James,
1) Those examples were cited to point to a decline in playership for RPGs that changed the landscape of the hobby/market and made even our most recent data points tenuous at best.

2) Both. In the face of the innovative competitive elements that I described above, what was good for the past is not necessarily good for the future. When RPGs hit the mass hobby market in the late 70s and early 80s, they were the hot new innovation. They blew all of the other hobby products out of the water. The wargamers wept as their players were siphoned off to kill orcs mano-a-mano. Wargames took decades to recover. It was only through innovation and adaptation that they did. Admittedly, some stuck to their traditional punched-chit roots, but many did not. And punched-chit wargaming is still a niche compared to what it was in the 70s.

So now, 25 years later, RPGs are facing a similar crisis. Sticking to our guns and doing the same thing over and over again will inevitably appeal to a smaller and smaller group of potential players. Change, development and progress are what's called for in times like this.


Zachary,
I personally like Earthsea and Lankhmar for Burning Wheel settings. Though Earthsea is best served using Spirit Binding or Art Magic rather than straight up Sorcery from the BWR. Ken Hite and I have bandied the idea of a Burning Iliad about. I think it'd work, but it'd take some work on my part. Thomas Covenant probably wouldn't work so well in Burning Wheel. I cite Donaldson more for inspiration and mood.

I'd love to get the licenses for Dark Sun and Planescape, too. I think they'd go nicely with the BW rules set. But that's never going to happen.

James Part 2,
1) 3.5 has it's weak elements. GM Fiat is one of them. Play speed is another one. But on the whole, it's a more robust and consistent set than previous iterations.

2) I think my response to you above answers this second question. Let me know if you need more.

Alnag,
I like your sequentially numbered questions

25) I am certain that my beliefs and observations about the gaming industry will continue to grow and change as I learn more about how games are designed and marketed and have more experience watching my own games grow.

26) I think (real) Game Theory is fascinating. A game is just a set of behaviors encouraged by probabilities, decisions and guidelines of the rules set. (Rules can be written or unwritten, btw) All of this can be studied to discern what kind of guidelines produce certain decisions. I do not think that RPGs have ever been studied in a manner that could be called scientific. They were not developed along scientific means and I doubt they'll be rigorously studied any time soon. What we have is a collection of expert opinions on how the games work. They may be  wrong, but they are a starting point. In fact, many studies and science begin as expert opinions which are later "proved" by scientific method.

27) I believe that the power dynamics of human interactions are far more nuanced that a single model father/leader type.

28) The "ultimate power of the GM" is a concept derived from older gaming texts in which the Game Master or Dungeon Master player is granted access to a special rule that allows him to ignore or change rules as he sees fit. It seems like a logical guideline for a type of game as broad reaching as a roleplaying game. However, once you factor in interpersonal power dynamics and plain old human nature (to want your own way) and the rule becomes problematic. And, as further designs have shown, it's unnecessary.

29) Some people like to play different types of games. Your friend has a preference and he knows what that preference is. That's a good thing. He should stick to what he likes. In fact, 90% of the "Forge Theory" has been developed for just that purpose -- to help people identify what it is they like about roleplaying games so that they can seek them out and play them in a manner they enjoy.


Mark,
1) No. It's in the rules. It's part of the game. Players could, in fact, turn to you and start yelling at you for not ignoring rules -- if they got into a tough scrape, for example, and you didn't hand-wave it away. Just because you ignore a rule, doesn't change the original design and intent of the game.

2) I'd say that's one way to play the game. It's a traditional way, too. It's not evil or anything, but neither does it offset or eliminate the need for alternate styles of play.

3) You've pretty much asked for an essay with this last one. I'm not sure how to answer it, really. Player Empowerment is some weird buzz-phrase. And you know what? I don't know exactly what it means. All I want is strong game design in which players all have roles to play and recourse to a neutral set of rules that no one player can break at his whim. I'm flailing here. Can you rephrase the question?

Thanks for the reply Luke.  I've seen the phrase 'Player Empowerment' bandied around, and am curious as to what it means to those who first used it.  To my mind it implies that the the Players are given control over those areas which in Traditional D&D type games were the domain of the Gamesmaster - specifically those items I mentioned, Back Story and control of the Rolled Outcomes.   If I am correct in this assessment then I imagine that Player Empowerment has advantages and disadvantages.  

Advantages:
- the players have more control over the story, thereby exercising more creativity.
- the gamesmaster is not as burdenned with the sole responsiblity to concieve of great back story.
- the game may be more entertaining if all of the participants are good story tellers.

Disadvantages:
- the element of surprise and sense of being in Another World is diminished, as the players actively participate in creating that world as they play.
- the story may have a tendency to be more fragmented or aimless with more than one Story Guide.
- the Gamesmaster carries more of the burden of responsibility to create a good back story (for those who are interested in back story, which isn't everyone).

I feel that the selection of which style depends largely on the nature of the group of people playing.  If you have a Great Story Teller in the Gamesmaster, who has in mind a fantastic back story full of suprises and amazing histories, politics and fiction, then it may well behoove the group to play a more traditional style of GMing, as described above.   On the other hand if the entire group is comprised of increadible world weavers then sharing the back story can be a wonderful thing.  That's my sense of things so far.  However, I am still exploring the Indie Games and realise that I'm only at the beginning of that road, having just completed my first reading of any Indie game system, 'Dogs in the Vineyard'.

As for rephrasing my #3 question... what I was wondering is whether or not you think that my assessment is generally on target in terms of what Player Empowerment, so-called, is trying to address, and if not, what you think are the other factors.   Of course if nothing jumps out at you then I think it's good enough to leave that question behind.

Three questions regarding Burning Empire:

What is the goal of the game?
How does BE facilitate that goal?
How does BE reward that behavior?

- Mark

Mark,
The advantages you describe are reasonable assessments of some of the small press RPGs that have emerged in the last decade. I think you should explore the disadvantages yourself with the games that you purchased. The games certainly have their disadvantages, but I think you might be surprised as to what they are.

As for your three questions, I'll answer them. But did you want to ask me the same three questions I asked you? Those are slightly, but notably, different.

What is the goal of the game? To allow the players to create a narrative arc that mimics the tone, style and feel of the Iron Empires comic books.

How does BE facilitate that goal?
Burning Empires enforces a narrative in three ways: by dedicating all of the action to the perspective of characters and providing means for those characters to grow and change through play; by ensuring that the game has an indeterminate, but absolute, end point; and by mimicking the comic book structure with a finite scene economy the players must navigate in order to accomplish their goals for their characters before the narrative comes crashing to a close.

How does BE reward that behavior? Burning Empires rewards players for accomplishing goals through their characters. These rewards can be used in future scenes to accomplish greater goals. More than that, Burning Empires rewards cooperative play -- groups that work cooperatively have greater control over the speed at which they reach the end point of the game.

What I asked you was: What is your game about? How is your game about that? How does your game reward players for engaging what it is about?

Burning Empires is about consequences. It is about consequences because it drives players to state goals and take action. In the game, these actions always have ramifications with which the players must contend. The players are rewarded for engaging their goals in a variety of ways -- for simply playing into them, for accomplishing them and for breaking them.

Goal of the design and premise of the game are two different things.

1) Would you roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble?
2) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with friends vs. playing with strangers?
3) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with strangers vs. playing with friends?

Quote from: lukeMark,
The advantages you describe are reasonable assessments of some of the small press RPGs that have emerged in the last decade. I think you should explore the disadvantages yourself with the games that you purchased. The games certainly have their disadvantages, but I think you might be surprised as to what they are.

As for your three questions, I'll answer them. But did you want to ask me the same three questions I asked you? Those are slightly, but notably, different.

What is the goal of the game? To allow the players to create a narrative arc that mimics the tone, style and feel of the Iron Empires comic books.

How does BE facilitate that goal?
Burning Empires enforces a narrative in three ways: by dedicating all of the action to the perspective of characters and providing means for those characters to grow and change through play; by ensuring that the game has an indeterminate, but absolute, end point; and by mimicking the comic book structure with a finite scene economy the players must navigate in order to accomplish their goals for their characters before the narrative comes crashing to a close.

How does BE reward that behavior? Burning Empires rewards players for accomplishing goals through their characters. These rewards can be used in future scenes to accomplish greater goals. More than that, Burning Empires rewards cooperative play -- groups that work cooperatively have greater control over the speed at which they reach the end point of the game.

What I asked you was: What is your game about? How is your game about that? How does your game reward players for engaging what it is about?

Burning Empires is about consequences. It is about consequences because it drives players to state goals and take action. In the game, these actions always have ramifications with which the players must contend. The players are rewarded for engaging their goals in a variety of ways -- for simply playing into them, for accomplishing them and for breaking them.

Goal of the design and premise of the game are two different things.

Hey Luke,

Aha.  Well, yes you got me.  I wanted to ask you the same ones you asked me because I wanted another example of how such questions get answered, so that, of course, I could continue to refine my own.   I'm curious as to what the difference between Goal and Premise is.  Would you mind elaborating a bit?  Thanks.   Also, from what I saw of Burning Empires it looked like a really challenging game, and seemed in some way almost like a poker game where the Players had to guess/estimate what you're moves would be each turn, and derive counter moves (I understand moves is not quite the right word here, more like 'decisions' or 'tactics' or 'strategy' maybe).   Overall the role playing was, I thought, really great among the Players, in particular the stalwartness of the Captain vs the Homicidal loyalty of the crew member defending the honor of his Lord.  Very cool.  What I wasn't sure of was whether or not the rules themselves were facilitating that high quality Role Playing in some way, or if your Players are just pretty damn awesome role players.   If it's the rules that are doing it, could you elaborate a bit on how?   That would be great.   Thanks again.  


Mark

Quote from: TonyLB1) Would you roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble?
2) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with friends vs. playing with strangers?
3) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with strangers vs. playing with friends?

Tony,
1) I roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble about once a month.

2) Play with friends has a comfort level -- I'm doing something I enjoy with my friends. It's very simple in that regard.

3) Play with strangers is great because it takes you out of your comfort zone. I very often hear players complain to each other after my games, "You would have never done that at home [in our game]!" In my games at least, playing with strangers seems to lift certain boundaries so the participants can try something new or explore different gaming territory. Often to great effect. My own personal play experiences seem to back this up. I'm sure part of it is playing a one-shot con game, but I'm certain that the other part of is those comfort zones are broken and no one is expecting anyone to behave in a certain way. So the dude who's all kill-crazy in his home group can sit down and push his inner romantic diplomat, or something, etc., etc.

Mark,
Goal is the mechanical design goal of the game. Premise are the themes/stories I want those mechanics to address in play.

My games encourage investment in characters and situation via the player priority and player reward system known as Beliefs and Artha. I described them in my answers to you above. They are not some panacea for roleplaying -- we still have our bad sessions -- but they reward players for dramatic investment in an ongoing cycle.

-L

Quote from: luke. I'm sure part of it is playing a one-shot con game, but I'm certain that the other part of is those comfort zones are broken and no one is expecting anyone to behave in a certain way. So the dude who's all kill-crazy in his home group can sit down and push his inner romantic diplomat, or something, etc., etc.
-L

Could you elaborate on that?  I know, hard question since you lay it out pretty clearly above but:

I haven't been to a Con in 15 years, give or take, though I have played RPG's with strangers at other types of conventions (Sakura Con had a regular BESM table when I went a few years ago... )

But when I play with my semi-regular group I am MORE likely to stretch my wings with a new character, not less. When I sit down with a 'new group' I almost always make a 'fighter'. Doesn't matter what the game is, my dude is the hardcase.  This holds true for exploring new other games (WoW, Eve-Online, I focus on combat first, later characters are more interesting... I know, in WoW, every character fights all the time, not the point. I play a FIGHTER first...)

Later characters push those boundaries back. In my D&D group my second character was a cleric, more importantly, his driving goal (something my first, fighter, lacked....he was all about the adventure) was to promulgate the faith, build a grand temple and his primary reaction to humanlike NPC's in the dungeon was diplomacy and poselytizing... stuff I had never done in an RPG before, stuff that normally doesn't appeal too much to me.

But I did that with players I knew, was comfortable with. Not strangers.

So your expirence and mine are at odds.

Quote from: SpikeSo your expirence and mine are at odds.

Every other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

Quote from: joewolzEvery other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

Great. That makes me the freak. Ah well, I'm used to it....

Quote from: joewolzEvery other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

I can't think of another person with whom I've gamed, or myself, that are not in line with Spike...so...there ya go...

Quote from: Spike... stuff I had never done in an RPG before, stuff that normally doesn't appeal too much to me.

But I did that with players I knew, was comfortable with. Not strangers.

This is why I only game with friends. (Strangers throw me of my game)

Regards,
David R

(I want to encourage you all to come to the commentary thread to discuss this, this is the Q&A thread. )

Spike, I don't think there's too much to elaborate on. I'm fine if our experiences differ.

Quote from: joewolzEvery other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

Not me.

Luke,

The study and its relevance is, quite honestly, a digression I was mistaken to chase.

Let me see if I can come at it this subject another way...

Here's where the confusion comes in for me. Before and during the contraction, GM Fiat is included in the best-selling game, D&D 2nd Edition. Then, D&D 3.0 is released and is very successful. It also includes GM Fiat. It would seem to me that GM Fiat is not a factor in whether or not a specific game is successful (both version of D&D had it and were successful), or if it damages the overall hobby (D&D 3.0, and subsequently 3.5, helped a revival a contracting industry). So, honestly, no, your answer doesn't help.  I'm specifically asking:

• How does your belief that GM Fiat is damaging to the hobby account for games like D&D 3.x that include GM Fiat  and helped revive the hobby from a horrible contraction?
• Would not the releases of D&D 3.0 and 3.5, both of which included GM Fiat, have damaged further the already-contracting hobby?
• Can you help me understand what, no matter how instinctual or anecdotal, leads you to the conclusion that people were coming to the hobby in search of collaborative storytelling were finding, instead, this GM Fiat weirdness and being turned off the hobby?
• Can you help me understand what, no matter how instinctual or anecdotal, leads you to the conclusion that GM Fiat, both it's existence in rules and its existence by a subset of assholes, damages the overall hobby?
• Is a game that excludes GM Fiat objectively better than a game that includes GM Fiat?
• If so, can you help me understand why?

I'm trying to form a theory (for lack of a better word) for the source of hostilities and I'm hoping my understanding of your thought process will help me pin it down better – all with the goal of, perhaps, facilitating a better, less hostile, discussion.

I know it is pie in the sky, but if Tony and I can do it on a one-to-one basis...who knows. Then I'll go down in history as The Person Who Brought the Peace on Proper. I'll put it on my tombstone.

And please allow me to clarify – I have no problem with designing games without the GM role or GM Fiat. I applaud anyone who wants to go out and experiment with existing structures and try to find new ways of doing things – no matter what the field.

Thanks,
Jim