Quote from: RSDanceyYes, I absolutely have.  I think that there are times when it makes sense for everyone to be involved in everything, and times when it makes sense for there to be advantages to hidden knowledge.  I think that sometimes you want a "banker", and sometimes you want a "referee", and sometimes you want a "judge".  Flowing seamlessly between various modes will be key to success, in my opinion.

Wicked.

I agree on these points.  Very, very strongly.  That "flowing seamlessly" bit, though?  I can tell you already - it's a tricky bastard.

As it sits right now, players can move from speaking in-character to describing character action in a flow that is astonishingly natural.  And that, to me, is the target - when a group can move between all the different modes of play just that simply, and everyone is deeply invested in character, in setting, and in the flow of events - and knows when it's time to focus on which one and slip over to the format that suits, because the overall way of playing and learning the game makes it dead obvious.

I guess if...

• the 99/00 WotC Survey data was sound
• the conclusions drawn from that data about 4+1 player segmentation was accurate
• there were not in fact large groups of gamers not represented in this data
• players actually were leaving TTRPGs on masse for MMORPGs and not playing both
• it was certain it was the "Power Gamers" specifically who were leaving
• the other 3+1 players were not leaving as well
• the other 3+1 players were changing what they want from TTRPGs
• what they really wanted was Narrativist / Story Now / Storytelling Games
• Narrativist / Story Now / Storytelling Games didn't inherently diminish other important elements of TTRPGs

... then you might be right, and I'd agree this is a good course of action.

There are a lot of assumptions there, and several points I'm convinced are in error.  So, this is a path I'm not going to follow myself.  It doesn't lead to games I'm very interested in playing (and by extension creating).

But I honestly think you should trust your instincts and make the game you want to.  It's worth giving it a shot.

Quote from: StuartBut I honestly think you should trust your instincts and make the game you want to.  It's worth giving it a shot.

Hey, it worked for Byron Hall!

I'm going to step away from the current conversation for a moment to switch to my Journalist mode, and ask a couple of questions I've been meaning to ask you, Ryan.

It seems to me that a lot of what you started writing, and when you started writing it, struck me as being timed to coincide with the announced release of 4e.

So here's the questions:
1. Did you know, ahead of time, that 4e was going to be announced?
2. If so, do your current statements indicate that you disagree with the direction WoTC is going with 4e?

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartBut I honestly think you should trust your instincts and make the game you want to.  It's worth giving it a shot.

As long as he doesn't say "Anybody who doesn't like what I like is wrong."

If that happens, I'll have no choice but to kill him and take his stuff.

Quote from: RPGPundit1. Did you know, ahead of time, that 4e was going to be announced?
2. If so, do your current statements indicate that you disagree with the direction WoTC is going with 4e?

I knew since late spring that 4E was in active development and that WotC R&D had switched gears to focus on a 2008 release.  I did not know they intended to announce at GenCon until the week before the con (I was guessing they were going to announce at Winter Fantasy in 2008 that the books would be on-sale in August '08).

I don't disagree with the direction WotC is going, because I can't figure out what that direction is.  They've been less than forthcoming in every respect in explaining what they're doing.

It appears that they're trying to reduce the total rules payload of the game, and I think that is a good idea.  3.0 was already pushing the boundaries, and 3.5 pushed beyond the boundaries of what is a usable payload for most groups.  Dialing that back is probably necessary.

it also appears that they've realized that monsters with the same level of complexity as PCs is a failed design paradigm, and they need to move to monsters that are vastly simpler for a DM to use in combat.  That also seems to me to be a logical extension of the observation of play over the past 7 years.  High level monsters are just too freakin' hard to play effectively unless you specialize and only feature certain kinds until the DM gets real good at using them.

Pretty much everything else I have heard/seen/read about 4E looks like very shallow cosmetic changes.  I'm not saying that's bad, I'm saying they're sharing so little about what they're doing that it is almost impossible to dig in and see what strategy they are pursuing.

I've been out of that building for seven years.  During that time, I made a living telling other people what was going on inside the industry, and how the customer population was changing.  I think I'm pretty good at doing that.  Many of my predictions have been borne out by actual events.  I think I am right on target regarding the move from 4+1 to 3+1.  And that's what's driving me now; a desire to see how right I am.  In a sense, for me, "publishing a roleplaying game" has become a hobby pursuit - I don't imagine for one second that there's anything like a living wage in doing so.  But I have the luxury of being able to work at my own pace, towards my own objectives, just for fun, so I'm gonna.

Wizards of the Coast does not seem at all interested in exploring the idea that their customer population is dramatically and rapidly changing.  I think they are responding, that is reacting, to things like WoW, because you'd have to be deaf and blind not to see the kind of effect it is having on the player network.  And I think they see a path to transform the game from a paper game to a paper-digital hybrid, and in that shift to potentially move to a subscription based revenue model, which I am certain they believe will make them a lot more money than the old paper-only, unit book sale model.

I seriously doubt that anyone inside Wizards has an audience for the idea that D&D, as it is currently published, has become a dead-end, with a limited future lifespan as a viable commercial product.  And frankly, given the immense amount of money paid for it first by Wizards, then Hasbro, they probably cannot politically espouse that view even if they hold it.  My sense is that they're doing the best they can to do the best version of D&D they know how to make, and I wish them all the success in the world.  A healthy D&D is a good thing for RPGs, no matter what other factors are in play.

Ryan

Term Check what is meant by 4+1 and 3+1?

Thanks
Rob Conley

Quote from: estarTerm Check what is meant by 4+1 and 3+1?

Thanks
Rob Conley

In 1999/2000 WotC did a survey of about 1,000 gamers between the ages of 12 and 35.  Based on the questions that were asked, a breakdown of gamers was suggested:

Thinker -- Strategic/Combat Focus
Power Gamer -- Tactical/Combat Focus
Character Actor -- Tactical/Story Focus
Storyteller -- Strategic/Story Focus

This is the "4" and the +1 is:

Basic Roleplayer -- strategy, tactics, combat and story in rough equilibrium

The 4 primary types each account for 22% of the surveyed player community.  The +1 type accounts for 12%.

While the WotC survey also indicated people would play both videogames and tabletop games, Ryan believes the "Power Gamers" are going to stop playing TTRPGs on masse for MMORPGs.  

So instead of 4+1 the player community will become 3+1.

Where I find all of this problematic is that this previous research:

* is suspect due to anomalies in the way statistics were presented
* didn't consider players under 12
* the questions asked were unknown and could have been leading
* the 4 types mentioned above seem to be a variant of Gamist / Narrativist with a further break down into short-term and long-term.  Many, many people site other reasons for playing RPGs.

But even if you accept all of the WotC research and conclusions -- it STILL doesn't seem to back up any of the claims Ryan is currently making.

Quote from: StuartWhile the WotC survey also indicated people would play both videogames and tabletop games, Ryan believes the "Power Gamers" are going to stop playing TTRPGs on masse for MMORPGs.  

So instead of 4+1 the player community will become 3+1.

Well, I think that if the exodus Ryan believes is happening really is happening, it's possible that the hobby will lose some (though probably not all) of the entire "Combat Focus" side of the equation, because computers games should be appealing to Thinkers as well as Power Gamers, especially as MMORPGs and the scenarios in FPSs like Day of Defeat get more complex.

But I think that raises the question of what a "Story Focus" is for Character Actors and Story Tellers and I think that leaves us back with the old split between world-oriented play (the "sandbox"), where the goal is verisimilitude, and story-oriented play, where the goal is good story quality.  I think there is a Strategic and Tactical version of both of those goals so that they might appear to overlap, but they are not the same at all and often conflict with one another.  And if one assumes that the focus is always story quality and implement mechanics to improve story quality at the expense of verisimilitude, you'll wind up alienating the people who value verisimilitude.  And if you make story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory, you'll wind up alienating people who really do want the GM to run their characters through a story but have very little interest in having a hand in making it happen.

I'm still unclear of why, if the 4+1 model is becoming commercially unviable, a 3+1 model could be viable. Surely, the only way the new model could be viable is if lots of people who don't play TRPGs today start playing and buying in the future. How is that going to happen?

I mean, are there lots of existing gamers out there itching for a storyteller-driven game? Or do you hope that lots of non-gamers will become gamers because of the fresh appeal of story-driven RPGs? If so, I'd take a look at the euro boardgames market. The parameters of what non-gamers will tolerate in terms of playing time, rules length, etc. are pretty well established. Anything more than about 2-3 hours playing time, and 8-12 pages of rules is a non-starter for all but a fraction of the game-playing market.

Good points John.  

If the goal is generating a "good" story you also need to consider the amount of time during which the "story" is resolved.  Is it a game session?  A campaign?  What would the Lord of the Rings the RPG look like as an individual session?  Would the journey from Rivendale to the doorway to Moria constitute a good story?  What if the players battled the Watcher in the Water, got inside and started exploring Moria?  Is that a good story?  How is that session different from what people already do with RPGs?  Would you need to run through the entire Lord of the Rings in one game session for it to be good story?

Stories usually have a primary protagonist as well.  Is the player with the Samwise character going to enjoy the story from the above RPG session (Rivendale to Moria) as much as the player with Gandalf?  Why would you want to play Ron Weasley when the other guy at the table gets to be Harry Potter?  The flip side to that is without Harry Potter, the adventures of Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger would not be "good story".

Some comics and TV shows (particularly soap operas) do a good (subjective, I know) job managing multiple characters without a single protagonist.  'Heroes' is a recent good example.  The downside is that they're all protagonists in their own story arcs and only 'crossover' with each other from time to time.  You rarely see a story where a group is travelling around together and they are all equal protagonists.

Creating a good story is hard enough.  Add on the extra challenges of multiple, equal protagonists, and it becomes quite challenging.

Quote from: HaffrungI'd take a look at the euro boardgames market. The parameters of what non-gamers will tolerate in terms of playing time, rules length, etc. are pretty well established. Anything more than about 2-3 hours playing time, and 8-12 pages of rules is a non-starter for all but a fraction of the game-playing market.

This is exactly the angle I'm approaching game design from.

Quote from: HaffrungI'm still unclear of why, if the 4+1 model is becoming commercially unviable, a 3+1 model could be viable. Surely, the only way the new model could be viable is if lots of people who don't play TRPGs today start playing and buying in the future. How is that going to happen?

Part of the assumption, I believe, is that the existing 4+1 network leads to a community of play, centered on D&D, which is unattractive to people on the fringes. Some of these people play games which are similar in broad outline to D&D, provided they can form groups for them. Runequest, Rolemaster, and GURPS [Fantasy] are early examples; nowadays you also have some story games like The Shadow of Yesterday and Burning Wheel. Other people simply don't play RPGs at all--though they may have at one time.

So the argument here is that a game which is centered on the 3+1 population will indeed appeal to some of the fringe population and either gain them back or at least retard further erosion. Whereas chasing the Power Gamers will just lead to a more and more complex and video-game-like game, less able to satisfy the other groups, and ultimately (so RSD claims) fruitless because computers can't be beat at their own game.

The problem with this IMO is that, just as Ryan has said, very few people are perfect types. Not only the Basic Gamers but most everyone else has a bit of PG in them: an appreciation of attacking challenge through character which translates into discomfort with a game-world that's too easily manipulated, which doesn't "push back".

The other problem, at least for Ryan's project as I've seen it described thus far, is that it sounds like an attempt to layer a bunch of storytelling mechanics/guidelines on top of D&D. While this may enhance the game for some of the 3+1, it really does very little to attract the "fringe" which has rejected D&D not only because it supposedly lacks "storytelling", but also because they're left cold by the mechanics. (Overly complex, Feats, XP system, class & level-based, high power curve, etc.)

Quote from: John Morrow….And if one assumes that the focus is always story quality and implement mechanics to improve story quality at the expense of verisimilitude, you'll wind up alienating the people who value verisimilitude.  And if you make story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory, you'll wind up alienating people who really do want the GM to run their characters through a story but have very little interest in having a hand in making it happen.

Agreed.  It’s my view that the portion of the market that wants “story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory” is not enough to save the hobby.  It’s my understanding these types of games already exist so if there was a huge segment of the gamer population that wants this you would see it in large absolute sales of these products.

I also strongly question the assumption that “story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory” cannot be implemented better on a computer.  In fact, I think a computer game would serve this game type better than it serves Combat Focus.*  In the classic case of where a player “narrates” what is behind the door within reasonable limits (no Jabba the Hut in a Fantasy RPG) those narration options can just be pulled from a menu.  Basically, what you have is a game where all the computer game builder tools are accessed by the players.  Wnat to drag and drop some orcs behind a door, no problem.  Add an inn an importanct NPC, no problem either.

On the question of who gets to ultimately choose (who gets the narrative control), maybe a drama point spending system, maybe even secret, maybe by vote of the players.  Especially if the goal is to eliminate bad GMs this removes entirely the need for GMs or a programer to make up the story.  Better yet, you can have the computer record the story you make for playback later and to show others.  The ability to show others I think would be a strong incentive to the Story Teller gamer to use a CSTG (computer story teller game).  

The computer becomes an even better medium for Story Telling gaming where the combat decisions and outcomes of adversaries are under player narrative control.  Since the thrill to the Power Gamer of overcoming a challenging opponent with unknown tactics (not much of one with today’s AI) is no longer important.  Rather the players play the NPCs, and narrate their actions.  The programmer has a much easier AI task as a human will make the decision about what happens next not the AI.  The programmer can just provide menu options and doesn't need to come up with a decision algorithm.

Now here is the rub / real reason computer games triumph IMO, time and ease of use:

Quote from: Haffrung… If so, I'd take a look at the euro boardgames market. The parameters of what non-gamers will tolerate in terms of playing time, rules length, etc. are pretty well established. Anything more than about 2-3 hours playing time, and 8-12 pages of rules is a non-starter for all but a fraction of the game-playing market.

I’d say the success of Wii is another great example of ease of use triumphing graphics and sophistication of game play.   The intuitive control allows people to enter the game easily.

IME, about the only folks in the 4+1 model that are willing to wade through heavy rules are the Tactician and Power Gamer types.  And TRPGs will always give such players a sense of satisfaction that CRPGs cannot, the defeat of challenges not limited by AI, and the ability to defeat those challenges in ways not limited by AI.

Players truly interested in “story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory” are less likely to care, since what’s the point of intricate rules if you are story-oriented.

It’s the time and complexity factor that keep most people away from RPGs.  I doubt the added need to get creative on the fly “players actively want to create stories mandatory” is going to seem any less difficult to the masses and thus any more attractive.  That is if you want good stories.  

The collaborative story where I write one paragraph you the next is an old creative writing exercise and can serve as a good example of what most folks will think these games are about.  Most such stories are not very good in my recollection even when people work together.  But neither is the first draft of most writing, except with a single author the story is usually more internally coherent.  So I doubt anyone will want to here the recollection of a Story Teller game anymore than they want to hear you recount your hack-n-slash game.  Yet if you could make a movie of it with a CSTG then I’m sure people will watch, and they could even review and rate it.


* I don’t think computer games fill all the Combat Focus jones because of the limited actions you can take with the environment and the limitations of AI.

Quote from: XantherI also strongly question the assumption that "story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory" cannot be implemented better on a computer.  In fact, I think a computer game would serve this game type better than it serves Combat Focus.*  In the classic case of where a player "narrates" what is behind the door within reasonable limits (no Jabba the Hut in a Fantasy RPG) those narration options can just be pulled from a menu.  Basically, what you have is a game where all the computer game builder tools are accessed by the players.  Wnat to drag and drop some orcs behind a door, no problem.  Add an inn an importanct NPC, no problem either.

On the question of who gets to ultimately choose (who gets the narrative control), maybe a drama point spending system, maybe even secret, maybe by vote of the players.  Especially if the goal is to eliminate bad GMs this removes entirely the need for GMs or a programer to make up the story.  Better yet, you can have the computer record the story you make for playback later and to show others.  The ability to show others I think would be a strong incentive to the Story Teller gamer to use a CSTG (computer story teller game).

This reminds me strongly of the buzz some 10-15 years ago (That long?  Ouch. :pundit: ) about "interactive media" -- computerized books, or movies, where the reader or audience could make choices to affect which ending they'd see.  Or "hyperplot" books where they could be read in any order.

There was a lot of buzz in the "ultra techie" community that died shortly after the first attempts were made.