All the better for a discussion like this! Maybe we’ll both learn something.
[quote=“Simon”]Well, if you blame technology, it suggests that they must have been replaced, presumably by video games.
I fail to see why video games RPG could not act as gateway toward tabletop. Indeed, the fact that they touch a wider public and the fact that some of them have spawned tabletop games (WOW and Dragonage), actually suggest that video games are doing substantially better than the books…[/quote]
I’m also not sure why video games don’t serve as a gateway the way gamebooks did, but apparently that’s the case. I’d assume that two of the main reasons are that (1) there are enough good video games to last you a lifetime, while that wasn’t the case with gamebooks (which of course has nothing to do with technology), and (2) the step from rolling dice, adding some numbers, and jotting things down with a pencil by yourself to doing so with a group is a considerably smaller step than going from sitting in front of a keyboard to group roleplaying (which is why I think Hangout-style gaming could have a positive impact here). There may be more. I don’t know.
As to the examples, Warcraft didn’t exactly set the roleplaying world on fire, did it? And Dragon Age seems (anecdotally) to appeal far more to those searching for a red box-esque experience than to video gamers.
In any case, for whatever reason, the gateway effect currently doesn’t seem to be there.
[quote=“Simon”]I am not sure what you mean by that. How did technology lead to a fragmentation of the hobby?
To me, it actually had the opposite effect. Forums like this one help group finding each others more effectively. Internet allows the playing by email or through forums, allowing people to game that could not before…[/quote]
More games, more fragmentation. We have far less common ground with other gamers than people did twenty years ago. There is no canon any more.
Don’t get me wrong, more games can only be a great thing. All I’m saying is that even great things come with a price, and this is one we tend to underestimate.
[quote=“Simon”]I disagree. Yeah, internet has certainly contributed to the current bad shape of the press, but it also reducing the cost of producing such magazines, which is vital for such a niche market as RPG always was. Both dungeon and Dragon magazine are now only available online; and would most likely not be profitable otherwise.
On the other hand, as you mentioned, blogs and podcast are now available that would not exist without technology. This allows many voices to be heard that were not before, amateur and hobbyist that could not devote the time and funding to the print media, or on such a small scale as to be existent for most of the world…
Sites like the cartographers’ guild could only spring out of the internet medium, for example… Neither would dragonsfoot.
Several hobbyist games have been put online (several of them were developed there by creators that have never even met each others)
Sites like D20pfsrd.com are pretty damn convenient and provide access to the rules for people that could not have access to the books otherwise///[/quote]
Dungeon and Dragon magazines? You mean the ones that closed their doors (and had been irrelevant for some time)?
In any case, you misunderstand me. I never said that the things you mentioned aren’t good, just that there have also been a number of negative repercussions. Of course there have. The loss of Dungeon magazine is a fine example.
[quote=“Simon”]That too I absolutely disagree with. New concepts should always be welcome, maybe they are good and therefore their influx is nice. Maybe they actually do not work in the tabletop medium (some people would argue that it was why 4th edition performed so poorly, of course they are wrong) and so will be abandoned. But expanding our horizons of what works and do not work will always be a worthwhile endeavor…
I think that, in this case, your curmudgeoness is poorly placed…[/quote]
So, just to sidetrack this even more, why do you think 4th ed. performed so poorly? Just curious.
Seriously, though, the imitation of video game design in 4th ed. (since you raised the example) was never about expanding our horizons. It was a marketing decision. That’s all. It was not an avenue to be explored (which I agree is always worthwhile), it was a tenet to be followed.
And that is simply not a good thing.
Anyway, back to the basic point, I don’t think it’s particularly curmudgeonly to only embrace those things that actually make life better, nor should it be blasphemy to ask whether changing technology has been solely positive for RPGs.
Before the wholesale Internet revolution, people were writing serious articles anticipating that RPGs would marginalize board games. Today, many are wondering whether RPGs will still be around in any significant way a decade or two down the line. Is it entirely illegitimate to question whether the impact of technology has been nothing but roses for this hobby of ours?
In any case, interesting thoughts, Simon.
[/quote]
(Besides, if we’re being honest with ourselves, Action Castle is really more a parlor game than a roleplaying game.)
)