Quote from: Erik BoielleSeems to me that the most successful roleplaying games are games which leave it open.

You don't have to like it, but there it is. Might as well study best practice though.

Except we're still miles away from you having made any statements about what this thing you're supposed to leave open is.  D&D puts tons of constraints on the players.  But, clearly, people who think that "successful games are open games" must feel that D&D is "open."  So those constraints don't count, or are acceptable for some reason.  I never have quite figured out how that line gets drawn, if you're trying to make an objective argument.  It's perfectly clear how it gets drawn for people who are just expressing their personal preferences.

Like I said way back when:  It sounds to me like people have got their own little internal laundry lists of what freedoms are "important" in various games.  A game that gives them the important freedoms while constraining them (even really tightly constraining them) in non-important ways is a good game.  A game that constrains the important freedoms, even while giving them tremendous freedom in unimportant areas is a bad game.

But that's got to be "good game for them" and "bad game for them," because it sure doesn't look like everyone agrees on which things are important and which aren't.

Quote from: TonyLBIt sounds like a call to design the game such that people can play it however they want.

Well, it wasn't meant that way. I only meant to point out that boxing players into a certain structure that the designer considers to be fun, but which may not be seen as fun by others, can cripple a game commercially (especially in the event that the majority of the potential consumer base doesn't see things in the same light as the designer).

It's why some games (of all stripes) fail and others succeed. Appeal is what makes a game popular. The more people that a game appeals to, the more popular it will be. What some designers forget is "What I personally dig!" isn't the same thing as "What consumers dig and, therefore, will pay for" (incidentally, a lot of game store owners should take this to heart, too).

@ jdrakeh

Cool, we seem to be agreeing on this now.

Quote from: TonyLBOther folks had other opinions.  The Currency thread clearly wasn't the place for them.  So I made a place, and this thread is that place.  Have at it, folks!

Here's what I think:

Games don't interest me nearly as much as what people do with them -- the value/content/art/etc. (for me) is in the execution.

The game provides a framework. How restrictive the framework is varies from game to game (say, GURPS to MLWM at extreme ends).

I think history has shown that:

1) Somewhat structured games (e.g. ones with classes, ones where 'what you do' is fairly specific, etc.) are the most popular (e.g. D&D/Vampire).
2) Games with very little "what you do" framework are popular but not as popular (GURPS, Hero, D20)
3) Games that are *highly* structured are niche (How to Host a Murder being, maybe, an exception)

That's just an observation -- I find that I overwhelmingly prefer not-structured games... however, typically, I *add the structure* with the group during campaign design.

At some point, it's good to get a common understanding of what we're going to do and how it's going to work, and what sorts of metrics we'll use to judge that -- but I'd prefer to leave that up to the group and have it be very flexible... rather than having it "hard coded" (to use a computer metaphor) into the game itself (requiring a re-write or new rules set for each change).

I'd say that "what you do" framework, then, is best placed in a scenario or setting-book.

Which, not coincidentally, is what I see a lot of indie games as: I think they, with very minor exceptions, should use D20 or GURPS instead of creating new systems for Sorcerer, DiTV, etc.

Cheers,
-E.

Were I a real publisher I would tell potential custormers the following.

QuoteI wrote this RPG to suit my preferred style of play. One that is a little too in depth for some, and which involves matters a number of people would find uninteresting. How you use this game is entirely your business, I won't tell you how to run your own adventures. Whatever style of play you prefer, whatever sort of world you prefer to adventure in, I hope you and your friends have a good time.

Quote from: mythusmageI wrote this RPG to suit my preferred style of play.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Designing games primarily for yourself is largely at odds with the goal of selling them to other people, unless you're making the assumption that your own, personal, tastes are representative of the purchasing public's (if that assumption is made in error -- which I think it often is -- you're screwed so far as finances go).

Now, obviously, in your own example you're not making that assumption, which would prompt me to ask "If you think that many people do not share your tastes, then why are you trying to market this game commercially?" -- to which there is really only one answer that makes any sense (although I see it phrased a lot of different ways):

"It's not about the money!"

Or, in straight English "I get a stiffy when I see my name in print!" -- and to be clear, that's perfectly okay (I know that I get a stiffy when I see my name in print). If you're not in it for the money (and can afford to burn through some cash) then it really doesn't matter whether your games are designed for yourself or a target audience, as making money isn't of any concern. That said. . .

If you want to sell games to other people, it works best if you design said games for those people. If the primary goal for a publisher is to make money, then their priorities should reflect that -- they should be more concerned with that their intended audience like and against, as opposed to what they personally like and want.

This is a fundamentally basic principle of marketing (you may know it better as "meeting demand"). The problem is that many publishers who are out to make money know fuck all about business and, instead, mistake what they like and want with what consumers like and want. As a result, they go belly up and are left wondering what happened, totally clueless to the large part that they played in their own demise.

Now, to bring this back on topic. . .

When it comes to dictating play styles, you're golden if you're dictating a play style that other people dig and/or want to explore. That is, so long as you're preaching to the choir and the choir is large, you won't have too many problems. If, on the other hand, you're dictating a play style that appeals to very few people, don't be surprised if very few people show interest in your game.

Now, admittedly, this all sounds very basic as I've laid it out above -- sadly, in practice, there are many publishers who demonstrate that they don't get it and, as a result, cese to exist. The good news is that recent advents in publishing (notably the explosion of PDF popualrity) have significantly minimized the impact that such lack of business savvy has on many companies.

This is, of course, a double-edged sword -- some publishers have taken this reduced impact as an opportunity to throw caution to the wind, ignoring the wants of their potential consumer base altogether. In the past, this would have spelled instant death. In the current market, it is my belief that such careless disregard will still kill a company -- I merely think that it will do so very slowly, acting more like a a cancer than the bullet of days past.

Indeed, I think that Palladium's current predicament can be held up as a sterling example of such long term decay (I know, I know, they're really hurting 'cause some guy stole Kevin's StarWars action figures). So. . . back to rigidly encforcing certain play styles. In a nutshell. . .

If you're going to enforce a certain style of play, and you're in this thing to make some money, make certain that the play style you are enforcing is one with wide appeal or consider leaving a few alternate avenues open for folks who may want to do something a bit different.

If it's all about you, chances are that you'll be the only person who truly loves your game.

[Edit: I'm not just talking about gamers when I say "consumers" -- I'm talking about people who may potentially lay down money for a product.]

Consider World of Warcraft for a second:

You can go on, never team, and just hunt monsters all the time.

You can go on, join a guild, and just hang out with your guild, or run around one of the highly populated hangout areas and socialize.  

You can make a character that is optimized for team play- like a healer, and team up constantly.

You can play just to collect resources like skins and ore and really only concentrate on making stuff/crafting.

You can only follow quests and avoid fighting most other creatures. Quests are general "go here and do X".  

You can do PVP.

You can optimize a character and only play in the competitive minigames: Warsong Gulch, etc. These are like team-based capture the flag and so on.

You can also kinda switch around and do all of these on different days.

I don't play World of Warcraft any more, but when I was playing, it kept me on an extra month or two- trying out some of the "other ways to play this game".

Quote from: jdrakehThis is what I was talking about earlier. Designing games primarily for yourself is largely at odds with the goal of selling them to other people, unless you're making the assumption that your own, personal, tastes are representative of the purchasing public's (if that assumption is made in error -- which I think it often is -- you're screwed so far as finances go).

To be quite honest with you, I'm not aiming for a broad audience, just those who share some of my tastes. And if what I present catches some people's interest, regardless of their preferred play styles, then good.

Besides, we keep asking ourselves what gamers are interested in. What about non-gamers? Are they truly not interested? Or is it that they are not interested in how we're doing it now. Maybe if we learned how to make it interesting to them.

No, I don't mean dumbing down. Learn to write better, learn to present better. Learn how to rouse and retain the reader's interest. Show how putting the work into the enterprise can lead to rewards later.

A few days back I saw a local story on illegal immigration. It featured one person pointing out that illegals got the grunt work because Americans wouldn't take it. It's beneath us for some dang reason. We've been taught that hard physical labor is degrading, and so have come to see that effort in most any endeavour as bad. We've forgotten how much fun it can be to work.

I'll spin this off into another thread.