Quote from: Age of FableCan you give an example of what the cards might do?

Bring monsters into play, represent treasure (each monster will have loot equal to a number of draws on the treasure deck; some cards will be empty), allow adverse events like loyalty checks for hirelings and allies, or misfortunes such as bad weather or rock slides or river rapids, which force saving throws to avoid expenditure of supplies. Also: bring allies into play, allow lucky breaks such as discovering a hidden pass (speeds up movement in the mountains), generic number cards which can be used as bonuses for certain activities such as speeding movement, negotiating with natives, surprise rolls, saving throws, etc.

This is off the top of my head. The important thing is that any of the stuff that's ordinarily left up to "player description mediated by GM discretion" (e.g., the bonus for a negotiation roll) is instead handled by playing a card. But the RPG mechanics still get used, especially for combat.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBring monsters into play, represent treasure (each monster will have loot equal to a number of draws on the treasure deck; some cards will be empty), allow adverse events like loyalty checks for hirelings and allies, or misfortunes such as bad weather or rock slides or river rapids, which force saving throws to avoid expenditure of supplies. Also: bring allies into play, allow lucky breaks such as discovering a hidden pass (speeds up movement in the mountains), generic number cards which can be used as bonuses for certain activities such as speeding movement, negotiating with natives, surprise rolls, saving throws, etc.

This is off the top of my head. The important thing is that any of the stuff that's ordinarily left up to "player description mediated by GM discretion" (e.g., the bonus for a negotiation roll) is instead handled by playing a card. But the RPG mechanics still get used, especially for combat.

I think I get it. How would you distribute a game which required cards though? If you make it into a pdf then the cards need to be cut out and backed, creating a relatively high amount of work.

This is also true to a lesser extent for things like paper 'miniatures' which I think might be a good idea.

Quote from: HinterWeltPM me an email if you are interested but Squirrel Attack! is based on this approach. I will send you a comp copy of the PDF.

Bill

Oh...that's the game you were talking about...I knew it sounded familiar

Quote from: Age of FableI think I get it. How would you distribute a game which required cards though? If you make it into a pdf then the cards need to be cut out and backed, creating a relatively high amount of work.

This is also true to a lesser extent for things like paper 'miniatures' which I think might be a good idea.

Didn't really think about that. I assumed it would be a commercial boxed set.

If we're talking about PDF distribution, I might adapt normal playing cards with a separate lookup sheet.

In principle you could use cardboard chits--these can be handmade pretty easily by using spray glue to mount printouts onto thin cardboard, and a paper cutter to cut them out. But it's probably too much work for an introductory game.

Quote from: HinterWeltPM me an email if you are interested but Squirrel Attack! is based on this approach. I will send you a comp copy of the PDF.

Bill

In terms of anyone who thinks that an existing game is an example of "a good introductory RPG" - please say so. I'd look at that respectfully, but also skeptically; because if it is capable of appealing to non-gamers more than D&D does, that raises an obvious question.

My pick for such a game would be Dungeon Squad - but no one plays it and its author seems to have abandoned it, so I guess I must be wrong.

My guess would be that there are probably ten games which are each one-tenth 'pure gold'.

Quote from: Age of FableCan you give an example of what the cards might do?

Might be slightly off subject but after reading Darksword Adventures I was thinking of card mechanics to replace the existing TAROK mechanics that used D10 and tables in the book.  TAROK is basically a game played with tarot cards within the setting and I was thinking of a card game could be supportive to that type of play actually playing a similar type of game for resolution.  I was thinking of a texas hold em style of play where three cards are dealt to the players, including the GM, that they use to affect the past, present, and future.  The station of the character is a card drawn which is a permanent part of the players hand and placed back in the deck (the GM receives a Joker which is a wild card).  The GM deals out the three universal fate cards where betting is performed to determine narrative resolution for the past, present, and future.  I believe it's more of a "storytelling" system but it seemed a fair idea with the magic heavy nature of the system with a laid back card player atmosphere.

I'd be interested to know how 'RPG-like' games - board games like Talisman, or card games like Once Upon A Time - sell compared to actual pen-and-paper RPGs.

Here's an interesting side-point:

The 'white box' D&D set that I found a picture of had a printed price of $10.

US$10 in 1974 = US$46.19 in 2007 (the inflation calculator I found only went up to 2007).

Amazon is currently offering the 4th edition Player's Handbook and DM's Guide for $46.14 (not including shipping). The Monster Manual is another $23.07.

So, it seems to me that the original set wasn't actually better value than the current one. Or to put it another way, price might not be that big a factor in explaining people's decision not to get into role-playing.

Inflation is partly psychological, and it affects different sectors differently.

Go to Toys 'R Us and see how many board games are over $40. It's possible that the Monopoly set you buy today for $10 was $2.25 back in 1974, but I doubt it.

Quote from: Age of FableIn terms of anyone who thinks that an existing game is an example of "a good introductory RPG" - please say so. I'd look at that respectfully, but also skeptically; because if it is capable of appealing to non-gamers more than D&D does, that raises an obvious question.

Faery's Tale by Firefly Games.

This is as close to an introductory game with untapped potential as I can think of. I wonder how it would fare if it was stocked by book chains, not hidden (spine-out) in the shelf but stacked alongside Harry Potter, Spiderwick, Magyk, Artemis Fowl, and Bartimaeus.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeFaery's Tale by Firefly Games.

I like the look of it. One good thing is that it's using something which is very prominent in popular culture, but not in role-playing.

However, it seems to be aimed at parents buying it and then GMing their children, rather than children buying it themselves?

Quote from: Elliot WilenInflation is partly psychological, and it affects different sectors differently.

Go to Toys 'R Us and see how many board games are over $40. It's possible that the Monopoly set you buy today for $10 was $2.25 back in 1974, but I doubt it.

I think you're right actually. I went to Toys R Us's US site (http://www.toysrus.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2256723) and had a look at various well-known games - Monopoly, Clue, Stratego, and Trivial Pursuit - the most expensive I found of these was $19.99.

The only comparable board game is Risk, which ranged from $19.99 to $39.99. In fact the more expensive Risk games were the two with a noticeably 'gamer-y' look (2210 AD and Godstorm).

The only things I found that were more expensive than that were the more deluxe chess sets, a chinese checkers set with a teak board etc - and I don't think they're competing for the same customers.

So what do people think is going on here?

Quote from: Age of FableSo what do people think is going on here?

In terms of mass-produced games being inflation-adjusted-cheaper now than they were?  Mmm ... China, maybe?

Although this blog says that

QuoteThese pamphlets were expensive. They were the most expensive games you could buy. $10.

Going back to an earlier question, "What would the setting be like?"

I think that something from popular culture really is a good idea (though running around attacking monsters may be joining that category thanks to videogames).

But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we're going about it backwards. Right now we're trying to get people to play our games. What we should be doing is asking what do non-gamers want, and only after that, try to figure out how to redesign rpgs to match that.

To take a videogame parallel, casual games (e.g. PopCap) have found an audience because people wanted entertainment they could fit into short (4-30 minute) time slots between other life activities, especially if there are kids in the home.