QuoteI'm honestly not saying that any type of RPG is like (or unlike) either McD's or Brokeback Mountain, if that's what you're concerned about. I'm just talking about what you can conclude from analogy to "other things that are popular" ... and that it's not very much. All sorts of things gain popularity for a wide variety of reasons.

OK. Case settled.

Still you are going the legalistic way again.
The discussion is about adventure. And a definition was given off-hand. Do you really don´t know what an adventure is? What good does come forth by yours and droogs bean counting? Both of you know what is talked about, and you are not really helping. You are obfuscating and derailing the discussion.

Present a reason for the need of an airtight definition for adventure, or shut up.

By the way, look up "adventure novel" for quite a good description of the adventure genre.

Quote from: droogHow about Titanic?
Sleepless in Seattle?
When Harry Met Sally?
Casablanca?

Citizen Kane?

Not trying to stir up a fight but I have often found that there are stories that just do not make good RPGs. For instance, I love Star trek, but that is the most difficult setting to model. Inconsistent technology, inconsistent application of the technology, and inconvenient short term memory (we solved this problem once but we will never use that solution again) make for a difficult rules set for the setting. So, great story, not so great RPG.

And, do not get me wrong, with the right group, any setting can be played. My acid test is can the power gamer screw up the plot/setting.

Bill

Don´t feed the trolls, Hinterwelt.

This here is about adventure, and they know it.
And they know what adventure is.
They are just being wisecracks.

Everybody knows that there are genres other than adventure that are popular in mass-media.

Quote from: SettembriniEverybody knows that there are genres other than adventure that are popular in mass-media.

Then why, in principle, should those genres not be capable of being popular as games?

Quote from: StuartAccording to the book they sit around and lament their lost humanity, and engage in witty banter and beaurocratic power struggles with other vampires who lament their lost humanity.

Now... what kind of Katana and shotgun do you want to take to the sitting around?  Do you want super-speed, claws, or blood magic?  Better bring extra ammo... just in case.

Yeah, but see, that was all stuff that Marc Rein·Hagen was against, it had nothing to do with how he envisioned Vampire going, or what he actually wrote in the manual.

It is, of course, how almost everyone except a few hardcore story-based gaming Swine played it.

RPGPundit

The fact that successful rpgs will tend to be like summer blockbusters does not mean that every blockbuster will make a good rpg.  Arguments don't work both ways like that, it's the old saw that if good philosophers are Greeks then all Greeks make good philosophers.  It's a logical fallacy.

Tony, the aesthetics jump was my explaining why I think rpgs by their nature tend to be most successful when playing to externals, it's not an observation so much as my attempt at an explanation.  I'll follow up on it later.

Quote from: HinterWeltNot trying to stir up a fight but I have often found that there are stories that just do not make good RPGs. For instance, I love Star trek, but that is the most difficult setting to model. Inconsistent technology, inconsistent application of the technology, and inconvenient short term memory (we solved this problem once but we will never use that solution again) make for a difficult rules set for the setting. So, great story, not so great RPG.

And, do not get me wrong, with the right group, any setting can be played. My acid test is can the power gamer screw up the plot/setting.

But is this a problem of not thinking outside the box?

Quote from: droogThen why, in principle, should those genres not be capable of being popular as games?

The external/internal split among other reasons, plus some mass genres work better in some media than others.  I'll post more on that tomorrow.

I think this is certainly true with today's RPG market. Perhaps if we were selling them in the beatnik and hippie era it might be different, but today's kids and young adults want to travel the worlds, meet strange peoples, and kick their asses.

Of course, popular and good are not synonymous, so non-Adventure games aren't necessarily automatically doomed to failure, they'll just have to find their niche and exploit it well.

Quote from: BalbinusThe fact that successful rpgs will tend to be like summer blockbusters does not mean that every blockbuster will make a good rpg.  Arguments don't work both ways like that, it's the old saw that if good philosophers are Greeks then all Greeks make good philosophers.  It's a logical fallacy.

Begging the question is also a logical fallacy.

I know you're off on an external/internal divide, but consider that, for example, film is a very external medium.

Quote from: droogThen why, in principle, should those genres not be capable of being popular as games?

Possibly because they're harder, for the average person approaching a hobby, to recreate on his or her own.

And yes, to underline Balb & Sett's point about blockbusters, nobody's denying that On Golden Pond or whatever didn't make money. The idea is that "the Hollywood blockbuster", which is a genre since perhaps the 1970's of films that producers for better or worse, often worse, rely on to draw big audiences around Christmas and summer, uses the same subjects that RPGs need to achieve widespread play.

(Switching gears)

Upthread another controversy is whether Vampire is an adventure game. Since I've never played it or read it, I feel especially qualified to comment, and I'll do so by patching "adventure", as I've done before, in terms of "experience" (e.g. Merriam-Webster has one definition as "an exciting or remarkable experience"). I.e., "adventure games" are best suited to providing the player with an interactive simulacrum of an experience. Ergo if Vampire is used to play out skulduggery and political maneuvering, so that the players really are doing things that map sort-of isomorphically to skulduggery and political maneuvering, it's an adventure game. But if they're constructing a story about politics, using mechanics and negotation that isn't itself a model of the politics represented, then it's not an adventure game.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPossibly because they're harder, for the average person approaching a hobby, to recreate on his or her own.

If you didn't have roleplaying games already, would it be easy for the average person to recreate an action movie?

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe idea is that "the Hollywood blockbuster", which is a genre since perhaps the 1970's of films that producers for better or worse, often worse, rely on to draw big audiences around Christmas and summer, uses the same subjects that RPGs need to achieve widespread play.

I'd like to see some figures on that.

On what, that Hollywood blockbusters reliably draw huge audiences? You won't get them from me, because a large number of them are flops. But these are the types of movie that studios typically pump huge budgets into in the hope of achieving a huge boxoffice return, on the basis of catering (or pandering if you prefer) to elements of broad appeal.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe idea is that "the Hollywood blockbuster", which is a genre since perhaps the 1970's of films that producers for better or worse, often worse, rely on to draw big audiences around Christmas and summer, uses the same subjects that RPGs need to achieve widespread play.

Ah ... that makes much more sense to me.  Thanks for the clarification.

Here's a list of the most popular (=high-grossing) films:

TITANIC ($600)
STAR WARS ($460)
SHREK 2 ($441)
E.T. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ($435)
STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE ($431)
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST($423)
SPIDER-MAN ($403)
STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH ($380)
LOTR: RETURN OF THE KING ($377)
SPIDER-MAN 2 ($373)
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST ($370)
JURASSIC PARK ($357)
LOTR: THE TWO TOWERS ($341)
FINDING NEMO ($339)
FORREST GUMP ($329)
LION KING ($328)
HARRY POTTER: THE SORCERER'S STONE ($317)
LOTR: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING ($314)
STAR WARS: ATTACK OF THE CLONES ($310)
STAR WARS: RETURN OF JEDI ($309)
INDEPENDENCE DAY ($306)
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN($305)
THE SIXTH SENSE ($293)
CHRONICLES OF NARNIA ($291)
STAR WARS: EMPIRE STRIKES BACK ($290)
HARRY POTTER: GOBLET OF FIRE ($290)
HOME ALONE ($285)
THE MATRIX RELOADED ($281)
MEET THE FOCKERS ($278)
SHREK ($267)
HARRY POTTER: CHAMBER OF SECRETS ($261)
THE INCREDIBLES ($260)
THE GRINCH ($260)
JAWS ($260)
MONSTERS, INC. ($255)
BATMAN ($251)
MEN IN BLACK ($250)

http://www.themegahitmovies.com/popular.htm

QuoteIs there something common to these films in terms of dramatic structure or the human values revealed by the characters under conflict? If so, what are the dramatic structures and human values that compel the audience to recommend these films to friends and to repeatedly watch these movies themselves?

Most of these movies are either fantasy films or action-adventure films with fantastic elements. I use the word "fantastic" to describe the exhibition of extremely imaginative images, or images extraordinarily unreal in conception, design or construction. But not all fantasy films achieve megahit status. Obviously, fantasy elements alone are not sufficient for large box-office grosses. So, what are the essential attributes of a megahit movie?

Some interesting data. I've bolded the films I see as not conforming to the action-movie genre. It's self-refexive, because I'm thinking: "Could you do this film with a straightforward adventure game?" (happy, Settembrini?)