Quote from: John MorrowThere is a certain Monty Haul aspect to, "Say yes or roll dice," though, in that you can give the player what they want or offer them a chance at what's behind die number 1 and that there is often no real challenge involved in getting the reward.

:haw:

Never thought of it that way.  I'm just referring to what I always heard campaigns called in the old days when you opened a door, killed 4 orcs, and got 10,000 GP, a suit of Magic Armor, and a Vorpal Blade - at 2nd level.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerSo Ryan comes out and says that since 4.0 plays a lot like a WOW instance, that's a bad thing and shit needs to change away from that or tabletop RPGs are utterly fucked.

Problem: What the majority of gamers want is for D&D to play more like WOW.

 I DON'T


 Hell, most of my regular customers know the difference - and they play BOTH. They save World of WArcraft for when their schedules don't match up with that of their friends for a sit down at the table game.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarI DON'T

You are not the majority.

QuoteHell, most of my regular customers know the difference - and they play BOTH. They save World of WArcraft for when their schedules don't match up with that of their friends for a sit down at the table game.

The proof is in the products.  D&D over the last few years--since WOW went live--increasingly resembled its online counterpart, and the upcoming 4.0 goes and makes this explicit.  WOTC--specifically, the MBAs running the show--knows where the money is and that's why they're doing it; that's where the money is because that's what the gaming population as a whole, traditionally and at the present, want to go.  Products that focus upon power-gaming always sell better than fluff-oriented products; the common gamer wants out of both TRPGs and MMORPSs (and CRPGs) the same damned thing.  It's not surprising, therefore, that WOTC's going in its indicated direction.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerYou are not the majority.

The proof is in the products.  D&D over the last few years--since WOW went live--increasingly resembled its online counterpart, and the upcoming 4.0 goes and makes this explicit.  WOTC--specifically, the MBAs running the show--knows where the money is and that's why they're doing it; that's where the money is because that's what the gaming population as a whole, traditionally and at the present, want to go.  Products that focus upon power-gaming always sell better than fluff-oriented products; the common gamer wants out of both TRPGs and MMORPSs (and CRPGs) the same damned thing.  It's not surprising, therefore, that WOTC's going in its indicated direction.

But is it really "going in the direction of WoW" though?

I don't really see any similarities between D&D Insider and WoW other than they're both now available online. The play experience looks completely different to my eyes.

And yes, power gaming books traditionally sells well. All that seems to prove to me is that MMORPG's latched on to the more successful aspects of tabletop RPG's and ran with them, rather than the other way around.

Seriously, I've seen you make this exact same point time and again here and elsewhere. You claim to know what the broad mass of D&D players want without providing a shred of proof beyond vague system similarities and a conflation of online content with MMORPG emulation.

I'm not trying to attack you here Bradford, but I just don't see it as the explicit, cut-and-dried progression that you seem to. Computer-based rpg's were created out of tabletop ones, and since then there's been a lot of influence trafficking both ways. Saying that D&D is moving toward WoW is just as silly (IMO) as saying WoW is moving toward D&D. The entertainment world is increasingly becoming a multi-media experience, I'm only surprised that Wizards have taken this long in implementing it in a meaningful way.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThe proof is in the products. D&D over the last few years--since WOW went live--increasingly resembled its online counterpart, and the upcoming 4.0 goes and makes this explicit. WOTC--specifically, the MBAs running the show--knows where the money is and that's why they're doing it; that's where the money is because that's what the gaming population as a whole, traditionally and at the present, want to go.

Recent (general) trends:

Online RPG sales - Up
Tabletop RPG sales - Down

They could bebetting that making TTRPGs more like MMORPGs will improve sales.  If they are, I think that's a bad strategy because it doesn't play to the strengths of a Tabletop RPG vs an Online RPG.

However, another recent trend is:

Board Game sales - Up

This is the direction I went for my game (which I'm finishing up and will publish this spring!) -- looking to modern, successful boardgames and applying some of those lessons to a tabletop RPG.

Even if you're right and most people want a tabletop game that resembles an online game... I've made the game I wanted to, and I'm really excited about it.  Hopefully some other folk will be too.

Quote from: James J SkachThe story looming in your mind, and Story Ownership are two very different things.  

That's true.  However, I think there is a relationship.  My argument is that when the GM has BackStory Owership (and the Players have what I'm now going to call FrontStory Owernship (meaning they drive the plot via the actions of their Characters), that this produces the type of story environment that I've enjoyed most as a Player.   Which is to say that as a Player I enjoyed most exploring another person's World (as opposed to co-creating it).  And my caveat is that this is only true when the GM was a great enough story teller to have a World worth exploring.  But in those cases (rare, yes), these were the best World's I've played in.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd I don't think you can write this off to "terminology" in the way you mean.  It's simply different connotations.  "Story Ownership" means the GM owns the story. This means the players, in general, have no stake in the story.  In general, there are/were many ways this manifest, from railroading to illusion to blah blah blah.

I don't agree with this, though.  The Players definitely do have a stake in the story, even if the GM owns the BackStory.  They drive the plot.  UNLESS, as you suggest, the GM is railroading.  However, that is not a requirement of BackStory Ownership, and I don't like it when it happens, and I don't GM that way myself.   You don't have to Railroad when you own the BackStory.  There are certaily ways to avoid it.   The primary way is to be prepared with enough BackStory to cover when the Players trot off in a direction you didn't necessarily expect.   Yes, I know that's a lot more work.   But I'm talking about Great Gamesmastering, not run-in-the-mill GMing.

Quote from: James J SkachThis si very different from being concerned about the GM trying to set up a world/dungoen/village/city/situation such that it will produce interesting situations and stories for the characters (not a specific story).

True.  But you can have both.  Fun situational dungeons that produce interesting plot AND Great BackStory.  I don't see why we should want less.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd as others have mentioned, I've only ever heard Monty Haul referring to adventures where treasure was, essentially, given away - it was far too much for the challenge. The example you use to define the term is what I've always heard referred to as Hack and Slash or something similar.

It's not that the story is secondary. It's how you go about creating it.

OK, well I'm not making any huge claims about the meaning of that term.  We used it to mean Dungeons that are just there to for Characters to invade and have no purpose in the world at large, and are therefore thin from a story perspective.  Contrasting that to something like David Kahn's World where the Dungeons have some pretty seriously fascinating history and purpose, we used the term to denote those Worlds where the GM didn't provide that aspect.   I'm sure over time the term is used differently by different groups.  My point is that this is how we used the term back in the late 70's and I'm using that point to indicate, in response to a prior point, that Story was important to us back then, not just situational scenarios.

Quote from: StuartThis is the direction I went for my game (which I'm finishing up and will publish this spring!) -- looking to modern, successful boardgames and applying some of those lessons to a tabletop RPG.

Hells yes.  Don't pin to me that wall, warriors, but has anyone played the Shab-al-Hiri Roach?  That's a board game.  It's a board game that provides an excellent and fun roleplaying experience, but it plays and feels more like a board game than an RPG.

That's the experience I think RPGs should go for, that's their strength: socialization, intense interaction, and yes, story telling.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity"Rein in the parade."

Actually, while 'rein in a parade' makes sense, I don't recall ever having heard it. On the other hand, 'rain on a parade' also makes perfect sense as a metaphor, and seems to be widely used, at least in the US.

As I pour through Dancey's thesis and wrap-up, I still wonder if this core point is correct:

Quote from: RDThe type of player most likely to leave the tabletop social network is the Power Gamer, the kind of player who tends to experience the most fun when the game focuses on short-term, conflict focused action

On one level, this makes sense to me. As MMOs progress and get more sophisticated, you are bound to see some gamers flock to that experience. And as most MMOs are combat-oriented, it would make sense that the combat-oriented table top gamers would be the first to jump ship. So, I am sure this "drain" phenomenon is possible and is probably happening to a degree.

However, the exact same logic could be used to argue that power gamers are flocking to board games like Descent, or that they are returning to old-style hex and counter wargames, or mini battle games like Mage Knight and the new Axis and Allies.

See, I think there are lots of types of gamers that would pick MMOs over tabletops (as is evidenced by the numbers), but I don't necessarily think power gamers is an adequate description of them. So, if not power gamers, then who?

Soloists: One of the main discussions ongoing in the MMO community today is how much game designers should allow for solo play. A large fraction of the MMO community solos for a significant portion of their playtime. What solo options exist for tabletop games? None, of course... it is sort of dumb to even mention it.

Except that it sheds light on one big reason that MMOs appeal to a mass market while tabletops don't: There are a lot of gamers that don't want that kind of social experience.  It only takes one experience with a leetspeak kiddie, or an overbearing party leader, or a prima donna healer, or a ninja looter to make someone want to solo. Likewise, it takes only one experience with a dice cheater, or a cat-piss man, or a GM's girlfriend to make someone think that the local gaming store is not the place to meet like-minded gamers. MMOs have an answer to this; tabletops do not.

PvPers: This is another big discussion ongoing on MMO boards. PvP play is already the main aspect of many asian games, and is starting to become an obligatory feature in western games as well. Why? Because a big section of the market simply won't consider a game unless it has PvP. This means there is another big section of the overall gamer market that won't consider tabletops.

Competitors: This is another flavor of PvP play, except that it involves having better stuff than the other player, not necessarily killing him. Now, competitive play can exist in RPGs somewhat, but is not optimal, as most gaming groups and GMs work to keep the PCs equal in their importance, if not their actual power. MMOs have competition in spades, as evidenced by the number of players that raid for better gear, so they can enter another raid to get better gear, so they can get into another guild, so they can get enter another raid to get better gear... Which leads to...

Compulsive Players: I don't mean this in the sense of a mental illness. What I mean is that playing an MMO becomes a habit, the degree to which is dependent on the particular person, but it is a habit. When I am into an MMO, I play it nearly every night when possible and think about it off and on during the day as well. When I don't play an MMO for a week or more, I usually cancel my subscription because the habit is broken.

Tabletops cannot match this kind of habit-forming behavior, because the typical campaign meets once a week or less. I can only get my fix then and a little during the week as I prep for the game, or discuss it with my players. Now, I think the "fix" from a tabletop game is so much better than from an MMO, that it is worth the wait. However, I can see a lot of gamers going the other way.

I apologize, since I think I explained that poorly. It is a visceral thing for me. At night, once my wife and kids have finally gone to sleep and I have the couple hours of quite, I want to play a game. MMOs are a low-grade way to satisfy that desire and thus, I can see them supplanting tabletops for many gamers.

Logistical Nightmares: There is one in every tabletop group. Heck, I think I am the LN in my group. I have four kids, one is in football, one is in cheerleading, another is a baby who does not yet sleep through the night. Any given night of the week, it is unlikely that I can manage to get out of the house for a four-hour stretch, and some nights, I am just too tired to care to do so. On the other hand, it is likely that I can get just enough quite time (as long as I am in the house) to fire up WoW and solo, or gather a small xp group, or maybe... just maybe, do a 5-man instance.

So, what is my point in all of this. Well, simply that Dancey is correct in stating that MMOs are siphoning off some (and maybe a large portion) of the target tabletop market. However, I think his assessment that "power gamers are leaving" is a horrible oversimplification if not outright wrong. There are lots of reasons why MMOs appeal to a larger market segment of the population than tabletops and Dancey ignores all of them to push his new StoryGame agenda.

Maybe more later... thanks for reading,

OMG droog, did you really post this?
Aren´t you studying something where reading is paramount?

I mean making a mistake, no big deal. But defending it with THAT argument?
:eek:

Quote from: SettembriniOMG droog, did you really post this?
Aren´t you studying something where reading is paramount?

I mean making a mistake, no big deal. But defending it with THAT argument?
:eek:

I don't get you. We're talking about living metaphor.

I rest my case.
You won.

I'm lost on the whole "parade" argument thing.

"Rain on my/your parade" is a very common phrase in English in the US, with multiple popular uses in books, tv, movies, and music.

"Reign in your parade" is something I've never heard before.  Perhaps its strictly a European thing.

Quote from: jgants"Reign"

REIN

It´s nice seeing you being passionate.