From another thread here. . .

Quote from: jdrakehSaying "People will pay $60 for a video game, therefore they'll pay $60 for a book" is largely wishful thnking that ignores some very real and very important consumer purchasing trends and market history. This kind of thinking poses the very real risk of pricing pencil and paper RPGs out of existence, I fear.

What RPG publishers need to be focusing on is why the vast majority of consumers will shell out $60 for a video game and, then, try to match the value that consumers perceive. I do not mean "make tabletop RPGs play more like video games" -- this is arguably the most least work-intensive approach to the problem, but it will also be the least effectvie as a result.

So what do I mean? I mean that publishers need to start looking at the more basic reasons millions of consumers will pay $60 for a video game, but not for a roleplaying game -- and then internalize these values into tabletop games.

For example, instant gratification is undoubtedly a very big part of why video gamers outsell traditional pencil and paper RPGs. Why read a big-ass book, learn a rule system, and build your own adventures when you can drop a little plastic disc in your game console, press a button, and dive into a world of adventure immediately?  

Now, obviously, publishers can't make a traditional RPG instantly playable -- though they can make them more accessible than many of them are currently. Simplifed rules systems and self-contained games under one cover are part of leveling the playing field in this regard, no doubt -- but what about introductory adventures?

At one time, introductory adventures were obligatory -- they showed the reader how the game worked and let them start playing right away (well, after they'd digested the rules). Is it mrely coincidence that these and other production aspects geared toward making games accessible were commonplace during the glory days of paper and pencil RPGs?

Partly, I'm certain -- entirely, though? I don't think so.

In recent years, many RPGs have eschewed accessibility as a product design goal, and I think that sales have suffered thorughout the hobby industry as a result. While video games were becoming even more accessible by branching into genres and subject matter enjoyed outside of their then current market, RPGs were becming less accessible, branching into truly baroque subject matter and piling on the arcane rules hand over fist.

Now, all of that said. . . designing a more commercially competitive RPG isn't as simple as introducing a rules-light system with heavy instruction and genre appeal. Accessibility is only part of the equation. So. . . why else do people buy millions of dollars worth of video games annually and, more importantly, how can that perceived value be matched in print?

I think it best to start with a simple list of why video games appeal to so many consumers:

• Accessibility (Easy to Play, Little Learning Required, Etc)
• Self-Contained (Playable as Presented, Expansions Optional)
• Defined Story Goals (Presents Specific Reasons to Play)*
• Player Rewards for Obtaining Story Goals (Doing X unlocks Y)**
• Do-Overs (Protagonist Death Isn't Forever)***

I'm sure there are several more reasons, but I think that the above are key to the formula. Anyhow. . . I'm off to hit the sack, but this should give you plenty of fat to chew for the next day or two when I have my head buried in the pages of Fantasy Imperium.

*Video games usually present a long-term 'endgame' goal, while presenting smaller short-term or 'stage' goals alogng the way. It's basically carrots and sticks. The original Resident Evil has this in spades, for example -- finding each key is a short-term story goal, while unravelling the mystery without dying is the long-term story goal.

**I don't literally mean "unlocks" here -- though that can be true. I mean that achieving a certain goal bestows meaningful rewards on the player (and, perhaps, the character). Such rewards may come in the form of character options/abilities, plot developments, or even authorial control. The keys are that these things reward the player and come about as a direct result of achieving story goals.

***This isn't to say that character death doesn't happen, merely that it doesn't end the game for the character in question (as it does in most traditional RPGs). Maybe a player gets a do-over without penalties. Maybe they get to try again, but are down any equipment that was on their character's person when they died. Point is, death isn't the end, merely a frustrating inconvenience. Possibly very frustrating

All you have to do is add squirrels to the list. Hmm, another good idea, make a, oh, I don't know, online character generator that requires no software to install and walks you through the character creation and update process.

I don't think are proposing radical untried theories here. You even admit as much. I think more to the point is market exposure. You can have the greatest system in the world but it does you no good if your book is visually unappealing, no one now about it inside or outside the hobby and you lack adequate distribution.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI don't think are proposing radical untried theories here. You even admit as much.

No, there's nothing horribly new here if the ideas are taken indivudally. There are, for example, many rules-light games, many games that reward players for story goals, and a tiny handful of games in which charatcer death is never  permananent -- what there aren't are many games that offer all of this under one cover.

Not even games meant to emulate console RPGs on a more aesthetic front manage to incorporate all of the ideas from my spectacularly small list in the first post. And Squirrel Attack, while it offers some of these things, doesn't internalize them all (and those that it does aren't emphasized as primary facets of the design).

I'm hard-pressed to think of a tabletop RPG that tries to match the perceived value of video games stride for stride.

RPGs don't provide the visual of interacting with your environment (graphics).  That is left to the players/GM to imagine.  What RPGs do better is more options to interact with your environment.  It's almost like comparing a book to a movie.

Quote from: GunslingerRPGs don't provide the visual of interacting with your environment (graphics).

Really? :rolleyes:

QuoteIt's almost like comparing a book to a movie.

Why don't you try reading my post before you reply to it? I'm not saying that tabletop RPGs should do (or can do) everything that video games do. I'm saying that they should do what they can do to compete.

Many games don't even try to compete, but this doesn't stop their publishers from crying about video games being the primary cause of their plight. I see thousands of threads on this subject every year.

So. . . what I'm saying is that publishers should either put up or shut up. Personally, I'd rather see them put up -- which is why this thread exists.

This is also not a thread for the tired argument of tabletop RPGs being "better" than video games. I'm not saying that one is intrinsically better than the other. What I am saying is that one sells better than the other and that looking at the reasons behind this reality is a worthwhile endeavor.

Quote from: jdrakehNot even games meant to emulate console RPGs on a more aesthetic front manage to incorporate all of the ideas from my spectacularly small list in the first post. And Squirrel Attack, while it offers some of these things, doesn't internalize them all (and those that it does aren't emphasized as primary facets of the design).

It does. Everything on your list is in there and very much emphaiszed in advertising and the game itself.

    * Accessibility (Easy to Play, Little Learning Required, Etc)
        - 12 statement size pages of rules, sixty for the entire book. "Easy" is
            subjective but the material is not lengthy.
   
    * Self-Contained (Playable as Presented, Expansions Optional)
         -SA! is one book game. We have an adventure and more planed but
            purely as extensions.

    * Defined Story Goals (Presents Specific Reasons to Play)*
          - SA! has a goal oriented character rewards system. Simple as x points
              for accomplishing Y goal.

    * Player Rewards for Obtaining Story Goals (Doing X unlocks Y)**
           - Experience rewarded from the GM.
 
    * Do-Overs (Protagonist Death Isn't Forever)***
           - Karma is essentially a meta-game mechanic allowing the player to
              tweak the plot as they wish. It is metered but very much a do over
              beyond even death to the point of gratifying the "I want" itch.

Now, I want to emphasize that SA! may not meet your requirement AS YOU ENVISION them. It does, however, meet your stated objectives.

And for the record, I am not opposed to the above approach, I have written two games with that very direction as a key goal. Not being new does not make it bad, just not new.

Bill

One of the big differences between tabletop RPGs and video games is ease of character creation. Yeah, I know, no duh. But what's interesting is that many of the same tabletop RPG players who scream for complete control of character creation, and who agonize over how to allot every skill point, accept without question the very limited selection of characters offered in a given computer game. I think one way to make RPGs more accessible is to provide pregens or character templates that cover the most recognizable archetypes for whatever genre the game in question is emulating. This could be the key element to a tabletop RPG that tries to match video game tropes stride-for-stride.

Some of my thoughts.

1. Learn how to communicate. Learn how to write well, how to present your thoughts in a coherent, accessible manner. Distill your thinking to the basics, and stay focused.

2. An interesting read is easier to learn than a boring one.

3. Accept the fact that you cannot write a coherent set of rules that can cover every possible event in an RPG. The best you can do is a fairly comprehensive set of general guidelines. Teach prospective players how to apply your rules in various situations.

4. Cut back on art, and make that art evocative of the game. One well done quarter page illustration can say more than a dozen badly done full page illos.

5. Go hardback and make your books standard hardback novel size. While not as easy to carry as a mass market paperback, they're easier to tote than the typical RPG book and give a better impression.

6. Except for books of monsters. Full page illustrations of each beast along with a full page write up. Go for the look of a nature book.

7. Go for a mature look in all your products. Don't try to compete in style with manga, comic books, or anything else aimed at the youth market. Develop your own look and feel, and don't be afraid to aim for adults. Besides, the kids enjoy trying out adult stuff too.

8. Flesh out the world as much as you can. Provide ways to earn rewards for a variety of actions and play styles. Make your NPCs interesting to learn about, and interesting to encounter.

9. Encourage initiative.

10. Accept that an RPG world is too large and too complex a place for any sort of game balance to be valid. Be upfront about this, and advise players to use their wit and guile to prevail against the vicissitudes the world throws against them.

More could be said, and they could be better organized, but this should get you started.