Quote from: JongWKTo think that videogames cannot be played for their story, or the stories that people can make out of them, is a display of sheer ignorance.

Very True.

Quote from: StuartVery True.

[OT] I never did finish that game. I kept getting stuck in the gloomy forest place with the nutter who drives your turbo boosted hearse truck thingy.[/OT]

Quote from: One Horse Town[OT] I never did finish that game. I kept getting stuck in the gloomy forest place with the nutter who drives your turbo boosted hearse truck thingy.[/OT]

[OT]Oh MAN! After that part it got really good.  It turned into the Casablanca type story where Manny has a Casino and running all over this spooky port city and interacting with Gangsters.  It was ok until the forest.  After the forest it got awesome![/OT]

Quote from: VBWyrdeYour assessment is that "crunch" will no longer be necessary as Power Gamers move to MMORPGs.

I did not say this.  Crunch (i.e. a whole lot of rules) primarily exists now to do the seemingly dichotomous job of both constraining & enabling the Power Gamers.  However, as the TRPG format evolved over the years, some really great "crunch" type rules have been created to help make balanced stories.  I'm thinking in particular of things like the World Burning rules in Burning Empires.  I think there is a subset of Thinkers & Storytellers out there who may be interested in, and helped by, such material.  So I'm not per se against a TRPG with "a whole lot of rules", but I do think we need to put the size & complexity of the ruleset under a microscope to determine if the rules are needed for play, or if they exist primarily to cope with the nature of one of the previously common personality types in the game.

Quoten either case, if Power Games like "crutch" they can always continue to play the Traditional RPGs.   It's not as if those will vanish from the universe.

That's a dangerous assumption.  Technological and demographic shifts have already shown that the hobby gaming market can lose the bulk of a whole category of game.  The tabletop Wargame example needs to be reiterated.

There was a time when the TWG business was as big as (or bigger than) the TRPG business is now, both in terms of revenue generated (inflation adjusted) and players participating.  Other than a stub held together by sheer willpower and a handful of companies, that play format has essentially vanished, replaced by either computerized Wargaming, or the Warhammer family of games.  Recent attempts to bring the format back to the table, like "Flames of War" have been encouraging, but not indicative that the category is about to be revived from the coma it has been in for nearly 25 years.

At the time the industry didn't have a good theory as to why the TWG category had imploded so fast or so far.  Now we do.  The theory is that the player network itself is where the value is for tabletop games.  And that network is not just a random cloud of equally valuable people:  it has a definable structure, and certain nodes act on that network in certain crucial ways.  If you knock enough of the right kinds of nodes out of the network, the network becomes damaged to the point where it ceases to reliably function, and the result is a category collapse.

I believe that this is happening right now to the TRPG category, due to the influence of the MMORPG.  MMORPGs are knocking people out of the TRPG network and those people are not being spontaneously replaced via acquisition.  As the network has frayed, play has declined.  It is impossible to say at this juncture that a collapse equal to the TWG category could happen, but I do think it is possible that we could see a collapse to the point where TRPGs are primarily played by isolated groups-of-groups, being separated networks of hundreds of players, rather than a unified network of millions.  And if that happens, then there won't be a lot of "returning to the tabletop", there will be a lot of people who express a desire to play, but no ability to play instead.

(And yes, I get the fact that some people are just naturally great at creating and sustaining TRPG groups, that some people have no problem converting people who have never played before and turning them into active TRPG players, and that some people are lifetime committed to the hobby and won't quit playing and writing and evangelizing no matter what happens.  Although I get these facts, I don't think they are powerful enough to offset the larger trends because there simply are not enough such people to solve the problem.)

QuoteI'm not sure if that's a quibble on my part, or an oversight on yours, but if there's a fourth group I'd be curious to hear about them as well.

There are actually 5 groups:  Storytellers (Story/Long Term), Thinkers (Conflict/Long Term), Character Actors (Story/Shot Term), Power Gamers (Conflict/Short Term), and Basic Roleplayers (at the juncture of the axis).

You can read all about it here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Quote[re: unit volumes for story games, and lack thereof] Or is there more to it that we're not seeing?

There are a lot of failed "classic" TRPGs too.  There has not been a successful launch of an all-new TRPG game since 2000.  (Although Savage Worlds may be the first trend-breaker in that department; my sense is that sales are growing, but I have not talked with Shane Hensley about it recently, so that's just a guess on my part).  I define "successful" as selling 5,000 units of the core game system per year for at least 5 years.  All the games on the market since 2000 that have passed this test are either D20 games, or are games which pre-date the late '90s collapse of the TRPG category (Storyteller varients, RIFTs, GURPS, BRP varients, HERO, etc.) and have a pre-existing player network to leverage.

On the other hand, a lot of "story games" are being sold as PDF downloads, for which I have virtually zero visibility.  It is possible that some of those games have passed that test (or are passing it, and they are just not 5 years old yet).  And it is even less clear to me how many of those downloads translate into play.  AND (there's a lot of ands here) some of those games are DESIGNED for one-shot rather than serial or campaign play, so even if they sold a lot of units, sales & play may not correlate.

What I do know is that sales for all TRPGs are down across the board since 2003.  I do not get the sense that anything is likely to change that, not even 4E.  I would like to be pleasantly surprised; I'm rooting for everyone to succeed.  I think it is more likely that something new that sparks a big uptick in sales will come from a new kind of game rather than a simplified/streamlined version of an existing play concept, but that's 95% guess and 5% research, so I could be totally wrong.

And to be clear, I don't think that any of my 3 projects will do that.  I'm not doing the work to make money or sell a whole lot of books; I'm doing it to scratch an intellectual itch.

QuoteIt is much harder to have that sense of "I'm in a New World I never would have Dreamed Of and it's so Fascinating" when you're also being placed in the position of Co-Creating it.   That's not just my opinion, but that of a fair number of posters as well.   What's your take on that?

I think that immersion and hidden knowledge are not synonyms.  I think that you can become "immersed" in a game like Monopoly, fully realizing the roleplaying concept of being Donald Trump, caring passionately about completely virtual properties, houses & hotels, cash management, and intra-player deals even though there is no hidden knowledge in the game whatsoever.

I think that most TRPG players enjoy playing in fantasy worlds.  I do not think that most of them qualify that by saying "a world that I did not help create".  I think that the success of canned campaign settings shows that there are lots and lots of TRPG players who are happy to play in a world that they can know as much about as the DM, save that small part that the DM adds or changes in a given game session.

To me, this is a situation where the cleverness lies in putting hidden knowledge in the game just where it matters, but not where it doesn't.

So I don't accept the premise that a TRPG lives or dies on the basis of how much "world" is provided by the DM vs. how much of it is co-created by all the players as a joint effort.

[re: the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast]

QuoteWe've been playing just such an "impossible" system all along, and until only very recently, from a small number of Game Designers who wanted to create "something different" did we start to hear anything approaching a complaint.

Let me make a suggestion of an alternate way to consider this.

For a long time, the industry said "do this", but produced products that did something else.  People liked the "doing something else" thing more than enough to overlook that what the industry SAID it was supposed to do, it didn't really do.  And most people were generally happy.

Then, along about 1989, a group of designers came along and said "no really, DO THIS", and meant it.  But weirdly, the products they produced were no different than the stuff that was already in the market.  But the weird thing was that if you ASKED people if they wanted to DO THIS, they almost always said "yes".  So that created a market gap:  a group of people (everyone who said "yes" when asked if they wanted the other play pattern), and the lack of games that actually were designed to enable that play pattern.

Until 2003, the tension in the market had no real release.  The legions of people who had happily been playing "the way they always played" didn't have any real alternative, so they were content.  And the people who saw an unresolvable logic problem with the "DO THIS" crowd could talk about the problem they saw until they were blue in the face and it didn't matter to anyone and had no effect on anything as a result.

In 2003, City of Heroes and World of Warcraft exceeded some critical threshold, and a tipping point occurred.  Suddenly, for people who liked a certain kind of game, there was a BETTER OPTION than the classic TRPG play pattern, and they made the rational market choice to pick it.  Thus we have an increasing exodus of the Power Gamers, and to some degree, the Thinkers.

Now that "DO THIS" crowd starts to get some traction.  The people who remain as the Power Gamers leave are the people most likely to have sympathy for the "DO THIS" crowd, and the games those people have been incubating suddenly become relevant.  That creates a pretty big backlash (not helped by some of the rhetoric used, and some of the tactics used to be sure).  The backlash is people saying "we don't need any changes, because we're perfectly happy, and have been for 30+ years!"

"DO THIS" is "play a game about cooperative storytelling", which ironically is often expressed as the Impossible Thing, despite the logic problem with the way it is expressed.

Some people think that means a radical change of the whole game concept, into game formats that can be charitably described as avant garde.

Some people think that means make some minor changes to existing games and try to add elements of cooperative storytelling without making fundamental changes.

I think there's a middle ground, taking the best of what worked for 30+ years, but using those things in a concept for a game that is rebuilt from the ground up on different assumptions about who will play the game.  That might be a subtle distinction, but to me, I think it's an important one.

[re:  level of player-created content]

QuoteHow would you go about framing rules to handle this fairly to both the Gamesmaster / World Weaver and the Players?

I think that as a game, there have to be game rules setting limits.  Part of the difference between writing a novel and playing a game is that in a game, you have to abide by the rules, whereas when writing a novel you can just make up whatever suits your fancy.  Both are entertaining experiences, but they are different entertaining experiences.

It's like the difference between writing free-form prose, and haiku (or limericks).  

QuotePlayers who traditionally wanted to Create Worlds went and did that, by becoming Gamesmasters themselves.  Why is this approach no longer "Good enough"?

You have made a potentially false, but common pair of assumptions.

You have assumed that GMs are people who make worlds. And you have assumed that people who want to make worlds are GMs.

Many people GM who don't want to make worlds.  They just want to play, and the only way to get the game to go is for someone to agree to run it.  And many people want to make worlds, but don't want to try to run a game so nobody ever sees their worlds (unless they have the additional talents to become writers).

I would argue that the sum total of people who are disenfranchised by the world making/GM requirement is vastly larger than the total who are enfranchised by it.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.

What hard data are you basing this thought on? Or is this your impression of how things should change given the nature of the matrix?

Quote from: CabThats where you're so far wide of the mark...

All of the things I have described, all of the elements under discussion, have been done in roleplaying games, accepted by gamers as being roleplaying games, for two decades or more. Some people will disagree will they? Yes, they probably will, but they're coming at this with the same false assumption that you've got, that this is something new that has not already been incorporated into roleplaying for a very long time.

I suggest you revisit the opening exchanges of this thread and note the disconnect between yourself and other posters, and how you engaged, at least as much as anyone else, in the definition game. Here you countered Dancey's attempt to characterize "traditional" RPGs with your own description. Here you say the distinction that others see between different types of play is artificial. It isn't artificial, people do play in different ways, even if for the sake of argument we agree they've been doing so since time immemorial. When called on that, you don't explain your terms, you just define a new distinction into existence, here. In the course of this you managed to confuse me, Rob, J Arcane, Stuart, and Weekly about what the heck you were talking about.

QuoteErrm, no, my comments were not unitelligible, its more that you hadn't understood them. Actually there is a pattern emerging here isn't there? You haven't encountered something as part of roleplaying games previously, so they're not part of roleplaying games they are something else. You haven't grasped my comments, so they are unintelligible...

You're playing a silly game now. You're smart enough I think to understand that communication is as much the responsibility of the speaker as of the listener, even more so when the listener expresses confusion and the speaker responds by just repeating himself.

Much of the rest of your post is just special pleading; you've played games that way, ergo it's not new (directed at Dancey) and it's indistinguishible from what everyone else does (directed at several of the posters in this thread). But I'd like to clear some things up...

QuotePutting something that you are saying in "speech marks" doesn't suddenly mean that you can change the meaning of what I've said. Rotating GMs? What the heck are you talking about, thats not what I said, its not what I implied, it is neither part of the content or the meaning of what I posted.

My mistake, I read your response to (b) incorrectly. I thought you were talking about the setup where one person GMs on one night, another on another night.

Quote"most actions are detemined in a sort negotiative narrative. There is nothing at all new in that."

Go back and read it yourself, you qualify it quite a bit, and I maintain that it's not true, after all, for many if not most "conventional RPGs". Certainly not in a way that disagrees with Rob. E.g., of course a DM in D&D doesn't formally agree to let you walk across a room, you just say what you're doing, maybe explain a bit in response to questions, and you're done. But for better or worse, groups with which I am familiar (therefore "some groups") would give the DM final say--the ability to veto crossing the room, due to some obstacle, or call for a saving throw--though generally within the context of the rules. The DM may call for suggestions or even a vote on matters at doubt, but the real-life social understanding is that the DM has the final word, and if a player still won't go along, the game has broken down. Dancey's proposals fall well outside this approach.

QuoteDo you even know the game? Have you gone through the advice in campaign design contained within Amber? The methodologies and encouragement that a GM should use in that game to garner such input from players?

No, thus the tentative nature of my comment there. I'll refrain from further comment about Amber. Someone else might have some perspective here, but even if they happened to support my point, I couldn't judge who was right.

QuoteComplete freedom for all players to design setting and surround is quite rare

QED.

Quote, that does not mean that the players are commonly excluded from doing so. The point of my argument, my whole premis in this discussion, is that there is a continuum all the way from very prescriptive games all the way to the other end. There is nothing new in this quest to empower everyone sitting at the table.

But there is, because not everyone is (a) familiar with the style of play being discussed, or (b) likely to enjoy it.

In fact while I've seen arguments back and forth I think it's most likely that the rarity of this style of play, certainly in the radical form, in spite of its lack of novelty, is due to a relatively thin audience for it.

And that is the real point of my previous post, once we get past the definitional issues and arguments over what fraction of roleplayers have to know, practice, and enjoy a certain style of play...expressed to what degree...before that we can assume that style is traditional and (likely to be) popular. Simply exclude the second paragraph of my post above, and for that matter most of the detail in this one, and that's what you have: Dancey's proposal is radical and in my opinion it's barking up the wrong tree.

Quote from: CabThis whole idea that 'storeytelling' is new and exciting in gaming, that it is somethign other than a stylised roleplaying game cocept... Gosh, how gullible are you people?

Take note - I'm agreeing with Cab.

Mark your calendars, everyone!

(Honestly - good points, one and all.)

-O

Quote from: SettembriniWhich game was the last one you have been a player in, Ryan?
How long ago was that?

I played in a number (6+) one-shot TRPGs this summer at various conventions & home game play tests.

I last regularly played in a 3.5E D&D campaign last summer.

I play WOW and EVE 2-5 times a week.

It is 80%+ likely that a new TRPG campaign will be starting soon that I will be playing in regularly.

Ryan

Quote from: droogRon Edwards identifies different forms of authority present in roleplaying games. I find your position somewhat less nuanced than his.

My goal is to explore Option #3 in his first post (#4) in that thread.  I think he squarely nails the value proposition.

Ryan

Quote from: HaffrungRyan, you seem to have fallen into the Forge assumption that most people who have played RPGs in the last 25 years were not really having a good time. Don't let the persistent and elaborate complaints of a sub-set of the hobby distort your impression of what players enjoy and what they don't enjoy.

I'm the guy who held the line for "kick down the door, whack the orc, take his stuff, and power up", remember?  If anything, I think I've earned my "street cred" when it comes to getting the fact that the TRPG format delivers a lot of fun to the players.

What I am suggesting is that it has become technologically possible to make a similar game, on a different platform (MMORPG) that is more fun than the pre-existing TRPG for a big percentage of the player community, and that as a result, they've voted with their feet and left.

It turns out that the indie-RPG crowd "got lucky", in that the area of the hobby they felt needed the most work turned out, due to forces beyond their control (i.e. the success of MMORPG) to be the area that is most likely (IMO) to be the path forward to successful games in a changed mixture of player types.  I give them props for having done a lot of wandering in the wilderness, and having laid a lot of groundwork we can all look at and try to understand.  Extracting that value doesn't mean I've drunk the Kool-Aide that says that D&D is an "unfun" game.  It's very fun.  It just may not be fun enough given the existence of the MMORPG tipping point.

Ryan

Quote from: gleichmanWhat hard data are you basing this thought on? Or is this your impression of how things should change given the nature of the matrix?

Now THAT is an excellent question.

I am at 2 removes from the hard data; I neither make, nor sell TRPGs.  (That's one reason I'm going to write a few).  So I am making an analysis based on what I can observe in terms of sales trends, in terms of internet traffic, in terms of what people are doing at conventions, and what my gut instinct tells me based on the data I had from my time at Wizards of the Coast.

At WotC, I had "high" (i.e. greater than 50%) confidence in a lot of my analysis, because it was very much data driven.  Today, I would say I have only "moderate" (i.e. 30%) confidence in my analysis, because my data sources are not as strong as they used to be.  So I'm forced to backfill with instincts to get to someplace with a meaningful direction forward.

Ryan

Which is where I part ways. I always backed what Mr. Dancey said, in particular his analysis to which he previously linked, because it was based on data.

Why does it seem that those who believe the future of TRPG is "storytelling" and "narrative" and "player empowerment" are always going on guts and instincts?  Luke Crane, with his "gut" telling him GM Fiat is ruining gaming; Mr. Edwards with his anecdotal approach that many gamers are not having fun; now Mr. Dancey who, to his credit, admits he only has 30% confidence in his numbers. (side question: how is it that your hard data analysis is 50% but your gut is only 30%? - honest question; I'm curious how you come to that conclusion).

I don't have a problem with people who go on guts and instincts - go for it, man.  If you've got the resources and drive - more power to you.  But why does it always seem to have to be prefaced by saying what exists is somehow broken?

Quote from: James J Skach(side question: how is it that your hard data analysis is 50% but your gut is only 30%? - honest question; I'm curious how you come to that conclusion).

At Wizards, I had enough data to decide that something was either X or Y.  I might not always have had enough data to determine which of the two things it was, but I had enough to exclude most other options.

Now, I have enough data to say certain things are either X, Y or Z, but not enough data to determine reliably which of the three the thing is.

Hopefully I'll get better insights as my projects progress.

Ryan

Well, Ryan, thank you!   That's quite a bit to mull over.  I still don't quite agree with some of your points, but at least they're clearer to me now.  I'll just comment on a few of your points briefly...

Quote from: RSDanceyThe theory is that the player network itself is where the value is for tabletop games.  And that network is not just a random cloud of equally valuable people:  it has a definable structure, and certain nodes act on that network in certain crucial ways.  If you knock enough of the right kinds of nodes out of the network, the network becomes damaged to the point where it ceases to reliably function, and the result is a category collapse.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  Thanks.   My initial reaction is to think, well if you can knock out nodes then, in theory, you ought to be able to build/create them, too.   What would be node-building strategies?  One potential answer, in my mind, is your allusion in your 2000 RPG Market Survey where in your footnote you spoke about a foretold "Hybrid" computer RPG.  Frankly, I thought *that* was on the right track.  I'd been working on such a beastie since 1994, so it struck a particularly resonant cord with me.  What ever became of that concept.  As far as I'm concerned it was a potential winner.

QuoteMMORPGs are knocking people out of the TRPG network and those people are not being spontaneously replaced via acquisition.  As the network has frayed, play has declined.  It is impossible to say at this juncture that a collapse equal to the TWG category could happen, but I do think it is possible that we could see a collapse to the point where TRPGs are primarily played by isolated groups-of-groups, being separated networks of hundreds of players, rather than a unified network of millions.  And if that happens, then there won't be a lot of "returning to the tabletop", there will be a lot of people who express a desire to play, but no ability to play instead.

Oh sorrows!  And yet, I think you're right - it is possible.  I for one would consider it a great shame.   In my opinion the TRPG is a new art form, and one with great potential to illuminate.   If it perishes at the hands of those ghastly MMORPGs then I'll think the world a lesser place indeed.   No I really don't care for MMORPGs, frankly.  It's DOOM on steroids with Elves.  Yuck!  Oh, but, yes, the art is very nice, I grant them that.  But the story?  What story?  Where?  The Story is (compared to what I've played in some TRPG Worlds) ... um ... horridly pale?   Great for Power Gamers, I guess.   That wouldn't be me.

QuoteThere are actually 5 groups:  Storytellers (Story/Long Term), Thinkers (Conflict/Long Term), Character Actors (Story/Shot Term), Power Gamers (Conflict/Short Term), and Basic Roleplayers (at the juncture of the axis). You can read all about it here:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Will do, thanks.

QuoteI think it is more likely that something new that sparks a big uptick in sales will come from a new kind of game rather than a simplified/streamlined version of an existing play concept, but that's 95% guess and 5% research, so I could be totally wrong.

Well, you could be totally wrong, and I hope so.  I'm betting on it, in fact.  I harken back to the 2000 survey footnote... The Hybrid RPG Computer Game.  I'm also flying near-blind, but my intuition says "go that way".   A "new kind of game" is not necessary, nor desirable for me... I'm looking for something to help me do what I'm already doing... only better, stronger, faster.  

QuoteAnd to be clear, I don't think that any of my 3 projects will do that.  I'm not doing the work to make money or sell a whole lot of books; I'm doing it to scratch an intellectual itch.

Well, best wishes.  I'm doing the same.  Albeit incredibly slowly.

QuoteI think that immersion and hidden knowledge are not synonyms.  I think that you can become "immersed" in a game like Monopoly, fully realizing the roleplaying concept of being Donald Trump, caring passionately about completely virtual properties, houses & hotels, cash management, and intra-player deals even though there is no hidden knowledge in the game whatsoever.

Right.  Agreed.   They are not synonyms, though there is a correlation. However, I don't agree that you can become "Immersed" in a game of Monopoly.   Or at least my definition of "Immersion" would be so vastly different from yours as to exclude anything of the kind.   "Immersion" to me is something on the order of a mystical experience, far beyond merely caring passionately about x,y,z.   It is the sense of "entering Another World", and I mean that very literally.   Now, it is entirely possible that you don't know what I'm talking about.  Some people do, some people don't.   But when you read Lord of the Rings for the first time, did you feel like you were "there"?   That's Immersion.   And I do get that with certain Gamesmasters.  It's a uniquely awesome experience.  And I do maintain that such an experience is neigh on impossible if you're co-Creating the World during Play.   But I have no proof of that.  It's just my feeling.  

QuoteI think that most TRPG players enjoy playing in fantasy worlds.  I do not think that most of them qualify that by saying "a world that I did not help create".  I think that the success of canned campaign settings shows that there are lots and lots of TRPG players who are happy to play in a world that they can know as much about as the DM, save that small part that the DM adds or changes in a given game session.

It's not uncommon, truly.   But it also isn't the shining heights either.  Those are your run-in-the-mill games, which are fun and fine and I have no problem with them.  But you don't get what I'm looking for there.  I find that it's somewhat like comparing Mission Impossible III to Casablanca.  

QuoteTo me, this is a situation where the cleverness lies in putting hidden knowledge in the game just where it matters, but not where it doesn't.

I could see that as a possibility.  But again, as a Player, co-Creating the World vastly reduces, and possibly eliminates entirely, the possibility of Immersion, so I still am not keen on it.

QuoteSo I don't accept the premise that a TRPG lives or dies on the basis of how much "world" is provided by the DM vs. how much of it is co-created by all the players as a joint effort.

Ok, we disagree on this.   There's no way to prove this either way - it's just a matter of personal taste and preference.  For me, it does.

QuoteFor a long time, the industry said "do this", but produced products that did something else.  People liked the "doing something else" thing more than enough to overlook that what the industry SAID it was supposed to do, it didn't really do.  And most people were generally happy.

I think you underestimate the Happiness... it wasn't just a mere "generally happy" thing to be Immersed in Telthanar, a world you've never heard of, but was played for many years starting in 1977.  It was *Awesome*.

QuoteThen, along about 1989, a group of designers came along and said "no really, DO THIS", and meant it.  But weirdly, the products they produced were no different than the stuff that was already in the market.  But the weird thing was that if you ASKED people if they wanted to DO THIS, they almost always said "yes".  So that created a market gap:  a group of people (everyone who said "yes" when asked if they wanted the other play pattern), and the lack of games that actually were designed to enable that play pattern.

Well, I have nothing against people enjoying a new type of game.  Not a problem.  But this insistence that the former style was merely so-so... it just ain't so!  

QuoteThat creates a pretty big backlash (not helped by some of the rhetoric used, and some of the tactics used to be sure).  The backlash is people saying "we don't need any changes, because we're perfectly happy, and have been for 30+ years!"

I include myself in the 30+ years crowd, and I still say "I'm perfectly happy!"

Quote"DO THIS" is "play a game about cooperative storytelling" ... I think there's a middle ground, taking the best of what worked for 30+ years, but using those things in a concept for a game that is rebuilt from the ground up on different assumptions about who will play the game.  That might be a subtle distinction, but to me, I think it's an important one.

Something to think about.  I'll be curious to see what you come up with.  You know, I'm not against Story-Games.  I love Great Story, and that's the entire focus of the LRPGSW.   We spent months looking at Story-Games and reviewing Player Empowerment in order to see if and how we might be able to utilize the concepts.  I'm not knee-jerk against it.  But I do see issues.  Ones that have potential resolution, but there are issues that require considerable thought to get around.   More on that another time, if you're interested.

QuoteYou have assumed that GMs are people who make worlds. And you have assumed that people who want to make worlds are GMs.  Many people GM who don't want to make worlds.  They just want to play, and the only way to get the game to go is for someone to agree to run it.  And many people want to make worlds, but don't want to try to run a game so nobody ever sees their worlds (unless they have the additional talents to become writers).  I would argue that the sum total of people who are disenfranchised by the world making/GM requirement is vastly larger than the total who are enfranchised by it.

I'm a little surprised that you don't seem to have picked up on my distinction between Gamesmastering and World Weaving.   My point was that you can have World Weavers work on World Creation, and separate that activity from Gamesmastering those Worlds.   Wouldn't that serve?

QuoteRyan

Well, far out, Ryan!   Very cool to finally get a chance to come to grips with you on these questions and ideas after having heard so much (vitriolic at times) commentary *about* you.   Very interesting indeed!  

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeIt's not uncommon, truly.   But it also isn't the shining heights either.  Those are your run-in-the-mill games, which are fun and fine and I have no problem with them.  But you don't get what I'm looking for there.  I find that it's somewhat like comparing Mission Impossible III to Casablanca.

I find myself torn between two responses to this little gem.

1) What.The.Fuck.

2) Oooh...oooh....oooh! Is this Swinery, Pundit and Sett? It really DOES exist.

On a more serious note, do you really think a mystical experience exploring little Timmy Too-right's three-ring binder masterpiece is really what's going to keep the RPG industry healthy? What is this? The Great Restoration for RPGs? I think you're profoundly off base, here.