You trieng to rain on my paraid?

I think we are hopping on the same sting.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI 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.

You didn't call it GM BackStory Ownership - a term I've never heard but could accept in the way you seem to use it. You said "GM Story Ownership" which is completely different thing.  Which is my point.  Which you seem to agree with. You're right, you don't need to railroad for BackStory Ownership. I never said it was.  The point is, to have Story Ownership, you do (or use some other tactic to make sure the story being told is the one you want).

C'mon VB, you just changed your entire position to mine by equating "Story Ownership" with "BackStory Ownership" and then defended it as if it were yours!  But I think I'll not argue you with you anymore lest I am suddenly placed in your position and forced to defend it.

Quote from: James J SkachYou didn't call it GM BackStory Ownership - a term I've never heard but could accept in the way you seem to use it. You said "GM Story Ownership" which is completely different thing.  Which is my point.  Which you seem to agree with. You're right, you don't need to railroad for BackStory Ownership. I never said it was.  The point is, to have Story Ownership, you do (or use some other tactic to make sure the story being told is the one you want).

C'mon VB, you just changed your entire position to mine by equating "Story Ownership" with "BackStory Ownership" and then defended it as if it were yours!  But I think I'll not argue you with you anymore lest I am suddenly placed in your position and forced to defend it.

No, I didn't "change my entire position".  We went through a clarification process that's all.  I think if you follow the thread back it should be clear enough that I meant exactly what I stated, but used a term more loosely than you were willing to allow.  My position hasn't changed, its simply more clearly stated.  For that I can thank you.

Quote from: cmagounSoloists: 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.

RPG Trivia:

It is believed that one of the factors for Das Schwarze Auge's success during the Schmidt Spiele period (1984 to 1997) was the widespread availability of solo adventures.
The distribution network of board game publisher Schmidt Spiele carried DSA into the smallest toy stores in rural areas where players may have had hard times forming gaming groups.
Roughly half of all adventure modules published for DSA were solo adventures!

But I also believe that today those types probably don't want to bother with a p&p rule set if they can have the flashy graphics and 24/7 availabilty of WoW.

In Britain people also use rain on your parade, although I always thought it came from America.

It's interesting to learn it predates that, but I don't think rein in is correct modern usage.

Quote from: StuartRecent (general) trends:

Online RPG sales - Up
Tabletop RPG sales - Down

That's not what Koltar's figures from game stores tell us. Specifically, rpgs are dong quite well; his figures tell us nothing about computer games.

You may nitpick and argue Koltar's figures, saying they're imperfect for this or that reason, and of course they are. But I would contend that figures of actual sales, however imperfect, are a better guide to the state of the rpg market than your personal perceptions, or the whimsical musings of Ryan Dancey.

It's quite possible for both computer games and rpgs to be doing well. People like to play games and be entertained, and will spend money on it.

So you cannot really say some version of "rpg sales down, computer game sales up means that rpgs should combine with computer games to be viable." But let's assume that the rpg industry is dying and needs to be "revitalised" or "saved". Let's look at computer games.  

They're different things, rpgs and computer games. Sure, some people will do well by combining the two, but in general the things will do better separately. It's like music videos. People like movies, and people like music, so in principle you'd think that dvds of concerts and the band's music videos would outsell the CDs of their music. But in fact they don't. They sell alright, but the music industry couldn't exist at its present size on music video sales alone. People overall prefer CDs of just the music.

What we find is that the combination of two things people like doesn't automatically work well. Each thing has its own features; these features have to complement one another.

So music videos don't sell as well as CDs because most people don't want music which occupies their full attention. They want it in the background while they do something else. CDs allow them to do something else at the same time; music videos require their full attention to be properly enjoyed. So the combination of music and images isn't as much in demand as the music alone.

A good combination, by contrast, is mobile phone with diary (PDA), or mobile phone with music player. That's because the sorts of things people use their mobile phone for - communicating with friends and associates - are complemented by the sorts of things people use their diaries for - scheduling appointments with friends and associates. And the sorts of people who require mobile phones, people who are spending a lot of time travelling, these people also like some distraction during that travel - music. So phone + PDA + music player sells as well as or better than phone or PDA or music player alone.

That's the key to combining different things into a product people want. Consider why people have each of these products, what they get out of them, and then consider whether the functions complement or just sit side by side uselessly.

With roleplaying games, it's a social creative hobby. With computer games, you get to blow shit up and see pretty pictures. With current technology, the two functions don't complement each-other. Its being a computer game takes most of the sociability out of it. There's the occasional person who's entirely happy with online relationships and never goes out of home, but most people prefer being face-to-face with their friends and associates. So by adding computers to your rpg experience, you've just removed half of the roleplaying experience, the social part of the social creative hobby. Far from the features complementing one another, they clash.

The creative aspect is also greatly diminished, because computers are stupid. Your character comes to a door which requires a key which you can only get by talking to this guy after you've talked to this other guy. No, you can't kick the door in. There's no "kick door in" function. The stupidest human is more responsive and flexible and creative than the smartest computer. So a computer program limits your creativity. "Can I be a ninja?" says the player - the GM is open to argument, usually; the computer can't be reasoned with.

What computers do offer is a quick and easy experience with no commitments. But it's not social and it's not creative. The combination doesn't work well. I've only ever heard of one GM who used a computer regularly during a game session, and he had a player who'd come in at the beginning of the session, lie down on the couch and say, "wake me when it's time to roll for combat" - ask Tyberious Funk about that guy. So that shows how exciting an rpg with the assistance of a computer is.

Used as a method of distribution (rpg pdfs sold) or communication (playing via irc, etc) for rpgs, computers work quite well. They still work much more poorly than non-computer methods - print outsells pdfs overall, and online game groups have short lives on average - but they have some use.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityREIN

Dear Pierce,

I just did a little experiment with google.

Searching for the exact phrase "rein on your parade" gives 73 results.

The same search for "rain on your parade" got 103,000 results.

Although such google experiments are often inconclusive, in this case, the results are clear and only one conclusion is possible.

COMMON USAGE IS PISSING ALL OVER YOUR FACE.

ahem.

To rein ON a parade makes no sense.
You rein it IN.

EDIT: WTF? google doesn´t know that either.

Quote from: BalbinusIn Britain people also use rain on your parade, although I always thought it came from America.

It's interesting to learn it predates that, but I don't think rein in is correct modern usage.

Random links:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/rain+on+parade
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1477254,00.html
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1987740,00.html
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/17/messages/797.html

Now back to our scheduled programme...

rein? rain? That's a pointless semantic argument designed to avoid real discussion, lads. And you know where pointless semantic arguments designed to avoid real discussion belong!

:forge:

Dear Warthur,

and dear every humanistically challenged computer nerd on this board,

Orthography is like coding language: not open to debate.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDear Warthur,

and dear every humanistically challenged computer nerd on this board,

Orthography is like coding language: not open to debate.

Dear Pierce,

Orthography is a science of pedants, and language isn't (thank god) bounded by its rules: spellings change all the time.

Common usage is gently slapping your face with its dick.

EDIT TO ADD: Of course, if you were willing to come up with a source for your bizarre claim about rain and parades I'd be more kind, but as far as I can tell every single instance of "rein on your parade" on the internet is a spelling mistake.

Could we have a source for 'rein in', Pierce mein freund?

Anyone that claims that MMOs aren't social hasn't been in an active guild.  I am; it's no less social that tabletop gaming, and it's better than tabletop gaming in that when folks are just yapping about nothing I can still play the damned game instead of wasting time doing shit-all nothing.  When we're playing, we're totally focused on the game; we blaze through dungeons, taking monsters down with a level of skill and precision that I've never experienced in tabletop gameplay.  My guild is a team, and we're there to play the fucking game; this is not what I've seen in 25+ years of tabletop gaming, which wastes far too much time on shit that can be done better just by having a dinner party or backyard barbeque or some other mainstream social event- or just talking on the phone.

And no, in practical terms the computer does just as well as the tabletop; the tabletop experience claims to be wholly open, but in practice there are a finite number of useful and practical options at every step of gameplay- console and PC games merely eliminate all options that aren't useful, practical, or are of the dickheaded derailing jackass type, keeping only those that actually are worth considering.  (Of course, fuckheaded designers can screw this up too; they're human like the rest of us.)  The ability to do or go as you please isn't that damned useful, especially in a group context where acting in such a way is likely to fuck over other people and ruin their fun.

But the big winner is logistical; it's far more convenient to play online when and how you like with other folks who really want to be there than it is to play only when everyone can get into the same place at the same time, and then only to stand a good chance of wasting some of that precious time on shit that isn't playing the game.

The figures are telling; according to SJG's Marketing dept., the entire tabletop gaming hobby takes in about $50M/yr. whereas WOW takes in $135M/mo. in subscription fees alone.  The officers and shareholders of Hasbro and WOTC are aware of this by now, and that is why I think D&D 4.0 will prove to be one that sees D&D become more like WOW as much as it possible.  What WOW has is a game that's every bit the D&D experience that the majority of gamers, as show by their actions historically and at present, want from that game in a manner that's far more friendly to them and their circumstances.  It is the challenge of the day for D&D to answer that challenge, beat it, and yet remain what it is at its core.  Due to the people running the show at WOTC & Hasbro, I doubt that this will happen.