Quote from: Omnifray;4266311. people of types 1 (PG, Gam1) and 3 (CA, Sim) ARE leaving and there's nothing we can do to stop it

Just as Power Gamers and Thinkers both rank as "Gamist" in the GDS or GNS so there isn't a neat mapping, I don't think there is a neat mapping between Character Actor or Storyteller to Simulationist or Dramatist/Narrativist in the WotC model, even though there are superficial similarities.  The "Story Focus" in the WotC survey seems to be "stuff other than combat" and "Tactical" and "Strategic" don't have a clear mapping to the GNS or GDS categories, which is where I think the problem is.

Quote from: Omnifray;42663110. in other words, types 1 and 3 can fuck off to MMOs which are better suited to their preferences, if only they understood what they actually enjoy, the dumb fuckers.

He's talking about commercial games.  If the player base doesn't exist to make a game economically viable, companies are under no obligation to be charitable.  He's talking about economic viability.

Many years ago, at a convention, S. John Ross talked about his Five Elements of a Commercially Successful RPG Setting.  For many years after that, I asked him to write it up and even offered to pay him some money to do so at one point (I'm the guy he mentions at the link above).  The reason he was so reluctant to write it up is that he was afraid that people would use his elements to say that a role-playing setting must have those elements and he doesn't believe that.  He was talking about commercial success.  Broad appeal.  And I think that's what Ryan Dancey is talking about here.

Quote from: Omnifray;426631And here is an example of Dancey doing exactly this, only worse:- he's disregarded the logical Thinker position, which would be that consistent positioning is a part of consistent resolution of combat which is a part of consistent application of the consequences of good chargen decisions which is a part of the facilitating of Thinker style play. E.g. if I'm a Thinker why am I going to concentrate on movement-rate related stats if they are GM-fudged?

OK, so then make that argument to his argument.  Does eliminating too much of the tactics and crunch alienate one of the segments he thinks hasn't left the hobby?  Feel free to argue it does.

Quote from: Omnifray;426633IMHO on the whole people play Forge games because they are impatient to see dramatic things happen - they don't like to waste time noodling around when they could be getting on with the action. I prefer to immerse myself as the same character time and time again over a period of time. Having a substantial fleshed-out game-world to explore and freedom to stray outside specific kinds of scenario makes that possible.

Yes, and I think that may have shown up as "Story Focus/Strategic" or "Storyteller" in the WotC data rather than "Story Focus/Tactical" or "Tactical", even though the focus is on the character.  So look at what the categories mean rather than what they are labeled.  

Quote from: Omnifray;426633But in a narrow sense Forgite games may be more "strategic" in the short-term in the sense that you are "strategically" controlling the story rather than "tactically" directing your character's actions "in the moment".

If the story focus doesn't extend beyond a single session, I'm not sure I'd call that "stategic".  I'm curious what Ryan has to say about my point that Forge games are Tactical rather than Strategic and thus don't match the segments that he thinks are the strongest in the TRPG hobby.

Quote from: RSDancey;426580What if we re-built D&D from the ground up excluding specific positioning?  If the default rule was "players can always do anything they wish during a conflict as long as it sounds reasonable and they succeed on their die rolls as necessary"?

This is how I've always played (and is why I mainly play older versions of D&D). I've also noticed that this style of play does not turn off all players interested in tactics. From 1977-2004, I lived in San Antonio which has a lot of military people. I had a lot of players over the years who were either in the military or were ex-military. Tactics was very important to them and they used them in almost every battle of any complexity.

Often this consisted of taking a minute or two to sketch out the area and quickly plan out what characters should do. We are talking a literal minute or two (real time) before the battle in many cases. This is what I can "real world tactics" -- no games rules involved just the same type of tactics one would use in a real world battle. 3.x and 4e stress tactics, but it is a very different type of tactics (in my experience). It's what I can "rules manipulation tactics" because it is all about using the game rules to the best tactical advantage in battle. It tends to make for battles take forever to game out, require the players to have an unrealistic overhead view of the battle, know exact distances and the like as well as possess a great deal of rules knowledge. Real world tactical training is of very little help in most cases.

My style of play does not turn off those interested in "real world tactics" tactical combat but those who want "rules manipulation tactics" tactical play tend to avoid my games like the plague (which is a good thing from my POV).

All I'm trying to say is that I have found the lack of minis, battlemats, the fiddly rules that go with them does not mean that all players interested in tactical combat are turned off.

Quote from: estar;4266383.X is a great design. There are many thing in it that made me go "Yup if I thought of that it would been in my AD&D 1st campaign". However it was the latest in a long line of mechanic fixes. Granted it was needed at the time but I think trying to find the perfect set of mechanics to appeal to today's gamers should not be the primary goal of the game designer. That the heart of what Ryan Dancey proposed in earlier posts. New mechanics to make tabletop more appealing to today's audience.

But D&D 3e was designed to appeal to the gamers at the time it was released.  That's what the survey was about.  And the quotes that I've been posted from Ryan Dancey here and in other recent threads is part of a much longer thread he posted on Pyramid where he discusses why D&D 3e was designed the way it was, including what was included, how the books were structured, why he thought earlier editions failed, and so on.  Basically, D&D 3e was designed to appeal in certain ways I think the evidence shows that it succeeded at those goals.

While I agree that one can take such things too far and wind up with, for example, rules that offend nobody but also appeal to nobody or simultaneously have something for everyone but also something that everyone hates, I do think there is value is trying to give people what they want, especially if you are talking about managing a market leader like D&D rather than designing small press independent games.  That's the perspective Ryan is talking about -- where D&D should go, not where all games should go.  And as something of a gatekeeper for the hobby, I think that D&D attracting the largest audience possible is good for the hobby as a whole.

Quote from: estar;426638For example take Aladdin the Disney Movie. I consider pretty funny at the time and a fairly good disney movie. However it is loaded with pop references that doesn't age. For example how many know Arsenio Hall? Which is one of the forms the genie changes into?  Contrast to the Lion King which requires no understanding of the times to fully enjoy. Doesn't mean Aladdin can't be enjoyed but it is not the same as it was in the 90s when it was released.

And I would argue that's what new editions are for.  If everyone was perfectly happy with OD&D in the late 1970s (which contains it's fair share of cultural reference that would be lost on children that didn't grow up on pulp novels, Greek mythology, and Ray Harryhausen movies), then there wouldn't have been an explosion of other games over the years, many of which were clearly designed to fix or change something that someone thought was wrong with D&D.  Timeless perfection isn't going to happen, even if it's a worthy goal to shoot for.

Quote from: estar;426638So rather than trying to chase your audience with mechanics. Focus on the roleplaying side and have your mechanics follow what you are focusing on. Build off of a core game, in short do what I did with the Majestic Wilderlands. Implement D&D for a specific setting, idea, or theme and create mechanics to support that.

I think there is certainly merit to designing from the assumption that mechanics are a "necessary evil" rather than the first thing you should worry about.

Quote from: estar;426638A side note: I feel Killers largely disappeared from tabletop in the early 90s. We have First Person Shooters to thank for that.

And Ryan's argument is that other less divisive segments are also disappearing from the hobby.

Quote from: estar;426638Yes that true, but I hope I made clear that the basic idea is that the human referee can look as his group and figure out what elements that works for that particular group. Give the referee the advice and tools make this easier for him. It is a more difficult route than trying to make a game orient to a particular play style. But it would make the game more sustainable in the long run. Players with different styles will be able to see how D&D can be adapted to their game and thus more likely to buy.

I agree that this is ideal but the problem is that it puts a lot of responsibility on the GM.  While there are groups with no shortage of GMs, there are plenty of other people who want to play but can't find a GM and don't want to GM.  One of the biggest complaints about D&D 3.x (and it matches my experience running a D&D 3.5 campaign) is that prep is just too much work.  So the question is, how does one quickly teach players to be a good referee and make subjective judgments about what should happen and how to make the game good for their players if they start out not knowing how to do that?

Quote from: estar;426638Roleplaying mastery then?

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think I need to be more specific.

Role-playing mastery is what frustrates people who see the rules as a necessary evil and don't really care how the game works.  It forces them to learn how to use the rules well or they get punished for it.  But it's also what appeals to players who want a mental challenge and the sense of achievement that comes from figuring things out or doing them well.  Thus totally getting rid of it would probably create a problem, too.

But I think there are two elements of role-playing mastery.  One is based on tricks and the other is based on application.  When D&D 3e decided to include options that were sub-optimal ("Timmy Cards") and hidden synergies (combinations that could be used to great effect), it was basically hiding how to use the game well and expecting players to figure that out.  But there is also a sort of mastery that comes from using the rules well rather than being tricky.  For example, rewarding a player for good tactical choices in combat is not the same thing as rewarding the player for using a tricky feat at just the right moment to win.

Quote from: RandallS;426648My style of play does not turn off those interested in "real world tactics" tactical combat but those who want "rules manipulation tactics" tactical play tend to avoid my games like the plague (which is a good thing from my POV).

I think a big reason why my group uses Battlemats, tokens, and tactical movement is to avoid assumption clash about character can do and expect from what they do.  It lets players plan out their own tactics and solutions without having to wonder whether the GM will see things the same way and let their tactics work.  This goes back to two kids bickering about whether one shot the other while playing cops and robbers.  Even if neither has selfish or malicious motives (which they often do in the real world), there could still be a legitimate difference of opinion about what happened and what can happen and having objective rules to look to for those answers is very useful for keeping a game running smoothly and keeping everyone happy, at least in my experience.

Quote from: John Morrow;426651I think a big reason why my group uses Battlemats, tokens, and tactical movement is to avoid assumption clash about character can do and expect from what they do.  It lets players plan out their own tactics and solutions without having to wonder whether the GM will see things the same way and let their tactics work.

I have very seldom had a problem with this. In fact, I was often told by tactically oriented players that I gave far too much info in my descriptions: info that one would be unlikely to have in real life. (e.g. "How on earth would we know there were exactly eight orcs -- with crossbows yet -- in the brush?").

I guess this was because many of my tactically oriented players when I was starting to DM had combat experience in Vietnam and were used to not having anywhere near perfect information going into a combat. They did not expect their view of the battlefield to always match with "reality" (the GM's view) and were somewhat disconcerted when it was too close a match too often. They did not expect their tactical plans to be workable all the time.

Yes, outside of TFT, I've rarely used minis or tactical maps; at most the minis if present were for illustrating rough positioning. Other times when spatial relationships were at all important, we kept them consistent using a sketch, which wasn't even necessarily shown to the players. Years later I saw this was exactly the approach suggested in Feng Shui. And in fact, while Dragonquest, Gurps, and Champions used precise spaces and movement, I don't think it's been emphasized in many other games. As others have pointed out, D&D wasn't played on a battlemat by default, notwithstanding the range units. It was entirely optional, and I don't even think the procedures for regulating a game this way were very well spelled out in the rules, at least through the the mid-80's, leaving groups to improvise questions like whether facing can be changed at will, or whether you can zip by an enemy without giving him a chance to block you or attack.

Quote from: John Morrow;426651I think a big reason why my group uses Battlemats, tokens, and tactical movement is to avoid assumption clash about character can do and expect from what they do.  It lets players plan out their own tactics and solutions without having to wonder whether the GM will see things the same way and let their tactics work.

"Say yes, or roll dice".

That gets rid of the DM fiat fears that so many players have.  Either they get to do what they want, or, they have some chance of doing what they want decided impartially.  I've seen this in action so many times where a heated argument can be utterly subdued by just naming a number and telling someone to roll a die.  It cuts through the bullshit like a hot knife through butter.

DMs get one caveat:  They can, at any time, stop an action if they feel that it will damage the integrity of the game or that it is damaging the integrity of the group.

If the DM uses this power too much it's up to the players to tell the DM they don't like it.  Likewise, the DM doesn't get to complain if players seem to keep stretching the bounds of the possible past the breaking point - they have a tool to restore order if necessary.

(Although I fear that DMs raised through a whole generation of 3.x will be excessively fiddly about spacing, range, and distance - they've been trained to pay close attention to these things...  Convincing them that they should stop will be tough because it will break well ingrained habits.)

"Say yes or roll the dice" is poisoned by the particular implementation in DitV (which popularized the term), where the GM has no ability to add modifiers or set difficulties.

The 1e DMG though has advice to use dice to decide things, that puts it all in proper perspective.

Quote from: RSDancey;426725That gets rid of the DM fiat fears that so many players have.  Either they get to do what they want, or, they have some chance of doing what they want decided impartially. [...]

DMs get one caveat:  They can, at any time, stop an action if they feel that it will damage the integrity of the game or that it is damaging the integrity of the group.

I'm not sure what you mean here; it sounds like you are saying that "say yes" both eliminates fiat, and is overruled by fiat. Do you have a more specific definition of "will damage the integrity of the game?"

In practice, I have always found that it is good policy not to flatly disallow any given PC action unless it seems completely unreasonable for the character to actually do so - an ordinary person lifting a boulder too huge for a man to lift, "fixing" a magical artifact by kicking it (though there might be a comic campaign where this was plausible), etc. But I think phrasing the rules as "The dungeon master MUST either accede to a player request or allow the player a roll. Except when he decides he doesn't," is weird.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;426740"Say yes or roll the dice" is poisoned by the particular implementation in DitV (which popularized the term), where the GM has no ability to add modifiers or set difficulties.

I wouldn't say it is "poisoned" but it's such a specific catch phrase that it's going to be confusing to people who are familiar with its DitV derived usage; to whose who aren't, this particular wording offers no advantage to its use.

Quote from: RSDancey;426725I've seen this in action so many times where a heated argument can be utterly subdued by just naming a number and telling someone to roll a die.  It cuts through the bullshit like a hot knife through butter.

This doesn't always solve the problem, such as with players who get physically violent when DM fiat or dice doesn't go their way.  Back in the day, I remember playing in games where a violent player would punch the DM in the face for making rulings they didn't like and/or the dice didn't roll in their favor.

Quote from: ggroy;426754This doesn't always solve the problem, such as with players who get physically violent when DM fiat or dice doesn't go their way.  Back in the day, I remember playing in games where a violent player would punch the DM in the face for making rulings they didn't like and/or the dice didn't roll in their favor.

There is nothing you can put in a set of rules that will fix the problem of a player who is willing to hit another player.

Rule #2 for design of NewD&D:

The description of place given to players will be as minimal as possible to allow them to act within reason.

Look at this quote from the 3.0 DMG:

Quote from: 3.0DMG Page 130You are in a chamber about 30 feet across to the south and 30 feet wide east and west.  There are 10-foot wide passages to the left and right as well as straight ahead, each in the center of its respective wall.  Looking back, you see the stairway entered the chamber in the center of the north wall.

Wow, is that a heck of a lot of useless info.  And in fact, the most important feature of the room, the overhead mass of webs, isn't even mentioned, nor is the big heap of crap in the dead center of the room.  But the players know the exact dimensions, as well as the cardinal directions of the passages leaving and entering the space.  I don't know about you, but if I was exploring a pitch dark underground chamber, I'd be a lot more worried about the threats in the immediate area than cartography.

Let's try this again, in a D&D where spacing, positioning, etc. doesn't matter.

QuoteYou enter a small chamber with masonry walls and a flagstone floor.  Above you is a tangled mass of webs which obscure the ceiling.  In the center of the room is a pile of decaying filth.

OK, now they know the room is not a natural cavern, they know about the webs, they know about the pile of spider garbage, and they have a sense of the size of the place.

Also, let's add a corallary to the 2nd rule:

Players get automatic information about the world they inhabit, provided it would be reasonable to assume they're alert to that knowledge.

QuoteEveryone make a Perception check, DC of 15.  Ok, those of you who succeeded can sense movement overhead in the webs.

(There's a monstrous spider in the mass of webs in the room!  Shocker!  How 2 generations of DMG PCs got surprised by this is beyond me.  Why would players have to ask to test this skill is also just busywork.)

If asked, the DM can tell the players where the exits to the room are and their rough location.  If we looked over the shoulder of the player keeping a map of the area, instead of seeing some architecturally precise graphic, we'd see something like this:



Already, we're getting something more streamlined without sacrificing anything that made D&D great.

Quote from: RSDancey;426758Wow, is that a heck of a lot of useless info.  And in fact, the most important feature of the room, the overhead mass of webs, isn't even mentioned, nor is the big heap of crap in the dead center of the room.  But the players know the exact dimensions, as well as the cardinal directions of the passages leaving and entering the space.  I don't know about you, but if I was exploring a pitch dark underground chamber, I'd be a lot more worried about the threats in the immediate area than cartography.

[...]

Already, we're getting something more streamlined without sacrificing anything that made D&D great.

I agree with most of this post in principle, but you're mistaken in your interpretation of room dimensions. It's not a matter of whether a person is "worried about cartography;" it is a means of conveying a person's natural spatial awareness of his immediate surroundings. It is information the character cannot help but have conveyed in the most efficient, minimal fashion. Similarly the exits - they are immediately obvious.

It's problematic that the 3.0 description does not include the debris or webs, yes. I think it is probably better to describe the dimensions first, since it is the broadest, top level information, then exits, then the features in the room. It's just a natural progression of broader to more specific information. This doesn't have to do with positioning rules or cartography, it is just avoiding confusion in an quick, efficient way. "Small chamber" is not helpful information. My living room is a small chamber. My closet is a small chamber.

Exact room dimensions are not the first thing I notice when entering a room. The feeling of being cramped etc. is a more personal take on things and a generalized description would work well. Movement,colors,odd shapes etc. are the most noticable things right off the bat and this makes sense from a survival standpoint. Perhaps measurements could be convayed by terms like Strides,spans, etc. or just "large" "small" "Medium" as a first impression. If the players take time to actualy measure the room then more exact terms would be proper. (immersive anyone?)

Exact dimensions are a hold over from the whole "mapping the dungeon" syndrome and can realy ruin the vibe/flow of a game...I concur with Dancey here.