I can sympathize with the sentiment, but you have to ask yourself why the industry is in decay. Part of the reason D&D and other tabletops have declined in popularity is because other things have come along -- back in the day, if you wanted to play a fantasy-based role-playing game with deep plots, tabletops were your only real option. Today, MMOs like WoW provide those same themes, role-play, similar social interaction, and the accessibility of playing whenever you choose without having to herd 4+ friends together at the same place and time. Modern interactive games also provide more immediate gratification. As a video gamer who recently gave D&D a good shot, one of the things that struck me was the glacial pace with which the game moves -- with 5 other players, a single turn takes an hour, 50 minutes of which I'm essentially idle and disengaged. In an MMO or any other game I'm always actively doing something. All of this is to say nothing of all the other competing styles and genres of games available today, and other kinds of entertainment that have never been more accessible and immediately available.

I think the more classic experience does still appeal to some people -- the industry may be a smaller part of the overall entertainment pie today, but I'd hazard a guess that its probably as large or larger than its ever been in total numbers today. Large publishers, indeed large companies of any kind, tend to ignore the small slivers, which makes them a sort of "cottage industry" as far as the wider gaming industry is concerned, even though the sliver may be entirely viable in its own right.

What I'm getting at is that you may very well be onto something, but its naive to think that everything is horseshit just because its mainstream -- horseshit doesn't sell like mainstream products do, they may not appeal to you, you may be desperate for something different, but that's clearly not what the mainstream audience wants. Is that lamentable? Probably, on some level. Anyhow, if the impetus behind your business plan is that the mainstream is crap, and there's a conspiracy (or unwillingness) by the mainstream publishers to keep table-top-style games from returning to the mainstream, I think you'll be disappointed with that thesis.

Personally, though I don't much like tabletop games, I think there's actually a market to be had in creating an online platform for these kinds of games -- that is, one which allows people across large distances to play together without being too difficult to use and to author content and rulesets for. That's of course different than what you seem to describe.

But regarding whether you need AAA graphics, real-time 3D, or other chrome, I say no. What you need is art that looks professional for what it is, and which has style. People know production value when they see it, regardless of what form it takes. Its that property of the visuals (and audio) that says to people "this game is worth my time" -- shoddy production values say "not even the author thinks this game is worth his time". Plenty of successful games have "simple" graphics, be they in 2D or 3D, and nearly all of those have obviously high production value. Ultimately it comes down to time and resources, and simpler graphics with higher production value are more appealing than complex graphics with low production value.

I can sympathize with the sentiment, but you have to ask yourself why the industry is in decay. Part of the reason D&D and other tabletops have declined in popularity is because other things have come along -- back in the day, if you wanted to play a fantasy-based role-playing game with deep plots, tabletops were your only real option. Today, MMOs like WoW provide those same themes, role-play, similar social interaction, and the accessibility of playing whenever you choose without having to herd 4+ friends together at the same place and time. Modern interactive games also provide more immediate gratification. As a video gamer who recently gave D&D a good shot, one of the things that struck me was the glacial pace with which the game moves -- with 5 other players, a single turn takes an hour, 50 minutes of which I'm essentially idle and disengaged. In an MMO or any other game I'm always actively doing something. All of this is to say nothing of all the other competing styles and genres of games available today, and other kinds of entertainment that have never been more accessible and immediately available.

I'm a veteren of D&D and GURPS. I have NEVER seen a turn take more than ten minutes, even with a dozen people playing. Not a single time. More importantly, there are advantages to actual tabletops that video games can never provide, such as the ability to do anything at any time, even if the creator of the game didn't think about it or write rules for it.

EDIT:

Excluding the turns we decided to take breaks during. Normally, we wait until after combat, but sometimes breaks have to happen suddenly. And even then, you'd have to be counting the break into the duration of the turn, and I personally don't.

Further, WoW is considerably less engaging. As the party tank, you can just push the autoattack button and walk away, and it won't hurt your effectiveness any. The other classes don't take much extra. The game requires barely any input, and it bores the shit out of me. Add on how insanely repetitive it is, the lack of customization and the lack of incomparable removing all options from advancement and it's the sorriest excuse for an RPG I have EVER seen. It makes Skyrim look deep.

I think the more classic experience does still appeal to some people -- the industry may be a smaller part of the overall entertainment pie today, but I'd hazard a guess that its probably as large or larger than its ever been in total numbers today. Large publishers, indeed large companies of any kind, tend to ignore the small slivers, which makes them a sort of "cottage industry" as far as the wider gaming industry is concerned, even though the sliver may be entirely viable in its own right.

What I'm getting at is that you may very well be onto something, but its naive to think that everything is horseshit just because its mainstream -- horseshit doesn't sell like mainstream products do, they may not appeal to you, you may be desperate for something different, but that's clearly not what the mainstream audience wants. Is that lamentable? Probably, on some level. Anyhow, if the impetus behind your business plan is that the mainstream is crap, and there's a conspiracy (or unwillingness) by the mainstream publishers to keep table-top-style games from returning to the mainstream, I think you'll be disappointed with that thesis.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL. I do NOT hate all AAA games for being mainstream. I hate most AAA games for a short list of specific reasons. I hate AAA shooters because there's a whopping three styles: CoD, Halo and GoW, the most popular of these is a completely mindless twitch-fest that requires nothing beyond hands and a dozen or so functioning braincells. The rest would be fine if they weren't being ripped off on a daily basis. (Seriously, people, stop cloning Halo. If people want to play Halo, they'll play Halo, not your clone of it.) I don't really hate AAA RPGs yet, but I am strongly disappointed in the direction they are taking. They are being watered down over and over again, becoming more and more casual with less and less choice and freedom. Give them five years, they'll all look like Fable III and Final Fantasy XIII: straight-ass fucking hallways with no challenge, no choice and no fun. I don't give a shit about racers or social games, so I'll skip them. I haven't played a fighting game since Soul Calibur V, and I haven't played an RTS since Command & Conquer 3, but that's not really out of dislike. The only games I really care about now are RPGs and shooters, and I have very specific reasons why I think the AAA industry is doing a shit job making those.

Personally, though I don't much like tabletop games, I think there's actually a market to be had in creating an online platform for these kinds of games -- that is, one which allows people across large distances to play together without being too difficult to use and to author content and rulesets for. That's of course different than what you seem to describe.

HOW is that different, exactly? Because that appears to be EXACTLY WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED. It's a 2d representation of a tabletop game, with multiplayer. It comes with a modding kit, which allows for custom content and rule adjustments.

But regarding whether you need AAA graphics, real-time 3D, or other chrome, I say no. What you need is art that looks professional for what it is, and which has style. People know production value when they see it, regardless of what form it takes. Its that property of the visuals (and audio) that says to people "this game is worth my time" -- shoddy production values say "not even the author thinks this game is worth his time". Plenty of successful games have "simple" graphics, be they in 2D or 3D, and nearly all of those have obviously high production value. Ultimately it comes down to time and resources, and simpler graphics with higher production value are more appealing than complex graphics with low production value.

Extra credits did an episode on that once, I believe it was called "Graphics vs. Aesthetics." Also, you don't know what "production value" means. "Production value" means "the amount of money put into production." It has nothing to do with quality. At all. What you are thinking of is "aesthetics."

Jesus, you sure don't know how to have a productive conversation do you? You seem to be more concerned about arguing how right you are about everything, even when you're not -- If production value meant production cost, they would have called it that. You can have high production value on a shoestring budget, or poor production value on a blockbuster budget. There's a sliding relationship, sure -- you might accept a certain standard of work having paid $100 for it, but not accept the same standard having paid $1000 for it -- but monetary input does not have a causal relationship to quality output. Production value is the same as any other value, it means to get the best standard of work you can get, given whatever budget you have.

Anyhow, I'll take my leave of this conversation. No point having a discussion with someone so convinced of their own infallible superiority. Good luck transferring that attitude into the leadership skills that'll be required to make your idea a reality.

Jesus, you sure don't know how to have a productive conversation do you? You seem to be more concerned about arguing how right you are about everything, even when you're not -- If production value meant production cost, they would have called it that. You can have high production value on a shoestring budget, or poor production value on a blockbuster budget. There's a sliding relationship, sure -- you might accept a certain standard of work having paid $100 for it, but not accept the same standard having paid $1000 for it -- but monetary input does not have a causal relationship to quality output. Production value is the same as any other value, it means to get the best standard of work you can get, given whatever budget you have.

Anyhow, I'll take my leave of this conversation. No point having a discussion with someone so convinced of their own infallible superiority. Good luck transferring that attitude into the leadership skills that'll be required to make your idea a reality.

Funny how you completely ignore all the times you are blatantly wrong and can't jump to semantics. Like your claim that a single turn of D&D takes an hour, which is complete bullshit and everybody knows it. Or you describing EXACTLY what I'm doing here and saying it's "different from what seem to describe." Or your explanation for my distaste for AAA games being in direct contradiction to my own statements on the matter beforehand. Basically, everything in the entire post.

You shouldn't be trying to correct other people, you should be drooling at the TV and waiting for the next Friedburg and Seltzer movie.

Let's ease off the hostility

Funny how you completely ignore all the times you are blatantly wrong and can't jump to semantics. Like your claim that a single turn of D&D takes an hour, which is complete bullshit and everybody knows it. Or you describing EXACTLY what I'm doing here and saying it's "different from what seem to describe." Or your explanation for my distaste for AAA games being in direct contradiction to my own statements on the matter beforehand. Basically, everything in the entire post.



You shouldn't be trying to correct other people, you should be drooling at the TV and waiting for the next Friedburg and Seltzer movie.

D&D turns can take an hour. When players are slow doing math, or have several things they need to do per turn, it can very well take an hour. I've witnessed it. Usually, though, with those situations it is about 15 minutes.

Let's ease off the hostility

It's worth noting that I'm returning fire here. Shooting more accurately doesn't change that.

D&D turns can take an hour. When players are slow doing math, or have several things they need to do per turn, it can very well take an hour. I've witnessed it. Usually, though, with those situations it is about 15 minutes.

Funny, considering I've played over 1,000 hours of D&D and never seen a turn take more than ten minutes. Although there have been a few that certainly felt like an hour, I was looking at the clock a lot during those times (as one tends to do when waiting) and it wasn't much longer than a normal turn. Of course, it's entirely possible my group just played fast, because of my thousand hours over eight hundred were with the same five others.

Funny, considering I've played over 1,000 hours of D&D and never seen a turn take more than ten minutes. Although there have been a few that certainly felt like an hour, I was looking at the clock a lot during those times (as one tends to do when waiting) and it wasn't much longer than a normal turn. Of course, it's entirely possible my group just played fast, because of my thousand hours over eight hundred were with the same five others.

It's based on the individuals involved. About a minute or so per player is what I'm used to. The long 15 minute turns are when people are controlling several different monsters at once.

It's based on the individuals involved. About a minute or so per player is what I'm used to. The long 15 minute turns are when people are controlling several different monsters at once.

I think this thread has been derailed enough, don't you?

On topic:
Nobody presented a single theory on any of the symbols' imagery? That makes me a bit sad.

Soldier: A dead child being eaten by a dog, lying inside a black, heart-shaped box held by an iron hand.

Warrior: A child bearing a sword, facing a threshold with a large horned shadow coming through it.

Martial artist: A child, hand up, with a velvet-gloved, iron hand guiding their wrist.

Guardian: A child clutching a heart-shaped box to their chest. Several adults are visible through the box's lid.

Lawman/Lawwoman: A dead child being beaten with an iron fist.

Scout: A child, in a tree, with a looking glass.

Bard: A child with a lute, writing with a quill upon parchment.

Ranger: A child, arm outstretched and a bird landing upon it.

Rogue: A child hiding behind a counter holding a knife and a loaf of bread, before a threshold with a large horned shadow standing in it.

Mystic: A blind child holding a hand of cards: The World, The Fool, The Tower, The Lovers and The Devil.

Savant: A child sitting on a chair, reading a book by candlelight.

Artisan: A child sitting at a desk, sketching.

Noble: A child wearing a black coat, with a red right hand clutching green paper to their abdomen, fingers in their coat.

Worker: A child, holding a pickaxe, being struck with a whip.

Shaman: A child sitting against a tree watching a dog, while the dog watches an owl and the owl watches the child.

Priest/Priestess: A pile of burning books and an iron fist beating a dead child with a rod.

Physician: A headless child kneeling next to a beheaded adult, trying to put the adult's head back on.

Wizard/Witch: A child wearing goggles, holding a vial and a quill.

Sorcerer/Sorceress: A child, arms outstretched like wings, flying through the sky.

Mage: A child with a looking glass, sitting on the crescent moon.

If nobody can figure this out in three days, I'll explain the lot of them. Don't be afraid to spitball.

Before I comment on these, can you elaborate on the solider, the lawman/woman, the priest/priestess, and the physician?

The physician I think I understand, but I'm trying to understand your logic.

Before I comment on these, can you elaborate on the solider, the lawman/woman, the priest/priestess, and the physician?

The physician I think I understand, but I'm trying to understand your logic.

If you're concerned about the dead children, keep in mind that it is a metaphor. What I can say is the the child in each represents the self. They are that person's individuality, free will and humanity, everything that makes them a person. Any adults present collectively represent other people. The iron hand present in all of these... really doesn't need an explanation, does it? It's an iron hand, it's a stock metaphor. Since it's subtle, I can say the rod represents religion (there's a biblical basis for using a rod to represent religion) and that the heart-shaped boxes represent the "heart" or "soul." I can also say that "metaphor A is metaphor A." If something represents one thing in one symbol, it represents the same thing in all of them.

From this, you should be able to figure the rest out.