Quote from: jrientsAw, that's a shame.  It's always great to have you around.

I appreciate the comment.


There are some cool people here.

And there are some cool topics. I loved the pointer to campaign coins (went out a brought a set), there are things I'd like to say in the Money Quote from Sennett thread, etc.

I even like the no holds barred lack of moderation of which (besides UseNet) this is the only rpg example I can think of on the net. It's how a site like this should be ran.

I just can't deal with RPGPundit running the show. So my visits will be rare to say the least. Dancey going Forge nuts was enough to bring me out, but it will take things like that.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd there are some cool topics. I loved the pointer to campaign coins (went out a brought a set), there are things I'd like to say in the Money Quote from Sennett thread, etc.

And we would like to hear them. Hope you'll change your mind!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd we would like to hear them. Hope you'll change your mind!

Looks like most of the points I'd like to make in that thread have been over the last day or two (influence of computer games and our general 'success if you try' culture change upon the concept of balance in rgps, and the rather sad result).

gleichman, always great to see you, man.  Hope to see you around on the next interesting issue.

Don't be a too much a stranger Gleichman.

Looks like this topic is dying out, but I'd like to add another point to it. Plus I get to state my own reaction to Dancey's blog entries which I've implied but not directly given.


Looking over Dancey's Blog, it struck me just how little he knows of MMORPGs, for someone expecting them to be the death of traditional PnP- he's rather clueless about their nature.

I touched on this in a post yesterday that drew no response, but I'd like to expand upon it if I may.

There is a very significant difference in players between PnP and MMORPGs that in great part undermines Dancey's image of the future.

Long before GNS and Dancey's marketing study, Richard Bartle examined player types and developed his own groups. Details can be found here: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm, his bio can found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bartle.


He decided upon four groupings (like Dancey later would for rpgs)- Achivers, Socialisers, Explorers and Killers.

None of these map well to Dancey's groups. Thinker and Power-Gamers have some elements in common with Achiver, while Thinker and Storyteller have some in common with Explorer, however there significant differences that prevent a one to one match. The Achiver to Achiver relationship for example is one, in PnP most campaigns (and rule sets) are far more player co-op than the online relationship of this group is.

Socialisers and Killers are not to be found in Dancey's breakdown but IMO the real break is with Richard's Killers, people that with rare exception don't exist in what most PnP players consider a functioning gaming group. They are however a major element in any online experience and one basically at war with the other styles, they are even found in non-PvP focused games (like LotRO).

I consider this type of online player to be a major barrier to MMORPGs stealing a significant number (i.e. enough to 'kill' D&D style gaming) from PnP. Frankly they are undesired in most rpg groups, and incompatible with their styles. Rejecting that type of player is common behavior in table top.

Thus I see MMORPGs as never replacing the need for traditional rpgs, instead I see it being another activity that table-top players may engage in with perhaps similar goals, but in the end different expectations and methods.

Combined with some posts already here that I agree with (Chris's for example about how rpgs are just plain a geek hobby and won't ever grow beyond that) I feel that Dancey misses the boat by in effect worrying about the monster in the closet. There is no real MMORPG threat, Story-Telling games won't grow the hobby as that is perhaps the geekest part of the hobby.

Edwards will gain some mileage out of Dancey's conversion, but in the end they are both niches within niches and unimportant.

From knowing oodles of players who played in oodles of different campaigns, I must say player typecasting is bullshit.

It all depends on socialization , and that can be different for different games.

The only real attributes I have found to be meaningful in regards to player description:

1) ability to think strategically/proactive
2) social skills

all other things are socialization, but important:

1) willingness to think strategically/proactive in the actual instance of play within the range of said players abilities. Can vary dramatically between sessions

2) aesthetic preferences for certain tropes
3) willingness to subscribe to the conventions of the actual game being played

EDIT: Number 2+3 are THE BIG FACTOR for chosing players for a game or vice versa

Quote from: SettembriniFrom knowing oodles of players who played in oodles of different campaigns, I must say player typecasting is bullshit.

Don't go throwing the concept out the window because a fool like Edwards gave it a bad name.

WotC spent significant money for their marketing study that produced their four player types- and designed 3.x around those concepts successfully. Nearly all MUDs and MMORPGs have used Bartle concepts in their designs- again successfully (or failing when they ignored those concepts).

People *can* be grouped, and money and power gained as a result. From insurance companies to political blocks, this simple reality. Call it whatever name you will, ignore it if you wish- but that fact will not change.

Sure. Recently, a german guy made an online survey and made some interesting cluster analysis.

You can make surveys/reports about the CURRENT population or subset thereof.

But it would be moronic to think of a person being stuck in a category.

In empirical social studies there´s survey & classification, and there´s model building for explaining the genesis of the classes.

My criticism is based on the models proposed so far, ESPECIALLY Robin Laws infamous leaflet.
The dancey study was only a survey, not a model.


And: For the market research, a survey is fine. For being a GM, understanding the real causes, e.g. the model behind the preferences is paramount. I was talking about the latter case.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd: For the market research, a survey is fine. For being a GM, understanding the real causes, e.g. the model behind the preferences is paramount. I was talking about the latter case.

Neither Dancey's blog entry nor my response above were concerned with individual GMs or players- they were concerned with the total of all GMs and Players.

I'll grant that as an individaul, we are not a number but are free men. But in total, we are groupable and countable by the right method.

Only the set of surveyed preferences can be grouped and weighed.

You need to build a model for explaining the set of preferences, for discussing and understanding them.

Quote from: SettembriniOnly the set of surveyed preferences can be grouped and weighed.

You need to build a model for explaining the set of preferences, for discussing and understanding them.

Does this relate to the point I was trying to make in my post?

I think it does, because what a person is in PnP play isn't necessarily what a person will be in online play.

Look at the killer issue. You say that the presence of killers in online games will keep out the PnP folks. I think it's equally likely that online games provide a method of including killer-behavior without disrupting the game, the way that they do in PnP.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think it does, because what a person is in PnP play isn't necessarily what a person will be in online play.

I strongly agree.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLook at the killer issue. You say that the presence of killers in online games will keep out the PnP folks. I think it's equally likely that online games provide a method of including killer-behavior without disrupting the game, the way that they do in PnP.

I didn't say it would keep the PnP folks out, I said it would keep people who are playing (at the time of play) for PnP reasons out. I fully expect people to play both games, for different reasons and using difference methods as they move from one to the other.

Dancey doesn't see it that way, he sees Power-Gamers (and perhaps Thinkers) completely leaving rpgs for the online experience- because he feels they can get the identical PnP experience they like there. He's not seeing the difference in goals and styles that result in it being impossible to get the same experience.

Ah, I see what you're saying now--the difference between Bartle's map and Dancey's shows that the underlying dynamics of PnP and online are different. I can buy that; at the same time I don't think they're so different that they don't compete for audience resources (time, money). IMO this has been going on since video games appeared; I strongly suspect that video games captured a lot of audience (especially kids) that would otherwise have gone into model rocketry, trains, wargames, or other hobbies.

Simply claiming that different hobbies are different is insufficient--at some level, they do compete to a greater or lesser extent. There's no such thing as "PnP reasons" as if that was a wholly different thing from "online reasons". And when you have a hobby whose viability depends strongly on the availability of other participants, it accentuates the competition for audience.

Unfortunately for the sake of discussion this means that things boil down to a matter of degree not quality. Just how well do MMOs substitute for PnP, looking across the entire audience? And what's the tipping point, where PnP (or certain subvarieties of PnP) cease to be viable? I don't know, and if someone else claims to know better than an educated guess, I disbelieve.

(To be continued later.)