|
At last year's Games on Demand at PAX East, we ended up running something like 40 sessions of DW over three days; I think there was some panel or something that told people "go down to GoD and play this, it's awesome", but honestly I don't know what drew everyone to us. It got to the point where we were literally turning people away because we had nowhere to put them, and both store booths that had DW in stock ran out. It was insane, and there were a lot of people in those groups who'd never played an RPG before but ended up buying DW after trying it. There were also a lot of people who only played 3.Path before who were amazed (in a good way) at how DW ran by comparison.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:This may be grognardy of me, but having those card games mixed in with ones that have actual miniatures and traditional RPG sets just irritates me. Card games in general just strike me as lazy on the part of the manufacturer and just generally depressing to be around. They're decks of card stock, why are they in big grandiose boxes that look like a high-end board game when they have more in common with the foil packs and playing card decks in the impulse buy aisle at a department store checkout? I know we said we were gonna change topics but did you read the posts right before yours? Ever since the AD&D fans took over D&D and decided boxed sets were too casual or fuckin' whatever it is that stops them from making them, D&D has more or less stopped marketing itself. Your product's physical presence in the store is just as much advertising as your TV commercials or your annoying sidebars on websites. There's a reason beer companies compete over where their beer sits in the cooler; why companies will strike actual deals with retail stores to get their product on an endcap. People in general do a lot of window shopping, and having a big ol' box with a cool cover proclaims "MY GAME IS RAD, BUY ME!" and catches interest. Why do card games have big grandiose boxes? Because they actually want to sell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:It's an anecdote pretty much everyone I know also reports, so I'm pretty sure it's not just you. The problem is that AGE is still too close to D&D for comfort, really. It'd be better starting people off on Monsterhearts or Apocalypse World (or Dungeon World, if you want to show RPGs that look like what non-RPG-players think RPGs should look like). Oh god no, not Monsterhearts. It's an amazing game but when I've tried explaining it to non-RPG people they look at me in shock and confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
It's imperative that we start people on the games that I personally like the most, as that turns them into the best roleplayers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Then let's change the topic! Doesn't seem like an amazing system, but if it's getting RPGs out into wider nerd culture or even non-nerd culture in a normalised way, I'm not too bothered. It's been pretty fun so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Yeah, Monsterhearts is a bit of a tough sell for a neophyte. One should also avoid overcomplicated settings or games with lots of lingo, like the World of Darkness. Maybe FATE would be more appropriate? Problem is, completely settingless games might make new players feel lost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I know we said we were gonna change topics but did you read the posts right before yours? It's not really a 'box sets are too casual-friendly' thing, it's more that at some point box sets became really loving expensive. For example, Pinnacle was releasing a lot of box set stuff for Deadlands classic back in the day. They eventually quit because it just wasn't worth the cost. I imagine the economics of it change when you're talking card games, or if you've already got the infrastructure in place to do box sets, like FFG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Oh god no, not Monsterhearts. It's an amazing game but when I've tried explaining it to non-RPG people they look at me in shock and confusion. paradoxGentleman posted:Yeah, Monsterhearts is a bit of a tough sell for a neophyte. Anecdotal I know, but everyone I know who doesn't play RPGs has been way more into the idea of "high school monster romance drama" than dungeon-crawling or post-apocalyptic stuff. You just need to pitch it as "like Twilight but without all the glorification of abusive relationships and creepy secondary characters falling in love with babies."  The trick is to find a game that has enough of a system that using it well is something they can learn, but isn't rules-heavy (because it needs to be easy for new players to learn in its entirety) and has player participation (so they learn good habits before bad ones). I normally start people on Fiasco and then get them to apply what they learned from it to playing PbtA games. Feng Shui 2 would probably be a pretty good one too, actually, since it's not very complicated and 90% of the rule is schticks the players will never see. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Anecdotal I know, but everyone I know who doesn't play RPGs has been way more into the idea of "high school monster romance drama" than dungeon-crawling or post-apocalyptic stuff. You just need to pitch it as "like Twilight but without all the glorification of abusive relationships and creepy secondary characters falling in love with babies." As long as you tailor your recommendation to the people you're trying to hook, things generally work out. For a lot of people, "high school monster romance drama" is probably an excellent hook. For a lot others however, just mentioning Twilight will send them scurrying for the hills.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
I guess it depends on the audience you are trying to sell to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
D&D is fine if the people you're suggesting it to would be into it. Any variation isn't automatically a bad idea as someone's first game. The positioning of it as a required rite of passage in tabletop RPGs is bad though, but in a way that any game would be bad if people just thoughtlessly reached for it because it's "the Game". I feel like most other games are played by people who are into them and the subject matter. I don't see that many people playing Call of Cthulhu just because. But there are plenty of people who play D&D who hate the type of fantasy it's depicting, or whatever, but do it because they like RPGs. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Yeah I have had more than a few random people (usually women) express at least the vaguest interest in trying Dungeons & Dragons upon learning that I am a long-time fan...though about half of those women also specifically wanted to make sure the group was either all women (besides me) or at least only guys they knew already. Clearly they have heard the horror stories. Also I freely admit I have still never actually successfully run a game for any of these people, because I am basically worthless when you get right down to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Anecdotal I know, but everyone I know who doesn't play RPGs has been way more into the idea of "high school monster romance drama" than dungeon-crawling or post-apocalyptic stuff. You just need to pitch it as "like Twilight but without all the glorification of abusive relationships and creepy secondary characters falling in love with babies." It also has to be a game you want to play too. Fiasco is a fine game, but I hate Coen Brother's movies and that entire genre so I would be terrible teaching it, same with the pseudo-angst of Monsterhearts. They're both extremely good and thematic games where I completely loathe the theme. I've had a lot of success with Feng Shui, Forgotten Futures, Cinematic Unisystem, and Castle Falkenstein actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Anecdotal I know, but everyone I know who doesn't play RPGs has been way more into the idea of "high school monster romance drama" than dungeon-crawling or post-apocalyptic stuff. You just need to pitch it as "like Twilight but without all the glorification of abusive relationships and creepy secondary characters falling in love with babies." The problem with Monsterhearts is that anyone who's not a fan of Twilight tends to have a strong negative impression of Twilight. You could probably sell Monsterhearts to people as the interpersonal drama side of Buffy/Angel pretty well tho, but I think if you did that then eventually they'd like to stake a vampire or kill a demon at some point and I dunno how well Monsterhearts can handle that
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Huh it's almost like with all these strong genre-emulation games you have to choose one that fits your audience's likes
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
If you want to get a bunch of people into RPGs start a discussion about favorite entertainment, see what everybody starts lighting up about and base it on that. No need to torture games into being about what they're not or trying to convince Twilight haters to play Monsterhearts because you just really want to. When you're trying to get people into a new hobby, you cater to them. You're a guide, not a recruiter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
well if we're going to recommend Monsterhearts as a great starter game I feel like it's fair to point out that a lot of people have react pretty poorly to Twilight and the narrow appeal it has doesn't usually look to ttrpgs for their sexy rp times, even if Monsterhearts is a well-designed simulation of teen paranormal romance e- like the actual teens who would dig it are already rping without the help of tabletop rules on tumblr or some private forum or they're busy penning their own fanfics right now and not googling "Perfect Tabletop RPG Rules for Twilight" until Monsterhearts pops up. So the segment of people that discover Monsterhearts exists at all is limited enough and seems mostly confined to forums like this, where 20-30 somethings gather to chat, and idk I guess I'd see it as a hard sell for a lot of people in that demographic but hey if you've actually pitched Monsterhearts to a group of teenagers you're GMing and they got into it then rad! I'd honestly like to see what someone in the demographic that unironically loves Twilight thinks of Monsterhearts Nuns with Guns fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question I'd like to pose to the group: With Age of Sigmar, Game Workshop's grand gesture as to the future of one of their flagship games, I see a lot of vitriol and (literally) setting fire to collections of tiny plastic soldiers. I have to wonder what is our collective aversion to dead games? If you really loved Fleeble 2010, and really felt it was the pinnacle of Fleebling, why would Fleeble 2015 prevent you from continuing to enjoy 2010? Whether or not AoS is any good is irrelevant; I just want to understand why a game that's no longer supported is kicked off the island so fast?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Feeple posted:Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question I'd like to pose to the group: With Age of Sigmar, Game Workshop's grand gesture as to the future of one of their flagship games, I see a lot of vitriol and (literally) setting fire to collections of tiny plastic soldiers. Because it's hard to bring in new people to a game that doesn't have it's required materials readily available anymore. e: also, no future content or other improvements for the now dropped game
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Feeple posted:Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question I'd like to pose to the group: With Age of Sigmar, Game Workshop's grand gesture as to the future of one of their flagship games, I see a lot of vitriol and (literally) setting fire to collections of tiny plastic soldiers. The best I can tell you is that a lot of people feel a game needs to be "supported" to be...well, "alive". When the 3.X line came to an end, people were upset because there wasn't going to be any more official support for the line, despite there being more official 3.X stuff out there than any one group could practically use. It didn't matter what came out, just that stuff was coming out in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
With a wargame support is actually very important so you can do stuff like 'buy models at anything even approaching a reasonable price' or 'have any kind of sanctioned tournaments' or 'bring in new players'. Not that Games Workshop has ever cared about any of those three things, but...
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
For a minis wargame in particular but to a lesser extent for card games and RPGs as well, "support" means a lot more than just "can still buy products." The big one is whether or not an FLGS actively supports a game in your area. Wargamers are used to the idea of being able to go down to the store, find other people and just play. Stores are incentivised to prioritize making events and deals/special offers for games that are actively being sold because, well, they're a store. They're selling stuff. So there's always something happening in the local scene if a game is supported enough for a store to help push it. If that support goes away, the store is less likely to hold those events or give priority to people playing a game they can't sell. Events shift over to another game they CAN sell. Interest dies down, some players move on, there is very little in terms of new players, and the game fades away over time. "Support" can also mean "support network," which for some people mean the difference between being able to find a game at all or not. This even goes for roleplayers! We like to think of our individual groups as static and able to play together for a long time, but in doing that we forget or are even entirely unaware of the people whose primary play mode is organized play or play in events/pickup games at stores. It's no coincidence that WotC supports that kind of play in stores, or at least used to as of a few years ago (apparently there's a lot less for 5e and more focus on the board games.) Age of Sigmar presents a pretty unique problem in this regard because it has no tools for organized play at all and almost no ability to coordinate pickup games or meetups in advance (the whole "no points" thing), so it might end up dying fast. On top of that, stores are still selling Fantasy-compatible miniatures a lot of the time, both from GW itself and from other minis companies! The next few months are going to be a big shakedown between people who want to play Age of Sigmar and the people sticking with Fantasy. Overall, though, "support" should be taken to mean the network first and "ability to buy poo poo" second. So basically, in a selfish sense, support is meaningless. In a hobby sense, it's huge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Huh it's almost like with all these strong genre-emulation games you have to choose one that fits your audience's likes Could not agree more. quote:1. Get a group of at least two people. That's really the preceding step to playing a game assuming you all haven't agreed on precisely what you want to do, and assuming "hey guys let's play some D&D?" doesn't specifically and explicitly mean Dungeons and Dragons, the brand. Feeple posted:I have to wonder what is our collective aversion to dead games? If you really loved Fleeble 2010, and really felt it was the pinnacle of Fleebling, why would Fleeble 2015 prevent you from continuing to enjoy 2010? Whether or not AoS is any good is irrelevant; I just want to understand why a game that's no longer supported is kicked off the island so fast? There are very legitimate reasons to want to play the current game as explained better by the posters above me, whether you're referring to AOS specifically or the hobby in general, but the more irrational/emotional part of that impulse comes from how new editions tend to be marketed with an eye towards directly telling you that yes, this is better, and you should totally switch. You can convert your characters to the new edition, the new edition plays faster/better/is more balanced/has more options, so you should jump ship! And so on and so forth. It works, and people buy into it, and here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
The big thing with AoS is that it's impossible to play the style of games that Warhammer players are accustomed to and enjoy. There is no balancing, which makes arranging fun and fair games impossible without a ton of extra coordination and labor. Like, in the past I could tell a friend to bring a thousand points and meet me at the game store. It might not be a perfectly fair fight, but it wouldn't be laughably one-sided. AoS eliminated the language used to coordinate games and tournaments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
The dude setting poo poo on fire is an idiot though, and even people who think Age of Sigmar is dumb agree on that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I got the feeling he'd burn other poo poo he was into if it displeased him. And that he was an only child who never learned to share.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:It's imperative that we start people on the games that I personally like the most, as that turns them into the best roleplayers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
That said...Evil Mastermind posted:The best I can tell you is that a lot of people feel a game needs to be "supported" to be...well, "alive". ...something like a tabletop wargame or a card game is different from an RPG in this regard. RPGs, even currently "alive" ones, more or less assume that you're going to personally curate a group to play them, aside from the occasional Living/Society style game. Like, Pathfinder Society meets at my local game store once a month and that's it. Most RPGs don't support very well the idea of a pickup game where you bring your Pathfinder books down to the store and grab the closest three people hanging around and start playing Pathfinder for a couple hours. By contrast, I can do exactly that with FFG's X-Wing. I can easily do it for several reasons, among which is the fact that there isn't really any debate over what constitutes a "proper" game. If both of us know the rules then bam, out come the plastic spaceships and we're good to go. And if someone's relatively new and wants to learn how to play, then if they decide they'd like to assemble a squad of their own then the store owner has a whole shelf full of it. If I decide I want to play Magic: the Gathering the process is similar...there may be a bit more of a discussion beforehand over exactly what sort of game we want to play (EDH, tournament legal, use only current stuff or older cards, etc), but once we agree on that then we can just sit down and go. Games Workshop has taken an extremely hands-off approach towards balancing and supporting their tabletop game rules, and the result of this is that it's forced a lot of the people who play Fantasy and/or 40K to curate their gaming groups and adopt various houserules in an attempt to make things work to their satisfaction. There are no GW tournaments providing GW with the feedback it needs to devise errata and tailor further developments based on player feedback (which is what FFG does with X-Wing and WotC does with Magic) and because many Warhammer/40K players have their own idea of what constitutes a "gentlemen's agreement" it's harder to just go and have a pickup game without first having a debate over what should go into a "proper" game. Oh, did you bring those units? Then you must be an rear end in a top hat WAAC tryhard. The end result is that GW has encouraged their player base to fragment itself. This isn't just the way most people here understand it where a new edition coming out means some people stick with the older edition, though there's some of that going on too, but even Warhammer gamers within the same edition wind up fragmenting because everything is so hands-off and poorly designed and there's no real official support to speak of that it encourages that sort of fragmentation even among people trying to play the same edition. Age of Sigmar is simply the latest continuation of that trend, but it's especially egregious/hilarious because it's completely unlike the game it's outright replacing (Warhammer Fantasy was a formation ranked, square-based game of mass scale battles, AoS is a round-based skirmish style game where everyone runs around independently) and the rules are so threadbare and minimal that they don't even include things like points values per unit, so there's effectively no way to determine what constitutes a balanced game. People have already started arguing over how to best houserule AoS into a playable game and it isn't even a week old. Games Workshop wants AoS to be a big breakthrough into the casual gamer market, but the problems are: 1). The starter set costs $125 American new. 2). You still have to paint and assemble dozens of figures beforehand, and paints, glues, hobby knives, etc. also cost money. 3). But the big one here is that casual games thrive on quick and easy pick-up-and-playability and with Age of Sigmar you can't do that because the game practically forces you to first sit down with your opponent and work out how you're even going to play the drat thing in the first place since the people making the rules did virtually zero work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The dude setting poo poo on fire is an idiot though, and even people who think Age of Sigmar is dumb agree on that point. This is a fact, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
I had heard from time to time that GW is particularly nasty when it comes to customer support, but I had no idea that it was that bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:I had heard from time to time that GW was particularly nasty when it came to customer support, but I had no idea that it was that bad. I don't know about "nasty," and in terms of "hey my box of Space Marines had stuff missing, can you send me a replacement?" they're supposed to be pretty good. They simply don't care that much about the game side of things, and this is a matter of public record...shareholder reports have GW employees straight-up telling people that their business is selling models, not selling games. Of course if GW didn't package their models as games then they wouldn't be able to sell a fraction of them. It's the notion that Warhammer and 40K are games that drives people to buy dozens, hundreds, even thousands of models because you aren't just getting a few display pieces, you're building an army. Can't play the game unless you have a points-legal force, and it's no coincidence that, for example, over time the points cost of various Space Marine units in 40K has decreased, so what what used to be a legal composition of a comparatively smaller number of elite forces is no longer valid and now to build a legal Space Marine army you need to shell out more money for more models. And people do. But in terms of actually giving a poo poo about the game side of things, GW doesn't. There are no GW tournaments, no officially sponsored equivalents of Friday Night Magic or X-Wing's Regionals. They stagger releases so that some armies don't receive rules updates for a decade while others get them practically every year. New editions change things around so much that some peoples' armies that they sunk hundreds or thousands of dollars in wind up unplayable. Errata and playtesting are virtually non-existent. Age of Sigmar is just the ultimate culmination of GW's game design philosophy, the closest they can get to simply saying "we don't care, just make something up" and still sell people on the idea that there's a game in there somewhere to drive model sales.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Feeple posted:Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question I'd like to pose to the group: With Age of Sigmar, Game Workshop's grand gesture as to the future of one of their flagship games, I see a lot of vitriol and (literally) setting fire to collections of tiny plastic soldiers. I think it's worth noting that, while everything everyone said is completely right about why games don't maintain large communities once they're "dead," that doesn't stop people from playing them anyway. Evo, the largest annual fighting game tournament, hosts side events for practically any FG you can think of, from Street Fighter 2 to VSav to (probably) Breaker's Revenge, because there's a grassroots effort out there from players who like those games. It isn't limited to video games either, the DBZ TCG has had yearly community-run tournaments at Gencon with plenty of entrants and an active online community despite the game having died around 2006 (the game was officially revived with some modifications last year but yeah). It's pretty fuckin' rare for games to grow once they stop being officially supported - some new people join up, sure, but probably not faster than old people quit - but a community can absolutely be maintained, especially with the powerful social tools we have now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:well if we're going to recommend Monsterhearts as a great starter game I feel like it's fair to point out that a lot of people have react pretty poorly to Twilight and the narrow appeal it has doesn't usually look to ttrpgs for their sexy rp times, even if Monsterhearts is a well-designed simulation of teen paranormal romance MH began life as a Twilight parody, and you can still see that with two of the skins, but it's really not the best comparison for how the game actually plays. Twilight's a pretty straight forward paranormal romance about squeaky clean characters who sit around reading classical literature and never cursing and conspicuously not having any sex at all until after after marriage. Overall, MH really does have a lot more to do with TV shows like Buffy and Teen Wolf, only with the melodrama turned up to 11 and characters who spend all their time being dicks to each other. So that is probably more how you'd want to pitch it. It kind of straddles the fence between straight genre emulation and parody, so you can sort of tailor the way you talk about it depending on what you think your potential players would like; some people enjoy playing it if they can think of it as making fun of shows and books that they dislike for a few hours, and there's surprisingly little conflict between them and actual fans of the genre in play, in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I think it's worth noting that, while everything everyone said is completely right about why games don't maintain large communities once they're "dead," that doesn't stop people from playing them anyway. Evo, the largest annual fighting game tournament, hosts side events for practically any FG you can think of, from Street Fighter 2 to VSav to (probably) Breaker's Revenge, because there's a grassroots effort out there from players who like those games. It isn't limited to video games either, the DBZ TCG has had yearly community-run tournaments at Gencon with plenty of entrants and an active online community despite the game having died around 2006 (the game was officially revived with some modifications last year but yeah). This is absolutely true...it's the founding principle behind the OSR among other things...but what probably helps in the case of things like Evo (which admittedly I'm just guessing on here) is that the participants don't have to sit down beforehand and have a debate over whether or not they're going to allow Ryu or how many fireballs you can throw at a time. Warhammer/40K's problems are, I don't want to say unique to Games Workshop, but they certainly have gone out of their way to make it difficult for a commonly-accepted "baseline" community to spring up around their games, current or old. At some point X-Wing will "die" too, but even then I doubt I'm going to have to navigate a new set of houserules and people bitching about how the Millennium Falcon is WAAC trash every time I go to play a game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
That's definitely a hurdle, but it's one that can be overcome. The aforementioned DBZ TCG had some community rulings on the legality of certain cards (which isn't exactly the same thing but it's close) as well as adding new cards. Did those decisions leave some people out in the cold, including some really strong longtime players? Certainly, but when your choices are to piss off a few people to make the rest have a game to play, or to not play at all, I think the community can come together and work toward the former. Without knowing Warhammer particularly well, I don't know why they couldn't figure out a standard format and just run events like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:That's definitely a hurdle, but it's one that can be overcome. The aforementioned DBZ TCG had some community rulings on the legality of certain cards (which isn't exactly the same thing but it's close) as well as adding new cards. Did those decisions leave some people out in the cold, including some really strong longtime players? Certainly, but when your choices are to piss off a few people to make the rest have a game to play, or to not play at all, I think the community can come together and work toward the former. Without knowing Warhammer particularly well, I don't know why they couldn't figure out a standard format and just run events like that. From what I know about the situation there have been some attempts by Fantasy players to organize "official unofficial" tournaments but now that GW has decided to put a stake in Fantasy in favor of Age of Sigmar a number of them are apparently considering moving to other fantasy wargames because there's a difference between not supporting a game and actively spiting a game and I think that GW, whatever their intentions here, managed to dance across that particular line. I don't know what the deal as far as 40K is, but I do know that if you want to foster a fan community for your game it's a bad idea to keep putting out editions that break backwards compatibility in a game that costs thousands of dollars and dozens to hundreds of man-hours worth of labor just to play, not to mention leaving some players' armies lingering without any support or updates for ten+ years. This has always been one of the more insane things Games Workshop does in my opinion...when Privateer puts out a new Warmahordes book it includes updates for multiple factions at once so everybody, regardless of which army they decided to pick, is always more or less on the same level as everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
In large part because the community can't agree on a goddamn thing. 'WAAC' means 'win at any cost' and is an insult hurled, often, at players in the community interested in balance and trying to organize and fix up the hot mess that is the rules. As a result, people often move to other games like Kings of War which are explicitly designed to be 'we have actual working rules and you can use your old Fantasy models.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:From what I know about the situation there have been some attempts by Fantasy players to organize "official unofficial" tournaments but now that GW has decided to put a stake in Fantasy in favor of Age of Sigmar a number of them are apparently considering moving to other fantasy wargames because there's a difference between not supporting a game and actively spiting a game and I think that GW, whatever their intentions here, managed to dance across that particular line. Company want money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I realize this is just anecdotal, but I've found that people who start gaming with something other than D&D tend to be more open to trying new systems. Something about D&D/PF seems to just lock people into that game (probably a sunk cost fallacy). From experience, once again anecdotal, it's due to most of those peopel wanting to play something like D&D in flavor and finiky rules. Which means that they get locked into one preferred set and end up being uncomfortable with rules systems that are similar but not quite the same, like edition wars with D&D, and are completely uninterested in more narrative games. You see the same sort of locked in behavior with 4th edition D&D, RIFTS, GURPS, and old WoD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
Quarex posted:Yeah I have had more than a few random people (usually women) express at least the vaguest interest in trying Dungeons & Dragons upon learning that I am a long-time fan...though about half of those women also specifically wanted to make sure the group was either all women (besides me) or at least only guys they knew already. Clearly they have heard the horror stories. Again this is anecdotal but for most women who make that sort of request it isn't because of pop culture horror stories about a specific hobby. Usually it's due to unpleasant experiences they have personally had in male dominated hobbies/environments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 22:43
|
|