Quote from: darThat could be huge. I think there is a whole branch of human study that insists on written transcripts. Thanks!

This is the age of the Podcast!

With fully recorded games like:-

http://www.yog-sothoth.com/wiki/index.php/Masks_of_Nyarlathotep_Game_Audio_Recording

(and I think we can say that those guys and gals game could certainly be improve by a little competent analysis and advice (but then couldn't everyones))

And the power of The Internet! to distribute the data, close examination is certainly possible.

I'm thinking a SuperGM TV show, in which disfunctional groups live in a house and are ministered to by a self styled guru.





No, really.

Quote from: -E.Forge Theory is based on theory developed in a Usenet group (r.g.f.a.) a lot of terms and concepts come from there.

Forge theory is loosely based on r.g.f.a theory.  In almost every case, the Forge version changes things because the people making the changes didn't seem to understand why the original r.g.f.a theory was structured and described the way it was.  While it's easy to see how the GNS mangled the GDS, I think the r.g.f.a Stances were mangled even more badly and a lot of the confusion over the term Immersion, for example, might not exist if they had stuck to the original r.g.f.a terms at the Forge.

Quote from: -E.

• Games can facilitate fun play by strictly supporting one agenda (this would be a "coherent" game. Games that don't support one agenda (or have marketing text that incorrectly identifies the agenda they support) are "incoherent"

Contrast that idea with this approach (originally posted to the Pyramid message boards) used to design D&D 3.5.

Quote from: -E.I think the r.g.f.a. stuff is solid and valuable. The GNS stuff is so poorly defined as to be unsuable.

If you are interested in the original rec.games.frp.advocacy theories, a good summary of that Threefold Model can be found here.  You can find lots of other good theory summaries in John Kim's RPG pages.  I also suggest comparing the r.g.f.a Stances model with the Forge version.

From that history page, I dug up that old Barbara Robson post and think it's probably even better terminogy for the objectives ("Interactive Storytelling", "Problem-Solving", and "I[n ]C[haracter] Experience").

Quote from: darI want more objective kinds of data. The first thing I'm interested in is raw behaviorial data.

The most objective data you are going to find, and it's not entirely objective, is the summary of WotC survey results that I posted a link to earlier (this page).  It's an overview of how WotC interpreted the results of surveys they did of gamers.

John Morrow, I'm going to talk my sister into having your babies
You'll have to deal with her husband on your own.

Seriously, thank you. This is awesome.

Shit, like I've got any time for this....

Quote from: darJohn Morrow, I'm going to talk my sister into having your babies

My wife already has that job.  Sorry.

What's interesting is that the WotC data categorizes people pretty similarly to Glenn Blacow's article from Different Worlds in 1980 (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html).

Quote from: John MorrowForge theory is loosely based on r.g.f.a theory.  In almost every case, the Forge version changes things because the people making the changes didn't seem to understand why the original r.g.f.a theory was structured and described the way it was.  While it's easy to see how the GNS mangled the GDS, I think the r.g.f.a Stances were mangled even more badly and a lot of the confusion over the term Immersion, for example, might not exist if they had stuck to the original r.g.f.a terms at the Forge.



Contrast that idea with this approach (originally posted to the Pyramid message boards) used to design D&D 3.5.



If you are interested in the original rec.games.frp.advocacy theories, a good summary of that Threefold Model can be found here.  You can find lots of other good theory summaries in John Kim's RPG pages.  I also suggest comparing the r.g.f.a Stances model with the Forge version.

From that history page, I dug up that old Barbara Robson post and think it's probably even better terminogy for the objectives ("Interactive Storytelling", "Problem-Solving", and "I[n ]C[haracter] Experience").

Some great links there.

And, yeah -- I should have said "loosely" based.

Thanks, and Cheers,
-E.

Two words (pardon my french):

Fucking awesome.

...And people wonder why I talk like RGFA was the glory days.

FYI, from that same discussion thread on Pyramid (from early 2001), Ryan Dancey said the following (the segment he talks about are the same 4 categories from the other discussion):

QuoteWe believe that a game that appeals to all four differentiated segments (the people in the middle are pretty happy with a modicum of time spent out of game, and pretty happy with most aspects of RPG play in general and are therefore pretty easy to please) is a game that is likely to have strong overall sales and retain long term interest in the player community.

Games that lack support for one of the four differentiated segments struggle, and games that lack support for more than one are rarely played (though frustratingly for some such a game may be the >perfect< game for one of the subgroups; the problem is finding two or more people of the same inclination to play the game regularly).

[...]

I believe that the empasis on "storyteller" type games and publisher-driven storylines over the past decade skewed the product mix of the RPG category away from support for all four segments, and that is the reason that products sell so poorly today compared to say 15 years ago.  It accounts for the huge audience (~2 million monthly) of  RPG players, and the comparatively small (~200K) active purchasers in the market (prior to 3e). In other words, people kept playing, but stopped buying products because the publishers stopped delivering what most people wanted to buy.

Apply to the idea of desirability of creating "coherent" instead of "incoherent" games.  No, I don't agree with everything that Ryan Dancey says.  But on these points, I think he makes good points and backs it up with data and numbers.

If you can understand what we're saying, we need to do an extensive rewrite.

It's like, the anti-Forge Theory.  I mean, he's basically saying that part of the foundation of the Forge is true - that it, you can segment the market in such and such a way. He does it with the four quadrants, GNS is trilateral.  But the next step is where things diverge dramatically.

In Forge theory, a "better" (coherent) game is one that focuses on one of the segments.  Dancey seems to be saying that games are "better" if they try to service all segments (are incoherent in Forge-speak).

Now, this could be a purely subjective argument (I've always thought it was) about what's "better."  It could be that Dancey's "better" is more sales and more long-term players. Forge's "better" could be in the qualitative judgment on the play experience.

I'd give it all a "whatever floats you boat" except for one small problem. The Forge theory, at least to me, seems to say that if you create games that focus on one segment, you will be successful – more sales and players. Dancey's research seems to fly in the face of that.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's like, the anti-Forge Theory.  I mean, he's basically saying that part of the foundation of the Forge is true - that it, you can segment the market in such and such a way. He does it with the four quadrants, GNS is trilateral.  But the next step is where things diverge dramatically.

In Forge theory, a "better" (coherent) game is one that focuses on one of the segments.  Dancey seems to be saying that games are "better" if they try to service all segments (are incoherent in Forge-speak).

This is what I say in my Landmarks as well.  Dancey is of course right; both in terms of what makes a better game and in terms of what is better for the market as a whole.  The more we go toward forge-style mini-games of limited appeal, the more we will also alienate people, and move toward a mini-industry.

QuoteI'd give it all a "whatever floats you boat" except for one small problem. The Forge theory, at least to me, seems to say that if you create games that focus on one segment, you will be successful – more sales and players. Dancey's research seems to fly in the face of that.

This has always been one of my primary criticisms of the forge: if GNS theory were right, they would be producing games that would be wildly succesful and would blow away existing games.  They usually make up some excuse about "the man" putting them down as to why this hasn't happened "yet".

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowWhat's interesting is that the WotC data categorizes people pretty similarly to Glenn Blacow's article from Different Worlds in 1980 (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html).

I think it's interesting that each of the four quadrants has a roughly equal part of the population--about 22%. I'd suspect they'd arbitrarily placed the boundaries in order to divide the population equally, but Dancy says that the five player types were actual "clusters". (This is amplified in the italicized introduction, which may be an exaggeration of Dancey's intent.)

Assuming they really are talking about "clusters" as opposed to an even scattering, the results suggest there are identifiable "types". It's surprising that those types are found in roughly equal numbers, as if the world population's favored ice cream broke down on equal thirds Chocolate-Vanilla-Strawberry.

Quote from: James J SkachI’d give it all a “whatever floats you boat” except for one small problem. The Forge theory, at least to me, seems to say that if you create games that focus on one segment, you will be successful – more sales and players. Dancey’s research seems to fly in the face of that.

That's one reading. The other reading is that D&D is already the perfect all-purpose game (or in any case, that the all-purpose-game market is saturated), so if anyone other than WotC wants to have long-term success, they should focus on servicing a niche very well (i.e., much better than a general-purpose game possibly can).

Either way, though, we're talking about marketing, which isn't much help to me, as a consumer and player of games. If I'm not crazy about D&D, it doesn't follow that I should play a focused mini-game instead of BRP.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think it's interesting that each of the four quadrants has a roughly equal part of the population--about 22%. I'd suspect they'd arbitrarily placed the boundaries in order to divide the population equally, but Dancy says that the five player types were actual "clusters". (This is amplified in the italicized introduction, which may be an exaggeration of Dancey's intent.)

Sean K. Reynolds says, "The original results were shared with WotC R&D before being released to the public. It's interesting information, and the graph did really work out as described below, with most of the dots clustered into the middle of each quadrant and a smaller cluster in the middle of the graph."  In other words, Sean Reynolds saw the same raw data graph at WotC that Ryan Dancey saw and says it's an accurate description of the clusters.  Given the way each axis is defined, I suppose it's possible that they arbitrarily placed boundaries but it honestly doesn't sound like it because even if they arbitrarily drew the boundaries, that doesn't explain the presence of the cluster of dots Sean Reynolds describes in the middle of each quadrant.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenAssuming they really are talking about "clusters" as opposed to an even scattering, the results suggest there are identifiable "types". It's surprising that those types are found in roughly equal numbers, as if the world population's favored ice cream broke down on equal thirds Chocolate-Vanilla-Strawberry.

Sean Reynolds says that they were clusters in the middle of each quadrant.  Personally, I have no reason not to believe him.  I'm also not as skeptical as you are that the types are evenly divided.  It's possible, even if it looks too convenient.  Why couldn't a poll of favorite ice cream flavors break into even thirds for chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry?