TheRPGSite

Here are some pre-gencon posts of Ryans, on the "future of RPGs":

Climb the Highest Mountain (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/D97DB2B1-A376-4162-85FB-5E6C0DB4EE90.html)

Keep Hope Alive (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/466B8CAC-73A1-49CC-BD21-4A00321C05C8.html)

Step 1: Redefine the Hobby (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/92BD6D49-961B-486A-9FF4-3B306E1BF235.html)

In short, for those of you who don't want to read the whole thing, just read the third one. Ryan is saying our future is to be "storytelling games".

Here is my response on my blog:

Ryan Dancey Jumps the Shark
Or Ryan Has Broken My Little Heart (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/610089654/item.html)

You can guess by the title what my feelings about Ryan's latest comments are.

RPGPundit

1. Dancey is teh swine! W00t ROFL

2. Mike Mearls thinks like me!

QuoteMike Mearls
"The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not "play a role".  The goal of the hobby community is "tell a great story". "

I think this is a horribly, horribly flawed view of why people play games like D&D. It's akin to saying that people play football to tell great stories. Great stories may arise as a consequence of play, but they aren't the reason why people play in the first place.

It's a simple observational bias. The game sessions we hear about are the ones that make good stories, because we are naturally wired to communicate stories to each other. Yet, that doesn't mean that all worthwhile, intersting game play experiences are stories.

Frankly, I think game creators across all media continue to conflate good story with good game simply because we have yet to evolve an understanding of games that isn't rooted in an understanding of story due to the observational bias present in discussing game experiences.

Bull's eye!

What the Feklahr??


- Ed C.

"I was responsible for the birth of the 3rd Edition of Dungeons & Dragons (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome), and the Open Gaming License (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html) and the D20 System Trademark License (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20stlv6.rtf).  "
 
Isn't that like Gore inventing the internet?

I see, so we save the hobby by creating another vaguely similar hobby in its place and all get into that instead?

Similarly I suppose if one were a wargamer and worried about that, one could save wargaming by having each wargamer just play one unit except for a single wargamer who would play all other units, what objection could anyone have for that?

One does not save a hobby by throwing out those elements of it that make people pursue it in the first place.  If the fate of a hobby is to become smaller so be it, wargaming got smaller but there's plenty of folk still enjoying it today.

Also, the point of roleplaying is not to tell a good story.  That's a point for some people, but it is not the point.

There is no the point.

For me, the point is to experience other lives and to hang out having fun with friends, others have other points, sometimes in the same group, but there is no single point.

For me creating story is a byproduct of play, and great play does not necessarily lead to great stories or indeed much of any story at all.

As so often, Mike Mearls is right on the money.

Quote from: BalbinusAs so often, Mike Mearls is right on the money.

QFT

If we're going to save the hobby I think the first thing we need to do is safeguard the world's dorrito, funion, and cheeto supplies.

Quote from: BalbinusI see, so we save the hobby by creating another vaguely similar hobby in its place and all get into that instead?

If I'm going to bother to get into another hobby, it's sure not going to be "storytelling".  

I can't think of anything less lame than sitting around with a bunch of geeks and trying to cobble a coherent story together like some kind of fanfic designed by committee.

I'll stick with RPGs, thanks.

Quote from: AosIf we're going to save the hobby I think the first thing we need to do is safeguard the world's dorrito, funion, and cheeto supplies.

Don't forget the strategic reserve tanks of Mt. Dew.

My God, you're right- I'll dispatch the fifteenth batallion (Gary's Fighting Fatbeards) right away.

Quote from: AosIf we're going to save the hobby I think the first thing we need to do is safeguard the world's dorrito, funion, and cheeto supplies.

Cheetos are disgusting IMO, and funion is not a word.

At my table we eat fine cheeses and cured meats and drink wine and real ale.

Quote from: BalbinusCheetos are disgusting IMO, and funion is not a word.

At my table we eat fine cheeses and cured meats and drink wine and real ale.

I bet you have a job, a girl and your own residence too.
it's people like you that are ruining it for everyone else.

Quote from: BalbinusFor me creating story is a byproduct of play, and great play does not necessarily lead to great stories or indeed much of any story at all.

The 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.

I can't think of any gaming memories where somebody said, "Hey, remember that awesome narrative structure in [game x]?" or "How about [game y] - that had some rockin' allegories!" or maybe "I loved the use of comparing and contrasting the PCs life with the NPCs life in [gamez]."

At my table we used to smoke and imbibe alcoholic beverages, but now that I live in the US where everyone's a health fascist* I'm reduced to kicking ass and/or chewing bubblegum.

*Except when it comes to food.

QuoteThe crux of what he is saying is "The successful [new RPG] Industry company will be at heart a customer service company. Most of its work product will be related to internet services and community tools, rather than making & printing rule books."

Could be that the ever business savy dancey has decided that the future money is gonna be in selling printing and web services to the vanity publishing sector.

I mean, all the geeks writing their games and going to cons. Maybe he could set up some kind of weekend where you do a two day workshop, write your game and then get fifteen minutes of adoration by paid professionals for your skillz.

It'd be pretty popular...

:-)

Quote from: AosI bet you have a job, a girl and your own residence too.
it's people like you that are ruining it for everyone else.

The residence is rented, but otherwise indeed.

That said, the job does get in the way of gaming, but so far my long term goal of inheriting and living a life of leisure has not gone well for me.

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.

I can't think of any gaming memories where somebody said, "Hey, remember that awesome narrative structure in [game x]?" or "How about [game y] - that had some rockin' allegories!" or maybe "I loved the use of comparing and contrasting the PCs life with the NPCs life in [gamez]."

Spot on, it's why I love fumble mechanics actually, many of my personally favourite roleplaying stories come out of fumbles or whiffs or whatever you like to call them.

Hm, if we wanted to get theoretical I would say that story is an emergent property of gaming, but we don't so I won't.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAt my table we used to smoke and imbibe alcoholic beverages, but now that I live in the US where everyone's a health fascist* I'm reduced to kicking ass and/or chewing bubblegum.

*Except when it comes to food.

I'm in the US and we still do this. Right now we don't have any drinkers at the table, but tabacco and cannabis smoke cloud the air from start to well after we pack up the dice. Furthermore, while well behaved drunkards/stoners are ALWAYS welcome at my gaming table- puritans are not. not even a little.

Quote from: AosI'm in the US and we still do this. Right now we don't have any drinkers at the table, but tabacco and cannabis smoke cloud the air from start to well after we pack up the dice. Furthermore, while well behaved drunkards/stoners are ALWAYS welcome at my gaming table- puritans are not. not even a little.

Ah, now I must clarify that I hail from the 80s, which among many other things means that the only acceptable drugs amongst one's peers were 100% synthetic ones, lest one be ostracized as a younger version of one's own proverbial older brother, i.e. a hippie who'd get high on Pink Floyd Ummagumma.

I told you guys Dancey was a cunt, but noooo, you wouldn't believe me.  Look who's laughing now, fuckers.

Ryan brings up an interesting point.
 

QuoteThe term "Roleplaying Game" has a lot of baggage.  It makes the tacit assumption (demonstrably false) that the primary entertainment value is "playing a role".  30+ years of negative brand equity have accumulated around "Roleplaying Games"

Then he turns around and uses a lot for terms, like storytelling, that has "negative brand equity" among mainstream gamers.

I read his post carefully and a lot of what he talks about isn't really about the negative storyteller aspects that we dislike.

I think he hits a home run on the idea that RPGs are a GROUP social activity which is something that MMORPG have trouble matching. I been gaming a virtual tabletop campaign, GURPS, for a group of scattered friends. It better than than I thought.

But it is not the same as sitting around a table, looking at each other, and playing the game. The same thing with MMORPGs. You can be playing with your friend but it is not the same things as being there with them and talking face to face.

This aspect is a separate characteristic of RPGs than the Role-playing, Story/Plot, or Game parts.  I think that the use of Storytelling is a poor choice. I agreed with Mearls that people play RPGs to play a game and story is flows from actual play but not the point of actual play.

However I add to that that it also appeals to people because it is a group activity, and unlike many games it is a COOPERATIVE activity (among the players at least). In fact of all the cooperative games out there I say that RPGs are by far the most sucessfully. Most games involve players competing AGAINST other players.

With those caveats RyanD remaining points have merit.

I give a B+ for effort
and D- for a poor choice of terminology.


Rob Conley

Why does the hobby go into a furor over Dancy's pronouncements, anyway?  I've certainly been guilty of this in the past, but I couldn't get worked up about this even though I tried.  Nowadays he looks to me as only slightly more relevant than Mark Rein-asterisk-Hagen.

Quote from: jrientsWhy does the hobby go into a furor over Dancy's pronouncements, anyway?  I've certainly been guilty of this in the past, but I couldn't get worked up about this even though I tried.  Nowadays he looks to me as only slightly more relevant than Mark Rein-asterisk-Hagen.

Personally I just plain enjoy going into a furor.

Other than that, I got nothing.

Jesus, I've just read his "Step 2". I think this is a conspiracy... I guess Ryan Dancey is going to publish his new indie game or he will promote some other indie game or I don't know. At first it didn't sound that wrong, but what the hell...?!?

Quote from: AosIf we're going to save the hobby I think the first thing we need to do is safeguard the world's dorrito, funion, and cheeto supplies.

Pretzels and microwave popcorn - in my group's case.

..but yeah - right there with you on that.

- Ed C.

If he actually knew shit, he´d be rich instead of living off past glories.

I tend to agree with most of what Pundit said in his blog reply. RD and I are on the same page about not making RPGs like MMORPGs and that virtual gaming isn't the answer.

However, reading step 1 and step 2 of Dancey's blog gives me the impression that he wants the entire hobby to take up the ideals of Forge gaming/story now/indie gaming/swinedom.

The whole point that everyone plays RPGs to tell a story is completely off the mark. Sure, a portion of RPGers want to tell a good story, but my guess is that it makes up much less than half of all gamers, probably somewhere around 20-30%. The rest want to kill monsters and take their stuff. Or pretend to be an elven wizard and explore a fantasy world, solve puzzles, engage in highly tactical wargame-like combat. Tell a story - I don't think so.

As a matter of fact, I think this is the exact opposite approach to take to games. Forge-ifying things too much will chase off more gamers than it will attract. I've got nothing against story-now games, but they're not my cup of tea, and not what 95% of roleplayers go for. I think the hobby needs to focus on the roots of RPGs, the wargame aspect. Solid rules for doing various things is the heart of a good RPG core product. It doesn't have to be super crunchy like Hero, it can be lean and simple like Savage Worlds. Games need to handle the crunch and rules well. The storytelling part we can figure out on our own. I don't need game rules telling me how to act in game. Even D&D's alignment seems to go too far in the direction of telling you how to play a character.

Just tell me how much damage my longsword does or what my odds of jumping over that pit are. I'll figure out how my character should react to a moral dilemma.

I don't think Dancy's bizarre post even goes in the direction of the Forgies; he's advocating a form of storyplay that was vaunted as 'real roleplaying, not rollplaying'...back in the '90s.

I find this an almost surreal thing to read; Dancy, a guy who was ever current if often wrong, discovers the One True Way...that got left behind by the rest of the hobby a decade ago.

Quote from: BalbinusSpot on, it's why I love fumble mechanics actually, many of my personally favourite roleplaying stories come out of fumbles or whiffs or whatever you like to call them.

Hm, if we wanted to get theoretical I would say that story is an emergent property of gaming, but we don't so I won't.

Interstingly (or not) you have this same phenomenon in story games (or at least in Burning Wheel). If you fail a Circles roll when looking for someone who knows the Black Beard Blood Bandits, the GM can invoke the enmity clause and have the bandits find YOU, or perhaps you get the contact you were looking for, but he is operating at cross-purposes to you.

If you just got totally rocked by an orc and are about to die you can spend a point of Persona Artha, and instead of dying you invoke a complication: perhaps your magic sword is broken, or you've been forced off a cliff and are now dangling from the ledge.

Hell, if you fail almost any roll SOMETHING is supposed to happen that makes the game more interesting and pushes it along. I believe the BW guys call it failing forward.

I realize none of these things are exactly the same as fumbling, but the concepts are at least close cousins. I think it's pretty cool that this idea is there in the rules, even though some may take offense to having it written down.

That said, I'm not in favor of one-size-fits-all conflict resolution and eye of a needle thin thematic focus being the wave of the future. Ideally I'd like to see some of the cool (and to me VERY useful) concepts that story games focus on incorporated into traditional games with mechanical meat and at least an attempt at verisimilitude. I think that would be a pretty cool future of RPGs.

No fucking way would it 'save the hobby' though.

Tim

L5R is Vampire for NippoPhiliacs.

More likely nipphophilia for Vampire players, considering that it treats its source material with the same "reverence" as Vampire does/did.

Quote from: jrientsWhy does the hobby go into a furor over Dancy's pronouncements, anyway?  I've certainly been guilty of this in the past, but I couldn't get worked up about this even though I tried.  Nowadays he looks to me as only slightly more relevant than Mark Rein-asterisk-Hagen.

Provided he's not lying through his teeth, Dancy claims that he operates as some kind of consultant to RPG companies, meaning that he's not jsut rambling this shit to the yahoos on the web, in theory, he's actualyl advising real companies to follow this idiotic whims of his.

However, I've yet to see any proof of real companies he's actually advised or consulted for, so for all I know, his "consulting firm" or whatever the fuck is just a bogus puppet company to let him pretend he's still "in the business".

Quote from: TimInterstingly (or not) you have this same phenomenon in story games (or at least in Burning Wheel). If you fail a Circles roll when looking for someone who knows the Black Beard Blood Bandits, the GM can invoke the enmity clause and have the bandits find YOU, or perhaps you get the contact you were looking for, but he is operating at cross-purposes to you.

If you just got totally rocked by an orc and are about to die you can spend a point of Persona Artha, and instead of dying you invoke a complication: perhaps your magic sword is broken, or you've been forced off a cliff and are now dangling from the ledge.

Hell, if you fail almost any roll SOMETHING is supposed to happen that makes the game more interesting and pushes it along. I believe the BW guys call it failing forward.

I realize none of these things are exactly the same as fumbling, but the concepts are at least close cousins. I think it's pretty cool that this idea is there in the rules, even though some may take offense to having it written down.

That said, I'm not in favor of one-size-fits-all conflict resolution and eye of a needle thin thematic focus being the wave of the future. Ideally I'd like to see some of the cool (and to me VERY useful) concepts that story games focus on incorporated into traditional games with mechanical meat and at least an attempt at verisimilitude. I think that would be a pretty cool future of RPGs.

No fucking way would it 'save the hobby' though.

Tim

I think Burning Wheel is what GoOrange is talking about when he says the key to this is to create a solid rules framework first and then put some story stuff on top should you wish to.

To be honest, I don't think BW is particularly part of the Forge movement, it takes some ideas from it but it has IMO far more in common with traditional gaming than it does with story gaming.

That said, there are some well designed story games, I've played a fair few, I'd be amazed if none of them delivered what I'm looking for.  I just don't think they do it as well or as consistently as more traditional games do because that's not really what they're primarily aimed at.

Oh Tim, Mongoose's Conan contains some light dramatic editing rules which were directly inspired by comments in Sorceror and some Forge games, according to what one of the designers told me anyway.  According to Allen Varney, Paranoia XP took the concept of perversity points directly from My Life with Master (not sure where from as I don't recall them in MLwM, but he is the designer so he would know).

So your happy future is happening right now, and MLwM incidentally is a fun game which I would happily recommend as providing exactly what it sets out to.

Is it an rpg?  Don't know and don't care, but it is a fun game for the occasional night when you don't fancy the main campaign.  I note without further comment that it's designer, Paul Czege, just does his thing and leaves it to others to fight for a mythical indie cause.  Indeed, I don't consider it any favour to Paul Czege to call him a story game designer, he's just a guy who makes fun games.

Really that's where I see the long term story game influence, a few ideas that will get picked up and bolted onto trad games and which will provide a few fun options, and a few games which are fun in their own right but have niche appeal.

As you (almost) say, they won't save the hobby though.

There are times when Dancey doesn't do it.  This is one of them.  Mearls has the right answer this time.

Now we know why Dancey thinks "roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours." He's buggerising about trying to tell a story while everyone else is trying to play their character and have fun.

I gave him a comment:
   Dear Ryan,

You should put on a leotard and take up improv theatre. The rest of us want to play rpgs.

Love,
Kyle

Quote from: J ArcaneProvided he's not lying through his teeth, Dancy claims that he operates as some kind of consultant to RPG companies, meaning that he's not jsut rambling this shit to the yahoos on the web, in theory, he's actualyl advising real companies to follow this idiotic whims of his.

However, I've yet to see any proof of real companies he's actually advised or consulted for, so for all I know, his "consulting firm" or whatever the fuck is just a bogus puppet company to let him pretend he's still "in the business".

Oh, he advised AEG... of course, he advised them out of the RPG business completely, so that should tell you what his advice is worth from an RPG industry POV.

Dancey is and always has been a parasite, living off the good ideas of others without producing anything substantive of his own and consistently leaving a dessicated husk in his wake.  The bottom line is that he has almost always been wrong in his prognostications, and when he's been right it's been in no-brainer circumstances that a complete retard could predict (e.g. that if given the free choice, lots of people would choose to produce supplements for what is by light-years the most popular RPG in the world -- NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!).  He's a fool, and following his lead makes one a fool by association.  It's delicious to watch his fool followers turn on him now.

Oh, and I want to game with Balbinus.

KoOS

What fun!  Something we can all agree on!  Dancy is irrelevant, indeed he always has been.

Here's Dancy's excellent judgment on George W. Bush, from Jonathan Tweet's website:

QuoteI think that it is too easy to bash a guy like George W. Bush. Parts of his history fit a stereotype that a lot of people want to believe is true: Rich guy who got by through family connections who has become powerful in his own right mostly through dumb luck, and in spite of numerous personal moral and intellectual failings. When I consider that we're talking about a person who served in the military as a fighter pilot (nobody, no matter the family connections, flies jets in the military unless they've got a lot on the ball. And Bush flew the F4 Phantom, which is regarded as one of the most technically demanding and temperamental planes in aviation history), who attended Harvard and earned an MBA (and I don't think Harvard is in the habit of handing those out just because someone's daddy happened to be a Congressman at the time), who ran for public office and lost, but still decided to stay in the arena and try again (eventually winning the highest office in one of the most diverse and most complex states in the Union), was regarded as an excellent governor by key members of both parties, and won reelection in a landslide, and then successfully did the things necessary to get first nominated as the Presidential candidate of a major national party, then run a dead-heat election against a politically popular regime during a time of economic growth, peace, and general prosperity, I wonder exactly who we think will be willing and able to pursue high public office if this person isn't reasonably qualified and can't be accorded the reasonable benefit of the doubt as to his abilities?

I look at all the stuff that has happened in this country since the 2000 election, and I ask myself if I think Bush has done a good job managing his responsibilities. My answer is yes. Unlike his predecessor, who mostly faced crises of his own creation, Bush has been forced to react to significant and real problems. And I think he has faced those problems and has been managing in a reasonable, prudent way.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity2. Mike Mearls thinks like me!

That was a brilliant quote.

Quote from: CalithenaHere's Dancy's excellent judgment on George W. Bush, from Jonathan Tweet's website:

Actually, George W. Bush flew F-102s, not F-4s.

Quote from: BalbinusTo be honest, I don't think BW is particularly part of the Forge movement, it takes some ideas from it but it has IMO far more in common with traditional gaming than it does with story gaming.

I think that's at least partially true, but the more I play BW the more I realize how things like conflict resolution, say yes or roll the dice, adherence to the Belief-Artha mechanics, skill advancement, and such really are deeply woven into the game and exist primarily to drive story. And those mechanics work really well for those purposes, and they're a far far cry from angst-ridden improv theater.

Thing is, I still get to wail on orcs with my dwarven axe, while scripting a head-cleaving great strike, and getting +1d for having the high ground. I can still fuck up while casting White Fire and accidentally summon a Greater Seraph. My armor can break. I can use extra successes in combat to change the hit location. Every wound is its own separate entity, so on and on and on.

BW is an incredibly strong game in my opinion and every time over the last two years I've fooled with switching systems (and I used to switch all the time) whether it's Runequest or Dogs in the Vineyard or Castles and Crusades....those games have felt flat and lifeless in comparison.

Where BW falls flat (to me) is the fact that it takes many weeks of play to master the mechanics. The individual mechanics are easy-peasy, but to use the whole machine as intended takes some serious effort and understanding.

It's also a lot of work to kitbash it away from the implied medieval/Tolkien setting (but god do I love lifepaths).

The point of all this fanboy gushing is that I think the eventual (and probably inevitable) mixing of traditional playstyles with story-games style is going to make for some really really strong games that will help to keep people hooked once they're involved in RPGs. I say this because the last two years that I've been playing BW I've had the best time gaming that I've had since I was 14-16 years old and first discovered D&D/AD&D.

Getting people hooked is another thing, and obscure story-focused/not story-focused mechanics aren't going to have jack-shit to do with that. "Oh wow, I can pretend to be Aragorn and go on adventures?", "Sweet, you can fly spaceships and shoot plasma rifles?", or "Woah, getting to BE a vampire is super-cool"....those basic WOW things are what have fueled RPGs for the last thirty years. Till fundamental concepts like those are again brought to the forefront you're not going to see a great boom in RPG players. Are any of those concepts left? I don't know. I think we're probably looking at diminishing returns until the hobby stabilizes at some relatively low number of participants. Not as many people are going to be interested in "Woah, I can pilot mechas while fighting Cthulhu's minions?" At least I don't think so.

Tim

Quote from: John MorrowActually, George W. Bush flew F-102s, not F-4s.

He can't let facts interfere with the elegance of his argument.

Edit: hey, he deleted my comment! What a pussy.

Quotesay yes or roll the dice

This is from AD&D. Look into the Complete Fighter´s Handbook, written by Aaron Allston. 1989.

EDIT: Artha destroys games. Did I mention that conflict resolution is a useless concept also? At it´s worst it acan also destroy games. But mostly it´s basically moot.

OMG OMG

I was going to yell at Settembrini for dragging in BW... but lo and behold: The Dancey's new blog entry:

http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/3D5EF842-0B0F-4DEC-A21A-F379AEDF15B6.html

Burning Empires! Yes!

The sad part: He clearly looked at it for all of 1.3 minutes.

My favorite sentence:

QuoteThe Storytelling Game is predicated on the idea of leveraging the community resources to make the experience fun.

Gotta go do some leveraging. Later.

Well, so he should invest in these games. Put his money were his mouth is.

I´ll be laughing my ass off in the meanwhile.

Has RD stopped playing RPGs? Or what happened to him?

I mean fuck: He´s actually lying to himself:

What supplements sell best?

I would be very interested in the collaborative story appeal of the book of nine swords. Please explain, Dancey-Boy!

Oh, but didn't you hear Settembrini?
There's shitloads of people sitting around campfires, in amateur improv theatre troupes, and yes, even in online "RP" mailing lists and such that are all just desperately waiting for someone to make a bunch of rules to restrict the way they already tell stories!

Clearly, these people are the future, the ones who will replace all us wrong-minded gamers who think Roleplaying Games are all about playing a role.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOh, but didn't you hear Settembrini?
There's shitloads of people sitting around campfires, in amateur improv theatre troupes, and yes, even in online "RP" mailing lists and such that are all just desperately waiting for someone to make a bunch of rules to restrict the way they already tell stories!

Clearly, these people are the future, the ones who will replace all us wrong-minded gamers who think Roleplaying Games are all about playing a role.  

Well, playing a role is pretty much the boon of RPGs in ANY application. The trouble here is that there´s people who have a ridicolously narrow idea of what playing a role is.

Gygay once said there´s role assumption, and that´s the real deal.

The power of RPGs is letting you pretend to be and act upon a fictious situation. Anything that interferes with that is ass-backwards kind of niche fun, that actually hampers the real power of RPGs. I mean, if that´s floats their boats so be it.
But the notion that RPGs are about storytelling is as idiotic as proclaiming they are about dice rolling.

The key is to explore a virtual situation. That´s what RPGs are powerful at. That´s why they are used in real life, tough shit, human lives depend on their outcome training exercises. It´s a form of simulation, as in the english meaning of the word, the cheapest and most versatile form of simulation.
It´s a Holodeck.

Yeah, I´m with Malcolm Sheppard regarding the real storytellers: They already have their rules be they written or unwritten.
Thematic Games and Grey´s Anatomy scriptwright imitation exercises aren´t helping them. Again: Even the real storytellers try painfully to reach immersion. No contrived plot points or Artha-judgements. A novel is only good, if you don´t see the "wires" so to say.

Quote from: BalbinusTo be honest, I don't think BW is particularly part of the Forge movement, it takes some ideas from it but it has IMO far more in common with traditional gaming than it does with story gaming.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. I can't understand why, when people start to talk about Forgey, funky games, Burning Wheel is always mentioned. Burning Wheel is a traditional game, in fact, some of its rules feel pretty archaic (in a good way), such as skill improvement.

Quote from: ClaudiusI'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. I can't understand why, when people start to talk about Forgey, funky games, Burning Wheel is always mentioned. Burning Wheel is a traditional game, in fact, some of its rules feel pretty archaic (in a good way), such as skill improvement.

Just a hunch, but it may have something to do with Luke Crane babbling on and on about how GMs are evil and about how GM authority is killing the hobby, and all that sort of nonsense.

Quote from: TimGetting people hooked is another thing, and obscure story-focused/not story-focused mechanics aren't going to have jack-shit to do with that. "Oh wow, I can pretend to be Aragorn and go on adventures?", "Sweet, you can fly spaceships and shoot plasma rifles?", or "Woah, getting to BE a vampire is super-cool"....those basic WOW things are what have fueled RPGs for the last thirty years. Till fundamental concepts like those are again brought to the forefront you're not going to see a great boom in RPG players. Are any of those concepts left? I don't know. I think we're probably looking at diminishing returns until the hobby stabilizes at some relatively low number of participants. Not as many people are going to be interested in "Woah, I can pilot mechas while fighting Cthulhu's minions?" At least I don't think so.

Tim

We've got a winner. That's what people want from RPGs, the wow things.

Quote from: ClaudiusI'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. I can't understand why, when people start to talk about Forgey, funky games, Burning Wheel is always mentioned. Burning Wheel is a traditional game, in fact, some of its rules feel pretty archaic (in a good way), such as skill improvement.

Really? Someone still has to start a thread talking about it. I've tried to look at it in stores, but here they sell the two books wrapped together with a strip of papers with pullquotes from reviews, mostly Forgers saying "iz t3h k3w1!" So it could be the best thing since Gygax's "Handling Troublesome Players" DMing advice, or it could be full of pictures of Man Faye for all I know.

People are always talking about how because they hate authour X, they can't buy their game. Me, I don't care if the authour eats babies, so long as their game is good. But if someone I think is a drongo gives a game a good review, that puts me off. Like, I stumbled across this sci-fi rpg in the FLGS the other day, "Orbit" it was called. It looked pretty old-school from a casual glance, but then there was a pullquote from Uncle Ronny saying how awesome it was, I put it down quickly.

Anyway, someone ought to start a thread telling us about BW. It sounds pretty thespy to me, but I can dig that. Of course if Ryan D. gave it a good review I might have to swear off it. Between his "roleplaying is 20 minutes of fun packed into four hours" and now this "let's tell a STORY, bitches!", I really don't trust his opinion.

Quote from: jrientsWhy does the hobby go into a furor over Dancy's pronouncements, anyway?  I've certainly been guilty of this in the past, but I couldn't get worked up about this even though I tried.  Nowadays he looks to me as only slightly more relevant than Mark Rein-asterisk-Hagen.

People enjoy furor(s?).

I'm with Jeff on this one.  Whoop-de-Shit.  I don't know why people continually feel the need to pronounce Game Style A or Movement B as the Savior of Roleplaying.  If he wanted to talk about something that wasn't a ridiculous blanket statement, he could talk about how the small press module allows for more games of varying tastes and styles to be more viable.  But no, instead, we get this, which has the smack of One-True-Way-ism.  It's just not anything that we haven't seen a lot of other folks post before.

Here's the problem of misunderstanding:

Quote from: Ryan DanceyI say that people who want to run a game where a single person takes full responsibility for all non-player character aspects of the session while the other people focus exclusively on roleplaying individual PCs is just one point on the continuum of how to set up a successful Storytelling Game session.  If that is the preferred format of all the players and they all agree up front to make the compromises necessary to make that format work and achieve the goal of "Tell a great story", then more power to them!

It's not one point in the continuum of how to set up a successful Storytelling Game session.  It's the most widely used, popular, successful method of running an RPG session. Does that make it sacrosanct?  No.  But it sure makes it a big cluster on that continuum; it might be a single point, but statistically, it's obvioulsy the preferred method.

If that's the preferred method?  Chances are, Ryan, it will be the preferred method.  How do I know?  Look at your own research from 2000, Mr. Dancey. I know it's a few years ago, but unless you'd like to share some hard data with us, I'm taking your recent turn as a marketing ploy.

Last thing: they don't make the compromises necessary to make that format work and achieve the goal of "Tell a great story." This is because the goal of the large majority of the hobby who play this way is not "Tell a great story."  In fact, it's not the goal of most people in the RPG hobby.

Caveats: None of this is to say Tell a Great Story isn't a valid goal for a group of people, or that for those who wish to do so making a RPG to do so is not valid, or that they can't be having fun, or that they aren't playing the One True Way, etc. etc. etc.

NOTE: Interestingly, the Sean K Reynolds Breakdown of RPG Players seems to have disappeared.  Anyone have a snapshot of it?

Quote from: SettembriniThis is from AD&D. Look into the Complete Fighter´s Handbook, written by Aaron Allston. 1989.

EDIT: Artha destroys games. Did I mention that conflict resolution is a useless concept also? At it´s worst it acan also destroy games. But mostly it´s basically moot.

Hello little yappy dog. a) I don't care where the 'say yes' mechanic came from. b) You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. c) you don't have to be afraid.

Quote from: SettembriniI mean fuck: He´s actually lying to himself:

What supplements sell best?

I would be very interested in the collaborative story appeal of the book of nine swords. Please explain, Dancey-Boy!

Why is it that when these "what people really want" comments get made, they frequently point to certain small press indy games rather than the popular supplements/games that outsell them by an enormous margin?

Doesn't the fact that people spend several orders of magnitude more money on games like D&D tell you that D&D may actually be what people really want?

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's shitloads of people sitting around campfires, in amateur improv theatre troupes, and yes, even in online "RP" mailing lists and such that are all just desperately waiting for someone to make a bunch of rules to restrict the way they already tell stories!

This always gets me. It seems to me that in this respect, the story-now/indie movement is self defeating.

Quote from: GoOrangeDoesn't the fact that people spend several orders of magnitude more money on games like D&D tell you that D&D may actually be what people really want?

No, they don't really want it, because roleplaying is dying! Remember, he said

"I believe that the path to revitalizing the tabletop roleplaying game hobby requires -"

You only need to "revitalize" something which is losing vitality, losing life - roleplaying is dying. And he knows. He had a graph and everything!

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.

Quote from: pigames.netMy 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.

I think this is a good guess.  Dancey's always been an opportunistic mofo.

Quote from: StuartSurprises 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.

You can still play things close to the vest in a story game. You can absolutely still have mystery and every story game I've played has been FULL of challenges. There's a lot of room for that stuff between "here's what this game is going to be about" and "here's what we did in this game."

As far as "Then you put the RED gem in the BLUE hole and the gate opens"....not so much. I don't have a problem with that particular issue, but maybe I'm being myopic and puzzles are the key to the next RPG boom.

QuoteReading 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!?!!)

You must have loved Dragonlance. As far as Harry Potter grows wings, I suppose that sort of absurd goofiness is possible if you're playing with spoiler-type players. I don't game with people like that if I can help it.

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

Just out of curiosity...is your opinion of the first two items coming from first-hand experience, or a bunch of stuff you read on the internet?

Tim

Quote from: TimJust out of curiosity...is your opinion of the first two items coming from first-hand experience, or a bunch of stuff you read on the internet?

Because we all know that in order to have an opinion, you have to have designed and played at least three games from each of the "categories."

IOW, you're guess isn't as good as Tim's, Luke's, etc. Your inability to read a game, understand it, and discard it is completely destroyed by the Evil Marketing Machine (tm) and the brain damage that has occurred because you've been trained (monkey) to play a certain way, lacking the ability to evolve into a more sophisticated storyteller.

Wait for it...here comes the "thanks for putting words in my mouth asshole."

To which I say, you, sir, are welcome.

QuoteJust out of curiosity...is your opinion of the first two items coming from first-hand experience, or a bunch of stuff you read on the internet?

I take it that you've actually played a Dragonlance module then? ;)

Quote from: James J SkachWait for it...here comes the "thanks for putting words in my mouth asshole."

Actually how about this: "I would be satisfied if he's actually read any story-games. Asshole." ;)

Quote from: StuartI take it that you've actually played a Dragonlance module then?

I GMd the first one back in the day, actually (and read the first trilogy!). I remember my players being pissed that they weren't supposed to make up their own characters, but there was probably an option to use their own that I didn't inform them of. I'm not proud. :)

Too much fun, had to comment somewhere and as I'm sure Pundit is horrified by this turn of events it may as well be here.

So, since Edwards got to Dancy and has turned him into a pod person, this is without doubt as clear a signal as possible that he has won the war. I'm sure the armistice will require Pundit to put down his rulebooks- so can I have them? Except for that silly FtA that is.  :p



More seriously...

Rather sad that Dancy went bat nuts fruit loopy, but wasn't this the guy doing all sorts of monkey business while at WotC anyway? Not a full deck there to begin with.

Further he seems desperate for something to do, more mountains to climb in his own words. He knows he can't out D&D D&D and so is reaching for something different to make his dash for new fame. Let him, and laugh when he burns or cry when he succeeds. The former is far more likely IMO.

It has certainly horrified me. Its like watching a boxer who once took the title belt reduced to fighting a staged match with a trained bear or something; his once powerful physique reduced to flabby muscles and slurred speech from one too many blows to the head.

The whole thing smacks of the desperation of the man who can't rest on his laurels, can't go peacefully into the quiet dignity of retirement, and in his desperation to still be heard about anything starts saying anything at all.  Dancey climbed some of the biggest mountains there were to climb in the RPG industry, and now he's starring in a circus and trying to claim its the same thing.

To me at least, who deeply admired the guy's vision, this is heartbreaking. I hope someone puts a bullet in my skull before I ever end up like that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TimYou must have loved Dragonlance. As far as Harry Potter grows wings, I suppose that sort of absurd goofiness is possible if you're playing with spoiler-type players. I don't game with people like that if I can help it.
Tim

First, not addressed at you, I call Dancey Captain Obvious for a reason. Nothing he says is particularly insightful or new. He has just changed who he is repeating/rephrasing.

I have always had this issue with certain games, and it is not just "story" games. Simply, I am told by fans of a genre or game that you "Of Course" need a "certain kind of player". My response is usually, the GM or the rules should clarify play. If you need a certain "kind" of player to make a game "work" then something is wrong with that play style.

Now, if you have a certain playstyle that players enjoy, that is subtly different. This means that a the game has draw for people with certain play style requirements. Put it on the market, and if "most" players want to ply the game combined with proper business approach, then you will have the validation of the market.

So far, such games have not proven themselves in the market. People who believe WW is anything more than a traditional dice pool game, well, yeah, more power to ya.

So, I do not think the "future" of the market is story games any more than I believe the future of the market is traditional games. The market will adjust to the consumers and what publishers produce will have little bearing on it.

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditThe whole thing smacks of the desperation of the man who can't rest on his laurels, can't go peacefully into the quiet dignity of retirement, and in his desperation to still be heard about anything starts saying anything at all.  Dancey climbed some of the biggest mountains there were to climb in the RPG industry, and now he's starring in a circus and trying to claim its the same thing.

That's my take on it as well, although I have no praises to sing to his past.

I do however think there will be a bright side to this no matter what happens. If he fails completely (likely), it's yet another datapoint that Story is a sideline to rpgs and not their true focus. If he succeeds, he will break his story games away from rpgs and maybe we'll at last be left alone by the fruitcakes.

Seems I'm an optimist after all.

Quote from: HinterWeltIf you need a certain "kind" of player to make a game "work" then something is wrong with that play style.

Now, if you have a certain playstyle that players enjoy, that is subtly different.

I don't see a difference, or rather I think it's one of your creation if it exists.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo far, such games have not proven themselves in the market. People who believe WW is anything more than a traditional dice pool game, well, yeah, more power to ya.

So, I do not think the "future" of the market is story games any more than I believe the future of the market is traditional games. The market will adjust to the consumers and what publishers produce will have little bearing on it.

I've made no claims that story games are the wave of the future of mainstream high(ha!) sales gaming. What I've been saying is that I believe we're going to see a hybridization of story games mechanics and traditional RPG mechanics in the coming years. I think this will be a very good thing for creation and retention of hardcore long-term gamers. All I have to go on here is personal experience and conjecture, but mine is as good as anyones. Maybe.

As far as the market....the market never created a single thing. People create and in a design community as inbred as that of the RPG industry I simply can't conceive that there won't be cross-pollination of ideas between the two 'sides.' Those ideas will get tried out. Whether that cross-pollination bears fruit or not...that's what the market will decide.

Quote from: TimWhat I've been saying is that I believe we're going to see a hybridization of story games mechanics and traditional RPG mechanics in the coming years. I think this will be a very good thing for creation and retention of hardcore long-term gamers.

Many of these games have interesting innovations apart from the GM-less / GNS-oriented / story-focused stuff.  This, I think, is the stuff that will have more long-lasting impact on other game designers.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't see a difference, or rather I think it's one of your creation if it exists.

I do see a difference, or rather I think the confusion of the two distinction is one of your own creation.

;)

Bill

Quote from: StuartMany of these games have interesting innovations apart from the GM-less / GNS-oriented / story-focused stuff.  This, I think, is the stuff that will have more long-lasting impact on other game designers.

I think you're probably right, though I'll be surprised if you don't see a Belief like mechanic in a mainstream game in the next five years.

As far as I'm concerned:
a) I love having a GM. I also don't mind playing a game that's GM-less, but it will never serve as bread and butter for a group I'm involved in.

b) I don't care what theory drove a design. There are a lot of crappy story games and there are a lot of crappy traditional games. I care about how the thing plays.

c) I love for there to be definite concrete tools at the table that allow everyone to have a say in story creation...I want to be able to act as well as react in that respect.

Quote from: HinterWeltI do see a difference, or rather I think the confusion of the two distinction is one of your own creation.

Nope, I don't see confusion here or rather I think the confusion is one of your own creation.

We can do this forever :)

Hey, it beats playing Story Games.

Quote from: TimI've made no claims that story games are the wave of the future of mainstream high(ha!) sales gaming. What I've been saying is that I believe we're going to see a hybridization of story games mechanics and traditional RPG mechanics in the coming years. I think this will be a very good thing for creation and retention of hardcore long-term gamers. All I have to go on here is personal experience and conjecture, but mine is as good as anyones. Maybe.

I don't have any beef with what you are saying.  Some good stuff has come out of the Story Games/Forge crowd.  A lot of it could be characterized as the rediscovery of stuff obscured in the shuffle of commercialized/tournamentified early 80's AD&D, but that doesn't make these discoveries any less valuable to the modern player.  But I think there's a lot of distance between your position and Mr. Dancey's.

Quote from: jrientsI don't have any beef with what you are saying.  Some good stuff has come out of the Story Games/Forge crowd.  A lot of it could be characterized as the rediscovery of stuff obscured in the shuffle of commercialized/tournamentified early 80's AD&D, but that doesn't make these discoveries any less valuable to the modern player.  But I think there's a lot of distance between your position and Mr. Dancey's.

Well, I don't like where Mr. Dancey came from -or- where he's going. I'm just making my own predictions. ;)

As far as where ideas come from...I'm not sure that it really matters (and certainly doesn't matter to the end consumer). Influences and origins are only going to get more and more mixed up.

Quote from: jrientsSome good stuff has come out of the Story Games/Forge crowd.

I haven't seen anything good come out of that crowd, but I'm hoping for obits* some day.

Haven't read all of it so I'll allow that there might be one or two things, one can only dig through so much trash before you give up looking for gold.


*Note: Dark humor warning, not to be taken too seriously

Quote from: TimI've made no claims that story games are the wave of the future of mainstream high(ha!) sales gaming. What I've been saying is that I believe we're going to see a hybridization of story games mechanics and traditional RPG mechanics in the coming years. I think this will be a very good thing for creation and retention of hardcore long-term gamers. All I have to go on here is personal experience and conjecture, but mine is as good as anyones. Maybe.

I may have been confusing your position with Dancey's. My apologies if that is so.

As to the hybridization of styles, sure, as reasonable as anything. Most any system out there is derivative at this point. Parts are put together in different ways and as long as you are not doing something just to do something different, that element could be in the running. So, of those, we have a subset of elements that will gain sway and popularity for a while.

To be honest, I do not see anything all that shockingly new in games of today. Yeah, interesting but something does not need to be new to be interesting. ;)  In the end, we will have games swing back and forth in the popularity of design and play style emphasis. We might be due for a swing towards story.

Quote from: TimAs far as the market....the market never created a single thing. People create and in a design community as inbred as that of the RPG industry I simply can't conceive that there won't be cross-pollination of ideas between the two 'sides.' Those ideas will get tried out. Whether that cross-pollination bears fruit or not...that's what the market will decide.

And I did not say that the market did. I said that the market will adjust and what a publisher produces will have little bearing on that. This, of course, depends on your definitions. Yes, publishers will need to produce material. They will try new things. Many of those things will fail. Those that survive and flourish will have mostly to do with marketing and some small amount to do with mechanics.

Bill

Dancey's lost his perspective.  He's now useless.  Goodbye, Ryan.

Quote from: J ArcaneJust a hunch, but it may have something to do with Luke Crane babbling on and on about how GMs are evil and about how GM authority is killing the hobby, and all that sort of nonsense.

Somebody here has a quote from, ironically enough, Luke Crane which goes to the effect that I don't care if the designer is a dick if the game is solid.

I don't personally think Luke is a dick, but even if he is it doesn't change the quality of the game on the page one whit.

Tim, I checked your location, too bad it's in the US as I would have loved to try out a game, BW killed me on the complexity but it always looked like a really great game to me.  For me it's a bit like Spycraft, I love the idea but I couldn't run it myself, I Just don't have the time to spend learning it properly.

Quote from: BalbinusTim, I checked your location, too bad it's in the US as I would have loved to try out a game, BW killed me on the complexity but it always looked like a really great game to me.  For me it's a bit like Spycraft, I love the idea but I couldn't run it myself, I Just don't have the time to spend learning it properly.

That is too bad. I would kill to run BW with another historically minded gamer in the group. Are you in the U.K.? I know there are a few players over there. It might be worth a shot to put up a posting on the BW Looking for a Game board (or whatever it's called).

Burning Wheel is a complex game, no doubt about it. It takes months of continuous play to learn, BUT it's been a blast to learn the game in that manner for me.

OK, I just can't resist...

Quote from: TimBurning Wheel is a complex game, no doubt about it. It takes months of continuous play to learn, BUT it's been a blast to learn the game in that manner for me.

I thought these games were supposed to be easier and more accessible to the average joe/new gamer.  Months of continuous play to learn?  I might as well just get D&D...

:D

Quote from: BalbinusSomebody here has a quote from, ironically enough, Luke Crane which goes to the effect that I don't care if the designer is a dick if the game is solid.

I don't personally think Luke is a dick, but even if he is it doesn't change the quality of the game on the page one whit.

Tim, I checked your location, too bad it's in the US as I would have loved to try out a game, BW killed me on the complexity but it always looked like a really great game to me.  For me it's a bit like Spycraft, I love the idea but I couldn't run it myself, I Just don't have the time to spend learning it properly.

It's not that he's a dick (though I think he is anyway), it's that when someone is espousing such a philosophy and is a game designer, I can only assume such philosophy makes it into his games unless he's a damn hypocrite.  

And when that philosophy is diametrically opposed to mine, then I can tell pretty much without so much as a glance at the work that it's not going to be my thing.

Not to mention that I can't expect much quality from someone who's demonstrated such a total failure of critical thinkings skills as he did in the Q&A thread.

Quote from: James J SkachI thought these games were supposed to be easier and more accessible to the average joe/new gamer.  Months of continuous play to learn?  I might as well just get D&D...

Unless you think BW is a better game than D&D. :eek:

Seriously, though, BW is a different animal than the other story games in a lot of ways, though there's certainly a family resemblance. In my opinion it's every bit as robust as D&D or Runequest. Frankly, I love the fact that all those mechanics are there to be explored and learned: I like to geek out on stuff like that.

Quote from: TimUnless you think BW is a better game than D&D. :eek:

Hey man, to each his own, I say. If you like BW better than D&D, that's your disgrace...umm..I mean...business. ;)

Quote from: TimSeriously, though, BW is a different animal than the other story games in a lot of ways, though there's certainly a family resemblance.

Well it must be to require months of continuous play.  Though I seem to be getting the same vibe from various snippets I've read about DitV - that it's got a lot of mechanical messing around that takes time to understand so you can strategize properly.

My point is, that seems to run counter to the claims that GNS/TBM is supposed to be all about. How can you be gaming a system that's supposed to be about creating story?  The Incoherence! Cats and Dogs, Sleeping together!

Quote from: James J SkachI thought these games were supposed to be easier and more accessible to the average joe/new gamer.  Months of continuous play to learn?  I might as well just get D&D...

:D

The "months to learn" assertion is crazy moontalk - me and the two (completely different) groups of people I've played in BW oneshots with managed to get the grasp of it within minutes of starting play.

Quote from: WarthurThe "months to learn" assertion is crazy moontalk - me and the two (completely different) groups of people I've played in BW oneshots with managed to get the grasp of it within minutes of starting play.

Sure, I've run several successful one-shots, as well. I think there are a lot of aspects of the game that don't really emerge until you've spent some time with it,though. There's a difference between playing the game and 'system mastery.' Maybe I should have differentiated in my ramblings.

Or maybe you and yours are just a lot smarter than me and mine. It's entirely possible.

Tim

Tim:

As you your assertion that 'belief' mechanics may start ending up in mainsteam games...yadda yadda...five years...


Exalted's second edition already has a similar 'mechanic' in place. Why the scare quotes? For as much as I like the concept personally (and I am equally certain I've seen it going back quite some time in one form or another) I can not really justify the term 'mechanics' to what ammounts to

'Write it down on your character sheet. Poof, It's real, the GM can't say it ain't'


Sure, I suppose its nice to have the game book back your play when you argue your dread pirate would 'of course!' have a pistol up his rectum after you've been captured and tossed in a prison sans weapons...

... but there ain't nothing mechanical about it, and really not too much that is actually clever really.

Quote from: WarthurThe "months to learn" assertion is crazy moontalk - me and the two (completely different) groups of people I've played in BW oneshots with managed to get the grasp of it within minutes of starting play.

-Hmmm - I've listened to a large section of someones Burning Empires campaign (over podcast) and after ten hours they still don't really understand how the rules work - most of it is made up on the fly by the GM.

--

I'm wondering if there could be an only Nixon can go to  China thing going on.

We all know Ron Edwards is an asshole who hates gamers. And so are the story games fuckwits.

Possibly if we can stick them on poles and parade the bodies for all to see Ryan Dancey, trusted by the DnD playing mainstream, can become the saviour of the hobby.

Are the assholes on story games more a hinderance than a help at this point?

Quote from: Spike... but there ain't nothing mechanical about it, and really not too much that is actually clever really.

If you cherry pick and isolate it there's not. If you take into account the relationship between Beliefs and the Artha system (which runs like veins through the entire game) it sure is.

When it comes to the originality argument that you and a couple of other folks keep returning to..all I have to say is that the whole is more than a sum of its parts. But whether it's innovative or not, it's cool to me.

Take the arch swine Buzz on story games -


http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3933&page=1#Item_0

He says:-

QuoteI"m in a thread on ENWorld right now discussing his posts. The response to my saying, "Hey, there are cool indie games doing this stuff already!", has mostly been, "Nobody cares about those games." Instead, it's mostly people wishing it was 1982 again.

QuoteI think Serenity's consistent sales are proof enough that a license will sell RPGs to non-gamers. You look at the Waves in the Black fan site, and there are quite a few people who were lapsed or non-gamers that bought the book purely because it was Firefly.

The question is whether combining the license with an RPG system that was actually cool would have made it into more than a moderately well-selling RPG that sits on the shelves of Firefly fans everywhere (collecting dust), and instead got those people really excited about story-gaming and made them want more.

Basically, until someone puts Nathan Fillion on the cover of PTA, I don't think anyone can say definitively that story-gaming+license wouldn't fare any better than crap+license.

Your an asshole who hates gamers - of course no one listens to you.

Nixon must go to China!

Quote from: TimIf you cherry pick and isolate it there's not. If you take into account the relationship between Beliefs and the Artha system (which runs like veins through the entire game) it sure is.

When it comes to the originality argument that you and a couple of other folks keep returning to..all I have to say is that the whole is more than a sum of its parts. But whether it's innovative or not, it's cool to me.

Originality is important, given that the discussion revolves around wether or not 'story games', of which BW/BE is held up as a standard bearer, are the wave of the future or not, via innovation if nothing else.

So, if all the 'cool stuff' that BW uses actually predate 'Story Games' then really there isn't much going on for 'em anyway. Doesn't change how fun/unfun the games themselves might be, just their place in this so called revolution of game design.  Thus it is utterly, totally, relevant.

As for your comment about its place in the Arthas system: its no more or less mechanical than the line in the old Shadowrun rules about giving extra karma to a player for 'playing in character'.  Its just more detailed.  Oddly, Shadowrun dates back to, what?, 1989? It also uses d6's, in large handfuls.

My GOD! Burning Wheel IS  Shadowrun!


But seriously: Luke has expressed it best: He wrote Burning Wheel as an RPG that wouldn't let him get away with the crappy powermad GMing he was prone to.

Bully for him. Sadly, I don't want RPG's to regiment play so much that such abuses aren't possible. Its a baby/bathwater situation*.  While he does collect a great deal of good ideas into one place, and implement them beautifully, he also collects some absolutely horrid ideas that seem more prone to annoy people than actually add anything meaningful. Y'know, stuff like Scripted Combat, which turns many people off, a few people like, and so far the closest thing to an 'unmitigated praise' of it is that it still lets you chop an orc in the skull.... whooptie doo. Can already do that with any of the dozens (if not hundreds) of RPG systems I can lay my hands on.




* Rather than muss up my statement with rambling, and feeling rather rambly anyway:  Bathwater wouldn't be dirty if ya didn't wash the baby in it, ya know?  Abuses occur because the rules allow for awesome game play. Restrict game play to prevent abuse, you also remove the potential for that particular brand of awesome. Yes, I know, this does mean you can still have some awesome: so?

Quote from: SpikeOriginality is important, given that the discussion revolves around wether or not 'story games', of which BW/BE is held up as a standard bearer, are the wave of the future or not, via innovation if nothing else.

Ok. To dip into the ever-unfruitful realm of metaphor and repeat myself in a more interesting way...The Mona Lisa was painted with oils on canvas. So was Whistler's Mother. But they're very different paintings. Jailhouse Rock has guitars, drums, vocals..so forth. So do a hundred thousand other brilliant songs. ANY human endeavor follows this same pattern. So we move from greaser rock to doo-wop to surf music to 60s pop to psychadelia, so on and so forth. Each feeding off of the other, but having it's own worth and getting people excited when it's time came due. To hold all subsequent creations up to the same standard of innovation of the first thing of its kind is absurd and pointless.

QuoteAs for your comment about its place in the Arthas system: its no more or less mechanical than the line in the old Shadowrun rules about giving extra karma to a player for 'playing in character'.  Its just more detailed.  Oddly, Shadowrun dates back to, what?, 1989? It also uses d6's, in large handfuls.

My GOD! Burning Wheel IS  Shadowrun!

Yeah, I remember Luke talking about how BW Classic was born out of a long-running Shadowrun game he GMd.  

QuoteBully for him. Sadly, I don't want RPG's to regiment play so much that such abuses aren't possible. Its a baby/bathwater situation*.

I seriously doubt we're ever going to come to any sort of agreement here, but what do you think is being thrown out? And which is the baby? Is that you Spike? Awww...


*Accidentally erased the part I was quoting here*
I like the scripted combat. It's chaotic and bloody without too much danger of insta-death. My group has had some really kick-ass memorable duel-style fights with that system. LOTS of people don't like it one bit. I think it begins to fall apart with middling numbers of opponents (say more than four on four) myself, but I don't have much of a problem with bloody vs. tests for that sort of thing.

Tim

Quote from: Tim*snipped weird sidebar about music*

I seriously doubt we're ever going to come to any sort of agreement here, but what do you think is being thrown out? And which is the baby? Is that you Spike? Awww...


*Accidentally erased the part I was quoting here*
I like the scripted combat. It's chaotic and bloody without too much danger of insta-death. My group has had some really kick-ass memorable duel-style fights with that system. LOTS of people don't like it one bit. I think it begins to fall apart with middling numbers of opponents (say more than four on four) myself, but I don't have much of a problem with bloody vs. tests for that sort of thing.

Tim

Wow, so you can cleave an orc's skull with an axe in BW? Whoda thunk?

Seriously: Nothing in what you just said about scripted combat comes from the actual scripting of the combat. In other words: I can point out and name half a dozen game systems that are 'chaotic and bloody without too much danger of instant death'... not the LEAST of which is good olde fashioned D&D.

Where, pray tell, does the scripting come into play?  Aside from the fact that you admit it tends to fall apart outside of one on one duels (result: use shorter vs tests to resolve outside the scripting...)

In other words: It turns off many gamers, can be hard to learn (from you earlier I think...), and is really only useful in one on one duels (ironically, Burning Empires is the exact opposite: its only useful in mass combats...), and in return you get the exact same sort of combat you get in an unscripted system.

In other news: I just submitted a patent for a car with five wheels.




EDIT::: I forgot to touch your baby bathwater question. Now, really, I did address this, it was in the small font at the end, but:

The baby, in this case, is the awesome gaming that results from unfettered GM's doing 'their thing'. The bathwater is the abuses that come from unfettered GM's doing 'unawesome things'.  By restricting the GM you toss, or attempt to toss, the bathwater of the abuses right out the window. Now, as anyone who has slung large heavy trays of water around might tell you, its not that neat, and water tends to go everywhere...sometimes even out the window, while the baby almost certainly is going right out. SO, you rid yourself of the awesome, and move the abuses all over the room and maybe the street.

Wow: that was hard.

They don´t even send quality viral marketers these days.

Too lame to flame.

Quote from: SpikeIn other words: It turns off many gamers, can be hard to learn (from you earlier I think...), and is really only useful in one on one duels (ironically, Burning Empires is the exact opposite: its only useful in mass combats...), and in return you get the exact same sort of combat you get in an unscripted system.

I go-you go, roll a d20, roll some damage is the source of a lot of migration from D&D to other systems, Spike. Do you have a point here?

This is a total blind alley, anyway. I have not once argued that Fight! is going to be inserted into some mainstream system and 'save' gaming. I haven't even argued that my favorite game is going to 'save' gaming.

Tim

Quote from: SettembriniYap yap yap yap yap

I'm not a viral marketer, Settembrini. I'm just a guy who is talking about his favorite game and what he thinks (and hopes!) will happen in the next few years with gaming.

I'll shut up now though, I've got a game to get to.

Tim

EDIT:

QuoteThis is a total blind alley, anyway. I have not once argued that Fight! is going to be inserted into some mainstream system and 'save' gaming. I haven't even argued that my favorite game is going to 'save' gaming.

Come on, Tim.

RD said it.
You coming here defending him and BW implies that you subscribe to that. Elsewise, you are in the wrong discussion.

This one is about RD and his take on "story", BW, D&D and other stuff.

Open another thread for voicing your precious little opinion on BW and scripted combats.

Either you discuss the above points, or you post elsewhere.

Quote from: TimI'm not a viral marketer, Settembrini. I'm just a guy who is talking about his favorite game and what he thinks (and hopes!) will happen in the next few years with gaming.

Tim

Funny, that´s the line all these little tools use.
Do they coordinate themselves?
Oh, wait. They do.

Quote from: SpikeSure, I suppose its nice to have the game book back your play when you argue your dread pirate would 'of course!' have a pistol up his rectum after you've been captured and tossed in a prison sans weapons...

... but there ain't nothing mechanical about it, and really not too much that is actually clever really.

GURPS has a trait you can choose for your character, "Gizmos". Anything your character would normally carry by virtue of their skills or background, and which would fit in a pocket, the player can say the character has, even if it's not on the character sheet. They give examples like a PI having a pistol on him - even though he was just searched through a checkpoint.

Does this mean GURPS is a "storytelling game"?

I mean... GURPS?!

Quote from: Kyle AaronDoes this mean GURPS is a "storytelling game"?

I mean... GURPS?!

Just relax, and let these two fine gentlemen help you:

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c220/rvilliers/Movies/mib.jpg)

Story games are not the future of roleplaying games. They are a future. If the hobby is to grow, then the reverse is the future of the hobby. Clever little systems and niche genre emulation have their place. That place isn't growing the hobby. That place is in appealing to people who already game and who are looking for a change and don't mind things like mechanics that only become apparent after weeks of play or don't mind the commitment needed to wade through hundreds of pages of dense mechanics. The future (or the 'saving' as Ryan would have it) of the hobby is in drawing new players and i think that the game aspect is far more likely to do that than the story aspect. Games need to appeal to as large a group as possible. Story won't do that. A more mainstream appeal will. What that is, who knows.:confused:

Teh Comedy Goldmine never stops:

http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/1A28B7E7-6D72-4000-8CD8-462FE0BD5E36.html

Persistence. Tabletop RPGs have it, MMORPGs do not. This is somehow related to organized play and storytelling.

I think Ryan is out of a job and has been playing WoW a lot in between spurts of writing his Iacocca-style autobiography.

And then somebody sent him Burning Empires and a bottle of scotch in the mail, and an hour later everything suddenly began to make some marvelous kind of sense.

Wow... I'm not sure how Ryan thinks shared GMing/narrative control and simultaneously massively multiplayer offline gaming go hand-in-hand...

But this is starting to sound AWESOME!  Raven C.S. McCracken awesome!  I eagerly anticipate the next chapter. :)

Quote from: StuartWow... I'm not sure how Ryan thinks shared GMing/narrative control and simultaneously massively multiplayer offline gaming go hand-in-hand...

I guess the dude just likes living campaigns.

Weirdo.




Hes thinking about how to make money out of the thing though, and selling services is one way to do that.

Quote from: StuartThe 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.

I think that some wonderful insight into a story game mindset can be found here on Story-Games:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3927&page=1#Item_0

"But when you're playing in something long-term, so long as a character doesn't die, success and failure are the same thing. The only difference is your emotional response to the events as they transpire."

Quote from: TimI go-you go, roll a d20, roll some damage is the source of a lot of migration from D&D to other systems, Spike. Do you have a point here?

This is a total blind alley, anyway. I have not once argued that Fight! is going to be inserted into some mainstream system and 'save' gaming. I haven't even argued that my favorite game is going to 'save' gaming.

Tim

You are the very... and I do mean VERY... first person to suggest that rolling a d20 in alternating sequences was the reason anyone ever stopped playing D&D for other systems.

Me? I changed over because of levels and classes.  I switched back because I like playing more than I like being a 'levels and classes suck snob'.

If anything in the combat system turns people off its the ever growing ablative damage pools.  But really, you don't need to 'script combat' to undo that. Runequest, for example...

For the record, I'm interested in Tim's comments and I don't see him talking about BW as any different to me talking about Traveller.

And he is on topic and he didn't agree with Dancy, let's not bait anyone who expresses the slightest interest in any indie games, m'kay?

Yeah, if he wants to defend RD´s assertions with his inside knowledge of BW, that´s cool.
But being defensive of BW and weaseling about the thread-important RD-implication is pointless and smacks of viral marketeering.

Quote from: BalbinusFor the record, I'm interested in Tim's comments and I don't see him talking about BW as any different to me talking about Traveller.

And he is on topic and he didn't agree with Dancy, let's not bait anyone who expresses the slightest interest in any indie games, m'kay?

Indeed. I like Burning Empires and it's hard to accuse me of secretly being a Forger.

Oh, come on guys?
That´s not the point.

Dude, there are more productive ways to spend your time than hunting for heretics and marranos. Tim's not really acting like a viral marketer. He probably just genuinely believes that BW is a good game. Because I am secretly a broken record in disguise: You're going to get further by converting him than by yelling at him. Heck, the fact that he's trying to show how parts of BW match up with trad gaming styles and trad games is a good sign.

Quote from: SettembriniYeah, if he wants to defend RD´s assertions with his inside knowledge of BW, that´s cool.
But being defensive of BW and weaseling about the thread-important RD-implication is pointless and smacks of viral marketeering.

Sure, but he expressly said he didn't agree with RD, I struggle to see that as defending RD's assertions.

Besides, I think BW is a good game, but too complex for me, does that make me a viral marketer?

Sometimes it is viral marketing, sometimes it's just enthusiasm, this is enthusiasm.

Anyway, this is also all old news, 4e is coming and that will be the future of the industry whether we like 4e when it's released or don't.

Quote from: BalbinusSure, but he expressly said he didn't agree with RD, I struggle to see that as defending RD's assertions.

This is my point. My fucking point. Being defensive without defending is just:

*(ju9=8

Quote from: SettembriniThis is my point. My fucking point. Being defensive without defending is just:

*(ju9=8

4e Set, game over, the future just happened and Dancy's views and storygaming's takeover are all yesterday's news.

Maybe there are connections that we aren´t seeing.

Quote from: SettembriniMaybe there are connections that we aren´t seeing.

I think that's entirely possible, but whatever they may be I doubt 4e will be meeting Dancy's vision, I would guess if anything his vision is in reaction to it.

The theory he desperately tries to remain relevant and in the discussion seems pretty reasonable.

He now officially doesn´t know shit about current D&D anymore.

Step 4: Redefine the Platform (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/37BD73C7-DC93-4AF0-A22A-4DE479E1191F.html)

Wow.  So incredibly wrong.

Quote from: Ryan DanceyFrom the inception of the hobby up to the present, virtually all tabletop roleplaying games are designed to be played without the requirement for an electronic component.
 
I suspect that is about to end, with Wizards of the Coast announcing 4th Edition and its tight coupling with electronic tools.  I think its about time.
 
Going forward, there will be two kinds of tabletop roleplaying experience:  Those which are hybridized with computer support and those which are not.  I believe those games that embrace that change will thrive, and those which do not will not.

So staggeringly wrong I don't even know where to start... :(

"My concept for the Storytelling Game system is strongly hybridized.  It may even be unplayable without computer assistance."

Then it'll fail abysmally. Nobody is going to sit around the game table with a computer each, and if it's just playing at the computer without a group, then what does the rpg offer than a zillion computer games don't already?

I don't think he realises just how many of the world's roleplayers have no computer at all, or not net connection, or have those but are not very savvy with them. Roleplaying games are a social creative hobby. If you don't want to be social and want to use a computer, you'll play computer games.

Even people with all the tech toys, and who are very comfortable with using them, deliberately choose to play non-computer games.  They like that it's unplugged. It's part of the appeal of something like D&D as opposed to an MMORPG.

If this is the direction Ryan D and WotC are heading, then as Kyle say, it will fail abysmally.

I think WOTC is just heading in the direction of offering character/monster generators and map tools.  SO, it wouldn't be that different from those who play D&D and the DM has a laptop with monster pics, pdfs of books, and a few other things.  In those cases, it's basically face to face with a more organized DM, but you could take out the computer with no serious issues.

I agree with others that games requiring computers aren't a good idea.  Many (most?) gaming groups are not that different from a group of friends sitting around in a bar or coffee shop, except they're also doing something.  I seriously doubt that they would want the bother of dealing with machines or desire the reduced direct human interaction.

Sorry guys - on this I respectfully disagree with you.

I know that most gamers now and most gaming groups now are this way.  However, I don't think it's wise to guess that is the way the will be.  Why?

I didn't get my first computer, a TRS-80, until I was, I think 12 or 13.  It had limited capability; I programmed in basic; you stored the "program" on an actual cassette tape.  Good times.

My son and daughter are 6 and 5, respectively.  They each have their own computer with internet access.  They play all kinds of games - almost none of which I have to pay for BTW (where the WotC business plan doesn't see far enough ahead IMHO). They are better at using a mouse, navigating a web page, and general computer use than many adults. They intuitively try things, explore, figure them out on their own.

This will be the generation that grew up with iPods and iPhones, with, in the US, nearly ubiquitous Internet access. They will expect hand held computer-like devices to augment their gaming experience.

I know we old grognards don't see it that way.  It was difficult for me to come to grips with it when I first started considering it 5 or 6 years ago. But it makes sense.  Build on the strengths of RPG's - openess of exploration (the DM is human) and social gathering - but use the computer for the things it's really good at - crunching numbers, providing all possible options, etc.

We may agree to disagree, but I would not bet my future market on the way we do things now.

EDIT: some, probably not all, spelling/grammar issues.

EDIT 2: You know what the first thing I did with that TRS-80 and Basic?  Try to write an adventure game.  Go figure.

Oh...and one more thing.  If RD's big idea is that the future of TTRPG's is going to incorporate computer support to the point of being a hybrid...big fucking deal. This guy is some guru about games?

I've been saying the same for a few years. I've posted as such on this very site from almost the time I started here a year ago. I'm just some guy who plays D&D and likes gadgets - and I figured that out.

So my conclusion is that RD is saying TTRPG's will be saved by:

• Making the games Storytelling Games - even if they're not, names mean everything!
• Use computers.

Brilliant...fucking brilliant.

I'm skeptical about whether Dancey, WotC et al really gets it.  They know "kids today" like the computer, and they know World of Warcraft is really popular and they want some of that sweet money action.  Unfortunately they're a pen and paper company (or division of a larger company).   So they're trying something that the newspapers and comic companies tried already.  Tried, failed, and gave up on.

Computers and the web certainly have their place, but trying to make it a requirement for playing a tabletop game is absolutely wrong-headed and doomed to failure.  No question.  It makes it weaker than a game you can just play without the computer, and weaker than computer games like World of Warcraft.  It's not the best of both worlds... it's like an icecream hamburger.  It's like 3D Email.

Online stuff that adds to the game, or helps market and sell it?  Cool.  Great idea.  This hybrid stuff?  It's like listening to corporate types talk about the web in the pre dotcom days.

Quote from: James J SkachI've been saying the same for a few years. I've posted as such on this very site from almost the time I started here a year ago. I'm just some guy who plays D&D and likes gadgets - and I figured that out.

But are you going to do anything about it?

Dancey bought TSR. He made D20 and open game. He might.













I mean, he's not gonna. And it's totally not my thing. But yknow.

Ostajak makes an excellent comment on Ryan's blog:

Quote from: OstajakA game needs a challenge by definition, and only challenge that is out of your control - present whether you like it or not - is real. That's what the adversarial, dualistic relationship between the GM and players in a traditional RPG serves: making sure there are real, unchanging obstacles that cannot be calvinballed away. A GM could be removed from the picture by pitting the players against each other and making the rules utterly rigid and never-changing (like in Chess), but somehow I don't think that's what you've got in mind.

OK, I'm officially lost on what Dancey is going for.

He starts off by saying RPGs need to distance themselves from MMORPGs.

Then, he wants to re-brand them as "story-telling games".

Next, he wants to get rid of the GM.

After that, he wants to make all games part of a pay-for-play world network.

And the latest development is - everyone playing will have to have a computer.

WTF??  Did April 1st come late this year?
He starts off trying to turn the hobby into My Life With Master, then ends up re-creating WoW.

It's so absurd.  Joe Average doesn't want to waste his time with learning/playing RPGs now.  Does anyone really think that by requiring computers, requiring player-created content, and requiring organized game events - not to mention the extra subscription costs for both online game content and organized play organizations - is going to make games even more popular???

If anything, it will drive out at least half the existing players that are left.

If you really want to grow the hobby back a little more, focus on the re-vitalization of the boardgame market instead of trying to copy computer games.  Work on creating easy to learn, easy to play, expandable games with good quality components and actually try and market the things so people will know they exist.

Quote from: NicephorusI think WOTC is just heading in the direction of offering character/monster generators and map tools.  SO, it wouldn't be that different from those who play D&D and the DM has a laptop with monster pics, pdfs of books, and a few other things.  In those cases, it's basically face to face with a more organized DM, but you could take out the computer with no serious issues.

This would make sense, since they attempted to offer those for 3e and just never quite got them finished.

It could be that Dancey doesn't know what he's after, either. Just a thought.

I mean, never forget that he's the guy who thinks that roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours. There's got to be a reason he thinks that. Perhaps he's just one of those guys who doesn't want the same thing for more than twenty minutes straight, so he's never happy.

Quote from: Erik BoielleBut are you going to do anything about it?

Dancey bought TSR. He made D20 and open game. He might.

I didn't know Dancey bought TSR - really?

Yeah, ya know, my wife asked me if I was going to pursue this idea at all. This one (of my many hair-brained) schemes I just might jump on.

I know what I envision.  I just need someone who can translate that for me...someone brilliant...Bill...I should talk to Bill.

Quote from: StuartOnline stuff that adds to the game, or helps market and sell it?  Cool.  Great idea.  This hybrid stuff?  It's like listening to corporate types talk about the web in the pre dotcom days.

Spot on.

When I worked in publishing in the mid-90s the geniuses in Sales would go on and on about how the e-book would end the physical item. The era of the book is over! Also, like, the internet!

Well, guess what happened on the internet? Amazon.com, is what.

Speaking of e-books... does anyone remember e-tools?

Well, with 4E we're finally getting e-tools. W00t! Okay, seven years late, but hey.

Quote from: James J SkachI didn't know Dancey bought TSR - really?

Kinda. He went to pitch something to them, realised that they were in dire straights* and so set up the deal whereby Peter Adkison and Wizards bought it.









*singing backup vocals

Today's blog post was interesting. This is likely the driving idea behind a lot of RD's spewing:

Quote from: DanceyI believe that the Power Gamer faction of the player demographic is going to shift their play primarily to MMORPGs over time, which will change the overall audience of tabletop gaming.

If one believes that, the rest IMO logically follows (except perhaps for that hyrid computer concept, that seems to be a different subject completely to me and one that plays to the MMORPG advantage at that).

Quote from: gleichmanToday's blog post was interesting. This is likely the driving idea behind a lot of RD's spewing:



If one believes that, the rest IMO logically follows (except perhaps for that hyrid computer concept, that seems to be a different subject completely to me and one that plays to the MMORPG advantage at that).

Good to see you back for a bit...

I'd be interested as to why you think a hybrid plays to the MMORPG advantage - or at least get a better understanding of what you mean by that.

Today's Blog Post (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/D2BD8970-2923-4FA8-BE04-6A0E2FE2667D.html) really puts Ryan's cards on the table.

highlights:

Quote from: Ryan DanceyI see many analogies between the China Clippers and the D20 System, especially as expressed in Dungeons & Dragons.  While the game represented one of the best implementations of the state of the art for game rules of its type, evolution on the technological platform have made it fundamentally obsolete.  

...

The GM "solution" most commonly employed is not very satisfying and doesn't lend itself to a strong and interesting storytelling experience.  Readers interested in some mechanical methods for addressing this kind of problem should take a look at Luke Crane's Burning Wheel for some inspiration. (Actually, you should just get it, period, and as many other Crane works as you can.  To really understand where the state of the art is in RPGs right now, Crane is required reading...)

...

In the most popular mode of play, a GM describes a 10x10 room, saying "in one corner there's an Orc, and in the other corner there's a pie".  As far as the players are concerned, the room has an Orc and a pie in it, and nothing else.  In fact, using the mechanics of the game, there is nothing else, unless the GM, by fiat adds it.

...


Further reading:
 
//www.story-games.com
//www.indie-rpgs.com

:forge:

:D

Quote from: James J SkachI'd be interested as to why you think a hybrid plays to the MMORPG advantage - or at least get a better understanding of what you mean by that.

I consider the idea at it's core to be similar to attempting to sell people on rapid transit trains in place of cars- by sending a Limo to pick them up and drop them off at the most convenient connections.

Dancey likes to think that MMORPGs can't do what a 'story-game' does, indeed his entire concept is built on that. But his description of the hybrid result is almost exactly the description (more persistence, etc.) of what many in the industry consider to be the ideal MMORPG, i.e. the goal towards which the industry would like to move. You can't have the same ulimate goal and not face the same barriers in reaching it.

Heck, Dancy even had to exclude one MMORPG (Second Life) in his example because it's already part way there in a number of cases.

Under those conditions, who would you bet on for reaching that goal first? I'd bet on the guys who's been down in the dirt of running Massive player systems for years now, and who have the deep pockets something like WoW provides.


In addition to all that, he's going to be putting players in front of the computer in order to play his 'story-game', and that's putting one leg in where it can more easily be grabbed by an MMORPG. All the player needs to jump ship is one decision by the 'story game' company they don't like, or one improvement in the MMORPG world that catches their eye, etc.  That's a dangerous place IMO to put the future of your hobby.

Quote from: StuartToday's Blog Post (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/D2BD8970-2923-4FA8-BE04-6A0E2FE2667D.html) really puts Ryan's cards on the table.

He should have started with today's post. But he needs to cite the data driving him (i.e. power-gamers leaving for MMORPGs)

I wonder if he has any or not? Or has he bought into the Forge mindset that just assumes it as true because they don't generally encounter that type of player online?

Quote from: gleichmanI consider the idea at it's core to be similar to attempting to sell people on rapid transit trains in place of cars- by sending a Limo to pick them up and drop them off at the most convenient connections.

Yeah, I don't know his idea of hybridization.

For me, it's different. Internet tools are great for helping prep time or something.  In my head, hybridization is not moving towards MMORPG's, it's using the computer in the places where it is strong, such as crunching numbers, etc. while leaving the players free to play in the traditional manner - in a way like a smart character sheet (with a PHB underneath) hooked to a smart setting (with the DMG and other setting stuff) underneath.  It's all there just to facilitate the experience, not fundamentally change it to a computer game.

I see it more like any other place where computers' strength are brought to bear on a target - like using them to compile the images in a CAT scan.

Quote from: James J SkachInternet tools are great for helping prep time or something.  In my head, hybridization is not moving towards MMORPG's, it's using the computer in the places where it is strong, such as crunching numbers, etc. while leaving the players free to play in the traditional manner - in a way like a smart character sheet (with a PHB underneath) hooked to a smart setting (with the DMG and other setting stuff) underneath.  It's all there just to facilitate the experience, not fundamentally change it to a computer game.

That's effectively the virtual gaming table that he rejected in one of the first articles.

Dancey seems to want to go beyond this into a shared online world. And that's when things get difficult.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI mean, never forget that he's the guy who thinks that roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours.

It's funny Kyle, when I read this it occurred to me: All this talk about changing the hobby seems premature when you have obviously never played in a fun campaign.

Quote from: cmagounIt's funny Kyle, when I read this it occurred to me: All this talk about changing the hobby seems premature when you have obviously never played in a fun campaign.

Exactly. That's Ron Edwards' problem, too. "Many gamers are not having any fun." But many are...

Okay, if you aren't having fun, then we should talk about that. But your experience is not universal. And to figure out how to have fun, don't just talk to the miserable people, but to the happy ones, too. If I want to fix my troubled marriage, do I only talk to divorced people? If I want job-hunting tips, should I only talk to the unemployed? Part of learning to be a mechanic is studying how machines work well, not just how they fuck up.

That really is all that's worth mockery, here. Okay, this "story-game" thing is pretty silly overall, but really so what? Whatever makes them happy. The bit that deserves mockery is this silly idea that really everyone wants this profound story experience, they just don't know it because they've been distracted by all that rolling dice, eating cheetos and having fun.

I mean, come on.

Quote from: cmagounIt's funny Kyle, when I read this it occurred to me: All this talk about changing the hobby seems premature when you have obviously never played in a fun campaign.

Not if he's right about the power-gamers leaving, that changes things greatly.

Quote from: gleichmanNot if he's right about the power-gamers leaving, that changes things greatly.

Yes, but haven't we heard this tune before, just with different lyrics? It sounds like an over generalization based on an assumption about certain peoples' playstyles. "Of course if you are interested in builds and tactics and minmaxing, you can't possibly want a living world and good story!! Why don't you just play a computer game, you... you... you gamist!!"

Brian, you are a tactician, so by the "storygamer" prognostication, you should be happy to play D&D since it is the game that best meets that particular style of game... any other fantasy game you could play (or make) is a waste of time. Similarly, by Ryan's prediction, you should be leaving the hobby to spend South Korean style hours on WoW.

Heck, by that measure, I shouldn't even have a gaming group anymore... In fact, I and several of my players often do play MMOs, but we keep coming back to tabletop games (in fact, I recently canceled all of my MMO subs) because they offer a richer experience. MMOs aren't even close. They have a lot going for them, for sure. Namely, a lower bar of entry, less logistics required to play, the intoxicating anonymity of the internet, but they still don't hold a candle to sitting in a room with your friends and playing in a good, solid roleplaying game that has cool characters, plots and combats.

I could be wrong, of course...
(Edited to add a point)

White Wolf though they could get the powergamers to go away.  Instead they had to design a whole new game for them to try and distract them from playing in their precious WoD.

Quote from: cmagounYes, but haven't we heard this tune before, just with different lyrics?

True enough, and it has been little more than hot air in the past. If Dancey has reason to believe that's changed, he has reason for taking a double of the Forge Kool-Aid because it at least offers an way to continue something related to rpgs.

IMO I seriously doubt that he does, but I hold open the question for now. Perhaps he'll answer my question about at his blog. Most likely he'll ignore it or respond with something fuzzy that we can't verify one way or the other.

Quote from: cmagoun"Of course if you are interested in builds and tactics and minmaxing, you can't possibly want a living world and good story!! Why don't you just play a computer game, you... you... you gamist!!"

Not only that but if you're really into tactics and character builds, nothing beats live play.  Computer games tend to have fairly rote tactics that don't change much within a battle or quickly from one battle to the next.  Live play also makes it possible to play with the rules and see how things play.

I checked out the mirror-thread to this one on Storygames. Seems even those who have "story" in their name are baffled/offended by Dancey´s muddled salad of buzzwords.

I've been out of town and mostly away from computers this weekend, but wanted to thank Balbinus and Pseudoephedrine for coming to my defense and calming the rabid rat terrier. They're also to be commended for their perception and firm grasps on reality. :)

Oh, and holy crap! 4th Edition!

Ryan's final thoughts

Quote from: Ryan DanceyI'd like to particularly thank the community of designers in the "indie RPG movement", who have taken the lead on exploring issues of design outside the envelope of tradition (and often the economic envelope as well), and for reporting back on their successes and failures. Ron Edwards, in particular, is owed a deep debt of gratitude for creating a nascent community of freethinkers to push & prod the industry in the right direction. I thank also Luke Crane, whom I consider the last in a long line of self-published RPG visionaries

Yup.  He drank the koolaid alright.

Quote from: NicephorusNot only that but if you're really into tactics and character builds, nothing beats live play.  Computer games tend to have fairly rote tactics that don't change much within a battle or quickly from one battle to the next.  Live play also makes it possible to play with the rules and see how things play.

I would agree here, MMORPGs and other computer games in fact go to great lengths to hide their mechanics from the players. And once one 'reverse engineers' them, the result is typically very simple.

Their major advantage is that one can just log on and level (by a number of different yardsticks in most games). Advancement and success is certain (just keep at it) and it touches enough on tactics to be fun. No worries about running the rules, no need to get your gaming group together (I think this is the most important draw), no book work or game prep.

Somehow I don't see that as drawing off power-gamers (as WotC defined the term). Instead I see it as drawing off light or casual rpg'er of any style.


Dancy so far hasn't answered my question about his data for the stated loss of Power-Gamers.

Hah! That's an amazing amount of short-sightedness on Ryan Dancey's part then. Those guys aren't "freethinkers" by a long shot; they're groupthinkers. They're consensus-seekers. And theyre totally insignificant in the grand scheme which was really obvious this year. I also suspect this was the very last year for many of them. And next year there will be even fewer. 80% of all gaming books that come out these days are independently published just because of the technology.

Leveraging web technology was one thing the forgies got right and did first (or second, if you tie back distribution to the PDF-ification of the pre D&D3.0 material that was undertaken by some former WOTC staff members shortly after the release of D&D3.0 in 2000).

But anyone can do this technology thing. The tagline over at RPGNOW (http://www.rpgnow.com/) reads "The Leading Source for Indie RPGs". They aren't talking about Sorcerer. Look at the front page!

And the tragedy of it all, is that they did it to themselves because the forgies are not people who love gaming so much as they are political extremists who want to "spread a message". Thats what did them in.

They're done. And they know it.

Quote from: J ArcaneYup.  He drank the koolaid alright.

The whole barrel of it in a single glup.

Poor RPGPundit, this must be a like a stake driven through the heart for him. He declares war on the Swine only to have Dancey jump ship and become a card carrying member of them.

Maybe he should switch tactics and team up with Edwards. That could inspire Ron to come to old school game declaring GNS as an outdated concept...


Or RPGPundit could just learn that depending upon the visions of others is a one-way ticket to disappointing visions.

Quote from: gleichmanI would agree here, MMORPGs and other computer games in fact go to great lengths to hide their mechanics from the players. And once one 'reverse engineers' them, the result is typically very simple.

I give MMOs a little more credit in that character build strategies can be pretty deep with people discussing and arguing them endlessly. That's one of the cool things about them. However, what MMOs get right on character build complexity, they lose on the sheer mind-numbing tactics of aggro management.

Quote from: cmagounI give MMOs a little more credit in that character build strategies can be pretty deep with people discussing and arguing them endlessly. That's one of the cool things about them. However, what MMOs get right on character build complexity, they lose on the sheer mind-numbing tactics of aggro management.

One of the biggest innovations in World of Warcraft is the decision to make the lion's share of the game mechanics pretty transparent.

The computer does all the calculations, sure, but consideration of statistics and gear and talent builds is as big a thing in that game as it is in any tabletop game.

Quote from: cmagounI give MMOs a little more credit in that character build strategies can be pretty deep with people discussing and arguing them endlessly. That's one of the cool things about them. However, what MMOs get right on character build complexity, they lose on the sheer mind-numbing tactics of aggro management.

I'm not so sure they are deep or interesting, it's just that they're generally hidden so that what we see is effectively people arguing about color in a lightless room.

I'm currently playing LotRO for example, and I have no idea what the most effective tactics are because I have no idea what the system is. I've found something that works fine as far as leveling and advancing goes- and thus I'm not unhappy.

Does pale in relation to the table top game, where I know not only the result- but the reasons for it.

Quote from: J ArcaneOne of the biggest innovations in World of Warcraft is the decision to make the lion's share of the game mechanics pretty transparent.

The computer does all the calculations, sure, but consideration of statistics and gear and talent builds is as big a thing in that game as it is in any tabletop game.

I have no experience with WoW, so can't really comment on it specifically. Are they as open as to their mob stats and their resolutions system?


It should be noted that character builds aren't part of Dancey's Power-Gamer which is pure tacticals. Builds would be part of his "Thinkers".

Quote from: J ArcaneOne of the biggest innovations in World of Warcraft is the decision to make the lion's share of the game mechanics pretty transparent.

The computer does all the calculations, sure, but consideration of statistics and gear and talent builds is as big a thing in that game as it is in any tabletop game.

And if you thought Rolemaster was complication personifided, the common MMORPG beats it hands-down.  The WOW formula for determining my Warrior's Damage Per Second with her primary weapon looks something like this: DPS=3+(1.05(average weapon damage(weapon skill+talent modifiers-debuffs(base coefficient*Attack Power*weapon speed)))

There's a similar formula for determining that character's Threat Per Second, which is used to track the Threat Table that determines which PC gets attacked by the NPC.  (i.e. "draws aggro")  There's another for determining the amount of physical damage mitigation that my character's armor provides, another for determining how much Rage (what WOW Warriors use to power their special abilities) my character gains when she does damage, and when she takes damage.

In some post or another at the WOW Forums, all of these formulae are laid bare for those that care to see them.  Many of them are changed when the developers decide to buff or nerf something--there's a change to forumlae for things specific to WOW Rogues and Mages going live this week--and sites that data-mine and archive in Wiki or searchable database format also list the things.  WOW jargon for talk about this stuff is "theorycraft", and for those big into PVP and raiding this is the heart of making your character the most effective at either (or, if you're willing, both) pursuits; this, in turn, drives the game's culture and dominates the end-game (which drives all before it in turn).

D&D has this in spades, and it too dominates and drives the game from 1st level onward.  All commercially successful tabletop RPGs are so dominated, and the best of them use it to their advantage.  There's a reason for it, and it's the white elephant in the middle of the room: this is why the majority of gamers are there at all, because this is where the game in RPGs is centered and to master this is to make everything you want to do possible because you know what of the game to change to make it work.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerD&D has this in spades, and it too dominates and drives the game from 1st level onward.  All commercially successful tabletop RPGs are so dominated, and the best of them use it to their advantage.  There's a reason for it, and it's the white elephant in the middle of the room: this is why the majority of gamers are there at all, because this is where the game in RPGs is centered and to master this is to make everything you want to do possible because you know what of the game to change to make it work.

Bradford, brilliant post.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerAnd if you thought Rolemaster was complication personifided, the common MMORPG beats it hands-down.  The WOW formula for determining my Warrior's Damage Per Second with her primary weapon looks something like this: DPS=3+(1.05(average weapon damage(weapon skill+talent modifiers-debuffs(base coefficient*Attack Power*weapon speed)))

That looks very simple to me. Both in Math and in concept. Par for the course IME with MMORPGs.

To be honest, I think RD has failed to identify the draw of MMORPGs. It's not drawing tactical players (which is what he considers Power-Gamers), it's drawing those who enjoy kill & loot, and those who wish to by pass prep time (or can't always get a group together) and are willing to accept a lower quality rpg as a result.

Quote from: J ArcaneOne of the biggest innovations in World of Warcraft is the decision to make the lion's share of the game mechanics pretty transparent.

The computer does all the calculations, sure, but consideration of statistics and gear and talent builds is as big a thing in that game as it is in any tabletop game.

 Really?

 Yeah - but that computer can't pass me that bowl of pretzels on the table, make a bad pun to lighten the mood of the group, or give me  a back rub for a few minutes while the group takes a break for a few minutes.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarReally?

 Yeah - but that computer can't pass me that bowl of pretzels on the table, make a bad pun to lighten the mood of the group, or give me  a back rub for a few minutes while the group takes a break for a few minutes.


- Ed C.

You want to get one of those new fangled pretzel passing, pun making, back rubbing computers then! They're all the rage round here.

Quote from: One Horse TownYou want to get one of those new fangled pretzel passing, pun making, back rubbing computers then! They're all the rage round here.

Until they go mad and slaughter all the humans:

"But the rules say I'm entitled to a saving throw!"

"I'm sorry, but I can't allow that, Drew."

Quote from: J ArcaneOne of the biggest innovations in World of Warcraft is the decision to make the lion's share of the game mechanics pretty transparent.

The computer does all the calculations, sure, but consideration of statistics and gear and talent builds is as big a thing in that game as it is in any tabletop game.

Actually, I'm not sure it is open - its just that an awful lot of very clever people with to much time on their hands have spent time decoding it.

Quote from: DrewUntil they go mad and slaughter all the humans:

"But the rules say I'm entitled to a saving throw!"

"I'm sorry, but I can't allow that, Drew."

:D  No doubt singing "Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do..."

Seriously, I am shocked. Not by the change of opnion of Mr. Dancey (or it might not even be a change of opinion), but by his reasoning about his reasearch does not contradict the GNS. I seriously asked him about this and he pretty much doesn't see the contradiction here, but I do.

What is even more shocking his research was used as counterargument against GNS for years and the Forgies generally agreed on the contradiction because the feel the need to reject the research of Mr. Dancey. So what we have here is strange situation.

Some people think A is right and contradicts B
Other people think B si right and contradicts A
And Dancey thinks A and B doesn't contradict each other.

WTF?

Quote from: AlnagSeriously, I am shocked. Not by the change of opnion of Mr. Dancey (or it might not even be a change of opinion), but by his reasoning about his reasearch does not contradict the GNS. I seriously asked him about this and he pretty much doesn't see the contradiction here, but I do.

I don't really see the conflict with GNS, or rather I don't think it impacts Dancey's world view all that much.

At it's core, it's simple from his PoV. He sees (or imagines) a certain type of player leaving the rpg scene in favor of MMORPGs. Casting about for an response to this event assumes that MMORPGs will win over the power-gamers- and decides as a result that rpgs must become more Story focused to hold onto (let alone gain) players.

So happens that 'Story' style games (or GNS 'N') is basically the only thing the Forge does. So it all fits nicely.

It also all flows from that 'lost of Power-Games' assumption. Unless that's true, he's deluded himself and it all falls apart.

But like most things, GNS isn't really part of the matter.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't really see the conflict with GNS, or rather I don't think it impacts Dancey's world view all that much.

At it's core, it's simple from his PoV. He sees (or imagines) a certain type of player leaving the rpg scene in favor of MMORPGs. Casting about for an response to this event assumes that MMORPGs will win over the power-gamers- and decides as a result that rpgs must become more Story focused to hold onto (let alone gain) players.

So happens that 'Story' style games (or GNS 'N') is basically the only thing the Forge does. So it all fits nicely.

It also all flows from that 'lost of Power-Games' assumption. Unless that's true, he's deluded himself and it all falls apart.

But like most things, GNS isn't really part of the matter.

this is why it's nice to have you around again.  Did you get those essays back up outside of RPG.net? I mean, I have them saved on my computer, but others might like them...

Quote from: James J Skachthis is why it's nice to have you around again.  Did you get those essays back up outside of RPG.net? I mean, I have them saved on my computer, but others might like them...

They can be found here (under RPG Theory of all things) along with some HERO System and Classic Deadlands house rules that I use for my campaigns.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~b.gleichman/


My ISPs keep buying either other out and the link tends to change as a result. Stable for now... I hope.

Ryan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:

QuoteImagine that we are going to play a long series of sessions of the story of Star Wars (Episode IV).  (Imagine for the sake of argument that none of the players have ever seen Star Wars).

We have a main villain (Darth Vader), who has the goal "find the secret base of the Rebels and wipe them out".  We have a main hero (Leia), who has the goal "get the plans to the Death Star to the rebels in time for them to plan a defense against the weapon".

Imagine that we start the game in the Cantina.  There's some good roleplaying over the fare to Alderaan, then the "group" assembles; Luke, Ben, Han, Chewie, and the two droids.  From that point forward, the story takes a life of its own.

The rescue of Leia, battle between Ben & Vader, the escape from the Death Star, the Battle of Yavvin, and the resolution at the awards ceremony are all exciting, fun sessions driven by the goals of the characters.  It doesn't matter to the group if they all know that Darth Vader is out to get them, or that the Death Star can destroy a planet.  The fun of the story lies in the adventure.

So how does my theory on making a more fun RPG come into effect?

Let us imagine the scene where Ben & Vader face off.  Until this moment, Vader is a cardboard character; he's been off stage except for perhaps a scene with Leia & Tarkin when Alderaan is destroyed.  He has no real depth in the story -- he could just as easily be labeled "generic Villain".

Comes now the confrontation.  One player (playing Ben) decides to stand and fight, having perhaps tried and failed at several Jedi tricks to avoid the need for physical violence, or maybe even having used Jedi tricks to place himself where he needs to be to block Vader from reaching the landing bay in time to organize the Stormtroopers and keep the Falcon from departing.

Another player takes the role of Vader for the scene.  Since the goal is "tell a great story", and everyone wants to have fun, there's no reason NOT to do your best to make this encounter more than "roll some dice and see who wins".  So the player taking the role of Vader begins the dialog in the scene with a surprise to the other players:

"When last we met, I was the learner.  Now, I am the master!"

Suddenly, the ENTIRE STORY changes.  Suddenly, Vader is not some generic villian.  He INSTANTLY has back story - back story that REALLY MATTERS!  This guy, in black armor, who destroys worlds, this guy used to be associated with humble, gentle Ben Kenobi?  He was Ben's STUDENT?

Nothing mechanically has changed.  Nothing has even changed with the character of Ben Kenobi (he's clearly a teaching type person, he's teaching Luke at the story unfolds.  The idea that he might have had other students is not out of character.  The odds that one of those students "went bad" is very likely, and a great storyline element.  Nobody at the table objects to this storyline moment, and it becomes "real".

Now the battle between Ben & Vader has huge emotional impact.  They trade blows, and words, building from this initial moment.  Ben's player knows his goal has been accomplished when he sees the other members of the party break into the clear and run for the Falcon; he's done everything he set out to do - the tractor beam has been disabled, the princess has been rescued, and Vader has been delayed.

Now Ben's character says:

"If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine."

This statement has zero mechanical impact, but a lot of story impact.  The player taking the role of Vader considers his options:  I let him live, and I've got a fully trained Jedi Master on my hands.  Or I kill him, and finish something that's clearly been brewing between these two characters for a long time.  He decides to press his advantage.

An attack is made, but to his surprise, Ben's character refuses to defend, and is cut down.

Now Ben's character says "I use a Story Point to add a new rule. The new rule is "When a Jedi Master sacrifices his life to save another, his essence becomes a ghost who follows that person and can occasionally provide good counsel in times of great need.""  The group considers this a fine new rule, fully in keeping with everything that has been established about the mystical nature of the Force and the power the Jedi have over it.

Ben's character dies.  But his player announces:  "the robes, empty, fall to the floor, and Vader finds no solace in his victory."  Luke's character says "I shout "Ben! NOOOOO!".  Ben's character says "Luke, in his mind, hears my voice:  "Run Luke, RUN!", and he turns and races for the Falcon."

In this scene, the characters, without the need of a game master authority, added depth and richness to the world, including things that will likely have implications later in the story, and revealed surprises that none of them really knew were coming.  They changed the game rules on the fly to meet their needs, without requiring a lot of detailed pre-game design & development.  And their characters all took part in various actions that lead to a certain moment (the Falcon flies away) without a game master railroading them to that point.

Wouldn't this be more fun than the traditional RPG experience?

The storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

I would *love* for someone to prove me wrong -- please post (or send me) an .mp3 of a game session where the resulting story was so much better than what you'd expect from a traditional RPG that I'll be impressed like Ryan was.

Quote from: StuartRyan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:



The storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

I would *love* for someone to prove me wrong -- please post (or send me) an .mp3 of a game session where the resulting story was so much better than what you'd expect from a traditional RPG that I'll be impressed like Ryan was.

i agree with your main point and:
Personally I'd be a lot more impressed if it were an actual play session that turned into an awesome story as opposed to a pre existing story that has been mapped onto a  hypothetical play session. Furthermore, games might be intended to simulate stories, but what are stories meant to simulate, if not the actions and experiences of people? These actions and experiences may be completely unreal and impossible, as in the case of Star Wars, but there are still some correlations with reality that should remain in place. For instance, in the example above everybody finds out about Darth's past at the same time- Darth's player when he says it, Ben's player, and all the rest. The players in charge of Ben and Darth should have had this knowledge from the beginning, and the same goes for the "Jedi master ghost rule"- these things would impact PC decision making processes. After killing Ben and finding out he would turn into an annoying advice giving ghost for Luke, if I were playing Darth, I'd be like, "shit I wouldn't have killed him if I'd had even an inkling that was going to happen. Fuck this,  lets play Carwars." and considering Darth's back story, he should have had at least a possibility of having a clue. How does a GM work with shit like that? And as a player I'd feel rooked. Any decision I ever make could be screwed into invalididty by ANYONE else at the table, at pretty much any time, if it gives them storywood. ARRRGH. As a GM I wing it all the time, but I don't change fundamental facts about player characters or even significant NPCs- for the most part anyway, and were I to do so I wouldn't make that change if it invalidated previous PC decisions, and more likely than not I would clear it with the group first, regardless.
This creates a situation of false revelation- Luke did not know that Darth was his father, so when he found out it was real revelation. Ben should have known Darth was his student, so when he finds out midway through the campaign, it is false revelation, and fucks up every decision ben's made to date.
I doubt any of the above makes any sense, though. Whatever.

Quote from: StuartThe storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

It sounds like a session of Universalis.  At least in that game, you have a veto power.  Vader's player could spend a token to say, "Dude, that's lame."  (There's a bidding system.)

It makes sense, and I agree. :)

Here's my comment from Ryan's blog:

Quote from: StuartIt's easy enough to take a finished story (one that an author has spent a long time writing and revising) and imagine how a group of players could make all the right improvisational choices to end up with that story.

It's the same idea as infinite monkeys on infinite type-writers eventually producing Hamlet.  In practice, it's not likely to happen.  ;)

The storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

This is not a good thing for a broadly successful mass market game.

The interesting factoid:

Thematic Gaming´s "Story Now!" is not producing stories most people would like to hear.
There are other techniques needed for this, and they are shunned by the Forgers.

OMG!
Dancey doesn´t even know what GNS/tBM is about!
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3716695&postcount=321
No wonder he still thinks it´s a good thing.

Quote from: RD (from ENWorld)Finding a place where all 4 + the Basic Gamers respond strongly will be rare. But once found, you would have the blueprint for a game system that would likely be very competitive in the market.

I get his point.  The question is why does he think that now it's Story Games.  Seems to me this has been the very strength of D&D and games like it for the last, I don't know, 30 years?

You're right Sett - how does he combine this idea with GNS/tBM, wherein a game such as this would be "Inchoerent" and "Drifted" by players to serve their "Creative Agenda" - and if there are different "Creative Agendas"  at the table, conflict is likely to ensue - all of which is, to my understanding, the opposite of the conclusion to create games that are by design focused on a single "Creative Agenda" to avoid the possible conflict.

Quote from: StuartRyan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:

I'm thinking that Lucus used Ryan's method to write the prequels- with the result we saw on screen. Man those were terrible, but now we know why.


Besides, if I wanted that type of game I could do it with D&D as it stands. "Player suggests, others agree" has been a meta-game technique for decades. The only thing including mechanics on the subject does is a) limit your options as they are now governed by those mechanics, b) force you to take some option when the mechanics are invoked, and c) play to your marketing campaign for selling the game.

From a player PoV, C doesn't matter a whit to me while A and B certainly does.

Quote from: James J SkachYou're right Sett - how does he combine this idea with GNS/tBM, wherein a game such as this would be "Inchoerent" and "Drifted" by players to serve their "Creative Agenda" - and if there are different "Creative Agendas"  at the table, conflict is likely to ensue - all of which is, to my understanding, the opposite of the conclusion to create games that are by design focused on a single "Creative Agenda" to avoid the possible conflict.

He ignores it because he knows that part of the theory is crap. Or he ignores it because he didn't' read that far. Or he's incoherent himself :)

I'm wondering how much of this is driven by 4 edition, with it coming out under different names he'll soon drift into history much like those behind 2nd. That's got to be an ego blow.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm wondering how much of this is driven by 4 edition, with it coming out under different names he'll soon drift into history much like those behind 2nd. That's got to be an ego blow.

That´s it. If even the praised story-gamers smell that stinkin´ fish, and are suspicious of this new ally...

Quote from: gleichmanI'm wondering how much of this is driven by 4 edition, with it coming out under different names he'll soon drift into history much like those behind 2nd. That's got to be an ego blow.

You know, you're right: I can't remember any of the main designers on 2nd edition aside from "Zeb" Cook, and off the top of my head I can't think of anything important he's done since Planescape.

Quote from: StuartThe storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

Correct.  But there is another problem, as well.  If I'm playing Luke, or Han, or C-3PO, or R2-D2, or even Chewie, I don't want to have to play Darth Vader in his fight agains Ben.  I have other things on my mind.  Shooting Stormtroopers.  Firing up the Millenium Falcon.  Escaping the Death Star.  I don't want to have to get into Vader's head to fight Ben.

And with regard to, "Now Ben's character says 'I use a Story Point to add a new rule. The new rule is "When a Jedi Master sacrifices his life to save another, his essence becomes a ghost who follows that person and can occasionally provide good counsel in times of great need.'", suppose that, instead, the player said, "I use a Story Point to add a new rule. The new rule is "When a Jedi Master sacrifices his life to save another, he explodes, taking his opponent with him."  And suppose the group, in the heat of the moment, goes along with it.  OK.  So now what?  Vader dies during his duel with Ben?  Is that just as good?

Quote from: StuartRyan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:

(Wonderful Ben Kenobi/Darth Vader example snipped for brevity...)

I find it ironic that this example of storygame play is modeled after a situation with an obvious writer/director... dare I say it... GM controlling the overall flow of events. In fact, I would say this is example of play might more easily play out with a traditional RPG.

Let's work out Dancey's scenario a little differently:

QuoteLet us imagine the scene where Ben & Vader face off. Until this moment, Vader is a cardboard character; he's been off stage except for perhaps a scene with Leia & Tarkin when Alderaan is destroyed. He has no real depth in the story -- he could just as easily be labeled "generic Villain".

However, unbeknownst to the rest of the players, Ben's player and I were chatting about the game in between sessions. In these discussions (which I try to have every week to get an idea about how the game is going and where the players want to see it go), Ben's player is a little dissatisfied with his character and he wants to create a new one. Of course, this is fine, but since we are nearing the climax of the current arc where the PCs valiantly escape the Death Star, I tell Ben's player that we can't just switch him out right away and suggest that we find a better, more interesting reason for him to leave.

Ben's player suggests a cool death and I agree. Not only would that be a cool moment, but would give me a way to confirm that my uber-NPC, Vader is in fact, a nasty villain. Now, I don't want to railroad too much here. The other PCs will be engaged in a pitched battle themselves, but Ben will move to engage Vader, thus keeping him out of the way as the PCs escape.

Talking about the scene a little more, Ben's player and I decide to give Ben and Vader a little give and take before the battle and through that discussion, it comes out that perhaps Ben was Vader's master before he became evil. Cool... that gives me some interesting ideas on Vader's backstory, since Ben and Luke tied their backstories together in that Ben trained Luke's father before Vader killed him. Maybe I can work with that...

See, players have input into the plot and can insert unexpected elements, all within the context of a traditional RPG. And you know what? I'll bet my scenario is a heck of a lot more plausible than the one Dancey described.

(edited for clarity on a pronoun)

Quote from: StuartRyan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:

I don't need my D&D games to be anything like a movie, so no problem from my point of view.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  So now what?  Vader dies during his duel with Ben?  Is that just as good?

I'm a fan of anything that kills Vader.

More seriously, I don't think one can attack the concept based upon the likely quality of the result any more than one can attack D&D based upon the quality of it's tactical battles.

Sure some groups are likely to do better than others, and sure by some measures (my own for example) even the best D&D battles are tactically boring. Both statements miss the point that players will play what they enjoy at the level they enjoy it.

So, if Ben blowing up and taking Vader out is what that groups wants- so be it. We're in no place to judge unless we're forced to play in said group.

The only real question is if more people would like the story based option of hand waving Vader death to go down that way, or would prefer kicking his armored ass in an objective combat system instead. Dancey is betting on the former, and is breaking completely with D&D style rpgs as result.

Quote from: gleichmanMore seriously, I don't think one can attack the concept based upon the likely quality of the result any more than one can attack D&D based upon the quality of it's tactical battles.

I think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.  My point is that one cannot assume a Star Wars-like level of quality when players are making improvised decisions.  What we saw on the screen was not George Lucas' stream-of-consciousness first draft.  Why would we expect players to produce high-quality stories on the fly in one pass, when professional authors generally can't even do the same thing?

Quote from: gleichmanSo, if Ben blowing up and taking Vader out is what that groups wants- so be it. We're in no place to judge unless we're forced to play in said group.

There were two somewhat unrelated points I was trying to make, perhaps poorly.  

The first was that, having seen Star Wars, we know the dramatic possibilities in letting Darth Vader live, at least until the point where Han Solo blasts his fighter in the trench.  And having seen The Empire Strikes Back (regarded by many as the best o the Star Wars movies, though I disgree myself) and Return of the Jedi (for better or worse), there was other stuff for Darth Vader to do in the Star Wars saga.  If Vader dies when Ben explodes, there is no Vader vs. Luke chase in the trench, no fight on Bespin, no battle in the Emperor's throne room, etc.  I think that most people would find the straight-up story of Vader dying if Ben expodes to be far less satisfying than the trench scene that happened in the movie.  YMMV.

The second was the assumption that people would consider Ben exploding to be a pretty cheesy end to Vader and not very dramatically satisfying for the other players.  Sure a group might find that an entertaining development, but I could also imagine far more cheesy player decisions that would make everyone groan and, as Stuart pointed out, could make the game far more "gonzo".  Again, YMMV.

Quote from: gleichmanThe only real question is if more people would like the story based option of hand waving Vader death to go down that way, or would prefer kicking his armored ass in an objective combat system instead. Dancey is betting on the former, and is breaking completely with D&D style rpgs as result.

I also honestly can't imagine most players deciding to die the way Ben did.  He wasn't on the ropes or down to his last hit point.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.  My point is that one cannot assume a Star Wars-like level of quality when players are making improvised decisions.  What we saw on the screen was not George Lucas' stream-of-consciousness first draft.  Why would we expect players to produce high-quality stories on the fly in one pass, when professional authors generally can't even do the same thing?

Excellent point, and one that the storyteller advocates utterly fail to understand. Being disappointed that RPGs don't tell stories like Star Wars is like being disappointed that a tennis match doesn't produce a dance like Swan Lake.

Anyone who tries to tell a coherent, thematic story built on a traditional narrative structure using an RPG is doomed to be disappointed. A hundred gaming groups of the most sophisticated, literate, story-loving kind will never in a thousand gaming sessions tell a story half as good as Star Wars. When RPG games tell proper stories it's by accident. And even then, the incidental situations that crop up in the game are often more memorable than the stories themselves.

Quote from: HaffrungBeing disappointed that RPGs don't tell stories like Star Wars is like being disappointed that a tennis match doesn't produce a dance like the Swan Lake.

I might just have to sig that :haw:

Quote from: John MorrowI think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.  My point is that one cannot assume a Star Wars-like level of quality when players are making improvised decisions.  What we saw on the screen was not George Lucas' stream-of-consciousness first draft.  Why would we expect players to produce high-quality stories on the fly in one pass, when professional authors generally can't even do the same thing?

An excellent point, and one that is often forgotten by the "storytelling" crowd.  Real-life fiction has dozens of re-writes plus feedback from several people before it's finalized.

First drafts of screenplays are often horrible.  Star Wars went through several hideous drafts to get where it ended up.  And after the screenplay is finalized and the movie shot, then you get to the cutting room - where another several sets of changes are made.

It took an awful lot of people an awful lot of tries to get Star Wars to come out right (my issue with the prequels - it's obvious Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted, so the quality suffered from a lack of re-writes and re-edits).

I can pretty much guarantee you that a gaming group with people of questionable artistic talent coming up with random ideas on their own, trying to outdo each other, without any editing/revision process is not going to come within light years of the kind of quality you see in finished films/tv shows/fiction (and look how often many of those still turn up mediocre or bad).

Quote from: jgantsAn excellent point, and one that is often forgotten by the "storytelling" crowd.  Real-life fiction has dozens of re-writes plus feedback from several people before it's finalized.

First drafts of screenplays are often horrible.  Star Wars went through several hideous drafts to get where it ended up.  And after the screenplay is finalized and the movie shot, then you get to the cutting room - where another several sets of changes are made.

It took an awful lot of people an awful lot of tries to get Star Wars to come out right (my issue with the prequels - it's obvious Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted, so the quality suffered from a lack of re-writes and re-edits).

I can pretty much guarantee you that a gaming group with people of questionable artistic talent coming up with random ideas on their own, trying to outdo each other, without any editing/revision process is not going to come within light years of the kind of quality you see in finished films/tv shows/fiction (and look how often many of those still turn up mediocre or bad).

In fairness to the "storytelling crowd," they may be a subset of the population that, for whatever reason, can pull this off.  Perhaps the reason they do tend to play each others games and remain a kind of niche is because the rules, inherently, don't make the result a good story; but they are the right rules to help these particular small groups of folks who are good at storytelling in a game setting succeed in a way that traditional rules don't.

Maybe.

With which I would have no problem if the entire movement hadn't been born in the unfortunate way that it was....

Quote from: James J SkachIn fairness to the "storytelling crowd," they may be a subset of the population that, for whatever reason, can pull this off.  Perhaps the reason they do tend to play each others games and remain a kind of niche is because the rules, inherently, don't make the result a good story; but they are the right rules to help these particular small groups of folks who are good at storytelling in a game setting succeed in a way that traditional rules don't.

Which would bring us back to the idea that the quality of the game is dependent on the quality of the participants, not (or at least not as much as) the quality of the rules.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.

That's exactly what it was, a "sales pitch" in the exact same sense that "epic battles" and "fantasy adventure" was D&D's sale pitch. And I think about as true, i.e. only in the eyes of those who see it that way. I certainly never saw D&D 3.5 living up to any of its sale burbs. It still made money.


Talking about the quality of the resulting stories is a little like attacking TAG because girls aren't leaping upon anyone after its use. Sure you have a point, but it's a rather worthless one that should have been obvious to any viewer.

Instead the question is if Dancey is right about the changes in who's playing rpgs. And if so, well this new story-line marketing will attract players? And even more important- will it be able to keep them with whatever experience it actually delivers.

If Burning Wheel is the best that can currently be put forth, I'd have to say the answer is a solid no.

Quote from: gleichmanTalking about the quality of the resulting stories is a little like attacking TAG because girls aren't leaping upon anyone after its use. Sure you have a point, but it's a rather worthless one that should have been obvious to any viewer.

I've found that sometimes it helps to state the obvious because it's not obvious to everyone.  I get the impression that at least some people, if only Ryan Dancey himself, is drinking the Kool Aid that he's pitching and might actually believe it.

Quote from: John MorrowI've found that sometimes it helps to state the obvious because it's not obvious to everyone.  I get the impression that at least some people, if only Ryan Dancey himself, is drinking the Kool Aid that he's pitching and might actually believe it.

Perhaps, but if they're that foolish they're also likely foolish enough to believe that the trash they produce is true art- the Forge being a good case in point.

So for them, in a sad and sick way- the product will work.

Quote from: John MorrowI also honestly can't imagine most players deciding to die the way Ben did. He wasn't on the ropes or down to his last hit point.

I could, if the player fully understood the game world the way Ben did. Problem is, the approach suggested by Dancey requires the player to invent all that backstory in a split second, and then be able to enforce it so the dramatic impact isn't nullified by later improv.

I do agree with this

Quote from: gleichmanBoth statements miss the point that players will play what they enjoy at the level they enjoy it.

So, if Ben blowing up and taking Vader out is what that groups wants- so be it.

As long as the group says the outcome is okay, it's okay. But first of all, mechanics don't really ensure this: I've yet to see a Forge/Nar-type game which didn't have an escape clause one way or another that said: just because you spent the points (or whatever), that doesn't mean you can run roughshod over the preferences of the other players. Or in other words, trading narration authority around doesn't guarantee the game won't suck: the players need to be compatible.

Second, though related in a way, is that "cool from a story perspective" is going to have a lot of trouble winning out over most players' tendency to identify with their characters' interests, absent the prerequisites I outlined above. That is, either a solid backstory, or a guarantee that the improvised context for a player decision isn't going to be undercut later.

Ben deciding to sacrifice himself so that Luke can absorb his Force points, which is already defined in the rules: cool. Ben deciding to sacrifice himself because it's a cool idea, only to have the mechanics give narration rights next scene to some doofus who declares that the Millenium Falcon gets blown up before the gang can board: crap (pretty much).

Quote from: John MorrowWhich would bring us back to the idea that the quality of the game is dependent on the quality of the participants, not (or at least not as much as) the quality of the rules.

Cheetoism (http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/FrontPage)! :p
   "We game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories.

"Rpg books are just a bunch of guidelines for how to tell your tall stories, and give you a fair excuse to roll lots of dice and eat cheetos. To make your games more fun, talk to your group."
Roleplaying is a social creative hobby. The two go together. Not all creations are works of genius, nor should expect them to be. The difference between George Lucas' cool story and my lame story is that my lame story is mine. Parents don't put their kids' finger-paintings on the fridge because it really is a brilliant piece of art, and we don't say "let me tell you about my character..." because it really is a brilliant and fascinating character.

And then there's the social, which comes first - otherwise we'd sit at home playing computer games and writing. All this rubbish about storytelling and computers misses that point, that it's a social hobby. I don't get that when I'm reading Dancey or Edwards or Settembrini or any of those guys. I don't get the sense that they're gaing with anyone whose company they enjoy. TonyLB comes across as a bit daft sometimes, but at least you get the sense that he's actually gaming with people, when he describes something you can actually imagine a game group with him, different people. You don't get that with these other guys.

You've twisted John's point, Kyle.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe you're just emphasizing the wrong parts of Cheetoism.

People,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Seconded!

It is?

How does it go?

With a limp.

Jesus, that was lightning fast.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Phew, I thought I was the only one thinking that....

New Update:  Time Out: Reflection (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Entries/2007/8/22_Time_Out%3A__Reflection.html)

Quote from: Ryan DanceyI'm not trashing 4th Edition here.  That's not my point.  My point is "identify where the strategy has gone wrong".  Keep that in mind as you read.

First, go to the D&D Insider website and read this article (registration required):

Fighting a Dragon in 4th Edition (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a)

Now, go to the WoWWikki, and read this description of the tactics for defeating Onyxia in a lair raid:

Onyxia (tactics) (http://www.wowwiki.com/Onyxia_%28tactics%29)

A bit of a change from the previous articles and directly poking holes at the new edition of D&D, rather than just evangelizing a new direction in tabletop games.  Interesting.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Excuse me for a moment, I'll just be over in the corner, dying inside.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

That it may be... but it's a better story than what you'll get from an improv tabletop game.  It's better because as the story progresses you discover the story the author has already created for you.  

Like I said earlier:

Quote from: StuartThe 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.

Star Wars, or any other finished story (good or bad), has vastly greater potential for mystery, puzzles, secrets, and suspense (and perhaps problem solving in so much as the viewer is trying to solve the mystery / puzzles) than what you'll find in an improv storytelling game.

When you watch Star Wars you discover that Darth Vader is Luke's father -- and it changes how you think about everything that's happened in the story so far.  You realize that you could have interpreted  things differently if you'd know about them ahead of time.  This is a powerful literary and film making technique -- if you've ever watched The Crying Game or a film by M. Night Shyamalan without knowing the "secret" you know what I mean. ;)

In an improv storytelling game you aren't discovering anything that changes your understanding of the story to that point -- it's simply something that's been arbitrarily added.

Edit:  A game example:

RPG
"If I'd only known there was a Grue behind that door my character never would have opened it!"

Storytelling Game
"I don't like that you decided to make a Grue behind the door when my character opened it."

Quote from: StuartRPG
"If I'd only known there was a Grue behind that door my character never would have opened it!"

Storytelling Game
"I don't like that you decided to make a Grue behind the door when my character opened it."

I understand that this distinction is at the core of the debate about so-called Narrativist Games (I think that's what the forge advocates call this).   There are pros and cons.  The pros to their approach has to do with the political effect of having shared ownership (as in "why should the GM be the only one allowed to control the back story?").  The political aspect is "Shared Power".  To some people this is very important, and even more important than whether or not the story is particularly good or whether or not they gain any surprises during the course of play.  Even these aspects though are not what I think of as the core of the converse style, which I think of as Traditionalist (but has been called GM Fiat, with derogatory intent).  The Con to the Narrativist Games are just as you say... I think they probably do mitigate surprise in the game, and reduce the possibility of puzzles, and mysteries.

The Traditionalist style of GM Story Ownership is simply a different game.  That's all.  It also has pros and cons.  The big Pro in my book is that as a Player you are exploring someone's World and having Adventures in it.  That's the main point to me.   You're not co-creating a story - you're exploring a World.  Narrativist Games don't really do that per se, though they may come with setting.  I think the breakdown works like this:

Narrativist Style:
Improv........|........................PreDefined

Traditional Style:
Improv........................|........PreDefined

Neither is all or nothing.  For example in Dogs in the Vineyard the GM does create back story for the towns, etc.   But during play the Stakes are defined by an interactive process that shapes quite a bit more than in the Traditionalist Game Style.   Or such is my impression having read the DitV Rules book, but not played the game.

The Cons, for me, of the Traditionalist style are directly proportional to its strengths.   You can get much more out of a World in the Traditionalist system, but it requires a GM who *has* a great World in mind.  Otherwise it's just dungeon crawling and that's fun but doesn't relate to how great the story is.   You can, yes, back into a "story" from dungeon crawling, but even if you wrote down the crawl, without more than just "We went to some dungeon and kicked in the first door on the first corridor and found ..." there's not *actually* much Story there.   On the other hand you have the possibility of much greater story in a Traditionalist Game in that the players don't know what's around the next corner, and do not have control over that aspect.  They can, however, have full control over what their characters decided to attempt.  

For me, the Traditionalist Pros outweigh its Cons only when the GM is a worthy World Weaver.   But these, as has been pointed out, are rare.   Does that mean that we should dump the game system?  Not in my opinion.  Or at least I would say that it is not "necessary" to do so.  What it means to me is that we should learn more about what makes a Great Story and learn to GM in such a way as to incorporate those concepts into our Worlds.   There's a lot to it, but that would be my preferred choice.  That's the big Con to the Traditionalist Style, imo.   Even so, I much prefer to make that work because as a Player I really do prefer to explore a Great World, so long as it is Great.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe big Pro in my book is that as a Player you are exploring someone's World and having Adventures in it.

I think that Traditional RPGs are fundamentally about Exploration, whereas Storytelling games are about Building.

There's room for both types of games, and they can both can be highly enjoyable.  They're different types of game though, and I believe that ignoring this point is a serious mistake in tabletop game design.

Quote from: jrientsExcuse me for a moment, I'll just be over in the corner, dying inside.

I LOVE Star Wars. But definitely not for the story.
I get strong emotions when watching Star Wars.
But not from the story.

The grand universe, the escapism, the special effects that are invisible, the characters, the real look and feel of it all...etc. ad nauseam.

Star Wars has so many, many things going for it. But the story isn´t one. All the cringeworthy SW moments are exposition moments.

Star Wars in it´s original form is a major cultural achievement, because it used techniques in filmmaking that lets us overlook the utterly ridicolous story and totally cliched introspective moments.

You were there, when you watched these movies. You were in that Galaxy far, far away. That´s the magic. Not Luke´s heritage. If anything, the whole Campbellian shit is working against Star Wars.

In short: Star Wars is cool, it´s emotion. Emotion through props, sets, costumes, music etc.

If it looses the cool, and the Campbellian story remains, you get the prequels.

Fuck the story.
Star Wars is a true Space OPERA.

And like in an opera, you don´t need to know fuck about the story to be taken away by it´s upsurge of emotions. Short of the voice of James Earl Jones, which is actually a prop or special effect upon it´s own, you don´t even need to understand what the characters are saying.

Great post, VBWyrde.

However...

Quote from: VBWyrdeFor me, the Traditionalist Pros outweigh its Cons only when the GM is a worthy World Weaver.   But these, as has been pointed out, are rare.  

Rarer than getting four of five people together who are all creative, imaginative, and cooperative enough to generate a enjoyable shared narrative?

Quote from: HaffrungGreat post, VBWyrde.

However...

Rarer than getting four of five people together who are all creative, imaginative, and cooperative enough to generate a enjoyable shared narrative?

Thanks Haffrung.  Well, I'd estimate it would be four or five times as rare, roughly speaking. The issues here is that Great Story must come from within the person.  The number of people who truly have Great Story is relatively small.   Thus, the odds of getting Great Story from a group is less than, not greater than, from an Individual.  That said, I still maintain that 1) those cases of Great Story individuals is comparatively rare.   2) It is not an impossible goal, but lacking an intuitive grasp of the topic (which is obviously preferred), it just requires a focus on studying What makes Great Story, and reading a lot of Great Stories until the GM gets the hang of it.  There are also matters of GMing technique (how to create dynamic dramatic tension in-game, etc) which is part of the picture, but not the entire picture.   Like I said, it's not that it's easy... but I think it is worthwhile - when done well.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe Traditionalist style of GM Story Ownership is simply a different game.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but this line renders the remainder of your post moot.

If this is your view of the "Traditionalist Style," then we have a fundamental difference that can't be bridged.

Especially, since it´s wrong.

Quote from: James J SkachSorry to rain on the parade,

"Rein," James.

REIN

"Rein in the parade."

"Parade" not as in fucking Macy's.

"Parade" as in Spanish Riding School.

Dressage, James. Dressage.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity"Rein," James.

REIN

"Rein in the parade."

"Parade" not as in fucking Macy's.

"Parade" as in Spanish Riding School.

Dressage, James. Dressage.

Slow your roll there pilgrim! Popular usage may not be everyones favorite, but it happens. I mean the only time "gay" means happy or festive anymore is in the Chrismas carol Deck the Halls

Thought that is a neat little tidbit I'm sure I'll remember instead of something useful.

"Rein," James.

Mark REIN·Hagen

:haw:

:haw:

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity"Rein," James.

REIN

"Rein in the parade."

"Parade" not as in fucking Macy's.

"Parade" as in Spanish Riding School.

Dressage, James. Dressage.

Thanks for pissing in my cheerios, bro.

Interesting...I was unaware that it was a reference to reining something in..thanks for the information!

But my point remains...

Or is it remeins...

I think your legge are being pooled. (From the Old English practical joke of throwing a person's "legge", or breeches, into a lake.)

Quote from: SettembriniEspecially, since it´s wrong.

More like confused.

a) Because it mixes up "story ownership" with "backstory ownership".
b) Because it mixes up two different "Traditionals". One where the GM owns the backstory, but not the story (situational GMing, e.g. the Braunsteinian factional setup, or the slightly later location crawl), and one where the GM owns both the backstory and the story ("storytelling GMing" of the Dragonlance variety).

Further confusing matters is that some Forgist Nar games (e.g. Sorcerer) arguably give shared backstory ownership in the setup without necessarily giving full-on shared rights to improvise additional backstory during play. But that tends to be overlooked, especially as the pure impro types took the ball of "player empowerment" and ran with it right out of RPG-land and straight into collaborative storytelling land--where Dancey's now planting his flag.

Quote from: SettembriniI checked out the mirror-thread to this one on Storygames. Seems even those who have "story" in their name are baffled/offended by Dancey´s muddled salad of buzzwords.

The discussions there on this and on 4e generally are both good IMO, not at all what I had expected.

For those who don't like SG, they are buzzed about 4e and quizzical about Dancey.

For those who are, they're good threads even if you're not into the games those guys are (which generally now I'm not so much).

Quote from: SettembriniI LOVE Star Wars. But definitely not for the story.
I get strong emotions when watching Star Wars.
But not from the story.

The grand universe, the escapism, the special effects that are invisible, the characters, the real look and feel of it all...etc. ad nauseam.

Star Wars has so many, many things going for it. But the story isn´t one. All the cringeworthy SW moments are exposition moments.

Star Wars in it´s original form is a major cultural achievement, because it used techniques in filmmaking that lets us overlook the utterly ridicolous story and totally cliched introspective moments.

You were there, when you watched these movies. You were in that Galaxy far, far away. That´s the magic. Not Luke´s heritage. If anything, the whole Campbellian shit is working against Star Wars.

In short: Star Wars is cool, it´s emotion. Emotion through props, sets, costumes, music etc.

If it looses the cool, and the Campbellian story remains, you get the prequels.

Fuck the story.
Star Wars is a true Space OPERA.

And like in an opera, you don´t need to know fuck about the story to be taken away by it´s upsurge of emotions. Short of the voice of James Earl Jones, which is actually a prop or special effect upon it´s own, you don´t even need to understand what the characters are saying.

Perfect post, Sett! Perfect!

-clash

Quote from: VBWyrdeRegarding my previous statement: The Traditionalist style of GM Story Ownership is simply a different game.

Quote from: James J SkachSorry to rain on the parade, but this line renders the remainder of your post moot.

If this is your view of the "Traditionalist Style," then we have a fundamental difference that can't be bridged.

Ok well I guess I was waxing rhetorical there.   What I mean is that Traditionalist games are significantly different than Narrativist.  

Yet even to say that seems fraught with RPG Theory Peril.  One problem that I have is that RPG Theory has gotten sufficiently complex to render almost any discussion moot... no matter what you say, unless willing to write a full Doctoral Thesis with footnotes, bibliographies and caveats, is open to somebody coming along and saying "Um... no dude, that really doesn't jive with XYZ of Theory NPQ.  So that renders your point ... etc".  

I like to speak in generalities so that the discussion can be understood by those who are not Theory Mavens... ie - ordinary GM folk like me who just GM and aren't taking RPG Theory as a doctorate.  

I realise some will take this statement as hyperbolic, but I'm just struggling to make a pretty simple point:  Traditionalist Games differ from Narrativist Games (with exceptions, yes) in certain ways, and each has pros and cons, with a brief outline as to what I think those pros and cons are essentially about.   I hope at least some people got what I was saying and said "yeah... that kind of does make some sense".

Quote from: VBWyrdeOk well I guess I was waxing rhetorical there.   What I mean is that Traditionalist games are significantly different than Narrativist.  

Yet even to say that seems fraught with RPG Theory Peril.  One problem that I have is that RPG Theory has gotten sufficiently complex to render almost any discussion moot... no matter what you say, unless willing to write a full Doctoral Thesis with footnotes, bibliographies and caveats, is open to somebody coming along and saying "Um... no dude, that really doesn't jive with XYZ of Theory NPQ.  So that renders your point ... etc".  

I like to speak in generalities so that the discussion can be understood by those who are not Theory Mavens... ie - ordinary GM folk like me who just GM and aren't taking RPG Theory as a doctorate.  

I realise some will take this statement as hyperbolic, but I'm just struggling to make a pretty simple point:  Traditionalist Games differ from Narrativist Games (with exceptions, yes) in certain ways, and each has pros and cons, with a brief outline as to what I think those pros and cons are essentially about.   I hope at least some people got what I was saying and said "yeah... that kind of does make some sense".

The problem is not that you need a doctoral thesis or whatever.

The problem is, specifically the fact that you, with a slight turn of an almost off hand phrase, equate Traditionalist Style with GM Story Ownership. If you base your idea on how they differ on that equation, the remainder is suspect.

Now are they different?  We can agree on that, at least.

For what it's worth, where you go off the rails is in your second post where you suggest that "traditionalist GMs" need to be good at making a Great Story.

In the "storytelling mode" of "tradiitonalist" GMing...yes.

In the older "traditionalist" branch...no, and it's not even desired.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor what it's worth, where you go off the rails is in your second post where you suggest that "traditionalist GMs" need to be good at making a Great Story.

In the "storytelling mode" of "tradiitonalist" GMing...yes.

In the older "traditionalist" branch...no, and it's not even desired.

Ok well that's at least clear.  However, I would argue that Great Story was desired from D&D e1 forward.   At least it was for me.  

Perhaps the problem is not that the Theory is complex, but that the game itself is complex, which has resulted in complex Theory.   Hmmm... well I guess I'll head back to my underground laboratory and continue my plodding.

Quote from: James J SkachThe problem is not that you need a doctoral thesis or whatever.

The problem is, specifically the fact that you, with a slight turn of an almost off hand phrase, equate Traditionalist Style with GM Story Ownership. If you base your idea on how they differ on that equation, the remainder is suspect.

Now are they different?  We can agree on that, at least.

Hmmm... Maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of "GM Story Ownership" in this context then.   To my mind the Traditionalist mode of the game was for the GM to have Ownership over the Backstory (history, politics, NPCs, etc) while the Players have control over the decisions of the protagonists, and therefore drive the plot, with the GM responding via the NPCs.  Is that not the Traditionalist mode, or do I have "GM Story Ownership" wrong?   (I suspect now, its the latter).

Quote from: VBWyrdeHmmm... Maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of "GM Story Ownership" in this context then.   To my mind the Traditionalist mode of the game was for the GM to have Ownership over the Backstory (history, politics, NPCs, etc) while the Players have control over the decisions of the protagonists, and therefore drive the plot, with the GM responding via the NPCs.  Is that not the Traditionalist mode, or do I have "GM Story Ownership" wrong?   (I suspect now, its the latter).

Look to Elliots post on the difference between owning the backstory (and hell, even "ownership" was a stretch in some games I played in), and "Story Ownership."

The former, I would agree, is probably what could be termed "Traditionalist." The latter is a view of it gained through bad experiences with Railroading GM's. How can the GM own the story if the characters, as you put it, "have control over the protagonists, and therefore drive the plot"?

Ironically, I think to a large extent, we see things the same way.  But I'm so damn careful about how things are said because it can lead to horrible misinterpretation.

Quote from: James J SkachLook to Elliots post on the difference between owning the backstory (and hell, even "ownership" was a stretch in some games I played in), and "Story Ownership."

The former, I would agree, is probably what could be termed "Traditionalist." The latter is a view of it gained through bad experiences with Railroading GM's. How can the GM own the story if the characters, as you put it, "have control over the protagonists, and therefore drive the plot"?

Ironically, I think to a large extent, we see things the same way.  But I'm so damn careful about how things are said because it can lead to horrible misinterpretation.

Thank you for the clarification.  Yes, part of my own problem is my unfamiliarity with the current state of terminology.   I assume, erroneously, that when I phrase something such as "Backstory Ownership" that people will understand what I mean and accept my use of the phrase.   That however is not the case.   I have been trying to bone up on terminology lately, but I'm afraid that is not as quick and easy a process as I had expected.  Hence, my hyperbolic frustration with RPG Theory.   As for Elliots post on the difference between owning the backstory (and hell, even "ownership" was a stretch in some games I played in), and "Story Ownership." ... I will look for it and read it carefully.   Edit:  Do you mean  #238 in this thread, or another one?   Thank you.

Yes, we're back in agreement, VBWyrde.

It's not that old school "situational" play is against great stories, just that it wasn't seen as the GM's job to provide the story. Instead you had the GM providing a situation (like a dungeon or a multisided political wrangle) that would be designed to produce interesting play from moment to moment, without needing to shepherd the players (past initial buy-in) or engage in behind the scenes manipulation.

What causes confusion is that, frankly, a lot of people think this "situational" approach is new, and then they confound this approach, where the GM doesn't try to steer the story, with a new approach, where the players collaboratively steer the story in a manner similar to a group of "storytelling GMs".

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, we're back in agreement, VBWyrde.

It's not that old school "situational" play is against great stories, just that it wasn't seen as the GM's job to provide the story. Instead you had the GM providing a situation (like a dungeon or a multisided political wrangle) that would be designed to produce interesting play from moment to moment, without needing to shepherd the players (past initial buy-in) or engage in behind the scenes manipulation.

What causes confusion is that, frankly, a lot of people think this "situational" approach is new, and then they confound this approach, where the GM doesn't try to steer the story, with a new approach, where the players collaboratively steer the story in a manner similar to a group of "storytelling GMs".

I consider the bolded part one of the top F'd up misconceptions held by the story-gamers.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, we're back in agreement, VBWyrde.

It's not that old school "situational" play is against great stories, just that it wasn't seen as the GM's job to provide the story. Instead you had the GM providing a situation (like a dungeon or a multisided political wrangle) that would be designed to produce interesting play from moment to moment, without needing to shepherd the players (past initial buy-in) or engage in behind the scenes manipulation.

What causes confusion is that, frankly, a lot of people think this "situational" approach is new, and then they confound this approach, where the GM doesn't try to steer the story, with a new approach, where the players collaboratively steer the story in a manner similar to a group of "storytelling GMs".

Ok, I'm on board with that.  The thing is that waaaaaay back in 1978 when I got starting GMing, the story aspect loomed large in my own mind.  I got the original D&D e1 rules book and home brewed my own rules from there.  But the intent in my game has always been to produce Great Story, mostly because I got into this via a few Great Story Gamesmasters, and having just read Tolkien and Terry Brooks.   So I think that for me, while the Game Aspect was clearly important, the Story Aspect has always been equally important, if not moreso.   So I created Dungeons and Ruins, and Castles just like you say.   But I also populated them with complex Characters (NPCs) with grand schemes, motives, alliances, and enemies, and provided a BackStory that (in my mind) made sense and was interesting.   I always felt that a Dungeon without something going on behind it was what we in those days called the Monty Hall Syndrome.   I think you probably have encountered the term, which simply means, a Dungeon Crawl  to Door #1, or Door #2, or Door #3, Bash - Crash - and Get the Treasure.   That, of course, is fun, but I always fancied a bigger picture behind it all.   With the Worlds I was lucky enough to play in, we got that.  So to me it's an essential aspect of the game, though I understand for others it may be secondary.

So 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.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerProblem: What the majority of gamers want is for D&D to play more like WOW.

Ah, but thats roleplayers NOW, who are simply people who should be playing WoW but have a strange nostalgia for PnP roleplaying. These people will eventually get with the program. Or die. Whichever comes first.

The roleplayers of the future, who will consist of hot chicks and people who snowboard and drift race, will like this sort of thing, as it is what roleplaying can do that WoW can't.

And they will do it online. On something like facebook. Or so I hear. I'm still only in to forums.

Anyway, video games are dying out in favour of internet serfing anyway (or so an article in the guardian tells me):

QuoteForget the 20-something man playing online fantasy football and selling motorbike parts on eBay. The internet has a new user.
For years cyberspace has been tailored to an audience of mainly young men but for the first time women webusers have taken the lead in key age groups. At the same time an army of silver surfers has emerged and the over 65s are spending more hours online than any other age group.

The latest snapshot of Britain's communications market by regulator Ofcom turns the established assumptions about web users upside down. It also shows all of us spending more time online and on our mobiles than ever before.
Watching television, surfing the web, making phone calls and listening to the radio now take up an average 50 hours a week. While TV watching, radio listening and home phone use have all fallen since 2002, our daily minutes on the web have doubled.

The UK has the most active internet population in Europe thanks to widely available broadband connections that are getting cheaper every year.

The boom in web use is nothing new. But what website owners such as newspapers, TV companies and travel agents have to get to grips with is a new type of surfer.

One significant trend that stands out is an apparent feminisation of the internet. "Ever since it kicked off in the early 90s the web has been male-dominated. For the first time this year women are spending more time on the internet than men," says Peter Phillips, strategy and market developments partner at Ofcom, referring to web users in the 25 to 49 age bracket. "It's a big shift and has implications for the kind of content that content providers want to have on the internet."

Among 25- to 34-year-olds, women now spend more time using the internet than men, according to the Ofcom report published today. Although men account for the majority of web time in most other age groups, women have also taken a slight but significant lead in the 35-49 bracket.

Ofcom's researchers put the changing pattern partly down to young women finding more sites online that are relevant to them.

"Women in that age group are also more likely to be at home and have more time to spend online," says the watchdog's director of research, James Thickett.

In the teenage bracket, a growing female presence online is being driven by the emergence of new sites specifically tailored to teenage girls. Perhaps unsurprisingly, some of these surfers' favourite destinations are social networking sites where they can extend the school day's gossip sessions late into the evening at home.

Indeed, the social networking phenomenon Bebo is taking up more of UK surfers' time than any other website barring the auction site eBay.

Ofcom's research proves it is easier than ever for children to conduct large portions of their life online. Almost one in six 13- to 15-year-olds now have their own webcam, for example. Mobile phones are even more widespread, 75% of 11-year-olds have one as well as their own TV and games console.

Much has been made of the trend among children to use various media simultaneously, such as browsing the web while watching TV. But for all the multitasking, their growing take-up of mobile phones and the web, where they spend an average two hours a day, still comes at the expense of older media. Playing on computer games and watching DVDs have both fallen.

Radio has been hardest hit. The proportion of 8- to 15-year-olds listening has halved to just 20% over the last two years. Luckily for broadcasters, there is still one age group listening to more radio. The over-55s are listening to 5.5% more than five years ago. But more striking is the older age-group's take-up of newer media.

One in six over-65s uses the web, particularly in search of news and local information. Pensioners have predictably come late to the internet just as they did to mobile phones and digital TV. But once online, they make use of their retirement to spend longer surfing than anyone else. Their 42 hours online every month dwarfs the 25 hours teenagers spend on the web.

Again the changing audience brings new challenges for website owners, who had grown accustomed to a younger user.

Key trends
· Britons are the most active web users in Europe and spend an average 36 minutes each online every day, up from 14 minutes in 2002.
· Three-quarters of 11 year-olds have their own TV, games console and mobile.
· Two-thirds of children do not believe they could easily live without a mobile and the internet.
· Some 15% of UK households have a digital video recorder and 78% use it to fast-forward through adverts.
· Some 16% of over-65s use the web. They surf for 42 hours every month, more than any other age group. One quarter of UK web users are over 50.
· Two-thirds of phone owners use its alarm function instead of a clock.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI always felt that a Dungeon without something going on behind it was what we in those days called the Monty Hall Syndrome.

That's interesting.  For us it didn't refer to the presence or lack of back story at all.  We (around '83) used "Monty Hall" to refer to a dungeon that provided excessive amounts of treasure and magic items compared to the challenge.  Walk into the first room in the dungeon, open the chest and there is 10,000 gp and a +5 sword.

Quote from: VBWyrdeOk, I'm on board with that.  The thing is that waaaaaay back in 1978 when I got starting GMing, the story aspect loomed large in my own mind.  I got the original D&D e1 rules book and home brewed my own rules from there.  But the intent in my game has always been to produce Great Story, mostly because I got into this via a few Great Story Gamesmasters, and having just read Tolkien and Terry Brooks.   So I think that for me, while the Game Aspect was clearly important, the Story Aspect has always been equally important, if not moreso.   So I created Dungeons and Ruins, and Castles just like you say.   But I also populated them with complex Characters (NPCs) with grand schemes, motives, alliances, and enemies, and provided a BackStory that (in my mind) made sense and was interesting.   I always felt that a Dungeon without something going on behind it was what we in those days called the Monty Hall Syndrome.   I think you probably have encountered the term, which simply means, a Dungeon Crawl  to Door #1, or Door #2, or Door #3, Bash - Crash - and Get the Treasure.   That, of course, is fun, but I always fancied a bigger picture behind it all.   With the Worlds I was lucky enough to play in, we got that.  So to me it's an essential aspect of the game, though I understand for others it may be secondary.

The story looming in your mind, and Story Ownership are two very different things.  And 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.

This 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).

And 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.

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.

There 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.

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.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6959) 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.

Quote from: BradfordWhat 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.

What does WoW do for people who like to DM?

Quote from: jrientsWhat does WoW do for people who like to DM?

Fuck all.  You've got to go over to Ryzom and NWN for that.

And I thought Stormreach was the D&D attempt at Warcraft.

Looks like I was wrong. 4E is actually a stealthed MMO that comes in tabletop form...

*sigh*

How about new alien/fantasy species, odd ball things like amphibious intelligent squids and such.

What about using the rules for an entirely different genre?

What about mixing and matching rules from other games?

How about hosting your own world for just you and your friends?

How about not having invisible walls where there is stuff you can see but can't go to because it has not been developed yet, or never will be?

I think WOW is neat, maybe even great, but it isn't the same.

Better? Not to me.

Quote from: BradfordAnyone that claims that MMOs aren't social hasn't been in an active guild...

Overall, you make a strong argument, Brad.  However, VoIP through the game interface with other players is not really a great substitute for sitting with your friends in the same room over pizza, for me.  To me social means actually interacting with your friends on a social level, not just about "The Game", but about life, and OOC laughs, and just plain being able to see peoples faces and reactions to stuff as the game is being played.  To me it is part of what makes P&P RPGs an enjoyable experience.   Different strokes...

Does remind me of ... South Park Does WoW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLHreFYDQnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAmZ93W2b7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1ctWlFD-FQ
:haw:

Anyway, the P&P RPG is intrinsically more flexible than WoW.  While it's true that you have certain limitations imposed by RPG rules, those are often flexibly applied during a game, and can be adapted spontaneously during play when necessary.  You can't do this at all with WoW.  

Other than that your argument is fairly persuasive, but not entirely.  I think you're missing some essential differences between what P&P RPGs offer vs. MMORPGs in terms of quality of experience.  I'm not saying one is "better" than the other.  But I do think they are fundamentally different activities.   The Virtual Tabletop concept is a step in the direction of WoW, however it is taking a different space, which is not MMORPG though there are intersection points and overlapping attributes.  

What all this makes me wonder, though, is if there are any available Marketing Statistics that show whether or not Middle and High School age kids are picking up on P&P RPGs, or is the next generation of Players pretty much only focused on MMORPGs?   I think that would have a large bearing on the future prospects of P&P RPGs, practically speaking.   Unless there is a new generation of P&P RPG Players I find little reason to believe that the hobby will thrive indefinitely, unless they change substantially to attract the new generation of Players.   Virtual Tabletop RPGs reflect that change, I think, and may be key to bringing new players into RPGing.

Quote from: VBWyrdeOverall, you make a strong argument, Brad.  However, VoIP through the game interface with other players is not really a great substitute for sitting with your friends in the same room over pizza, for me.  To me social means actually interacting with your friends on a social level, not just about "The Game", but about life, and OOC laughs, and just plain being able to see peoples faces and reactions to stuff as the game is being played.  To me it is part of what makes P&P RPGs an enjoyable experience.   Different strokes...

Pretty much. I mean I have plenty of fun with WoW the one or two times a week my friend Josh and I play it together, but every Saturday we and our friends still get together and play whatever RPG is being run for 5 hours or so, and I'll tell you I'd easily trade the former for the latter, because I'd much rather make up new fun shit with my friends face to face than work the pretty fun but same old shit from WoW.  Kinda the same way a sit-down family meal is considered to have better bonding potential than microwave pot pies in front of the telly.

Like Kyle has been harping on lately, RPGs are a creative and social activity, and if you ask me, the internet is an inferior medium for both the creative and the social when you compare it to the Real Life model.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerAnyone 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.

Brilliant post - even though I'm not familiar with WoW.  Why?  Because it's the first one I've seen argue this position and it's nice to see that perhaps the granted wisdom that WoW can't compete on the social level may not be so air tight.  Perhaps, like TT, it's a matter of with whom you play.

So here's my prediction.  Ready?  Drum Rolls? Bookmarks?

D&D 4.0 is a holding ground.  It's gauze on the wound that WoW put to D&D.  It's stopping the bleeding. And it's stalling for time until they can build a product that is better than WoW. They won't care if all of the grognard die in a huge explosion of mind power at the sheer incensed anger at D&D going on-line in 5th Edition - they'll have this kick-ass application where you can have a live DM if you choose, or play in a WoW-like system.  You'll have servers with people's homebrew campaigns next to servers running whatever WotC Living campaign that exists next to servers running WoW-like D&D run by a computer. the non-WoW-like games will be run by software you can buy (as the DM) and put on a WotC shared server - like this forum - and accesses (as a player) via custom front end, with all of the rules embedded and ready for XML (or whatever technology is used in 10 years) updates on demand, both of which will sell as a monthly subscription cost - probably in the $20-$30 range (which will include all of the Dungeon and Dragon content, fourms, tools, etc.). It will all be ready in 5-8 years - and 4.0 is just a holding ground to stop as much loss as possible and prepare the way.

phew...it take alot out of me to predict the future like that...I have to go get some rest while I work...

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerAnyone that claims that MMOs aren't social hasn't been in an active guild.

I have, a number of times. And yes they are social, but not in the same way and frankly, they are basically as loopy as any semi-random Internet grouping (say RPGNet or the Forge or... this place).

If anyone wishes to express the idea that they have a better or equal social enviroment online with MMORPGs as they do in their home with real life friends- I must express my wishes for improvement in their life. They seriously need new friends (who game of course).

Brian,

I know several people who use their WoW-experience as a means o finding real friends and spouses. I cannot see why this would be a form of inferiour socializing. I mean, how human-social centered can it get?
It depends on the guilds and the server, I´m sure. I played for four hours and thought it sucked as a game.
I firmly believe, though, that the social aspect is paramount in WoW.

We can raise our arrogant eyebrows to this (hah! they don´t have a life! look at these nerds, socializing over the internet!), but really, hooking up with lovers and friends over beer or at work isn´t that different, no?

Personally, I feel like I'm in no position to judge the customs and mating habits of this weird new generation of online gamers.  Our kind looks no less alien to the wargamers that beget us, after all.  I just know that, kindred spirits though they be, their scene ain't my scene.  It's that simple.  Every step D&D takes towards the new futuristic world of MMORLMNOPs takes it one step away from what I want out of the game.

Quote from: SettembriniI know several people who use their WoW-experience as a means o finding real friends and spouses.

I don't have a objection as such to meeting people online, and then meeting them in real life to form friendships or more.

But to skip meeting them offline at all? And to put them above all the people that you have met face-to-face? No, that's a sad life in motion.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerAnd 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.

This is a reasonably compelling argument, but I think it is wrong. I agree, that in many instances, on a campaign scale, the PC game is probably just as "open" as a tabletop game. After all, are you really able to "go anywhere" and "do anything" in your average tabletop game, or are you going to participate in the adventure your GM has worked on all week? And yet, for all of their sophistication, PC games just don't match the experience of tabletop games. Why is that?

PC games are limited by the minds of the designers at the time they are written. There is absolutely no freedom of player action besides that which is encoded into the engine. Even limiting ourselves to discussion combat options, PC games are found to be lacking. Can I overturn tables to provide cover from gunfire? Can I "strike to subdue"? Can I throw dirt in my opponent's face? Can I shoot the steam pipes directly behind the enemy's head? Can I use my phasing power to walk through a wall to escape combat?

Tabletop wins out at the encounter scale too. I once set up a small dungeon area where the PCs needed to get an object from a group of skeletons and their "king". I figured the place had once been an area where people prepared bodies for burial and thus there were vats of preservatives and other equipment. The king and his cohort were in another area and could not reach the morgue. When the PCs arrived at the big combat encounter, the skeletons quickly surrounded them and I had the king expound on how they were trespassing in the land of the dead and how he was going to eat their souls or some such nonsense. While doing so, I added some random color and described how the king was decaying and pieces of old flesh and bone were falling off of him.

So, instead of the PCs fighting, they offered to trade the morgue equipment and preservatives for their freedom and the widget. I was surprised and amused by this turn of events, and it made perfect sense, so it worked. A PC game could do this, but only if it were intended at design time. Computers don't deal well with surprises, even cool ones.

As for the campaign scale, as I said, I largely agree with you. Still, I have never, ever started a game session by telling my PCs, "You have been hired by the wizard Mongo and he has charged you with the important task of gathering 6 gray wolf hides..."

(edited because of accidental post)

Quote from: cmagounThis is a reasonably compelling argument, but I think it is wrong. I agree, that in many instances, on a campaign scale, the PC game is probably just as "open" as a tabletop game. After all, are you really able to "go anywhere" and "do anything" in your average tabletop game, or are you going to participate in the adventure your GM has worked on all week?

I have no idea how it works in your group, but in mine it's often a matter of the players stating where they are going next week- and then the GM works out of the detail of what's to found there. Sometimes the turn around time is far less than a week.

Try doing that in a MMORPG.

And try doing something that no one on the sever can ever do.

Quote from: cmagounThis is a reasonably compelling argument, but I think it is wrong. I agree, that in many instances, on a campaign scale, the PC game is probably just as "open" as a tabletop game. After all, are you really able to "go anywhere" and "do anything" in your average tabletop game, or are you going to participate in the adventure your GM has worked on all week?

That, I'd say, even depends on the GM and how prepared they are.  I know of some GMs where they spend a week on an adventure that's where you go.  I know others (myself included) who create a World of potential adventures and they know at least something about every direction you could head as a group or individual PC.  And they are able to spontaneously fill in the blanks as they go when necessary.  And usually the adventures relate directly to the PC group in some way (their history, or motives, or stray comments, funny asides, etc).   The difference being that in WoW it is not spontaneous, nor is it flexible, nor do you get that direct Player-GM-Story effect.  In P&P RPGs you could argue that the GM may not be flexible or spontaneous, in which case that particular GM is GMing his or her world more like a MMORPG, but the point is that in P&P you do have that capability.  In WoW you really don't.   Not yet anyway.  Maybe in the future, possibly.

Quote from: SettembriniBrian,

I know several people who use their WoW-experience as a means o finding real friends and spouses.

It seems to me there are two major differences between that and social networks and dating websites.

1. Friends: On WoW you meet people who by definition would rather socialize online than in RL. It's not a site to find social activities. It IS a social activity. Of sorts. This is also what distinguishes it from RPGs.

2. ChiXXors: What's the M/F ratio on WoW? 10 to 1? 50 to 1?

Quote from: gleichmanI have no idea how it works in your group, but in mine it's often a matter of the players stating where they are going next week- and then the GM works out of the detail of what's to found there. Sometimes the turn around time is far less than a week.

I pretty much work that way as well, Brian.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThat, I'd say, even depends on the GM and how prepared they are. I know of some GMs where they spend a week on an adventure that's where you go.  

Keep in mind guys, that I agree with the "tabletop games are infinitely more open than PC games" concept. Still, I have to admit, Bradford's comment struck me as having some truth to it: the knee-jerk reaction to PC vs. Tabletop is to invoke the wonders of the improvisational human GM as opposed to the fascist pre-programmed computer. Thinking about it, for many GMs, in many campaigns, Brad is probably correct, the human is not really THAT flexible. (Obviously, I think the human is much more flexible with regards to the other scales of tabletop gameplay.)

Quote from: VBWyrdeI know others (myself included) who create a World of potential adventures and they know at least something about every direction you could head as a group or individual PC. And they are able to spontaneously fill in the blanks as they go when necessary.

See, the MMO/PC developer does this already. Before they release the game, they populate the world with NPCs, dungeons, villages, adventure sites, oddities, etc. Thus, there is no need to spontaneously fill in the blanks as they go. The MMO is on a superficial level equivalent to some peoples' idea of a sandbox tabletop game -- the PCs can go anywhere, at any time, even to places that would kill them outright. There isn't one preplanned adventure for the week because all the adventure opportunities have been written and await the PCs to interact with them.

I think this is a pretty good point to be made in favor of the MMO.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAnd they are able to spontaneously fill in the blanks as they go when necessary. And usually the adventures relate directly to the PC group in some way (their history, or motives, or stray comments, funny asides, etc). The difference being that in WoW it is not spontaneous, nor is it flexible, nor do you get that direct Player-GM-Story effect.

This is, of course, where tabletop wins on the campaign level. Every group of players has a unique play experience every night of every campaign. The adventures play off of their characters' goals and desires. The news they hear includes snippets of other campaigns. Heck, my current campaign is taking a turn to where it looks like it is going to pick up where my last campaign left off because the players want it to... even though that was not the original intent.

Quote from: cmagounThinking about it, for many GMs, in many campaigns, Brad is probably correct, the human is not really THAT flexible. (Obviously, I think the human is much more flexible with regards to the other scales of tabletop gameplay.)

That's likely why (with some other reasons) MMORPGs are more popular than PnP rpgs- and also why they have different markets. One appeals to those good at making up their own fantasy worlds, and the other appeals to those who don't need or want that.

However I'd like to point out that even in the non-flexible model Brad used as an example- there is still flexibility beyond any MMORPG.

Consider this article: http://movies.ign.com/articles/815/815454p1.html and imagine it applied to a G.I. Joe Online MMORPG.

Even a non-flexible GM and group has the ability to ignore switches in background like that. And this is often a major draw to PnP IME- to do the story right after the official owners created a train wreck. The Online version would be fixed by the owner to the 'new image', but a PnP version could be the cartoon from the 80s or even the serious version from the 60s.

I make huge use of this in my own rpgs. I run a re-imgained Marvel setting without all the crap that's happened in the comics. I've ran Star Trek without the politically correct coating (and tech nerfing) it got in TNG and later. I've ran my own version of Shadowrun where I gutted the background and replaced it with my own.

Online, I've played in EQ, Matrix Online, SWG, and LotRO- and done the same thing in the same places, with the same history as thousands of other players. It kills a night and it's fun. But it's no PnP RPG.

Quote from: gleichmanThat's likely why (with some other reasons) MMORPGs are more popular than PnP rpgs- and also why they have different markets. One appeals to those good at making up their own fantasy worlds, and the other appeals to those who don't need or want that.

Actually, I think the main reason MMORPGs are more popular than PnP RPGs is the same reason I always gripe when I see threads about "making PnP RPGs mainstream." Quite simply, the PnP RPG experience doesn't appeal to the vast majority of the mainstream and never will. Sitting around a table and playing "Let's Pretend" with minis and dice makes many people uncomfortable and just seems like an uninteresting waste of time to many others.

This ickiness transcends any attempt at redefining the hobby or making the perfect light game designed to draw in the non-gamer; it doesn't matter what color or shape you make the parachute, or how easy you make it to deploy, the experience of skydiving does not appeal to me.

MMOs manage to strip out the icky factor by being a video game that you play from the comfort and anonymity of your own home. At the same time, they grab a couple key points of the RPG experience (combat, character building) and add a whole glob of other addictive factors (you can play any time, randomized loot) to the mix.

Quote from: gleichmanHowever I'd like to point out that even in the non-flexible model Brad used as an example- there is still flexibility beyond any MMORPG.

Agreed.

Quote from: gleichmanI make huge use of this in my own rpgs. I run a re-imgained Marvel setting without all the crap that's happened in the comics. I've ran Star Trek without the politically correct coating (and tech nerfing) it got in TNG and later. I've ran my own version of Shadowrun where I gutted the background and replaced it with my own.

That sounds cool. I knew you did LoTR with Age of Heroes, but I did not know that you ran other customized "third party" settings.

Quote from: gleichmanOnline, I've played in EQ, Matrix Online, SWG, and LotRO- and done the same thing in the same places, with the same history as thousands of other players. It kills a night and it's fun. But it's no PnP RPG.

Frankly, I love the concept of MMOs. The idea of living the life of a hero in a fantastic world, all in a reactive, 3d environment appeals to me. Unfortunately, the current implementation falls way short of this idea and what you get is a repetitive, sorta-tactical combat game that falls short of the tabletop experience in all the important ways.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity2. ChiXXors: What's the M/F ratio on WoW? 10 to 1? 50 to 1?

There are legal statues that complicate getting reliable reports on that.  In real terms, Blizzard doesn't have to talk and there's no way to get verifiable counts from a third party.  The best information I can offer is strictly related to my main guild, which is about 55% female.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThere are legal statues that complicate getting reliable reports on that.  In real terms, Blizzard doesn't have to talk and there's no way to get verifiable counts from a third party.  The best information I can offer is strictly related to my main guild, which is about 55% female.

Hard numbers are difficult, but the online hobby is reported as a whole as being female 'light', although some games are markly different.

The lack of official numbers don't stop people from trying however, for example: http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001369.php gives the following for WoW:

The RL gender distribution is 84% male vs. 16% female.
The in-game gender distribution is 65% male vs. 35% female.

Quote from: cmagounActually, I think the main reason MMORPGs are more popular than PnP RPGs is the same reason I always gripe when I see threads about "making PnP RPGs mainstream." Quite simply, the PnP RPG experience doesn't appeal to the vast majority of the mainstream and never will. Sitting around a table and playing "Let's Pretend" with minis and dice makes many people uncomfortable and just seems like an uninteresting waste of time to many others.

I don't disagree with this although I'm uncertain about it being the *main reason*. Even if not the main one however, it certainly is an important one.

Quote from: gleichmanThe RL gender distribution is 84% male vs. 16% female.
The in-game gender distribution is 65% male vs. 35% female.

By my reckoning, that puts the creepy-dude-playing-a-female distribution at 19%. :raise:

Quote from: HaffrungBy my reckoning, that puts the creepy-dude-playing-a-female distribution at 19%. :raise:

Is that behavior necessarily creepy?  I've never done an MMO but it always occurred to me that if the same character was on my screen all the friggin' time then maybe I could see choosing a chick for my PC.

Quote from: jrientsIs that behavior necessarily creepy?  I've never done an MMO but it always occurred to me that if the same character was on my screen all the friggin' time then maybe I could see choosing a chick for my PC.

Most all of my Alliance side characters are chicks, because the human male is horrifyingly ugly, gnomes are creepy, and the Night elf male isn't much better.  The Dwarf is good though.  I like the dwarf.  

Now, that changes on Horde side, 'cause the guys there actualyl look badass.  Except maybe the Belf male.

Quote from: jrientsIs that behavior necessarily creepy?  I've never done an MMO but it always occurred to me that if the same character was on my screen all the friggin' time then maybe I could see choosing a chick for my PC.

There's disagreement on the subject without a doubt with some finding it creepy on the face of it and others (I would guess most here) not.

Myself, I find it a little creepy although I can to a degree understand a few counter arguments- i.e "watching a female backside running across the screen is more appealing" and the "ugly male characters" complaint. However I think it goes over edge when someone specifically misrepresents themselves which is often the case.

I wonder if the increasing use of voice clients is altering these stats any...

Quote from: jrientsIs that behavior necessarily creepy?  I've never done an MMO but it always occurred to me that if the same character was on my screen all the friggin' time then maybe I could see choosing a chick for my PC.

That was the exact reason cited by someone in my Rifts group for having his WoW character be female.

Quote from: jrientsIs that behavior necessarily creepy?

Dude I used to work with told me he was getting grief from his wife over how much he played Everquest. She really flipped when she found out he got 'married' in-game. Turns out the guy was playing a female character, which makes it even weirder. Oh, and he's a virulent homophobe.

To me, guys impersonating women on the internet is de facto creepy.

There's a difference between picking a female avatar, and actively impersonating a woman.

I see a lot of the former, and very little of the latter, save one snot-nosed little kid who would do it to get free stuff.

My guild knew full well I was a guy, and while a few people were initially surprised when they heard me over Teamspeak, no one really cared.

Quote from: J ArcaneMy guild knew full well I was a guy, and while a few people were initially surprised when they heard me over Teamspeak, no one really cared.

Or they kept it to themselves. I know I do because it's just not worth the drama.

I'd still think you're creepy however.

Quote from: gleichmanOr they kept it to themselves. I know I do because it's just not worth the drama.

I'd still think you're creepy however.

And I'd still think you were an idiot, and probably question your confidence in your sexuality.

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd I'd still think you were an idiot, and probably question your confidence in your sexuality.

Whatever. I'm just old fashioned, but you just proved how thinned skinned you are. And that's bad no matter the generation.

I mean really, so what if I think you're creepy. Get a life. Even the people I'm met on MMORPGs have more sense than you just displayed.

Quote from: gleichmanWhatever. I'm just old fashioned, but you just proved how thinned skinned you are. And that's bad no matter the generation.

I mean really, so what if I think you're creepy. Get a life. Even the people I'm met on MMORPGs have more sense than you just displayed.

I call people idiots when they're being idiots.  It has nothing to do with offense, it's just a statement of fact.  

You seemed to take offense pretty readily though.  My advice is to not be an idiot.

Quote from: gleichmanThat's likely why (with some other reasons) MMORPGs are more popular than PnP rpgs- and also why they have different markets. One appeals to those good at making up their own fantasy worlds, and the other appeals to those who don't need or want that.

However I'd like to point out that even in the non-flexible model Brad used as an example- there is still flexibility beyond any MMORPG.

While I agree that tabletop RPGs are more flexible than MMORPGs at present, and considering who produces them and why that's also to be true for the near future, I contend that this flexibility isn't as much of a virtue for gamers as it seems because that flexibility is really a selling point for the subset of tabletop gamers that run the show: the GMs.  Players neither need nor (as a group) want that flexibility, and they make up the majority of the gaming community; as shown by WOTC's offering over the run of v3.0, the place where the profits and the expansion resides is with them, and I think that the price to be paid for making this shift in emphasis is to reduce that flexibility to a significant degree.  (However, I still think that it will be more than what the MMO developers will allow for now.)

QuoteConsider this article: http://movies.ign.com/articles/815/815454p1.html and imagine it applied to a G.I. Joe Online MMORPG.

Even a non-flexible GM and group has the ability to ignore switches in background like that. And this is often a major draw to PnP IME- to do the story right after the official owners created a train wreck. The Online version would be fixed by the owner to the 'new image', but a PnP version could be the cartoon from the 80s or even the serious version from the 60s.

I make huge use of this in my own rpgs. I run a re-imgained Marvel setting without all the crap that's happened in the comics. I've ran Star Trek without the politically correct coating (and tech nerfing) it got in TNG and later. I've ran my own version of Shadowrun where I gutted the background and replaced it with my own.

Online, I've played in EQ, Matrix Online, SWG, and LotRO- and done the same thing in the same places, with the same history as thousands of other players. It kills a night and it's fun. But it's no PnP RPG.

While I can easily see the appeal to that approach, I can also easily see why I would not cater to it as a tabletop RPG publisher: it's a niche within a niche, too small to be profitable if I run a company that's large enough to actually get into print reliably and not just in the PDF ghetto, and certainly so if I'm actually getting my products into the book trade.  That is, as things are now.

Over at Livejournal, James Malizekski and I have had a few exchanges about this sort of thing.  Where I think he's dead-on is that, due to the very thing mentioned above about tabletop gaming fundamentally being unappealing to a mass audience, one of the best reactions to World of Warcraft and the upcoming D&D v4.0 is to recognize this fact and completely reorganize and reorient both the business of the hobby and the culture of the hobby around being a subculture of the overall gaming hobby.  

One of the lasting strengths of the tabletop RPG hobby is that it is directly responsible for creating the PC, console and MMORPG markets that remove whatever elements that make the tabletop version so alienating to the mainstream.  People that began their careers in this niche are now big names (with sustainable incomes that can actually raise families) there, like Warren Spector.  Intellectual properties that originated here have successfully migrated there, and to one or more media of genre fiction, especially those originated with TSR or WOTC.  As a farm league, a training ground, a genesis pit, the tabletop hobby more than justifies its existence by giving newbies a place to learn and grow before heading out to bigger and better adventures elsewhere: we've got a place as the Newbie Town of the Gaming World RLRPG, and I think there is both value and longevity in embracing it.

Quote from: J ArcaneI call people idiots when they're being idiots.  It has nothing to do with offense, it's just a statement of fact.  

You seemed to take offense pretty readily though.  My advice is to not be an idiot.

You read offense in my post? You're projecting.

Try that getting a life part.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerPlayers neither need nor (as a group) want that flexibility, and they make up the majority of the gaming community; as shown by WOTC's offering over the run of v3.0,

I have no idea where this comes from as it's completely alien to just about any D&D player I ever met.

Have you honestly never had players who set goals based upon background, and took your campaigns to areas you didn't forsee?

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerWhile I can easily see the appeal to that approach, I can also easily see why I would not cater to it as a tabletop RPG publisher

Even more confusing, nothing in my experiene or in the market place indicates that mindset.

Indeed, with the move to dropping adventure modules (which can't be had in may game lines and are the ultimate expression of GM rail-roading) and focus on core rules and splat books- the exact opposite seems to be the case to me. Increasing focus on player choice and decision as to rules, style, and place of adventure.

Note: I can't speak to 4.x as frankly I couldn't care less and haven't been following the rumors.

I'm sensing a Ron Edwards "but all the games I've been in sucks" vibe here...

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerWhile I agree that tabletop RPGs are more flexible than MMORPGs at present, and considering who produces them and why that's also to be true for the near future, I contend that this flexibility isn't as much of a virtue for gamers as it seems because that flexibility is really a selling point for the subset of tabletop gamers that run the show: the GMs.  Players neither need nor (as a group) want that flexibility, and they make up the majority of the gaming community;...

Totally do not understand how you can draw that conclusion from all that has been said so far.  Players are THE ONEs who benefit by flexability, not the GM.  For the GM in fact it is a big pain in the ass.  Its the Players who demand and WANT flexibility.   So ... please explain.   I don't get it.

Quote from: gleichmanYou read offense in my post? You're projecting.

Try that getting a life part.

Says the guy who swore he was leaving forever how many times again?

Quote from: gleichmanI mean really, so what if I think you're creepy. Get a life. Even the people I'm met on MMORPGs have more sense than you just displayed.

Gleichman - find a new fucking phrase. That one is stuck in the '80s. (maybe early 90s)


 Hell, Shatner himself has backpedaled on that one.

 The so-called Geeks or Nerds have taken over the world....and many of them have lives...and wives and even kids and decent jobs.

- Ed C.

All right children, let this old fart fill you in on a deep dark secret, "rain on my parade" comes from the Broadway musical, Funny Girl. It was also produced as a movie musical, one of the last of the really good ones. Don't Rain on My Parade is the signature song of Fanny Brice, played by Barbara Striesand in the movie. Fanny being a famous comedy star of the early 20th century. To rain on one's parade simple means to dump on one's happy times, one's celebration. Here are the lyrics to...

Don't Rain on My Parade

Don't tell me not to live,
Just sit and putter,
Life's candy and the sun's
A ball of butter.
Don't bring around a cloud
To rain on my parade.
Don't tell me not to fly--
I've simply got to.
If someone takes a spill,
It's me and not you.
Who told you you're allowed
To rain on my parade!
I'll march my band out,
I'll beat my drum,
And if I'm fanned out,
Your turn at bat, sir.
At least I didn't fake it.
Hat, sir, I guess I didn't make it!
But whether I'm the rose
Of sheer perfection,
Or freckle on the nose
Of life's complexion,
The cinder or the shiny apple of its eye,
I gotta fly once,
I gotta try once,
Only can die once, right, sir?
Ooh, life is juicy,
Juicy, and you'll see
I'm gonna have my bite, sir!
Get ready for me, love,
'Cause I'm a "comer,"
I simply gotta march,
My heart's a drummer.
Don't bring around a cloud
To rain on my parade!
I'm gonna live and live now,
Get what I want--I know how,
One roll for the whole shebang,
One throw, that bell will go clang,
Eye on the target--and wham--
One shot, one gun shot, and bam--
Hey, Mister Arnstein, here I am!

I'll march my band out,
I will beat my drum,
And if I'm fanned out,
Your turn at bat, sir,
At least I didn't fake it.
Hat, sir, I guess I didn't make it.
Get ready for me, love,
'Cause I'm a "comer,"
I simply gotta march,
My heart's a drummer.
Nobody, no, nobody
Is gonna rain on my parade!

Where I found the lyrcis. (http://www.absolutelyrics.com/lyrics/view/barbra_streisand/don%27t_rain_on_my_parade/)

Quote from: J ArcaneSays the guy who swore he was leaving forever how many times again?

Once actually. And yeah, I changed my mind. Like that's a crime and doesn't happen (although other parts of that, like posting at RPGnet, or putting AoH back on the net has not and will never happen).


Here I only said I don't enjoy posting at therpgsite because of Pundit, who's an ass that gets off on his success at being an ass, by which he measures people posting here.

But as I said on my entry, Dancy's blog was too good to pass on- and I'm limiting my posting to this one thread. After this one dies, I'm gone again.

Quote from: KoltarGleichman - find a new fucking phrase. That one is stuck in the '80s. (maybe early 90s)

I'm old and sit in my ways. And as you know exactly what I mean by the phrase, I'll leave it to the young and foolish to chase new and in the end pointless fads.

Quote from: gleichmanAfter this one dies, I'm gone again.

Aw, that's a shame.  It's always great to have you around.

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

QFT

Quote from: gleichmanAfter this one dies, I'm gone again.

First grubman.  Then gleichman.  What is it with people named g____man doing the forum yo-yo?

Came across this article (yes, I play EVE online).

It offers some more light on one of the differences between MMORPGs and PnP rpgs, in answer to Brad, R.D. or any others who seems to think it all flows good on the MMORPG world and that they are a replacement for rpgs (for Dancey's Power-Gamers or anyone else who like rpgs).

http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=2_35&page=7

There are gaming groups who put up with stuff like that, but none I've every been in.

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.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenIMO 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.

I agree.  Back during the Atari and Nintendo age my school group lost a lot of players to video gaming.  And today my nephews will sling dice, but they spend more time with pixels.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAh, 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).

Time and money are competed for by wildly different activites, I know that raising twins took both away from my rpg hobby. Someone hooked on CCGs lost time from rpgs. If a person wants to go to a lan party that weekend, no weekend rpg, etc.

It's a given.

But it's also something very different than what Dancey was saying- he was saying that for Power-Gamers, online games are better PnP rpgs than PnP rpgs, and that as a result we must change what an rpg is to map upon a customer base with no Power-Gamers.

Comparing Bartle's map to his it is plain that his view is foolishness. And thus his drive to story-driven replacements for rpgs is foolishness.



It's a different (and worthwhile) discussion about if MMORPGs, Mini games (heroclix, etc), and other expanding options in the market place have cut down on the number of rpg gamers as whole however.  Each gives a different player experience, and with limited time and money people will pick one over the other for any number of reasons.

(cont'd from above)

Where Dancey fails is (a) imputing some kind of imperative to the hobby to "survive at all costs", something I see with a number of story gamers. It basically boils down to "we had to destroy roleplaying in order to save it". That's industry speak, not hobby speak.

And (b) he assumes that an RPG industry that caters to the storytelling crowd exclusively (instead of producing games that both individually and collectively appeal to the entire spectrum of tastes in his earlier map) will be able to sustain itself, even grow. This is pure conjecture, and it flies in the face of the conclusions of the WotC study: that games which fail to appeal to more than two of the "groups" end up struggling in the market. (IIRC.)

The only thing IMO that would give hope to Dancey's conjecture is the "bandwagon effect" of "network externalities". This is something I've described in the past; basically it amounts to competition between games for players, such that the presence of competition actually reduces the value of a game. By way of example, this is mostly different from cars; my Honda will take me around just as well as long as gasoline is available, even if I have the last Honda on earth--except when it comes to spare parts for repairs. With games, though, you're better off if people don't have an alternative to your favorite game. So if a portion of the RPG audience leaves PnP entirely, the attraction of "storytelling" might increase simply because that's where the people are...and if that causes more people to join the crowd, it'll be even more attractive.

But that's not a given, far from it. Not only does Dancey depend on a major defection from PnP (beyond what's happened so far), he also excludes alternatives to "storytelling". Somebody up above remarked on how he handwaves away Second Life, which is related. Basically, like many Forgers, he discounts the importance of immersive, experiential play: and what do you get when you subtract the strong "game"-orientation from RPGs while leaving the in-character experience? In short I predict that without an "unfocused" D&D to hold things together, you're likely to end up with two even smaller niches (because the internal synergies aren't as strong with smaller audiences) of "simulationists" and "storytellers".

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a different (and worthwhile) discussion about if MMORPGs, Mini games (heroclix, etc), and other expanding options in the market place have cut down on the number of rpg gamers as whole however.  Each gives a different player experience, and with limited time and money people will pick one over the other for any number of reasons.

It's a much more reasonable claim to say some "Power Gamers" may stop playing RPGs to focus on Minis games (Warhammer 40K, Heroclix, etc) than it is to say all of them will one day stop playing tabletop games altogether to play online games exclusively.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(cont'd from above)

Generally agree with everything here.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short I predict that without an "unfocused" D&D to hold things together, you're likely to end up with two even smaller niches (because the internal synergies aren't as strong with smaller audiences) of "simulationists" and "storytellers".

It's a bit of a nitpick, but it doesn't have to be D&D and could in fact be another 'unfocused' replacement. It's just likely that it will be D&D, it's WotC's market to lose.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a different (and worthwhile) discussion about if MMORPGs, Mini games (heroclix, etc), and other expanding options in the market place have cut down on the number of rpg gamers as whole however.  Each gives a different player experience, and with limited time and money people will pick one over the other for any number of reasons.

Well, my point is that it's not an entirely distinct discussion.

Let's look at the competition between video games and stamp collecting. I think it's reasonable to guess that stamp collecting attracted kids at a lower rate once video games became widely available. But the competition is at a very basic level: it's just two things you can do for fun, each takes time and money, so more attention spent on one is going to take away from the other.

Now contrast the competition between video games and RPGs. Back in the 70's-80's, the most popular video games were fairly abstract or narrowly-focused gamey games: Defender, Missile Command, Asteroids, Pole Position. They competed with RPGs about as much as they did with stamp collecting. Over time, though, the "RPG" (Zork/Pool of Radiance/Apshai) and eventually MUD/MMO computer games got bigger and bigger. Don't you think those compete more with RPGs than the old Atari games did? And if so, isn't it possible that computer games of this ilk will continue to get better at "scratching the itch" of PnP players? To me it's mainly a question of when and where the cannibalization will stop, and then what can be done with what's left.

I just think Dancey is overestimating both the speed and extent of the remaining cannibalization, and then what he does with the "rump" audience is both wrong headed from the hobby perspective and pie-in-the-sky from the industry perspective.

Quote from: StuartIt's a much more reasonable claim to say some "Power Gamers" may stop playing RPGs to focus on Minis games (Warhammer 40K, Heroclix, etc) than it is to say all of them will one day stop playing tabletop games altogether to play online games exclusively.

Dancey didn't reply to my request for data on the subject, not even to say that it's confidential. So my guess is that it doesn't exist and that he's being driven by other unknown factors (most likely Ego).

In any case, I'm betting that he's seen a downward market trend and is knee-jerking a reaction to that.

WotC seems to agree (about the downward market and not anything else) as otherwise they wouldn't need to produce a 4th edition- indeed they drew the conculsion from their original survey data that new editions and expansions were a core requirement for players of rpgs. Thus one would would expect a strong cycle to exist in customer demand.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a bit of a nitpick, but it doesn't have to be D&D and could in fact be another 'unfocused' replacement. It's just likely that it will be D&D, it's WotC's market to lose.

Right, that prediction is based on giving Dancey the benefit of the doubt--that the "center of gravity" of the current hobby will be completely torn out by video games.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow contrast the competition between video games and RPGs. Back in the 70's-80's, the most popular video games were fairly abstract or narrowly-focused gamey games: Defender, Missile Command, Asteroids, Pole Position.  They competed with RPGs about as much as they did with stamp collecting.

This is where we break company, for I lived through those times and remember them rather well.

Those games were widely accepted. New exciting ones even made the news. More people played them, including many that played rpgs, and vastly more money was spent on them. An almost exact match for MMORPGs of today in fact.

So no, I don't see a more direct compete here. I see different tastes picking and selecting different hobbies like I've always seen. Which is exactly what the two models would suggest.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd (b) he assumes that an RPG industry that caters to the storytelling crowd exclusively (instead of producing games that both individually and collectively appeal to the entire spectrum of tastes in his earlier map) will be able to sustain itself, even grow. This is pure conjecture, and it flies in the face of the conclusions of the WotC study: that games which fail to appeal to more than two of the "groups" end up struggling in the market. (IIRC.)

The funny thing is this: Let's say all of the power gamers and thinkers are leaving for MMOs, Leaving only character actors and storytellers playing PnP games. That would seem to leave us in one of two situations.

The first situation is that everyone who played D&D was in those first two categories and thus, once they are gone, the resulting hobby is too darn small to even worry about because the vast majority of gamers play D&D.

The second situation is that everyone in all categories more or less plays D&D and so you don't lose 95% of the hobby when the power gamers and thinkers leave. However, what you have left is a cadre of story gamers of whom the vast majority play D&D.

Of course, the argument then becomes that since the power gamers and thinkers are gone, we should make different games because the story gamers are not being served by D&D even though the vast majority play D&D. This is the exact same argument that has been bandied about for the better part of a decade, isn't it? "You story gamers are playing the wrong game and you have no idea you are playing the wrong game. If I could just get you to understand that my game is the right game, you would finally start having fun. What? You are having fun playing the wrong game? No, you aren't."

But the argument continues. See the goal isn't really to salvage the current gaming community. It is to expand into the vast, untapped market of non-gamers who are just waiting for the right game... the whole point of the Wii comment is to point out the existance of this market.

Let's ignore the fact that RPGs have been around for about 30 years and haven't tapped into this market. That's obviously because the gateway game is wrong. If we just made a better gateway game, a simpler game, a game based on stuff real people are interested in... you know cops, lawyers and horny surgeons, a game focused on story telling. Everyone likes stories.

This is another old argument. RPGs have been around for 30 years. In that time, numerous attempts at making the "gateway game" have surfaced. There was Basic D&D, Prince Valiant, various starter "adventure in a box" editions of D&D, the Diablo II game, Marvel SAGA to name just a few. The story game movement has been around for over 7 years now. You mean to tell me that they still haven't figured out how to reach their target market?

Or, is it possible that the market is exactly what it looks like? D&D is king because it serves most gamers well enough and no RPGs are setting the entertainment world on fire because of the one thing they have in common: they are RPGs and most people don't like RPGs.

Heck, I don't even like D&D, but the whole "wrong game" arguments are tiresome after all these years.

Sorry for the rant,

Quote from: cmagounOr, is it possible that the market is exactly what it looks like? D&D is king because it serves most gamers well enough and no RPGs are setting the entertainment world on fire because of the one thing they have in common: they are RPGs and most people don't like RPGs.

Heck, I don't even like D&D, but the whole "wrong game" arguments are tiresome after all these years.

Chris be not a dumb person.

RPGs are and will remain a niche until there is a major culture shift.

He just said that, no?

Quote from: SettembriniHe just said that, no?

And I just agreed.

OK.

Quote from: gleichmanThis is where we break company, for I lived through those times and remember them rather well.

Those games were widely accepted. New exciting ones even made the news. More people played them, including many that played rpgs, and vastly more money was spent on them. An almost exact match for MMORPGs of today in fact.

So no, I don't see a more direct compete here. I see different tastes picking and selecting different hobbies like I've always seen. Which is exactly what the two models would suggest.

I'd have to agree with Elliot.

The problem isn't that WoW is more popular than Pac-Man.  It's that it's more popular with gamers because it does, indeed, scratch the same itch (or a reasonably close substitute thereof) for them as PnP RPGs.

In particular, the ability to build a character, defeat enemies in combat, overcome traps and obstacles, and gain fat loot.  Not to mention that the MMORPGs do in fact offer some form of socialization.

They may not do that for you.  I know they don't do that for me.  But they do for a lot of gamers.  I have seen people who completely abandon PnP for WoW.  It's not just an urban legend, it does occasionally happen.

I think Dancey is wrong about both the scale at which people abandon PnPRPGs for MMORPGs, and about his conclusion that the best solution is to completely re-focus the industry on a completely new, but sort of related, hobby.  But that doesn't change the fact that MMORPGs are somewhat of a threat.

Quote from: jgantsThey may not do that for you.  I know they don't do that for me.  But they do for a lot of gamers.  I have seen people who completely abandon PnP for WoW.  It's not just an urban legend, it does occasionally happen.

And I saw them abandon rpgs for MtG and girlfriends and recall this same conversation about them (yes, even girlfriends- it was early in the hobby's history). Sure people left, but people came- the hobby lived and even had growth cycles afterwards.

There is a lot of Been There Done That.

Could this time be different? Sure, everything dies.

Is it different this time? I see no hard data indicating that it is, Dancey provided none to me (and if he had, I would have made a very different post). My own knowledge of what drives MMORPGs and PnP play says that it's unlikely.

So until something changes, I'm sticking with this: "Dancey goes Forge bat nuts. Film at 11".

Quote from: gleichmanAnd I saw them abandon rpgs for MtG and girlfriends and recall this same conversation about them (yes, even girlfriends- it was early in the hobby's history). Sure people left, but people came- the hobby lived and even had growth cycles afterwards.

There is a lot of Been There Done That.

Could this time be different? Sure, everything dies.

Is it different this time? I see no hard data indicating that it is, Dancey provided none to me (and if he had, I would have made a very different post). My own knowledge of what drives MMORPGs and PnP plays says that it's unlikely.

So until something changes, I'm sticking with this: "Dancey goes Forge bat nuts. Film at 11".

See, MtG is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.  MtG was, in fact, a huge threat to the industry for the very same reason as WoW.  A lot of people abandoned RPGs in favor of CCGs.  Not everyone, but enough people to cause some real problems.

Or did you miss the part in the mid/late 90's when game stores went out of business in droves and half of the industry died off?  Remember all those mid-tier companies we used to have?

Sure, D20 gave to a new boom cycle that picked things back up again, to a degree; but the industry is still a shade of its former self.

I'm not saying Dancey is right about the scope of the problem, just that it could be a really serious problem in the future (on the level of CCGs or worse).

Quote from: jgantsOr did you miss the part in the mid/late 90's when game stores went out of business in droves and half of the industry died off?  Remember all those mid-tier companies we used to have?

I recall it, and I recall why (it wasn't for the reasons you seem to believe).

Quote from: cmagounOf course, the argument then becomes that since the power gamers and thinkers are gone, we should make different games because the story gamers are not being served by D&D even though the vast majority play D&D. This is the exact same argument that has been bandied about for the better part of a decade, isn't it? "You story gamers are playing the wrong game and you have no idea you are playing the wrong game. If I could just get you to understand that my game is the right game, you would finally start having fun. What? You are having fun playing the wrong game? No, you aren't."

Though Mr. Gleichman and I choose to highlight different portions of the text, I agree that this is a brilliant post.

Thanks cmagoun.

Quote from: gleichmanI recall it, and I recall why (it wasn't for the reasons you seem to believe).

I'm not saying CCGs were the sole reason for all the problems, but they were a contributing factor.  They didn't cause the bad financial situations, but they did exacerbate them.

The same as now.  If WoW magically disappeared, the industry would still have issues.  But WoW is certainly exacerbating the situation.

This time is a bit different, of course, since 95% of the industry is held by two larger corporations that aren't focused on RPGs.  Whether that will make things better (financial stability to ride out rough periods) or worse (demands for profit results) remains to be seen.

Quote from: gleichmanThis is where we break company, for I lived through those times and remember them rather well.

Those games were widely accepted. New exciting ones even made the news. More people played them, including many that played rpgs, and vastly more money was spent on them. An almost exact match for MMORPGs of today in fact.

So no, I don't see a more direct compete here. I see different tastes picking and selecting different hobbies like I've always seen. Which is exactly what the two models would suggest.

I may not have expressed myself clearly, so I'd like to try again to make sure we're really disagreeing.

What I meant was that Defender et. al. competed with RPGs purely on a time/money level: both were "things to do" in the broad realm that included bug collecting, model rocketry, etc. Only later, with the advent of increasingly sophisticated, graphically attractive, and versatile RPG/MMO games (BTW I'm talking about the change from say Temple of Apshai or even Rogue to a modern-day MMO) do I think you start to see increased competition, not just for warm bodies in general, but specifically for an audience that's "in it" for many of the same things that were previously available only through tabletop RPGs.

Again, I think this is a matter of degree, and I'm not sure where the needle points. If you really think that the competition between MMOs and PnP games isn't significantly greater than between MMOs and building plastic models--let's just say I'm skeptical but I don't discount the idea out of hand.

Quote from: gleichmanI recall it, and I recall why (it wasn't for the reasons you seem to believe).

I'm interested in seeing your take on this. (Or a link to an earlier discussion.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenAgain, I think this is a matter of degree, and I'm not sure where the needle points. If you really think that the competition between MMOs and PnP games isn't significantly greater than between MMOs and building plastic models--let's just say I'm skeptical but I don't discount the idea out of hand.

Given Bartle's and WotC's models for why people play their respective games, I going to have to say that it's more akin to MMO and plastic models than not. They are just too different IMO.

I do think there is some overlap, but I don't consider it significant (i.e. changes and/or wrecks the hobby) at this time and with the information that I have.

I am open to changing my view on it, but it's going to take some data of equal standing to open that door.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm interested in seeing your take on this. (Or a link to an earlier discussion.)

I don't have link as I wasn't directly involved. So I'm remembering old articles and conversations with store owners from a decade ago to make this post.

With that in mind, it was my understanding that the CCG boom including speculation on card prices was very much akin to the dot.com boom. Lots of new people started coming to game stores with lots of money to be spent. This resulted in overbuying of stock and given individual card value- speculation on said stock.

When the bubble broke, stores went down in flames due to over investment in product that was no longer moving fast enough- until things reached a new market level.

RPGs were affected indirectly in a number of ways. The CCG boom did take players away because of general time/money limits but not a significant number in and of itself. Game Store support for rpgs dropped as their resources turned to the more profitable (at first) CCG market, and lastly when the bubble popped- the impact was on the same retail supply chain that serviced rpgs.

But the rpg hobby rebounded, CCGs went to their proper market niche (still bigger than rpgs last I checked), and now the whole issue is a distant memory.

Quote from: gleichmanGiven Bartle's and WotC's models for why people play their respective games, I going to have to say that it's more akin to MMO and plastic models than not. They are just too different IMO.

I do think there is some overlap, but I don't consider it significant (i.e. changes and/or wrecks the hobby) at this time and with the information that I have.

I am open to changing my view on it, but it's going to take some data of equal standing to open that door.

Let me see if I can take this from another angle to see if I'm getting the gist of it.

There are X million WoW players not because they canibalized RPG's, but because the market for that product is a much, much larger market - it, by it's very nature, grabbed all sorts of people that would never play RPG's. There will, of course, be people who leave PnP RPG's for WoW et al, but it's no more than left for Mario Brothers. Is that right?

I wonder, did skateboard manufacturers worry when tony Hawk put out an XBox game?  It's probably not a great example, and I'm not trying to be snarky. In a weird way, it could just show how niche the RPG hobby is that it's not threatened by WoW, if you take that view...

In your opinion, at what point will an MMO be a significant threat? Ever?  Is there some technology advancement that you could see occurring that would make it direct competition?

One thing that isn't brought up enough here is that with MMO's being so incredibly huge, there's actually a big opportunity for fun RPGs to attract a whole new pool of players, in the right social circumstances.

Especially those who like MMOs OK but would like to focus more on roleplaying, creative problem-solving, etc. I'm sure there are a lot of those.

What I'm suggesting is that even if there's an RPG -> MMO drain, it may not be all bad news. If the total number of gamers grows by 100x and we get just 2% of those over time from drift back the other way, we double the number of RPG players.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't have link as I wasn't directly involved. So I'm remembering old articles and conversations with store owners from a decade ago to make this post.

Thanks, that makes a great deal of sense. It still leaves me wondering why I no longer get to play [my favorite game] as much as I used to, but even discounting personal factors there's a plethora of general changes in leisure activities that can help explain the change before resorting to CCGs.

Quote from: James J SkachThere are X million WoW players not because they canibalized RPG's, but because the market for that product is a much, much larger market - it, by it's very nature, grabbed all sorts of people that would never play RPG's. There will, of course, be people who leave PnP RPG's for WoW et al, but it's no more than left for Mario Brothers. Is that right?

That's my take on it.

Quote from: James J SkachIn your opinion, at what point will an MMO be a significant threat? Ever?  Is there some technology advancement that you could see occurring that would make it direct competition?

Interesting question that. Sort of a reverse take on Dancey's goal.

If one goes over the model provided by WotC, one could play with the key requirements provided there and match them against Bartle's model to see where conflicts occur, and what they have in common. It would be a fun exercise I think.


Bartles seemed of the opinion (I may be putting words in his mouth here, but it is the impression I got) that a MMORPG couldn't service the needs of a PnP player without giving up key elements of what made it an MMORPG in the first place. And I can't say that I disagree with him, servicing Killers for example seems counter to needs of most PnP Groups as does giving up storyline and system control.

My own idea was a MMORPG where most of the game was 'instanced' for a defined group or guild. This allows you to play with who you want. Added to the ability to allow different storylines depending upon in-game choices (and perhaps campaign starting options) and one might get something close- but that's not a MMORPG but is instead more of multi-player computer rpg.

Some time back, I watched the launch of Neverwinter Nights with some interest, but that gets into what is in effect a virtual desktop. That product however didn't serve as it was too difficult to use, and too limited in rule set. Further developments along those lines may be of interest. But again, not a MMORPG.

I'd be interesting in hearing other people's takes on your question.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe only thing IMO that would give hope to Dancey's conjecture is the "bandwagon effect" of "network externalities".

Which is probably why he'd prefer to use D&D as the platform for his evil plans.  He could hope to drag the D&D player base into his brave new world.  But then he's forgetting the 2e lesson that he talked about while explaining why 3e was designed the way it was.  If you take things away from people that they like, they'll stay with what they have or jump ship.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short I predict that without an "unfocused" D&D to hold things together, you're likely to end up with two even smaller niches (because the internal synergies aren't as strong with smaller audiences) of "simulationists" and "storytellers".

Correct.  What Dancey probably doesn't realize (and most story game advocates don't seem to get it) is that "simulationist" role-players who play for the experience of being their characters not only don't get a lot out of story games but the sort of fiddly player-level mechanics that he's been talking about actually ruin the game for them.  So he winds up alienating a group at least as large as the story gamers by going in that direction.

Quote from: jgantsSee, MtG is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.  MtG was, in fact, a huge threat to the industry for the very same reason as WoW.  A lot of people abandoned RPGs in favor of CCGs.  Not everyone, but enough people to cause some real problems.

Or did you miss the part in the mid/late 90's when game stores went out of business in droves and half of the industry died off?

No, I remember games stores managing to stay in business solely because of the money they were making on CCGs and would have gone under if it wasn't for M:tG.

After all RPGs and CCGs were both sold in the same store, one doing well at the others expense didn't effect the store at all, the fact CCGs did so well actually helped the store, and folks that came in just because of the CCGs were at least exposed to RPGs.

MMORPGs are likely to be a bigger problem, because they aren't sold in the same place. So money spent on a MMORPG isn't helping a gaming store at all, and customers buying MMORPGs aren't being exposed to traditional RPGs at all.

Still I think Ryan is wrong on his solution, giving up on nearly a quarter of your traditional market (Powergamers) just because you expect them to be more attracted to MMORPGs is hardly a strategy to save the industry.

I'd be interested to know if his five gamer model from WotC research data ever linked gamer types to spending patterns, because I wouldn't be surprised if the powergamers turned out to be the ones that bought the most rulebooks. After all the story people can probably come up with their own fluff if they are spending hours on character backgrounds. If so giving up on that 22% would be even more foolish.

Quote from: James J SkachThere will, of course, be people who leave PnP RPG's for WoW et al, but it's no more than left for Mario Brothers. Is that right?

Mario Brothers hardly requires the level of time commitment most MMORPGs require.  Mario is costing me the same if I play it now and don't touch it for six months. MMORPG is costing me $15 a month, so if I'm not actively playing that's money down the toilet. Since you are paying if you play or not there is an active incentive to play more so that you get more value out of your subscription money.

Most games stores I've seen also sell comics.  The health (or lack thereof) of the comics industry plays heavily into the success (or failure) of comic + game stores.

It's worth remembering that WotC had an ad campaign a couple of years ago trying to recruit new players from WoW: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050929a

This was a good ad campaign -- it got attention outside of the usual RPG community.  Here's the post on BoingBoing: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/29/antimmorpg-ads-from-.html

Quote from: BoingBoingThis anti-MMORPG ad from Dungeons and Dragons is STONE BRILLIANT. It reads "If you're going to sit in your basement pretending to be an elf, you should at least have some friends over to help. Dungeons and Dragons: Get together. Roll some Dice. Have Fun." Way to play to your core strength.

My advice to WotC, and Ryan Dancey, would be not to forget what that core strength is...

Exactly in this blog post (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Entries/2007/8/22_Time_Out%3A__Reflection.html) he compares the recent 4e post about fighting a red dragon with a strategy guide on fighting a dragon in WoW.

While he doesn't say it himself he invites the reader to say "DnD is mimicing MMORPGs and it isn't going to win by copying them".*

Later on in the comments he makes his comparison and reasons for it more plain.

QuoteThe larger point is:  Would you rather have this battle in fully rendered 3D, all rules handled automatically, with up to 30 of your friends along, or have the exact same experience on a tabletop, with 3-5 people, where you have to deal with all the rules yourself, and probably a lot of work with miniatures as well?

This is EXACTLY where the MMORPG experience beats the tabletop experience.  And it is the part of the MMORPG experience that gets better and better simply through the application of time, money, and Moore's Law.  TRPGs are already behind the "fun curve" here, and they cannot catch up.

Ryan

He expects people to say ooh the MMORPG looks way better.

The problem I see is the vast majority of people that play tabletop games are going to say, actually I'd rather have an evening with 3-5 real friends playing DnD. Than an evening sat on my own in front of a monitor with 30 odd virtual friends most of which I've never met in real life and wouldn't even noticed if I died tomorrow.

He doesn't seem to realise the game itself (it's mechanics and how it plays) is only a fraction of tabletop RPG hobby experience. I wonder how many friday night poker games have been cancelled since online poker became available?

*Lets ignore the holes in his conclusions for now.

Quote from: BagpussI wonder how many friday night poker games have been cancelled since online poker became available?

The guys from work with whom I started to play poker on occasion are dead serious players.  Most of them know the odds, the tips, the tricks, the terminology, have read the books, etc. These guys play just about every weekend - at their height they would play during lunch at work. (I'm the fish in the sea of sharks.  But I do get good cards sometimes and have even won once - and it's fun!)

At best they play on-line once in a while.

What's the advantage of the Friday night game?  Well, much like PnP, you are sitting at the table with the others involved.  In poker, that can mean tells and stuff you'd never get online - at best you could recognize betting patterns. Are there any significant issues for PnP RPG's, other than the social aspect, that make in person more advantageous? Perhaps rules arbitration? Fudging?

I don't play MMORPG's so I'm not familiar enough to know...

Quote from: CalithenaOne thing that isn't brought up enough here is that with MMO's being so incredibly huge, there's actually a big opportunity for fun RPGs to attract a whole new pool of players, in the right social circumstances.

Especially those who like MMOs OK but would like to focus more on roleplaying, creative problem-solving, etc. I'm sure there are a lot of those.

What I'm suggesting is that even if there's an RPG -> MMO drain, it may not be all bad news. If the total number of gamers grows by 100x and we get just 2% of those over time from drift back the other way, we double the number of RPG players.

I think this is a very interesting point.

In my opinion, MMOs have proven that there are vast numbers of people that are interested in fantasy, combat-oriented games with reasonably complicated character building mechanics and gameplay. We have tons of those!!! For some of those people, the lack of a competitive mode, or the social aspects, or the logistical aspects of tabletop games will be deal breakers, but not for all. There are 1-4 million South Koreans that play some version of Lineage (not exactly sure of that statistic). I wonder if there is a translation of D&D over there? Imagine the possibilities of the marketing campaign, "The Game that Started It All!!!"

Of course, I might have just fallen into my own fallacy... The Myth of the Untapped Market.

Quote from: James J SkachIn your opinion, at what point will an MMO be a significant threat? Ever?  Is there some technology advancement that you could see occurring that would make it direct competition?

Oh, I think MMOs are in direct competition with tabletop games now, just not for the reasons Mr. Dancey thinks they are. MMOs can provide only the shell of the RPG experience. They are superficially similar, but in every way, including the elements that MMOs excel at such as combat and character building, the tabletop game provides a richer experience. They mainly draw tabletop gamers away because they are logistically easy to play and addictive.

I can only offer personal experiences to the discussion. I love both types of games, but I will readily admit that tabletop RPGs are infinitely cooler in all ways than MMOs. Still, there are periods of my life where MMOs "took over", pushing out RPGs. Why? Lots of reasons really, but the main one is that MMOs scratch that gaming/social itch any time, on my terms. I want to game right now... If I wanted to, I could be playing EQ2, WoW, CoH, or any number of others in 5 minutes. Fire up that credit card and BAM!! Instant gratification.

Also, I think RPG campaigns require momentum to keep healthy. People have to remain interested week to week. Otherwise, the logistics of prepping a game, getting out of the house and to the game store and staying up late and feeling crappy for work the next day just becomes too much. How many weekly games have started to fall apart after cancelling a couple sessions? On a similar note, I usually cancel an MMO subscription once I stop playing for a week or two... but that means 7-14 possible sessions missed as opposed to 1-2 tabletop sessions.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat Dancey probably doesn't realize (and most story game advocates don't seem to get it) is that "simulationist" role-players who play for the experience of being their characters not only don't get a lot out of story games but the sort of fiddly player-level mechanics that he's been talking about actually ruin the game for them.  So he winds up alienating a group at least as large as the story gamers by going in that direction.

Exactly. As much as the story crowd hold gamism in contempt, their real blind spot is simulation. They don't really get that a lot of people like to be immersed in an environment, and giving them metagame control over story spoils that immersion.

QuoteThe larger point is: Would you rather have this battle in fully rendered 3D, all rules handled automatically, with up to 30 of your friends along, or have the exact same experience on a tabletop, with 3-5 people, where you have to deal with all the rules yourself, and probably a lot of work with miniatures as well?

The later. Because:

A) I like hanging out with my friends, and the guys I play D&D with have been close friends for 25 years.

B) I don't have to deal with lots of rules, because we play a rules-light style of game.

C) The scenes we conjure up in our imaginations are way, way cooler than the stuff you see in a WoW game.

Quote from: HaffrungExactly. As much as the story crowd hold gamism in contempt, their real blind spot is simulation. They don't really get that a lot of people like to be immersed in an environment, and giving them metagame control over story spoils that immersion.

* aka "brahmin" from Fallout 2. By an amazing coincidence, "brahmin" is the name of the Hindu sacred cow, though those don't have two heads. I think.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron

The GNS sacred cow *:
(http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images//2/24/MB_Walk.gif)
the left head is Gamism, the right head is Narrativism
we don't talk about the third head you can't see, Simulationism.
You must cut off one of the heads and play with that
or else your game is Incoherent

I assume the more normal looking head is Narrativism and the smaller side-looking head is Gamism and that Simulationism is down there in the misshapen belly where it can pop out from time to time like Kuato from the Total Recall movie or Tiny Attorney from the Venture Brothers.

Quote from: cmagounIf I wanted to, I could be playing EQ2, WoW, CoH, or any number of others in 5 minutes. Fire up that credit card and BAM!! Instant gratification.

Well not really if you haven't played them in ages you are probably going to have to wait an hour or so at least for all the patches and updates to download and install.... :D

Quote from: James J SkachAre there any significant issues for PnP RPG's, other than the social aspect, that make in person more advantageous? Perhaps rules arbitration? Fudging?

Outside the social aspect (which I must add includes deciding who not to play with), there's the simple matter of control, simulation, and individuality.

I run Middle Earth as a campaign setting with a set of rules I designed specifically for it. It's a long lived campaign going on 27 years although it's had break for other games.

I also play Lord of the Rings Online. I didn’t' design the rules and have no real choice in what they are. That by itself is very significant IMO.

Here are some other differences:

1. My PnP game doesn't have 10s of thousands of Heroes who have all defeated the Red Maid in the Lone Lands. My PnP game doesn't have 10s of thousands of heroes called ", Wolf Slayer" (gained by killing less than 100 wolves in a certain zone). My PnP game doesn't have hundreds of people owning a flaming sword. etc. (actually, it doesn't even have one), the examples of lack of individuality are almost without count.

2. My PnP game not only allows Marriage, it's a major cornerstone of the campaign. LotRO doesn't allow Marriage at all because if they did, they have to allow gay marriage to prevent whining and they felt that broke the spirit of the setting. Thus my PnP isn't subject to culture shifts or politically correct rulings.

3. My PnP game doesn't have hundreds of characters with hundreds of gold coins to spend, nor auction houses where that kind of cash could be dropped in a handful of mouse clicks.

4. My PnP has children.

5. My PnP can if needed make a rule change instantly to handle a 'bug'

6. Tactically my PnP is focused on maneuver, LotRO is focused on resource management.


I could go on for quite a while, but I think the point is made.

All the MMORPGs offers that my PnP can't is 3D graphics (but of a limited set- I fight boars for example in every zone in the game that aren't a specific instance), and the ability to log on without arranging the get together of live players.

That last is their most significant advantage.

Quote from: BagpussThe problem I see is the vast majority of people that play tabletop games are going to say, actually I'd rather have an evening with 3-5 real friends playing DnD. Than an evening sat on my own in front of a monitor with 30 odd virtual friends most of which I've never met in real life and wouldn't even noticed if I died tomorrow.

You do know that a lot of WoW players do play together with people they know IRL, right?  Just like people who play Halo on the X-Box or whatever.  Not everyone who plays is playing with random strangers.

That's sort of why its more of a concern now than before.  Previously, there was no socialization involved in these kinds of games.  Now, you have groups of people that actively socialize with their friends while playing on the computer.

Now maybe you or I don't choose to go down that route, but there's no question its becoming more and more popular, especially for younger generations.  There are widely documented trends of youths using computers to socialize more at the expense of face-to-face gatherings.  Studies on this stuff show up in the news from time to time.

Not being a WoW (or any of these) player, I'm curious.  While you are playing, do you run into other players in other groups? Is it by server?

Quote from: jgantsYou do know that a lot of WoW players do play together with people they know IRL, right?  Just like people who play Halo on the X-Box or whatever.  Not everyone who plays is playing with random strangers.

A few points here.

I play LotRO with my wife, her uncle, my twins, and a couple of friends from my PnP group.

I'm also playing with the guy who reached that scholor node before me and got the crafting materials before I did. I'm also playing with the Hunter who just tagged the MOB I was charging to attack and thus delayed the completing of my quest by who knows how long. I'm also playing with crafters who set their prices far above their costs or my casual play style. I'm also playing...

I think you get the idea. And we haven't even considered games with more open PvP.

They are called MMORPGs for a reason. You can't avoid the impact of it being one even by playing with your real life friends.

Quote from: James J SkachNot being a WoW (or any of these) player, I'm curious.  While you are playing, do you run into other players in other groups? Is it by server?

Yes, there are other players in most places (and lots of other players at that). The exception are "instances" or dungeons where your group is the only one.

Do "instances" cost more? Are they your own?  Or is that when you get into a certain area you start to play on your own (group) but outside of that particular place you are back in the general populace? Can multple groups be in the same place, but be playing separately? If one group goes in and get the McGuffin, is it there for other groups?

Quote from: James J SkachDo "instances" cost more?

Not individually, but obviously some instances you can only access if you have particular expansions.

QuoteAre they your own?

They're not personalised, if that's what you mean. Everyone gets access to the same set of instances when they get the core game, and gets access to the same sets of extra instances when they get the expansions.

QuoteOr is that when you get into a certain area you start to play on your own (group) but outside of that particular place you are back in the general populace?

Yes.

QuoteCan multple groups be in the same place, but be playing separately?

Yes. They won't see each other, and it'll be as if the other groups don't exist.

QuoteIf one group goes in and get the McGuffin, is it there for other groups?

Yes.

Guild Wars uses instances to the best impact in that effectively the whole would outside the cities are a instance in which the only players are the group you're with.

However Guild Wars is primarily a PvP game, and the PVE instances and adventures serve to provide a back story and a method for leveling to PvP level. They have a lifespan as a result about equal to a normal computer/xbox game. It was also even more rail roaded than typical for a MMORPG. Course I'm a couple of expansions back so that information may be slightly out of date.

Additionally our family Guild War experience ran into a limit in that as one progressed in the storyline the need for larger and larger player groups increased until you had to have a full party for the final missions. That wasn't possible with just my extended family playing so joining a guild became necessary.


Still, Guild Wars does a lot right and I consider it one of the best MMORPGs on the market.


Instances in LotRO can be one of two types- individual per group (typically these are only for the Epic quest series), or shared with other groups. The latter are basically just sub-zones.

It should be noted however, that overuse of instancing in an MMO tends to lead to something of a backlash from the gamer audience, because basically at that point you're removing the persistent world and interaction element from the game and making it just another multiplayer PC game.

Guild Wars gets away with it by not charging for the service, but this has been a persistent negative response to games like Phantasy Star Online and D&D Online.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt should be noted however, that overuse of instancing in an MMO tends to lead to something of a backlash from the gamer audience, because basically at that point you're removing the persistent world and interaction element from the game and making it just another multiplayer PC game.

It should be noted that Persistence is basically non-existent in these games in the sense that most people think of it. Sure the stats and status of the character remains between sessions, but the just killed MOB will return so that the next player can whack on him (or you can in the endless grind for a rare drop).

Five years of EQ had gone by when I quit, and that stupid Gnoll was still charging the city gates...

Instancing in such a case can actually increase Persistence, as he can make changes to his instanced world without affecting the game of others. LotRO makes a single use of this when the newbie town of Archet is nearly burned down at the end of the intro quest series.

The actual drawbacks of too much instancing is more subtle... and underhanded. But you're correct that forced interaction is removed.

Quote from: BalbinusAlso, the point of roleplaying is not to tell a good story.  That's a point for some people, but it is not the point.

There is no the point.

For me, the point is to experience other lives and to hang out having fun with friends, others have other points, sometimes in the same group, but there is no single point.

For me creating story is a byproduct of play, and great play does not necessarily lead to great stories or indeed much of any story at all.

As so often, Mike Mearls is right on the money.

For me it's creating fun characters and have them interact in interesting and vibrant scenes, be it a gothic WoD lightning soaked mansion, or the Death Star. That isn't storytelling per se, but it's not wargaming. It's the twlight zone we call roleplaying - well maybe. Who knows!

It's also interacting with fun rules systems. I like rules, I like the way they work. I would no more want a game with a billion levels of nuclear powered complexity though than I would with none (like Over the Edge).
Calling something a storytelling, or a roleplaying, game is as pointless as changing the C in CCG to T, or changing Collectable Card Games to Customizable (sic) card games. Seems pointless to me.

Quote from: BalbinusCheetos are disgusting IMO, and funion is not a word.

At my table we eat fine cheeses and cured meats and drink wine and real ale.

and cake!