier" is a myth? Prove it.

On a related note; the starter kits seemed kind of doomed to failure in their release strategy. I only ever saw them in stores/shelves adjacent to the other TTRPG products, which seems counterintuitive if you want more people to be aware of your product. It would also discourage people from getting them, since that's like buying "My First Superman Book" at a comic shop.

[Stubbazubba]

We were talking about building a interactive how-to-play thingamajig to help show people how to play. Now you are talking about marketing D&D with tv shows.

Yes, we were talking about interactive how-to-play thingamajigs, and then you brought up your conclusion that there just aren't that many people interested in D&D. I'm responding to that, as the quote clearly demonstrated, and as happens in every conversation you have ever had. Your inability to follow along is your problem.

But revised starter kits and interactive how-to-play bullshit is not gonna make a difference.

Based on what evidence? Did you miss the part where starter kits and how-to-plays are not designed for people new to the hobby, but people new to the edition? Yes, poorly-thought-out starter kits won't make a difference, but the argument here is that the starter kits we have seen either don't introduce new players to the basic way the game is played or they have been very narrowly distributed. Do you have an example of a well-made, widely marketed (as in outside the existing hobby) starter kit that was actually written for first-timers and didn't require an "older cousin" to explain? Because then what you are saying might make sense. But so far you're failing to make important distinctions in products and making up distinctions among players based on who knows what.

[OgreBattle]

D&D branded Choose Your Own Adventure smartphone apps that tie into gameplay would be a nice introduction to the tabletop.

Like you have one segment about grabbing your sword or bow
one about slinging spells
one about the importance of movement, flanking, etc.
Something where you take cover
And then a bunch on skill rolls (diplomacy, athletics, sneaking, etc.)

And then once you're done with that adventure you've been exposed to most of the options a player has in any given turn.

[hamstertamer]

We were talking about building a interactive how-to-play thingamajig to help show people how to play. Now you are talking about marketing D&D with tv shows.

Yes, we were talking about interactive how-to-play thingamajigs, and then you brought up your conclusion that there just aren't that many people interested in D&D. I'm responding to that, as the quote clearly demonstrated, and as happens in every conversation you have ever had. Your inability to follow along is your problem.

But revised starter kits and interactive how-to-play bullshit is not gonna make a difference.

Based on what evidence? Did you miss the part where starter kits and how-to-plays are not designed for people new to the hobby, but people new to the edition? Yes, poorly-thought-out starter kits won't make a difference, but the argument here is that the starter kits we have seen either don't introduce new players to the basic way the game is played or they have been very narrowly distributed. Do you have an example of a well-made, widely marketed (as in outside the existing hobby) starter kit that was actually written for first-timers and didn't require an "older cousin" to explain? Because then what you are saying might make sense. But so far you're failing to make important distinctions in products and making up distinctions among players based on who knows what.

Well, well-made, widely marketed is an opinion. I've bought starter kits before, but never needed them and never met a new player that bought one all on their own. I was always under the impression that "starter-kits" were for new players, and not for converting old players as you are suggesting. But I don't think it will make much difference in recruiting new players anyway because I don't believe in the "complexity-as-barrier" myth.

I think the TV show thing is far better. Probably a cartoon or maybe a reality tv show of kids 10ish to 14ish playing D&D with impressive visual effects. This will help motivate people to consider the D&D product at least. And that's important, motivating people to want to get their hands on the product and play. But that's all you got then, people considering and some buying the product. RPGs has to be for you or not. D&D is for people that like complex games. And of course you must have other people to play with. Lack of other people to play with is far more the reason people don't play RPGs. It's doesn't matter how perfect and elegant you make your "starter kit." You need other people first. But chances are if you have a group of people to play with, then you already have an "older cousin" to teach you.

[hamstertamer]

That was a tortured and poorly written analogy. Your earlier point *might* have done better had you not focused as much as you did on segregating the real geeks from the fake ones.

You would still be wrong, of course. It's already been postulated that prior starter kits & interactive tools failed because they weren't actually written for people new to the hobby. Your rant(s) completely fail to acknowledge this.

You say that "complexity is a barrier" is a myth? Prove it.

On a related note; the starter kits seemed kind of doomed to failure in their release strategy. I only ever saw them in stores/shelves adjacent to the other TTRPG products, which seems counterintuitive if you want more people to be aware of your product. It would also discourage people from getting them, since that's like buying "My First Superman Book" at a comic shop.

Show me one person that likes playing RPGs that doesn't like complex games. It's self evident.

Since your a confused little fellow, I'll break it down for you.

examples of simple games....

sorry
go fish (card game)


increased complexity...

monopoly
poker

more complexity

MTG

even more complexity...

Dungeons & Dragons

get it?

Those were all games mind you, we aren't even talking about sitting and watching TV, which usually beats most other activities on a Friday night.

Inspiring new players to play the game is far more important than other considerations. You could have world's greatest interactive thingagig, but if no one cares, then so what? If a new player has no one to play with, then so what?

[virgil]

Show me one person that likes playing RPGs that doesn't like complex games. It's self evident.

That's not proof. Try again.

[JigokuBosatsu]

I'm a horse saddle salesman

That was a tortured and poorly written analogy.

I don't think that was an analogy, I think those are his game design bona fides.

[Hiram McDaniels]

Another myth is that geekdom is mainstream now, so there more opportunity to recruit them for TTRPGs. False. Geekdom is popular, yes, but superficially. Like a hipster that wears glasses with no lenses. And more importantly, the products, like movies and video games, make big money. People see legitimacy in things that make big money, so being called a "geek/nerd" is ok now, because geek/nerds make lots of money. Wanting to be apart of geek/nerd culture does not mean you want to sit down and play a TTRPG on Friday night. The other problem is that in geekdom, since it's mainstream to be geek now, is that cool "geeks" are repulsed by the part of geekdom that are actually geeks/nerds. No one wants to sit at table on Friday night playing a game with actual geek/nerds.

My fiance would be interested to read that. Her D&D group is made up entirely of attractive and socially well adjusted Portland hipster girls.

[Hiram McDaniels]

- A skill system that does not amount to binary pass/fail rolls. 3.X' skill system was better than most by at least assigning some definite DCs to example tasks, so you could eyeball your chance of succeeding or failing at tasks. But the fact still is, the whole party being unable to advance the plot or maybe even dying because one member botched a single pass/fail Search or Survival check really sucks. They lead to either shitty games, or, more probably, GMs simply fudging with DCs in secret until the probability of unwanted outcome of that pass/fail check is minimal. Ironically 3.X in large part mitigated this problem because magic made many skills irrelevant very quickly. Which is hardly a good feature either, considering how much filddling the 3.X skill system demanded - unimportant systems should not be this complex.

What if the mechanic that occupies the space of "skills" doesn't grant numerical bonuses at all?

I mean, of course you need to have some sort of system for determining whether or not Ranger Danger successfully crosses a slippery log bridge: you know, general adventure stuff. But that could be handled old school style, with ability checks vs. DC.

For the specialized stuff though, why not treat "skills" similar to spells, in that they have defined effects and parameters? Like you literally become so awesome at stealth that you can essentially become invisible as an extraordinary ability, or you're so athletic that you can leap 100 ft. into the air, or you know so much about nature that you can charm animals and affect the weather.

[Foxwarrior]

For the specialized stuff though, why not treat "skills" similar to spells, in that they have defined effects and parameters? Like you literally become so awesome at stealth that you can essentially become invisible as an extraordinary ability, or you're so athletic that you can leap 100 ft. into the air, or you know so much about nature that you can charm animals and affect the weather.

http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Prowes ... rcebook%29

[JigokuBosatsu]

Hiram McD, don't tell me there's now another Denizen from Portland. Eek.

[Hiram McDaniels]

For the specialized stuff though, why not treat "skills" similar to spells, in that they have defined effects and parameters? Like you literally become so awesome at stealth that you can essentially become invisible as an extraordinary ability, or you're so athletic that you can leap 100 ft. into the air, or you know so much about nature that you can charm animals and affect the weather.

http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Prowes ... rcebook%29

Ahh. Seems I'm not the only one who had this idea.

Hiram McD, don't tell me there's now another Denizen from Portland. Eek.

Well, Hillsboro...but yeah.

[MfA]

My fiance would be interested to read that. Her D&D group is made up entirely of attractive and socially well adjusted Portland hipster girls.

That doesn't actually refute it ... in how many communities could she find such a group?

[MfA]

I mean, of course you need to have some sort of system for determining whether or not Ranger Danger successfully crosses a slippery log bridge: you know, general adventure stuff. But that could be handled old school style, with ability checks vs. DC.

For the specialized stuff though, why not treat "skills" similar to spells, in that they have defined effects and parameters? Like you literally become so awesome at stealth that you can essentially become invisible as an extraordinary ability, or you're so athletic that you can leap 100 ft. into the air, or you know so much about nature that you can charm animals and affect the weather.

That just shifts the boundaries a bit ... you get forced back to sucking off the DM slightly less often, but you still get forced back to it. Also presumably you wouldn't give out those Ex abilities at low level, so the low level game would still just be sucking non stop.

[Username17]

My fiance would be interested to read that. Her D&D group is made up entirely of attractive and socially well adjusted Portland hipster girls.

That doesn't actually refute it ... in how many communities could she find such a group?

Actually it totally does. Hamstertamer's original rant was that "No one" wanted to hang out with actual geeks. So if you find even one person who does want to hang out with geeks or one group of geeks that are composed entirely of conventionally attractive people, Hamstertamer is refuted in the strict logical sense.

Now granted, the original rant was probably intended to be taken hyperbolically, but it's still basically just a No True Scotsman argument. Any geeks that you want to hang out with are "fake geeks" and the mainstreaming of geek culture means that less and less geeks are "true geeks" until I suppose we get to the point where major actors and members of congress play World of Warcraft and there aren't any true geeks left at all.

-Username17

[fectin]

Show me one person that likes playing RPGs that doesn't like complex games.

Do you even lurk, bro? Silva posts here all the time.

[erik]

Show me one person that likes playing RPGs that doesn't like complex games.

Do you even lurk, bro? Silva posts here all the time.

He said person.

But yes, there are RPGs that aren't complex and people do enjoy them. That said, finding more holes in hamster's arguments is like counting coup on a corpse.

[Hiram McDaniels]

My fiance would be interested to read that. Her D&D group is made up entirely of attractive and socially well adjusted Portland hipster girls.

That doesn't actually refute it ... in how many communities could she find such a group?

Many. Roleplaying games and related activities certainly aren't for everyone, but they're not for nobody either.

There is a caveat; the vast majority of gamers aren't into hardcore number crunching and theorycrafting like Gaming Den, or Brilliant Gameologists, or the D&D Charop boards, and they're not into deeply immersive, method acting roleplay like all those World Of Darkness groups that I avoid. Most gamers sit down once every couple of weeks to play, have a good time, then put their books away and do other shit until it's time to game again. We know this because:

A) WotC's estimate from the 2010 GAMA show is around 1.5 million actively playing tabletop RPG's, and counting up the membership of the various gaming related forums, you get around 350-400,000 active accounts in total, even generously assuming that none of these are the same people posting in different communities, only about 27% of the hobby gives enough of a shit to talk about it online.

B) When you try talking about Gaming Den shit with your real life group, they change the subject to work or sports or something.

So if you consider casual gamers to be real gamers, and you should, then you can find many communities where conventionally attractive and hip people are happy to sit down and play RPG's. In my experience, all you need to do is invite people.

That just shifts the boundaries a bit ... you get forced back to sucking off the DM slightly less often, but you still get forced back to it. Also presumably you wouldn't give out those Ex abilities at low level, so the low level game would still just be sucking non stop.

Well ideally when designing such a system, you would isolate what tiers certain abilities like alternate movement over short distances, distance communication, remote viewing, AoE blast effects, etc. and standardize them among classes. So some things would be available during shit covered peasant tier where appropriate. Like if a Druid can summon a squirrel to go ask the Widow Johnson to the barnyard dance with him, then the Rogue with Nature specialization or whatever should be able to train one to do the same thing.

Also the idea is for people to NOT have to suck GM cock, which is why these would have explicitly defined effects like spells do. And why are people here so obsessed with fellating GM's? I realize that no one wants the chief resolution mechanic to be "mother may I", but no matter how comprehensive and well-defined your rule system is, at some point the GM is going to have to use his/her actual human judgment faculties to make an actual decision, and if that GM is a fuck barrel, then that decision is going to screw you. I don't see any way around this other than:

Programming a computer to simulate GM activities, which would be hilarious since all of the NPC's and monsters would sound like Siri, or Stephen Hawkings vocalizer.

Or just not playing with fuck barrel GM's.

[MfA]

So if you consider casual gamers to be real gamers, and you should, then you can find many communities where conventionally attractive and hip people are happy to sit down and play RPG's.

In many communities finding hip people at all would be a problem ...

but no matter how comprehensive and well-defined your rule system is

I don't think this description belongs to a system which has to fall back to ability checks for mundane environmental challenges, even if everyone can walk on air/water at higher levels. The low level game in D&D is always going to be relatively mundane focused and it will probably always remain the most played level range, so I just don't see how your suggestion helps much.

[RedstoneOrc]

Show me one person that likes playing RPGs that doesn't like complex games.

Do you even lurk, bro? Silva posts here all the time.

He said person.

But yes, there are RPGs that aren't complex and people do enjoy them. That said, finding more holes in hamster's arguments is like counting coup on a corpse.

I read that "counting poop on a corpse" reread it and decided I liked it better my way.

[Dogbert]

Have you noticed how the people who tend to say "trust the GM" more often tend to be exactly the kind of GM you should never trust?

Just saying.

FATE doesn't have thorough lists of DC benchmarks by skill either, but then FATE was written for shared narrative, and all the way throughout the book, the tone and prose tells the GM that he is to be the players' friend (not their adversary), he is to weave a story in concert with them (not against them), he is to be a facilitator (not a gate keeper).

Now, on the other hand, if you read 5E's tone...

[Maxus]

Have you noticed how the people who tend to say "trust the GM" more often tend to be exactly the kind of GM you should never trust?

....

5e's tone

This is exactly why my contribution to D&D NEXT was a ton of "YOU, THE DM, ARE GOD THE PLAYERS ARE ACTORS IN YOUR STORY" stories.