Cleric: "But it that reef shark willing?"
Mage: "Sure he's willing, he's willing to bite me, so he's willing to listen to reason. And he's familiar too! Look, he's swimming around right there."
Cleric: "I don't know, don't ask me to rez you should this go wrong."
Mage: "Don't worry about it! Lookie here casting telepathy! Bang, he has an INT of at least one, so now it works. Oh, wow, I am hungry now. All I feel like doing is swimming and eating."
Cleric: "I told you, hey! Stop biting me!"
Mage: "Sorry, old habits. Now, suggestion!"
Cleric: "Did it work?"
Mage: "I'm Aquaman! I'm Aquaman!"
Friday, October 3, 2014
D&D 5: Openness and Campaign Worlds
There's a quote in the new D&D 5 Monster Manual that says the monsters in the book are "yours to do with as you wish" and mentions making minotaur shipbuilders and pirates. Or anything in the book anything you want. There is also a "do what you want" support for classic settings and campaign worlds, allowing you to roll things back to the setting you loved.
There is a new-found openness in D&D 5 that I find refreshing. I would love for them to back this up with a community license that lets 3rd party companies play and publish, but we shall see. D&D 4 had this in it's "build your own" campaign world setting, but it feels the Nerrath-centric model has been rolled back in favor of classic settings in this edition. One sore point with D&D 4 was the sloppy retconning and treatment of the iconic game worlds where so much was changed it hurt longtime fans' perception of the brand. We need to see the D&D 5 DMG to see how far the new-found openness goes, and the game's assumptions of world-building and how far they want you to change things.
It feels like there are limits though. The numbers are tight, the magic item power is low, and the game has a particular low-fantasy feel. You are not going to do a typical MMO with gear-flation and massive item power with D&D 5, because you will break the game.
It is interesting to compare this openness with Pathfinder, where the default Golarion world feels like a sticky ball that prevents you from making a new world because there's room for everything in the default campaign world. Of course, nothing really prevents you, and the Paizo Gammastery Guide is a great resource for world building, but it is just too easy to stay in Golarion since "why go anywhere else?"
It's like the Walmart effect on small local businesses, Paizo's Golarion has a tendency to crush any other third-party game world around it with a single and focused specialty. Why create a "Ravenloft" style Pathfinder world when Golarion has a dedicated area just for that? Oh, and you can go get shoes, hardware, and frozen foods while you are there too. To compete with that, you need to be a big player, like Midgard or any of the other "big box" game worlds. The barrier to creating a third-party world players care about is high, since the default world covers everything and is so well-known to players.
It almost feels like the Forgotten Realms back in the day, that setting was so big in players' minds that it crushed anything around it. The difference was the Realms had this "author protection" effect where different areas would be "owned" by different book series, and the world had to go farther and father out to find spots that were unexplored and open for adventure. And then the fiction caught up, and farther out still you had to go. The Realms also was not as heavily "theme parked" as Golarion is nowadays, with spots for everything, a giant Sphinx, an Eiffel Tower, some pyramids, a Caesar's Palace, oh wait...that's the Las Vegas Strip.
I get that and Golarion confused sometimes.
You know I kid, but there is a little truth to that. I love Pathfinder and Golarion and The Strip, it just feels sometimes the weight of Paizo's single-world business model limits my creativity, or more importantly, the willingness for players I play with to want to play in anything else but the default setting. In contrast, D&D 5's dowhatchawant sort of relaxed focus on settings and creativity appeals to my creative side, Wizards is trying to repair a lot of customer animosity after the D&D 4 schism, so there is room here to mend fences. It remains to be seen what Wizards ultimately does with campaign settings and how heavy-handed they will be when it comes time to release campaign guides, but I am getting positive vibes now. I am hopeful.
At least the community seems tired of the system wars this time around, and everyone is free to play what they want. Thank goodness somebody's wish was heard. Go forth, playwhatchawant, build your worlds, and keep role-playing alive and well.
There is a new-found openness in D&D 5 that I find refreshing. I would love for them to back this up with a community license that lets 3rd party companies play and publish, but we shall see. D&D 4 had this in it's "build your own" campaign world setting, but it feels the Nerrath-centric model has been rolled back in favor of classic settings in this edition. One sore point with D&D 4 was the sloppy retconning and treatment of the iconic game worlds where so much was changed it hurt longtime fans' perception of the brand. We need to see the D&D 5 DMG to see how far the new-found openness goes, and the game's assumptions of world-building and how far they want you to change things.
It feels like there are limits though. The numbers are tight, the magic item power is low, and the game has a particular low-fantasy feel. You are not going to do a typical MMO with gear-flation and massive item power with D&D 5, because you will break the game.
It is interesting to compare this openness with Pathfinder, where the default Golarion world feels like a sticky ball that prevents you from making a new world because there's room for everything in the default campaign world. Of course, nothing really prevents you, and the Paizo Gammastery Guide is a great resource for world building, but it is just too easy to stay in Golarion since "why go anywhere else?"
It's like the Walmart effect on small local businesses, Paizo's Golarion has a tendency to crush any other third-party game world around it with a single and focused specialty. Why create a "Ravenloft" style Pathfinder world when Golarion has a dedicated area just for that? Oh, and you can go get shoes, hardware, and frozen foods while you are there too. To compete with that, you need to be a big player, like Midgard or any of the other "big box" game worlds. The barrier to creating a third-party world players care about is high, since the default world covers everything and is so well-known to players.
It almost feels like the Forgotten Realms back in the day, that setting was so big in players' minds that it crushed anything around it. The difference was the Realms had this "author protection" effect where different areas would be "owned" by different book series, and the world had to go farther and father out to find spots that were unexplored and open for adventure. And then the fiction caught up, and farther out still you had to go. The Realms also was not as heavily "theme parked" as Golarion is nowadays, with spots for everything, a giant Sphinx, an Eiffel Tower, some pyramids, a Caesar's Palace, oh wait...that's the Las Vegas Strip.
I get that and Golarion confused sometimes.
You know I kid, but there is a little truth to that. I love Pathfinder and Golarion and The Strip, it just feels sometimes the weight of Paizo's single-world business model limits my creativity, or more importantly, the willingness for players I play with to want to play in anything else but the default setting. In contrast, D&D 5's dowhatchawant sort of relaxed focus on settings and creativity appeals to my creative side, Wizards is trying to repair a lot of customer animosity after the D&D 4 schism, so there is room here to mend fences. It remains to be seen what Wizards ultimately does with campaign settings and how heavy-handed they will be when it comes time to release campaign guides, but I am getting positive vibes now. I am hopeful.
At least the community seems tired of the system wars this time around, and everyone is free to play what they want. Thank goodness somebody's wish was heard. Go forth, playwhatchawant, build your worlds, and keep role-playing alive and well.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
D&D 5: In Favor of Role Playing Rules
D&D 5 adds mechanical rules for role-playing to the game. Through a system of five defined personality traits that the DM uses to grant a one-use, rechargeable, Inspiration Point, which can be saved and gives the play advantage on a roll (or used for other player's rolls).
I'm not too positive on this system, since I believe it limits the rewards DMs can give to players for good roleplaying, and it is also slightly exploitable. Unless there are other systems in the DMG that are added, I feel a little limited by this system and I find it isn't needed during the sessions we play.
However, let me think of the reasons why you may want to use this system.
Perhaps this is intended for new players and DMs who don't understand the concept of rewarding good roleplaying with in-game bonuses. If you are coming in from another more structured fame environment, how is a new DM supposed to judge and reward play that adheres to a character's personality limitation or belief system? It is an interesting thought, one that makes me think D&D 5 is actually aimed at people outside the hobby.
Think about it, if you never played a pen-and-paper game, and you don't know anyone who does - how are you supposed to know how to reward roleplaying?
This reasoning may also be behind why things are so simplified, like not including map-based combat rules. Nothing intimidates new players more than a map with figures, I have seen people freeze up, not want to touch things, and ask constantly, "Can I do this?" or "Is this okay?" It is part of learning yes, but it can be overwhelming to a new player.
It extends to the Monster Manual as well, with the simplified statistics, lower amounts of special attacks and abilities, and simplified and graphical presentation. Things feel simple because they are intended to be that way for new players.
I see some of that in the Player's Handbook too, there aren't many detailed character build options because those are intimidating, the number range is tighter because it is supposed to work across many levels, and the role of magic items has been reduced to make character builds and gear less important.
It is interesting to think of D&D 5 as a level 1 through 20 version of the Pathfinder Beginner Box, and this may be really what the game is the closest to in spirit.
Another reason why you may want to use the roleplaying rules is in organized play. As a DM, you may want to wash your hands of favoritism accusations from troublesome players or people you don't know, and use the system as a safeguard to make sure everything appears fair. It takes away some of the dynamic and social aspects of the game, but it is sort of a 'protection system' where a DM can coldly award inspiration if action X fulfills motivation Y.
You are never giving advantage to rolls that are fun or entertaining here, but in a public session with people you don't know, you don't want to appear to be playing favorites with certain outgoing players and have some people turned off by that. Removing the DM's role from some of the more interpretative parts of the game has been a theme since D&D 4, and it's possible some people are turned off by a creative and involved DM.
"Well, I can't be that entertaining or creative, and that DM is playing favorites with certain players, so I don't want to play that game."
"I would never play that. I don't even know how to act or what good that does."
You may laugh, but I have seen these feelings out there among people. It's odd, in order for the game to be more socially acceptable, the creative and interpretative parts are being ruled down into strict "yes or no" paths. To us old-schoolers where we want everyone to be involved and we don't think twice about rewarding creative play, it may seem strange to us. But to outsiders in the hobby, having these types of rules is actually "protection" for them and it is seen as something that ensures their contributions to the game will be rewarded.
Part of me feels sad roleplaying has fallen so far out of the mainstream this needs to be taught or enforced with defined rules. I guess it is like remembering the days of computing before antivirus programs were needed for everything, and picking and possibly paying for one was a requirement to get online and doing anything. I suppose I may use those rules with newer players in public settings, but then again, I will abandon them is a group feels like they are limiting their fun and we are all comfortable with my 'reward good play' DM-ing style.
Ultimately, you will play the way you want to play, but I find it very helpful to know why these systems were put in place, and knowing when they can help a group of players.
I'm not too positive on this system, since I believe it limits the rewards DMs can give to players for good roleplaying, and it is also slightly exploitable. Unless there are other systems in the DMG that are added, I feel a little limited by this system and I find it isn't needed during the sessions we play.
However, let me think of the reasons why you may want to use this system.
Perhaps this is intended for new players and DMs who don't understand the concept of rewarding good roleplaying with in-game bonuses. If you are coming in from another more structured fame environment, how is a new DM supposed to judge and reward play that adheres to a character's personality limitation or belief system? It is an interesting thought, one that makes me think D&D 5 is actually aimed at people outside the hobby.
Think about it, if you never played a pen-and-paper game, and you don't know anyone who does - how are you supposed to know how to reward roleplaying?
This reasoning may also be behind why things are so simplified, like not including map-based combat rules. Nothing intimidates new players more than a map with figures, I have seen people freeze up, not want to touch things, and ask constantly, "Can I do this?" or "Is this okay?" It is part of learning yes, but it can be overwhelming to a new player.
It extends to the Monster Manual as well, with the simplified statistics, lower amounts of special attacks and abilities, and simplified and graphical presentation. Things feel simple because they are intended to be that way for new players.
I see some of that in the Player's Handbook too, there aren't many detailed character build options because those are intimidating, the number range is tighter because it is supposed to work across many levels, and the role of magic items has been reduced to make character builds and gear less important.
It is interesting to think of D&D 5 as a level 1 through 20 version of the Pathfinder Beginner Box, and this may be really what the game is the closest to in spirit.
Another reason why you may want to use the roleplaying rules is in organized play. As a DM, you may want to wash your hands of favoritism accusations from troublesome players or people you don't know, and use the system as a safeguard to make sure everything appears fair. It takes away some of the dynamic and social aspects of the game, but it is sort of a 'protection system' where a DM can coldly award inspiration if action X fulfills motivation Y.
You are never giving advantage to rolls that are fun or entertaining here, but in a public session with people you don't know, you don't want to appear to be playing favorites with certain outgoing players and have some people turned off by that. Removing the DM's role from some of the more interpretative parts of the game has been a theme since D&D 4, and it's possible some people are turned off by a creative and involved DM.
"Well, I can't be that entertaining or creative, and that DM is playing favorites with certain players, so I don't want to play that game."
"I would never play that. I don't even know how to act or what good that does."
You may laugh, but I have seen these feelings out there among people. It's odd, in order for the game to be more socially acceptable, the creative and interpretative parts are being ruled down into strict "yes or no" paths. To us old-schoolers where we want everyone to be involved and we don't think twice about rewarding creative play, it may seem strange to us. But to outsiders in the hobby, having these types of rules is actually "protection" for them and it is seen as something that ensures their contributions to the game will be rewarded.
Part of me feels sad roleplaying has fallen so far out of the mainstream this needs to be taught or enforced with defined rules. I guess it is like remembering the days of computing before antivirus programs were needed for everything, and picking and possibly paying for one was a requirement to get online and doing anything. I suppose I may use those rules with newer players in public settings, but then again, I will abandon them is a group feels like they are limiting their fun and we are all comfortable with my 'reward good play' DM-ing style.
Ultimately, you will play the way you want to play, but I find it very helpful to know why these systems were put in place, and knowing when they can help a group of players.
Fun With D&D 5 Magic: Fire Safety
Party: "Oncoming orcs coming through the woods! Mage!"
Mage: "I got them, watch out, fireball-"
Mage: *gets clocked by a giant bear paw*
Party: "What the? Mage is down!"
Sooty the Owlbear: "Remember, the only fire spell you should use in the wilderness is fire storm. Only that spell specifically has an exemption that does not affect plant life."
Cleric: "But what about dead leaves, or firewood, fallen branches, or twigs? They aren't plant life anymore since they are not alive, are they? Otherwise it wouldn't affect a house made of wood."
Thief: "What is that, an exemption druids lobbied for? All I'd have to do is wear cotton."
Fighter: "What about the orcs, if we set them on fire, won't they fall over and set the plants on fire?"
*the rest of the party gets clocked*
Sooty the Owlbear: "Don't get smart with me! I'm not your dungeon master."
Mage: "I got them, watch out, fireball-"
Mage: *gets clocked by a giant bear paw*
Party: "What the? Mage is down!"
Sooty the Owlbear: "Remember, the only fire spell you should use in the wilderness is fire storm. Only that spell specifically has an exemption that does not affect plant life."
Cleric: "But what about dead leaves, or firewood, fallen branches, or twigs? They aren't plant life anymore since they are not alive, are they? Otherwise it wouldn't affect a house made of wood."
Thief: "What is that, an exemption druids lobbied for? All I'd have to do is wear cotton."
Fighter: "What about the orcs, if we set them on fire, won't they fall over and set the plants on fire?"
*the rest of the party gets clocked*
Sooty the Owlbear: "Don't get smart with me! I'm not your dungeon master."
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Fun With D&D 5 Magic: With Friends Like These
Shopkeeper: "And my whole store is 50% off, just for you guys!"
Party: "Yay!"
Mage: "Guys, let's just get in and out, okay? This shouldn't take long, right?"
Party: "What's the rush? We have just got here, and it's all 50% off!"
Shopkeeper: "AGAIN????! I'M GONNA KILL YOU GUYS FOR-"
Party: "???"
Mage: *casts friends cantrip again*
Shopkeeper: "Gotcha, didn't I? Aw, guys, don't mind me, go ahead and keep shopping, it's all 50% off today, just for you guys!"
Mage: "Don't worry about him, he just has a nervous tick, that's all. Stress. That's it. Stress. We're best buds, me and my shopkeeper pal here. What a kidder, I tell ya."
Party: "Yay!"
Mage: "Guys, let's just get in and out, okay? This shouldn't take long, right?"
Party: "What's the rush? We have just got here, and it's all 50% off!"
Shopkeeper: "AGAIN????! I'M GONNA KILL YOU GUYS FOR-"
Party: "???"
Mage: *casts friends cantrip again*
Shopkeeper: "Gotcha, didn't I? Aw, guys, don't mind me, go ahead and keep shopping, it's all 50% off today, just for you guys!"
Mage: "Don't worry about him, he just has a nervous tick, that's all. Stress. That's it. Stress. We're best buds, me and my shopkeeper pal here. What a kidder, I tell ya."
D&D 5: Monster Manual, First Impressions
So guess what came in the mail today? The D&D 5 Monster Manual, and now my players playing my monster-less Forgotten Realms campaign can breath a sigh of relief, right?Nah, I think I'll keep it that way, intelligent NPCs with character classes are all the monster I need in that game. It's a fun take on a D&D world where the world has been "farmed clean" of most of the standard evil critters (they are rare or in legend only), and the intelligent races turn on each other with backstabbing, dark gods, and political intrigue. It also keeps the world different from my other creations, and lets us start a fresh game somewhere else.
This book really opens up Greyhawk and other worlds, where monsters are a must. So let me flip through this book and pull a HP Lovecraft on the World of Greyhawk, and see what we come up with. I can't do a full review of this book yet, so today's article will just be first impressions, reactions, and thoughts as I flip through the book.
The art is amazing, spectacular at points. Wow, I am impressed. Just as a D&D monsters coffee-table book this is an impressive looking work. All the stops were pulled out in the art department, and it shows. Nice job, Wizards, this is one of the best-looking books you have ever made.
The art is really prominent, to the point where I am concerned that there isn't enough mechanical crunch to the monsters. This version of D&D feels decidedly anti-crunch, and lets the DM make a lot up as they go along. This is both good and bad. It's good in that an experienced DM will know what these monsters can do from previous editions, and have a bag of "dirty tricks" for combat tactics in mind during play. Less-experienced DMs will run these monsters as-is with less powers and tactics, and the 'play experience' between an experienced DM and an inexperienced on may be vastly different.
It's a worry I have, and you saw them try to address this in the "combat scripts" in the 3E and Pathfinder bestiaries. In those games, monsters are list after list of feats, special abilities, special defenses, and attacks - it feels like the DM is turned into a C++ compiler trying to figure out what a monster can do from turn-to-turn. I hate running monsters in 3E and Pathfinder, especially high level ones, because they are so darn complicated you can only really have one or two before mental gridlock sets in and you are fudging most of it anyways.
This is a step in the right direction for complexity, but in some of these monsters I feel a little is missing. I feel there is this danger of them turning into 'easy mode' bags of hit points without special ways to fight back against clever and resourceful players. I am not feeling that low-level OGR old-school danger, especially with higher-end monsters. This is just a first feeling, I will need to play with these monsters and report back on our group's experiences.
Hit points are lower than 4E, but still above the OGR games by about twice.
I am not seeing how to apply class levels to monsters, Unless I am missing something, this part feels like an omission and something I need to run challenging humanoid monsters with class levels. There is a blurb saying "monster modification will be in the DMG," so I hope we get full humanoid class support very soon. Of course, I could just take a set of class abilities and apply it over the top of a monster, but I want to see the official ruling on this along with challenge level adjustments.
In their current forms, most humanoid monsters are the basic level one versions, and while this may be great starting out, I never want my players to dismiss an orc just because they are presented as a low-level monster in the MM. All races, even monster races, have equal opportunity to level up in classes and cause trouble in my game worlds. This is a requirement of how I play, and I like things to be dangerous in my worlds.
Azeroth's loveable orcs have come home to D&D! Wow, even the shoulder-pads on these guys look familiar. I take back all that stuff about D&D 5 feeling like Lord of the Rings in this regard. If there is a misstep in the art, I think this is it. Maybe it is intentional, maybe because of World of Warcraft's cultural influence it is hard for anyone to see orcs as anything different than their zug-zug, lok-tar, angst-filled warmongering emo selves.Then again, I shall point you towards an excellent game, Shadows of Mordor, and say Middle Earth's orcs still can kick ass, look unique and awesome, and have fight in them yet. I will even go as far to say Shadows of Mordor's orcs look cooler and could kick more ass than Blizzard's orcs. Check the game out, they are just cool enemies, true to the original, and full of character and bile with a unique and eye-catching sense of design.
Could Wizards have taken a different 'take' on orcs? I don't know, D&D has always sat at the crossroads of pop-culture, so it is not immune to popular influences of the day. This applies to all the monsters really, they are all pulled in from different fantasy sources, pop-culture, Lord of the Rings, and any other fantasy influence de jour. D&D is an agglomeration, a crossroads, and it can't escape the gravitational pull of pop culture. The only parts that are immune to this force are the D&D trademark iconic monsters and features, mind flayers, beholders, drows/Lolth and the like. Wizards sets the cultural direction on these, and it is the brand's strength.
Wow. World of Warcraft orcs. Now I have a headache on how I am going to play these. Of course, I don't have to play them this way, but um, I can't get them out of my head looking at those images. Okay, Greyhawk is out, that is too old-school in my head to zug-zug with like that. I can't do straight Azeroth as well, too many damn pandas. An old-school Warcraft I-III inspired world where some crazy god tried to mix D&D with an RTS, of which I shall call Shadows of Dangeroth? Okay, that I can do.
Damn, the nightmare is impossible to ride without getting a flame full of face. Maybe I'll rule that to be 'orange hair' instead of something the NTSB will issue a recall over.
Page 206, Frank Castle versus the werewolf.
Pager 50, one of the best, most evocative pieces in the book.
Overall? Not a bad purchase, and great as an inspiration book. I would recommend this, but keep an eye out for monsters the MM says are weak, and be prepared to house-rule, add powers, and mod them as you see fit. They feel a bit on the weak and under-cooked side overall, so be ready to spice them up on your own, and put your own finishing touches on each one. I cannot see myself using them straight out of the book, I shall tweak, I shall mod, and my players will never know what hit them.
More later, but those are my first feelings on the D&D 5E Monster Manual.
The Casual Pen-and-Paper Gamer
This is the new battleground. The casual pen-and-paper gamer.
They are by definition exclusively new players too, drawn in from the world of video games, MMOs, cell phone games, Youtube, tablets, and other places. Forget the hardcore - they are already playing and bought-in, the profits and future customers of the roleplaying depend on new players.
Every industry chases 'the new player' and you even see legacy MMOs in decline trying to reinvent themselves to attract a new player base. This is where World of Warcraft is right now, a declining (but mature) hobby struggling to reinvent itself for that large group of casual players out there with little time to invest and who frankly aren't sold on the idea of logging to a faction grind in every day.
World of Warcraft's problem is essentially Zynga's with Farmville and Mafia Wars - how do you make a game interesting to play when it is essentially a game of "who gets bigger numbers?" Granted in each those 'numbers' turn out to be little pieces of gear, new critters for the farm, or a bigger number to bonk other players over the head with - but they are numbers hidden by 3d graphics, achievements, pets, or other virtual representations. Sometimes they are just numbers, like stamina or the endless faction reputation values in WoW.
Numbers are not cool.
Social, right? Our game is a social experience! World of Warcraft was like that for a while, you played because that's where everybody else was, but social is never a reason to play something when no one is playing, it's fire without fuel. Social can amplify a game's popularity, but you can't sell people on social in a barren desert. Unless you are Las Vegas, but that's only been done once.
So the casual player, that incredibly large mass of players out there with nothing else better to do than wait to play your game. Right? You have to answer the question, why should they? D&D 5, Pathfinder Beginner Box, or Five Moons, why play? What makes this as 'pick up and play' as the next Angry Birds? What makes this game so cool I will sit and watch people play it endlessly on Youtube? Look at your game. Is it really that casual? Is it really that fun? What screams at people and engages them? What makes this game so fun that you have to play it, or even watch people play it?
If your answer is "we have better numbers" you are not thinking it right.
There is a question, how many casuals pen-and-paper gamers are out there? While I love Pathfinder or even D&D 5 I know plenty of people that play casual games who's eyes would water just looking at the books and dismiss them as 'not for them'. Of course the hard-core players love these games, and we system wars ourselves to incredible lengths over them - that's just who we are. But those casuals. Who are they? What are they doing now? How do you entice them?
How do you get them to say, "This is cool! I wanna be doing this!"
Or most importantly, "I want to be seen doing this."
They are by definition exclusively new players too, drawn in from the world of video games, MMOs, cell phone games, Youtube, tablets, and other places. Forget the hardcore - they are already playing and bought-in, the profits and future customers of the roleplaying depend on new players.
Every industry chases 'the new player' and you even see legacy MMOs in decline trying to reinvent themselves to attract a new player base. This is where World of Warcraft is right now, a declining (but mature) hobby struggling to reinvent itself for that large group of casual players out there with little time to invest and who frankly aren't sold on the idea of logging to a faction grind in every day.
World of Warcraft's problem is essentially Zynga's with Farmville and Mafia Wars - how do you make a game interesting to play when it is essentially a game of "who gets bigger numbers?" Granted in each those 'numbers' turn out to be little pieces of gear, new critters for the farm, or a bigger number to bonk other players over the head with - but they are numbers hidden by 3d graphics, achievements, pets, or other virtual representations. Sometimes they are just numbers, like stamina or the endless faction reputation values in WoW.
Numbers are not cool.
Social, right? Our game is a social experience! World of Warcraft was like that for a while, you played because that's where everybody else was, but social is never a reason to play something when no one is playing, it's fire without fuel. Social can amplify a game's popularity, but you can't sell people on social in a barren desert. Unless you are Las Vegas, but that's only been done once.
So the casual player, that incredibly large mass of players out there with nothing else better to do than wait to play your game. Right? You have to answer the question, why should they? D&D 5, Pathfinder Beginner Box, or Five Moons, why play? What makes this as 'pick up and play' as the next Angry Birds? What makes this game so cool I will sit and watch people play it endlessly on Youtube? Look at your game. Is it really that casual? Is it really that fun? What screams at people and engages them? What makes this game so fun that you have to play it, or even watch people play it?
If your answer is "we have better numbers" you are not thinking it right.
There is a question, how many casuals pen-and-paper gamers are out there? While I love Pathfinder or even D&D 5 I know plenty of people that play casual games who's eyes would water just looking at the books and dismiss them as 'not for them'. Of course the hard-core players love these games, and we system wars ourselves to incredible lengths over them - that's just who we are. But those casuals. Who are they? What are they doing now? How do you entice them?
How do you get them to say, "This is cool! I wanna be doing this!"
Or most importantly, "I want to be seen doing this."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)