Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn short, John, you need to understand how words are used in a discussion between people. I'm afraid I can't point you to a link that might explain how that works.

Sure, it's it's all my fault for not understanding what you mean. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Old GeezerAnd in marketing terms, the segmentation of the marketplace into smaller, more easily-targeted niches is a trend unlikely to reverse.  It's not just music and RPGs.  EVERYTHING is being segmented.

Yes, it's happening but it is a good thing, a sustainable thing, and it is irreversible?  I don't think the answer is necessarily "yes" on any of those things.  If the trend continues and never reverses, where does it wind up going?

Quote from: John MorrowYes, it's happening but it is a good thing, a sustainable thing, and it is irreversible?  I don't think the answer is necessarily "yes" on any of those things.  If the trend continues and never reverses, where does it wind up going?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the pendulum...

Quote from: James J SkachLadies and gentlemen, I give you the pendulum...

Correct.  But the problem with the pendulum is that it's the fact that it swings too far in one direction that usually causes it to swing back in the other.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But the problem with the pendulum is that it's the fact that it swings too far in one direction that usually causes it to swing back in the other.

True.

That, however, is life.  See also C. S. Lewis' "Law of Undulation".

Some things simply have to be lived through.

"Ad zephyrum non urinatibus".

Quote from: Old GeezerSome things simply have to be lived through.

True, you can't stop the swinging of the pendulum (I think that's the mistake that political extremes make -- they think they can stop the pendulum on their side), but you can make the over-swing better or worse.  The swinging isn't that bad, but excessive over-swing before the reversal is.

OK, here's my take on the analogy as a whole.  The point of the article is that there is a value to a unified community -- i.e. a common experience so that everyone is familiar with certain works.  Within music, the proposed gain from this was common cultural identity.  Within RPGs, the gain from this is being able to find players.  

I can see value in that.  And I think we do have that by pretty much everyone being familiar with D&D.  The question is the threat to this of having groups splinter off from it.  

The tone of John Morrow's posts seems to be against design and play of "niche" games.  I think that is misguided.  In my opinion, the fastest way to kill the hobby is to for people to regularly play games that they don't really like in the name of "the good of the hobby".  People shouldn't all play the same thing in the name of uniformity.  I think that is backwards and would kill off their enthusiasm for the hobby.  People should play what they love.  

However, I do approve of unified community who often play different games.  In this version of the analogy, playing games with your home group would be like buying records.  Top 40 radio would be like going to a convention (or mini-convention) and playing a bunch of different games -- or to some degree being in an online community and at least hearing about different games.  So I'm for trying out new or old games that you haven't tried in community setting.  After all, there needs to be a way for games to be tried out and work their way up from "niche" to "popular".  

What does this mean?

1) Conventions should grow up and have better organization, with easy information access, a kids room, and so forth.  Conversely, gamers should be willing to spend money and/or effort on good conventions.  

2) Discussion communities should work against being insular.  Drop the "swine war" and "brain damage" and such, and be open to playing new games with new people.  

3) Gamers should mainly play what they like, but try new games from time to time.

Quote from: jhkim1) Conventions should grow up and have better organization, with easy information access, a kids room, and so forth.  Conversely, gamers should be willing to spend money and/or effort on good conventions.  

2) Discussion communities should work against being insular.  Drop the "swine war" and "brain damage" and such, and be open to playing new games with new people.  

3) Gamers should mainly play what they like, but try new games from time to time.

That stuff should be written in stone, John.

But good luck with that. Especially point #1 (which strangely enough, doesn't seem like a popular subject of conversation). Conventions at this point are nothing but wasted opportunities. Ditto for game stores, in fact, which are another environment linking gamers.

Quote from: jhkimThe tone of John Morrow's posts seems to be against design and play of "niche" games.  I think that is misguided.  In my opinion, the fastest way to kill the hobby is to for people to regularly play games that they don't really like in the name of "the good of the hobby".  People shouldn't all play the same thing in the name of uniformity.  I think that is backwards and would kill off their enthusiasm for the hobby.  People should play what they love.

While I agree that people shouldn't be obliged to play games that they don't really like, I don't agree that one needs to create a pure niche game to give people what they like or one thing with maximum intensity.  That does seem to be the approach of a lot of story-games.  Also, ultimately, role-playing is a social hobby and it's hard to do anything social without at least some compromise or insularity.

Creating a niche game is like opening a restaurant that serves a single cuisine.  In a world full of Italian restaurants, Chinese restaurants, German restaurants, Indian restaurants, etc., if a group of people wants to go out for dinner and they all want something different, either they have to part ways and eat separately to get what they want or pick a restaurant that someone is bound to be unhappy with.  There are alternatives to pure single cuisine restaurants that make it easier for different people to share dinner together ranging from food courts at a mall and buffets to fancy restaurants with eclectic menus with a little bit of various different cuisines on their menu.  Sure, the food at the food court or buffet isn't as good as the food at a pure cuisine restaurant and the the eclectic menus rarely have the selection in any single cuisine that a pure restaurant has, but they can often please a large group of people with diverse tastes.  And there are other options, as well.  It's not uncommon to find a steak or hamburger on the menu of a Mexican restaurant or Italian restaurant so that someone looking for "meat and potatoes" can find something to eat.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, I do approve of unified community who often play different games.  In this version of the analogy, playing games with your home group would be like buying records.  Top 40 radio would be like going to a convention (or mini-convention) and playing a bunch of different games -- or to some degree being in an online community and at least hearing about different games.  So I'm for trying out new or old games that you haven't tried in community setting.  After all, there needs to be a way for games to be tried out and work their way up from "niche" to "popular".

I think it's certainly good for players to try new things and go to conventions, it puts the burden of finding appealing games on the purchasers rather than the producers.  That's like asking people to find music in other genres that they'll like.  In theory, it's a good idea for people to sample music in other genres.  In practice, most people don't listen to or even encounter much music in genres that they don't listen to regularly.

But...

Quote from: jhkim1) Conventions should grow up and have better organization, with easy information access, a kids room, and so forth.  Conversely, gamers should be willing to spend money and/or effort on good conventions.  

2) Discussion communities should work against being insular.  Drop the "swine war" and "brain damage" and such, and be open to playing new games with new people.  

3) Gamers should mainly play what they like, but try new games from time to time.

I do think that these are generally good suggestions, particularly the first part of 1 and all of 2 (and 3, too, when people can).

Quote from: John MorrowWhile I agree that people shouldn't be obliged to play games that they don't really like, I don't agree that one needs to create a pure niche game to give people what they like or one thing with maximum intensity.  That does seem to be the approach of a lot of story-games.  Also, ultimately, role-playing is a social hobby and it's hard to do anything social without at least some compromise or insularity.

There are two things I would consider here.

First, it does seem to me that many indie games are indeed very focused. But again, to draw the parallel to music... isn't that what being indie allows you to do? To experiment? They're not mortaging the house for a 5000 print run. Many of them seem to acknowledge that some stuff works and some doesn't. I like the fact they put an emphasis on actual play, which allows to reflect on the better parts of games. There's also a lot of recycling (which is not exclusive to this particular mouvement, we see it in mainstream to) so that one particular mechanic or concept can reappear in another product and shine even more than it did in the original.

The second important thing is to ask ourselves, as traditional gamers raised on a healthy diet of traditional games how strange these games really are compared to the mainstream stuff. Are we just taking certain things for granted? Sometimes I wonder.

In any event, I'm going to take what works and leave the rest for someone else. Dogs In The Vineyard is an excellent example. I find the mechanics extremely intrusive and breaking the flow in a manner I cannot enjoy. But I do think there are possibilities there if the idea is further refined. If someone enjoys that game right now, good for them.

Meanwhile, we still have a solid foundation with D&D (and the OGL) and a few other top sellers. We could use some new blood, though. Something that would have at least a Vampire-like impact.

I really like John Kim's suggestions, though. Less insularity and better network opportunities (like conventions) would do us all some good!

Quote from: Consonant DudeFirst, it does seem to me that many indie games are indeed very focused. But again, to draw the parallel to music... isn't that what being indie allows you to do? To experiment? They're not mortaging the house for a 5000 print run. Many of them seem to acknowledge that some stuff works and some doesn't.

Sure.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI like the fact they put an emphasis on actual play, which allows to reflect on the better parts of games. There's also a lot of recycling (which is not exclusive to this particular mouvement, we see it in mainstream to) so that one particular mechanic or concept can reappear in another product and shine even more than it did in the original.

Yes, but I do actually read threads on Story-Games and about things like the indie experiences at GenCon and so on and I'm seeing an increasing number of complaints about games that don't play well, show poor playtesting, etc.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe second important thing is to ask ourselves, as traditional gamers raised on a healthy diet of traditional games how strange these games really are compared to the mainstream stuff. Are we just taking certain things for granted? Sometimes I wonder.

I think that some people do, but I'm pretty sure that I don't.  My group played mostly homebrew systems that we created ourselves for years and I experimented from almost the beginning, because I was also playing board games with homebrew rules at the time (e.g., Besieged was a Stratego variant with a castle and attackers, our Bermuda Triangle had things like chance cards and ship investments, etc.) and had been playing imaginative games with action figures and toy cars for years.

My first Traveller games had no GM because nobody wanted to be GM.  People in my hometown experimented with running solo Traveller games off of random tables with no players or GM.  I created a system for Star Wars figures where the named characters succeeded on a 4-6 while the grunts only succeeded on a 6.  Later on, I played games with two GMs, games where the only rule was that high rolls were better than low rolls, games without dice or formal rules, a game with no rules and coin flips as a randomizer, and so on.  So I've done quite a bit of experimentation over the years, including in areas that indie games have latched on to.  And my own take, after all of that experimentation, is that there are good reasons why traditional games do most of the things that they do.

There is also a point where a game stops being the same hobby as a role-playing game.  That same debate was raised years ago when James Wallis wrote The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen and was attempting to create role-playing games in a "New Style" because he had lost interest in the traditional type.  If you remove the player identification with and control of a specific character or small group of characters, have you fundamentally changed the hobby into something else?  And if you craft a game so that it can only play out a single type of scenario with a very tightly controlled type of character, is that closer to sandbox D&D or to those canned mystery games that play out one scenario?  Are they pushing the limits of role-playing games or creating a new hobby that's related to but different from traditional role-playing?

Quote from: Consonant DudeIn any event, I'm going to take what works and leave the rest for someone else. Dogs In The Vineyard is an excellent example. I find the mechanics extremely intrusive and breaking the flow in a manner I cannot enjoy. But I do think there are possibilities there if the idea is further refined. If someone enjoys that game right now, good for them.

I think the ideas behind crafting a town and creating a character likely to play out dramatically could be ported to a traditional system fairly easily without the intrusive mechanics.  It's certainly well written, but I wonder how many people will be playing DitV 10 years from now.  Will it be another The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen?

Quote from: Consonant DudeMeanwhile, we still have a solid foundation with D&D (and the OGL) and a few other top sellers. We could use some new blood, though. Something that would have at least a Vampire-like impact.

Yes.  And I think that some people have asked interesting questions along that line.  How does one create a new role-playing game that could be as popular as D&D without being D&D?

Quote from: Consonant DudeI really like John Kim's suggestions, though. Less insularity and better network opportunities (like conventions) would do us all some good!

I think John Kim's suggestions were certainly good, but I think I'm more interested in what game producers can do to keep the hobby healthy than what fans and potential fans can do.  And even if everyone winds up disagreeing with me, I'm happy that I'm generating some interesting ideas and suggestions.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile I agree that people shouldn't be obliged to play games that they don't really like, I don't agree that one needs to create a pure niche game to give people what they like or one thing with maximum intensity.  That does seem to be the approach of a lot of story-games.  Also, ultimately, role-playing is a social hobby and it's hard to do anything social without at least some compromise or insularity.

Creating a niche game is like opening a restaurant that serves a single cuisine.  In a world full of Italian restaurants, Chinese restaurants, German restaurants, Indian restaurants, etc., if a group of people wants to go out for dinner and they all want something different, either they have to part ways and eat separately to get what they want or pick a restaurant that someone is bound to be unhappy with.

I don't think that the intensity has anything to do with the definition of a niche.  If enough people like a high-intensity game, it would no longer be a niche.  Conversely, if few people liked a low-intensity game, it would be a niche.  

Now, some indie games are narrow in focus (like the Shab-al-hiri Roach), but others are broad like Primetime Adventures.  In the same way, you have some narrow traditional games like Paranoia (everyone plays a mutant traitor Red-Clearance troubleshooter) or Toon or Macho Women With Guns.  

In terms of number of people, I don't think Forge-related games in general are catering to a smaller market than any other small press or indie publisher.  For example, it's true that Dogs in the Vineyard only has a small audience, but I don't think it's any smaller than, say, Coyote Trail or FTL Now or Forward To Adventure.  No one in the small press can instantly take on the top tier games.  There are small press games without a niche -- i.e. that go head-to-head with D&D or GURPS or other leader without having a distinctive hook.  However, they usually sink without a trace.

Quote from: jhkimI don't think that the intensity has anything to do with the definition of a niche.  If enough people like a high-intensity game, it would no longer be a niche.  Conversely, if few people liked a low-intensity game, it would be a niche.

Well, my point was that they narrow the focus in order to achieve intensity.  I don't think it's necessary, either, but that's the theory a lot of them seem to be operating under.

Quote from: jhkimNow, some indie games are narrow in focus (like the Shab-al-hiri Roach), but others are broad like Primetime Adventures.  In the same way, you have some narrow traditional games like Paranoia (everyone plays a mutant traitor Red-Clearance troubleshooter) or Toon or Macho Women With Guns.

While Paranoia had some good success as a beer-and-pretzels game, I'm not sure I'd consider Toon or Macho Women with Guns all that traditional, mainstream, or successful.  And I don't think anyone touted any of those games as the next great thing, a model for other games to emulate, or (at the extreme) the future of the hobby.

Quote from: jhkimIn terms of number of people, I don't think Forge-related games in general are catering to a smaller market than any other small press or indie publisher.  For example, it's true that Dogs in the Vineyard only has a small audience, but I don't think it's any smaller than, say, Coyote Trail or FTL Now or Forward To Adventure.  No one in the small press can instantly take on the top tier games.  There are small press games without a niche -- i.e. that go head-to-head with D&D or GURPS or other leader without having a distinctive hook.  However, they usually sink without a trace.

Again, I don't think anyone is really touting Coyote Trail, FTL Now, Forward To Adventure as far superior to other traditional games or as the future of the hobby, and I'm not expecting anyone to instantly take on the top tier.  But I've asked on some of the other threads related to this one, do the FATE games sell better than Ann Dupuis' printed editions of Fudge?  Does Sorcerer or Prime Time Adventures sell better than Theatrix did?  Does Capes sell better than The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen?  If not, then is the Forge community and Forge diaspora really doing experimental games and indie games any better than Ann Dupuis and Steffan O'Sullivan, David Berkman, or James Wallace?  And if they don't, then what's all the fuss about?  Are the things that make the Forge and Forge diaspora games distinct from those earlier efforts (e.g., the help of the Forge community, the actual play threads and discussions, the GNS and the Big Model, the tight focus, etc.) really produce better games or do things better than people were doing all along with groups like the GPA?

Quote from: John MorrowWell, my point was that they narrow the focus in order to achieve intensity.  I don't think it's necessary, either, but that's the theory a lot of them seem to be operating under.

I should be clearer.  In my opinion, neither narrow focus nor intensity correspond to how wide an audience a game has.  D&D is considerably more narrow-focus than GURPS, and yet it has ten times the players.  There aren't any very narrow focus games in the top ten -- but there are a lot of things that aren't in the top ten.  I don't think new designs should restrict themselves to rehashing what is currently in the top ten.  

Looking beyond tabletop RPGs, I would say that many of the MMORPG titles as well as other hobby games like Magic the Gathering are more narrow in application than is the case for the top ten tabletop RPGs.  Could a narrow-focus single-scenario game like a murder mystery party game be popular?  It seems possible to me.  So I don't reject narrow-focus games like Paranoia as wasted effort.  

Quote from: John MorrowBut I've asked on some of the other threads related to this one, do the FATE games sell better than Ann Dupuis' printed editions of Fudge?  Does Sorcerer or Prime Time Adventures sell better than Theatrix did?  Does Capes sell better than The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen?  If not, then is the Forge community and Forge diaspora really doing experimental games and indie games any better than Ann Dupuis and Steffan O'Sullivan, David Berkman, or James Wallace?

I don't have any numbers on these.  I was far less in touch regarding publishing during those days than I was today, and I've never seen them release any numbers about their products.  I suspect Theatrix sales were pretty minimal, smaller than Sorcerer.  After all, people only heard about it through the Internet, and that was much smaller in the day.  Also, the word on Theatrix was mixed and it had no particular fan community.  I suspect the "New Style" line had a bigger burst of initial sales since it was through a known publisher (Hogshead) that could move through the existing distribution system.  However, I know that the publisher James Wallis complained about the same thing that many others have, though, that sales drop hugely after the first two months.  A lot of people may have bought them -- possibly more than the Forge games -- but I suspect actual play was limited.  I haven't seen any fan community of play for the "New Style" games.  In contrast, Dogs in the Vineyard has had fairly steady sales for years and a community of active players.

Quote from: jhkimI should be clearer.  In my opinion, neither narrow focus nor intensity correspond to how wide an audience a game has.  D&D is considerably more narrow-focus than GURPS, and yet it has ten times the players.  There aren't any very narrow focus games in the top ten -- but there are a lot of things that aren't in the top ten.  I don't think new designs should restrict themselves to rehashing what is currently in the top ten.

Fair enough.  And I do think there is such a thing as "too broad" as well as "too narrow".  While writing about why D&D did better than GURPS on Pyramid (in the same thread where he talked about the player types from the WotC survey), Ryan Dancey suggested that a really successful game needs a "core story".  He wrote, "The 'core story' seems to be a psychologically important hook that many people need in order to frame thier initial experiences with an entertainment property."  Or, more generally, a "core story" helps people know what they are going to do with the game.  It's how to answer the question, "What is this game about?"

Quote from: jhkimLooking beyond tabletop RPGs, I would say that many of the MMORPG titles as well as other hobby games like Magic the Gathering are more narrow in application than is the case for the top ten tabletop RPGs.  Could a narrow-focus single-scenario game like a murder mystery party game be popular?  It seems possible to me.  So I don't reject narrow-focus games like Paranoia as wasted effort.

I'm not claiming that Paranoia is a wasted effort.  I do think that the more narrow a games focus is, once you get past a certain point, the easier it is for people to bore of it rather than sticking with it for 30 years, like some people have for D&D.  I can't imagine a group playing Paranoia for 30 years, though I suppose it's possible.

Quote from: jhkimI don't have any numbers on these.  I was far less in touch regarding publishing during those days than I was today, and I've never seen them release any numbers about their products.  I suspect Theatrix sales were pretty minimal, smaller than Sorcerer.  After all, people only heard about it through the Internet, and that was much smaller in the day.  Also, the word on Theatrix was mixed and it had no particular fan community.

Theatrix did sell through the three-tier system and I did see it in hobby stores (though often, eventually, in the bargain bin).  If a hobby shop stocked a copy, that was essentially a sale.  But the sales certainly could have been pretty low on that one.  

Quote from: jhkimI suspect the "New Style" line had a bigger burst of initial sales since it was through a known publisher (Hogshead) that could move through the existing distribution system.  However, I know that the publisher James Wallis complained about the same thing that many others have, though, that sales drop hugely after the first two months.  A lot of people may have bought them -- possibly more than the Forge games -- but I suspect actual play was limited.

It was an RPGnet darling for a while and you can certainly find enthusiastic discussion of it.  It was also fairly inexpensive.  I think I might have a copy of it somewhere.

Quote from: jhkimI haven't seen any fan community of play for the "New Style" games.  In contrast, Dogs in the Vineyard has had fairly steady sales for years and a community of active players.

How many of the copies of DitV that get sold get played or get played more than once or twice?  I own a copy.  I've never played it.  It's very well written and has some neat ideas in it, so I don't regret my purchase in that regard, but I doubt I'll ever get to play it unless I go to a convention just to play it.  I do think that's one positive thing that the Forge and Forge diaspora people do, which is spend a lot of effort running demo games at conventions.  That's a great way to introduce people to the game, though based on the reports I do sometimes wonder what sort of impression most people take away from some of the pitches and demos.