Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

inlander.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 292 posts

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#51

Post by klodolph »

ajross wrote: post #40
sudosteph wrote: post #8

Paradoxically, tech has actually made DnD much more accessible to the masses. When my friends and I first started playing 3.5 in middle school, we pooled our money for a single player's handbook (they were pricey back then!) and would constantly be passing it around any time anyone needed to do anything, which really slowed down the pace of the game and made it hard to get intimately familiar with the rules. Eventual…

I've timed it in actual play: it's quicker to google for a monster stat block (one from the SRD, obviously) than it is to look it up in the Monster Manual sitting right next to the laptop.

Sure, but from experience in play, sticky notes in the Monster Manual are much faster for switching back and forth than browser tabs are.

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#52

Post by toyg »

ajross wrote: post #32
trynewideas wrote: post #5

Is it unlikely? Board games were already growing fast. Even CCGs were growing fast, not only through video games but still as physical games too. People want to sit down and get offline and spend time with each other, _and_ people who used to do that want to get online and hang out with each other. All the RPG market needed was one publisher with good production values and broad distribution to discard a big chunk of…

FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill. Given a "Pathfinder" vs. "D&D" choice, and no overwhelming community consensus either way (the community rejection of the fourth edition…

> Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name.

And the history. '80s nostalgia is a big thing right now, and D&D can drink at that well. Quite a lot of people who made it in Hollywood and are powerful right now, were D&D players 30 years ago when they were kids; so they supplied the glam factor that helps keeping games out of the "nerd" niche.

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#53

Post by lbotos »

smaili wrote: post #50
trynewideas wrote: post #5

Is it unlikely? Board games were already growing fast. Even CCGs were growing fast, not only through video games but still as physical games too. People want to sit down and get offline and spend time with each other, _and_ people who used to do that want to get online and hang out with each other. All the RPG market needed was one publisher with good production values and broad distribution to discard a big chunk of…

Speaking of CCG's, any collectors who happen to be coders? I haven't met too many at the local shops I stop by so I always figured collecting cards wasn't very popular amongst engineers.

I'm in NYC, a Lot of MTG players are Developers/Programmers/SREs/Webmasters etc.

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#54

Post by ryanmercer »

dwd wrote: post #48
ryanmercer wrote: post #31

I personally know of at least 5 people that started playing D&D because of Stranger Things of all things.

I first played it in the 80s and then again in the 90s as an aside to playing MTG. The opening to ET was my first exposure.

Mine was cub scouts, someone's older brother. I was already playing MTG then though from Taekwondo back in 94. I don't think I started playing D&D or others like VtM until 97 (I remember buying the VtM book and then months later a new version came out) and even then I played VtM almost exclusively on IRC heh.

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#55

Post by nouveaux »

usmannk wrote: post #25
nouveaux wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digital board games are superior in almost every way except face to face player interaction. For games with a high level of complexity, the analog version is always terrible. Forgetting to move a bit when the game state changes is always a sore point. Unfortunately, these games are generally more challenging to port to digital as well. For more casual games, I prefer to play in person with a beer in hand. (PS My day…

I'd love a recommendation on a starter game (or a few!) if you find yourself with a minute! I play with a group who, including myself, are novices when it comes boardgames. Between 3-6 players most of the time. We found ourselves getting really into Puerto Rico and recently tried Terraforming Mars but didn't _love_ it. I think TR would be better on a second playthrough when we actually know the rules though :). I pla…

Terraforming Mars is my favorite game. I think its worth giving it another try. I would remove the Corporate Era cards for now. These are the cards with the white triangle near the bottom left.

Here are some games I would suggest for a group that likes Puerto Rico:

  -Lords of Waterdeep
  -Castles of Burgundy
  -7 Wonders (scales well to 6 players)
  -Pandemic Legacy (co-op)
  -Clank
  -Azul
  -Splendor
These all have different mechanics and feel, so it is a good starter set. Let me know if you have more questions. Hope you enjoy these!

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#56

Post by fitzroy »

tunesmith wrote: post #34

We started playing a year ago, it was my first time playing since the mid-80's, and we're doing it all from my old AD&D (first edition) books and modules that I had collected from then. We really like it because as a group of newbies - four of the five players had never played before - it gives us permission to do things that are really fun but we never really would have found time to do before. We've incorporated po…

This is the D&D I remember. Half the time we we didn't have the books accessible (basically each friend had bought a single book, so if they weren't around, neither was their book).

Due to limited transportation, we spent most of one summer playing on a 3-way phone chain. Whenever someone's parents needed the phone their character would become an NPC until they could dial back in. No maps — just a lot of trust and imagination.

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

ajross wrote: post #32
trynewideas wrote: post #5

Is it unlikely? Board games were already growing fast. Even CCGs were growing fast, not only through video games but still as physical games too. People want to sit down and get offline and spend time with each other, _and_ people who used to do that want to get online and hang out with each other. All the RPG market needed was one publisher with good production values and broad distribution to discard a big chunk of…

FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill. Given a "Pathfinder" vs. "D&D" choice, and no overwhelming community consensus either way (the community rejection of the fourth edition…

> FWIW: Pathfinder didn't win because it didn't have the name. The game itself is fine. But there can be only one D&D, and once WotC managed to figure out that the edition upgrade mill was a death trap and released a streamlined 5e, there wasn't much niche left for Pathfinder to fill.

5e was the second D&D edition released after Pathfinder, so I'm not really sure what “edition upgrade mill” you are talking about.

> (the community rejection of the fourth edition is the reason Pathfinder exists as a commercial product at all),

Pathfinder was released to wide acclaim before 4e; it's true that with sufficient acceptance 4e might still have displaced it, but the real reason for PF was the announced imminent replacement of the 3e Open Game License with a more restrictive Game System License for the upcoming 4e, and what that said for both Paizo (who made Pathfinder) and other third-party players in the 3e/3.5e ecosystem.

It's perhaps worth noting that 5e returned to an OGL core.

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#58

Post by ilaksh »

I think that D&D is interesting in terms of the contrast with computer roleplaying games.

In a way it does a good job of showing both the current strengths and weaknesses of computers. Managing the rules and stats by hand can be fun, but I have seen many recorded sessions where it is obviously a burden that a computer would be perfectly suited for.

On the other hand, aspects of D&D like face-to-face interaction and language-based free creativity are things the computer can't handle well. Although video chat is a thing. Computers can't understand language at this point so they can't manage everything for you. Of course DMing is the most fun for many people so they wouldn't want a computer to DM.

I wonder if there would be a way to translate the freedom that you get as a DM or player in terms of world creation, scenario management, and freedom of action, to an interactive video-game type experience. Maybe in VR?

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#59

Post by wlesieutre »

klodolph wrote: post #45
ajross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the enthusiast perspective. I think closer to the truth of the article (which is talking about broad market share among non-geeks) is the fact that 5e made D&D accessible to kids again. I've been suckered into running a weekly game for a gaggle of 10 year olds. They seem to love the game, but have absolutely zero interest in rules crunch. They're very happy having to be reminded about which die to roll and whi…

I agree, the streamlining of the rules from 4E -> 5E is a big deal, perhaps the single most important difference is the fact that 5E is simpler to play. Ask ten people and you'll get ten different explanations for what's wrong with 4E. For me, the problem was that combat is time-consuming. The time it takes to resolve a single combat encounter might be one or two hours! I really enjoy the combat in 4E, but I feel lik…

I’ve heard 4e described as “D&D Tactics”

Re: The unlikely resurgence of Dungeons and Dragons

#60

Post by ajross »

klodolph wrote: post #51
ajross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've timed it in actual play: it's quicker to google for a monster stat block (one from the SRD, obviously) than it is to look it up in the Monster Manual sitting right next to the laptop.

Sure, but from experience in play, sticky notes in the Monster Manual are much faster for switching back and forth than browser tabs are.

That's a cache, though, when the use case at hand is random access.

I mean, if I'm willing to do some prep work I can surely do even better than sticky notes (like, heh, "google for all the monsters ahead of time and line them all up in browser tabs").

Post reply on HN