The numbers I'm looking at from Koltar's charts seem to suggest otherwise - in fact, this year seems overall healthier for RPGs than last year.

Of course, when Dancey says "revitalise" he might mean "restore to the level of popularity gaming had in the early 1980s". But if he thinks the likes of, say, Dogs In the Vineyard are going to win a mass audience that big he's being very, very optimistic.

As I see it, D&D is thriving, WW is hanging on, and everyone else is  diminishing, though not necessarily dying. The second tier companies are the ones who have the biggest problem, finding a way to match distro (Borders etc., mainstream stores) with the big boys or else be relegated to 'super-indie' status.

The C&GR numbers reflect the traditional hobby, which is diminishing in all sectors, along with the game stores that used to support it, for economic reasons. They don't pick up the few self-published games (e.g. Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard) that sell a thousand plus copies a year, but more importantly from an economic point of view they don't pick up the mainstream (B&M (borders, etc.) or online (amazon, walmart, buy, etc.)) sales outlets where a very large number of D&D products, and some products for the usual also-rans, are sold.

I continue to see new people picking up D&D in my area. There's still a vector to it from mainstream bookstores, D&D's cultural legacy, the one commonly known alternative if you decide MMORPGs/CRPGs aren't for you but you like things about them, and of course the hobby stores are still happy to sell it to you, the ones that are left.

What's funny is that this was basically Dancy's business plan from the beginning, though his thought was basically that by creating the 'one system to rule them all' and letting other publishers in through the OGL they would own the system that everyone played. This plan was partially successful, but the Mongoose/FFE etc. etc. crap glut together with the "Bush Economic Miracle" did as much to help it out by severely damaging the traditional hobby distribution network, meaning only the big boys who could get out of it into more mainstream venues were likely to prosper.

Afterthought: The publication side of the RPG hobby seems much healthier in Europe than the US, and growing.

Guess: Dancy's picking up on 'story games' because (a) he still gets along personally with some of the people in that crowd (I know this from talking to them) and (b) after the GAMA fiasco and due to his general reputation at this point, I think if he wants to do anything again in the broader RPG industry he's got no-where else to go. It's as good a bet as he's got.

Ryan Dancey's crazy talk led me back here for a visit. (Hi Folks!)

Here's my most recent thinking on this topic, and why I think Ryan Dancey, though he's worked on lots of RPGs, doesn't really understand how they work:

The greater a player's control over the game world (shared GMing) the less mystery, puzzles, secrets, suspense and problem solving challenges that world has for them.

"You stand in a gloomy hallway looking at an oak bound door.  From the other side you hear an echoing scrapping sound.  What do you do?"

Consider the difference in experience for a player in a classic RPG, and a storytelling game.  In the first, they have to make a decision based on their limited knowledge of the game world, and whether they make a good choice  can affect their characters success in the game.  In the second, what's behind the door isn't fixed -- it could be whatever one of the other players decides whenever the door is opened.  It could even be decided by the player opening the door.  In the first example *something* is behind the door.  In the second example it's nothing -- just a flag for someone to improv something when the door is opened.

One game is about mystery and solving puzzles / challenges.  (Even acting / roleplaying can be a challenge).  The other is about collaborative storytelling. The challenge in this game is your storytelling skill -- how you add new elements to the narrative. Somewhat related, but ultimately very different games.

It's funny that you can really tell the forgites from the normals in the comments because they nod how right Ryan is and use phrases like "narrativist structure" as if they're reall, agreed upon terms.
 
Stuart, that's a great example.

Quote from: StuartHere's my most recent thinking on this topic, and why I think Ryan Dancey, though he's worked on lots of RPGs, doesn't really understand how they work:

That's a great example!

Quote from: WarthurThe numbers I'm looking at from Koltar's charts seem to suggest otherwise - in fact, this year seems overall healthier for RPGs than last year.

Of course, when Dancey says "revitalise" he might mean "restore to the level of popularity gaming had in the early 1980s". But if he thinks the likes of, say, Dogs In the Vineyard are going to win a mass audience that big he's being very, very optimistic.

Only if by "optimistic" you mean "fucking looney".

RPGPundit

I think Stuart is spot on. The big difference is that traditional roleplaying games put the players IN the story like the characters in a good movie, while the new-age games put the story in the hands of the players, sort of like someone controlling his own dreams. The former, as Stuart pointed out, can provide mystery, tension, and challenge, but that is lost on the latter since anything can happen and the story unfolds in a direction often predictable and without challenge.

Do people really want to play like that or are they still brain-damaged into thinking that they want traditional games?

Let's examine a specific:

Quote from: Ryan DanceyParticipant created content which expands the game world, sorted & made accessible through the power of a reputation economy.

Isn't this exactly what already happens in a sort of ad hoc way with the RPG (not Storytelling) model?  Who is the GM?  The one who, after all of the sorting and application of the reputation economy, is found to be at the very least sufficient, usually very good, at the creation of content and expanding the game world.

IOW: what happens to a GMwith a bad reputation?  He's usually not creating content for the group - if he's even still in one. Some other participant is doing so.

So the question is similar to the one I had for Luke Crane: What is it that is drives the belief that there is a demand for some other way to filter this process and use "the power of the reputation economy" to create content.

As always, the caveats: wanting to do so is fine.  I have no problem with people who wish to work/play this way.  I assume and hope they are having fun doing it.  The question is what drives them to believe this is what should be driving the hobby as a whole?  Luke says it's his guts - I take him at his word and wish him luck. But is there some hard evidence that flys in the face of sales that makes people like Mr. Dancey speculate otherwise?

Quote from: jgantsThe best "stories" to arise from gaming are almost always in the "remember the time when [player] did [stupid thing] and [funny result] happened?" vein, anyways.  At least, they are for me.

QFT.

Quote from: James J SkachBut is there some hard evidence that flys in the face of sales that makes people like Mr. Dancey speculate otherwise?

He could also be confusing people's reactions to the penchant for large companies like WoTC to come out with new editions, forcing people to re-buy all the supplements to remain current, with not buying the books because they don't play right.

My guess is that he's got a new project in the works, and simply trying to steer people to buy it when it's released.

Quote from: pigames.netThe big difference is that traditional roleplaying games put the players IN the story like the characters in a good movie, while the new-age games put the story in the hands of the players, sort of like someone controlling his own dreams.

Hands of the players. If you have four to five non-wallflower type players introducing new elements to the game all the time you get plenty of surprises, you get plenty of the sense of discovery, you get plenty of challenges. I agree that those elements are vital, but they are still there in the better "story games."

If you mix those elements with a more traditional "GM presents challenges and serves as director of the game" mode of play then you're really cooking with gas.

To me this sort of hybridization makes for a better RPG. You get stronger stories AND you get a strong game.

Quote from: TimTo me this sort of hybridization makes for a better RPG. You get stronger stories AND you get a strong game.

Or you get something that fails to appeal to absolutely anyone...

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ryan DanceyThe game then unfolds as a group activity, with each participant sometimes presenting "story" content, sometimes presenting "character" content, with the group working together with the objective of telling a great story within the structure they've all mutually agreed to follow.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm convinced others will have similar experiences...
 
When we first started playing D&D back in '83 with the Red Moldvay rulebook, we each took turns running the game.  The DMing players character would miss out on that adventure -- but the rest of the players would use their same character.

Quote from: TimIf you have four to five non-wallflower type players introducing new elements to the game all the time you get plenty of surprises, you get plenty of the sense of discovery, you get plenty of challenges. I agree that those elements are vital, but they are still there in the better "story games."

Surprises aren't the same as secrets.  

It's easy to be surprised by something new (or arbitrary) another player makes up on the spot.  That's not the same as discovering or solving an existing puzzle / mystery / challenge.

Reading to the end of a book to see how it *really* ends is different from one of your friends making up something on the spot.  (Harry Potter grows WINGS in the new book!?!!)

There can certainly be hybrids -- but to Ryan D's suggestion that MORE shared GMing leads to better games / more enjoyment / more players...  I disagree.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr you get something that fails to appeal to absolutely anyone...

RPGPundit

Oh, you are SO right Pundit. Never mind that every person I've played BW with at our local 75 member RPG club has really dug Beliefs and Instincts, even if they hated the scripted combat or lifepaths. Never mind that two weekly D&D groups at that club now write up said Beliefs and Instincts for their D&D characters on a regular basis.

Granted that's a very small sampling, but these people are very traditional players and they think these things are cool (if strange). Me and one other guy are the only ones that buy indie rpgs. Hell, there are only three former WOD players in the group.

Anyway, like I said earlier, I don't think these sorts of revisions/expansions/innovations to the mechanics of RPGs are going to have ANY significant effect on getting new players into the hobby. I DO think they'll make for a more interesting experience for new players in the medium-term. I DO think they'll help keep people hooked.