Quote from: Justin Alexander;388822What are people's thoughts on the usefulness of distinguishing between "roleplaying games" (in which associated mechanics specifically require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) and "storytelling games" (in which dissociated mechanics put the players in a more authorial position of controlling the story beyond the boundaries of any particular character)?`

They are not useful to me, and I have only seen them used in imaginary Internet wars.

See, I think that both games can include both kind of mechanics (Hero Points in James Bond 007 would be an sterling example), and the immersion in character is something that I have experienced in both kind of games.

QuoteAnd if the two sorts of mechanics are employed in the same game, is it more useful to blur the boundaries between the two? Or create a sharp distinction between the "in character" stuff and the "authorial" stuff?

I'd blur it.

Totally agree with Imperator, the distinction being drawn here between roleplaying games and storytelling games doesn't really do anything for me.
Both are approaches are pushing in the same direction, the creation of interesting, well rounded characters. The two can co-exist happily, and I strongly suspect lot of players can to swap between modes freely within the same session without a second thought. It's gets blurred, as he says.

Look at it this way, there are method actors and there are technical actors. But as long as on screen the actor nails the character, it doesn't really matter how they got there and the two schools of actiong work together all the time.
 
Also the terminology being used here is not helpful; it is almost provactive. By calling one of the approaches "roleplaying", which is in essence the name of the hobby as a whole  their is an implicit criticism that the other approach isn't as pure or central. Particularly as the term "storytelling" on this specific forum has a negative baggage. I mean if we are prepared to call an old school D&D dungeon crawl "roleplaying" - the kind of game in which if your guy "Sir Robin" died due to a trap you just rolled "Sir Robin 2" and were expected to use the ooc knowledge to avoid the same trap and carry on as if nothing happened - it seems odd to draw a line in the sand at Fate points.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388827When what you want from a game is not cinematic action, 4E isn't that good of a game, particularly because unlike earlier editions of D&D 4E is focused like a laser on what it aims to do. Most criticisms of 4E that I read I put under the category "judging 4E to fit a standard other than what it was specifically designed to be".

When the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons", the designers have to expect people familiar with the previous 30 years of the game to compare it to that. One of the problem with 4e is that it's "focus like a laser" is so narrow that it cut away many styles of play that people have come to associate with D&D over its history.

The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.

Quote from: RandallS;388941When the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons", the designers have to expect people familiar with the previous 30 years of the game to compare it to that. One of the problem with 4e is that it's "focus like a laser" is so narrow that it cut away many styles of play that people have come to associate with D&D over its history.

The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.

First of all, I don't think old versions were "dissed" and certainly not their fans. They mentioned that there was probably a better way to handle battles that specifically involved complicated 3rd edition maneuvers like grappling... but the only way that's offensive is for people who really were looking for an excuse to be offended.

I personally think that portion of the old audience that was so willing to have emotional problems over the edition change.. was absolutely worth getting rid of. And all indications are that it seems to have been a good decision all around.

Quote from: RandallS;388941The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.

In hindsight, this may very well be the case.

But at the time when 4E was being developed and playtested, it's possible it may not have even crossed their minds.  It's easy for marketing people to believe their own bullshit, and fall into an internal groupthink mindset where dissent isn't tolerated.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388943I personally think that portion of the old audience that was so willing to have emotional problems over the edition change.. was absolutely worth getting rid of. And all indications are that it seems to have been a good decision all around.

If they think this audience is more trouble than they are worth and is small enough, it may very well be worth the risk to do so.

Though the question is how big is this audience, and how much revenue will be lost by eliminating such an audience.

Quote from: RandallS;388941When the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons", the designers have to expect people familiar with the previous 30 years of the game to compare it to that. One of the problem with 4e is that it's "focus like a laser" is so narrow that it cut away many styles of play that people have come to associate with D&D over its history.

The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.

3E had already shit all over D&D's history and tradition. It was such a confusing mess though that people didn't realize it and there were enough vestiges of the old in it that people could delude themselves that "old D&D" was still alive.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388943First of all, I don't think old versions were "dissed" and certainly not their fans. They mentioned that there was probably a better way to handle battles that specifically involved complicated 3rd edition maneuvers like grappling... but the only way that's offensive is for people who really were looking for an excuse to be offended.

I personally think that portion of the old audience that was so willing to have emotional problems over the edition change.. was absolutely worth getting rid of. And all indications are that it seems to have been a good decision all around.

This

Quote from: ggroy;388945If they think this audience is more trouble than they are worth and is small enough, it may very well be worth the risk to do so.

Though the question is how big is this audience, and how much revenue will be lost by eliminating such an audience.

The audience is loud, but small, and the game is better off without them.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388954The audience is loud, but small, and the game is better off without them.

No, you just want people who don't agree with you to shut up and begone because they're SPOILING YOUR FUN MAAAAAAAAN.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;388957No, you just want people who don't agree with you to shut up and begone because they're SPOILING YOUR FUN MAAAAAAAAN.

Spoiling what fun? I don't game with those people. I only know one of them in real life, and I'm glad he's gone. Only place I see this is people whining on the internet, which I enjoy the same as I enjoy watching Jerry Springer or Jersey Shore.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388954The audience is loud, but small, and the game is better off without them.

Actually, in terms of any demographic marketting, repeat purchasers, especially historical multiple repeat purchasers that are passionate (read as loud) about the quality of a brand (any brand), are the gold standard in terms of retention/acquisition.

The  reacquisition of this demographic should be first priority in any future marketting.

Quote from: LordVreeg;388983Actually, in terms of any demographic marketting, repeat purchasers, especially historical multiple repeat purchasers that are passionate (read as loud) about the quality of a brand (any brand), are the gold standard in terms of retention/acquisition.

In the rpg world, the question is whether "loud" necessarily equates with repeat purchasing.

For example, are the extremely loud critics of 4E D&D the same people buying new WotC 4E splatbooks every month?

Quote from: ggroy;388989In the rpg world, the question is whether "loud" necessarily equates with repeat purchasing.

For example, are the extremely loud critics of 4E D&D the same people buying new WotC 4E splatbooks every month?

hell of a question.

I left the game at AD&D, so I don't count.  I buy very little in terms of gaming.

In terms of marketting, the people most upset about 'new coke' were the diehard coke drinkers.  It became too much like pepsi, to them.  The problem, you see, is these were NOT the people who would buy limecoke and cherry coke and fudgecoke...
However, the people who are the loudest critics of 4e are buying other brands, not 4e books, i think.

Attrition is a huge issue in marketting in terms of changing a brand. How do you think the various editions did in terms of % of people who were lost during an edition switch?

Quote from: ggroy;388989For example, are the extremely loud critics of 4E D&D the same people buying new WotC 4E splatbooks every month?

Of course not, as they don't like 4e. However, many of them bought every 3.x item WOTC published. And some have just about every D&D item TSR or WOTC published prior to 4e. Some like me, do have the first three 4e books, but did not buy any more.

WOTC decided that the money of everyone who did like find the narrow focus of 4e to their taste wasn't any good. That's their decision, but considering the cost of continuing to make older edition material available as PDFs was very low and that terminating the D20 trademark license to allow 3rd party publishers to easily continue to support 3.x did not save them a penny, the business sense of their decision is highly questionable.

Quote from: LordVreeg;388992Attrition is a huge issue in marketting in terms of changing a brand. How do you think the various editions did in terms of % of people who were lost during an edition switch?

Good question.

From what I recall of the 1E -> 2E AD&D transition anecdotally, there were several classes of attrition I was aware of locally at the time.

1 - Several hardcore 1E AD&D grognards I personally knew of, absolutely refuse to acknowledge the existence of 2E AD&D.  To their word, they never bought any D&D/AD&D products beyond 1988/1989.  (These people were far and few in between).

2 - Some less hardcore 1E AD&D grognards I knew of, didn't bother buying any of the 2E AD&D rulesbooks.  But they did continue buying modules and supplement books for stuff like Greyhawk, Dragonlance, etc ...

3 - Some bought the 2E AD&D core books, but never played the game.  They continued playing 1E AD&D instead.


I suspect during that time period (ie.  early-mid 1990's), White Wolf was also eating into 2E AD&D's market which caused another significant source of attrition.

By that time, TSR was already dropping quite a few of its settings (ie. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Oriental Adventures, etc ...).  In the case of Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Oriental Adventures, etc... they were probably niche settings at best, and didn't have a large enough audience to sustain it much further.

In the case of Greyhawk and Dragonlance, I suspect the well ran dry with not enough grognards buying new Greyhawk and Dragonlance modules.  I know some of my Greyhawk grognard friends thought the "Greyhawk Wars" were a complete abomination of the setting.  A few of them don't even consider the "Greyhawk Wars" to be legitimate Greyhawk canon.