TheRPGSite

I was asked to post about this in a thread of its own...

Several times, when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of having a game with perfect niche appeal vs. a game that has broad popular appeal but might make compromises to do so, I've drawn comparisons to this article from an homage site to WABC, the #1 Top 40 station in the US for many years, on the day WABC stopped playing music and the death of Top 40 radio in general (http://www.musicradio77.com/died.html) (edited to highlight the point of comparison that I want to make):

   WABC stopped playing music on May 10, 1982 a date known as "the day the music died". The main reason is really quite simple: FM Radio.

Radio is a medium of technical advancement. [...] Throughout the country, particularly in major markets, the growth of FM stereo increased dramatically in the 70's. This technical improvement had two effects:

First, FM stereo sounds better. The same music played on AM vs. FM clearly sounds significantly better on FM. [...] If the music on WABC did not sound as good as the identical music on another, better sounding station on FM, what chance did it ultimately have? And, of course, FM radios themselves just kept getting better and better.  [...] Of course AM stations did (and still do) have a further reach, but the difference was now insignificant as far as the local radio market was concerned.

Second, and I believe this point is frequently overlooked: With the advent of FM stations you introduced another 20 plus radio stations into the market. When AM was by itself, there were simply fewer radio stations. Those fewer stations needed broad appeal formats to survive; whether it be music, talk, or news you had target your format to be generally appealing. Now, what happens when you add more radio stations? You end up with a different kind of programming.

Today, radio stations generally do not try to program to everyone. Instead they target a specific demographic group and program to it. So, rather than playing all the hits you pick and choose from that list to fit your demographic. Today, instead of traditional "Top 40", you have Alternative Rock, Classic Rock, Urban Contemporary, Classic Soul, Adult Contemporary, Hot Adult Contemporary, Contemporary Hit Radio, Dance, Oldies and so on. Musicradio WABC tried to reach the audiences of all of this music and successfully did so for many years. But now with so many radio stations, music is fragmented into separate stations each targeting their own small piece of the music audience. This was the ultimate downfall of all the great AM Top Forty radio stations like WABC (and many others like WLS Chicago, CKLW Windsor/Detroit, KHJ Los Angeles etc.).

Was something lost? This is, of course, debatable. In my view, yes. Whenever "we" do things together we have a bond. We all listened to these great Top 40 radio stations in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Ask anyone over the age of 30 if they ever heard of the Beatles, the Four Tops, Elvis Presley, or the Beach Boys and almost everyone can name their hits. Do the same for most any of today's stars and even the 14-25 year olds won't know the stars' names from the "other" formats. Of course, the plus side is that you don't have to listen to a lot of music you don't like just to hear the things you do like. That is the basis for today's music radio programming. Yet, a lot of the fun of a station like Musicradio WABC has been lost. Instead of trying to find that magic formula of what will appeal to most of us, we try to find some combination that won't offend only a few of us. In my opinion, that's too bad.

I miss the jingles, the personality disc jockeys, the grand promotions, and, the feeling that I got when I walked into a place where I had never been before and heard the sound of the Musicradio WABC chime ringing in the background from a stranger's transistor radio...

Another thing you'll notice is that radio stations now change format more frequently, too.  As one genre of music rises and another falls, you may find your classic rock station has suddenly become a dance music station.  

Is the music industry better than it was 30 years ago?  There is certainly more variety and it's easier to listen to exactly what you want, but as the person who wrote that homage page asks, was something lost?  And in a social game where you need to find other people who share you tastes to play with, I don't think that's simply a idle concern.  In many ways, have D&D being the Beatles, Four Tops, Elvis, or the Beach Boys has been good for the hobby because it gives role-players a common experience and the RPG equivalent of the iPod is people sitting at home playing World of Warcraft rather than sitting around playing D&D with their friends.

As with sales figures, commonality as such is an abstract concept that means nothing.

One must always ask: How does the commonality come about, what does it rest on, are/were alternatives even available?

As someone whose defining moment in music was listening to the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks, and to whom the only listenable radio show in all of Europe during the better part of the 1980s was John Peel, a Top 40s commonality isn't one I ever wanted to be part of.

Nor did this make me an isolated snowflake.

Because the alternative to a regime of taste based on the smallest common denominator is not the atomization of an audience into singular monads.

On the contrary, it's the creation of subcultures, which are by definition group practices and styles.

Whether in gaming or in music: you have this cultural dichotomy going on between utter conformity on one hand, utter dispersal on the other. The factual existence of subcultures contradicts that. Just as the alternative to the bestseller list isn't "vanity publishing," so the alternative to Top40s charts isn't "vanity music."

It's clearly an affront to you, but you need to face the fact that there are viable communities out there which, even though they do not share your cultural values one little bit, are nonetheless viable communities.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOn the contrary, it's the creation of subcultures, which are by definition group practices and styles.

That is certainly an option, provided the subcultures are large enough, because as their number approaches 1, the closer it becomes to atomization.  I don't think that the subcultures would be large enough to be healthy if they simply form out of parts of the existing role-playing culture.  I do think that they could be large enough if they bring new people into the hobby.  But then the community that plays subculture X games would likely have as much in common with people who play subculture Y games as fans of the Sex Pistols have in common with fans of Neil Diamond.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhether in gaming or in music: you have this cultural dichotomy going on between utter conformity on one hand, utter dispersal on the other. The factual existence of subcultures contradicts that. Just as the alternative to the bestseller list isn't "vanity publishing," so the alternative to Top40s charts isn't "vanity music."

Contradicts what?  The point isn't that subcultures can't happen (of course they can) but that two subcultures can have very little in common.  Sure, I know the name "Sex Pistols" and even the name of the album, but I can't tell you what their music really sounds like or name a single song.  And I'm not sure if you could name songs in some of the genres I like.  But I bet we could both name a Beatles song or an Elvis song and hum a bit of it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIt's clearly an affront to you, but you need to face the fact that there are viable communities out there which, even though they do not share your cultural values one little bit, are nonetheless viable communities.

Define viable.  At what point does a subculture cease to be viable, in your opinion?

Quote from: John MorrowI was asked to post about this in a thread of its own...

Thanks John!

Here's a first thought that is somewhat similar to what I said in the other thread earlier: I think it's no wonder this industry is not growing (and many contend it is slowly shrinking) when Elvis (D&D) remains king for 30 years. This industry needs more hits. And I'm not saying necessarly indie or experimental hits... but you need fresh faces once in a while. We've had few recently. Since the mid 90s, it's pretty bleak, IMO.

As for the analogy, I think the first thing would be to establish the parallels, would you agree?

So, the games are analoguous to music artists.
We can map retailers to music stores.
Internet impact can similarly be mapped, right down to piracy.

But where's the broadcasting of RPGs? Internet forums are definitly not it. Too much freedom (they play pretty much the role music forums do). There's never been anything like Radio for RPGs, IMO.

I don't think things have changed much in this hobby. We're seeing the same kind of diversity, the same lack of broadcasting and Elvis is still reigning at the top of the charts :)

QuoteThat is certainly an option, provided the subcultures are large enough, because as their number approaches 1, the closer it becomes to atomization.  

Abundant empirical evidence in music and gaming proves this idea, while sounding reasonable, is anything but. Bunches of people have been listening to bunches of music styles. And the Forge, the very origin of story games, has been a collective endeavor. Whatever else one may dislike about it: it wasn't individualism but community, whether as publishing advice, design critique, or actual play, has been central to the storygames subculture from the get go.

QuoteContradicts what?  

Contradicts precisely what I said it did.

QuoteThe point isn't that subcultures can't happen (of course they can) but that two subcultures can have very little in common.

I could hum a Beatles song because once upon a time that stuff was inescapable. That I can now hum other tunes, together with like-minded people, I consider a major asset. I don't miss a commonality that was imposed on me & mine.

And it's not as if before 1982 people's music interests had been marching in lockstep. I mean, early Pink Floyd? Captain Beefheart? Decades of non-mainstream Jazz and Blues? That grace of cultural cohesion from which you're seeing us all falling is a myth. For a while it was enforced more rigorously in some quarters than is possible any longer. Good riddance.

As for our rather more cozy corner of culture: ditto. Look at WoD vs. D&D. Look at the rpg.net D&D edition wars. At least Elvis fans can agree on which are his greatest hits. But when it comes to D&D, even the mainstream is divided against itself.

Not that the mainstream knows that story games even exist. After half a decade, their impact on mainstream game design has been nigh-zero. Their siphoning off of mainstream gamers, ditto.

So, story games aren't eroding the values of Western culture as we know it. For one thing, because they're way too marginal. For another and far more important thing, because "we" and "our" culture have been far more diverse all along than you claim.

QuoteDefine viable.  At what point does a subculture cease to be viable, in your opinion?

Viable = continues to generate original, creative activity among its members. Once it doesn't, once it's content merely to repeat the same riffs, song lengths, dress codes, design patterns, attitudes, catchphrases, it's no longer viable. See Punk rock. See WoD. See OSRIC.

Quote from: John MorrowThat is certainly an option, provided the subcultures are large enough, because as their number approaches 1, the closer it becomes to atomization.  I don't think that the subcultures would be large enough to be healthy if they simply form out of parts of the existing role-playing culture.  I do think that they could be large enough if they bring new people into the hobby.  But then the community that plays subculture X games would likely have as much in common with people who play subculture Y games as fans of the Sex Pistols have in common with fans of Neil Diamond.

Well, my favorite gaming convention at this point is AmberCon NorthWest.  It's only usually around 90-100 people, but it is a great time.  The Amber set seem more of a separate gaming sub-sub-culture than indie RPGs are.  For example, the biggest gathering of indie gamers and publishers is still GenCon Indy, whereas Amber has its own conventions -- ACUS, ACUK, ACNW, and TBR.  (There are dedicated indie gamer gatherings, but they're small compared to GenCon.)  

Is the Amber RPG community healthy?  I'm not sure how one would judge.  I guess one definition of "health" is there being a growing number of participants.  However, that seems to attach an unfair stigma of "unhealthy" to old-fashioned hobbies that are going out of style, when I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.  Alternatively, there is Pierce's definition of generating original creative activity which seems reasonable to me.  As for Amber -- I don't have a picture of the wider community, but everyone enjoys themselves at ACNW, and the numbers seem fairly constant though not particularly growing.  It is barely generating commercial published works, but people continue to develop stuff for campaigns.

Quote from: Consonant DudeHere's a first thought that is somewhat similar to what I said in the other thread earlier: I think it's no wonder this industry is not growing (and many contend it is slowly shrinking) when Elvis (D&D) remains king for 30 years. This industry needs more hits. And I'm not saying necessarly indie or experimental hits... but you need fresh faces once in a while. We've had few recently. Since the mid 90s, it's pretty bleak, IMO.

Well, arguably we've had three variations on Elvis but I think your point is valid.  The industry does need more hits.  And I think it's going to get hits one of two ways -- either by appealing to the mainstream of the hobby or by bringing new people in.  Ideally both.  And that's pretty much was WW did.  So, yes, I think that's a very cool observation from my analogy

Quote from: Consonant DudeAs for the analogy, I think the first thing would be to establish the parallels, would you agree?

Sure.

Quote from: Consonant DudeSo, the games are analoguous to music artists.
We can map retailers to music stores.
Internet impact can similarly be mapped, right down to piracy.

Yes, I think that's correct.

Quote from: Consonant DudeBut where's the broadcasting of RPGs? Internet forums are definitly not it. Too much freedom (they play pretty much the role music forums do). There's never been anything like Radio for RPGs, IMO.

I think the analogy is that the GM is the broadcaster and the players are the audience, in that the GM was generally the person who bought the books and the players wouldn't spend nearly as much on the game.  At least that's the sort of "party radio" that the article was talking about, hearing it at the beach or park or in cars driving by.  And the iPod is basically World of Warcraft, where you can buy your game and play by yourself, without anyone else in the room if you want.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI don't think things have changed much in this hobby. We're seeing the same kind of diversity, the same lack of broadcasting and Elvis is still reigning at the top of the charts :)

I think that's a very good point.  The hobby doesn't need a new edition of D&D.  It needs another Vampire that speaks to the younger potential players to bring them in.  And the indie/story-oriented games aren't going to fill that role unless they cover subjects with broad appeal and are explained in a way that beginners can get, not only to play with experienced players but to learn from the books.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd the Forge, the very origin of story games, has been a collective endeavor. Whatever else one may dislike about it: it wasn't individualism but community, whether as publishing advice, design critique, or actual play, has been central to the storygames subculture from the get go.

That had been happening for years in other venues (e.g., Alarums and Excursions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarums_and_Excursions) in particular) and the idea of story-oriented games, player empowerment, and GM-less games had been tried by other games before, including, notably, Theatrix and Baron Munchausen, and there was publishing advice going back at least into the mid-1990s, as well.

Philip Masters wrote an article that went into some of the terminology being used on A&E and among game designers for [i[Interactive Fantasy[/i] in the mid-1990s called On The Vocabulary of Role-Playing (http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Vocabulary.html).

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI could hum a Beatles song because once upon a time that stuff was inescapable. That I can now hum other tunes, together with like-minded people, I consider a major asset. I don't miss a commonality that was imposed on me & mine.

You might if you had trouble finding like-minded people to hum along with.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd it's not as if before 1982 people's music interests had been marching in lockstep. I mean, early Pink Floyd? Captain Beefheart? Decades of non-mainstream Jazz and Blues? That grace of cultural cohesion from which you're seeing us all falling is a myth. For a while it was enforced more rigorously in some quarters than is possible any longer. Good riddance.

Not a myth at all.  There was a mainstream and there were subcultures.  But what happens when there isn't a mainstream?  All Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, non-mainstream Jazz and Blues and no Elvis or The Beatles?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for our rather more cozy corner of culture: ditto. Look at WoD vs. D&D. Look at the rpg.net D&D edition wars. At least Elvis fans can agree on which are his greatest hits. But when it comes to D&D, even the mainstream is divided against itself.

Well, sure, but that's because the owners of D&D, three times now, have said "The King is sounding old.  Let's crown a new King."  And while they may play a lot of the same cover songs, the sound is a bit different and some people like the new sound and some people prefer the old.  I'm not saying that we should listen to Elvis forever.  Elvis was eclipsed by the Beatles.  The hobby can move on.  But there aren't any more Elvises or Beatles because rather than appealing to the mainstream, most artists just appeal to a smaller niche.  And rather than listing outside of their niche, everyone just sticks to the format that they like.  To listen to the variety that I used to get with one Top 40s station, I need to shift between an oldies station, a rock station, an adult contemporary station, a dance station, a rap station, and so on.  I also sometimes listen to the top songs on iTunes for all of the music genres looking for gems.  I can find stuff on all of those stations I like but I have to go looking for it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot that the mainstream knows that story games even exist. After half a decade, their impact on mainstream game design has been nigh-zero. Their siphoning off of mainstream gamers, ditto.

Well, yes.  There are two angles to what I'm talking about.  The first is the reality that they don't have a huge impact.  The second is the "what if" "coherent" games became more dominant and games started being created for niches rather than mainstream appeal?

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, story games aren't eroding the values of Western culture as we know it. For one thing, because they're way too marginal. For another and far more important thing, because "we" and "our" culture have been far more diverse all along than you claim.

I never claimed that there wasn't diversity.  You're the one who seems to be implying that the Forge was the origins of a lot of things that had been around a lot longer in general.  Experimentation has been going on since the very first days of role-playing which was, itself, an experiment in wargaming.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityViable = continues to generate original, creative activity among its members. Once it doesn't, once it's content merely to repeat the same riffs, song lengths, dress codes, design patterns, attitudes, catchphrases, it's no longer viable. See Punk rock. See WoD. See OSRIC.

Then I have a different definition of "viable" than you do.  My definition includes "sustainable" past the current members dying off.

Quote from: jhkimIs the Amber RPG community healthy?  I'm not sure how one would judge.  I guess one definition of "health" is there being a growing number of participants.  However, that seems to attach an unfair stigma of "unhealthy" to old-fashioned hobbies that are going out of style, when I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.

There isn't anything wrong with that if you don't have a problem with the inevitable extinction of the hobby.

Quote from: jhkimAlternatively, there is Pierce's definition of generating original creative activity which seems reasonable to me.  As for Amber -- I don't have a picture of the wider community, but everyone enjoys themselves at ACNW, and the numbers seem fairly constant though not particularly growing.  It is barely generating commercial published works, but people continue to develop stuff for campaigns.

How many people in that community would love to play an Amber game but can't find anyone to play with?

From my Livejournal account:

Quote

• The majority of gamers that played tabletop role-playing games are, in general, the sort of people that (as WOW players) post things like "LOLRP" and name their character "Backstabber". Role-playing is not, never has, and never shall be an attractive component to RPGs; the stuff that sells, the stuff drives the business in every medium where RPGs thrive, are the games that minimize role-playing as such and maximize gaming and gameplay. The "interactive movie" formula of Mass Effect is as close as the majority shall ever accept- and ever go.


• The minority of gamers that played tabletop role-playing games to actually portray a character, the sort that the Story Games folk purport to pursue, are increasingly finding that the free-form, forum-based RP toys (because there's no game to them, really) more to their liking when not writing fanfic or dabbling in theater.


• The very idea of what we know as role-playing games was, in truth, an unstable fusion of two subcultural trends that really have no business sharing space together. Once the technology arose that allowed both parties to part ways, they would do so- and that's just what's happening now.


• To WOTC's credit, they do acknowledge this by their rebranding of D&D as a "fantasy adventure game" and refocusing D&D increasingly on the core skirmish-scale wargame and adventure board game fusion that Gygax and Arneson invented back in the early 1970s. To WOTC's detriment, they fail to realize that MMORPGs do it all better than they ever will, save for speed of content publishing, and even that takes a big backseat to convenience and persistence- something that's been cried for, as show by actions, since the beginning.


• Because the gamers are increasingly gravitating to MMOs, console and PC RPGs while the role-players have finally found an outlet that takes them away from the game stuff that they don't want, there isn't anything for would-be saviors of tabletop RPGs to rescue. The forum RP communities do all that any indie RPG could do better, and the MMOs do all that traditional adventure games can do better, so unless there's a major reversal or unexpected turn of events what we have now is the Twilight of the Gods and the End of an Age.

Quote from: John MorrowThat had been happening for years in other venues (e.g., Alarums and Excursions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarums_and_Excursions) in particular) and the idea of story-oriented games, player empowerment, and GM-less games had been tried by other games before, including, notably, Theatrix and Baron Munchausen, and there was publishing advice going back at least into the mid-1990s, as well.

Sure, awesome. So?

QuoteYou might if you had trouble finding like-minded people to hum along with.

Not in the past 25 years, but hey.

QuoteNot a myth at all.  There was a mainstream and there were subcultures.  But what happens when there isn't a mainstream?  All Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, non-mainstream Jazz and Blues and no Elvis or The Beatles?

Paradise, sheer Bliss.

QuoteTo listen to the variety that I used to get with one Top 40s station,

My memory of yon days is thankfully foggy, but your "variety" is my "uniform aural pollution."

QuoteI never claimed that there wasn't diversity.  You're the one who seems to be implying that the Forge was the origins of a lot of things that had been around a lot longer in general.  Experimentation has been going on since the very first days of role-playing which was, itself, an experiment in wargaming.

For a proper understanding of my actual position, I recommend you start reading my posts on therpgsite.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarityor a proper understanding of my actual position, I recommend you start reading my posts on therpgsite.

Well, you called The Forge, "the very origin of story games".  That depends on what you mean by "story games".  If you are defining that as the games produced by the Forge diaspora, then you are pretty much saying that games produced by the Forge community had their origin on the Forge community.  If, on the other hand, you were talking about that style of game (with a story focus, experimentation, writer-publishers, etc.) then that's been going on a lot longer.  So what exactly did you mean by that statement?

On second reading, I'm more troubled by my use of the word "origin." Am I not aware of its function as keystone in the history of Western logocentrism? Also, "very." The way I use it is for emphasis bordering on tautology. That's rhetorically irresponsible. As for "the" and "of," well don't get me started.

In 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.

Quote from: John MorrowThere isn't anything wrong with that if you don't have a problem with the inevitable extinction of the hobby.

The second great truth of the Buddha:

Everything changes.

Also, often expressed as, "Everything dies".

The extinction of the RPG hobby is, in fact, inevitable.  One day people will look back on it just like we look back on the Mah Jongg craze of the 30s.

All hobbies die.  Model railroading is experiencing its last gasp; most modelers are Baby Boomers, are therefore now Empty-Nesters, and have a huge amount of disposable income.

In twenty years when the Baby Boomers are on a fixed income, I expect the model railroad industry to have imploded.  Right now, it's about a half-billion dollar a year industry.  The decline will start in about seven to ten years.

And 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.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerFrom my Livejournal account:

"they fail to realize that MMORPGs do it all better than they ever will,"

Sorry, Junior, you're off on this one.

What MMORPGS sell is the same thing that chain restaurants sell -- a reliable, consistent level of quality.  When I go to Olive Garden, I know I'm going to get a "pretty good" Caesar salad.  What I will NOT get is a FUCKING AWESOME one, like the one I got in the marina restaurant at Port Superior.

Of course, I will also not get the inedible pork chop I got somewhere around Mauston, Wi, either.

Most people are INCREDIBLY risk-averse, and happily forgo the possibility of ever having a wonderful meal to avoid the possibility of having a rotten one.

MMORPGs cater exactly to this mindset.  When I log onto WoW, I know exactly what I'm going to get.  It will never reach the abysmal depths of the worst TT experience I've ever had.

It will also come nowhere near the heights of the best TT experience I've ever had.

MMORPGs, the Olive Garden of games.

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.

Narrow focus is not in and of itself non-traditional. My In Harm's Way games are very tightly focused - Napoleonic Naval Officers, WWI or WWII fighter Pilots, etc. - but very traditional. The focus is, however, on the genre level rather than the session's structural level. DitV is narrowly focused on Genre - Mormonesque dogma creator/enforcers is pretty tight - but it is also narrowly focused on the session structure.

DitV game sessions work in a certain way due to the way the mechanics were designed. Varying the genre - which I see all the time with DitV - doesn't vary the way the mechanics work to structure the game session. Trying to force a DitV game session into a different structure is like trying to make a locomotive go off road. The mechanics being used to "reinforce" the story-generation force the "story" into certain lines of result which characterize this game. This is very non-traditional, and what the designer wanted. I have in the past called this effect "designer railroading," but I have gotten flak from many story gamers for using this term because it is prejudicial because of its negative connotations. I have to come up with a less predjudicial term or alienate some people I really like. Whatever term I use, though, the effect is real, and not limited to DitV, though it's a good poster child for the effect. It is, actually, a goal of the design.

My personal extreme sensitivity to railroading of any type unfortunately limits my enjoyment of such games to a regrettable degree. It is the reason why I refer to myself as a bad player. Most people are not nearly as sensitive to it, or are only sensitive to certain types of it, and can enjoy a game of this type much more readily. It just makes me angry and frustrated.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that limiting the sandbox area is a different type of focus than structuring the use of that sandbox. They may or may not coincide in a game design, but have nothing to do with each other.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceNarrow focus is not in and of itself non-traditional. My In Harm's Way games are very tightly focused - Napoleonic Naval Officers, WWI or WWII fighter Pilots, etc. - but very traditional. The focus is, however, on the genre level rather than the session's structural level. DitV is narrowly focused on Genre - Mormonesque dogma creator/enforcers is pretty tight - but it is also narrowly focused on the session structure.
-clash

Likewise Squirrel Attack! and its supplements.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltLikewise Squirrel Attack! and its supplements.

Bill

Exactly. You play squirrels and get the farmer's nuts. :D

-clash

Quote from: John MorrowIn many ways, have D&D being the Beatles, Four Tops, Elvis, or the Beach Boys has been good for the hobby because it gives role-players a common experience and the RPG equivalent of the iPod is people sitting at home playing World of Warcraft rather than sitting around playing D&D with their friends.

I think there's considerable value in community -- it gives everyone a common ground for understanding and discussion. Even if I wasn't a huge D&D fan, having played it would give me an appreciation for it.

I think this kind of social fracturing is going on across many spectrums including politics; in the past, everyone was more or less limited to mass media and that meant everyone got exposure to

A) The same ideas and
B) At least some ideas they didn't agree with

Today I can find a blog or station that narrowly views the world through my single-issue and pretty much only re-enforces what I want to believe. This is happening in all kinds of domains and RPG's are just not-exempt.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I think this kind of social fracturing is going on across many spectrums including politics; in the past, everyone was more or less limited to mass media and that meant everyone got exposure to

A) The same ideas and
B) At least some ideas they didn't agree with

Today I can find a blog or station that narrowly views the world through my single-issue and pretty much only re-enforces what I want to believe.

That depends what you mean by the past.  The dominance of mass media has risen enormously with the rise of television from the fifties through the nineties.  

In earlier decades, much more of society was face-to-face rather than mass media -- and even the mass media was more local.  For example, newspapers have been around for centuries, but they tended to be locally-produced rather than being owned by huge multinational corporations.  

Now, the Internet does produce a very different kind of fracturing.  I'm just noting that the cultural uniformity of old-time radio and television are relatively new rather than being truly old-fashioned.

Prior to mass media, though, face-to-face society produced local commonality through lack of alternatives. Geographical diversity was possible, although the presence of networked elites presiding over local hierarchies would work against that. Centralization of mass media under TV, radio, and the eclipse of the local newspaper made networked elites redundant and reinforced their effect of creating unifornity on a national scale.

However, with the democratization of the mass media, we aren't seeing a revival of geographical diversity so much as the rise of "subgroup diversity".

QuoteElvis was eclipsed by the Beatles.

Holy smokes, never, ever!

It´s the penultimate pop-music dichotomy:

Elvis OR the Beatles.

And Elvis wins every time.

Elvis and the Beatles works for me.

Welcome to the 21st century, strangers.

Quote from: jhkimThat depends what you mean by the past.  The dominance of mass media has risen enormously with the rise of television from the fifties through the nineties.  

In earlier decades, much more of society was face-to-face rather than mass media -- and even the mass media was more local.  For example, newspapers have been around for centuries, but they tended to be locally-produced rather than being owned by huge multinational corporations.  

Now, the Internet does produce a very different kind of fracturing.  I'm just noting that the cultural uniformity of old-time radio and television are relatively new rather than being truly old-fashioned.

Yeah. I was speaking about the era of mass media -- probably starting with the advent of popular commercial radio. Which, as you point out, was a significant transition from the pre-mass-media era.

Although, there were certainly hugely significant common cultural signposts in pre-mass-media times. I'm thinking of, say Confucianism in China or the Bible in western culture. (I will omit a nuanced discussion of class, anthropology and whether or not culture, as a concept, is meaningful -- I'm basically saying that if you went back 300 years ago and made a biblical allusion you'd stand a good chance of having some basic communication happening).

I think we're looking at -- in the not-to-extreme-future -- a fracture where there will be *far* fewer common assumptions or background.

Two other thoughts:

Name space and the divorce of information from original context:

I'm particularly interested in how namespace and channel issues get resolved. Roleplaying means very different things in different contexts. On this site, we don't have to worry about namespace collisions -- we have all the context we need. But we're already seeing things written in one context being syndicated hugely (I'm thinking of RSS feeds picking up blogs as a common and potentially extreme example. For another one put 'apple' into Google and watch the system make assumptions about what you might mean based on channel).

As the term RPG and Roleplaying continue to become more specialized and divergent in different contexts and information gets presented based on relatively naive algorithms I expect fun like never before!

The effective end of privacy and the permanent record:

The boundaries between public and private dialog have come down tremendously in the past few years. People change the way they communicate to the audience and the context. Things said in one context may be explosive in another -- and I'm not just talking about people telling 'the truth' to their friends and being 'politically correct' in public... it's a lot more complex than that.

We've already seen the effects of (mostly) private discourse archived and made public on the RPG dialog -- I'm thinking of the Brain Damage (the original comment on a blog, not the essays on The Forge). Some semi-private channels (Story Games and Knife Fight) have a privacy screen that is meant to keep potentially explosive discussion from poisoning the greater discussion, but it (inevitably) leaks out.

Also (going back to GNS, again, because it's contextually relevant), we've seen that what people wrote in 2002 can clearly haunt them in 2007. Of course it's always been good advise to make sure you can stand behind what you write -- and explicitly retract words you've thought better of (which hasn't happened in most cases in the RPG circles), but with channels for audio and visual and the increasing pervasiveness of recording devices I think it's even more complicated.

A few... what was it? Months ago? Anyway, there was a thread here and on RPG.net about some indie pirate game that was full of depravity (or not) and a discussion about whether the game was actually deep and spiritually uplifting or repulsive crap. I suspect the next time that happens, people will be able to link to a podcast.

I predict the podcast will be 1000x's more contentious than the text transcript and won't do *anything* to clear up people's conceptions. It'll also be easily exportable to channels and context that have never heard of RPG's in our context (more specifically: I bet you could get Fox News to play a recorded segment of that Pirate Game without any explanation or nuance).

Rough waters ahead ye-maties!
-E.

Quote from: SettembriniHoly smokes, never, ever!

It´s the penultimate pop-music dichotomy:

Elvis OR the Beatles.

And Elvis wins every time.

Elvis couldn't write his way out of a paper bag :D