SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

The Error of Tradition-based Game Design

Started by jhkim, December 12, 2006, 01:57:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 3 4 5
User actions

Levi Kornelsen

#60
December 15, 2006, 06:28:44 PM
Quote from: Elliot WilenNope, that's all speculation & hypothesis.

:D

arminius

#61
December 15, 2006, 06:40:01 PM
Ayup, and to go a little farther, we'll know eventually which hypothesis is right. I just want to be clear where the disagreement lies.

jhkim

#62
December 15, 2006, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: Elliot WilenOh, and about this:Since I reference marketing again in my last post, you might want to object again. But if you're not talking about marketability, then what is your reason for saying that a new game should do something new?

Suppose I'm a designer and you tell me my game isn't innovative enough, by whatever standard you use to measure innovation. Why should I listen to you?
Just to resolve this side comment first...   I assumed that "marketing" meant advertising, cover design, sales channels, and so forth -- which is separate from how the game itself is designed.  If by "marketing" you mean how the game is designed and plays, then yes, I am talking about marketing.

i.e. If you want to get a large number of people to play your game on the merits of its design and play (as opposed to just advertising or a shiny license or whatever), then you have to do something new.

arminius

#63
December 15, 2006, 07:09:25 PM
Yes, by marketing I mean everything that's done with an eye to the market. From deciding to make a marketable game, to subject, design, art, &c.

In this case, we're talking about marketing as it concerns design (and I guess subject).

Not that I consider marketing to be the most important aspect of design. I especially don't think that widespread popularity needs to be one's goal even for commercial success. But it helps to know the standard we're using, for the sake of discussion.

jhkim

#64
December 15, 2006, 07:16:44 PM
Quote from: Elliot WilenJohn, your comments are a caricature of what I wrote since (pretty obviously) I believe my reason for viewing RQ et. al. as traditional RPGs isn't just tradition and hindsight, but innate characteristics of the form and how it is received.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNope, that's all speculation & hypothesis.

As is what I said about alternative markets being smaller.

But you'll notice that I give my reasons. That is, I have a theory.
(snipped)
Er, Elliot?  You never mentioned this theory earlier in the thread.  That's a fine theory.  I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm pondering it now.  

However, my point was that your basis for thinking this is a theory.  It is, as you say, speculation, which is not yet supported by the data.  

The data is that D&D is successful -- but also that many games very much like D&D are unsuccessful.  When designing a new game, it would be foolish to make a game as close as possible to D&D simply on the basis that it is successful.  By the same token, the data by itself does not indicate what degree or type of difference from D&D would be successful (except insofar as one matches past failures).

arminius

#65
December 15, 2006, 07:24:54 PM
At least one of my replies went through several iterations and it's possible I'm remembering more of my theory than actually made it into print. I think you can find it suggested above, though, in my comments about the basic paradigm of D&D as reflected in other games.

Here's what I have from a draft I saved:
QuoteIt would be more worthwhile to pursue this question of whether there's an essential "itness" to traditional RPGs, in terms of their reception by the public at large. I think there is. RPGs were originally defined by how they distinguished themselves from regular boardgames or wargames:

1. the use of a referee
2. the noncompetitive quality
3. lack of formal goals (the classic nonanswer to "How do you win?")
4. large sections of procedure left up to freeform discretion (concepts like whose "turn" it is, or a finite list of possible "moves", or even "breaking the rules is cheating" often do not compute in RPGs)
5. ongoing play as opposed to self-contained game sessions.

As a number of these elements have been challenged in the new "nontraditional" RPGs, quite a few people have remarked positively or negatively on their "boardgame-like" quality. I believe the number of people who react by saying, "why not just play a boardgame?" is telling. It suggests to me that these games are going to have trouble carving out a niche for themselves either in the hobby or in the population at large. That is, people who enjoy tight, formal mechanics are going to focus on German games (or Bridge, etc.); people who enjoy the freedom of roleplaying are going to focus on traditional games, or even freeform (online text-based) RP. The group that actually focuses on nontraditional games instead of seeing them as an occasional diversion is going to be smaller than either of the other two.

And note that not just D&D, but a good number of other games have succeeded with that paradigm.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 3 4 5
User actions