TheRPGSite

Good to see Ryan's going to put into motion his ideas for revolutionizing the RPG industry.

QuoteRyan Dancey's Storyteller's Guide to The D20 System

This book is designed to take a stock D&D game (or any reasonably close to stock D20 variant) and transform it into a Storytelling Game.  The intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode.  It will include my take on:  Player created content, character motivation mechanics, abstract resource management, and streamlined mechanics for groups without Power Gamers.  I will also be writing extensive notes on how to convert 3rd party materials for D20 for use in Storytelling Games using these concepts.

Plus 2 other Storytelling game ideas he's talking about doing (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Entries/2007/10/5_They_tell_me_I%E2%80%99m_an_overachiever.html).

It explains a lot about his recent, radical change in perspective of the RPG hobby.  

I wonder if he'll setup a sub-forum on the Forge?

I knew he was just trying get attention to get ready to sell something.
 
"The intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode. "
 
This really isn't necessary.  Many groups play D&D as a more cooperative game.  Those who want to, do so.  They don't need a book about it.

QuoteThe intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode.

In that one statement he betrays the fact that he's speaking out of his arse. That isn't the traditional way to play D&D, it is not DM versus players, its a game where the DM creates challenges appropriate to the PCs within the context of a shared story. Or, in other words, a 'cooperative storytelling mode'.

What a pile of complete tosh.

Quote from: CabIn that one statement he betrays the fact that he's speaking out of his arse. That isn't the traditional way to play D&D, it is not DM versus players, its a game where the DM creates challenges appropriate to the PCs within the context of a shared story. Or, in other words, a 'cooperative storytelling mode'.

What a pile of complete tosh.

My thoughts exactly. When I read this blurb, I thought 'OK, now I've been unknowingly been playing Forgey d20 for 20 years ?! No shit !'.

Besides, I'd rather like to know how many players are actually interested in getting input on the campaign beyond their characters' actions. My guess is 'not so many'.

And this 'streamlined mechanics for groups without Power Gamers' sillines is just pathetic. Most players are power gamers, they just manage not to be assholes about, that's all.

Cab, that's what I meant to say. Versus mode is uncommon and often a sign of dysfunctional group.
 
Many of these ideas have already been in the DMG.

That he considers this sort of thing to be amazingly innovative, and hack-hack-hack-levelup-whaddayamean-what's-my-name-I'm-the-fighter to be normal explains why his game sessions have been, he says, "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours" :(

THank God at least this fuckstick isn't a part of D&D anymore.  This'll get buried in discount bins faster than a glossy hardback of FATAL.

The funny part is, I've been telling people this guy was full of shit for years now, and here he is citing rehashed blather that was garbage when it was first uttered.

It's realyl quite a joyous thing to me.

The guy who min/maxes his character is no less a power gamer than the guy who wants more of the spotlight for his improv acting performances and to tell the narrative he's setup in 14 pages of back-story.  They're both power gamers -- they're just pursuing different goals -- and in essence powering gaming at different games at the same table.  One sees the goal of the game as number optimization.  The other sees the goal as excellence in "roleplaying".  Both are going all out -- power gaming -- to reach the goal they've selected.

The player that finds a balance, does a little bit of narration, a little bit of strategy, and doesn't try to monopolize the amount of time they're taking for their turn (whether in combat or in monologuing) -- those are the people who aren't power gamers.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat he considers this sort of thing to be amazingly innovative, and hack-hack-hack-levelup-whaddayamean-what's-my-name-I'm-the-fighter to be normal explains why his game sessions have been, he says, "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours" :(

I wouldn't even give him that much.  My group does plenty of stupid lowbrow hack-n-slash.  If we only got 20 minutes of fun out of each session we'd quit.  When I first heard the 20 minutes/4 hours line I thought it was referring to the poor bastards who have to endure 3 hours 40 minutes of roleplaying for every 20 minutes of orc-killing.

Well I would just call them "attention whores" rather than "power gamers." If you're talking about people who always want the spotlight, then it's a better description.

If this guy honestly thinks rpgs are all about GM vs player, well fuck, I wonder how many games he's played in apart from his Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men one-off.

I mean, my very first rpg when I was 12, the DM must have been not very much against his players, or else my Strength 10 fighter would never have made it to 3rd level. And the very first campaign we call "D&D", Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, that guy had the Chainmail rules where PC vs monster was just one dice roll, winner lived, loser died - the players didn't like that, so he took his Ironclad rules ("Armor Class" and "Hit Points", with the ship sinking when reaching 0 Hit Points) and slotted them in, the players liked that much better. Doesn't sound terribly adversarial to me...

And this was 1973. I guess old Dancey is taking a while to catch up.

Quote from: WeeklyAnd this 'streamlined mechanics for groups without Power Gamers' sillines is just pathetic. Most players are power gamers, they just manage not to be assholes about, that's all.

Well, I rekon most players aren't power gamers, but they'll try to do the best in a tight situation with the character they have (and rightly so). But as for this streamlined stuff, what he's saying is not keeping tight track of trivialities when you trust your players. I think most of us have always done that.

There are very few RPGs that are actually GM vs Players.  

Fewer still that are GM vs Player vs Player.

My game is one of them. :wizard:

Quote from: jrientsI wouldn't even give him that much.  My group does plenty of stupid lowbrow hack-n-slash.  If we only got 20 minutes of fun out of each session we'd quit.  When I first heard the 20 minutes/4 hours line I thought it was referring to the poor bastards who have to endure 3 hours 40 minutes of roleplaying for every 20 minutes of orc-killing.

I've had two kinds of 4/20 experiences before, several times each, and they are always people-related issues, not game-related issues:

* Games where way too much time is spent on rules arguments (ironically, most of these were D&D 3.X games) - caused by GMs who lack the guts to make hard and fast rulings and players who want to be rules-lawyers.

* Games where the PCs sit around and agonize over the most pointless decisions that have nothing to do with anything (micro-managing their gold, spending hours trying to plan an attack, exhaustively cataloging the supplies they want to buy for a 2 day trip, etc.) - caused by current or past bad-GMing and players who like to hog the spotlight by focusing on minutia.

Eh.  A healthy spirit of friendly competition between GM and player is the cornerstone of a good, challenging game of D&D, and has been for a long time.  In fact, it was one of the things that held me off the game for a long time, until I played it, and realize it added a dynamic that was quite enjoyable.

There are far less shaky grounds to go after Dancey for being full of shit, so I recommend you go after those, because this current line of rhetoric just makes you sound like a dismissive, insulting jackass.

Which, knowing Kyle, is probably what he's going for anyway . . .

There's a difference between "competitive" and "adversarial". In one, each is using their abilities to a strong degree to give the other an interesting challenge, and to each do their best for personal excellence. In the other, each tries to destroy the other.

For example, the players within a football team are competitive with other members of their team, at the same time as co-operating towards a common goal - but they're adversarial towards the opposing team.

That sort of distinction would obviously be beyond a guy who thinks playing gingerbread men is revolutionary, though.

Quote from: CabIn that one statement he betrays the fact that he's speaking out of his arse. That isn't the traditional way to play D&D, it is not DM versus players, its a game where the DM creates challenges appropriate to the PCs within the context of a shared story. Or, in other words, a 'cooperative storytelling mode'.

What a pile of complete tosh.

I agree with the challenges part but it only a shared story in that it results from the player interacting with the DM's plot. What Dancey means by cooperative storytelling is very different than what you are defining as cooperative storytelling.

In Dancey's vision the "plot" the players are interacting with is created by the group on the fly. The problem of that is that the resulting challenges are purely mechanical (i.e. fighting some monster, making rolls, etc). In my opinion while there is fun in that it is inherently limited compared to the plots a DM can come up with.

QuoteThere's a difference between "competitive" and "adversarial". In one, each is using their abilities to a strong degree to give the other an interesting challenge, and to each do their best for personal excellence. In the other, each tries to destroy the other.

Now who's not using the commonly accepted language.  The terminology of the "adversarial GM" has been used as a descriptor for some styles of D&D play for years and years, and for good reason.

Again, drop the point, it's weak and pathetic, and says far more about your determination to be as judgemental as possible to playstyles foreign to you, than it does about Mr. Dancey.

Quote from: estarI agree with the challenges part but it only a shared story in that it results from the player interacting with the DM's plot. What Dancey means by cooperative storytelling is very different than what you are defining as cooperative storytelling.

In Dancey's vision the "plot" the players are interacting with is created by the group on the fly. The problem of that is that the resulting challenges are purely mechanical (i.e. fighting some monster, making rolls, etc). In my opinion while there is fun in that it is inherently limited compared to the plots a DM can come up with.

There really isn't a difference. In either game the DM starts with a premis, the players find that and then the PCs do what the players choose. The distinction between interractive storeytelling and roleplaying is entirely artificial.

Quote from: CabThere really isn't a difference. In either game the DM starts with a premis, the players find that and then the PCs do what the players choose. The distinction between interractive storeytelling and roleplaying is entirely artificial.

No it isn't.  Nowhere in any D&D game I've ever played have the players been able to bid points to force the DM to go along with whatever cockamamie bullshit they've come up with in a given moment.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo it isn't.  Nowhere in any D&D game I've ever played have the players been able to bid points to force the DM to go along with whatever cockamamie bullshit they've come up with in a given moment.

Thats not interractive storeytelling, its an adversarial roleplaying game. So yes, theres a difference between adversarial RPGs and RPGs, but no difference between RPGs and interractive storeytelling.

I have no idea what you're talking about Cab. Maybe not your fault. Folks, I could follow better if you'd use plain English instead of arguing definitions.

Quote from: CabWell, I rekon most players aren't power gamers, but they'll try to do the best in a tight situation with the character they have (and rightly so). But as for this streamlined stuff, what he's saying is not keeping tight track of trivialities when you trust your players. I think most of us have always done that.

That depends of course of your definition of power-gaming. Mine is 'making the best of your character within the parameters of the game'. I realize it may be wider than most people's. And yes, if 'not keeping track of trivialities' is what he means by 'Streamlining', I'm anxiously waiting for Rancey Dancey's Guide of Round Implements One Can Use To Move Things With.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI have no idea what you're talking about Cab. Maybe not your fault. Folks, I could follow better if you'd use plain English instead of arguing definitions.

My previous comment followed on from the posts made before it; read back a few messages, it'll become clear.

Quote from: WeeklyThat depends of course of your definition of power-gaming. Mine is 'making the best of your character within the parameters of the game'. I realize it may be wider than most people's. And yes, if 'not keeping track of trivialities' is what he means by 'Streamlining', I'm anxiously waiting for Rancey Dancey's Guide of Round Implements One Can Use To Move Things With.

Maybe you misunderstood my first point... By making the best out of your character, I'm simply talking about the player working out what the character should do in a situation. Assuming the character really wants what they're doing to work, the player should come up with how the character would do his or her best to get something done. So, to pick a crude example, it isn't powergaming to use a longbow rather than to throw a spear at a target sixty feet away, its the character doing whats best. It ain't powergaming.

Quote from: CabThats not interractive storeytelling, its an adversarial roleplaying game. So yes, theres a difference between adversarial RPGs and RPGs, but no difference between RPGs and interractive storeytelling.

I think we're all using terms like roleplaying, storytelling, interactive, competitive and adversarial to mean slightly different things.

Quote from: StuartI think we're all using terms like roleplaying, storytelling, interactive, competitive and adversarial to mean slightly different things.

Maybe. Although you should have a look at that posting you replied to in the context of those that preceded it, I picked the term 'adversarial' up for a reason.

Quote from: CabMaybe you misunderstood my first point... By making the best out of your character, I'm simply talking about the player working out what the character should do in a situation. Assuming the character really wants what they're doing to work, the player should come up with how the character would do his or her best to get something done. So, to pick a crude example, it isn't powergaming to use a longbow rather than to throw a spear at a target sixty feet away, its the character doing whats best. It ain't powergaming.

Believe it or not, there is a vocal set amongst the "true roleplayer" crownd who seem to believe they should be able to do deliberately inefficient or suboptimal things, and be rewarded for it, and that if a game or GM does not do so, or if the other players in the group do not follow their example, then they're "powergaming".

Some people are fucking stupid.

Quote from: CabThere really isn't a difference. In either game the DM starts with a premis, the players find that and then the PCs do what the players choose. The distinction between interractive storeytelling and roleplaying is entirely artificial.

I'm not so sure. There's a difference between games where player imput is limited to the choice of their characters' actions, and their and their consequences on the game world, and games where players are provided the mechanical means of altering the plot or trhe world beyond what their characters can do. Granted, both are interactive storytelling games, but they're not the same, IMO.

Of course, the line is a bit arbitrary and can be easily blurred (by traditional games featuring plot-editing Hero points, for instance), but I think it exists. While Conan d20 is still a roleplaying game despite its destiny points, Dust Devils (while a great game) is something else.

I think this is the distinction to focus on:

Traditional RPG:  The GM narrates what's behind the door.

Storytelling Game:  The player narrates what's behind the door.

Quote from: J ArcaneBelieve it or not, there is a vocal set amongst the "true roleplayer" crownd who seem to believe they should be able to do deliberately inefficient or suboptimal things, and be rewarded for it, and that if a game or GM does not do so, or if the other players in the group do not follow their example, then they're "powergaming".

Some people are fucking stupid.

Are you just in a mood or something?

Theres nothing wrong with doing the 'wrong' thing, tactically, if its in character. Why should there be? Just like theres nothing wrong with a character weighting up his chances and doing what he things is the surest thing. Neither is powergaming, both are valid roleplaying.

Doctor, they're turning on each other!

Quote from: WeeklyOf course, the line is a bit arbitrary and can be easily blurred...

And I would argue it always has been blurred, ever since people have sat around and traded stories. RPGs have been doing this for as long as people have played RPGs.

Quote from: droogDoctor, they're turning on each other!

That's a good thing, it means people are having real discussion from a shared basis of interest.

Elliot, sometimes I think you need a holiday. Or a hot affair or something.

Quote from: CabMaybe you misunderstood my first point...

Yep. It seems that you're talking about choices made in-game while I'm mostly talking about builds and optimization.

Quote from: CabAre you just in a mood or something?

Theres nothing wrong with doing the 'wrong' thing, tactically, if its in character. Why should there be? Just like theres nothing wrong with a character weighting up his chances and doing what he things is the surest thing. Neither is powergaming, both are valid roleplaying.

The difference is that some people want to be mechanically rewarded for inefficient choices.  If I choose to have my fighter beat up a demon with his bare hands rather than his magic sword, the reward is that my guy is awesome.  To alter the game so that a punch is equal to a magic sword takes that awesome-osity away.  This example is from an actual game.  I chose the suboptimal route as a way of demonstrating how stonecold badass my PC was.  That would not have worked if the game had rewarded me mechanically.

Quote from: J ArcaneBelieve it or not, there is a vocal set amongst the "true roleplayer" crownd who seem to believe they should be able to do deliberately inefficient or suboptimal things, and be rewarded for it, and that if a game or GM does not do so, or if the other players in the group do not follow their example, then they're "powergaming".

Well, every crowd has its fanatics, of course. But there's definitely something to be said for not (or not at all) overly contemplating optimization when you're building your character or making detrimental choices in game because they're in character. Such behaviors shouldn't be punished and can even be rewarded (as good roleplaying, if nothing else).

One of the problems with "rewarding good roleplaying" is that it's highly subjective.  Are you rewarding effort?  Performance?  Entertainment?  Does the GM decide?  The person doing the roleplaying?  What if you think it's a great performance, but the other players aren't enjoying it?  

How I'm handling this in my game is to let the group decide what constitutes good roleplaying, and who should be rewarded for it.  This means some groups and games could reward long, emotive performances, while others could reward short but descriptive narration.

Quote from: StuartOne of the problems with "rewarding good roleplaying" is that it's highly subjective.  Are you rewarding effort?  Performance?  Entertainment?  Does the GM decide?  The person doing the roleplaying?  What if you think it's a great performance, but the other players aren't enjoying it?  

How I'm handling this in my game is to let the group decide what constitutes good roleplaying, and who should be rewarded for it.  This means some groups and games could reward long, emotive performances, while others could reward short but descriptive narration.

Well, aren't all rewards in the game pretty much based on the subjective whim of the GM?  Why should role-playing rewards be any different?

Quote from: jgantsWell, aren't all rewards in the game pretty much based on the subjective whim of the GM?  Why should role-playing rewards be any different?

Not true.  Any system will have optimal choices, for one, which inherently results in mechanically rewarding certain actions by making them more efficient.

In the more specific case, D&D in particular, has specific, predefined XP awards based on challenge rating, as well as a fairly guided progression of treasure rewards.  

It is certainly possible for a given group to houserule that, but the rules as actually written offer some fairly specific rewards.

Quote from: droogElliot, sometimes I think you need a holiday. Or a hot affair or something.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm looking forward to a holiday in December. Now what does this have to do with the topic?

For myself, I'm looking forward to Ryan Dancey's efforts at RPG design. Given he has no creds in that department whatsoever, it should be an exciting read.

Quote from: CabThere really isn't a difference. In either game the DM starts with a premis, the players find that and then the PCs do what the players choose. The distinction between interractive storeytelling and roleplaying is entirely artificial.

People forget the wargame roots of RPGs. The idea is that you have the rules, create the scenario, and DM adjudicates the players actions, and the results of the dice stands for both alike. Players and the DM don't get to make up stuff to the scenario that isn't there.

A problem results when you move from the dungeon to the outdoors. A DM doesn't have the time to make up every single detail of a world so have to "wing" it. The rule then alters to be once a DM makes up something that how it is.

Creativity for the players comes in the responses to the challenges that are encountered given the limitations of the character, rules, or situation.

Creativity for the DM comes in playing the various roles both in terms of acting out the NPCs, figuring out the best strategy for the NPCs via the rules if some type of combat results, and finally the biggest challenge is how to move the scenario dynamically forward in time during play in response to player's action.

The DM is NOT an adversary he is a referee. There is a big difference.

The sum result of everyone doing this is the "story" of the session.

Interactive Storytelling makes the scenario fuzzy as all hell. The rule that the "world" in which the player move in is "fixed" gets thrown out the window. This is detrimental to overcoming challenges as they are tailored to fit the situation or story people are trying to create.

The only part that Ryan has right in all this is that DM is hard. You are a little "God" simulating this world for your player. This is a "hard" thing and there is a lot of prep involved to pull it off. The whole storytelling line of games is a reaction to how hard it is to DM. It is by far easier to sit around with a group of friend and bullshit a story and run a few combat with a rule-lite system.

The choice of the dungeon in OD&D was an EXCELLENT way of jump starting RPGS. It was a focused environment with a lot of conventions that made it easy for novice DMs to get into. This is probably one reason why a lot of "old school" games are being created or revitalized.

Because Storytelling games ditch the wargame parts, they are very different than RPGs.

Ryan Dancey makes me sad.
He shows everyone what it´s like to be a salesman in a creative hobby/working field.

With high stakes, he´d be rich.

But with the stakes so low, the salesman is now down to imitating the creative people via "market analysis" while being removed from current data.

Really, a sad thing to watch.

Ok. I am really not going to make any judgements right now. I want to see the product. If it has any value for me, I hell care not who wrote it or what marketing bullshit he accompanies it with. Otherwise, I care not as well. :p

His current spiel reminds me of Al Franken's Stuart Smalley character from SNL: completely messed up, but he's read so many self-help books that he thinks he's an expert, so he's going to write his own book--not based on the techniques he used to actually "get better", but on some exciting stuff he read that sounds so cool it just has to work.

(Actually this is unfair to Stuart Smalley, he's really a very endearing character and he did manage to help people once in a while.)

Quote from: estarPeople forget the wargame roots of RPGs.
....
Because Storytelling games ditch the wargame parts, they are very different than RPGs.

You seem to assume that there isn't a complete continuum already in RPGs; may have started out as wargames, but they haven't been since, well, some time around when I was born I should think. Roleplaying games already cover all of those elements that people seem to think are different about 'storeytelling', there is no new or different element to them that isn't old hat.

Cab, you're misunderstanding Rob's post, which is once more spot on.

Quote from: CabYou seem to assume that there isn't a complete continuum already in RPGs; may have started out as wargames, but they haven't been since, well, some time around when I was born I should think. Roleplaying games already cover all of those elements that people seem to think are different about 'storeytelling', there is no new or different element to them that isn't old hat.

Does the game have a referee that has the following duties

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session
b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

a, b, c, d seem pretty binary to me. You and drop into a session and see who is doing what. If a,b,c, and d are being done by a single person then BINGO! you can say that could be a RPG being played. After that you see if the players are using individuals as character. If they are then you have an RPG in session. Otherwise it some type of kriegspiel style wargame that needs a referee.

Now if a,b,c, and d are split among different players or our subject group consensus. Then it is something other than an RPG.

Here is another thing to think about. In a storytelling game like Dancey proposes what is the value of an adventure module? For a traditional RPG the adventure is an already prepped adventure and plot for a referee to run. If a game doesn't lend itself to adventure modules can you say it is an RPG?

Rob Conley

Quote from: Kyle AaronWell I would just call them "attention whores" rather than "power gamers." If you're talking about people who always want the spotlight, then it's a better description.

Which makes it very ironic that Ryan Dancey is saying "no power gamers", because "attention whore" pretty well sums up what Dancey has reduced himself to as of now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: estarHere is another thing to think about. In a storytelling game like Dancey proposes what is the value of an adventure module? For a traditional RPG the adventure is an already prepped adventure and plot for a referee to run. If a game doesn't lend itself to adventure modules can you say it is an RPG?

Hah, you know I'm with you most of the way, Rob (though multiple characters per player is okay by me), but here I object. An adventure module can be "just" a situation, such as a location and a bunch of NPCs-in-motion. This is how the old Dragonquest modules by SPI were done. Even with a full-on Dancey-esque players-make-up-the-world storytelling game, I think you could use a situational scenario as a baseline for the players to riff off of. The problem would be determining which parts of the scenario would be open knowledge, which would be secret (and known to whom?), which could be changed, which would be set in stone, and how to adapt to any changes.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow what does this have to do with the topic?

Go back to the Forge, topic nazi.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron...

I mean, my very first rpg when I was 12, the DM must have been not very much against his players, or else my Strength 10 fighter would never have made it to 3rd level. And the very first campaign we call "D&D", Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, that guy had the Chainmail rules where PC vs monster was just one dice roll, winner lived, loser died - the players didn't like that, so he took his Ironclad rules ("Armor Class" and "Hit Points", with the ship sinking when reaching 0 Hit Points) and slotted them in, the players liked that much better. Doesn't sound terribly adversarial to me...

And this was 1973. I guess old Dancey is taking a while to catch up.

That last bit is so cool.  I did not know that bit of D&D lore.  Arneson came up with far more of the good stuff in D&D than I thought.

Quote from: CabWell, I rekon most players aren't power gamers, but they'll try to do the best in a tight situation with the character they have (and rightly so). But as for this streamlined stuff, what he's saying is not keeping tight track of trivialities when you trust your players. I think most of us have always done that.

So true, same with your first post.  Just because Dancey doesn't know how to run a non-adversarial game doesn't mean the rest of us don't.  Do you really need a rule to say don't be a jerk (GM or player)  I thought that was just common socialization, something people should have learned by 12.

Other issues aside, the default style of play definitely used to be player vs. DM. Check out early Dragon articles and descriptions of play - it's all there, particularly in the proclaimations of Gygax. Even now, many people follow the DM-as-god paradigm and/or gamist play styles, which are, in many ways, the philosophical children of the old DM-player relationship.

Seanchai

Quote from: NicephorusI knew he was just trying get attention to get ready to sell something.
 
"The intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode. "
 
This really isn't necessary.  Many groups play D&D as a more cooperative game.  Those who want to, do so.  They don't need a book about it.

My first reaction to this was agreement. I've been doing this sort of gaming for years.

But then, given how many people I run into online that don't seem to be able to approach D20 in this way, perhaps there could be something to a little methodology here. :shrug:

Quote from: jrientsThe difference is that some people want to be mechanically rewarded for inefficient choices.  If I choose to have my fighter beat up a demon with his bare hands rather than his magic sword, the reward is that my guy is awesome.  To alter the game so that a punch is equal to a magic sword takes that awesome-osity away.  This example is from an actual game.  I chose the suboptimal route as a way of demonstrating how stonecold badass my PC was.  That would not have worked if the game had rewarded me mechanically.

"Yeah that's right baby, beat your demon ass down with my bare hands wild west style.  Don't need no holy avenger for your ass."  

I love when players do this stuff.  And in a way they get a reward in my games, the game-world reacts in a reasonable fashion to this.  Other demons that hear of this will fear the PCs more.  A demon lord may have to now get the PC for humialting him.  If any one observed this the PCs rep (I use a little point system to keep track) gets a nice boost.  I may even give an xp bonus for thinking outside the box or making it a greater challenge.

However, if they decide to attack unarmed and they have no skill in such and their normal gauntlets will not harm the demon, while their sword would, the dice fall where they may.  It could very well be PC death.  

But sub-optimal I sometimes think people think not bash-slash style.  I make knowledge valuable for combat (numbers, postions, mission, motive of the enemy) so that if players decide to get a few language and culture skills to understand their enemey, instead of maxed combat, they can gain the advantage of surprise and the accurate application of force.   A better adavntage than they could likely get from bashing alone.  

To me there is a whole other dimension of game rules that are just common sense, if the GM sets the game world to react in a logical fashion world-oriented fashion, things that are "good role-playing" get a reward through thr role-play and interaction with the world.  You save a village, you don't need a rule to know many folks are going to be grateful, you may have made friends for life who will pass you information, aid you in time of need etc.  The GM running a "living" world provides the reward in a better way than you gain one power dice for your "humanity."  People do it for the fun and role play with the world, even if Machiavellian, not the dice.

Quote from: SeanchaiOther issues aside, the default style of play definitely used to be player vs. DM. Check out early Dragon articles and descriptions of play - it's all there, particularly in the proclaimations of Gygax. Even now, many people follow the DM-as-god paradigm and/or gamist play styles, which are, in many ways, the philosophical children of the old DM-player relationship.

Seanchai

I have to disagree having started playing back then. OD&D came out of an older than 12-16 scene, more like 18-21 and then those old guys in Wisconsin.  Gygax got a lot of flack about the DM=god thing and any game I ever saw where the GM tried to be an arbitrary god ende quick, that is, no matter what Gygax said poeple didn't suffer jerk DMs.  

Gygax in the Dragon and DMG describes a very formalistic style of play that does not come out of the rules or inherently flow from them.  How common was the "caller" for example.  That is why he had to rail so hard about playing one way, people just ignored him and the rules never forced such play.  Ranting was just harder back then when post frequencey was once a month.  It was hard to respond to such things as well and call bullshit, unlike on the internet now.  People even ignored the rules despite Gary's rants, critcal hits anyone?

The premise that the traditional RPG, where the GM says what is behind the door, inherenty causes an adversarial GM vs player situation in the GM is "out to get you, looking for the gotcha, is unfair, etc." is false.  Nor was this the norm of how people played in all my experience.  You are really saying that what was called a "killer DM" back then was the norm and default game.

In my view the default game of Gary's vision, to be fair to Gary, was the DM should fairly referee the world and challenge the players, the players should not whine or excessively argue with the DM, they can make their case but once a decision is made move on.  Really what you would do anyway if you are a reasonable person.  

I can only think he said these things because most folks came from symmetrtic games where it was fair for each player to work as hard as they could to defeat the other because the same rules applied to each side.  The descriptions of the paly at Gary's own table don't sound like he is out to get anyone at all or ever was.  They are actually more on the "Monty Hall" side of it.

Just like Dnacey's rants are giving BW a bad rep, don't take Gary's rants as the reality of how people played or the play that resulted form the rules.  I do agree that Gary's rants to this day give AD&D a bad rep.

Further, there are other traditional RPGs where the GM narrates what is behind the door, and where the game designer never went off ranting like Gary.

Quote from: jrientsThe difference is that some people want to be mechanically rewarded for inefficient choices.  If I choose to have my fighter beat up a demon with his bare hands rather than his magic sword, the reward is that my guy is awesome.  To alter the game so that a punch is equal to a magic sword takes that awesome-osity away.  This example is from an actual game.  I chose the suboptimal route as a way of demonstrating how stonecold badass my PC was.  That would not have worked if the game had rewarded me mechanically.

I can understand that. It's one of the things that's always put me off HeroQuest. I like having character creation be a hundred word narrative, I like freeform traits, but I don't like that there's no game-mechanical difference between "Heavy Puncher 17" and "Munty Big Sword 17". All the choices become cosmetic, sword vs fists is no more significant than red hair vs black hair.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhich makes it very ironic that Ryan Dancey is saying "no power gamers", because "attention whore" pretty well sums up what Dancey has reduced himself to as of now.

Well, all of us with high postcounts and strong opinions are a little bit guilty of that ;) I'm more interested in talking about what he's saying than thinking about whether he's saying it so everyone will look at him or whatever.

Quote from: XantherThat last bit is so cool. I did not know that bit of D&D lore. Arneson came up with far more of the good stuff in D&D than I thought.

Check out the Big List of Links in my sig, there's some stuff about the development of roleplaying there.

Quote from: XantherGygax in the Dragon and DMG describes a very formalistic style of play that does not come out of the rules or inherently flow from them.

I dunno about Dragon, but in the DMG he also had some non-adversarial things described, like how if some PC was killed through no fault of the player, just shitty luck, the DM should let them live, just maybe limping or something. And in his talk about "troublesome players" there's a lot of thought about the interests of the group as a whole.

I think perhaps Gygax in his articles was like a lot of us on forums - stating a pretty extreme opinion which rarely is expressed in play. In play almost everyone is more moderate.

Quote from: XantherI have to disagree having started playing back then.

I started with the old red box and moved on to first edition AD&D. I started reading Dragon back when it was still in the double digits.

Quote from: XantherGygax got a lot of flack about the DM=god thing and any game I ever saw where the GM tried to be an arbitrary god ende quick, that is, no matter what Gygax said poeple didn't suffer jerk DMs.  

Then where does the DM as god paradigm come from? If it's as you say, then why do we have a generation of DMs who feel that their voice and vision is the only one that matters? It had to spring from somewhere and be perpetuated by something. If not play groups, then what? If, as you say, play groups

Quote from: XantherThe premise that the traditional RPG, where the GM says what is behind the door, inherenty causes an adversarial GM vs player situation in the GM is "out to get you, looking for the gotcha, is unfair, etc." is false.

Shrug.

Quote from: XantherNor was this the norm of how people played in all my experience.

It has been in mine.

Quote from: XantherThe descriptions of the paly at Gary's own table don't sound like he is out to get anyone at all or ever was.

He's the guy who said if you weren't playing by all his rules, you weren't really playing D&D. Was he "out to get" his players? Shrug. He certainly seems pretty didactic, rigid and...not exactly collaborative to me.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartI think this is the distinction to focus on:

Traditional RPG:  The GM narrates what's behind the door.

Storytelling Game:  The player narrates what's behind the door.

That's the best definition I've seen thus far. For this I shall give you a small barony when I become Emperor of Earth (Earth to be renamed Jesus H. Motherfucking Christ just for kicks).

-=Grim=-

I think things would be clearer if instead of talking about adversarial vs. cooperative play we looked at the question of whether the GM's job is seen as providing challenges for the players to try overcome, and the players' interest is finding challenges and overcoming them. It's the aspect of play that, if taken to an extreme, will basically turn the game into the tabletop equivalent of a video game.

Thing is I think some people play so close to that end of the spectrum that they see everything else as "storytelling", and conversely other people play so far over on the storytelling side that they see any kind of challenge--even if it's just representing the in-game fact that something is difficult and/or requires skill to overcome--as "adversarial".

Also it might help to think of the kinds of challenges there are. There are obstacles and there are complications.

So, "your daughter is kidnapped by slavers" is an obstacle; "your daughter has fallen in love with the slavelord's son" is a complication.

An obstacle challenges the player's dice and the character's skill; a complication challenges the player's mind. Dungeon crawls and computer games offer only obstacles, but having only complications is like a soap opera. Most gamers will enjoy a bit of both.

Both obstacles and complications can be interesting or lame. The classic, "ah, you found the trap but... did you find the trap on the trap?" is lame. Complications are even easier to make lame, watch any daytime tv for examples.

I think a lot of this "storygame" babble comes from people who have only ever met lame obstacles, never fun obstacles or interesting complications. Or even as I said earlier, they haven't actually had these crap game sessions, they just imagine them, a sort of Platonic Ideal of a crap game session. "Okay, if we take all the most stupid and negative things written in the DMG thirty years ago and combine them with the most stupid and annoying gamers we can possibly imagine, what sort of game do we get? Well, let's call that "traditional" gaming. Wow, trad games suck!"

Anyway,

Challenges

• Complications
• Obstacles

Make any sense?

Pretty much but they're so different that they almost shouldn't be grouped together. What they do have in common is that both give the player a chance to do something.

Anyway, I avoided complications because they don't have much to do with the stuff Dancey's talking about. He's not trying to create a complication-filled game as an alternative to an obstacle-filled one, he's after something else entirely which he thinks is the only alternative, or at least the "key killer-app alternative" that's going to burnish his reputation as an innovator.

Sure. He obviously doesn't recognise the existence of the complication kind of challenge, or perhaps is a bit stupid as a player and so just sees a complication as an obstacle his character can't overcome.

The point is that leaving it out contributes to this false vision of the Platonic Ideal of the Crap Trad Game. If you recognise that many GMs put in complications, and that part of the fun of a game session is players dealing with those, then GMs don't look so cruelly adversarial after all.

It's easy to make something look ugly if you only focus on one small part of it. By focusing on "obstacles" as challenges, he's making "trad" gaming look ugly. And that sort of focus on the ugly will mean his gamebook's likely to be missing something. His bias will fuck things up.

Does he even game these days? I mean, a real campaign, not the occasional one-off with gingerbread men.

Quote from: SeanchaiOther issues aside, the default style of play definitely used to be player vs. DM. Check out early Dragon articles and descriptions of play - it's all there, particularly in the proclaimations of Gygax. Even now, many people follow the DM-as-god paradigm and/or gamist play styles, which are, in many ways, the philosophical children of the old DM-player relationship.

Seanchai

Hackmaster grabs the concept of the adversarial GM with gusto, because it, like any good parody, has an element of truth to it.  It may be exaggerated for comic effect, but it had to come from somewhere, it would just come across as ridiculous.  

If nothing else, I rather respect the game for that bit, even if it is tongue and cheek about it, because it's about the onyl game in recent memory that I can recall, where this specific style of play was addressed openly and proudly.

I actualyl wonder a bit if it's embracing of that style of play is in part why the game is taken so seriously by some old school fans.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHah, you know I'm with you most of the way, Rob (though multiple characters per player is okay by me), but here I object. An adventure module can be "just" a situation, such as a location and a bunch of NPCs-in-motion. This is how the old Dragonquest modules by SPI were done.

Most of Harn is done this way. One wag goes to say "If you pulled the trigger on every plot hook in the various harn article it would be armeddegon." However even Harn makes a distinction between adventures and a regular article. The Harn usually has a separate article that outlines the plot (usually involving a Nolah (harnic troll)).

Quote from: Elliot WilenEven with a full-on Dancey-esque players-make-up-the-world storytelling game, I think you could use a situational scenario as a baseline for the players to riff off of. The problem would be determining which parts of the scenario would be open knowledge, which would be secret (and known to whom?), which could be changed, which would be set in stone, and how to adapt to any changes.

I don't see dancey style storytelling game having much use if any for that plot sheet I mentioned for Harn module. Without that plot sheet used by one person it is damn hard to maintain any sense of mystery. I think that will be the signature weakness of Storytelling Games just as the amount of work a DM has to do is a signature weakness of RPGs.

I truly believe Dancey doesn´t understand the implications regarding success and mystery.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPretty much but they're so different that they almost shouldn't be grouped together. What they do have in common is that both give the player a chance to do something.

They fall under the header of plot. Plot is to RPGs as a script is to film and stage. I am not saying that the are the same thing. Only that they fill a similar role. A play doesn't happen until the actor perform the script. A story doesn't result until the DM starts refereeing what the player do in reaction to his plot.

A bad script can sink a play, a good script badly executed can sink a play, a bad plot can sink a RPG session, a good plot badly executed can sink a RPG session. So plot is important to a good game. Now it can be a simple as a well  design dungeon with lots of interesting monsters, tricks, traps, and puzzles. To a game revolving around the intrigues of the Court of the Thousand Year Imperium.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnyway, I avoided complications because they don't have much to do with the stuff Dancey's talking about. He's not trying to create a complication-filled game as an alternative to an obstacle-filled one, he's after something else entirely which he thinks is the only alternative, or at least the "key killer-app alternative" that's going to burnish his reputation as an innovator.

His whole premise reside on his opinion that traditional RPGs take too much time to prepare for on the DM part. That holds back RPGs from truly a mass-market game. His solution effectively ditches the RPG and replaces with a different type of game.

My own opinion that D&D needs a section of its product line that is marketed like FtA! You buy this game to go into deep dark dungeons to kill monsters and win treasure.We give a dungeon and show you how to make your own for countless hours of entertainment.

Simple focused and easy to grasp. I am not saying cripple the game or anything. The box you put in Toys-R-Us should be focused on the dungeon crawl or any other easy to grasp theme. Any element not important to that them you leave out. The three core rulebooks and remaining splat-book you make available to the hobby channel.

Funny. Ryan Dancey registered here.

Now some of you will actually have option to explain him, why the Forge theory is wrong all the way. :p

Quote from: AlnagFunny. Ryan Dancey registered here.

I just saw that myself.

You know, considering how many people say disparaging remarks about this site, it sure does appear to be influential.

Quote from: AlnagFunny. Ryan Dancey registered here.

Now some of you will actually have option to explain him, why the Forge theory is wrong all the way. :p

Hi Ryan!

I'm new here too, but welcome aboard.  This is a hell of a freewheeling fistfest and there's lots of diverging opinions roaming around in this here unmoderated RPG Forum.   Some people here are flat out against Story-Games.  Some people are for them to varying degrees.   A lot of people here just can't stand the Forge, and the reason why comes down to a few specific reasons:

1. Their marketing strategy has been to denigrate Traditionalist Gamesmasters with terminology such as "GM Fiat" (for being a phrase preloaded with negative connotation), "BadWrongFun" and "Brain Damage", and many people here find it offensive to no small degree.  If you don't know what these refer to, just ask.  

2. Concepts such as "Player Empowerment", which appear to denigrate the Traditionalist approach to Gamesmastering where the GM owns the BackStory and the Players own the Plot via the actions of their Characters.   A lot of GMs and Players have had great experiences with the Traditionalist style, and so these people (myself included) question the validity of the "Player Empowerment" movement, especially given its drawbacks (such as the loss of suspense).  You could read more about that debate in associated threads such as this one (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144838&postcount=58).

Well, there are additional reasons, probably, but these are the two that I've noticed most frequently alluded to, and the ones I feel most strongly about personally.  

Anyway, welcome aboard.  Best wishes.

- Mark

A game where people could build an adventure in the non GM manner, intending for it to be played by other players, would be kinda cool.

The game could build the background and setting and NPC's and places. Kind of like a random dungeon generator. But with different people competing to get their idea in and a mechanic to arbitrate differences of opinion.

As long as it didn't try to mix trad style gaming in, which would defeat all my fun of gaming, I think I would have to check it out.

I know burning empires and a couple other games approach this, but they don't seem enough 'building to be played in by others later' to suite what I want. Those games get the goals of the endeavor to confused for me.

I'm not sure that Mr. Dancy meant anything like this, but I would like to encourage it.

Quote from: darThe game could build the background and setting and NPC's and places. Kind of like a random dungeon generator.

;)

uh... but the point would be it would be a game. With others. Could play it off times with some other group. RDG's are cool and all... and are a game and all... but I'm thinking I'd like a little bit of competition with others mixed in.

Estar,

In most of my games, and I understand this is actually a fairly common approach, there is no plot as such.

Rather the GM creates a dynamic situation, adds PCs and then referees what happens.

For example, the situation may be that a city is torn with factional infighting between the aristocracy and the power of the merchant guilds, the GM preps the personalities involved, their agendas and what will happen if the PCs were not there then the PCs arrive and play starts.

The key is the GM has no view on what will happen once play starts, and no particular preconceived plot.

To me this is a classic form of trad GMing, not as common as plot driven GMing but not all that rare either.

So I would alter your rather good four part test as follows:

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure/situation before the actual session
b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

I've added situation there, because I don't think what I'm describing takes me into storygaming territory even slightly but I don't think it was something you were recognising.

Incidentally, folk who like my approach tend not to use modern style modules at all as they are useless to us, though I understand way back in the day some DnD modules worked precisely on the basis I outline above.

Balbinus (and Rob), note that when some people write "plot" they don't mean a sequence of preplanned events, but rather (1) the "premise" of a scenario or story. Conversely some people do mean (2) a preplanned sequence of events, or at least a general outline of events that might shift around a bit, but which will fit an arc that the GM knows in advance. I may be mistaken, but from other discussions with Rob I think he means (1) the former.

Basically I'm a little more optimistic about the ability of a "storytelling game" (in the sense Dancey's talking about) to build on a  "plot" (1); after all there are games like Universalis, Polaris, Capes, and Primetime Adventures which at least from secondhand reports manage to work well for some groups, and once any of those games gets going, you necessarily have a "plot" (1) that develops and which gets built on instead of being completely undercut.

(Maybe I'm being generous; however, I think I could enjoy any of those games if I had the right people playing it with me--as a rough litmus test, if someone doesn't understand that Star Wars eps. 1-3 are laughable drek, they probably shouldn't be "empowered" in the same game with me.)

So I think perhaps a prepared module that simply provides, say, a situation, some maps, and a guide to factions wouldn't be much different from the product of the first brainstorming session of a wide-open "storytelling game". One thing working against it might be that players tend to be more invested in fiction of their own invention; nevertheless, I think it could work. I just wouldn't see it as an RPG, and I also don't think the traditional GM-player divide necessarily limits player input and freedom as drastically as Dancey seems to think.

Quote from: darA game where people could build an adventure in the non GM manner, intending for it to be played by other players, would be kinda cool.

I'd look to Universalis, possibly Levi's free Microcosm, and maybe Lee Short's Clay of the Gods for inspiration, and possibly a solution to this need.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm new here too, but welcome aboard.  This is a hell of a freewheeling fistfest and there's lots of diverging opinions roaming around in this here unmoderated RPG Forum.   Some people here are flat out against Story-Games.  Some people are for them to varying degrees.   A lot of people here just can't stand the Forge, and the reason why comes down to a few specific reasons:

1. Their marketing strategy has been to denigrate Traditionalist Gamesmasters with terminology such as "GM Fiat" (for being a phrase preloaded with negative connotation), "BadWrongFun" and "Brain Damage", and many people here find it offensive to no small degree.  If you don't know what these refer to, just ask.  

2. Concepts such as "Player Empowerment", which appear to denigrate the Traditionalist approach to Gamesmastering where the GM owns the BackStory and the Players own the Plot via the actions of their Characters.   A lot of GMs and Players have had great experiences with the Traditionalist style, and so these people (myself included) question the validity of the "Player Empowerment" movement, especially given its drawbacks (such as the loss of suspense).  You could read more about that debate in associated threads such as this one (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144838&postcount=58).

Well, there are additional reasons, probably, but these are the two that I've noticed most frequently alluded to, and the ones I feel most strongly about personally.  

- Mark

You forgot to mention the viral marketting approach to pushing Forge style play and Forge style games in forums, which has done much to turn people off of the Forge cult.

Quote from: BalbinusIncidentally, folk who like my approach tend not to use modern style modules at all as they are useless to us, though I understand way back in the day some DnD modules worked precisely on the basis I outline above.

Me too on pretty much all of your points. Your description of city GMing is me juggling Lankhmar factions back in the day. Just to add that many early Traveller modules were famously or infamously situational like that also. To plot-driven people (including myself during certain phases) they could be nigh unintelligible for that reason. Many people still hate them.

Quote from: estarDoes the game have a referee that has the following duties

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session
b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

Depends on the RPG. There is already a pretty broad continuum between 'yes always', 'sometimes' and 'no'. Thats why I'm stating that the distinctions you're drawing are, at best, artificial.

Correction: they're meaningful.

Rob and others in this thread are drawing distinctions so that they can get their opinions understood.

If you like you can tell a story while playing "Tiddlywinks", but that doesn't mean anyone else has to acknowledge it as an RPG.

Perhaps it would help if you'd give an example of a published game that you think of as an RPG, or a gaming situation that you played in,  which breaks any of (a)-(d).

Quote from: Elliot WilenPerhaps it would help if you'd give an example of a published game that you think of as an RPG, or a gaming situation that you played in,  which breaks any of (a)-(d).

I'll take a bash, in the interest of seeing where it gets us.

Hm, let's take Dogs in the Vineyard, a game I don't actually like but that is definitely a storygame.

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session

Yup

b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.

Yup
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

Yup
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

Yup.

Hm, that didn't work so well.

Ok, let's try octaNe, which I have played as well and like more than DitV:

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session

Yup

b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.

Yup

c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

Yup, because this doesn't take into account narrative control, on a good roll in octaNe I say what happens, but the GM still rules on when rolls are needed.

d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.


Yup.

Actually, I'm struggling to think of storygames that don't pass these tests.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhich makes it very ironic that Ryan Dancey is saying "no power gamers", because "attention whore" pretty well sums up what Dancey has reduced himself to as of now.

RPGPundit

And doubly ironic that Pundit would point that out. :D

Quote from: BalbinusI'll take a bash, in the interest of seeing where it gets us.

Hm, let's take Dogs in the Vineyard, a game I don't actually like but that is definitely a storygame.[...]
Yup
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

This is an area where DitV starts to wander off the reservation, since everyone at the table has a dual responsibility to mechanics and world-emulation--i.e., what traits you can invoke in a conflict and how to narrate Raises. It goes a bit farther with 100% player-defined interpretations of Fallout. The biggest (which might really fall under (a) which I didn't quote) is mutability and subjectivity of the cosmology and continuity--i.e., at least by some readings of the rules, it seems the players can declare a town "done and saved" whenever they like and regardless of what they actually did to "save" it.

I don't know octaNe, but

QuoteYup, because this doesn't take into account narrative control, on a good roll in octaNe I say what happens.

if this doesn't violate one of Rob's criteria, then the criteria should probably be rewritten. Note that I personally don't think the divisions are precisely defined; "hero" points have been around for quite a while and most people accept that an RPG can include a little bit of player narrative control through their expenditure. It's more when you have a drastic narrative twist such as I've suggested elsewhere, like a player declaring that an NPC is secretly in league with the Devil, that these sorts of mechanics would take you into story-time.

QuoteActually, I'm struggling to think of storygames that don't pass these tests.

The Mountain Witch suggests that players be able to improvise backstory as the game goes along; Universalis obviously does fail the test, as does Polaris. Not sure if TMW claims to be an RPG; the other two don't. Dancey's hypothetical game I think will violate (b)-(d) at least in part, and maybe (a) as well if Rob's worst fears are realized.

Universalis plainly doesn't meet Rob's tests, but I think it is very much a story creation game.

Re Dogs, is choosing which traits any different to choosing which skills to use?  Is it so different to Risus or Over the Edge?  Also, narrating what your choice means, is that different to narrating your blow in a DnD game on rolling to hit ("I duck his blow and slash upwards" for example, pure colour with no mechanical effect much as in Dogs IIRC).

I think Rob's criteria need adjusting to take account of narrative control, though only on a major scale.  I'd struggle with any test which told me games like Adventure, Buffy or Feng Shui weren't rpgs and all of those have elements of player controlled narrative.  I agree with the distinction you draw, drastic narrative twists, essentially for me it's when the player can rewrite the setting in a fundamental way which may be contrary to the GM's wishes.

I don't really know The Mountain Witch, the premise never grabbed me.  Premise used here in an ordinary sense, not some GNS specific sense.

Dogs vs. Risus/OtE is a hard case; of the three, I've read Risus and played Dogs. The thing is that Risus is intended to be played for laughs somewhat, so gonzo descriptions/justifications are not only allowed but encouraged (the inappropriate trait bonus). Much also has to do the GMing ethos encouraged in the rules text; perhaps I read too much into it or buy too much into the hype of DitV being different from a reg'lar RPG, but there's a strong sense of the group having to self-police (the "most critical player" rule) while Risus doesn't seem to question the basic notion that the GM will have final say. That's important, it means that "the world" is another person, a specific other person, at the table.

With D&D vs. Dogs I think you're flat wrong; narration in D&D is optional and the ability to use a "trait" is generally noncontroversial. If you're standing next to him, you can use your sword, otherwise you have to throw or shoot something at him. Whereas with Dogs, fitting "I once whipped a man for chewing tobacco in church" into the conflict will determine if you get to roll those dice at all.

But Dogs is also problematic for me because it stands too close to the border between "storytelling" and "roleplaying"; at least that's how it gets hyped, with many of its fans insisting they immerse and get into character, and at the same claiming the game-world is fundamentally mutable based on the players' judgment. I feel much the same about TMW, while some other storygames by contrast strike me as having far more coherent goals. (Ordinary sense, not GNS sense. :) )

Eliot, I see your point on Dogs, that makes more sense to me now.

Quote from: Elliot WilenCorrection: they're meaningful.

Rob and others in this thread are drawing distinctions so that they can get their opinions understood.

If you like you can tell a story while playing "Tiddlywinks", but that doesn't mean anyone else has to acknowledge it as an RPG.

Perhaps it would help if you'd give an example of a published game that you think of as an RPG, or a gaming situation that you played in,  which breaks any of (a)-(d).

You mean, as an experienced gamer you haven't encountered all of those being broken in RPGs?

Lets look at those in some detail...

Quotea) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session

Loads of times. You've got a continuum all the way from a GM who scripts out every encounter through to those who have the characters simply wake up somewhere in a room with white walls and wings it from there. I've played games where even the genre hadn't been decided; ultimately, any game is just a framework of rules that can be adhered to or moved around, and people have been playing games that are either 'systemless' or 'genre free' (both terms that just don't work) as well as un-scripted games for, well, longer than I've been a gamer. Thing is, such things don't usually get published because theres nothing to publish.

Quoteb) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.

Its a standard way in which GMs in larger groups have always run games; whether individual parts of a campaign are given out to or selected by players to design, or whether its done 'on the fly', I've seen this done in games as diverse as T&T and WoD. Reading through T&T, its more or less how game world design is meant to be done (look up rebuilding cities after Monsters! Monsters! sessions).

Quotec) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

The presence of dice is neither here nor there, people have experimented with diceless games for ages. Whether resolution is by one person deciding or whether its by a collecctive view of where the narrative is going, its all just a variation of the systemless concept. And in reality, its how most conventional RPGs work for most ordinary actions. Until it comes to things that have a real, measurable difficulty most actions are detemined in a sort negotiative narrative. There is nothing at all new in that.

Quoted) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

The obvious example is 'Amber'. I'll also remind you of D&D settings such as Spelljammer, Planescape and suchlike where players are encouraged by many DMs to come up with their own setting or origin. Such complete freedom to design setting is quite rare in RPGs, largely because each player character usually needs to know where they are in relation to other player characters; but why do you think that this is somehow new?

This whole idea that 'storeytelling' is new and exciting in gaming, that it is somethign other than a stylised roleplaying game cocept... Gosh, how gullible are you people?

I agree, Cab. I've said as much before.

Cab, the reason I asked you to provide examples wasn't to "prove" a certain definition of RPGs; as I said, you can do anything you like and call it an RPG; some people will agree with you, some will disagree. The reason was that your comments in this thread were unintelligible abstractions until you had actual examples to back them up. It was impossible to relate your claim, that Dancey wasn't proposing anything new, to any sort of baseline that would make it meaningful. It was also impossible to compare it to the preferences, and often skepticism, that others expressed in response to Dancey's ideas.

That said, your answers are off-point in many cases, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding Rob. I don't think he's emphasizing so much that the GM has to do (a)-(d) as that if anyone does those things, it's the GM, not the players. So having a GM "wing it" doesn't invalidate (a). Having "rotating GMs" doesn't invalidate (b). I'm surprised that you're distracted by the word "dice" in (c); aside from that, making rulings doesn't mean doing so without input. It does mean having final say. As for (d), I'd venture that Amber is a poor example because the players' power to create setting in that game is, if I'm not mistaken, a representation of their characters' powers to create worlds within "the World". The other examples are by your own admission rare, and in any case while I can't speak for Rob, I don't believe that certain small exceptions to general principles takes a game out of the mainstream concept of RPG, or my conception in any case. See my comment about "hero"points a few posts up.

Bringing this back to the topic, it's self-evident based on the reactions we've seen here that even if Dancey's suggesting something that's been done before, it's not "traditional" to a large number of gamers. Perhaps you haven't read the background to his proposal; it was commented on heavily in a couple other threads hereabouts.

Dancey on "Saving the Hobby" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7140&highlight=Dancey)
Who should "tell the story"? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7738&highlight=Dancey)

If you read those (or maybe preferably, just skim through for the links to actual Dancey stuff on his blog and at feartheboot), you'll see that what Dancey has in mind radically breaks (b) and (d), and possibly (a) as well in the sense that GM prep could be overruled at will by player improv. And the spirit of (c) is run roughshod over in the process, though it seems that could be the one way that Dancey's ideas are closest to the way you've played, I guess.

Quote from: SeanchaiThen where does the DM as god paradigm come from? If it's as you say, then why do we have a generation of DMs who feel that their voice and vision is the only one that matters? It had to spring from somewhere and be perpetuated by something.

The DM as god paradigm when it comes to rules is simply an acknowledgement that it's easier to have a single experienced player act as the rules adjudicator than to bicker all the time, or have an enormous, comprehensive rulebook to cover all eventualities.

Now, if you're asking about the paradigm of DM as god when it comes to setting and story, then my experience is that most players back in the day had no interest in working anything other than their own PC. They didn't want to help construct the game world, or offer input on political factions, or take the game off into meaningful explorations of the PCs background and motivations.

IMHO, this whole player empowerement movement is about catering to two different wants:

1) Players who just can't handle another player adjudicating the game and trust black and white game rules more than they trust their friends.

2) Players who want to help craft and improvise the game setting and step out of character to shape the story.

The former have been around forever and are quite common. The latter make up only a smally portion of RPG players, and have only recently had their preferences catered to.

So the DM as god paradigm was never about some adversarial asshole imposing his will on helpless players. It simply represented a default style of play that most people found convenient, and that has gradually been challenged as the makeup of RPG players changed, and as the most unhappy players persisted in braying the loudest to have their preferences met.

Quote from: HaffrungThe DM as god paradigm when it comes to rules is simply an acknowledgement that it's easier to have a single experienced player act as the rules adjudicator than to bicker all the time, or have an enormous, comprehensive rulebook to cover all eventualities.

A few things:

1. That's just rules. As you note, DM as god paradigm covers other aspects.

2. The DM isn't necessarily the most experienced or knowledgeable player. It's interesting that you make this assumption, but it's far from a truism.

3. The players bicker about the rules anyway and under many different paradigms and play styles. If the DM as god paradigm really evolved as a response to this, why didn't it go away as it was ineffective?

Quote from: HaffrungThey didn't want to help construct the game world, or offer input on political factions, or take the game off into meaningful explorations of the PCs background and motivations.

They didn't want to do so or were told by the rulebook and DM it wasn't how players participated in the game?  

Moreover, if this were the case, why the need for the absolute? The DM as god paradigm could run along the lines of "what I say goes until you want to help out." Instead, it's "what I say goes and your help isn't needed or appreciated."

Finally, if the players generally had no interest in being involved in the story and setting, why would DMs need to stake out their territory with the paradigm in question? If the DM as god paradigm does have to do with story and setting, it seems to me it must have arisen for just the opposite reason: players were interested in contributing.  

Quote from: HaffrungSo the DM as god paradigm was never about some adversarial asshole imposing his will on helpless players.

The DM as god paradigm can be about assholes and helpless players, but generally not.

Seanchai

Quote from: VBWyrdeHi Ryan!

Greetings!

QuoteSome people here are flat out against Story-Games.  Some people are for them to varying degrees.   A lot of people here just can't stand the Forge

As much as I admire what Ron & the Forge gang have accomplished, I don't think Story Games and the Forge are synonyms.  They may have broken the box wide open but now the concept has taken on a life of its own.

QuoteAnyway, welcome aboard.  Best wishes.

Glad to be here, thanks for the welcome!

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyGreetings!

As much as I admire what Ron & the Forge gang have accomplished, I don't think Story Games and the Forge are synonyms.  They may have broken the box wide open but now the concept has taken on a life of its own.

Glad to be here, thanks for the welcome!

Ryan

Your quite welcome.  :)

Sooo...??  Soo...?   Tell us ... what do you think of all the hubbub around your pitching for story-games?   Personally, I like Great Story in my RPG.   But I've never felt the need to change the paradigm to get it.   The understanding we have is that you're advocating a new RPG paradigm involving Player Empowerment style games.   A lot of us don't feel that's necessary.  We've read quotes and stuff from your blog and other forums, but it would be much appreciated if you'd elucidate on this point for us on theRPGSite.   There's been a lot of opinions flying.   Do you really feel that the Traditionalist approach (GM owns the BackStory, Players own the Plot via their PCs) is outmoded and that Player Empowerment style games are required for Great Story?  If so then why do you think so, Ryan?   Thanks!

- Mark

The plot thickens! This game's getting more exciting by the minute!

Quote from: VBWyrdeSooo...??  Soo...?   Tell us ... what do you think of all the hubbub around your pitching for story-games?

I'm happy people are interested in seeing what I have to say.  I'm hopeful that as the project unfolds it will result in some books that are as fun to read & use as I'm sure they will be to write.

QuoteThe understanding we have is that you're advocating a new RPG paradigm involving Player Empowerment style games.

I think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.  A group of people who have been involved with the platform since inception are leaving to play MMORPGs, and they are unlikely to return.  I call those people "Power Gamers"; players who fit onto a two-axis diagram of the player space at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "combat focused".  For those people, MMORPGs offer a superior experience to the tabletop RPG, and the MMORPG experience will get better, faster, than the tabletop game could possibly be redesigned to address the deficit (if such a thing were even possible).  MMORPGs also appeal strongly, but not as strongly to the group I call "Thinkers"; players who exist at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "story focused".  We can likely make some changes to keep many of these people, and do it fast enough that the MMORPG experience can be countered before they're all gone.  If we're lucky, we might even get some of those who have already left back eventually.

Those changes in the player community will push the hobby to challenge preconceived notions we all take for granted.  I think that one successful evolution from this point is to start from a nearly blank sheet of paper and redesign the tabletop game with the criteria that it must be rewarding for the 3 groups who will remain on the tabletop, and not compromised by attempts to retain the group that is destined to leave.

The other two groups are the Storytellers, who have a long-term, story focus, and the Character Actors, who have a short-term story focus.  I think a game platform built to be fun for JUST Storytellers, Character Actors & Thinkers is something different from a classic TRPG as we (mostly) know them now.

There are a lot of very strong assumptions in the classic model of the TRPG that are based on the need to control, and provide appropriate challenges to, the Power Gamers.  If we take those assumptions out of the game format, we can create new kinds of games with new sets of assumptions.  A brief list of those assumptions would be the need to deal with near-realtime melee combat actions, the requirement that most of the information in a scenario is hidden knowledge at the start of play and that all in-game objects (characters & items) include statistics on how to destroy them, or use them to destroy other in-game objects.

My goal is to write a few games built with different sets of assumptions about the players who will play them and see if people enjoy them and have fun reading & playing them.

Quotethe Traditionalist approach [sic: is] (GM owns the BackStory, Players own the Plot via their PCs)

In this, I'm in agreement with some of the philosophy of the Forge.  I think the above statement is not possible.  I think that it is impossible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story.  I think that inevitably attempting to resolve the unresolvable logical fallacy of that idea creates conflicts which make the game less fun to play and experience.

The PCs are as much a part of the "backstory" as anything else in the game, and since in most classic RPGs they're "on stage" for the whole narrative, they constitute the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the backstory.  Likewise, the world they exist in must have some effect on them, either socially or economically, or educationally.  The backstory is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of who the characters are; it defines their core natures to such a degree that any evolution which happens after play begins is almost always variations on a predefined theme, and strictly limited.

What I advocate is separating the roles of "person who figures out how to resolve a challenge" from "person who decides what the challenge will be".  I also think that characters & the backstory should be a joint creation of the whole group.

If I want to see entertainment where someone else makes the world & the characters, I'll watch TV.  If I want entertainment where someone makes the world and I just do what I can within a strictly limited range of options provided for me, I'll play an MMORPG.  On the other hand, if I want to play in a game where both world & characters are things I have a hand in creating, I'll play a Storytelling Game.

Let me also say that I think that hidden knowledge is fun, and I think it has a place in the Storytelling Game concept; rather than being the default condition, I think it should be used only when appropriate for drama.  I also think that many brains working together are more creative than one brain, and getting as many brains as possible involved in "making the world cool" and "making the challenge cool" strikes me as being logically more likely to succeed than limiting that work to one brain.

For all 3 of these projects the word "GAME" is at the center of my process.  This is not meant to be an exercise in writing guidelines for improv theater.  Games should have competition, and objectives, and ideally they should have victory conditions.  I think that keeping "GAME" at the center of the work is key to avoiding the pitfalls of the medium that many in this thread (and others) have mentioned.

Ryan

Quote from: Elliot WilenCab, the reason I asked you to provide examples wasn't to "prove" a certain definition of RPGs; as I said, you can do anything you like and call it an RPG; some people will agree with you, some will disagree.

Thats where you're so far wide of the mark...

All of the things I have described, all of the elements under discussion, have been done in roleplaying games, accepted by gamers as being roleplaying games, for two decades or more. Some people will disagree will they? Yes, they probably will, but they're coming at this with the same false assumption that you've got, that this is something new that has not already been incorporated into roleplaying for a very long time.

QuoteThe reason was that your comments in this thread were unintelligible abstractions until you had actual examples to back them up. It was impossible to relate your claim, that Dancey wasn't proposing anything new, to any sort of baseline that would make it meaningful. It was also impossible to compare it to the preferences, and often skepticism, that others expressed in response to Dancey's ideas.

Errm, no, my comments were not unitelligible, its more that you hadn't understood them. Actually there is a pattern emerging here isn't there? You haven't encountered something as part of roleplaying games previously, so they're not part of roleplaying games they are something else. You haven't grasped my comments, so they are unintelligible...

QuoteThat said, your answers are off-point in many cases, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding Rob. I don't think he's emphasizing so much that the GM has to do (a)-(d) as that if anyone does those things, it's the GM, not the players. So having a GM "wing it" doesn't invalidate (a).

Nor did I say that it does; in such gaming scenarios where nothing is pre-defin
ed, each member of the group plays a role in coming up with whats in the setting. Old hat, I first played a game like that some time around 1987.

QuoteHaving "rotating GMs" doesn't invalidate (b).

Putting something that you are saying in "speech marks" doesn't suddenly mean that you can change the meaning of what I've said. Rotating GMs? What the heck are you talking about, thats not what I said, its not what I implied, it is neither part of the content or the meaning of what I posted.

QuoteI'm surprised that you're distracted by the word "dice" in (c); aside from that, making rulings doesn't mean doing so without input. It does mean having final say.

Go and read what I said. I'll make it easier, start with this bit, where in standard roleplaying games:

"most actions are detemined in a sort negotiative narrative. There is nothing at all new in that."

QuoteAs for (d), I'd venture that Amber is a poor example because the players' power to create setting in that game is, if I'm not mistaken, a representation of their characters' powers to create worlds within "the World".

Do you even know the game? Have you gone through the advice in campaign design contained within Amber? The methodologies and encouragement that a GM should use in that game to garner such input from players?

QuoteThe other examples are by your own admission rare,

No, no, no. Complete freedom for all players to design setting and surround is quite rare, that does not mean that the players are commonly excluded from doing so. The point of my argument, my whole premis in this discussion, is that there is a continuum all the way from very prescriptive games all the way to the other end. There is nothing new in this quest to empower everyone sitting at the table.

(further cut, I can't be bothered with this unless you actually read and assimilate the points put to you before responding).

Quote from: RSDanceyI'm happy people are interested in seeing what I have to say.  I'm hopeful that as the project unfolds it will result in some books that are as fun to read & use as I'm sure they will be to write.

Well, some people are interested, in an "intrigued" sort of way.  Others are going into apoplectic fits.  But that aside...

QuoteI think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.  A group of people who have been involved with the platform since inception are leaving to play MMORPGs, and they are unlikely to return.  I call those people "Power Gamers"; players who fit onto a two-axis diagram of the player space at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "combat focused".  For those people, MMORPGs offer a superior experience to the tabletop RPG, and the MMORPG experience will get better, faster, than the tabletop game could possibly be redesigned to address the deficit (if such a thing were even possible).  MMORPGs also appeal strongly, but not as strongly to the group I call "Thinkers"; players who exist at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "story focused".  We can likely make some changes to keep many of these people, and do it fast enough that the MMORPG experience can be countered before they're all gone.  If we're lucky, we might even get some of those who have already left back eventually.

I tend to agree.  MMORGPs are attractive to those who are less interested in Story than in Gaming.  For them the thrill of running around in colorful settings and bashing on things, solving puzzles and interacting with their friends via the computer is highly attractive and even addictive.   That is not to say, however, that they will never return to TRPGs, nor even to say that they won't play them regularly.  Some of these players will do both, because they enjoy both.   My assessment is that this group likes the convenience and thrill of MMORPGs, but they also enjoy the Story and Socializing aspects of TRPGs, and will continue to do both.   Just to add an additional wrinkle.

QuoteThose changes in the player community will push the hobby to challenge preconceived notions we all take for granted.  I think that one successful evolution from this point is to start from a nearly blank sheet of paper and redesign the tabletop game with the criteria that it must be rewarding for the 3 groups who will remain on the tabletop, and not compromised by attempts to retain the group that is destined to leave.

It's an interesting premise.  I think a lot of us are not convinced this is really necessary.  But it depends on what is kept in and what is left out.  We all seem to generally agree that certain aspects of the Traditional RPG (thinking of Dungeons & Dragons mostly) could use some streamlining, and some enhancements that make play smoother, but there's a lot of people who like the "crunch" and so complexity for them is a positive.  Of course these two don't necessarily go together.  Your assessment is that "crunch" will no longer be necessary as Power Gamers move to MMORPGs.   That may or may not be the case, depending on how many Power Gamers also continue to play TRPGs.   There might be a high percentage, or a low.  Time will tell.   In either case, if Power Games like "crutch" they can always continue to play the Traditional RPGs.   It's not as if those will vanish from the universe.  It's just that some people would have liked to see some official modifications and enhancements to the existing system to make it smoother, without fundamentally changing the paradigm.  

QuoteThe other two groups are the Storytellers, who have a long-term, story focus, and the Character Actors, who have a short-term story focus.  I think a game platform built to be fun for JUST Storytellers, Character Actors & Thinkers is something different from a classic TRPG as we (mostly) know them now.

I'm not sure you explained who the First Group of TRPG players remaining will be.  We have the Power Players who will leave.   Are you saying there are only three groups all together?   Above you say "the 3 groups who will remain on the tabletop", which would seem to indicate four groups all together.  I'm not sure if that's a quibble on my part, or an oversight on yours, but if there's a fourth group I'd be curious to hear about them as well.   As for the game for JUST Storytellers... I think we see that there are new games out there focused on that.   However, from what we can tell these games are actually not doing very well in the Market.   For example, a good run is considered 1200 sales in three years.   IF that's true, then I'm curious how you plan to address that, and whether or not that's indicative of something fundamentally at odds with your analysis.   Or is there more to it that we're not seeing?

QuoteThere are a lot of very strong assumptions in the classic model of the TRPG that are based on the need to control, and provide appropriate challenges to, the Power Gamers.  If we take those assumptions out of the game format, we can create new kinds of games with new sets of assumptions.  A brief list of those assumptions would be the need to deal with near-realtime melee combat actions, the requirement that most of the information in a scenario is hidden knowledge at the start of play and that all in-game objects (characters & items) include statistics on how to destroy them, or use them to destroy other in-game objects.

I'm not at all convinced that "the requirement that most of the information in a scenario is hidden knowledge at the start of play" fits in with the other two requirements because the other two do actually deal with Power Gamers desires.  This one however, while being Story oriented, does not necessarily follow from your premise as explained thus far.   And it is actually a very crucial point.   Hidden knowledge in the game has certain benefits to play which if removed will also remove those aspects from the game, to the degree that they are removed.   The point that has come up about this numerous times is that removing the Hidden Aspects, and opening the World to Co-Creation by the Players during game play, reduces the chance for the sense of immersion.   You haven't mentioned immersion, but for some players it's a very important and desirable aspect of the game.   To feel that you're actually entering into Another World... somebody Else's World, that you would not have imagined, and that has it's own twists and turns and surprises within it, not only in terms of what's around the next corner, but the social, political, historical and Fantastical elements of the World.   This feeling is what a lot of Players hope for.   However, how to achieve it is something that requires more than what you're suggesting, and it seems to some that adding Co-Creationism to the game is in fact counter to that goal.   It is much harder to have that sense of "I'm in a New World I never would have Dreamed Of and it's so Fascinating" when you're also being placed in the position of Co-Creating it.   That's not just my opinion, but that of a fair number of posters as well.   What's your take on that?

QuoteMy goal is to write a few games built with different sets of assumptions about the players who will play them and see if people enjoy them and have fun reading & playing them.

Well good on ya, soldier.   We'll see how it pans out.  

QuoteIn this, I'm in agreement with some of the philosophy of the Forge.  I think the above statement is not possible.  I think that it is impossible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story.  I think that inevitably attempting to resolve the unresolvable logical fallacy of that idea creates conflicts which make the game less fun to play and experience.

Ok, this is where we disagree.   I, and others, think it is not only possible, but preferable.  How does that work?  As far as I've been concerned since 1978 when I started Gamesmastering, this model is perfectly valid, and doable.  We've been playing just such an "impossible" system all along, and until only very recently, from a small number of Game Designers who wanted to create "something different" did we start to hear anything approaching a complaint.   That it was not merely a complaint, but an actual series of barbed accusations didn't really help us to warm up to these concepts, just to let you know.   For example, you could look up the use of the term "BadWrongFun", "Brain Damage", and "GM Fiat" (which is pre-loaded to the negative).   We, or at least I, feel that these terms are being used to cast aspersions on the Traditionalist model, not because it is bad, but simply in order to try to drive a new Market into being.   While creating new Markets is laudable, and I have nothing against it, it's the attack on the existing one that we find repugnant.   Just so that's clear to you, Ryan, and no offense to you intended.  For myself, I want to remain open minded on all of these issues, and I want to be perfectly frank with you about where I see things, if for no other reason that to get this debate off on the right, reasonably discussed, track.  Fortunately I woke up early so I have a chance to respond before the wave hits... hehe.

QuoteThe PCs are as much a part of the "backstory" as anything else in the game, and since in most classic RPGs they're "on stage" for the whole narrative, they constitute the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the backstory.  Likewise, the world they exist in must have some effect on them, either socially or economically, or educationally.  The backstory is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of who the characters are; it defines their core natures to such a degree that any evolution which happens after play begins is almost always variations on a predefined theme, and strictly limited.

It's true in that the PCs are "part of the BackStory" in a sense.  They constitute the Protagonists of the Story.  But when I say BackStory, what I mean is the Background Story elements such as the history (not only of the World, but also of the PCs before they come into play, say their lives before they are at the age where the Player picks them up), politics, social constructions, and whatever Fantastic elements may be present.  These elements are designed by the Gamesmaster in what I call the World Weaving function of the game.   That function could be shared, by the way, or taken whole cloth from another source, which is what frequently happens such as in the case of using Modules, or Grey Hawk, and other Worlds created by someone other than the Gamesmaster who is refereeing the game.   It's interesting to note, as was done recently, that it is not a requirement that the Players be the one's to Co-Create the World.   My argument has been that it diminishes the game, *for the Players* when they are asked to do so, in terms of Immersion, surprise, and mystery.   But you get to this point soon, so I'll get back to it later.

QuoteWhat I advocate is separating the roles of "person who figures out how to resolve a challenge" from "person who decides what the challenge will be".  I also think that characters & the backstory should be a joint creation of the whole group.

Or the joint creation of a separate group of World Weavers.   I like that idea very much.   A council of World Weavers would be absolutely smashing.  But the idea of Co-Creating in-game with the Players leaves me less than thrilled.  I see too many Story problems with the introduction of Player-Driven elements in the BackStory by the Players in game.  By the time the Players start actively roaming around in the World, in my opinion that World should already be fairly well formed, and the idea that you could introduce entire new elements willy nilly on the whim of the Players desires (to benefit their Characters) seems counter to what I think of as a good way to build toward Great Story.   I'm just not seeing how it would work out well from an overall Story perspective.   Maybe it would, but my guess is that this would require that the Players also be Great Story Tellers, AND that they know sufficiently the BackStory in order to be able to add elements to that story that make sense in the Big Picture of the World.  

Now, you might counter that Players do like to Create Story too.   Well, that's true.   I do.   But when I want to Create Story, I work on my World in the World Weaving aspect which I do sporadically all the time.   But when I want to Play a Character I want to do just that.   I don't have a big desire to Co-Create my fellow Gamesmaster's Worlds.   I think it would be disruptive to their Vision, potentially, and kind of ruin the "I'm not sure what's going on here yet but I'm keen to explore" feeling of the game for me, as a Player.   So I'm not really seeing this aspect working out.   Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.

QuoteIf I want to see entertainment where someone else makes the world & the characters, I'll watch TV.  If I want entertainment where someone makes the world and I just do what I can within a strictly limited range of options provided for me, I'll play an MMORPG.  On the other hand, if I want to play in a game where both world & characters are things I have a hand in creating, I'll play a Storytelling Game.

There's a middle ground that you missed... which is where the current style of TRPGs is at, though.  And personally, I like it very much because I can enjoy the exploration of Another's World, but still be Active in the Story.  Nor, in the TRPGs that I've played, are my Characters options "strictly limited", but in fact, most GMs I know provide a huge amount of flexibility in letting my Characters try whatever they can think of.   My Character may not succeed - but he can *always* try.  

The way I look at it is that by "owning" the Plot, or Actions of the Protagonists, the Players ARE co-Creating the Story.   We're just NOT co-Creating the BackStory of the World.   So it's not really as stark as your definition here, I don't think.  There's that sweet spot in-between, which is where I think a lot of us are at, and prefer to stay, quite honestly.  

QuoteLet me also say that I think that hidden knowledge is fun, and I think it has a place in the Storytelling Game concept; rather than being the default condition, I think it should be used only when appropriate for drama.  I also think that many brains working together are more creative than one brain, and getting as many brains as possible involved in "making the world cool" and "making the challenge cool" strikes me as being logically more likely to succeed than limiting that work to one brain.

This is an interesting point.   How much of the World can you cede to the Players, effectively?   Again, the problem for me with this concept is that it becomes the dreaded slippery slope.   Right now I can simply say, "No, Tod, Brocknar can not "Just find a race of Squaglles that can eat through stone" because no such race exists in MY World." and that stands.  In the Player Empowered game, however, it doesn't.   And I see that as highly problematic for the maintenance of a coherent World.   My Coherent World, btw.   How would you go about framing rules to handle this fairly to both the Gamesmaster / World Weaver and the Players?   Another point that I think should be made:  Players who traditionally wanted to Create Worlds went and did that, by becoming Gamesmasters themselves.  Why is this approach no longer "Good enough"?

QuoteFor all 3 of these projects the word "GAME" is at the center of my process.  This is not meant to be an exercise in writing guidelines for improv theater.  Games should have competition, and objectives, and ideally they should have victory conditions.  I think that keeping "GAME" at the center of the work is key to avoiding the pitfalls of the medium that many in this thread (and others) have mentioned.

GAME is good.  I like it.  It's a keeper.   :D

QuoteRyan

Ok, well Ryan, thanks a million for elucidating!   It's certainly interesting.   I'll be very curious to see what your responses are, and what others have to say, and moreover what New Games you come up with!   Thanks again!

- Mark

Welcome to the site Ryan. :)

Have you watched the D&D Experience documentary?
http://youtube.com/profile_videos?p=r&user=SpiroLee&page=2

Or listened to Hal and his group from RPGMP3.com?
http://www.podnova.com/channel/365425/  (Try the BaneWarrens sessions)

Do the groups you see/hear from these sources match up with your idea of how D&D games are played?

One more question: What's your favourite version of D&D? ;)

Which game was the last one you have been a player in, Ryan?
How long ago was that?

These are loaded questions, sure. But fair questions, don´t you think?

And from the other side of the fence, Ryan: what is your view of this Forge thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20791), in which Ron Edwards identifies different forms of authority present in roleplaying games. I find your position somewhat less nuanced than his.

Quote from: VBWyrdeYou haven't mentioned immersion, but for some players it's a very important and desirable aspect of the game.   To feel that you're actually entering into Another World... somebody Else's World, that you would not have imagined, and that has it's own twists and turns and surprises within it... It is much harder to have that sense of "I'm in a New World I never would have Dreamed Of and it's so Fascinating" when you're also being placed in the position of Co-Creating it. What's your take on that?

This is key. We play for immersion. MMORPGs do not give us anywhere near the immersion we enjoy sitting around a table sparking one another's imaginations. The stuff I dream in my head while we play is way, way better than any videogame.

For my players, that immersion is spoiled if they control anything more than their own PC. They don't want to be active agents in world-creation. The one other player who has that kind of creative desire satisfies it by DMing once in a while. And when I take off my DM hat and put on my Player hat, I don't want to control anything more than my PC either.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAs far as I've been concerned since 1978 when I started Gamesmastering, this model is perfectly valid, and doable.  We've been playing just such an "impossible" system all along, and until only very recently, from a small number of Game Designers who wanted to create "something different" did we start to hear anything approaching a complaint.

Indeed. It's not only possible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story, it's the preferred format for most people who play RPGs.

Ryan, you seem to have fallen into the Forge assumption that most people who have played RPGs in the last 25 years were not really having a good time. Don't let the persistent and elaborate complaints of a sub-set of the hobby distort your impression of what players enjoy and what they don't enjoy.

While a small fraction of RPGers may want a shared setting with collective authorship, most groups neither want nor are capable of running such a game. My group, for instance, though they are long-time RPGers and close friends outside gaming, have a difficult enough time deciding whether to climb the walls of the bandit fort or disguise themselves as bandits and go in the front gate. They bicker constantly over such decisions. They are incapable of harmonious, collective world-building of the sort you posit. And they recognize that limitation. That's why we have one GM - it's simply convenient to have one adjudicator instead of six negotiators.

Wow.  Umm.  So much to say, so little time.  I think I'll just focus on this part for now:

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that it is impossible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story. I think that inevitably attempting to resolve the unresolvable logical fallacy of that idea creates conflicts which make the game less fun to play and experience.

Unresolvable logical fallacy? Life, in which a trillion other influences own part of the story and I own my part, is an unresolvable logical fallacy that is less fun?

Good luck with your endeavors!

To think that videogames cannot be played for their story, or the stories that people can make out of them, is a display of sheer ignorance.

Quote from: JongWKTo think that videogames cannot be played for their story, or the stories that people can make out of them, is a display of sheer ignorance.

Very True.

(http://imgred.com/http://multimedia.cx/eggs/images/grimfandango.jpg)

Quote from: StuartVery True.

(http://imgred.com/http://multimedia.cx/eggs/images/grimfandango.jpg)

[OT] I never did finish that game. I kept getting stuck in the gloomy forest place with the nutter who drives your turbo boosted hearse truck thingy.[/OT]

Quote from: One Horse Town[OT] I never did finish that game. I kept getting stuck in the gloomy forest place with the nutter who drives your turbo boosted hearse truck thingy.[/OT]

[OT]Oh MAN! After that part it got really good.  It turned into the Casablanca type story where Manny has a Casino and running all over this spooky port city and interacting with Gangsters.  It was ok until the forest.  After the forest it got awesome![/OT]

Quote from: VBWyrdeYour assessment is that "crunch" will no longer be necessary as Power Gamers move to MMORPGs.

I did not say this.  Crunch (i.e. a whole lot of rules) primarily exists now to do the seemingly dichotomous job of both constraining & enabling the Power Gamers.  However, as the TRPG format evolved over the years, some really great "crunch" type rules have been created to help make balanced stories.  I'm thinking in particular of things like the World Burning rules in Burning Empires.  I think there is a subset of Thinkers & Storytellers out there who may be interested in, and helped by, such material.  So I'm not per se against a TRPG with "a whole lot of rules", but I do think we need to put the size & complexity of the ruleset under a microscope to determine if the rules are needed for play, or if they exist primarily to cope with the nature of one of the previously common personality types in the game.

Quoten either case, if Power Games like "crutch" they can always continue to play the Traditional RPGs.   It's not as if those will vanish from the universe.

That's a dangerous assumption.  Technological and demographic shifts have already shown that the hobby gaming market can lose the bulk of a whole category of game.  The tabletop Wargame example needs to be reiterated.

There was a time when the TWG business was as big as (or bigger than) the TRPG business is now, both in terms of revenue generated (inflation adjusted) and players participating.  Other than a stub held together by sheer willpower and a handful of companies, that play format has essentially vanished, replaced by either computerized Wargaming, or the Warhammer family of games.  Recent attempts to bring the format back to the table, like "Flames of War" have been encouraging, but not indicative that the category is about to be revived from the coma it has been in for nearly 25 years.

At the time the industry didn't have a good theory as to why the TWG category had imploded so fast or so far.  Now we do.  The theory is that the player network itself is where the value is for tabletop games.  And that network is not just a random cloud of equally valuable people:  it has a definable structure, and certain nodes act on that network in certain crucial ways.  If you knock enough of the right kinds of nodes out of the network, the network becomes damaged to the point where it ceases to reliably function, and the result is a category collapse.

I believe that this is happening right now to the TRPG category, due to the influence of the MMORPG.  MMORPGs are knocking people out of the TRPG network and those people are not being spontaneously replaced via acquisition.  As the network has frayed, play has declined.  It is impossible to say at this juncture that a collapse equal to the TWG category could happen, but I do think it is possible that we could see a collapse to the point where TRPGs are primarily played by isolated groups-of-groups, being separated networks of hundreds of players, rather than a unified network of millions.  And if that happens, then there won't be a lot of "returning to the tabletop", there will be a lot of people who express a desire to play, but no ability to play instead.

(And yes, I get the fact that some people are just naturally great at creating and sustaining TRPG groups, that some people have no problem converting people who have never played before and turning them into active TRPG players, and that some people are lifetime committed to the hobby and won't quit playing and writing and evangelizing no matter what happens.  Although I get these facts, I don't think they are powerful enough to offset the larger trends because there simply are not enough such people to solve the problem.)

QuoteI'm not sure if that's a quibble on my part, or an oversight on yours, but if there's a fourth group I'd be curious to hear about them as well.

There are actually 5 groups:  Storytellers (Story/Long Term), Thinkers (Conflict/Long Term), Character Actors (Story/Shot Term), Power Gamers (Conflict/Short Term), and Basic Roleplayers (at the juncture of the axis).

You can read all about it here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Quote[re: unit volumes for story games, and lack thereof] Or is there more to it that we're not seeing?

There are a lot of failed "classic" TRPGs too.  There has not been a successful launch of an all-new TRPG game since 2000.  (Although Savage Worlds may be the first trend-breaker in that department; my sense is that sales are growing, but I have not talked with Shane Hensley about it recently, so that's just a guess on my part).  I define "successful" as selling 5,000 units of the core game system per year for at least 5 years.  All the games on the market since 2000 that have passed this test are either D20 games, or are games which pre-date the late '90s collapse of the TRPG category (Storyteller varients, RIFTs, GURPS, BRP varients, HERO, etc.) and have a pre-existing player network to leverage.

On the other hand, a lot of "story games" are being sold as PDF downloads, for which I have virtually zero visibility.  It is possible that some of those games have passed that test (or are passing it, and they are just not 5 years old yet).  And it is even less clear to me how many of those downloads translate into play.  AND (there's a lot of ands here) some of those games are DESIGNED for one-shot rather than serial or campaign play, so even if they sold a lot of units, sales & play may not correlate.

What I do know is that sales for all TRPGs are down across the board since 2003.  I do not get the sense that anything is likely to change that, not even 4E.  I would like to be pleasantly surprised; I'm rooting for everyone to succeed.  I think it is more likely that something new that sparks a big uptick in sales will come from a new kind of game rather than a simplified/streamlined version of an existing play concept, but that's 95% guess and 5% research, so I could be totally wrong.

And to be clear, I don't think that any of my 3 projects will do that.  I'm not doing the work to make money or sell a whole lot of books; I'm doing it to scratch an intellectual itch.

QuoteIt is much harder to have that sense of "I'm in a New World I never would have Dreamed Of and it's so Fascinating" when you're also being placed in the position of Co-Creating it.   That's not just my opinion, but that of a fair number of posters as well.   What's your take on that?

I think that immersion and hidden knowledge are not synonyms.  I think that you can become "immersed" in a game like Monopoly, fully realizing the roleplaying concept of being Donald Trump, caring passionately about completely virtual properties, houses & hotels, cash management, and intra-player deals even though there is no hidden knowledge in the game whatsoever.

I think that most TRPG players enjoy playing in fantasy worlds.  I do not think that most of them qualify that by saying "a world that I did not help create".  I think that the success of canned campaign settings shows that there are lots and lots of TRPG players who are happy to play in a world that they can know as much about as the DM, save that small part that the DM adds or changes in a given game session.

To me, this is a situation where the cleverness lies in putting hidden knowledge in the game just where it matters, but not where it doesn't.

So I don't accept the premise that a TRPG lives or dies on the basis of how much "world" is provided by the DM vs. how much of it is co-created by all the players as a joint effort.

[re: the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast]

QuoteWe've been playing just such an "impossible" system all along, and until only very recently, from a small number of Game Designers who wanted to create "something different" did we start to hear anything approaching a complaint.

Let me make a suggestion of an alternate way to consider this.

For a long time, the industry said "do this", but produced products that did something else.  People liked the "doing something else" thing more than enough to overlook that what the industry SAID it was supposed to do, it didn't really do.  And most people were generally happy.

Then, along about 1989, a group of designers came along and said "no really, DO THIS", and meant it.  But weirdly, the products they produced were no different than the stuff that was already in the market.  But the weird thing was that if you ASKED people if they wanted to DO THIS, they almost always said "yes".  So that created a market gap:  a group of people (everyone who said "yes" when asked if they wanted the other play pattern), and the lack of games that actually were designed to enable that play pattern.

Until 2003, the tension in the market had no real release.  The legions of people who had happily been playing "the way they always played" didn't have any real alternative, so they were content.  And the people who saw an unresolvable logic problem with the "DO THIS" crowd could talk about the problem they saw until they were blue in the face and it didn't matter to anyone and had no effect on anything as a result.

In 2003, City of Heroes and World of Warcraft exceeded some critical threshold, and a tipping point occurred.  Suddenly, for people who liked a certain kind of game, there was a BETTER OPTION than the classic TRPG play pattern, and they made the rational market choice to pick it.  Thus we have an increasing exodus of the Power Gamers, and to some degree, the Thinkers.

Now that "DO THIS" crowd starts to get some traction.  The people who remain as the Power Gamers leave are the people most likely to have sympathy for the "DO THIS" crowd, and the games those people have been incubating suddenly become relevant.  That creates a pretty big backlash (not helped by some of the rhetoric used, and some of the tactics used to be sure).  The backlash is people saying "we don't need any changes, because we're perfectly happy, and have been for 30+ years!"

"DO THIS" is "play a game about cooperative storytelling", which ironically is often expressed as the Impossible Thing, despite the logic problem with the way it is expressed.

Some people think that means a radical change of the whole game concept, into game formats that can be charitably described as avant garde.

Some people think that means make some minor changes to existing games and try to add elements of cooperative storytelling without making fundamental changes.

I think there's a middle ground, taking the best of what worked for 30+ years, but using those things in a concept for a game that is rebuilt from the ground up on different assumptions about who will play the game.  That might be a subtle distinction, but to me, I think it's an important one.

[re:  level of player-created content]

QuoteHow would you go about framing rules to handle this fairly to both the Gamesmaster / World Weaver and the Players?

I think that as a game, there have to be game rules setting limits.  Part of the difference between writing a novel and playing a game is that in a game, you have to abide by the rules, whereas when writing a novel you can just make up whatever suits your fancy.  Both are entertaining experiences, but they are different entertaining experiences.

It's like the difference between writing free-form prose, and haiku (or limericks).  

QuotePlayers who traditionally wanted to Create Worlds went and did that, by becoming Gamesmasters themselves.  Why is this approach no longer "Good enough"?

You have made a potentially false, but common pair of assumptions.

You have assumed that GMs are people who make worlds. And you have assumed that people who want to make worlds are GMs.

Many people GM who don't want to make worlds.  They just want to play, and the only way to get the game to go is for someone to agree to run it.  And many people want to make worlds, but don't want to try to run a game so nobody ever sees their worlds (unless they have the additional talents to become writers).

I would argue that the sum total of people who are disenfranchised by the world making/GM requirement is vastly larger than the total who are enfranchised by it.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.

What hard data are you basing this thought on? Or is this your impression of how things should change given the nature of the matrix?

Quote from: CabThats where you're so far wide of the mark...

All of the things I have described, all of the elements under discussion, have been done in roleplaying games, accepted by gamers as being roleplaying games, for two decades or more. Some people will disagree will they? Yes, they probably will, but they're coming at this with the same false assumption that you've got, that this is something new that has not already been incorporated into roleplaying for a very long time.

I suggest you revisit the opening exchanges of this thread and note the disconnect between yourself and other posters, and how you engaged, at least as much as anyone else, in the definition game. Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145375&postcount=3) you countered Dancey's attempt to characterize "traditional" RPGs with your own description. Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145410&postcount=18) you say the distinction that others see between different types of play is artificial. It isn't artificial, people do play in different ways, even if for the sake of argument we agree they've been doing so since time immemorial. When called on that, you don't explain your terms, you just define a new distinction into existence, here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145412&postcount=20). In the course of this you managed to confuse me, Rob, J Arcane, Stuart, and Weekly about what the heck you were talking about.

QuoteErrm, no, my comments were not unitelligible, its more that you hadn't understood them. Actually there is a pattern emerging here isn't there? You haven't encountered something as part of roleplaying games previously, so they're not part of roleplaying games they are something else. You haven't grasped my comments, so they are unintelligible...

You're playing a silly game now. You're smart enough I think to understand that communication is as much the responsibility of the speaker as of the listener, even more so when the listener expresses confusion and the speaker responds by just repeating himself.

Much of the rest of your post is just special pleading; you've played games that way, ergo it's not new (directed at Dancey) and it's indistinguishible from what everyone else does (directed at several of the posters in this thread). But I'd like to clear some things up...

QuotePutting something that you are saying in "speech marks" doesn't suddenly mean that you can change the meaning of what I've said. Rotating GMs? What the heck are you talking about, thats not what I said, its not what I implied, it is neither part of the content or the meaning of what I posted.

My mistake, I read your response to (b) incorrectly. I thought you were talking about the setup where one person GMs on one night, another on another night.

Quote"most actions are detemined in a sort negotiative narrative. There is nothing at all new in that."

Go back and read it yourself, you qualify it quite a bit, and I maintain that it's not true, after all, for many if not most "conventional RPGs". Certainly not in a way that disagrees with Rob. E.g., of course a DM in D&D doesn't formally agree to let you walk across a room, you just say what you're doing, maybe explain a bit in response to questions, and you're done. But for better or worse, groups with which I am familiar (therefore "some groups") would give the DM final say--the ability to veto crossing the room, due to some obstacle, or call for a saving throw--though generally within the context of the rules. The DM may call for suggestions or even a vote on matters at doubt, but the real-life social understanding is that the DM has the final word, and if a player still won't go along, the game has broken down. Dancey's proposals fall well outside this approach.

QuoteDo you even know the game? Have you gone through the advice in campaign design contained within Amber? The methodologies and encouragement that a GM should use in that game to garner such input from players?

No, thus the tentative nature of my comment there. I'll refrain from further comment about Amber. Someone else might have some perspective here, but even if they happened to support my point, I couldn't judge who was right.

QuoteComplete freedom for all players to design setting and surround is quite rare

QED.

Quote, that does not mean that the players are commonly excluded from doing so. The point of my argument, my whole premis in this discussion, is that there is a continuum all the way from very prescriptive games all the way to the other end. There is nothing new in this quest to empower everyone sitting at the table.

But there is, because not everyone is (a) familiar with the style of play being discussed, or (b) likely to enjoy it.

In fact while I've seen arguments back and forth I think it's most likely that the rarity of this style of play, certainly in the radical form, in spite of its lack of novelty, is due to a relatively thin audience for it.

And that is the real point of my previous post, once we get past the definitional issues and arguments over what fraction of roleplayers have to know, practice, and enjoy a certain style of play...expressed to what degree...before that we can assume that style is traditional and (likely to be) popular. Simply exclude the second paragraph of my post above, and for that matter most of the detail in this one, and that's what you have: Dancey's proposal is radical and in my opinion it's barking up the wrong tree.

Quote from: CabThis whole idea that 'storeytelling' is new and exciting in gaming, that it is somethign other than a stylised roleplaying game cocept... Gosh, how gullible are you people?

Take note - I'm agreeing with Cab.

Mark your calendars, everyone! ;)

(Honestly - good points, one and all.)

-O

Quote from: SettembriniWhich game was the last one you have been a player in, Ryan?
How long ago was that?

I played in a number (6+) one-shot TRPGs this summer at various conventions & home game play tests.

I last regularly played in a 3.5E D&D campaign last summer.

I play WOW and EVE 2-5 times a week.

It is 80%+ likely that a new TRPG campaign will be starting soon that I will be playing in regularly.

Ryan

Quote from: droogRon Edwards identifies different forms of authority present in roleplaying games. I find your position somewhat less nuanced than his.

My goal is to explore Option #3 in his first post (#4) in that thread.  I think he squarely nails the value proposition.

Ryan

Quote from: HaffrungRyan, you seem to have fallen into the Forge assumption that most people who have played RPGs in the last 25 years were not really having a good time. Don't let the persistent and elaborate complaints of a sub-set of the hobby distort your impression of what players enjoy and what they don't enjoy.

I'm the guy who held the line for "kick down the door, whack the orc, take his stuff, and power up", remember?  If anything, I think I've earned my "street cred" when it comes to getting the fact that the TRPG format delivers a lot of fun to the players.

What I am suggesting is that it has become technologically possible to make a similar game, on a different platform (MMORPG) that is more fun than the pre-existing TRPG for a big percentage of the player community, and that as a result, they've voted with their feet and left.

It turns out that the indie-RPG crowd "got lucky", in that the area of the hobby they felt needed the most work turned out, due to forces beyond their control (i.e. the success of MMORPG) to be the area that is most likely (IMO) to be the path forward to successful games in a changed mixture of player types.  I give them props for having done a lot of wandering in the wilderness, and having laid a lot of groundwork we can all look at and try to understand.  Extracting that value doesn't mean I've drunk the Kool-Aide that says that D&D is an "unfun" game.  It's very fun.  It just may not be fun enough given the existence of the MMORPG tipping point.

Ryan

Quote from: gleichmanWhat hard data are you basing this thought on? Or is this your impression of how things should change given the nature of the matrix?

Now THAT is an excellent question.

I am at 2 removes from the hard data; I neither make, nor sell TRPGs.  (That's one reason I'm going to write a few).  So I am making an analysis based on what I can observe in terms of sales trends, in terms of internet traffic, in terms of what people are doing at conventions, and what my gut instinct tells me based on the data I had from my time at Wizards of the Coast.

At WotC, I had "high" (i.e. greater than 50%) confidence in a lot of my analysis, because it was very much data driven.  Today, I would say I have only "moderate" (i.e. 30%) confidence in my analysis, because my data sources are not as strong as they used to be.  So I'm forced to backfill with instincts to get to someplace with a meaningful direction forward.

Ryan

Which is where I part ways. I always backed what Mr. Dancey said, in particular his analysis to which he previously linked, because it was based on data.

Why does it seem that those who believe the future of TRPG is "storytelling" and "narrative" and "player empowerment" are always going on guts and instincts?  Luke Crane, with his "gut" telling him GM Fiat is ruining gaming; Mr. Edwards with his anecdotal approach that many gamers are not having fun; now Mr. Dancey who, to his credit, admits he only has 30% confidence in his numbers. (side question: how is it that your hard data analysis is 50% but your gut is only 30%? - honest question; I'm curious how you come to that conclusion).

I don't have a problem with people who go on guts and instincts - go for it, man.  If you've got the resources and drive - more power to you.  But why does it always seem to have to be prefaced by saying what exists is somehow broken?

Quote from: James J Skach(side question: how is it that your hard data analysis is 50% but your gut is only 30%? - honest question; I'm curious how you come to that conclusion).

At Wizards, I had enough data to decide that something was either X or Y.  I might not always have had enough data to determine which of the two things it was, but I had enough to exclude most other options.

Now, I have enough data to say certain things are either X, Y or Z, but not enough data to determine reliably which of the three the thing is.

Hopefully I'll get better insights as my projects progress.

Ryan

Well, Ryan, thank you!   That's quite a bit to mull over.  I still don't quite agree with some of your points, but at least they're clearer to me now.  I'll just comment on a few of your points briefly...

Quote from: RSDanceyThe theory is that the player network itself is where the value is for tabletop games.  And that network is not just a random cloud of equally valuable people:  it has a definable structure, and certain nodes act on that network in certain crucial ways.  If you knock enough of the right kinds of nodes out of the network, the network becomes damaged to the point where it ceases to reliably function, and the result is a category collapse.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  Thanks.   My initial reaction is to think, well if you can knock out nodes then, in theory, you ought to be able to build/create them, too.   What would be node-building strategies?  One potential answer, in my mind, is your allusion in your 2000 RPG Market Survey where in your footnote you spoke about a foretold "Hybrid" computer RPG.  Frankly, I thought *that* was on the right track.  I'd been working on such a beastie since 1994, so it struck a particularly resonant cord with me.  What ever became of that concept.  As far as I'm concerned it was a potential winner.

QuoteMMORPGs are knocking people out of the TRPG network and those people are not being spontaneously replaced via acquisition.  As the network has frayed, play has declined.  It is impossible to say at this juncture that a collapse equal to the TWG category could happen, but I do think it is possible that we could see a collapse to the point where TRPGs are primarily played by isolated groups-of-groups, being separated networks of hundreds of players, rather than a unified network of millions.  And if that happens, then there won't be a lot of "returning to the tabletop", there will be a lot of people who express a desire to play, but no ability to play instead.

Oh sorrows!  And yet, I think you're right - it is possible.  I for one would consider it a great shame.   In my opinion the TRPG is a new art form, and one with great potential to illuminate.   If it perishes at the hands of those ghastly MMORPGs then I'll think the world a lesser place indeed.   No I really don't care for MMORPGs, frankly.  It's DOOM on steroids with Elves.  Yuck!  Oh, but, yes, the art is very nice, I grant them that.  But the story?  What story?  Where?  The Story is (compared to what I've played in some TRPG Worlds) ... um ... horridly pale?   Great for Power Gamers, I guess.   That wouldn't be me.

QuoteThere are actually 5 groups:  Storytellers (Story/Long Term), Thinkers (Conflict/Long Term), Character Actors (Story/Shot Term), Power Gamers (Conflict/Short Term), and Basic Roleplayers (at the juncture of the axis). You can read all about it here:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Will do, thanks.

QuoteI think it is more likely that something new that sparks a big uptick in sales will come from a new kind of game rather than a simplified/streamlined version of an existing play concept, but that's 95% guess and 5% research, so I could be totally wrong.

Well, you could be totally wrong, and I hope so.  I'm betting on it, in fact.  I harken back to the 2000 survey footnote... The Hybrid RPG Computer Game.  I'm also flying near-blind, but my intuition says "go that way".   A "new kind of game" is not necessary, nor desirable for me... I'm looking for something to help me do what I'm already doing... only better, stronger, faster.  

QuoteAnd to be clear, I don't think that any of my 3 projects will do that.  I'm not doing the work to make money or sell a whole lot of books; I'm doing it to scratch an intellectual itch.

Well, best wishes.  I'm doing the same.  Albeit incredibly slowly.

QuoteI think that immersion and hidden knowledge are not synonyms.  I think that you can become "immersed" in a game like Monopoly, fully realizing the roleplaying concept of being Donald Trump, caring passionately about completely virtual properties, houses & hotels, cash management, and intra-player deals even though there is no hidden knowledge in the game whatsoever.

Right.  Agreed.   They are not synonyms, though there is a correlation. However, I don't agree that you can become "Immersed" in a game of Monopoly.   Or at least my definition of "Immersion" would be so vastly different from yours as to exclude anything of the kind.   "Immersion" to me is something on the order of a mystical experience, far beyond merely caring passionately about x,y,z.   It is the sense of "entering Another World", and I mean that very literally.   Now, it is entirely possible that you don't know what I'm talking about.  Some people do, some people don't.   But when you read Lord of the Rings for the first time, did you feel like you were "there"?   That's Immersion.   And I do get that with certain Gamesmasters.  It's a uniquely awesome experience.  And I do maintain that such an experience is neigh on impossible if you're co-Creating the World during Play.   But I have no proof of that.  It's just my feeling.  

QuoteI think that most TRPG players enjoy playing in fantasy worlds.  I do not think that most of them qualify that by saying "a world that I did not help create".  I think that the success of canned campaign settings shows that there are lots and lots of TRPG players who are happy to play in a world that they can know as much about as the DM, save that small part that the DM adds or changes in a given game session.

It's not uncommon, truly.   But it also isn't the shining heights either.  Those are your run-in-the-mill games, which are fun and fine and I have no problem with them.  But you don't get what I'm looking for there.  I find that it's somewhat like comparing Mission Impossible III to Casablanca.  

QuoteTo me, this is a situation where the cleverness lies in putting hidden knowledge in the game just where it matters, but not where it doesn't.

I could see that as a possibility.  But again, as a Player, co-Creating the World vastly reduces, and possibly eliminates entirely, the possibility of Immersion, so I still am not keen on it.

QuoteSo I don't accept the premise that a TRPG lives or dies on the basis of how much "world" is provided by the DM vs. how much of it is co-created by all the players as a joint effort.

Ok, we disagree on this.   There's no way to prove this either way - it's just a matter of personal taste and preference.  For me, it does.

QuoteFor a long time, the industry said "do this", but produced products that did something else.  People liked the "doing something else" thing more than enough to overlook that what the industry SAID it was supposed to do, it didn't really do.  And most people were generally happy.

I think you underestimate the Happiness... it wasn't just a mere "generally happy" thing to be Immersed in Telthanar, a world you've never heard of, but was played for many years starting in 1977.  It was *Awesome*.

QuoteThen, along about 1989, a group of designers came along and said "no really, DO THIS", and meant it.  But weirdly, the products they produced were no different than the stuff that was already in the market.  But the weird thing was that if you ASKED people if they wanted to DO THIS, they almost always said "yes".  So that created a market gap:  a group of people (everyone who said "yes" when asked if they wanted the other play pattern), and the lack of games that actually were designed to enable that play pattern.

Well, I have nothing against people enjoying a new type of game.  Not a problem.  But this insistence that the former style was merely so-so... it just ain't so!  

QuoteThat creates a pretty big backlash (not helped by some of the rhetoric used, and some of the tactics used to be sure).  The backlash is people saying "we don't need any changes, because we're perfectly happy, and have been for 30+ years!"

I include myself in the 30+ years crowd, and I still say "I'm perfectly happy!"

Quote"DO THIS" is "play a game about cooperative storytelling" ... I think there's a middle ground, taking the best of what worked for 30+ years, but using those things in a concept for a game that is rebuilt from the ground up on different assumptions about who will play the game.  That might be a subtle distinction, but to me, I think it's an important one.

Something to think about.  I'll be curious to see what you come up with.  You know, I'm not against Story-Games.  I love Great Story, and that's the entire focus of the LRPGSW.   We spent months looking at Story-Games and reviewing Player Empowerment in order to see if and how we might be able to utilize the concepts.  I'm not knee-jerk against it.  But I do see issues.  Ones that have potential resolution, but there are issues that require considerable thought to get around.   More on that another time, if you're interested.

QuoteYou have assumed that GMs are people who make worlds. And you have assumed that people who want to make worlds are GMs.  Many people GM who don't want to make worlds.  They just want to play, and the only way to get the game to go is for someone to agree to run it.  And many people want to make worlds, but don't want to try to run a game so nobody ever sees their worlds (unless they have the additional talents to become writers).  I would argue that the sum total of people who are disenfranchised by the world making/GM requirement is vastly larger than the total who are enfranchised by it.

I'm a little surprised that you don't seem to have picked up on my distinction between Gamesmastering and World Weaving.   My point was that you can have World Weavers work on World Creation, and separate that activity from Gamesmastering those Worlds.   Wouldn't that serve?

QuoteRyan

Well, far out, Ryan!   Very cool to finally get a chance to come to grips with you on these questions and ideas after having heard so much (vitriolic at times) commentary *about* you.   Very interesting indeed!  :)

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeIt's not uncommon, truly.   But it also isn't the shining heights either.  Those are your run-in-the-mill games, which are fun and fine and I have no problem with them.  But you don't get what I'm looking for there.  I find that it's somewhat like comparing Mission Impossible III to Casablanca.

I find myself torn between two responses to this little gem.

1) What.The.Fuck.

2) Oooh...oooh....oooh! Is this Swinery, Pundit and Sett? It really DOES exist.

On a more serious note, do you really think a mystical experience exploring little Timmy Too-right's three-ring binder masterpiece is really what's going to keep the RPG industry healthy? What is this? The Great Restoration for RPGs? I think you're profoundly off base, here.

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.  A group of people who have been involved with the platform since inception are leaving to play MMORPGs, and they are unlikely to return.  I call those people "Power Gamers"; players who fit onto a two-axis diagram of the player space at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "combat focused".  For those people, MMORPGs offer a superior experience to the tabletop RPG, and the MMORPG experience will get better, faster, than the tabletop game could possibly be redesigned to address the deficit (if such a thing were even possible).  MMORPGs also appeal strongly, but not as strongly to the group I call "Thinkers"; players who exist at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "story focused".  We can likely make some changes to keep many of these people, and do it fast enough that the MMORPG experience can be countered before they're all gone.  If we're lucky, we might even get some of those who have already left back eventually.

However, in the document Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0 (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html) you created while working at WotC you said:

Quote from: Ryan DanceyOne conclusion we draw from this data is that people who play electronic games still find time to play TRPGs; it appears that these two pursuits are complementary or noncompetitive outside the scope of the macroeconomic disposable income competition.

This was back in 2000, and Everquest (aka "EverCrack") was the big MMORPG at the time -- so MMORPGs would have been part of this research and the analysis that went into this report.

So what is different today? What research now points toward electronic games and TRPGs being competitive and non-complementary?

I don't get it. :confused:

Quote from: VBWyrdeWell, Ryan, thank you!   That's quite a bit to mull over.  I still don't quite agree with some of your points, but at least they're clearer to me now.  I'll just comment on a few of your points briefly...
I think you underestimate the Happiness... it wasn't just a mere "generally happy" thing to be Immersed in Telthanar, a world you've never heard of, but was played for many years starting in 1977.  It was *Awesome*.

Probably because you weren't attracted to the game from the same perspective of "collaborative storytelling" that the lumpenrolleplayertariat of Ryan's narrative were.

Put simply, if you thought of an RPG as something like a virtual world to interact with in first-person, or as a kind of neverending gamemastered wargame, then what you got with D&D and other 70's games was perfect for you.

If you took literally some of the fumbling analogies used to describe RPGing as akin to "radio theater" or "interactive novels", then I could see being disappointed with many of those old games, as well as much of the product of the 80's.

Quote from: TimI find myself torn between two responses to this little gem.

1) What.The.Fuck.

2) Oooh...oooh....oooh! Is this Swinery, Pundit and Sett? It really DOES exist.

On a more serious note, do you really think a mystical experience exploring little Timmy Too-right's three-ring binder masterpiece is really what's going to keep the RPG industry healthy? What is this? The Great Restoration for RPGs? I think you're profoundly off base, here.

Why is it Swinery to have a preference for the highest quality experience you can get?  That's my preference.  I prefer Caseblanca to Mission Impossible III.   Is that not allowed in your worldview?  Maybe little Timmy's little three ring binder wasn't enough for you... but I never played with little Timmy.  And apparently you never played in Telthanar.  So?

Quote from: Elliot WilenProbably because you weren't attracted to the game from the same perspective of "collaborative storytelling" that the lumpenrolleplayertariat of Ryan's narrative were.

Put simply, if you thought of an RPG as something like a virtual world to interact with in first-person, or as a kind of neverending gamemastered wargame, then what you got with D&D and other 70's games was perfect for you.

If you took literally some of the fumbling analogies used to describe RPGing as akin to "radio theater" or "interactive novels", then I could see being disappointed with many of those old games, as well as much of the product of the 80's.

I see what you mean.  It's very possible.  I may have simply come in at a time when it was 'just right'... and at the time it was the New Thing, so that pertains as well.   Hmmm... could just be a generational gap.   Entirely possible.  But then again, going back to Casablanca as an example of Quality, I think there's still a lot of people who admire that film because it was simply a great film.  Perhaps there was something great in the games I got involved in early on as well.  I think that is also a big part of it.  Of course, who could ever prove such an assertion empirically?  Not possible.  All I can say is that for me, they were great game experiences in their own right, and if I were to play the same games today I think I would feel the same way about them.  Just as I still feel that Casablanca is a great film.

Quote from: Stuart...

I don't get it. :confused:

I think there is nothing to get.  It's hype.  You can bet if there is a reliable study it would have been trotted out by now.  What we have is just stories meant to sell.  It's a sales pitch pure and simple. It's also getting a lot free publicity.

Waiting to eat crow when a link to the study pops up. :morning:

Quote from: RSDanceyIt turns out that the indie-RPG crowd "got lucky", in that the area of the hobby they felt needed the most work turned out, due to forces beyond their control (i.e. the success of MMORPG) to be the area that is most likely (IMO) to be the path forward to successful games in a changed mixture of player types.  I give them props for having done a lot of wandering in the wilderness, and having laid a lot of groundwork we can all look at and try to understand.  Extracting that value doesn't mean I've drunk the Kool-Aide that says that D&D is an "unfun" game.  It's very fun.  It just may not be fun enough given the existence of the MMORPG tipping point.

Ryan

So who do you see as the market for this new model? As you note, the TRPG industry is small and getting smaller all the time. Do you think the fraction of existing players who could be attracted to the new model is enough to support commercial products? Forge games had been around for a while now, and I'd be surprised if the most successful of them have sold much more than 1,000 copies. Maybe that's the real market for shared-narrative story games.

As for gamist RPGers abandoning TRPGs en masse for online gaming, you only have to look at the thriving boardgame scene to see that face-to-face gaming is alive and well. You can play most pf the popular euro games online, but that doesn't seem to have hurt the social boardgaming scene one bit. Just check out the user base for Boardgamegeek. And boardgames that share some of the target audience of RPGs - games like War of the Rings, Descent, Arkham Horror, and BattleLore, sell in the 10s of thousands. There's clearly a market for face-to-face, gamist, fantasy games, even when technically those games are playable online.

Exactly, Haffrung. Playing mostly roleplaying games are for people with friends, or who want friends. Playing mostly computer games are for people living in their parents' basement.  

Normal people who have some friends and also enjoy time alone do both.

I still want to hear what he has to say in response to Stuart pointing out that he himself had said he Sekrit Resurch had concluded that computer games had taken no-one away from roleplaying games.

Oh, I forgot, roleplaying is dying. But then, roleplaying has been dying for so long it should be a demi-lich by now.

Quote from: VBWyrdeWhy is it Swinery to have a preference for the highest quality experience you can get?  That's my preference.  I prefer Caseblanca to Mission Impossible III.   Is that not allowed in your worldview?  Maybe little Timmy's little three ring binder wasn't enough for you... but I never played with little Timmy.  And apparently you never played in Telthanar.  So?

It's swinery because you've (completely arbitrarily, apparently) decided that any game without hoo-doo-goo-doo immersion as its be-all end-all goal doesn't measure up. There are three problems with this: a) It's a complete bullshit position, b) it's elitist as hell, c) It's completely unwarranted elitism based on nothing but the absolute narrowest cross-section of personal experience.

Actually, I apologize for my inflammatory language. I'm glad you're playing RPGs and having an awesome time doing it.

I do, however, find it incredibly insulting that you've written off my favored style of gaming as fucking Mission Impossible III. I can guarantee you that gaming with player meta-knowledge of the game world, plot, NPCs, and whatever else you want to throw in there is COMPLETELY capable of producing intense, enjoyable, and utterly satisfying gaming with meaningful choices and oodles of the sense of discovery. So, there's my anecdotal experience thrown up against yours. ;)

I don't know if it's Casablanca or Citizen Kane, but it's certainly not tripe.

Tim

Um, I think VBWyrde isn't pulling for immersion in that quote, rather he's talking about canned settings vs. home-made. Partly because RSD has made some sort of argument-thing about canned settings.

VBWyrde, it's not that I'm saying the old games wouldn't stand up now, far from it. I'm saying that as time went by (haha), RPGing picked up more and more people who thought they were supposed to be "making up a story together" and that concept, as they understood it, created requirements and/or expectations regarding player input which differed enormously from the virtual world-exploration/simulation that you and I enjoy.

Where I think RSD goes off the rails is not to acknowledge that folks who are into world-exploration/simulation are (a) different from the "gamists" that D&D 3 tried to cater to, and (b) also different from the storytellers that he's trying to capture.

Hmmm, looks like I was conflating this snippet with the part I quoted earlier.

QuoteIt's a uniquely awesome experience. And I do maintain that such an experience is neigh on impossible if you're co-Creating the World during Play. But I have no proof of that. It's just my feeling.

If the earlier quote wasn't addressing this bit at all, I owe you an even greater apology, VBWyrde.

Tim

Quote from: TimActually, I apologize for my inflammatory language. I'm glad you're playing RPGs and having an awesome time doing it.

I do, however, find it incredibly insulting that you've written off my favored style of gaming as fucking Mission Impossible III. I can guarantee you that gaming with player meta-knowledge of the game world, plot, NPCs, and whatever else you want to throw in there is COMPLETELY capable of producing intense, enjoyable, and utterly satisfying gaming with meaningful choices and oodles of the sense of discovery. So, there's my anecdotal experience thrown up against yours. ;)

I don't know if it's Casablanca or Citizen Kane, but it's certainly not tripe.

Tim

Ahhh... it all makes sense to me now.  :P   I went with MI III *because* it was a great Action flick.  The equal of Casablanca on the Action side.  And to think I've been saying "Play and Let Play", and then I go and screw that all up.  Duh.  Sorry bout that.

EDIT:  yeah, well... I can see how the complexities of this subject are so amazingly vast... it's easy to get yer feet twisted up.   I feel like I'm on a battlefield where everyone is hacking at anything that moves.  Gah.   I blame the D&D industry.   It went off the rails, lost coherency and now we're all staggering around trying to figure out *what* the lay of the land is.   No, I blame the Theory Crowd for mucking this all up.  Wait no.  I blame Ryan!!  No.  Hold on.  Who the hell is to blame?  Damnit.  :P

If you had said Ronin, my panties would have stayed un-bunched. :D

Quote from: TimIf you had said Ronin, my panties would have stayed un-bunched. :D

My bad.  There's probably on 1000 flicks that might have been a better choice, now that I think about it.   All Akira Kurosawa films come to mind.  Yojimbo?  Ran?  Hidden Fortress?  Damnit.

Ryan,

Do you realize, that Story Games make true in-world accomplishment impossible?

"Story" devalues  everything else. RPGs and other Adventure Games are popular, because you can get away from mass-media storytelling. You can get away from idiocy like Spiderman or Pirates of the Carribbean.

Story-Games invalidate the whole strategic axis, to use that partition. They alienate four of your five categories, and the remaining one is ALREADY being served by WW.
And WW is doing a MMORPG also.

Do you realize, that the whole population of gamers, that doesn´t want to explore adolescent self-finding themes and moral dillemmata is excluded by story-games? Because that´s what they are, right now.

Especially Burning Empires.
Do you realize, that in order to save the planet in BE, you HAVE TO adress personal character issues? "Overcome your self-hatred, and the planet is safe." That´s what it´s about in a nutshell.
Can you understand how this devalues the whole game for people who would like to actually save the planet?
Do you see why there is absolutely NO strategy, neither conflict nor story-wise in that game?

Again, the current Story-Games are excluding four out of five categories of the 1999 study. And even the remaining one HAS not picked up any of those games in a major way.

Compare to other groundbreakers:
D&D, Vampire, Twilight: 2000; Traveller; L5R-franchise

All those games became immenseley popular with their new audiences in a timeframe that is just a small fraction of the sotry-games that exist.

Not one of them has taken off. Not a single one of them.

Between Tim, VBWyrde, RSDancey, and many others upon this very thread, I've drawn more clarity using the simplest language with examples based on experience than most threads based on hypothetical worst case scenarios based off that same experience.  You adapt to a game based off an experience that is enjoyable to you, you can be dominereed and learn from those that are better than you, you can feel competitive to others of the similar talent, you can humiliate those of lesser talent, or you can tailor the game to make the experience enjoyable to all of the participants.  An RPG makes those intagibles irrelevant unless through the rules (fuck the snacks...Sorry Kyle;) ) you choose to adapt to make the game fun.  In order to play you must make the game enjoyable to all of those playstyles within the rules.  You can fine tune the rules to make the game enjoyable to the people you play with.  Roleplaying is not a community.  It is a shared fandome that play with a different level of experience and ability in regards to the people they know or would play with.  The only difference is that you have the ability to play as someone greater, equal to, or lesser than you, though not totally disassociated.  We are all playing the same game but deriving diifferent enjoyment from it based off that experience.  Our own experience changes that experience within the group we are playing with.  Playing any game with the people I enjoy playing with is far more important than watching and being a fan of the game.  IMHO...maybe?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI suggest you revisit the opening exchanges of this thread...

Suggestion noted and duly ignored. What you're doing is simple; you're hiving off an area that has been populated by roleplayers for decades. You're trying to define that area as smething other than RPGs. Why?

QuoteYou're playing a silly game now. You're smart enough I think to understand that communication is as much the responsibility of the speaker as of the listener, even more so when the listener expresses confusion and the speaker responds by just repeating himself.

No game at all, you're merely failing to understand what I believe to be a very, very simple assertion. There comes a point where further re-explaining a point becomes a waste of time.

QuoteMuch of the rest of your post is just special pleading; you've played games that way, ergo it's not new (directed at Dancey) and it's indistinguishible from what everyone else does (directed at several of the posters in this thread).

Ain't 'special' pleading. Look at other contributions here and elsewhere on the board; it is a shared experience of many gamers here that there is nothing new in this. If you don't like that, tough. There is nothing new in this, as demonstrated by the fact that I and many others have seen this kind of gaming before, many times, for years.

(further comments cut unread; I just can't be bothered dealing with this drivel).

Quote from: RSDanceyAt Wizards, I had enough data to decide that something was either X or Y.  I might not always have had enough data to determine which of the two things it was, but I had enough to exclude most other options.

Now, I have enough data to say certain things are either X, Y or Z, but not enough data to determine reliably which of the three the thing is.

Hopefully I'll get better insights as my projects progress.

Ryan

Fascinating...one of the things I've been troubled by is the lack of hard data.  If you are saying you have any hard data on these issues, I, for one, would be thrilled to see it. Perhaps it would provide some useful insight that would help many of us understand better your thought progression.

Any chance we could see the hard data?

Quote from: RSDanceyI'm the guy who held the line for "kick down the door, whack the orc, take his stuff, and power up", remember?  If anything, I think I've earned my "street cred" when it comes to getting the fact that the TRPG format delivers a lot of fun to the players.

What I am suggesting is that it has become technologically possible to make a similar game, on a different platform (MMORPG) that is more fun than the pre-existing TRPG for a big percentage of the player community, and that as a result, they've voted with their feet and left.

There isn't anything wrong with 'kill the monster, grab the treasure' games if thats what you want to play. And I'll wager that most of us here could think of worse ways to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon than rolling 3d6 in order six times and heading off to Quasqueton to to see what befell Zelligar, beating smeg out of every monster standing between us and our goals.

But I'll also wager that those of us who have played in games like that for more than a month soon developed characters who were more than a few numbers, who interracted with the world in ways in which the DM, the writers of the adventures you're in (if that wasn't the DM) and even the game designers didn't anticipate. In fact, by the time you get back to the Inn at the Keep on the Borderlands you'll be bristing with ideas that just aren't covered in the rules.

You see, this is where your idea that playing on a computer is in some way an approximation of tabletop roleplaying is flawed. It doesn't even come close. What it does have is a certain immediacy, and it does ger people interracting and keeping commitments to play with each other, and it can be done by someone who can't get into a gaming group (through geographical problems or whatever). But it very much provides a different thing to a tabletop roleplaying game.

So... Does such gaming take people away from RPGs? Yeah, probably. Should RPGs respond by playing to their own strengths? Hell yes.

In my opinion tabletop roleplaying games have lost people to computer gaming because they have rather played into the hands of those games. I'm pointing the finger at Dungeons and Dragons in particular, but the whole hobby in general. If you concentrate on crunch, gaming pieces, splatbooks and suchlike then all you're doing is adding details that really are better handled by computers. If you concentrate instead on story, plot, setting and adventure then you're doing something better achieved by a good GM. And by enabling a GM to build a coherent campaign you enable him to create a self sustaining gaming group who then move on to playing other games (and buying more products) too.

This is what good GMs do, its what they always have done. And this is where my position really parts company with yours; there is nothing new in empowering players, in shared story, in collective roleplaying experience. If you're setting out to educate people about how to play such games because you think that some people have forgotten (or never learned in recent years) then all power to your elbow! If what you're saying is that roleplaying games need to head in a NEW direction here, I think you're rather missing out on the fact that many gamers have been doing this for years already.

Quote from: RSDanceyNow THAT is an excellent question.

I am at 2 removes from the hard data; I neither make, nor sell TRPGs.  (That's one reason I'm going to write a few).  So I am making an analysis based on what I can observe in terms of sales trends, in terms of internet traffic, in terms of what people are doing at conventions, and what my gut instinct tells me based on the data I had from my time at Wizards of the Coast.

Ryan, take a glance at the top of this forum - on the stickied thread about the Comics and Games Retailer charts I've been putting together graphs of sales figures on a monthly basis.

The last charts up there are a bit out of date - Koltar's dug up a bunch of archival issues so the data from a year to two years back is a lot more complete now, but I've not put up any revised graph because I'm waiting for the next new chart to come out and for Koltar to transcribe it. But I'm looking at the spreadsheet right now, and I've got to tell you - D&D is rallying right now. It seemed to hit the bottom of a trough about a year or two ago, with your average game store only selling 24 D&D products a month (though bear in mind that includes comic shops which only have one tiny shelf of RPG products), while this year the average has been closer to, say, 27 copies a month (and RPG sales as a whole are up too).

Quote from: WarthurBut I'm looking at the spreadsheet right now, and I've got to tell you - D&D is rallying right now. It seemed to hit the bottom of a trough about a year or two ago, with your average game store only selling 24 D&D products a month (though bear in mind that includes comic shops which only have one tiny shelf of RPG products), while this year the average has been closer to, say, 27 copies a month (and RPG sales as a whole are up too).

I understand that you can watch the trends, but the real trick is in deciphering them, don't you think?  Any speculation as to why the Rally?  What happened in the market in the past year that would have made D&D sales rise?  Did Hasbro launch an Ad campaign of any sort?   Increase their distribution channels maybe?  Someone start a *really* big campaign?  Clues?

Also, I'm curious if anyone knows... How does Hasbro advertise D&D?  I've never seen a TV spot, radio commercial, or any kind of Ad.  Do they Market D&D in some other stealthy way?

- Mark

Quote from: jeff37923You forgot to mention the viral marketting approach to pushing Forge style play and Forge style games in forums, which has done much to turn people off of the Forge cult.

Which is the impression that I'm getting now, that this thread has morphed into a marketting tool.

(http://imgred.com/http://www.craphound.com/images/danddadsmall.jpg)

"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."

Quote from: VBWyrdeAny speculation as to why the Rally?  What happened in the market in the past year that would have made D&D sales rise?

I know you were looking for an answer from RSDancey, but for me things like GameSpy's (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538848p1.html) coverage of the 30th anniversary of D&D got me really thinking about the game and it's table top rpgs again. I went looking for rpg podcasts at that point. Note that some forgey type things and play reports almost turned me right the fuck back off. Just a personal anecdote. It did take a bit to build up a head of steam on the idea and actually get around to purchasing something.

Makes me a little disappointed that GenCon didn't make a bigger deal about its own 40th anniversary.

Quote from: Stuart(http://imgred.com/http://www.craphound.com/images/danddadsmall.jpg)

"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."

Thanks, Stuart.  Where'd the Ad come from, btw?

Quote from: darI know you were looking for an answer from RSDancey, but for me things like GameSpy's (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538848p1.html) coverage of the 30th anniversary of D&D got me really thinking about the game and it's table top rpgs again. I went looking for rpg podcasts at that point. Note that some forgey type things and play reports almost turned me right the fuck back off. Just a personal anecdote. It did take a bit to build up a head of steam on the idea and actually get around to purchasing something.

Makes me a little disappointed that GenCon didn't make a bigger deal about its own 40th anniversary.

Actually I'm looking for answers from anyone who happens to have knowledge on the topic, not just Ryan - though I'd think he'd have a pretty good bead on it.  Thanks.  I'll check the link.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThanks, Stuart.  Where'd the Ad come from, btw?

The first place I saw it was on BoingBoing.net -- a (VERY) popular blog/news site:

Anti-MMORPG ads from D&D - Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/29/antimmorpg-ads-from-.html)

It was linked on tons of other sites, eg.

http://www.wilwheaton.net/2005/09/brilliant_dd_advert.php
http://www.acidlabs.org/2005/09/30/awesome-dd-ad/
etc.

The general consensus was:

1) It's a great Ad
2) It plays to RPGs strengths -- they offer something cool that you can't get from an MMORPG

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhere I think RSD goes off the rails is not to acknowledge that folks who are into world-exploration/simulation are (a) different from the "gamists" that D&D 3 tried to cater to, and (b) also different from the storytellers that he's trying to capture.

That's the big blind spot in the GNS theory; there are fuckloads of players who want to immerse themselves in another world but do not want to engage in amateur theatre or a shared-authoring storytelling session.

Ryan brings up 'nodes' of player groups. In my experience, those nodes are DMs. DMs tend to be the most creative and motivated people in a group. In fact, I'd say a typical group consists of one, or maybe two very motivated and creative enthusiasts, and a few more casual players.

Now, I can't see how this shared-authoring model of RPGs is going to take off it it's going to require several especially motivated and creative players to not only form as a group, but co-operate in a creative endeavour where none of them have more authority than the others. That's incredibly optimistic. I mean, there's a reason why a lot of these story games are only played at conventions - those are the only places where you find the critical mass of the kind of players you need to run such a game.

So I'm curious where Ryan thinks these local groups made up of several exceptionally creative, cooperative players who can handle unstructured play are going to come from, if the RPG market is indeed retracting to a wargame-sized rump.

Quote from: HaffrungThat's the big blind spot in the GNS theory; there are fuckloads of players who want to immerse themselves in another world but do not want to engage in amateur theatre or a shared-authoring storytelling session.

Ryan brings up 'nodes' of player groups. In my experience, those nodes are DMs. DMs tend to be the most creative and motivated people in a group. In fact, I'd say a typical group consists of one, or maybe two very motivated and creative enthusiasts, and a few more casual players.

Now, I can't see how this shared-authoring model of RPGs is going to take off it it's going to require several especially motivated and creative players to not only form as a group, but co-operate in a creative endeavour where none of them have more authority than the others. That's incredibly optimistic. I mean, there's a reason why a lot of these story games are only played at conventions - those are the only places where you find the critical mass of the kind of players you need to run such a game.

So I'm curious where Ryan thinks these local groups made up of several exceptionally creative, cooperative players who can handle unstructured play are going to come from, if the RPG market is indeed retracting to a wargame-sized rump.

I agree.  In my experience, the vast majority of role-players do not want to tell a shared story.  They just like to show up and play their character.

I guess by Ryan's estimate, these masses will all leave to play MMORPGs?  Because I'm not seeing that.

And what about people who like to GM, like me, but have absolutely, positively no interest in playing a shared storytelling game.  I am not interested in that whatsoever.  If I'm the GM, I'm the GM and want exclusive rights to control all non-PC parts of the game.  If I'm the player, then I do not want to have to bother with trying to play my PC and come up with story pieces, too.

I guess I'm supposed to just leave the hobby too then?  For what?  I'm not interested in MMORPGs.

If the RPG industry is reduced to just the people who want to play shared storytelling games, then there will be no industry left - because by my estimates, that would be 5% of the total current market at best.

Quote from: RSDanceyNow THAT is an excellent question.

I am at 2 removes from the hard data; I neither make, nor sell TRPGs.  (That's one reason I'm going to write a few).  So I am making an analysis based on what I can observe in terms of sales trends, in terms of internet traffic, in terms of what people are doing at conventions, and what my gut instinct tells me based on the data I had from my time at Wizards of the Coast.

Thanks for the answer, a very honest one it seems.

I'd also like to thank you for the statement on your blog that what you're attempting to do is basically a different type of game from what previously has been called rpgs- enough so that you wish to change the very classification. Radical changes like these should be called what they are- a serious and complete break with the past deserving of a new label. Again, very honest.


For what it's worth (yes, very little), I disagree with your view of how the rpg matrix will or will not change. It will be interesting to see what the next few years will reveal about who's right.

Good luck in your gamble.

Quote from: HaffrungRyan brings up 'nodes' of player groups. In my experience, those nodes are DMs. DMs tend to be the most creative and motivated people in a group. In fact, I'd say a typical group consists of one, or maybe two very motivated and creative enthusiasts, and a few more casual players.

Now, I can't see how this shared-authoring model of RPGs is going to take off it it's going to require several especially motivated and creative players to not only form as a group, but co-operate in a creative endeavour where none of them have more authority than the others.

You know, this makes me wonder... what percentage of Story-Game players ARE Gamesmasters?   And in particular Gamesmasters who are Game Designers... in the Forge Community... My Hunch-o-Meter is registering towards: High Percentage.   Do we have any statistics on that?  I would think that would make for an interesting survey.

- Mark

That particular ad was also in the Dragon magazine...can't remember the issue, but one of the recent ones; i remember thumbing past it and smiling in the bookstore.  (and yes, i agree it's a fantastic ad that gets to the point many are trying to make...)

Quote from: StuartThe first place I saw it was on BoingBoing.net -- a (VERY) popular blog/news site:

Anti-MMORPG ads from D&D - Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/29/antimmorpg-ads-from-.html)

It was linked on tons of other sites, eg.

http://www.wilwheaton.net/2005/09/brilliant_dd_advert.php
http://www.acidlabs.org/2005/09/30/awesome-dd-ad/
etc.

The general consensus was:

1) It's a great Ad
2) It plays to RPGs strengths -- they offer something cool that you can't get from an MMORPG

Not to sound like a broken record, since I have brought this point up before, but this is an old argument wrapped up in a new reasoning.

We all know that D&D dominates the TTRPG market. Let's make a ballpark guess and say that about 90% of people playing right now are playing D&D (the number is totally out of thin air).

Now, if Ryan is right and Powergamers and Thinkers are leaving for MMOs, that leads us to two possible situations. The first is that it was the Powergamers and Thinkers who were pushing D&D. The Character Actors, Roleplayers and Story Gamers were mostly busy playing other games. In that case, the exodus will include the vast majority of the hobby and really, there is little point in continuing this discussion; Ryan's new type of game will save the hobby, but who cares about those 13 guys anyway?

The second situation is that 90% of gamers aren't Powergamers and Thinkers. Instead, D&D is distributed throughout the various classifications of gamers fairly equally so that 90% of Powergamers are playing D&D, as are 90% of Character Actors, Story Gamers and Roleplayers. In this case, the numbers lost to MMOs is more reasonable and instead of some terrible tabletop crisis, you will have a subtle demographic shift in the makeup of game groups.

So what does that mean? It means in terms of percentages, we have more Character Actors, Story Gamers and Roleplayers in our groups... and 90% of them are willingly playing D&D. For Ryan's revolution to take place, we have to assume that some large percentage of gamers aren't currently being served by their game of choice.

We've heard this argument before, haven't we?

Quote from: VBWyrdeYou know, this makes me wonder... what percentage of Story-Game players ARE Gamesmasters?

This question keeps coming up; it's been raised at story-games and probably here, no doubt other places as well.

I think the answer arrived at by various means has generally been "quite a large percentage". But since most of those means are, essentially, polling the net, you get the problem that, quite possibly, a unrepresentatively high percentage of the people who bother to chat about RPGs on the net are GMs.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis question keeps coming up; it's been raised at story-games and probably here, no doubt other places as well.

I think the answer arrived at by various means has generally been "quite a large percentage". But since most of those means are, essentially, polling the net, you get the problem that, quite possibly, a unrepresentatively high percentage of the people who bother to chat about RPGs on the net are GMs.

Well, I recall that Ryan did a massive (truly massive) survey of Role-Playing Gamers in 2000 (iirc it was they surveyed some 65,000 RPGers) and I'm thinking... isn't it time WotC or Hasbro or *someone* in the game industry run the Survey again to see where things stand?    It would be great to know and I think we'd all benefit by having Real Data, rather than all this speculation and guesswork.  But ... I won't hold my breath.  Seems like there's no will for it.  I just don't really understand why not.  I guess maybe the answer is that it's too expensive given the relatively low profit of RPGs in general?  

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeWell, I recall that Ryan did a massive (truly massive) survey of Role-Playing Gamers in 2000 (iirc it was they surveyed some 65,000 RPGers) and I'm thinking... isn't it time WotC or Hasbro or *someone* in the game industry run the Survey again to see where things stand?    It would be great to know and I think we'd all benefit by having Real Data, rather than all this speculation and guesswork.  But ... I won't hold my breath.  Seems like there's no will for it.  I just don't really understand why not.  I guess maybe the answer is that it's too expensive given the relatively low profit of RPGs in general?

Here's a recent study:

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/gama_survey_1/Default.asp

QuoteWe conducted an online survey, hosted by Ohio State University, and partnered with GAMA and The Wargamer to assist in distribution. The survey was live from 28 April to 31 May. We registered a URL used to redirect to the survey, to make the web address easier to remember. Ultimately, we received a worldwide response (see statistics) and found over 35 separate unique sites linked to survey. Our final number of participants was 3551.

Some key points:

QuoteWithin those 3551 respondents, we had four big groups who responded to our request to list their favorite game:

Fantasy RPG, 841
Miniatures War, 658
Board War, 484
Board Euro, 428

No other type/genre combination had more than 200 respondents. Conspicuously absent were the Fantasy Collectible Card game players (ie. Magic: The Gathering).

Motivational Factors and Uses & Gratifications

* Factor 1: The Challenge of Playing, having a sense of accomplishment over a hard task being overcome and completed
* Factor 2: The Exciting Alternative, seeing game play as a stimulating way to spend time, divert from less interesting tasks
* Factor 3: The Discovery Narrative, having an interest in the game's narrative elements that allow a level of wish fulfillment
* Factor 4: Competition with Peers, having some skills and abilities to compare with others, prove self as better
* Factor 5: Catalyst for Socializing, playing the game as a reason to spend time with others
* Factor 6: Creative Control, enjoying the ability to manipulate gaming elements
* Factor 7: Pleasurable Immersion, feeling present in the game to the exclusion of other thoughts, worries

Quote from: cmagounThe second situation is that 90% of gamers aren't Powergamers and Thinkers. Instead, D&D is distributed throughout the various classifications of gamers fairly equally so that 90% of Powergamers are playing D&D, as are 90% of Character Actors, Story Gamers and Roleplayers. In this case, the numbers lost to MMOs is more reasonable and instead of some terrible tabletop crisis, you will have a subtle demographic shift in the makeup of game groups.

Your stats are off here as expressed. Not that it really matters, but 90% of each subcategory could be playing D&D, yet D&D players might still be 90% Powergamers and Thinkers. (But if so, that'd mean either that D&D failed to capture the center of the market, or that the market itself was already skewed more to Powergamers than was claimed in the published WotC market research results.)

In any case your point is a good one except for one thing: the D&D 3.x marketing argument as I've understood it, in terms of how it relates to your objection that people are playing a game that isn't serving them well, has been that the suboptimality of D&D for any given segment is more than made up for by its ability to provide an effective "compromise point" around which people with different preferences can gather and play together.

In short, D&D 3.x (and earlier editions as well, to a large degree) is a perfect counterexample to the idea that a game must focus on a niche in terms of either design or play: on the contrary (the argument goes), if you don't compromise, you'll never get enough people together to form a gaming group in the first place.

RSD's argument for change is apparently that if roughly 50% of the market disappears, the remainder becomes nonviable, or less viable at any rate. But by refocusing the game at the new center of gravity, you both improve its utility for the remaining players (they don't have to compromise as much in terms of adapting published material to their style of play and vice versa) and hope to capture some of the outlying fringes of groups, essentially people who couldn't be satisfied with 3.x.

This isn't to say I agree with RSD's conclusions about what's happened and what must be done. I've suggested elsewhere that if the heart of the market really does get torn out, there may not be enough of a "bridge" left to hold together the remainder, particularly if publishers misjudge what's left. If, for example, D&D refocused in the direction that Dancey's suggested elsewhere (not in this thread, where he's basically offered a fairly mild adjustment, judging from his answer to droog's question), then the publisher would probably end up alienating a large portion of the remaining audience, who'd recoalesce around, say, Mongoose Runequest

• . The question would then be, can either of the two niches attract enough bodies on the ground to maintain viable networks?

[*EDIT: Or just as likely, various OOP versions of D&D.]

In fairness to Ryan, the members of this site generally have a much more ... black & white ... view of what constitutes a role-playing game than any other population I've ever seen.

Seriously, this is the only place where I've ever seen someone say Action Points or similar mechanics suddenly transform an RPG into a Happy Story Circle.  (And be taken seriously, that is.)

-O

Quote from: obrynIn fairness to Ryan, the members of this site generally have a much more ... black & white ... view of what constitutes a role-playing game than any other population I've ever seen.

Seriously, this is the only place where I've ever seen someone say Action Points or similar mechanics suddenly transform an RPG into a Happy Story Circle.  (And be taken seriously, that is.)

Well, for whatever reason there are lots of people here with an agenda against certain kinds of games. There's this sense of "them vs. us", where "them" is anybody identified with the "story gaming" community.

There's also this weird idea that if you play one kind of game you can't be interested in another kind. Now, just plain not being interested in something I get, but the whole "it's disloyal to our established gaming, which is the right way to play" thing I don't get.

Really, though, if it helps someone to call a game which uses techniques they don't want to use "not a roleplaying game", I guess it doesn't hurt anything.

Quote from: WarthurRyan, take a glance at the top of this forum - on the stickied thread about the Comics and Games Retailer charts I've been putting together graphs of sales figures on a monthly basis.

You have to be really careful when using C&GR data to do analysis on the trends in the industry.  Specifically, you have to understand what it is reporting.

Note that it DOES NOT attempt to report unit volumes for games.  It reports unit volumes for games PER STORE.  That's a critical difference.  There is a hidden assumption in the charts they produce that needs to be carefully examined:  Are there the same number (or type) of stores from month to month?

If you talk to retailers and distributors, you quickly learn the answer to that assumption is "no".  Retailers have been failing at a growing rate since 2003, and the result is visible in the failures of distributors.  As the retail store base contracts, the distribution tier is contracting as well.  There are other data points that point to that trend, like Games Workshop publicly stating that they've taken the number of direct accounts from 1,200 to 800.  Non-public data I get from insiders shows that the number of stores defined as "active" in many publisher databases is declining.

That has two effects on the C&GR data.  First, a stable number of unit sales per store still shows a decline in overall volume if you multiply by fewer stores.

Second, we can reasonably infer that the stores most likely to fail are the stores with the lowest volume of sales (i.e. the smallest stores).  As those stores are removed from the mix, the average unit volumes should go UP.

Third, there are seasonal cycles to TRPG purchases.  The summer months are the best months.  C&GR data is delayed by 3 months (I may be off, it may be 2 months or 4 months), so the October issue should be showing data for July sales.  Sales in June & July will be higher than sales in April or May because of the cyclic nature of the sales curves.  So what you have to compare is sales in the same month vs. the previous year's sales, not vs. the previous month's sales (unless there's a dramatic move, obviously attributable to non-seasonal sales like the release of 3E, or 3.5E).

Fourth, the TRPG market has been experiencing a "flight to quality".  This is a stock investing term that means that when the markets get rough, people tend to invest their dollars in stocks that are "safe" and show less volatility.  What we are seeing across the TRPG market is a similar flight to quality; people are buying fewer "risky" small or new TRPGs, and investing dollars in "safe", traditional TRPGs (D20, RIFTS, Storyteller, etc.)  This means that while sales of D&D may be "rallying", that may be an indication of an overall weakening trend in TRPGs as a whole.  (In other words, strengthening D&D sales may be a trailing indicator of a problem, not a leading indicator of a broad based recovery).

I combine that public information with the private information I have to draw the broad-brush conclusion that the TRPG market is in crisis, and is not likely to rally any time soon; but it is always possible that a turnaround could be occurring and it will just take some time for the visible evidence to pile up to the level where I can see it clearly enough to start revising my overall market projections.  Unfortunately I don't believe that is happening, as much as I wish it was.

Ryan

Quote from: HaffrungSo I'm curious where Ryan thinks these local groups made up of several exceptionally creative, cooperative players who can handle unstructured play are going to come from, if the RPG market is indeed retracting to a wargame-sized rump.

I have not indicated that I think a Storytelling Game needs to consist completely of people who want to co-author the world.  I have been very clear who the target of my work is for:  Games with Thinkers, Character Actors & Storytellers (and Basic Roleplayers).  Of those three, only the Storytellers are likely to be actively engaged with world-building play modes.  The Character Actors will likely author as they play to add background details appropriate for their characters, but that will be primarily work filling in the details of the game world, not creating a lot of content whole cloth.  The Thinkers are likely to do neither; I expect they will often play the role of "adjudication"; figuring out how to apply the rules of the game to the ideas being generated by the Storytellers and the Character Actors.

I think that the Basic Roleplayers will fill part of the void left by the Power Gamers, in the sense that they'll be pushing the group to actually DO SOMETHING rather than sit around and talk about ideas.  However, the Basic Roleplayers are like utility infielders.  They can also be counted on to do a little Storytelling, a little Character Acting, and a little Thinking as well; filling gaps and smoothing rough edges.

Ryan

What follows is pure metacommentary on Sweeney's post.

I think a lot of what is perceived as arguments for "the right way to play" is actually a defense of "how we play". Either against misconstrual (such as mixing up GM control over the world with GM leading PCs through a preplanned plot) or evangelizing. When somebody says, "then it's not an RPG" it might be worthwhile to pause for a second and consider that the person is really just saying, "no thanks, that would damage something that's essential to how I enjoy RPGs".*

At the moment there's an excellent thread on Story-Games, started by John Harper, about the phrase "GM creates the plot" that does more than anything else I've seen to elucidate where people are coming from, how their experiences can radically affect the way they receive that phrase, and how their relationship to that phrase has affected their current gaming preferences. (It's in the publicly accessible portion of the site.) Which I would contend strongly influences what they think an "RPG" is.

There's a little more to it though: RSD is talking about marketing, so a lot of this discussion passes out of individual opinions and into arguing about what people in general want...so the problem passes from sometimes expressing opinions as fact, to talking about facts which would be hard to know even if we could objectively define "RPG", and subcategories of "RPG".

*Granted something along these lines might be a more productive way of putting it than getting into an argument over what is or isn't an RPG.

Quote from: HaffrungRyan brings up 'nodes' of player groups. In my experience, those nodes are DMs. DMs tend to be the most creative and motivated people in a group. In fact, I'd say a typical group consists of one, or maybe two very motivated and creative enthusiasts, and a few more casual players.

Specifically, I identify two kinds of people that provide the structure to the player network.  These kinds of people are drawn from the information presented in The Tipping Point.

http://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5488504-1503227?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192134785&sr=8-1

These two kinds of people are Mavens & Connectors.

Mavens are people who know a subject in extreme detail, and delight in sharing that knowledge with others.  The examples you may know are the guy who knows everything about home stereo gear, or cars, or kitchen appliances.  These are the kinds of people who tend to be highly involved in web-based internet discussion boards of TRPG topics.

Connectors are people who have links to many different social groups and tend to be the way that individuals in those groups meet each other.  The Connector is the guy in highschool who was friends with the guys on the football team, and the people in the school play.  Connectors tend to end up doing things like hosting games, running game conventions, or starting web-based internet discussion boards for TRPG topics.

Manipulating these two groups is the key to starting & sustaining a TRPG player network.  Without them, the network cannot form (or cannot be sustained if one does start to form). With them anything is possible.

It is hard to support a 1:1 relationship between Connectors & Mavens with play types.  The traditional "DM" is often seen as a hybrid; having to have massive rules knowledge, and be the person hosting the game and inducing others to show up and play regularly.  I believe this may be an inherent problem with the way the classic TRPG game concept was structured:  there just are not very many Maven/Connectors in the world.  Finding ways to separate those two tasks into things done by two different people may help shore up the overall TRPG player network for the future.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyFourth, the TRPG market has been experiencing a "flight to quality".  This is a stock investing term that means that when the markets get rough, people tend to invest their dollars in stocks that are "safe" and show less volatility.  What we are seeing across the TRPG market is a similar flight to quality; people are buying fewer "risky" small or new TRPGs, and investing dollars in "safe", traditional TRPGs (D20, RIFTS, Storyteller, etc.)  This means that while sales of D&D may be "rallying", that may be an indication of an overall weakening trend in TRPGs as a whole.  (In other words, strengthening D&D sales may be a trailing indicator of a problem, not a leading indicator of a broad based recovery).

Ryan, is people here people in the industry or gamers?

I ask as the reason for a flight to quality in investing is that market volatility and increased risks have changed people's risk to reward ratios, making previously acceptable investments unacceptable.  It's a money thing, as you plainly know.

I'm not clear how that translates to rpgs for gamers.  My risk of getting a sucky game, or having a sucky evening trying to play a sucky game, is pretty much independent of the market.  Distributors taking a kicking doesn't make my game on a Monday night more likely to suck in the way investors getting a kicking makes my investments more at risk.

So what is causing the flight to quality?

Quote from: RSDanceySecond, we can reasonably infer that the stores most likely to fail are the stores with the lowest volume of sales (i.e. the smallest stores).  As those stores are removed from the mix, the average unit volumes should go UP.

To be fair, if a store stops reporting sales figures to C&GR that doesn't mean the store itself has failed - it could be that they simply stopped stocking TRPGs. I've known several stores over the years which carried a single shelf of RPGs (mainly D&D and World of Darkness rulebooks) for a while and then gave up because they weren't selling (and they weren't selling, of course, because the store was neglecting their RPG range and barely paying any attention to that single solitary shelf).

Such stores pulling their RPG range might not be due to a crisis in TRPGs so much as (for example) a boom in comic books or graphic novels prompting stores which formerly sold a mix of comics and RPGs devoting themselves entirely to comics - not because RPGs have become less profitable, but because comics have become significantly more profitable. If there's really a crisis in the TRPG market, then you'd start seeing stores that are mainly or entirely devoted to RPGs going under as the basis of their profit margin is savagely undermined. I've not seen that happen; all four of the Friendly Local RPG Shops I've frequented over the years are still in business and thriving.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm not clear how that translates to rpgs for gamers.  My risk of getting a sucky game, or having a sucky evening trying to play a sucky game, is pretty much independent of the market.

So what is causing the flight to quality?

My time is valuable, and so is yours.  So is everyones.  Since most people get fun from playing TRPGs, not just thinking about playing TRPGs, in a time when networks are getting smaller (which means its harder to get a group together and play), people tend to be less willing to "risk" having an unfun experience by trying a game on the margins.  Instead, they tend to stick with "old faithful" games; games they may be a little bit bored with, but they know they'll have some fun (or a lot of fun; not everyone is bored, that's for sure), vs. the RISK that they'll waste an afternoon/evening/whatever playing a game that doesn't pan out.

Or worse, that SOMEONE spends a lot of time preparing to play, but then in the end the game doesn't even happen, because the lack of enthusiasm on the part of other people causes the game session to fall apart.

There's a real risk vs. reward balance in trying new TRPGs, and the track record, to be very charitable, is less than stellar with most new games.  As the network contracts, we see more play of the most popular games and less play of new games as a result.

Ryan

Quote from: obrynSeriously, this is the only place where I've ever seen someone say Action Points or similar mechanics suddenly transform an RPG into a Happy Story Circle.  (And be taken seriously, that is.)

Assuming you weren't just picking out a "for example" imaginary (which is fair enough to do) - I've never seen that claim about Action Points specifically, since the game I'm playtesting has them, I'd be interested in a link to such a claim, I'll probably rubbish it :D

Quote from: RSDanceySpecifically, I identify two kinds of people that provide the structure to the player network.  These kinds of people are drawn from the information presented in The Tipping Point.
...

It is hard to support a 1:1 relationship between Connectors & Mavens with play types.  The traditional "DM" is often seen as a hybrid; having to have massive rules knowledge, and be the person hosting the game and inducing others to show up and play regularly.  I believe this may be an inherent problem with the way the classic TRPG game concept was structured:  there just are not very many Maven/Connectors in the world.  Finding ways to separate those two tasks into things done by two different people may help shore up the overall TRPG player network for the future.

Ryan

Nice conceptual framework.  I don't see how it follows that having knowledge and having a social network are exclusive nor that "massive" rules knowledge is really required to play an TRPG to place a DM into a Maven category.  Maybe the solution is just easier to use games not a paradigm shift?  

This traditional GM you speak may also be like the "average reasonable person" a great conceptual idea but in reality rules knowledge exists in both the titular GM of an evening and the players as well.  Players helping with the rules and knowing the rules that govern their characters, I don't see that as rare.  

Regarding Connector abilities, in my experience the organizer can be anybody but usually the GM in traditional games as without them there is no game, unless there is a co-GM, or you have two people that GM then you take it in turns when one can't make it to play in the others campaign, or it is just a game night and if the GM can't arrive another game is played, etc.  

The common factor, however, has always been in my experience that the organizer is the host of the game (regardless of GM status) due to typical social convention.  I would think the Connector part would have really nothing to do with the rules of the game actually being played or the social activity.  The Connector ability that needs to be possessed is also fairly low, it is not the same level say needed to acquire private equity and the like, simply say hey are we on for x night, or lets check our calendars to see when we are all free.  

Bottom line, I don't see how the traditional GM even as a Maven/Connector is necessarily rare given the low level of Maveness, and the low level of Connectorness needed.  

I'd look more to the inherent nature of a table-top game, coordinating schedules and the general availability of free time to play a game that can take hours.  These are pretty hard demands on any demographic.

Finally, how can you say these Maven/Connectors=traditional GM are rare when on another thread I thought you said by 2010 there will be mostly GMs and few or no players?:confused:

I think he's read too many marketing books and played in too few game groups. It's muddled his head.

Quote from: XantherFinally, how can you say these Maven/Connectors=traditional GM are rare when on another thread I thought you said by 2010 there will be mostly GMs and few or no players?

He's saying that they're rare in the population over all, which is why roleplaying is dying, he says. It's sort of like saying that seven foot tall black guys are rare, but by 2010 they'll be the only ones playing basketball; therefore basketball is dying.

Which in both cases is obviously bollocks, but there you go.

He still hasn't answered the very good point: his own market study he says is giving him this info told us that people don't play MMORPGs instead of roleplaying in person with their buddies, they do it as well as that. Yet now he's saying that MMORPGs are taking people away from roleplaying. So his conclusions are directly contradicted by his own data which he's so fond of quoting.

Maybe just as Uncle Ronny tells us that nobody's having fun roleplaying, and so if you think you're having fun you're brain-damaged because you couldn't be, really, Dancey is telling us that the people who say they play computer games and roleplaying games are just imagining it.

Fucked if I know.

Quote from: VBWyrdeWell, I recall that Ryan did a massive (truly massive) survey of Role-Playing Gamers in 2000 (iirc it was they surveyed some 65,000 RPGers) and I'm thinking... isn't it time WotC or Hasbro or *someone* in the game industry run the Survey again to see where things stand?

I was re-reading the  WotC Survey (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html) and noticed a couple of things I didn't before.

It wasn't 65,000 RPGers.  It was 65,000 initial respondents from 20,000 households.  From that group 1,000 people were selected to complete the actual survey.  I'm not very good with stats... but I think the actual number of RPGers was less than that total 1,000.

There were also some things about the way the numbers were interpretted and the conclusions drawn that didn't really make sense to me.  This one in particular:

Quote from: WotC Survey3. Adventure Gaming is an adult hobby
More than half the market for hobby games is older than 19. There is a
substantial dip in incidence of play from 16-18. This lends credence to
the theory that most people are introduced to hobby gaming before
high-school and play quite a bit, then leave the hobby until they reach
college, and during college they return to the hobby in significant numbers.

It may also indicate that the existing group of players is aging and not
being refreshed by younger players at the same rate as in previous years.

I don't see how the numbers back that up. :confused:

The conclusion just said it's "an adult hobby" rather than "we need to focus more on appealing to kids" --  was there a decision to focus more on adults based on these results?

Quote from: RSDanceyYou have to be really careful when using C&GR data to do analysis on the trends in the industry.  Specifically, you have to understand what it is reporting....

Forget unit volume or units per store.   Overall sales by all channels sounds like a more reasonable measure of the overall growth (or not) of the market.

QuoteFourth, the TRPG market has been experiencing a "flight to quality".  This is a stock investing term that means that when the markets get rough, people tend to invest their dollars in stocks that are "safe" and show less volatility.  What we are seeing across the TRPG market is a similar flight to quality; people are buying fewer "risky" small or new TRPGs, and investing dollars in "safe", traditional TRPGs (D20, RIFTS, Storyteller, etc.)  This means that while sales of D&D may be "rallying", that may be an indication of an overall weakening trend in TRPGs as a whole.  (In other words, strengthening D&D sales may be a trailing indicator of a problem, not a leading indicator of a broad based recovery).

I think your stretching the analogy between capital markets and a product such as a game.  The trailing indicator is more an indicator of the overall health of the investment environment and opportunities for capital.  There are strong economic reasons why "flight to quality" can be a trailing indicator of a problems in a capital markets that simply don't apply by analogy to a product.  

For example, if I was making an investment decision in TRPG stocks I could care less about the diversity and innovation in the market (two things I would care about for the long term health of an economy).  I'd certainly care about it if I was going to start a new TRPG company, or build a store model on selling a diversity of games.  On those latter two I think yes, those business models are in crisis, and have been for some time.

Further, a consolidation of suppliers for a product is not an indicator that the market for that product is weak.  The term "flight to quality" may be apt in that D&D may just be a better product to most consumers; including ease of purchase do to wider and better distribution and ease of use in using concepts and a gameplay style they are familiar with and comfortable with from other games.  That is, of the people that still want to play TRPGs the one they want to play is something like D&D.

What I wonder is, isn't the phenomenon which is now being called a "flight to quality" the same thing that RSD previously predicted as the success of his marketing plan for D&D 3.x?

Flight to quality? Marketing plan? Trying to become the market leader by having the most well-made and attractive product?

Amazing. Why didn't anyone else think of having well-made and attractive products?

Quote from: Kyle AaronAssuming you weren't just picking out a "for example" imaginary (which is fair enough to do) - I've never seen that claim about Action Points specifically, since the game I'm playtesting has them, I'd be interested in a link to such a claim, I'll probably rubbish it :D

I'm positive I remember exactly this a while back... but I really don't want to wade through reams of stuff to find it. :)

Ask Sett - he might have a link since IIRC he was a proponent of that same view.

-O

Might have been me, Kyle.  But, to be honest, I didn't exactly make the leap he claims.  I qualified it with a lot of "depends how it's implemented" and so forth.  And I qualified it with a lot of "for me"s and YYMV's and such...

Then again, it might not be me...

Quote from: Kyle AaronHe still hasn't answered the very good point: his own market study he says is giving him this info told us that people don't play MMORPGs instead of roleplaying in person with their buddies, they do it as well as that. Yet now he's saying that MMORPGs are taking people away from roleplaying. So his conclusions are directly contradicted by his own data which he's so fond of quoting.

We studied EQ and UO intensively trying to determine if they were having or were likely to have an effect on D&D.  We decided after doing a whole lot of investigation that neither game had had any measurable impact on people's desire to play D&D.  So that is the condition reflected in the market research data you have seen.

We found that in the time period studied (1998), ~1.5 million people played D&D monthly, and ~2.5 million played it at lest once a year.  All other TRPGs combined added another ~2 million annual players for a total player universe (in the US) of about ~5 million.

UO at its biggest had 250K subscribers.  EQ, at its biggest, had less than 550K subscribers.  You can see this data here (note: currently only through 6/06):

//www.mmorpgchart.com  (click the link for 70K-700K subscribers.)

World of Warcraft has twelve million subscribers.  More than seven million are in the US.  In addition, there are 3 other MMOs which have RPG elements which have north of 4 million subscribers each in the US market:  Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin, and WebKinz; those 3 games appeal to kids under 14, whereas WoW appeals to players older than 14.

It has been determined by studies done of WoW servers that it conforms to the generally applicable principle that 10% of a subscriber base use a system at any given time (we see this same ratio in the ISP I own; about 10% of the customers are using the internet at any given moment).  In other words, at any time there are 700,000 people playing World of Warcraft (in the US).

This is a whole new class of development, and therefore the assumptions we reached after examining the data for EQ and UO have to be revisited.  We cannot possibly believe today that these games are not directly predating on the TRPG player network.  In fact, they are, and they are having noticeable effects on the TRPG player network.

You can read oodles of studies at this site:

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

Nick Yee has done awesome work, over a long period of time, of illuminating the MMORPG player network.  His work is well worth reading, there are lots of TRPG insights in there as well.

Spend time doing research on MMORPGs on the web and you find yourself coming up against many different sets of data, from many different sources which all basically lead to the same conclusions:  people who play MMORPGs report (in statistically significant large numbers) that they are former TRPG players.  This is new behavior, and thus does not correlate with the conclusions reached in 1999 based on 1998 data.

Ryan

Quote from: StuartI'm not very good with stats... but I think the actual number of RPGers was less than that total 1,000.

This methodology produces margins of error <+/- 5%.

QuoteI don't see how the numbers back that up. :confused:

The Conventional Wisdom was that kids played TRPGs and then quit.  The industry assumed that it was marketing to an audience of 12 to 18 year olds, and that the people older than 18 were outliers and represented a small portion of the total market.  Thus products were often "dumbed down" to appeal to kids.  (see:  AD&D 2E).

Once we realized that half of the market was over 19, we realized that we not only had to make a product for a much wider age bracket, but that if we "dumbed down" the game, we'd risk alienating more than half our customers (which is just what 2E did, and why sales of 2E were so much lower than sales of both 1E and 3E).

This fact has become so widely accepted in the industry now that it seems curious that we had to defend the conclusion against fairly vocal arguments from people who were convinced TRPGs were a childhood hobby.

The last comment means:  Since more than half the market is 19 or older, and we see a dip from 16 to 18 (which I will explain in more detail if anyone cares), and we assume that starting from a large player base, some number of people quit every year, the fact that we didn't see a big mass of players under 19 was scary; it meant that natural attrition was running faster than natural acquisition.

In a perfect world, you'd see a gigantic number of 12 year olds, then a narrowing cone going forward in age, which would show a healthy market acquiring new players and then slowly losing them over time.  When you see an hour-glass shaped market, you have to ask some very tough questions about the long-term viability of your product.  (One of those questions was: do most people actually enter the hobby between 12-16, or do they enter later in life....)

Ryan

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat I wonder is, isn't the phenomenon which is now being called a "flight to quality" the same thing that RSD previously predicted as the success of his marketing plan for D&D 3.x?

The difference is that after 3.5E, sales in the TRPG category declined by more than 50%, and since 3.5E, there has been no major change in the products in the category.  With 3E, sales quintupled from the prior year, and that change was directly attributable to people being sold a product they liked more than the previously available options.

The current market (which is essentially stable from a product perspective) is showing an overall contraction in size, but a growth (or at least a stablility) in the sales of the top-end games.  The prior market showed overall growth, attributable primary to growth in the top end game.  

I would argue that the OGL/D20 project directed what may have been a "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario into a "rising tide lifts one boat" scenario by diverting publisher & designer & consumer interest in the category that was revived by 3E into purchases of 3E variants rather than sales of pre-existing games, which is why those games (Storyteller, RIFTS, etc.) did not show the kind of growth that D&D demonstrated on the release of 3E.

The catastrophic effect of 3.5E in popping the D20 bubble did nobody any favors, including WotC itself.  While sales of D&D have been reportedly stable or even to have shown growth, sales of WotC's own D20 games suffered tremendously (D20 Star Wars & D20 Modern being the two most obvious examples, but 3.5E also wiped out evergreen sales of D20 CoC and D20 Wheel of Time as well.)

It is very likely that the 3.5E impact coincided with the rise of WoW, so that in the immediate aftermath the industry just assumed the issue was "D20 bubble deflating", but in reality it was "WoW is kicking our asses".  The former was potentially solvable, the latter was not.  There was a lot of head-in-sand during that period.

Ryan

Oh well, Jimmy boy, come and comment on this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=147422), then.

Thanks for trying to help me understand the numbers Ryan. :)

Here's the bit that I still don't get:

QuoteThe age breakdown of players within the marketplace is:

Age   TRPG
12-15 -- 23%
16-18 -- 18%
19-24 -- 25%
25-35 -- 34%

Which shows that drop from 16-18 like you said.  But these aren't the same size groups.  12-15 is 4 years.  16-18 is 3 years.  19-24 is 6 years. 25-35 is 11 years.  Wouldn't there obviously be a smaller % within an age bracket spanning a smaller number of years?

For example, let's say there are 6 players for each year between 12 and 35.  This doesn't change, so you're not actually seeing any age where the number goes up and down.  But by having different sizes of age ranges you get something like this:
12-15 -- 24 players
16-18 -- 18 players
19-24 -- 36 players
25-35 -- 66 players
Which looks like it's showing some kind of trend where you have people losing interest and returning... but it isn't.

That's the part I don't get.

The other part is this:

QuoteOf the people who reported playing a TRPG, we further screened for people who played D&D and asked those individuals some more detailed questions. This data comes from people who have played D&D, not necessarily those who play monthly.

Age Learned D&D
<12  -- 23%
12-15 -- 41%
16-18 -- 15%
19-24 -- 12%
25-35 -- 9%

Again the age ranges are non-standard, but 64% of people learned D&D before they were 15 and 79% before they were 18.  However this doesn't really get mentioned much in the conclusions.

If we're seeing declining sales in the RPG industry, couldn't it be in part the same issue the Comicbook companies have been grappling with -- an aging demographic because they're not bringing in the kids anymore?

That seems just as (or more) likely than the MMORPG thing.  Like someone else said -- Board Game sales are doing quite nicely, despite all the videogames.

QuoteThis is a whole new class of development, and therefore the assumptions we reached after examining the data for EQ and UO have to be revisited. We cannot possibly believe today that these games are not directly predating on the TRPG player network. In fact, they are, and they are having noticeable effects on the TRPG player network.

I cannot see why this is different from TV or Video Games in general. There is no predation going on. WoW is just a pretty sucky videogame for stupid people too, if you ask me. But even of it´s totally rad, it´s a videogame.

And they are even bigger than Hollywood these days.

Most people spend more money on munchies for their gaming table than for the books.
Most gamers watch more TV than spend time playing RPGs.

Everything RSD is saying is non-sequitur.
Jumping to conclusions, in every sentence.

But it´s Ryan´s money and credibility.
So be it.

I play WOW.  I'm on that scene from the inside.  My own observations and experiences show that Ryan's point about WOW stealing TRPG players is on target; the majority of my guildmates in all of my guilds are lapsed or lapsing TRPG players, and the server communities in general are filled with such folks.

That still doesn't prove causality, Brad. Some people used to do A, now they do B. The claim is B is not B but is actually an improved version of A. A++. But that's a claim, and IMHO an optical illusion.

Can we point to a single and remotely comparable precedent in history in which one kind of pastime was abandoned en masse for a (supposedly) massively improved version of that very same pastime? This is not a rhetorical question--they may exist, but I can't think of any.

I never met a regular WoW player who I'd miss at my game table.

Quote from: RSDanceyThe difference is that after 3.5E, sales in the TRPG category declined by more than 50%, and since 3.5E, there has been no major change in the products in the category.  With 3E, sales quintupled from the prior year, and that change was directly attributable to people being sold a product they liked more than the previously available options.

When 3e came out there had been nothing brewing for a long time. Really, the few tail-end products of 2nd ed were awful... So that quintupling, what did it really represent compared with, say, sales of 2nd ed or 1st ed (or classic D&D) in their prime? I ask 'cos we keep seeing claims here that 3rd ed was really such a phenomenon, and while it certainly did well I'm a little concerned by these claims, I think they hide a general decline in RPGs.

As for 3.5e... It simply came too soon. The changes in it were small, they were almost trivial, and yet we were presented with whole new rulebooks at quite high cost. Hardly surprising it put people right off the whole company.

Quote from: RSDanceyIn a perfect world, you'd see a gigantic number of 12 year olds, then a narrowing cone going forward in age, which would show a healthy market acquiring new players and then slowly losing them over time.  When you see an hour-glass shaped market, you have to ask some very tough questions about the long-term viability of your product.  (One of those questions was: do most people actually enter the hobby between 12-16, or do they enter later in life....)

Most gamers I currently know (whose ages tend to range from their 20s to their 30s) seem to either come to gaming late in life, or simply didn't get much gaming until they got to university. I begin to suspect that this has always been the case; most successful Vampire LARPs I was aware of back in the 1990s were attached to universities, most successful game shops tended to be close to a student population, AD&D under Gygax was marketed mainly (and successfully) towards a university audience...

Quote from: Pierce InverarityCan we point to a single and remotely comparable precedent in history in which one kind of pastime was abandoned en masse for a (supposedly) massively improved version of that very same pastime? This is not a rhetorical question--they may exist, but I can't think of any.

Many wargamers attribute the steep decline of their hobby in the late 70s to the emergence of D&D. The thinking is there are only so many geekish young men out there looking to play games. Any new gaming hobby eats into the same demographic that existing gaming hobbies rely on.

Quote from: WarthurMost gamers I currently know (whose ages tend to range from their 20s to their 30s) seem to either come to gaming late in life, or simply didn't get much gaming until they got to university. I begin to suspect that this has always been the case; most successful Vampire LARPs I was aware of back in the 1990s were attached to universities, most successful game shops tended to be close to a student population, AD&D under Gygax was marketed mainly (and successfully) towards a university audience...

Around here, the popularity of D&D peaked when I was in junior high - the early 80s. In a class with 15 boys, typically five or so played D&D regularly, and most of the others had at least tried it. By high school, it was embarassing to admit you played, and that stayed true in university.

That may have changed in the 90s, when RPGs had become entrenched as a geek hobby. But D&D certainly saw its high water mark in terms of players and revenue at a time when many or most players were younger than 16.

Quote from: RSDanceyClub Penguin

OK, I don't have a lot of time before work, so I have yet to read beyond this point...but...really?  You consider Club Penguin to be even remotely related to the idea of RPG?

Then we have a bigger disconnect than I thought....

[My kids play Club Penguin all the time, so I'm pretty familiar with it.]

Here are the statistics from the 2000 WotC survey, showing the actual % of RPG players per year, rather than the total % for the non-standard size age brackets reported:

12 to 15 -- 5.75% / yr
16 to 18 -- 6.00% / yr
19 to 24 -- 4.17% / yr
25 to 35 -- 3.09% / yr

It's also very significant to note the survey only started looking at people when they were 12.  My friends and I all started playing when we were 9, and the WotC survey reported 23% of RPGers started before they were 12.  I think it's a significant weakness of the data that <12 is not reported above.

The numbers don't show a decline from 16 to 18 and a return at 19 -- quite the opposite.

Looking at those numbers I'd come to very different conclusions than what was in the WotC survey...

I'm going to see if I can talk with one of my colleagues in our Math & Stats department about this today and get a second opinion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn any case your point is a good one except for one thing: the D&D 3.x marketing argument as I've understood it, in terms of how it relates to your objection that people are playing a game that isn't serving them well, has been that the suboptimality of D&D for any given segment is more than made up for by its ability to provide an effective "compromise point" around which people with different preferences can gather and play together.

Here is the thing, I see nothing in D&D's design or marketing that suggest it is a "compromise point" at all: no story-telling mechanics, no narrative control rules, no ad campaigns that say "Hey, we suck, but at least you can find players!"

D&D is not a compromise game. It is an unabashed traditional game and strangely enough, people have been having great adventures and telling great stories with traditional games for over 30 years.

The issue we tend to overlook when we start talking about classifying gamers and their preferences is that most of us defy classification. Seriously, how many pure "Powergamers" do you know? In my 29 years of gaming, I have played with one pure Powergamer... who lived for combat and nothing else. Every other gamer I have played with... every one... is a mix.

Surely, I cannot refute anything Ryan has to say about the Industry. All he ever has to do to end discussion is quote some study or talk about "inside information" he has and no one can argue. That's fine. Let's say people are leaving tabletop gaming in droves and that most of those are people who derive their primary enjoyment from powergaming. I still say that his conclusions rest on the shaky premise that right now, given the fact that other choices exist and have existed for years, a large percentage of gamers are playing a game they don't enjoy.

I just don't buy that argument and I didn't when Ron Edwards said it years ago... at least then there were less choices.

In any case, this is a fine discussion,

Quote from: James J SkachOK, I don't have a lot of time before work, so I have yet to read beyond this point...but...really?  You consider Club Penguin to be even remotely related to the idea of RPG?

In the same vein as WoW is remotely related to the idea of RPG? Sure.

You've got a penguin character that you can get stuff for (a new igloo, furniture, clothes, pets), you win experience points ("money") by doing stuff (playing Four-in-a-row or this Ice Breaker game). All that while waiting for the return of that pirate penguin (who likes to give you more rare stuff).

I just spoke with my colleague who's a statistician, and he confirmed what I was thinking about the numbers.  His comment was that you couldn't draw those conclusions from this data and it was a case of making the stats say what you want them to say.

The WotC conclusions are not accurate.

Quote from: StuartI just spoke with my colleague who's a statistician, and he confirmed what I was thinking about the numbers.  His comment was that you couldn't draw those conclusions from this data and it was a case of making the stats say what you want them to say.

The WotC conclusions are not accurate.

I didn't pick up on it at first, but once you pointed it out, it seemed quite obvious in retrospect. Good catch.

I can believe that MMORPGs take away from TTRPGs to some extent, but I don't think it is really significant enough to hurt the TTRPG hobby. I believe the two modalities can coexist, that they scratch different itches and that tabletop games should emphasize their strengths rather than try to imitate the strengths of MMORPGs.

The biggest problem I see with Ryan's latest idea is the notion that story games are the way to go. Story games are currently available and are unpopular (compared with D&D or other traditional games). I just can't see injecting more story into a D&D-like game as being the next big thing.

Kudos to Ryan for stopping by and maintaining an extremely civil tone while discussing his ideas amongst a sometimes hostile crowd.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeIn the same vein as WoW is remotely related to the idea of RPG? Sure.

You've got a penguin character that you can get stuff for (a new igloo, furniture, clothes, pets), you win experience points ("money") by doing stuff (playing Four-in-a-row or this Ice Breaker game). All that while waiting for the return of that pirate penguin (who likes to give you more rare stuff).

Yeah, see...if that's your view of RPG's...well...good luck with that...

Quote from: RSDanceyThe Conventional Wisdom was that kids played TRPGs and then quit. The industry assumed that it was marketing to an audience of 12 to 18 year olds, and that the people older than 18 were outliers and represented a small portion of the total market. Thus products were often "dumbed down" to appeal to kids. (see: AD&D 2E).

Once we realized that half of the market was over 19, we realized that we not only had to make a product for a much wider age bracket, but that if we "dumbed down" the game, we'd risk alienating more than half our customers (which is just what 2E did, and why sales of 2E were so much lower than sales of both 1E and 3E).

I only have a handful of AD&D 2E Modules at home, but nothing in them seemed dumbed down compared to AD&D 1E.  Perhaps more politically correct, but nothing that made them feel like it was suddenly a "kids" game.  Interesting to note how many people prefer B/X or BECMI D&D which actually WAS marketed to kids -- it says right on the cover:  Ages 10 and up.

The poor sales of 2E and the decline of TSR had a lot to do with how the company was being managed, the products they were putting out, marketing, etc.  Lots of sources say that -- you're the only person I've heard say it's because the products were aimed at kids, not adults.

By creating products that don't appeal to kids, you're trading short-term market success for long-term market success.

Quote from: RSDanceyThis fact has become so widely accepted in the industry now that it seems curious that we had to defend the conclusion against fairly vocal arguments from people who were convinced TRPGs were a childhood hobby.

Yeah... that doesn't seem like all that hot an idea at anymore...

Quote from: RSDanceyThe last comment means: Since more than half the market is 19 or older, and we see a dip from 16 to 18 (which I will explain in more detail if anyone cares), and we assume that starting from a large player base, some number of people quit every year, the fact that we didn't see a big mass of players under 19 was scary; it meant that natural attrition was running faster than natural acquisition.

I don't think there was a dip between 16 to 18.  The stats don't back these comments up at all.

Quote from: RSDanceyIn a perfect world, you'd see a gigantic number of 12 year olds, then a narrowing cone going forward in age, which would show a healthy market acquiring new players and then slowly losing them over time. When you see an hour-glass shaped market, you have to ask some very tough questions about the long-term viability of your product. (One of those questions was: do most people actually enter the hobby between 12-16, or do they enter later in life....)

So... It seems like there actually was a narrowing cone market, and not the hourglass shaped market you thought you saw, or wanted to see.

Then the industry went ahead and adapted to the "widely accepted fact" that they needed to focus more on adult gamers.

And now we're hearing about dropping sales figure, and a declining industry.

Wow.  (not the MMORPG)

Quote from: StuartI only have a handful of AD&D 2E Modules at home, but nothing in them seemed dumbed down compared to AD&D 1E.  Perhaps more politically correct, but nothing that made them feel like it was suddenly a "kids" game.  Interesting to note how many people prefer B/X or BECMI D&D which actually WAS marketed to kids -- it says right on the cover:  Ages 10 and up.

The old red-box basic set brought a lot of kids into gaming. It provided a way in, a simple approach to learn the basics of the game in a way that wasn't condescending, and which didn't betray the principles of RPGs (i.e. it didn't turn it into a board or miniatures game). Very appropriate for a ten year old, but when you got to, say, the Companion, Masters and Immortals rules it was clear that there were in fact two distinct product lines, one that had a faster play feel to it and one that had more detail, but neither was particularly the right game for a ten year old, at least not at that level. Some people grew up and move on to playing AD&D, some people grew up and stuck with BX, then BECMI.

QuoteThe poor sales of 2E and the decline of TSR had a lot to do with how the company was being managed, the products they were putting out, marketing, etc.  Lots of sources say that -- you're the only person I've heard say it's because the products were aimed at kids, not adults.

Indeed. The decline of 2nd ed as the game split into so many different product lines, each of them selling less than the one before, is well documented. Now, that doesn't mean that there weren't second ed products designed for kids, but on the whole those products bombed. The best example would be the Mystara setting; did well as part of classic D&D, then it was decided to stop that line and concentrate on 2nd ed, and Mystara was reborn as a beginners setting essentially for kids. And it was dire, kids didn't want sound effect CDs, the production quality was just shocking... In fact it was everything that the old red box basic set wasn't. Those products were patronising, amateurish... A terrible fate to befall what had been such an inspired campaign setting, that had been around in the game since the old Cook/Moldvay expert set :(

QuoteBy creating products that don't appeal to kids, you're trading short-term market success for long-term market success.

Although the right approach should be to have a product line that brings kids in to the game without taking them away from what the game is actually all about; the recent Dungeons and Dragons boardgame is a fine example of how not to do it.

Quote from: StuartI only have a handful of AD&D 2E Modules at home, but nothing in them seemed dumbed down compared to AD&D 1E.  Perhaps more politically correct, but nothing that made them feel like it was suddenly a "kids" game.  Interesting to note how many people prefer B/X or BECMI D&D which actually WAS marketed to kids -- it says right on the cover:  Ages 10 and up.

The poor sales of 2E and the decline of TSR had a lot to do with how the company was being managed, the products they were putting out, marketing, etc.  Lots of sources say that -- you're the only person I've heard say it's because the products were aimed at kids, not adults.

By creating products that don't appeal to kids, you're trading short-term market success for long-term market success.

Agreed on all points.

2nd ed was not dumbed-down.  It was sanitized, which was part of the perfectly rational business model of trying to be "family friendly" so as to maintain a more mass market appeal.  Whether or not I liked that decision as a consumer (I didn't, for the record), I can see the logic - even necessity - of the decision.

Likewise, the decision to refocus the market from college-agers (1e) to teens (2e) was a good business decision for long term growth.  And is completely backed up by the statistics once the age ranges are standardized.

These kind of decisions are what helped TSR stay on top for so long.  

The problem was all the other decisions tended to be bad - printing up too much inventory, setting incorrect price points, dividing their own market, producing a bunch of unpopular board games and book lines, etc.

Quote from: StuartSo... It seems like there actually was a narrowing cone market, and not the hourglass shaped market you thought you saw, or wanted to see.

Stuart, you've been looking at these numbers far more carefully than I have, but I wonder if even the above is true. The numbers from your last table are so close that the difference between them could be due entirely to sampling error. Perhaps you can ask your statistician friend about that.

Quote from: Elliot WilenStuart, you've been looking at these numbers far more carefully than I have, but I wonder if even the above is true. The numbers from your last table are so close that the difference between them could be due entirely to sampling error. Perhaps you can ask your statistician friend about that.

We discussed whether it shows a market dipping and then recovering, or whether it shows a steady decline.  He agreed it appeared to be a steady decline, although he mentioned you couldn't make assumptions about any of the stats for ages within those age ranges.  So you might have a lot more people playing RPGs at 25 than you do at 35 (or even the opposite!) but you can't tell that from the data presented.  He was also cautious about making any conclusions based on the data aside from saying the conclusions from the report were not supported by the data, and that it looked like using stats to support something they don't.

To make it more visual. :)

This is the 4 point chart you'd make from the numbers in the WotC report:

***********************
******************
*************************
**********************************

Definite dip and positive recovery.

Here is the chart you'd make from taking into account the number of years in each reported age range:

*****************************
******************************
*********************
***************

A different story.

Now, the best way to really look at the data would be with a chart that had one point for each year between 12 (I'd say 8) and 35.  This would also let you know the rate at which it climbs or drops at certain ages.  From the data given it's not clear whether 25 to 35 is a fairly steady state or if it starts dropping off more sharply at any specific age.

The observation of % of users in each age bracket is fair -- you do have 59% of RPGers between 12 and 35 who are 19 or older.  The problem is that you're comparing a 17 year age range with a 7 year age range.  It's still a true statistic though -- 59% are older than 18.

Do I think this is conclusive proof there was a narrowing cone market?  No.  

I think the entire survey is called into question and without knowing more about the raw data and methodology used there could be more errors.  How were the initial 65,000 people selected? How were the 1,000 people selected from the 65,000?  From that 1,000 how many were RPG players versus players of other types of games?  If there are less that 1,000 RPG players, what does that say about the margin of error when we're looking at RPG specific questions? etc.

Do I think the numbers in the report supported the conclusion to move the focus away from kids and teens?  No.

Do I believe Ryan's new assertions about Storytelling and MMORPGs?  No.

Do I think Ryan should trust his gut, make the game he wants to, and have fun doing it?  Yes.

Quote from: cmagounHere is the thing, I see nothing in D&D's design or marketing that suggest it is a "compromise point" at all: no story-telling mechanics, no narrative control rules, no ad campaigns that say "Hey, we suck, but at least you can find players!"

Well there's a limit to how far I'm willing to carry water for the theory, but I think you're not looking broadly enough. RPGs are, in general and by nature, a compromise. By having a GM and being flexible about some aspects of the game, also by having roughly representative mechanics, D&D offers more "story" than either abstract board games or a pure miniatures wargame. This is true of all RPGs. What D&D 3.x did--and here I'm working mainly on reports and opinions of others, both pro and con about the game--is offer greater mechanical teeth to the board game/wargame aspect. There are others on this board who would be far better advocates of the game than I could, but it seems to me that one of the key things 3.x did better than 2.x in terms of design was to emphasize interesting, fun options for overcoming obstacles (where "realism" or "genre" conflicted with fun, fun won out), and to make their use clear enough that you could meaningfully apply strategy and detailed tactics to a problem without relying so much on GM adjudication.

QuoteD&D is not a compromise game. It is an unabashed traditional game and strangely enough, people have been having great adventures and telling great stories with traditional games for over 30 years.

D&D was a compromise game for me, in many ways. The thing is that it was flexible enough and easy enough to houserule that my friends were able to bring it (or at least the basic framework) into our own "center of gravity", and then the quality of the players and GM made up for the rest. Nevertheless the groups I played in still used elements that I would have done away with if I'd had my druthers.

QuoteI just don't buy that argument and I didn't when Ron Edwards said it years ago... at least then there were less choices.

RE's claim contained an element that was actually more nuanced and in some ways less tenable, at least as it made its way into the wild of forum and blog discussion. Namely, that a flexible game like D&D was inherently bad design because it didn't mechanically force a single style of play. Therefore if players came into the game with different tastes, they'd have to work it out amongst themselves; this "working out" was viewed as a bad thing--as a dysfunctional power struggle carried out at the table.

QuoteIn any case, this is a fine discussion,

Agreed.

Quote from: StuartIt's still a true statistic though -- 59% are older than 18.

Please don't take offense if what follows is already familiar, but it's only a true statistic in the sense that 59% of the respondents answered that way. What we don't know is how representative the sample of respondents is of the population of gamers it's drawn from. With random sampling, which appears to have been carried out here, you always have an unknown error which makes comparing numbers tricky.

If the sample was truly random, then it's possible that the narrowing cone you observed is really just a product of pure luck, just as the hourglass is a product of numerical fiddling (and also some luck). The reality in the population could be a rock-steady percentage or even a slightly widening cone. It's mainly a question of how likely it is that the sample's pattern is a reflection of a real pattern in the population; with a high likelihood, we can reasonably draw conclusions, with a low likelihood, we might as well just punt.

RSDancey quoted a "<5%" sampling error earlier, but the error could be greater when looking at subpopulations, and in any case the numbers themselves differ by less than 5%. If the margin of error is really +/-5%, then they could have been produced just about as easily from a rod, a cone, or an hourglass.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPlease don't take offense if what follows is already familiar, but it's only a true statistic in the sense that 59% of the respondents answered that way. What we don't know is how representative the sample of respondents are of the population of gamers it's drawn from. With random sampling, which appears to have been carried out here, you always have an unknown error which makes comparing numbers tricky.

Oh yes, absolutely agreed.  Like I said, this calls the entire thing into question.

Quote from: StuartLike someone else said -- Board Game sales are doing quite nicely, despite all the videogames.

Except saying that, you don't really mean "nicely as in comparable to video game sales." So, really, I can say sales of 1,000,000 piece puzzles with pieces missing here and there are doing nicely as long as I don't use a yardstick. Thus saying the sales of [blank] without such a yardstick are meaningless as evidence.

Seanchai

What really makes me wonder, is that there is no known D&D user profiles.

In Magic the Gathering, there are cards especially made for

1) players who like to have big badass decks, want to win with their big Mofo-cards
2) players who like flavorful decks, want to win in style
3) players who play tournaments, want to win every time
4) players who dig weird effects, so they can pull of some out-of-the-box combo, even if it means they don´t win every time

One would think, that WotC would offer such a mixed bag for 4e or even 3.5, too. But no, 4e and the late 3.5 all introduced no-brainer "big badass" powers.
There´s diversity in playstyles within the conflict oriented subgroups. Why are they axing the whole strategic axis, as well as the out of the box players?
Why is RSD "axing" all conflict oriented players?

What´s wrong with you guys?

Even M:tG seems to be more inclusive and posessing more integrative power than either the Rape-Story-Gamers or WotC.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell there's a limit to how far I'm willing to carry water for the theory, but I think you're not looking broadly enough. RPGs are, in general and by nature, a compromise.

Ok, I buy that. Continuing with that same point...

Quote from: Elliot WilenBy having a GM and being flexible about some aspects of the game, also by having roughly representative mechanics, D&D offers more "story" than either abstract board games or a pure miniatures wargame. This is true of all RPGs.

I am not sure why this bit made me think of it, but it struck me that instead of trying to "save the hobby" by appealing to the tiny, remaining Story Set, we should try to provide a better experience to the Powergamers... since WoW and Lineage II prove they are certainly a much larger market. We might be better off letting the Story-Gamers go and focusing on the tactical aspects of our RPGs :)

Quote from: Elliot WilenD&D was a compromise game for me, in many ways. The thing is that it was flexible enough and easy enough to houserule that my friends were able to bring it (or at least the basic framework) into our own "center of gravity", and then the quality of the players and GM made up for the rest. Nevertheless the groups I played in still used elements that I would have done away with if I'd had my druthers.

As it would be with any game and any group, right? The nature of the hobby seems to be that it depends heavily on the players at the table coming to an agreement of how they are going to conduct business (both mechanically and socially). The game and sessions that result are an expression of the groups' collective gaming preferences.

And that means my traditional game, with its broad focus and incoherent design can tell darn good stories if and when my group wants to tell stories... Or they can just kick the hell out of goblins all night... Or they can build a trade empire... Or save the princess... or whatever. In fact, I would go as far to say that traditional games tend to mirror the gaming preferences of the game group, while storygames (in their current incarnation) mirror the preferences of the game designer -- something I typically don't care about.

Quote from: StuartWe discussed whether it shows a market dipping and then recovering, or whether it shows a steady decline.  He agreed it appeared to be a steady decline, although he mentioned you couldn't make assumptions about any of the stats for ages within those age ranges.  So you might have a lot more people playing RPGs at 25 than you do at 35 (or even the opposite!) but you can't tell that from the data presented.  He was also cautious about making any conclusions based on the data aside from saying the conclusions from the report were not supported by the data, and that it looked like using stats to support something they don't.

As a programmer/analyst I'd really want to have all of the raw data so we can analyze it ourselves.   I have a strange feeling the reports/charts we'd come up with from our own analysis of that data would be fascinating.  What chance is there of getting that raw data from the original survey?   My guess:  zip.  But I thought it worth asking.

Quote from: HaffrungMany wargamers attribute the steep decline of their hobby in the late 70s to the emergence of D&D.

I was going to edit my post to the effect that wargames aren't a good example because they're too close precisely to what I'm disputing: that B isn't B but a computerized and therefore improved version of A.

QuoteThe thinking is there are only so many geekish young men out there looking to play games. Any new gaming hobby eats into the same demographic that existing gaming hobbies rely on.

Yes, and with this we've moved from substitution to displacement. But now all bets are off, and "hobbies" becomes "whatever we do while we're not working." Has Burning Man replaced bungee jumping? Did bungee jumping replace hoola hoop rings? Or, in my case, have more expensive vacations replaced CD buying? In a way, yes. I used to buy CDs and not go on more expensive vacations, and now it's the other way around.  (No, I don't DL music, ever--I'm simply done with music.).

Quote from: StuartWhich shows that drop from 16-18 like you said.  But these aren't the same size groups.  12-15 is 4 years.  16-18 is 3 years.  19-24 is 6 years. 25-35 is 11 years.  Wouldn't there obviously be a smaller % within an age bracket spanning a smaller number of years?

We were as much heirs to the Conventional Wisdom as anyone.  We set up the study in the anticipation that we'd find most people playing were kids, and we wanted data within that age range in more detail than in older people (because most older people are similar to each other, but an 18 year old is very different than a 12 year old...)

That's why it was startling to find more than 50% of the audience was older than 19.

QuoteIf we're seeing declining sales in the RPG industry, couldn't it be in part the same issue the Comicbook companies have been grappling with -- an aging demographic because they're not bringing in the kids anymore?

Think about this for a minute.

If most people learn the game before they're 18, then the number of players who are 19 should be more than the number of players who are 25, because you assume natural attrition slowly erodes the size of the player community.

In other words, you're looking at a snapshot in time, but you're actually seeing a whole continuum of people's activities from about age 12 to about age 35.

What this data shows us is that the natural attrition rate is fairly slow, and that people who are regular TRPG players continue in the hobby well past the point where the conventional wisdom used to say they quit.  An acquisition zone of just 6 years (12-18) is producing players who persist into their mid 30s. (And we didn't study beyond that point, but we all know there are people playing until they die.)

From the standpoint of running the business of D&D, the important part of this research was that we had an older customer base than we expected, and that we had to make sure we took that into account when designing the product line.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyThink about this for a minute.

If most people learn the game before they're 18, then the number of players who are 19 should be more than the number of players who are 25, because you assume natural attrition slowly erodes the size of the player community.

Your data doesn't show the number of people who are 19 and the number who are 25.  It shows the number between 19 and 24 (6 years) and the number between 25 and 35 (11 years).  Those are completely different things.

The average for each year between 19 and 24, say "19" is 4.17%
The average for each year between 25 and 35, say "25" is 3.09%

That looks exactly like it being higher at 19 than at 25.

Quote from: RSDanceyFrom the standpoint of running the business of D&D, the important part of this research was that we had an older customer base than we expected, and that we had to make sure we took that into account when designing the product line.

I think you made an error in your research, which suggests that may not have been a good strategy for the long-term business of D&D, and by extension the RPG industry / hobby.

Quote from: StuartThe WotC conclusions are not accurate.

What the hell are you talking about Stuart?

We said

QuoteAdventure Gaming is an adult hobby
More than half the market for hobby games is older than 19. There is a
substantial ìdipî in incidence of play from 16-18. This lends credence to
the theory that most people are introduced to hobby gaming before
high-school and play quite a bit, then leave the hobby until they reach
college, and during college they return to the hobby in significant numbers.

It may also indicate that the existing group of players is aging and not
being refreshed by younger players at the same rate as in previous years.

Let's go through the data step by step, shall we?

Is more than half the market for hobby games older than 19?  Yes, they are.  59% of the players are 19 or older.

Is there a dip in incidence of play comparing 12-15 year olds to 16-18 year olds?  Yes, there is.  The difference between Cohort 1 (12-15) and Cohort 2 (16-18) which is a 21% drop in play activity.

Does it indicate that the existing group of players is aging and not being replaced?  Well, we qualified this statement by saying "may", because, as you noted, our breakdown in the sub 19 year old cohorts is more detailed than our breakdowns in the greater than 19 year old cohorts.  What we thought was scary was that we found more people older than 19 than younger than 19.  We would have liked to have found the reverse, because otherwise, we have to factor in a really high rate of retention, which is fairly scary, since essentially everyone in the industry had been telling themselves for years that TRPGs were games for kids.

It turns out that there is likely a really high retention rate, which is good.  The question becomes:  If WotC ran that same study today and published the results, would the percentage of play breakdown per age Cohort remain the same, or would it have shifted younger or older, and what would that say about the impact of 3E/3.5E/D20/OGL, etc.

Remember it's been nearly 7 years, and almost 3 versions of D&D since this data was produced, so the things we were trying to "prove" to our peers, our distributors, our retailers, and the mavens in the player network may seem quaint today, but they had a big effect on our design & marketing decisions in 1999/2000.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyThat's why it was startling to find more than 50% of the audience was older than 19.

What do you think would have happened if you'd included 8-11 year olds in your research?  I think you would have seen more than 50% under 19 at that point.  The data from the survey certainly suggested there were a lot of people starting to play before 12.

Quote from: RSDanceyIn other words, you're looking at a snapshot in time, but you're actually seeing a whole continuum of people's activities from about age 12 to about age 35.

I look forward to being corrected, but as it stands this is wrong. This would be true if you could guarantee that there's been no change in habits--the trajectory of people through the hobby--over time. But that's one of the very points at dispute.

A snapshot showing a fairly flat age distribution could be due to players starting young and staying in the hobby at a fairly high rate. It could also be due to a decline in acquisition of young players combined with a fixed attrition rate.

Wait a second, are the percentages quoted for each group the percentage that each group represents of the entirety of gamers, or are they participation rates within each group?

If the latter, then I retract my most recent objection, and I think Stuart may be off-base.

EDIT: But going back to Stuart's post where he quotes the original numbers, the age groups clearly add up to 100%. Between Stuart's revised %/year and the likely sampling error, characterizing the data as showing an "hourglass" is just plain wrong. If that's what's being used to justify the language about a drop in the "incidence of play" from 16-18, then whoever wrote that text was badly mistaken.

Quote from: StuartI think you made an error in your research, which suggests that may not have been a good strategy for the long-term business of D&D, and by extension the RPG industry / hobby.

This whole thread has taken a turn into bizzaro world.

You think 3E was a worse product than 2E?  2E was designed for an age range of 12 to 18 year olds.  3E was a product designed for an age range of 12 to End of Life.

We know that a lot of people playing 1E did not play 2E, and sales reflected that.  We know that a lot of people playing both 1E and 2E played 3E, because sales reflect that too.  And we know that at the time of 3E's release, more than half the audience for 3E was older than 19, so the product had to have worked in appealing to both younger gamers and older gamers.

In addition, my business team authored a 10 year plan for the TRPG business, which included making games for kids as young as 6 years old, working to build as big a "base" as possible so that the long-tail of the player network would grow in response.  The first product of that strategy, the Pokemon Jr. Adventure Game was the fastest selling new RPG ever.  And it was sold to 6-8 year olds.

So we had a very clear plan, very clearly based on the market research:

1) Make appropriate games for kids.

2) Make bridges between age cohorts to lead kids to D&D.

3) Sell D&D to a very wide range of ages, but assume an "older" market rather than a "younger" market.

Now, I will be the first to point out that on my departure, WotC tossed that plan in the round file, and then directed their attentions for the past 7 years into making highly complex, adult oriented games with zero attention paid to the youngest age cohorts, but that's not a decision I would have made, nor would any of my team have made.

But to say that we made an "error" flies in the face of the actual observed behavior of the market (which was to buy 3E products in gigantic numbers, vastly superior to the numbers they ever bought 2E products in.)

Ryan

Quote from: StuartWhat do you think would have happened if you'd included 8-11 year olds in your research?  I think you would have seen more than 50% under 19 at that point.  The data from the survey certainly suggested there were a lot of people starting to play before 12.

This is 100% speculation.  I think we would have found that there was an audience at age 11, but not at age 10 or before.  And the audience at age 11 was aspirational (that is, kids who told us they were playing D&D, but probably weren't really, but were hanging out with older brothers who did and picking up the gist of the game by observation, occasionally making the most basic kind of character (stats, hit points, AC & saves) and fighting a room full of orcs where 90% of the work was done by an older person).

In parallel to the market research, we worked with experts in child developmental psychology, who helped us understand the way kid's brains change as they age.  Unlike adults, kids have very different capabilities in different ages; they are physically incapable of engaging in certain intellectual gymnastics until they reach certain ages.  There are things in D&D due to its abstract nature, its lack of a physical play space, the number of factors in play that constrain character actions, the need to plan for the immediate and distant future, etc., which kids younger than 12 are not equipped to cope with.  Those understandings made it clear that D&D really wasn't playable by kids younger than 12.

And yes, I know there are exceptions.  They are exceptional exceptions; they don't constitute enough people to make a business around.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyWhat the hell are you talking about Stuart?

I'm saying that the data you reported doesn't show a dip from 16-18.  The first thing my statistician colleague said when I showed him the numbers was "you can't have different sized age ranges and compare them".

Quote from: RSDanceyIs more than half the market for hobby games older than 19? Yes, they are. 59% of the players are 19 or older.

Sure.  It'd be even higher if you ran the survey from 12 to 65.  It'd be lower if you ran the survey from 8 to 35.  

Quote from: RSDanceyIs there a dip in incidence of play comparing 12-15 year olds to 16-18 year olds? Yes, there is. The difference between Cohort 1 (12-15) and Cohort 2 (16-18) which is a 21% drop in play activity.

The 16-18 year range is also 21% smaller than the 12-15 year range.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWait a second, are the percentages quoted for each group the percentage that each group represents of the entirety of gamers, or are they participation rates within each group?

If the latter, then I retract my most recent objection, and I think Stuart may be off-base.

23 + 18 + 25 + 34 = 100% of TRPG players.

Quote from: RSDanceyThis whole thread has taken a turn into bizzaro world.

You think 3E was a worse product than 2E?  2E was designed for an age range of 12 to 18 year olds.  3E was a product designed for an age range of 12 to End of Life.

Reading back through 2nd ed... The spell descriptions, the skills system, the monster stats... It isn't much less complex than 3rd ed. It leaves a few more things undefined, but designed specifically for 12 to 18 year olds? How do you go about designing a roleplaying game like AD&D such that you differentiate between 18 year olds and 25 year olds? I ask 'cos I'm curious, reading and scanning through the books I find 3rd ed to be in many ways more 'comic book' (things like feats) and cartoony (look at the artwork), and the emphasis on game board/tiles making miniatures more part of the game, thats very kiddish too. I'm confused here, what makes 3rd ed more 12+ and 2nd ed more 12-18?

QuoteWe know that a lot of people playing 1E did not play 2E, and sales reflected that.  We know that a lot of people playing both 1E and 2E played 3E, because sales reflect that too.

So, what are the relative sales figures for the hard backed core rule books of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed AD&D? I'm not disagreeing with you, but thus far in this thread you have compared the dying days of 2nd ed with the early days of 3rd ed, and of course there was a resurgence in sales. But that isn't the whole story, a lot of people had 1st ed or 2nd ed and bought less and less supplements as the quality in 2nd ed waned, so a better comparison is needed.

(cut)

QuoteBut to say that we made an "error" flies in the face of the actual observed behavior of the market (which was to buy 3E products in gigantic numbers, vastly superior to the numbers they ever bought 2E products in.)

So, to pick one out of the blue, what are the relative sales of, say, 3rd ed Forgotten Realms with 2nd ed Forgotten Realms? Just to put this into context.

Quote from: Stuart23 + 18 + 25 + 34 = 100% of TRPG players.

:hatsoff: See my edit above.

Quote from: RSDanceyThis is 100% speculation.  I think we would have found that there was an audience at age 11, but not at age 10 or before.  And the audience at age 11 was aspirational (that is, kids who told us they were playing D&D, but probably weren't really, but were hanging out with older brothers who did and picking up the gist of the game by observation, occasionally making the most basic kind of character (stats, hit points, AC & saves) and fighting a room full of orcs where 90% of the work was done by an older person).

When did you start playing?  I started when I was 9 with this book:

(http://imgred.com/http://www.godsmonsters.com/library/graphics/games/BasicDND.jpg)

It says right on the cover:  Ages 10 and Up

Quote from: CabSo, to pick one out of the blue, what are the relative sales of, say, 3rd ed Forgotten Realms with 2nd ed Forgotten Realms? Just to put this into context.

I can't tell you.  I know the answer, but the answer is confidential WotC sales information, so I can't disclose it.

Here is some information I can tell you, because I either made it public prior to my departure, or it has been made public since then by other people at Wizards of the Coast.

Total lifetime sales of the 1E PHB over 10 years were roughly 1.5 million units.

Total lifetime sales of the 2E/2ER PHB over 10 years were roughly .75 million units.

Total lifetime sales of the 3E/3.5E PHB over 5 years were 1 million units.

On release, the 2E PHB sold ~250K units in 12 months.  The 3E PHB sold ~300K units in 30 days.

Ryan

Quote from: StuartWhen did you start playing?

Congratulations, you're exceptionally exceptional.  Far end of bell curve, meet Stuart.  Stuart, meet far end of bell curve.  :)

Ryan

PS:  6th grade - age 11/12

Quote from: RSDanceyThis is 100% speculation.  I think we would have found that there was an audience at age 11, but not at age 10 or before.  And the audience at age 11 was aspirational...

Cut for brevity

QuoteAnd yes, I know there are exceptions.  They are exceptional exceptions; they don't constitute enough people to make a business around.

Errm... Wasn't the basic D&D rules one of TSRs better sellers? I mean, in at least two of its inarnations (Moldvay and Mentzer editions) it was specifically marketed for 10 years old and up. It was in toy shops, hobby shops, everywhere. It was translated into goodnes knows how many languages. Thinking back, I think it was one of the more popular hobbies amongst boys aged 10-12 at my school, and we weren't 'aspirational', we were designing dungeons and running parties through them.

Thing is, thats back when there was a basic set. That had been dropped by the time 3rd ed was being designed; I rekon if you'd gone doing your stats earlier on you'd have found plagues of 10-12 year olds playing basic D&D.

Quote from: RSDanceyI can't tell you.  I know the answer, but the answer is confidential WotC sales information, so I can't disclose it.

Here is some information I can tell you, because I either made it public prior to my departure, or it has been made public since then by other people at Wizards of the Coast.

Total lifetime sales of the 1E PHB over 10 years were roughly 1.5 million units.

Total lifetime sales of the 2E/2ER PHB over 10 years were roughly .75 million units.

Total lifetime sales of the 3E/3.5E PHB over 5 years were 1 million units.

On release, the 2E PHB sold ~250K units in 12 months.  The 3E PHB sold ~300K units in 30 days.

Cheers... A lead for 3rd ed over second, but perhaps not such a big lead for 3rd ed as it would appear. Yeah, it has sold more, but I'll wager that a heck of a lot of those combined sales of 3e and 3.5e is due to people who bought both editions (hence asking about Forgotten Realms later on in m post because it would be a nice indication of how many of those players stayed on and kept buying more products - shame you can't answer that, but good to see such integrity). But those initial figures for 3rd ed PHB there are indeed impressive.

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.

Let's say, that is true... if you think that one group of players will leave the hobby immediately (though I never get the name "power-gamers" which I think usually covers something different) we can as well assume that new group might create instead. If the assume the change is possible, you must suppose different characters of change...

Now if you will count just the three groups new groups of "Unknowns" which might play the game because the power-gamers left it. Expect unexpected.

Alnag

Quote from: RSDanceyCongratulations, you're exceptionally exceptional.  Far end of bell curve, meet Stuart.  Stuart, meet far end of bell curve.  :)

Ryan

PS:  6th grade - age 11/12

Really?  I can accept that 9 might have been a bit early, but since the game said 10+ on the cover, I can't believe there weren't a lot of 10 year olds playing it.  Again from the WotC survey data: 23% of people said they started playing D&D at 11 or earlier.  

I maintain that if 11 and under had been included in the research you would have seen different %s.

Quote from: RSDanceyI can't tell you.  I know the answer, but the answer is confidential WotC sales information, so I can't disclose it.

Here is some information I can tell you, because I either made it public prior to my departure, or it has been made public since then by other people at Wizards of the Coast.

Total lifetime sales of the 1E PHB over 10 years were roughly 1.5 million units.

Total lifetime sales of the 2E/2ER PHB over 10 years were roughly .75 million units.

Total lifetime sales of the 3E/3.5E PHB over 5 years were 1 million units.

On release, the 2E PHB sold ~250K units in 12 months.  The 3E PHB sold ~300K units in 30 days.

Ryan

Thanks for those. Interesting stuff.

I'd be curious to see the sales of Basic/Expert D&D for comparison.

One thing I wonder about is how closely the units sold tracks the numbers of players. When we played 1E, we had only two PHBs between six guys. With the release of 3E, players were older and presumably had more money, so each player was more likely to buy his own books. Also, 1E was simple enough for players that there wasn't much need to take a book home with you. A couple of guys I played with never ran magic-users or clerics, so they saw no need to own or read the PHB.

3E, on the other hand, encourages game mastery on the part of players, making ownership of a PHB much more important.

So my gut estimate is that in the 1E era you had a ratio of 2:1 players to PHBs. With 3E, I'd say that number is closer to 5:4. And I bet the Basic set was around 3:1. It follows that while 3E was a commercial success, it only attracted or recovered a fraction of the number of players as earlier editions.

Quote from: RSDanceyMy time is valuable, and so is yours.  So is everyones.  Since most people get fun from playing TRPGs, not just thinking about playing TRPGs, in a time when networks are getting smaller (which means its harder to get a group together and play), people tend to be less willing to "risk" having an unfun experience by trying a game on the margins.  Instead, they tend to stick with "old faithful" games; games they may be a little bit bored with, but they know they'll have some fun (or a lot of fun; not everyone is bored, that's for sure), vs. the RISK that they'll waste an afternoon/evening/whatever playing a game that doesn't pan out.

Or worse, that SOMEONE spends a lot of time preparing to play, but then in the end the game doesn't even happen, because the lack of enthusiasm on the part of other people causes the game session to fall apart.

There's a real risk vs. reward balance in trying new TRPGs, and the track record, to be very charitable, is less than stellar with most new games.  As the network contracts, we see more play of the most popular games and less play of new games as a result.

Ryan

Gotcha, that's the risk element I was missing, many thanks.

Quote from: RSDanceyThis whole thread has taken a turn into bizzaro world.

Well, actually this discussion has gone off much more calmly and smoothly than I would have thought possible given the previously expressed opinions here regarding your focus on the Story-Game approach, Ryan.  I hope you'll give the group some credit for not doing "the usual" in your case.   We're just trying to dig in and figure out what you're claiming, and then testing the accuracy of your assessment against whatever data we can drum up.  I don't think it's unfair for us to go over your survey assumptions, and even if we get things wrong, or in some cases jump to conclusions (I'd prefer we didn't too), it's not what I would call "bizzaro world".  The fact is that it's easier to focus on the Survey because it has numbers we can crunch and that's concrete stuff to sink one's teeth into, whereas the other questions are inevitably a product of speculation and conjecture, which makes it intrinsically harder to discuss - not to mention that the subject of RPGs is a rather complex one at this point to begin with.

At this point I'd prefer to get feedback on the other non-Market Survey related questions, of which there've been a few that remain unanswered, if possible.

Also, what do you make of the Virtual Table Top direction?   Fantasy Grounds, MapTool, and now Dungeon & Dragons Insider... What's your take on these developments?   Again, I'm trying to solicit your opinion on the "Hybrid-Computer RPG" you mentioned in 2000.   Any insights in that direction would be much appreciated.  Does this trend factor into your future planning at all?  Inquiring Minds want to know.  :)

And thanks again for dropping by.   This has been very interesting as far as I'm concerned.

- Mark

Quote from: HaffrungI'd be curious to see the sales of Basic/Expert D&D for comparison.

The boxed basic sets rocked.  They were awesome sellers for a very long period of time, very consistently.

All other things being equal, we would have basically cloned it and made a new version.

However, things changed that affected our ability to do that.  For one thing, boxes became verbotten in the book stores (where half the D&D sales are).  The chain stores asked us to please stop making products in boxes, due to the problems with shrinkwrap, crushed boxes, odd sizes on shelf, etc.  and we bowed to that pressure.  

The sales of the "basic" D&D products had been declining for years, from a high point in 1980-1983.   By 1987, sales become very hard to analyze because TSR was producing a whole range of D&D boxes from "Basic" to "Immortals".  In 1991 that changed to a box set for basic play, and the rules Cyclopedia. The two of them together showed steep sales declines through the time when WotC bought TSR in 1997.

We did a boxed set in 1998 that I think was "OK" (what I called the Brick Red Box).  It was the first product that we did observational testing of (we sat behind a 1 way mirror and watched kids play it).  Some of what we learned got rolled forward to the Yellow Box for 3E, but we had a tremendous tension within the design team regarding the product.  Some of us wanted to do a 1970's style product, but we had a lot of evidence that those kinds of products didn't work anymore (which we attributed to shortened attention spans driven by expectations set by videogames).  In the end I think we ended up with a product that made nobody really happy.  Sales of both the Brick Red box and the Yellow box were "ok", but not earthshattering.

I've discussed this since leaving WotC with a lot of people, most notably Clark from Necromancer, and I think I've become a strong proponent of "just clone the blue book 1970's game and see how it sells".  (Remember, that game allowed play from levels 1-3 only, and the selection of spells & monsters was limited to about a dozen of each.  It's a much "smaller" product than many people remember, but it accomplished a lot given its scope).

This is one of those things WotC could do any time it wanted; the cost is fairly small in comparison to the cost to do a 256 page hardback.  The expense would be in the market testing & revisions based on the testing.  It might make sense for them to just go with their guts, put it out untested, and see how it worked, to keep the cost down.  Then wait a few years, listen to what the youngest players said about it, and revise accordingly.

Ryan

Ryan,

My expectation would be that the majority of gamers entered the hobby in their early teens, I don't find it surprising people drop out during their late teens, what I would not have expected is significant numbers joining post teens.

Why?  Because the hobby has a social stigma attached to it, of course there will be exceptions and we've all met them, but in general I would have thought the odds were that if you're not bitten young you likely won't be at all.

Does that expectation sound correct to you though?  Real life results and our own expectations of them frequently differ after all, as you found with the 50% over the age of 19 for example (I think you said 19, my concentration is shot this week due to a bug).

With respect to 3e, I think one can sensibly prefer an earlier edition on the grounds of personal taste and preference, but I don't think one can sensibly argue that 3e was inferior in design to earlier editions.  It is simply a better crafted game, I prefer Rules Cyclopedia for a range of reasons but that's because it is better suited to my tastes, 3e is still an exceptionally well designed game.  I think people often confuse their personal preference with objective quality, as I always say, I may not like Elvis but he's still the King.

VB asks a good question, how do you see the virtual side of things going?

Quote from: RSDanceyI've discussed this since leaving WotC with a lot of people, most notably Clark from Necromancer, and I think I've become a strong proponent of "just clone the blue book 1970's game and see how it sells".  (Remember, that game allowed play from levels 1-3 only, and the selection of spells & monsters was limited to about a dozen of each.  It's a much "smaller" product than many people remember, but it accomplished a lot given its scope).

This is one of those things WotC could do any time it wanted; the cost is fairly small in comparison to the cost to do a 256 page hardback.  The expense would be in the market testing & revisions based on the testing.  It might make sense for them to just go with their guts, put it out untested, and see how it worked, to keep the cost down.  Then wait a few years, listen to what the youngest players said about it, and revise accordingly.

Now THIS is some advice I can get behind. :D

Quote from: VBWyrdeI hope you'll give the group some credit for not doing "the usual" in your case.

I know text doesn't pass emotion well.  I think this is a great conversation, and I am happy to respond as I am able, and didn't mean anything insulting by the "bizzaro world" comment.  Bad choice of words, and if anyone thought I was taking a shot at Stuart (or anyone else) I apologize.

QuoteAt this point I'd prefer to get feedback on the other non-Market Survey related questions, of which there've been a few that remain unanswered, if possible.

I'd love to answer them if I can; I've been trying to answer stuff as it was asked.  Please re-ask if I missed a question somewhere.

QuoteAlso, what do you make of the Virtual Table Top direction?

OK, I have a "house rule" that I'm not going to comment on 4E stuff at this time, because I don't think I can be very constructive, and the WotC guys have their hands full without RSD sticking his opinions in.  So forgive me if I don't get into too much detail re: 4e.

I have said many times that I think that a hybridization between computer assistance and paper rulebooks makes the tabletop game experience more fun.  That is not to say that I think that the tabletop game can be digitized and moved on-line, it is to say that using computers we can do things that are very hard (or impossible) now, and that expanding the capabilities should enable more kinds of game experiences that can then be used by good game designers to make fun games.

If you want to enable a remote player to join a tabletop game, I think that is very doable.  Bringing in someone via VOIP or iChat, and having that person feel like they're "in the game" even if they're not physically present is more about communication than display, and I think it can be done with the tools we have now.

A real hybridized experience would involve some kind of computer AI sitting at the table doing rules adjudication.  I'd love to have a computer "run the monsters", so that you could make the monsters as complex as the PCs.  One inherent flaw in 3/3.5E is that they players have to learn how to "fight" one character, and get many chances to learn, whereas the DM, given a monster of reasonably similar complexity, may only get to "fight" it once.  That gives the players an unfair advantage, since the designers assume "best play" on the part of the monsters when calculating threat levels.  A DM who doesn't know how to min/max a Dragon's combat routines isn't giving players the challenge the Dragon is really rated for (which means the risk/reward ratio gets skewed in the player's favor).

Computers could also help sustain a "real world" economy, could introduce more sophisticated weather & lighting effects, could provide a way for characters to have sidekicks that are really independent and not just complex extensions of the main character, etc.

As I said on my blog however, the one direction I think it is worthless to go is in trying to simulate the D&D experience in a virtual environment where everyone in the game plays via computer.  I think that the MMORPG platform will beat us blue if we tried it, and in the end it would be a huge waste of time & resources.

Ryan

Quote from: Haffrung3E, on the other hand, encourages game mastery on the part of players, making ownership of a PHB much more important.

So my gut estimate is that in the 1E era you had a ratio of 2:1 players to PHBs. With 3E, I'd say that number is closer to 5:4. And I bet the Basic set was around 3:1. It follows that while 3E was a commercial success, it only attracted or recovered a fraction of the number of players as earlier editions.

Perhaps my group is an anomaly, but for D&D 3.5, we had 2-3 books per 6 players, and for Arcana Evolved we had 1-2 books for 6-8 players.  (Arcana Evolved is crunchier than base 3.x, but it still ran smoothly.)

I suppose you could count my laptop as a 3rd book, though. :)

As, probably, with previous editions the 3.x books generally only get referenced by spellcasters during play, and during leveling up.  The rules really aren't that complex on the player end of things, so my players haven't felt the need to get their own copies.

We have 2 books for SW: Saga Edition, but I can honestly say I break out the book no more than once per session when looking up the specifics of a force power, or the damage from vehicle collisions.

Of course, my group tends to be a very casual gathering.  I pretty much play the role of GM + Rules Monkey for the lot of them.

-O

Quote from: RSDanceyI have said many times that I think that a hybridization between computer assistance and paper rulebooks makes the tabletop game experience more fun.

Without commenting on the rest, I have to agree.

The two most valuable applications for me are the online Sovelior-Sage SRD at systemreferencedocuments.org and the gorgeous HeroForge/SpellForge combination.

Both of these have taken a lot of the gruntwork out of preparing and running the game for me.  These are the kinds of game aids I find helpful - things that let me look stuff up quickly, and that help with complex processes.  Stuff that saves me prep time and game time, rather than shiny-looking stuff that takes more time.

I don't have much use for a virtual tabletop.  For me, it falls into the latter category of requiring more prep time rather than less.

-O

Quote from: RSDanceyHowever, things changed that affected our ability to do that.  For one thing, boxes became verbotten in the book stores (where half the D&D sales are).

I've noticed that some companies are getting around this by, essentially, selling "educational toys" in sturdy boxes shaped like books. Something like this (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Egypt-Treasure-Working-Myself/dp/1561384623/ref=sr_1_12/102-4859057-3472914?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192219449&sr=1-12).

Quote from: RSDanceyOK, I have a "house rule" that I'm not going to comment on 4E stuff at this time...   So forgive me if I don't get into too much detail re: 4e.

Ok, No problem.

QuoteI have said many times that I think that a hybridization between computer assistance and paper rulebooks makes the tabletop game experience more fun.  That is not to say that I think that the tabletop game can be digitized and moved on-line, it is to say that using computers we can do things that are very hard (or impossible) now, and that expanding the capabilities should enable more kinds of game experiences that can then be used by good game designers to make fun games.

Yah.  We're on the same page at this point.

QuoteIf you want to enable a remote player to join a tabletop game, I think that is very doable.  Bringing in someone via VOIP or iChat, and having that person feel like they're "in the game" even if they're not physically present is more about communication than display, and I think it can be done with the tools we have now.

More or less.  If I use VOIP I can hear what's going on (as the Player) but I can't see the Map.  I need MapTools for that.   Ok, now I'm in the action.  Not too bad, but if I'm going to sit at a computer and watch a Map and move my counter around and all that... in *that* case, unless the story is truly compelling, I'm going to probably prefer WoW, or a standalone computer game.   Why?  Well, probably because sitting alone and watching the computer screen is only fun if things are moving fast - and Wow or other game of that ilk do that in spades.  

Now on to the meat and potatoes!

QuoteA real hybridized experience would involve some kind of computer AI sitting at the table doing rules adjudication.

Ding-Dong!  What?  AI?   Where'd that come from?   Holy mackerel.  I thought you were going to say Gamesmaster Support Functions!   Wow.   This is some space aged stuff.   Never even considered it.   Hmmm... I'll read on.

QuoteI'd love to have a computer "run the monsters", so that you could make the monsters as complex as the PCs.  One inherent flaw in 3/3.5E is that they players have to learn how to "fight" one character, and get many chances to learn, whereas the DM, given a monster of reasonably similar complexity, may only get to "fight" it once.  That gives the players an unfair advantage, since the designers assume "best play" on the part of the monsters when calculating threat levels.  A DM who doesn't know how to min/max a Dragon's combat routines isn't giving players the challenge the Dragon is really rated for (which means the risk/reward ratio gets skewed in the player's favor).

Ok... I see where you're coming from.   Um... this is stuff we won't see for a while, I'm afraid, and I'm not so sure as a GM that I even like it.   Yup. :raise:  Nope.  No likie.  Why?  Because I don't want the computer Adjudicating the Monsters or NPCs.  That's my job.  I like to do that.  That's the fun of it.   When we play I get to Play the NPCs and Monsters.   It makes the game between me and the Players more like a a Chess Match.   Who will make the best tactical moves?   Where in the room did the Thief dodge?   Should the Hobgoblin attack or run for help?  Etc.  This is the stuff that I want to do myself.   Now what I wouldn't mind is something a little less AIish, and a little more like a Support System.   There's programs and stuff out there now that does some Support work for us.  But it's all hodgepodge or pigeon holed.   Something fast, fun, flexible that leaves the Creativity and Strategy/Tactics up to me would be Grandeola.  That's what I'm working towards, anyway.

QuoteComputers could also help sustain a "real world" economy, could introduce more sophisticated weather & lighting effects, could provide a way for characters to have sidekicks that are really independent and not just complex extensions of the main character, etc.

Oh yeah.  This is good.  I'd be happy with this.   Except for the AI'd NPC's, if that's what you mean.   No, it's ok if the application just generates the Characters for me fast according to what I need, but I don't need AI, thanks.  Maybe that's just me, though.  

Really, I don't want the computer to "Run the Game" in any way.  I want it to let ME run the game - strong, faster, better.  See the difference?   Again, maybe that's just me.

QuoteAs I said on my blog however, the one direction I think it is worthless to go is in trying to simulate the D&D experience in a virtual environment where everyone in the game plays via computer.  I think that the MMORPG platform will beat us blue if we tried it, and in the end it would be a huge waste of time & resources.

Agreed.  That's fo sho.  

Ryan[/QUOTE]

Woohoo.  Well at least we're *almost* on the same page!  :keke:

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeOk... I see where you're coming from.   Um... this is stuff we won't see for a while, I'm afraid, and I'm not so sure as a GM that I even like it.   Yup. :raise:  Nope.  No likie.  Why?  Because I don't want the computer Adjudicating the Monsters or NPCs.  That's my job.  I like to do that.  That's the fun of it.   When we play I get to Play the NPCs and Monsters.

Ok, so imagine this scenario.  We're using turn based combat, so there's no realtime component.

You have set up a situation where the AI knows what is on the battlespace, where, and what terrain/lighting/etc. effects apply.

Each turn, the AI gives you list of suggested moves for the various things under your control as the DM (and possibly a rationale; i.e. "Move Dragon to space X15 to block movement of PC 3").  You can decide if you want to do that or not; all you have to do is make sure the AI knows what you actually did do, so it can update its play-state.

Imagine that you had an encounter with 1 Dragon and say 20 goblins.  Instead of trying to plan for and play 20 goblins, you could just focus on making the Dragon's play "cool", and let the AI "run" the goblins.  If you occasionally wanted to have a goblin do something other than what the AI suggests, you do that (like if you wanted to pull punches to keep a PC from dying, you could just have a goblin do something stupid instead, and nobody has to be the wiser).

Now imagine a NPC sidekick.  The player gets to set up certain behaviors, like WoW does for pets.  (defend me, attack my target, heal me, etc.)  The AI executes the general behavior, modified by some rules-system to handle things like fear, wounds, surprise threats, etc.  The player gets part of what he/she wants (the NPC sidekick is attacking the Dragon), but the "game" gets part of what it wants (the NPC sidekick runs away when the Dragon breathes fire on it and it fails a morale test).

You could do a lot of this right now, but the book keeping becomes enormous.  I'm sure may of us ran or played in games where something like this was attempted, only to watch it fall apart as the time between really getting to do anything got longer and longer and the fun got less and less.  Put a computer AI in the mix, and you replace complexity with simplicity to the participants' (as in GM and players) benefit (as in "more fun").

This could be done with today's technology, easily.  The problem is that you'd have to have an MMORPG budget to do it, and there is no way WotC (or any other TRPG publisher) has $10 million + to invest in it.  So this is one of those places where I am hopeful that the MMORPG technology eventually "trickles down" to the TRPG, without the TRPG having to do R&D.

Ryan

Quote from: StuartWhen did you start playing?  I started when I was 9 with this book:

(http://imgred.com/http://www.godsmonsters.com/library/graphics/games/BasicDND.jpg)

It says right on the cover:  Ages 10 and Up

Yeah, by my guesstimate, I would have been 8 or 9 myself.  And certainly by the time I was 9, I had recruited several classmates in the age 9-10 into playing.

I'd estimate I did the most playing in the 10-12 age range, and saw the largest number of people play the games during that time (once you get near 13, the whole popularity/cool thing kind of limited your player pools).

Granted, it was not the "full" RPG experience - it was mostly creating random Gygaxian dungeons that generic Elf #9, Fighter #12, and Wizard #19 traveled through to mindlessly kill monsters and take their stuff.  But still, if I wouldn't have "mis-played" BD&D then, I never would have moved on to other games later.

I was 9 myself when I first started. My friend was 10.

Out of the hundreds of gamers I have met, this is indeed the exception rather than the rule, so I'd say Ryan is right.

As for the suggested age on games (or books and films for that matter), they never meant much and aren't always a reliable and accurate depiction of what to expect. This was doubly true in the 70s and 80s.

I think I was 9 as well, but remember that "People who post at this site" are a very different population from the gamer population at large.

-O

Quote from: RSDanceyThe boxed basic sets rocked.  They were awesome sellers for a very long period of time, very consistently.

All other things being equal, we would have basically cloned it and made a new version.

However, things changed that affected our ability to do that.  For one thing, boxes became verbotten in the book stores (where half the D&D sales are).  The chain stores asked us to please stop making products in boxes, due to the problems with shrinkwrap, crushed boxes, odd sizes on shelf, etc.  and we bowed to that pressure.  

The sales of the "basic" D&D products had been declining for years, from a high point in 1980-1983.   By 1987, sales become very hard to analyze because TSR was producing a whole range of D&D boxes from "Basic" to "Immortals".  In 1991 that changed to a box set for basic play, and the rules Cyclopedia. The two of them together showed steep sales declines through the time when WotC bought TSR in 1997.

Thing that went wrong was that the basic set just disappeared; you'd go into Toy shops and find the Immortals rules, maybe a few Companion level modues, and nothing much else. They'd be sitting there all dusty, the toyshop manger would give up on 'basic' D&D. I think that the success of BECMI D&D in spawning more boxed sets was ultimately what killed it. Literally, I don't think I saw the Basic set in shops from 1987, not very often at least. So the line needed some rationalising, and what came next was truly nasty.

Black box basic... Oh dear. It was just unpleasant, it didn't guide people in to RPGs in the way that the Mentzer edition did, it didn't have the streamlined simplicity of the Moldvay edition. It was big, it was messy. And then there was also the Cyclopedia, a fantastic resource for someone used to the BECM boxed sets but barely comprehensible for someone who didn't know them. In parallel with the boxed sets it would have been awesome, but on its own it didn't serve the product line very well at all.

QuoteWe did a boxed set in 1998 that I think was "OK" (what I called the Brick Red Box).  It was the first product that we did observational testing of (we sat behind a 1 way mirror and watched kids play it).  Some of what we learned got rolled forward to the Yellow Box for 3E, but we had a tremendous tension within the design team regarding the product.  Some of us wanted to do a 1970's style product, but we had a lot of evidence that those kinds of products didn't work anymore (which we attributed to shortened attention spans driven by expectations set by videogames).  In the end I think we ended up with a product that made nobody really happy.  Sales of both the Brick Red box and the Yellow box were "ok", but not earthshattering.

I've discussed this since leaving WotC with a lot of people, most notably Clark from Necromancer, and I think I've become a strong proponent of "just clone the blue book 1970's game and see how it sells".  (Remember, that game allowed play from levels 1-3 only, and the selection of spells & monsters was limited to about a dozen of each.  It's a much "smaller" product than many people remember, but it accomplished a lot given its scope).

This is one of those things WotC could do any time it wanted; the cost is fairly small in comparison to the cost to do a 256 page hardback.  The expense would be in the market testing & revisions based on the testing.  It might make sense for them to just go with their guts, put it out untested, and see how it worked, to keep the cost down.  Then wait a few years, listen to what the youngest players said about it, and revise accordingly.

The brick red box... Do I remember correctly, that was the one that didn't have any information on character generation, you just had a few pre-made ones? Or is that the yellow one? I've got a copy sitting in a box somewhere, didn't really strike me that you could do much with it. The older versions of basic were very clear in the way they encouraged DMs to be creative, the brick set didn't really do that.

This is what I think has been lacking from the 3rd ed era, a simplified version of Dungeons and Dragons that would allow a kid in to the game for a low price, and give them all the support they need for a short campaign (a few simple modules). Make it a proper RPG, don't try to emulate computer games with it, don't make it a board game but reinforce how different this is to a board or computer game, and thats your next generation of storeytellnig DMs (which is I think what we need).

Quote from: VBWyrdeI don't think it's unfair for us to go over your survey assumptions...

It's not unfair at all. But would you have bothered if it was Harry Simpkin from Indiana making the same assertions?

Seanchai

Quote from: obrynI think I was 9 as well, but remember that "People who post at this site" are a very different population from the gamer population at large.

-O

I think that there are two main groups. At least, two that I encounter most often. Those who took up gaming at school, typically 9-12 years old, and those who started at university.

Quote from: HaffrungWith the release of 3E, players were older and presumably had more money, so each player was more likely to buy his own books.

Or could have gotten them free via the SRD or illegal downloads. Of course, older players make more money, but they also have greater expenses, such as rent, car payments and child support.

Quote from: HaffrungAlso, 1E was simple enough for players that there wasn't much need to take a book home with you.

...

3E, on the other hand, encourages game mastery on the part of players, making ownership of a PHB much more important.

Try actually playing AD&D 1st edition some time. No, seriously, try it.

Quote from: HaffrungSo my gut estimate is that in the 1E era you had a ratio of 2:1 players to PHBs. With 3E, I'd say that number is closer to 5:4. And I bet the Basic set was around 3:1. It follows that while 3E was a commercial success, it only attracted or recovered a fraction of the number of players as earlier editions.

In other words, "This is what I'd like to believe. I have no actual facts and that's troubling because I can't compete with the ones presented, thus I'll throw out some ratios I just made up and call it my gut sense..."

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIn other words, "This is what I'd like to believe. I have no actual facts and that's troubling because I can't compete with the ones presented, thus I'll throw out some ratios I just made up and call it my gut sense..."

My observations agree with his.

In classic D&D I've always found that, say, one or two people in a group have the game. In AD&D 1st ed maybe half had the game books. In 3rd ed everyone owns the players book. No, I don't have hard stats to back it up, thats just what I've observed.

While I don't necessarily agree with your move towards "story-games" as the salvation of TTPRG's, let me congratulate you on your wisdom with respect to the use of technology/computers as facilitators.  I've said in various places here on TheRPGSite that I think this is really the future of TTRPG.  The possibility that it might someday happen is one of the reasons I got back into gaming.

Not MMORPG's, but computer assisted gaming that makes the most complex rule system accessible to anyone who wants to gather around the surface (see: Microsoft). Call it Tablet and Stylus - it's where TTRPG's should be headed.

Quote from: CabThis is what I think has been lacking from the 3rd ed era, a simplified version of Dungeons and Dragons that would allow a kid in to the game for a low price, and give them all the support they need for a short campaign (a few simple modules).

*cough* (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/966470000)

*cough* (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/953927200)

*cough* (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/953827400)

Seanchai

Quote from: CabMy observations agree with his.

Your observations or desires? I mean, it would be awfully nice for you if AD&D 1st edition actually did outsell 3e. Then, for example, your crusade would be justified. Ah, well.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYour observations or desires?

My observations. Stop being so damned patronising.

QuoteI mean, it would be awfully nice for you if AD&D 1st edition actually did outsell 3e. Then, for example, your crusade would be justified. Ah, well.

The irony here is that I'm being accused of crusading for 1st ed AD&D (an edition I don't prefer) here at the same time as I'm being accused of crusading for 3rd ed (another editio I don't prefer) on another forum. Says a hell of a lot more more about the accuser(s) than it does about me

First, Ryan, let me say that this is where I think the meat and potatoes are for the future of RPGs.  It's just my opinion, but I think this kind of thing is in the future for sure.  Most of my buddies by 1990 where kind of shocked nothing much like this had happened yet.   So I got together with the best Gamesmaster's I knew and we decided to work towards something along these lines.  Honestly, I can say, I've been thinking about this.  So bear with me here.   There's a couple of dozen trick issues that need to be thought through or you wind up with some pretty serious design flaws.  And as a professional programmer/analyst (I work as a programmer/analyst in "the real world")  I can say emphatically that you want to absolutely make sure that when you start building a system that you have a damn good idea of what the ramifications will be of that design on the Mood of your users!   In my case that's because I've been over this ground a hell of a long time.  I'm on year 12 at this point and have two distinct though related applications to handle what I *think* will answer the question:  What does the GM really need and want from the Computer?   Of course I have no market research on this.  I have only my own Gamesmastering and that of my pals to go by.  I'm hoping that I've hit the mark.  If all goes well the world will soon have the opportunity to find out.  So let me respond to your scenario within the context of that understanding.

Quote from: RSDanceyOk, so imagine this scenario.  We're using turn based combat, so there's no realtime component.

Wait, please.  It would help if I could get an understanding of the the computer relationship to the gamesmaster and players.  Are the Gamesmaster and Players looking at different screens?  Are they looking at the same screen?  Or is the GM only looking and describing to the Players what is on the screen, much like the GM would normally describe his Game World Map from behind his GM Screen?  Makes a difference.  I'm going to assume the latter for the moment.  As for Turn Based, that's fine.  We'll go with that.  And lets say Standard D&D type rules.

QuoteYou have set up a situation where the AI knows what is on the battlespace, where, and what terrain/lighting/etc. effects apply.

Each turn, the AI gives you list of suggested moves for the various things under your control as the DM (and possibly a rationale; i.e. "Move Dragon to space X15 to block movement of PC 3").  You can decide if you want to do that or not; all you have to do is make sure the AI knows what you actually did do, so it can update its play-state.

I thought about this quite a bit over the past few years.  Frankly, I'm not quite happy with it after all.  It's still too much like the computer is GMing instead of me.  I'm going to find it frustrating.  Why?  Well, imagine you're playing chess against a friend, but you have a computer with an AI program giving you "Best Moves", "Second Best Moves", etc.   Well, of course you're always going to pick the "Best Moves".   But then why bother being there at all?  When you do win there's no victory for YOU.  It's the computer AI that won.  And your friend?  Well, he's going to be like *screw THAT, buddy."   See what I mean?   In the Traditionalist mode of RPG play, as I've always played it, once you get into Combat it's the GM vs the Players.  Lets not lose sight of that.  It's a lot of the fun of the combat in the game.   It's a tricky issue, as computers have an amazing capacity for alienating people when they don't come across right.  In a lot of cases this is simply a matter of Interface Design, but in other cases it really goes down to the level of What the computer is doing for you.   This is, as far as I can tell, one of those cases.  So no.  I don't want the computer to give me the options in combat tactics.  I want to do it myself.

However!  I do want it to do other things for me, and to do them it does need to know the battlespace.  It's just that, and this is a subtle distinction from what you suggest, what I want is for it to answer my queries, When I Ask them.   I want it to be my Mr. Spock.  See the distinction?  The really tricky part is that designing the Interface that does that (if you could see in my head you'd know what I'm visualizing) nicely, politely, usefully, and in a way that makes the game FUN for me as the Gamesmaster - which translates into FUN for the Players.  The computer's function should be, in my opinion, to make my life as GM easier.  But not supersede my Role as Gamesmaster in the creative aspects.  

Of course, you may well disagree and the entire Market may disagree.   And you may well be right to disagree!  I just have a hunch to go on, based on my own experiences programming this over the past 12 years that says, "Go this way... the other way lead to that nasty cliff."

QuoteImagine that you had an encounter with 1 Dragon and say 20 goblins.  Instead of trying to plan for and play 20 goblins, you could just focus on making the Dragon's play "cool", and let the AI "run" the goblins.  If you occasionally wanted to have a goblin do something other than what the AI suggests, you do that (like if you wanted to pull punches to keep a PC from dying, you could just have a goblin do something stupid instead, and nobody has to be the wiser).

Ok, this is actually what I think you wind up with when you've worked out how to do what you're suggesting in the best way possible.  You have the computer spit out options for you the GM to select from.   Want the Monsters to do the Normal Attack?  Ok.  Want them to do the Optional A.1 Attack?  Cool.  How about a side Flank attack?  Pick an Option and ... what happens on the screen?   They all move into position on the board and voila.  Nice.

Yet, I *still* don't want it.  Or I want it, but only in a very limited way...  I only want it to do certain aspects of the GMing, not all.  I really don't want the computer to Think for me for several reasons.  

So in your example here, I'm looking at the Screen and there's my player characters on six hex grids on the north quadrant of a 300x600 grid-board (lets say), with terrain like walls, doors, stairs and lighting (fog of war).  I'm going to throw my Monster Party on the board.   Do I want them in a default Marching Order?   Of course!   Do I want them to move according to a prefabricated pattern across the room as they approach the PCs?   Hmmm... not necessarily.   In fact, my own design work and play testing (as GM) showed me pretty fast that I don't really want it to do that.  I actually want to, and enjoy, moving the pieces myself, or grabbing x number of them and moving them - myself.   What DO I want it to show?   Well, I don't want to go on too long about this (this is going to be too long anyway), but there's information I absolutely DO want to see on the screen related to the analysis that the computer should give me regarding the battlespace.   It took a while to discover what that information is, and when and how to show it.  

Remember, who is looking at the screen at this point?   My assumption is that it's just me the GM.   However, what if I'm playing with my Players and they also have the Screen, can see the Map and are using a Mapping Interface to move their characters around?   Are we all in the same room?  Does each Player have their own computer?   What if the Players only have two computers between five players?   How do you handle that?   Or do we all share one computer?  Then what if there's stuff that I don't want them to see on the Board that I can't really hide via FOW (GM note, traps, treasures, etc).  Turns out its a bit tricky.  And a little painful from a Programming viewpoint.  And that is scratching the surface, believe me.   It can be done, but remember that each thing you "realise" later in the design process the more time consuming and expensive it is to change.   I mention it only to illustrate one, of a myriad, of design questions that come up along the way.  So, lets just go back to the GM only screen for the sake of this discussion.  

QuoteNow imagine a NPC sidekick.  The player gets to set up certain behaviors, like WoW does for pets.  (defend me, attack my target, heal me, etc.)  The AI executes the general behavior, modified by some rules-system to handle things like fear, wounds, surprise threats, etc.  The player gets part of what he/she wants (the NPC sidekick is attacking the Dragon), but the "game" gets part of what it wants (the NPC sidekick runs away when the Dragon breathes fire on it and it fails a morale test).

Again, my question is exactly how is this being shown to me on the screen?  It's important because sometimes ideas that sound good, don't really wind up working when you try to put them on the screen.  And it is sadly far too easy to mentally mix up MMORPG design imperatives (which are easy to visualize) with Virtual TT RPGs (which are much harder to visualize).   In WoW the Sidekick guy tags along by my side or runs off, or whatever, based on my option selection.   I see him doing it and can respond if I want him to change.   Most of the action in WoW is running around either getting to the battle or thing you need, or fighting.  But you always SEE what's going on visually in the action.  In TRPGs though, not necessarily.  There's a lot that can go on inbetween in TPRGs that don't happen in MMORPGs, and quite a bit that happens may not be visual at all.   The thing about TRPGs that should not get lost by using the computer is the FLEXIBILITY that comes with a game that gets played in a Mental Space rather than a Physical Space.  There's a tremendous amount of Filling-in-the-Blanks that people do during TRPGs.  And they like that.  You don't want to lose it.  Which is why I do not want to give the Computer the Creative Control in the AI.   For example, look at your list of options for the NPC.  It's kinda short.   And guess what, no matter how long you make it, it will never be enough for me, the GM, or me the Player.   I want a Human Mind Control over the NPCs.  And I still want to drag him around on the board during combat, actually.   Its fun.  And it keeps the Game squarely in the "I'm the one Playing This" mode, rather than "The Computer And I are Playing this" Mode, or worse, "I'm obeying the Computer's Directives" Mode.  

Think about this also.  If the Computer can AI the monsters, will it also AI for the Players?   Hmmm... so if not, then doesn't that give the Monsters an intrinsic Computer AI Advantage?   My Players will think so.  Even if it's not actually true because the AI is dumb, they'll still think so - whenever they Lose.  Hmmm... So I'm not really favoring this for those reasons, and a few others which I haven't gotten to.

QuoteYou could do a lot of this right now, but the book keeping becomes enormous.  I'm sure may of us ran or played in games where something like this was attempted, only to watch it fall apart as the time between really getting to do anything got longer and longer and the fun got less and less.  Put a computer AI in the mix, and you replace complexity with simplicity to the participants' (as in GM and players) benefit (as in "more fun").

I'd put it this way:  Put a computer in the mix (leaving out the question of AI), and you replace complexity with simplicity - MAYBE.  Depends on how you execute it.  I can see (in my junk pile) the opposite occuring where you add Computer and it makes things More Complex for the GM, not less.  For example if you have so many details that the GM has to fill in that it's a chore.  Not fun.  Junk it.   In theory what you say is very true.  In practice it's not as easy to get right as it sounds.   Believe me, I thought it would take me 2 to 3 years Max to program this.  No sir.  It took 10 for the first one and 2 for the simplified second one.   And I *knew* what I wanted.  

What I found was that the problem is that RPGs are Mind Games.   Translating a wonderfully flexible Mind Game into a Computer Environment without destroying the thing that makes it wonderful was not so easy after all.  It's hard.  

QuoteThis could be done with today's technology, easily.  The problem is that you'd have to have an MMORPG budget to do it, and there is no way WotC (or any other TRPG publisher) has $10 million + to invest in it.  So this is one of those places where I am hopeful that the MMORPG technology eventually "trickles down" to the TRPG, without the TRPG having to do R&D. Ryan

Um, well, I think you know by now that I don't think with todays technology it would be easy by any stretch of the imagination, to be honest with you.  But it's not the technology that's the hang up.  And it's not the Budget that you need.  It's the sterling Arisian Quality Mind Power that you need during your design phase!   And that's a LOT harder to come by than money.  

All this said, I do maintain and believe that Computer Hybrid RPGs are the wave of the future.   But not as envisioned by the RPG community to date.  Fantasy Grounds has made a great effort in the right direction, though and I give them huge credit for carving their way to a good spot.  The original E-Tools would have done much the same I imagine, but somehow it seems to have floundered.   I don't think anyone has hit the Golden Heights, but they're moving along the right path.  If they don't take a wrong turn someone will get there eventually and lead the way for others.  And if my guess is right, what AI they do have will be circumspect and leave the Gamesmaster to "Do his Thang", and let the computer carry the water.

There's one additional thing about the AI that's a mitigator.  It's hard to implement, takes lots and lots of brain power to program, and with neuralnets and new AI technologies coming out in a continuous trickle, continuously changing, making it hard to handle from a startup position.  My angle would be to start small, and if that works, build on it.  But AI isn't going to fly for some time, and when it does my guess is its wings won't be that big after all.

Sorry, Puter, not much Glory here for you on the AI front for now (later on perhaps), but think about it this way - you'll be really helping us Human Gamesmasters and our Players have FUN... and isn't that what you really want?  Now open the Bay Doors.  


- Mark

I've got a question about the market research statistics for RSDancey.

Why do all the age brackets polled for data end at an age of 35 years? Were gamers over 35 considered to be an insignificant segment of the market?

(I'm asking because it seems that an entire segment of the gamer market was deliberately ignored in the research.)

Quote from: SeanchaiTry actually playing AD&D 1st edition some time. No, seriously, try it.

Look, fuckface, I've made it clear I'm talking about my own experience. In my experience, most of the guys I played AD&D with did not read the PHB. In my experience, most people who play 3E own or at least have read the PHB. There's simply more shit a guy who wants to play a dwarf fighter in 3E needs to know to run his PC (skills, feats, how they integrate in tactical combat) than my buddy who played dwarf fighter back in the day needed to know (which die to roll for damage).

Quote from: SeanchaiIn other words, "This is what I'd like to believe. I have no actual facts and that's troubling because I can't compete with the ones presented, thus I'll throw out some ratios I just made up and call it my gut sense..."

Seanchai

Don't be a cunt.

I meant exactly what I said; this is my estimate, my gut sense. You have a problem with people presenting their opinions as... their opinions?

Quote from: SeanchaiTry actually playing AD&D 1st edition some time. No, seriously, try it.

He probably has. I have to.

Haffrung is right on that one. 3rd edition designers wisely determined that player mastery would play a bigger role. They make it worth your while to own a PHB, which is very logical.

Owning a PHB back in the 1st edition days wasn't really necessary if you didn't like playing spellcasters, for instance. Nowadays, you have interesting bits to fiddle with, no matter what your class is.

Ain't nothing wrong with that and I don't understand why you are trying to deny this.

Quote from: RSDanceyI know text doesn't pass emotion well. I think this is a great conversation, and I am happy to respond as I am able, and didn't mean anything insulting by the "bizzaro world" comment. Bad choice of words, and if anyone thought I was taking a shot at Stuart (or anyone else) I apologize.

Not a problem Ryan. Likewise, any critique of your past research or current theories isn't meant as a personal insult.  :)

I'll follow that up by saying I disagree with you on the hybridization thing too. :D

Instead of emulating MMORPGs or turning into Storytelling games, I think RPG designers + publishers should look at the most successful RPGs in terms of ease of bringing in kids / new players (B/X D&D, TSR's Marvel Superheroes, etc) as well as Modern Boardgames.

Quote from: CabThe irony here is that I'm being accused of crusading for 1st ed AD&D (an edition I don't prefer) here at the same time as I'm being accused of crusading for 3rd ed (another editio I don't prefer) on another forum.

I had no idea things were so rough on you. You have my deepest sympathy.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923Why do all the age brackets polled for data end at an age of 35 years? Were gamers over 35 considered to be an insignificant segment of the market?

Yes, that's it exactly.  We just didn't expect to find many people past the age of 35 so we didn't bother to go looking.  If we were doing this study now, we'd open up the filter stage to see what the age breakdowns were, and if we found sizable populations of older gamers, we would study them.

Here's something to think about though.  Let's peg the "start date" of D&D at 1980.  Before that period, the game lacked suitable distribution to get a wide footprint, and most people (even those who may have heard of it) couldn't buy it.  After 1980, that changed.

Let's also assume that in 1980, the oldest cohort likely to play the game was 22 (i.e. last year of college).  We'll accept some number of outliers, but for the purposes of this thought experiment, we'll agree that such outliers couldn't comprise a very large population; certainly not enough to affect development & marketing strategies.

In 1990, that cohort turned 32, and in 1998 (when the research was done) they turned 37; so worse case, we missed 2 years of the initial cohort of gamers who entered the hobby at its inception.

Roll up all the outliers, special cases, rounding errors, and whatnot, and you probably still don't get a very large population of people older than 35 in 1998 playing TRPGs (I happened to be in a game with a 50 year old at the time, so I sure know there were exceptions....)  Given what we knew then, and what the Conventional Wisdom was (TRPGs were games for kids), at the time it seemed like a waste of money and resources to study older cohorts.

To reiterate:  I'd have studied them then if I knew then what I know now.

Ryan

Quote from: HaffrungLook, fuckface, I've made it clear I'm talking about my own experience.

Which is worthless outside discussions about your own experiences.

Quote from: HaffrungThere's simply more shit a guy who wants to play a dwarf fighter in 3E needs to know to run his PC (skills, feats, how they integrate in tactical combat) than my buddy who played dwarf fighter back in the day needed to know (which die to roll for damage).

It's stuff like this that makes me certain you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Yes, skills and Feats are new. But AD&D had stuff like THAC0 charts, 18/00 Strength, racial ability caps, differing XP charts, weapon proficiencies, weapon speeds, weapon sizes/space required, damage versus opponents, etc. Clearly, back in the day, all the player had to know back in the day was which die to roll for damage...

Quote from: HaffrungYou have a problem with people presenting their opinions as... their opinions?

Nope.

Seanchai

Quote from: Consonant DudeOwning a PHB back in the 1st edition days wasn't really necessary if you didn't like playing spellcasters, for instance.

Because you could just magically know how many XP you needed to level up, what your bend bars/lift gates chance was, or what the weapon speed was without a book?

Quote from: Consonant DudeNowadays, you have interesting bits to fiddle with, no matter what your class is.

That was the case back then as well.

Back then, there were things you looked up, noted on your character record sheet, and forgot about. There were also things you had to look up during the course of the game.

These days, there were things you look up, note on your character record sheet, and forget about. There are also things you have to look up during the course of the game.

Quote from: Consonant DudeAin't nothing wrong with that and I don't understand why you are trying to deny this.

I'm denying it because it isn't so.

Seanchai

Really great thread, guys.  Lots of interesting and tough questions and lots of great answers.  

Ryan, I felt a bit funny reading about the analysis you guys did at Wizards, because my gaming life exactly represents that hourglass. I started playing in grade 6 with the basic boxed set, quite in grade 9 when it wasn't cool.  Didn't play for decades and then got sucked back in in early 30s with 3rd edition when one of my fellow teachers invited me to his group.  So somehow you reached out and grabbed me.  I've left D&D long in the dust but am gaming pretty hardcore these days.  So thanks!

I'll be paying closer attention to your blog now.

Now I don't want to get into the middle of someone else battle, but I have to ask (and it's not meant as a confrontational question, just honest curiosity)...

How much 1ed did you play Seanchai?

I only ask because my experience is a bit closer to what Haffrung is saying - though I actually don't think it leads to the conclusion he draws.

Quote from: SeanchaiBack then, there were things you looked up, noted on your character record sheet, and forgot about. There were also things you had to look up during the course of the game.

These days, there were things you look up, note on your character record sheet, and forget about. There are also things you have to look up during the course of the game.

This is true. It just seemed to me, IMHO, that the old days required more of the mark and forget, and less of the course of a game. The current edition, which I love and play and started a forum in the hopes of continuing it past 4ed, seems to me, IMHO, that the ratio of forget and current are closer to even.

Having said that, pretty much everyone in the group had their own PHB...and DMG...and MM...and, well, you get the picture...

Which is why I don't think the difference changed the sales ratio that much.

I can't compare experience with 3e because I have none, but when I played 1e, it was as Haffrung, Consonant Dude, et. al. say. I'd say about 1 full set of books for as many 8 players, in fact, though maybe one or two of them went ahead and bought some or all of the books later on. Thing is that the three-book pattern matched that of the White Box, roughly, and nobody thought in terms of each player having one box, let alone one person owning one part and the rest owning multiple copies of the other part. I can see now that TSR was trying to achieve just that, but they didn't pull it off, any more than other companies did with e.g. the gimped "Player's Box" for RQ3 as opposed to the full game with RQ Deluxe.

And that's just the cultural part of it--getting people to think that you didn't just buy an entire game and use it for an entire group of players took time. (I still think it's bogus.)

Mechanically, the Player's book had stuff you needed to refer to in play, but in play everyone was at the same table and you could just pass it around. It's when you have to do a lot of prep and calculation--a solitary activity, often carried out at home and certainly forcing a break in the game if you took an important resource out of ready access to the group--that's when each player needs their own book.

Or maybe the explanation is off, but the data agree with Haffrung. (EDIT: I mean my data, obviously I don't know precisely what everyone else was doing.)

Quote from: walkerpRyan, I felt a bit funny reading about the analysis you guys did at Wizards, because my gaming life exactly represents that hourglass. I started playing in grade 6 with the basic boxed set, quite in grade 9 when it wasn't cool.  Didn't play for decades and then got sucked back in in early 30s with 3rd edition when one of my fellow teachers invited me to his group.

Keep in mind the survey data was from the pre-3ed days. Now that we have a 3ed with it's focus on older gamers the numbers are certain to be different.  There are probably a lot of people in their 20s / 30s who got back into D&D with 3ed.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI can't compare experience with 3e because I have none, but when I played 1e, it was as Haffrung, Consonant Dude, et. al. say.

Me too, and based on experience with both. One would drift the hell out of 1E, and the DMG was a tome much admired but little consulted, except for the usual handful of tables. Based on personal gaming xp and infraweb chatter since 1999, nobody used weapon speed, and we seem to have been among the happy few to use weapon vs. armor. Combat was a houseruled, wide open mess, not the finely choreographed dance it is in 3.x, where every line of the combat chapter counts, and where everyone around the table needs to know all about it.

Quote from: James J SkachHow much 1ed did you play Seanchai?

Weekly from the early 80's until 3e came out.

Seanchai

Quote from: RSDanceyLet's also assume that in 1980, the oldest cohort likely to play the game was 22 (i.e. last year of college).  We'll accept some number of outliers...

I'm one of them. I started playing D&D in 1975 shortly after I graduated from high school. The brown box original Edition. Over the years I bought just about everything for D&D/AD&D (and used much of it in the games I ran) until second edition came out. Second edition AD&D did not impression so except for an occasional module, I did not buy much.

I was excited when I hear WOTC had bought TSR and were going to bring out a third edition. I pre-ordered the three core books from Amazon and could not wait to get them.

Then I read them. D&D3 turned the game into something I wasn't interested in -- a detailed tactical combat system where it looked like you could spend an hour on a simple encounter with a few orcs -- longer if everyone involved wasn't really familiar with the combat rules. The combat rules reminded me of the complexity of SPI's Air War boardgame, when the level of detail I enjoyed playing was Avalon Hill's Richthofen's War.

Third edition had other problems from my point of view, chief among them a character creation system that required new players to read many tens of thousands of words just to create their first character and an experience system that seemed designed to have characters fly through the levels like they were playing Nethack.

My first thought on reading the rules was that someone had tried to write a set of D&D rules that turned D&D into a tabletop computer game, but made the GM and players do all the calculation and rules grunt work that the computer would do in a computer game. As I did not like computer RPGs enough to want to play one without a computer, D&D3 set on my shelves and (except for the Forgotten Realms campaign guide), my money was spent on other things.

Given that D&D3 seems to have been designed to attract the same type of player that plays computer RPGs, I'm really not surprised that these many of these players dropped D&D for online computer RPGs like WoW. WoW has everything they want and doesn't require them to manually handle all the complex rules. I honestly do not see why many people are surprised by this.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBased on personal gaming xp and infraweb chatter since 1999, nobody used weapon speed, and we seem to have been among the happy few to use weapon vs. armor. Combat was a houseruled, wide open mess, not the finely choreographed dance it is in 3.x, where every line of the combat chapter counts, and where everyone around the table needs to know all about it.

In other words, apples and oranges.

It isn't that AD&D was simplier, didn't require a book to play, or didn't require things to be looked up - few played AD&D as written. People ignored whole swaths of the game. You're not comparing AD&D 1st edition with 3e, you're comparing an idealized, half-remembered less rule intensive variant of AD&D 1st edition with 3e as written.

Seanchai

Quote from: Pierce InverarityMe too, and based on experience with both. One would drift the hell out of 1E, and the DMG was a tome much admired but little consulted, except for the usual handful of tables. Based on personal gaming xp and infraweb chatter since 1999, nobody used weapon speed, and we seem to have been among the happy few to use weapon vs. armor. Combat was a houseruled, wide open mess, not the finely choreographed dance it is in 3.x, where every line of the combat chapter counts, and where everyone around the table needs to know all about it.

Ditto. GMs scrimped and saved for books, and the GM's PHB got passed around between the less serious players. We didn't mess with weapon speed or the vs. armor adjustments, either.

Quote from: SeanchaiIn other words, apples and oranges.

It isn't that AD&D was simplier, didn't require a book to play, or didn't require things to be looked up - few played AD&D as written. People ignored whole swaths of the game. You're not comparing AD&D 1st edition with 3e, you're comparing an idealized, half-remembered less rule intensive variant of AD&D 1st edition with 3e as written.

Seanchai

1st Edition lent itself to groups being able to not include many of the rules without it adversely affecting play.  It's been said that a lot of people weren't really playind AD&D -- they were playing B/X or BECMI D&D with some of the extra spells, monsters, and item from the Advanced game.

3rd Edition by comparison is a much better integrated game.  The advantage to this is that there's standardization in play between groups.  The disadvantage would be that you can't easily drop things from the game (say, Feats) without everything starting to unravel.

Quote from: RSDanceyTo reiterate:  I'd have studied them then if I knew then what I know now.

Ryan

That makes sense, now for a followup question.

Do you think that a marketable demographic for gamers are those gamers who are now parents of children who are interested in tabletop RPGs? A demographic which would be interested in a game that is simple enough to teach the kids while also being complex enough to keep the interest of the parents?

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's stuff like this that makes me certain you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Yes, skills and Feats are new. But AD&D had stuff like THAC0 charts, 18/00 Strength, racial ability caps, differing XP charts, weapon proficiencies, weapon speeds, weapon sizes/space required, damage versus opponents, etc. Clearly, back in the day, all the player had to know back in the day was which die to roll for damage...

Looks like you're the one who never actually played AD&D. Because nobody, including Gygax himself, used most of that shit. And if you did, I feel sorry for you, and can understand why you're such a bitter fuck.

We can do a poll here to find out how many people who played AD&D used weapon speed, verbal-somatic-material spellcasting, etc., and how many considered half the stuff in the core books to be optional. Then we can ask how many dropped skills, feats, and tactical combat options from 3E. But that would derail this thread even further into the edition war you're itching to start.

Here's a personal experience that illustrates where I'm coming from: One of my players, who never cracked the PHB back in the day except to look up his STR bonus and racial modifiers, tried to join a 3E group a few years ago. As is his custom, he just showed up to play and assumed the DM would explain anything he needed to know verbally. Eventually, the other players got tired of having to hand-hold him and look up his feats, explain tactical options, etc., and they kicked him out of the group. After 20 years of playing D&D without referring to the PHB, he found he couldn't do that any longer.

Look, the designers of 3E themselves have said 3E was intended to be:

a) for older players than the assumed audience for earlier editions, and

b) a game that rewarded player mastery

So what does that tell you? It tells you that 3/3.5 is a game that encourages players to invest more time in character generation and tactical optimization than earlier editions. Why is it so hard to admit that players get rewarded from learning and mastering the system in 3E, when that's the whole fucking point of 3E in the eyes of the designers themselves?

Quote from: StuartKeep in mind the survey data was from the pre-3ed days. Now that we have a 3ed with it's focus on older gamers the numbers are certain to be different.  There are probably a lot of people in their 20s / 30s who got back into D&D with 3ed.

Yes, I am one of those.  That was my point.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou're not comparing AD&D 1st edition with 3e, you're comparing an idealized, half-remembered less rule intensive variant of AD&D 1st edition with 3e as written.

Seanchai

No, I'm comparing AD&D as it was actually played, with 3E as it is actually played. Which is the only comparison worth making.

Quote from: HaffrungBecause nobody, including Gygax himself, used most of that shit.

Then stop your bullshit comparisons. Stop spouting off about AD&D 1st edition rules as if you used them.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd if you did, I feel sorry for you, and can understand why you're such a bitter fuck.

You're confusing exasperation and incredulity with bitterness. I'm sitting here listening to a bunch of dipshits talk about how simple AD&D 1st edition is compared to 3e when they readily admit they just ignored rules they didn't like. You found AD&D 1st edition to simple and intuitive? Like, duh. Again, try actually playing the game.

Quote from: HaffrungWhy is it so hard to admit that players get rewarded from learning and mastering the system in 3E...

Where, again, did I deny that?

Here's what I will say on that subject: AD&D 1st edition was built by wargamers for wargamers. Players in the day were expected to know the rules and use them. And abuse them. People metagamed AD&D 1st edition less than they do with 3e? Riiiigght. Let's talk about sword selection...

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungNo, I'm comparing AD&D as it was actually played, with 3E as it is actually played. Which is the only comparison worth making.

You've said some dumb stuff, but c'mon...Not only is this dumb, it's revisionist.

Moreover, your side is arguing that people cherry picked their AD&D rules and slavishly follow the 3e rules.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiStop spouting off about AD&D 1st edition rules as if you used them.

How dim are you? That is my whole point; you didn't need a PHB for each player back in the 1E days because players weren't expected to learn and master the whole ruleset, whereas 3E was designed specifically with the intent of rewarding players who take the PHB home, learn it, and tweak their PCs. You can learn everything you need to know to optimize a dwarf fighter in 1E in about five minutes of browsing the PHB. That simply isn't the case with 3E, and that reward for mastering options is why 3E is regarded as an improvement by so many players.

I´m amazed about how much we have learned about the new Story-D20!

Isn´t that something?

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's what I will say on that subject: AD&D 1st edition was built by wargamers for wargamers. Players in the day were expected to know the rules and use them.

If you played strictly by the book, then...no.

QuoteWhat follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. [...] As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game that has rules hidden from participants.

Quote from: jeff37923That makes sense, now for a followup question.

Do you think that a marketable demographic for gamers are those gamers who are now parents of children who are interested in tabletop RPGs? A demographic which would be interested in a game that is simple enough to teach the kids while also being complex enough to keep the interest of the parents?

From the trenches of a game store in the Mid-West :


 YES!....


 In the now late & lamented "Tales From A Game store" thread that was on another forum......
I told of several parents who got interested or re-interested in D&D because their Junior-High age kids were getting interested in it.

 One mother even said that if her kids couldn't find a good DM  - then she would be the DM for their games. Appare ntly this mom had run games when she was in college...but her kids never knew that till the day she was in the game store.

Several parents read through the open DEMO copies we had of the boxed introductory versions of the gasme, a few parents grabbed copies of GURPS :Lite 4/e that I had on-hand to get an idea of what RPS in general were.  (WotC, take a hint ...do a similiar FREE version that game stores can hand out)

 Many, many of these parents are VERY normal-looking folks, their kids were not the geek/nerd stereotypes.

- Ed C.

Quote from: jeff37923Do you think that a marketable demographic for gamers are those gamers who are now parents of children who are interested in tabletop RPGs? A demographic which would be interested in a game that is simple enough to teach the kids while also being complex enough to keep the interest of the parents?

I think there are a couple of questions here.  Let me try to segment them.

First, I think that tabletop roleplaying can be a really fun way to entertain the young 'uns.  I had the pleasure of watching the WotC R&D team iterate through several versions of the Pokemon Jr. Adventure Game, and the last version (which we published) was a lot of fun to play, and I think parents & kids had a great time playing it.

I have very fond memories of playing board & card games with my mom when I was very young, and I'm sure that if something like the PJAG had been sold where she shopped we would have tried it out.

Second, do I think that some kids who play D&D could get mom & dad into playing?  No, I don't think so, at least not in any meaningful success rate.  I don't know of any hobbies that kids between 12 and 18 tend to transmit to parents, instead of vice versa.

Third, do I think there are inter-generational games?  Yes, I do.  I think that there are some groups where the parents end up with the kids in the games.  With D&D I think we may even have grandparents playing with grandkids.  But I think that when that happens you have people who were likely to be playing anyway, and the family connection was just a very short & strong link in the player network, so I don't necessarily think such games generate very many new players.

Well worth study though. There could be surprises galore.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyThis could be done with today's technology, easily.  The problem is that you'd have to have an MMORPG budget to do it, and there is no way WotC (or any other TRPG publisher) has $10 million + to invest in it.  So this is one of those places where I am hopeful that the MMORPG technology eventually "trickles down" to the TRPG, without the TRPG having to do R&D.

While the kind of computer assistance you are talking about is quite involved, I can't help but wonder at what point would you consider the investment worthwhile?

Your own numbers, through the years, seem to suggest there is a huge pool of roleplayers, many of which are attracted by the D&D brand, d20, etc...

How many more millions of gamers do you need to give that kind of support, which if well done, might garner more interest and create more gamers?

I ask because, for all the great things WotC did to rejuvenate D&D with the advent of 3e, software tools were fucking shitty, almost non-existent. To the point where actually, AD&D2nd was more of a success in that respect, in a time where computer success was absolutely not vital.

It seems like WotC, circa 3rd edition, completely neglected GM and player-assistance through software tools. As if it was too ambitious. It's really not, and it's a sound investment. Particularly when your system has a lot of details and crunch.

Even considering that not every roleplayer has a computer, and that not every computer-owning roleplayer will be interested, there has to be a market. I'm part of it and feel WotC has missed the boat for almost a decade. And I sure as hell hope they get a clue soon.

Quote from: RSDanceyWell worth study though. There could be surprises galore.

Ryan

Thanks for the answer. I've seen quite a few people in my over 35 year old age bracket who have teenage kids who are getting into tabletop gaming. My own daughter got into it when she saw one of her dates eyeballing my game library. I've got two married friends whose teenage boys game in the same group, and they were all gamers in high school and college back in the day.

I think it helps that just about every MMORPG can trace its conceptual origins back to D&D.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhile the kind of computer assistance you are talking about is quite involved, I can't help but wonder at what point would you consider the investment worthwhile?
... [snip for brevity]
Even considering that not every roleplayer has a computer, and that not every computer-owning roleplayer will be interested, there has to be a market. I'm part of it and feel WotC has missed the boat for almost a decade. And I sure as hell hope they get a clue soon.

What about NeverWinter Nights?

- Mark

Quote from: HaffrungThat is my whole point; you didn't need a PHB for each player back in the 1E days because players weren't expected to learn and master the whole ruleset

Except the designer has specifically said otherwise.

Moreover, this isn't an indication of good design. Rather the opposite. If players didn't need or reference their books, it was because the actual rules were so mind-numbing that they were ignored and thus the need for a reference was minimized.

Quote from: HaffrungYou can learn everything you need to know to optimize a dwarf fighter in 1E in about five minutes of browsing the PHB.

Once again, you say stupid things that just aren't true.

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf you played strictly by the book, then...no.

And where does it say in the PHB that the players shouldn't know all the rules in there? And where does it say in the DMG that the DM shouldn't know all the rules in there? Sorry, but a quote about how the players shouldn't know the monster's stats doesn't cut it...

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923That makes sense, now for a followup question.

Do you think that a marketable demographic for gamers are those gamers who are now parents of children who are interested in tabletop RPGs? A demographic which would be interested in a game that is simple enough to teach the kids while also being complex enough to keep the interest of the parents?

It's the same demographic that's playing HeroScape right now. It's not a rpg, but going by the people with whom I've played, met at cons, and met on-line, the lion's share of the HS audience is gamer dads and their kids. Huge market.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's stuff like this that makes me certain you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Yes, skills and Feats are new. But AD&D had stuff like THAC0 charts, 18/00 Strength, racial ability caps, differing XP charts, weapon proficiencies, weapon speeds, weapon sizes/space required, damage versus opponents, etc. Clearly, back in the day, all the player had to know back in the day was which die to roll for damage...

I played ADnD for several years, some of us had books, some not, after chargen we knew our characters' respective strengths and had the bonuses on our sheets, racial ability caps likewise was a chargen issue, we needed one book between us for xp, I don't recall us using weapon proficiencies much though I may just have forgotten, we certainly didn't use weapon speed or size/space required nor damage v opponents as that was all too fiddly.  People in my group bought the PHB if they also GMed, if they didn't take a turn in the GM chair they didn't buy the PHB.

So from where I'm sitting Haffrung's comments look pretty credible, and you're going way overboard on him.

I note reading through further comments that on this, one of the grognardiest sites I know, Seanchai was the only one who used all those rules.  As we know, even Gygax didn't use weapon speed.

Haffrung made the correct point earlier, the comparison is with ADnD as it was played and 3e as it is played.  3e is less amenable to houseruling or dropping bits out than ADnD, for good or ill, therefore not only does it not surprise me that people stick to the rules more with current editions that was in fact my understanding prior to this thread.

It was also as I recall one of the more common criticisms of 3e from the grognard brigade, that it was unusually difficult to houserule.  It used to come up a lot on rpg.net that point.

3e is more intricate and interconnected than older versions of DnD, that was of course an intentional design decision to emphasise concepts of players learning to master the rules.  A consequence of that is an increased need for copies of the current PHB.

With all due respect to Seanchai, I think everyone on this thread but him knows that and I'd suggest not rising to any more futile arguments on a point we all know perfectly well.  3e (including 3.5e obviously) requires the PHB more than was the case in ADnD, one can view that as the result of a bug or a feature but it is I think beyond rational argument.

We used weapon speed, space required and AC adjustment for weapons in one of our ad&d campaigns. Made quite a big difference for my dwarf Thief, i can tell you. Luckily, we also used to have 'feats' every 2 levels, so i was able to offset the AC adjustments for my dagger somewhat. We never had a problem with it. Simply write the stuff on your character sheet. No refering to the players handbook at all for that.

Quote from: stu2000It's the same demographic that's playing HeroScape right now. It's not a rpg, but going by the people with whom I've played, met at cons, and met on-line, the lion's share of the HS audience is gamer dads and their kids. Huge market.

I fall in that group. My kids would play D&D every day if they could. More things like D&D game day and cons need to be better advertised in places that dads like me frequent. I think the anecdotal evidence is in, that there are a lot of Dads playing D&D with kids. In fact I wonder if its becoming a tradition of sorts.

Fuck this shit, there goes the post I just typed up--Balbinus already said it all.

But I said it beautifully!

Quote from: SettembriniI´m amazed about how much we have learned about the new Story-D20!

Isn´t that something?

Well, we did learn that Ryan's planning to write not one but several RPGs.

Me, I'm impressed.

Quote from: VBWyrdeWhat about NeverWinter Nights?

Licensed video games are fun, but I'd rather have had roleplaying computer support, expressly designed for the TTRPG.

Heck, I'd go one step further: designed in conjunction with the RPG.

I think this would have gone a long way into making 3e more convivial.

Quote from: BalbinusSeanchai was the only one who used all those rules.

I'm not sure why you think that.

Quote from: BalbinusHaffrung made the correct point earlier, the comparison is with ADnD as it was played and 3e as it is played.

And that helps us how? If the basis of talking about AD&D 1st edition in this thread is predictive and people house ruled the crap out it, how are people's experiences with AD&D 1st edition applicable?

Quote from: Balbinus3e is less amenable to houseruling or dropping bits out than ADnD, for good or ill, therefore not only does it not surprise me that people stick to the rules more with current editions that was in fact my understanding prior to this thread.

Or it could be that there's much less need to house rule and ignore elements of the game. It could also be that it's much easier to get a rulebook, that they're more affordable, that people are curious about the game and picked on it, it could be that more people play, or any number of other reasons why 3e has outsold AD&D 1st edition beyond the supposition that you didn't need the AD&D PHB as much as you need the 3e one.

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse TownWe used weapon speed, space required and AC adjustment for weapons in ... ad&d

Me too.

Say, Pierce, what was that bit about passive-aggressive one-liners?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell, we did learn that Ryan's planning to write not one but several RPGs.

Me, I'm impressed.

I might be impressed when I see them. I'm not impressed by grand plans. I've been roleplaying for a long time, and a lot of game products were talked about and promised over that time. Lots of them claimed they'd be revolutionising the industry which was, apparently, dying.

Remember that roleplaying is the bastard child of David Weseley, and was adopted by Gygax and Arneson, and before D&D was even published they'd already split over how things should be done.

Just imagine if the internet had been around during that split. "The approach the other guy is taking will kill roleplaying! My approach is much better."

As of the recent Fear the Boot episode, Ryan has played Burning Wheel a whopping single time, and has read and heard about DitV.
He´d like to play DitV sometime in the future.

Go figure.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI might be impressed when I see them.

So far those "Story-games" are marginal part of marginal hobby. If Ryan Dancey would sell his vision to significant number of players (of D&D/d20/whatever) I will be impressed. Let's say, that significant numbers begin with 50,000 souls for the record. Also if I will think his ideas are brilliant I will be impressed. Although I've read a good dozen of those "revolutionary" games very few of them impressed me so far. So I wish you luck Ryan, but I am sceptical about it. Sorry.

Quote from: SeanchaiOr it could be that there's much less need to house rule and ignore elements of the game.

Need? It isn't about need, its about what you want to play. AD&D 1st and 2nd ed, and also classic D&D, were all designed to be modular. Want to use, say, skills? Weapon specialisation/mastery? Funky powers? Fine, pick the right product and there they are all laid out for you, plug them in and play. Don't want to use them? Also fine, the game still holds together fine.

Want to not have a skill system in 3rd ed? You don't want loads of funky powers? Well, tough, because those things are so tightly integrated that it is going to require loads of work to engineer them out without breaking the game.

And that, I think, is why the argument that 3rd ed has lost players to computer games really starts to make sense. The less you can simply ignore such things, the more the game becomes constrained, the more you have to keep track of, the more rules you have to keep checking. And, ultimately, the more the game becomes about 'building' characters rather than playing characters. And computers do all of that very well indeed...

The story gamer has not been as encouraged by 3rd ed as he might have been, and I think that the trend towards fighting off computer games by being like a computer game will ultimately fail for that reason. The way to empower story based gaming, the way to encourage people into longer campaigns (such that they keep coming back to play) is by giving games that require less reference to the rules rather than more. Modular games where you can include as much complexity as you want but are not forced to do so. It isn't technological fixes for tabletop roleplaying that will keep the hobby alive, it is intelligently designed roleplaying games.

Quote from: CabNeed? It isn't about need, its about what you want to play. AD&D 1st and 2nd ed, and also classic D&D, were all designed to be modular. Want to use, say, skills? Weapon specialisation/mastery? Funky powers? Fine, pick the right product and there they are all laid out for you, plug them in and play. Don't want to use them? Also fine, the game still holds together fine.

Want to not have a skill system in 3rd ed? You don't want loads of funky powers? Well, tough, because those things are so tightly integrated that it is going to require loads of work to engineer them out without breaking the game.

And that, I think, is why the argument that 3rd ed has lost players to computer games really starts to make sense. The less you can simply ignore such things, the more the game becomes constrained, the more you have to keep track of, the more rules you have to keep checking. And, ultimately, the more the game becomes about 'building' characters rather than playing characters. And computers do all of that very well indeed...

The story gamer has not been as encouraged by 3rd ed as he might have been, and I think that the trend towards fighting off computer games by being like a computer game will ultimately fail for that reason. The way to empower story based gaming, the way to encourage people into longer campaigns (such that they keep coming back to play) is by giving games that require less reference to the rules rather than more. Modular games where you can include as much complexity as you want but are not forced to do so. It isn't technological fixes for tabletop roleplaying that will keep the hobby alive, it is intelligently designed roleplaying games.

Add to this intelligent computer support that doesn't try to take over the creative aspects of the game and I think you have a winning proposition.

As to whether or not Player Empowerment is required... I don't think so, personally.  Linking Story-Games to Player Empowerment, in my opinion, is not necessary.  You could do it, and depending on how, you could make it a worthwhile feature of the game, but so far I haven't seen it done in a way I can get behind, for the previously mentioned reasons.  

- Mark

Quote from: CabNeed? It isn't about need, its about what you want to play. AD&D 1st and 2nd ed, and also classic D&D, were all designed to be modular.

More dumbness directly contradicted by the designer.

Moreover, by your definition, 3e is wildly modular: There's tons of stuff, such Incarnum, which has been added since it was created and which you can easily ignore.

Oh, you want to bring up skills and Feats. Those were elements designed as part of the game as it exists in the PHB and DMG. If you want to compare apples and apples, you need to try to remove a core part of AD&D that exists in the PHB and DMG. Let's remove levels or classes. Or, I know, the use of a d20. And what happens when we're comparing apples to apples? The same thing that happens with 3e when you try to remove it's core parts.

Quote from: CabWant to use, say, skills? Weapon specialisation/mastery? Funky powers? Fine, pick the right product and there they are all laid out for you, plug them in and play.

Those are all right in the 1st edition PHB and DMG. Check 'em out sometime.

Quote from: CabAnd that, I think, is why the argument that 3rd ed has lost players to computer games really starts to make sense.

Clearly, it's 3e that's causing any exodus to computer games. There couldn't be any other factors such as the availability and sophistication of these games. And it's only 3e players who are leaving the hobby - the numbers are up across the board outside of D&D...

Quote from: CabThe story gamer has not been as encouraged by 3rd ed as he might have been, and I think that the trend towards fighting off computer games by being like a computer game will ultimately fail for that reason.

Just do us all a favor and head on back to Dragonsfoot, where you can crusade against 3e without reality intruding in your edition drama.

Quote from: CabThe way to empower story based gaming, the way to encourage people into longer campaigns (such that they keep coming back to play) is by giving games that require less reference to the rules rather than more.

Uh-huh.

Here's your problem: You're holding up AD&D 1st edition as a model of a "modular game" that "empowers story-based gaming and longer campaigns." But AD&D 1st edition players were the people who pioneered rules lawyers, min-maxing, metagaming, etc.

If AD&D doesn't encourage these sorts of things, how did they come to be wide-spread part of gaming culture despite 22 years AD&D's dominance?

Answer: You're wrong.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiMore dumbness directly contradicted by the designer.

Go talk to the designer. Go on. Go ask him. He'll tell you that AD&D is designed such that you can use what you like. You can find him sometimes on Dragonsfoot, where he has a Q&A thread.

QuoteMoreover, by your definition, 3e is wildly modular: There's tons of stuff, such Incarnum, which has been added since it was created and which you can easily ignore.

Its added on top of what is already quite a complex system; not complex as in difficult at its heart, but complex in that you cannot easily pull elements out without unsettlign the whole bally lot of it. And it didn't have to be that complex; thats why it isn't modular in the same way, thats why its harder to fiddle about with, to form it into the image of a game you really want (if what you want is in any way more streamlined than what is presented).

QuoteOh, you want to bring up skills and Feats. Those were elements designed as part of the game as it exists in the PHB and DMG. If you want to compare apples and apples, you need to try to remove a core part of AD&D that exists in the PHB and DMG. Let's remove levels or classes. Or, I know, the use of a d20. And what happens when we're comparing apples to apples? The same thing that happens with 3e when you try to remove it's core parts.

Meanwhile, away from Planet Seanchai, here on Earth, earlier editions of D&D had extra skills, sometimes things resembling feats, as add ons, that you could remove or use as you saw fit without balance issues; level, class and suchlike operated sufficiently independently of those such that they worked fine without. In 3rd ed you have a skills/feats systen that is undoubtedly more integrated (although mechanically, in play, the same) and in some ways a joy to behold, but so stubbornly embedded that you can't get it out withot pulling the legs off the game. Fine, if thats what you want, but it does mean that you've got that extra complexity (and it gets more and more complex as you continue with a character, as more powers come your way) that means that you will be flicking through the rule book more, you will be munching up the powers carefully to get a more potent character, and you will have more to keep track of. And as a result, the game will appeal to the same demographic who like those elements in computer games, with the regrettable result that ultimately computers are better at that style of gaming.

QuoteThose are all right in the 1st edition PHB and DMG. Check 'em out sometime.

They don't actually, one of those only exists in classic D&D (masters set and RC). But otherwise, yes, they're right there where they exist as options that you can use or not without affecting whether the game works.

QuoteClearly, it's 3e that's causing any exodus to computer games. There couldn't be any other factors such as the availability and sophistication of these games. And it's only 3e players who are leaving the hobby - the numbers are up across the board outside of D&D...

You have the capacity to make the most ridiculous points. I didn't say that, I didn't imply it, that isn't a logical conclusion of anything I have said. I laid this out as one factor that I think is a mistake in the design of 3rd ed, and possibly a huge lack of foresight thus far shown by the designers of 4th ed who are openly trying to emulate that kind of element in computer games.

(more pointless abuse cut)

QuoteHere's your problem: You're holding up AD&D 1st edition as a model of a "modular game" that "empowers story-based gaming and longer campaigns." But AD&D 1st edition players were the people who pioneered rules lawyers, min-maxing, metagaming, etc.
[/quopte]

No, I'm really not. I'm holding it up as a game that is rather better at that than 3rd ed, but in no way a perfect model.

QuoteIf AD&D doesn't encourage these sorts of things, how did they come to be wide-spread part of gaming culture despite 22 years AD&D's dominance?

Answer: You're wrong.

Seanchai

You get rules lawyers, powergamers and the like flocking around the most popular game of any era. Whether its D&D, AD&D (any edition) or World of Darkness, we've all encountered them. Not sure what point you're making.

Its amazing, isn't it, that everyone but you seems to be wrong...

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is just too funny.

Quote from: SeanchaiOh, you want to bring up skills and Feats. Those were elements designed as part of the game as it exists in the PHB and DMG. If you want to compare apples and apples, you need to try to remove a core part of AD&D that exists in the PHB and DMG. Let's remove levels or classes. Or, I know, the use of a d20. And what happens when we're comparing apples to apples? The same thing that happens with 3e when you try to remove it's core parts.

Thanks. You've just made my point for me.

The core stuff I needed to know to play AD&D as a player was much less the core stuff you need to know to play 3E. And don't give me any more shit about what's written in the AD&D PHB and DMG. We've already established that very few players actually used that stuff. 3E requires the same core knowledge you need to play AD&D, plus skills, plus feats, plus detailed tactical combat. 3E encourages players to take the books home and minimax their attributes, class abilities, racial abilities, skills, and feats. In AD&D, once you've decided whether you want to put that 16 on Con or Str, and written down your +1 Con racial modifier for dwarves, you're done minimaxing forever.

This isn't the edition war you want it to be. It's just a clown talking out of his ass about AD&D, and a bunch of other people shaking their heads at his hysterical beligerence. Give it a rest before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

Quote from: CabGo talk to the designer.

Don't have to - he's already on record, stating that if you're not playing with all his rules, you're not playing AD&D. Doesn't sound like it was designed to be modular after all, does it?

Quote from: CabIts added on top of what is already quite a complex system; not complex as in difficult at its heart, but complex in that you cannot easily pull elements out without unsettlign the whole bally lot of it. And it didn't have to be that complex; thats why it isn't modular in the same way, thats why its harder to fiddle about with, to form it into the image of a game you really want (if what you want is in any way more streamlined than what is presented).

Try addressing the point.

Quote from: CabMeanwhile, away from Planet Seanchai, here on Earth, earlier editions of D&D had extra skills, sometimes things resembling feats, as add ons, that you could remove or use as you saw fit without balance issues;

Back to apples and oranges, are you?

Quote from: CabIn 3rd ed you have a skills/feats systen that is undoubtedly more integrated...

Yes, which is why your comparison is dumbness. You're saying that because 3e has an integrated skill system and AD&D 1st edition doesn't per se, that AD&D is modular. Sorry, but there's tacked on bits you can remove from 3e and parts of AD&D that you can't without it collapsing.

Quote from: CabThey don't actually, one of those only exists in classic D&D (masters set and RC).

Skills: Page 28 and 34 of the PHB, page 12 of the DMG

Weapon specialization: Page 36 of the PHB

Funky powers: As an example, check out the Monk on page 30 of the PHB.

Quote from: CabBut otherwise, yes, they're right there where they exist as options that you can use or not without affecting whether the game works.

First, they're not necessarily optional.

Second, yes, many of the little things can be taken out without affecting the game. But, again, there are tons of little things in 3e that can be taken out without affecting the game. And yet your go-to example is always skills and Feats.

Quote from: CabSeanchai: Here's your problem: You're holding up AD&D 1st edition as a model of a "modular game" that "empowers story-based gaming and longer campaigns."

Cab: No, I'm really not. I'm holding it up as a game that is rather better at that than 3rd ed, but in no way a perfect model.

Yeah. Who said "perfect"? Beyond you, that is? I said you were using it as a model. Then you agreed.

Quote from: CabYou get rules lawyers, powergamers and the like flocking around the most popular game of any era. Whether its D&D, AD&D (any edition) or World of Darkness, we've all encountered them. Not sure what point you're making.

"If AD&D doesn't encourage these sorts of things, how did they come to be wide-spread part of gaming culture despite 22 years AD&D's dominance?"

Seanchai

Double post.

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungThanks. You've just made my point for me.

That 3e has skills and Feats? Yeah, we know that.

Quote from: HaffrungThe core stuff I needed to know to play AD&D as a player was much less the core stuff you need to know to play 3E.

Only when you ignore all the little fun stuff like weapon speeds, facing, etc..

Quote from: HaffrungAnd don't give me any more shit about what's written in the AD&D PHB and DMG. We've already established that very few players actually used that stuff.

And not established why that remotely helps your case.

Quote from: Haffrung3E requires the same core knowledge you need to play AD&D, plus skills, plus feats, plus detailed tactical combat.

Except that's not so. It does add skills and Feats, but it also removes all the little crap that made AD&D such a pain in the ass.

And detailed tactical combat? What do you believe is in 3e that ain't in AD&D in terms of tactical combat?

Quote from: HaffrungIn AD&D, once you've decided whether you want to put that 16 on Con or Str, and written down your +1 Con racial modifier for dwarves, you're done minimaxing forever.

Actually, no. There's still a number of ways to increase your ability scores, such as magical items. There are still a number of ways to min-mix, such as dual classing.

Quote from: HaffrungIt's just a clown talking out of his ass about AD&D.

I've got - what? - twice your experience with the game and I actually read and refer back to the books as I make my points. Contrast this with the guy who, half way through the thread, has to shore up his flagging arguments with the clarification that he's not talking about AD&D, he's talking about the way he played AD&D...

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungThis isn't the edition war you want it to be. It's just a clown talking out of his ass about AD&D, and a bunch of other people shaking their heads at his hysterical beligerence. Give it a rest before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

Quoted just because its worth repeating. Dunno why I got sucked into such a ridiculous diversion!

Quote from: SeanchaiDon't have to - he's already on record, stating that if you're not playing with all his rules, you're not playing AD&D.

This is not true.  

Gary is on ENWorld and Dragonsfoot and is *always* answering questions about "how should I do X" in AD&D with "make something up / it's your game / etc".  He didn't use weapons vs AC or weapon speed factors in his own games.  You can't get any more "official" than the way Gary Gygax plays D&D. :)

Quote from: SeanchaiThat 3e has skills and Feats? Yeah, we know that... Seanchai

I'm rather disappointed to see this thread, which hitherto had begun to provide interesting and potentially enlightening information, especially from Ryan, descend into ... this.  For a while there it was a pretty damn good thread.  

EDIT: Which is to say, couldn't this entire sub-topic go into another thread?

- Mark

Quote from: SeanchaiI've got - what? - twice your experience with the game and I actually read and refer back to the books as I make my points. Contrast this with the guy who, half way through the thread, has to shore up his flagging arguments with the clarification that he's not talking about AD&D, he's talking about the way he played AD&D...

Well, he's talking about the way most people played AD&D anyways...:rolleyes:

But OK, for the sake of argument, let's say weapon speed and damage vs. armor type was used by everyone.  Weapon speed takes all of 5 seconds to write down on the character sheet at char gen, and the damage vs. armor type could be put on a DM screen.

Compare that to things like Feats and Skills, where very specific and detailed rules are given about each individual thing.  You can't write down all that on a character sheet, and most people do not desire to memorize that much material.  Thus, it gets referenced a lot more in play.

It's really quite simple:
* A fighter in AD&D never needs to look up anything in the PHB outside of char gen and knowing how much XP to get to the next level.
* Neither does a thief, who's abilities are not very defined and given a simple chance of success that can be recorded on his character sheet.
* Clerics and mages needed the PHB because they had spells.
* Character abilities were pretty static.  There weren't any big choices you had to make when creating a character and leveling up.

Compare this to 3e:
* Every class has a wide variety of skills and feats.  And you have to choose things at both char gen and when leveling up.  Making poor choices makes the character much less effective.  Thus, you will want to own the books and make sure you pick the right stuff.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm rather disappointed to see this thread, which hitherto had begun to provide interesting and potentially enlightening information, especially from Ryan, descend into ... this.  For a while there it was a pretty damn good thread.  

EDIT: Which is to say, couldn't this entire sub-topic go into another thread?

Given that we're up to 300+ responses here, I actually think starting a new thread about Dancey's plans would be for the best.

I see sharks!

Quote from: jgantsCompare this to 3e:
* Every class has a wide variety of skills and feats.  And you have to choose things at both char gen and when leveling up.  Making poor choices makes the character much less effective.  Thus, you will want to own the books and make sure you pick the right stuff.

That's absolutely not my experience.

Just like every game I've ever run, the only players who ever reference the books during play are spellcasters.

You do need to pick stuff when you level up, but that so far has placed no onus on my players to get copies of any books whatsoever.  I mean, you needed the books during leveling in older editions, too.  They use mine or the SRD.

I'm telling you - I run Arcana Evolved and other 3.5 games with a grand total of 2 PHBs for 6 players + me.  It works fine.

-O

Quote from: StuartThis is not true.

Yeah, it is. He stated in an editorial in an early Dragon that if you weren't using all rules, you weren't playing AD&D.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsWell, he's talking about the way most people played AD&D anyways...

If I counter an assertion you make about 3e by saying, "That's not how people play the game," you're left without recourse, right? Unless you gather enough responses to be statistically significant, saying, for example, people have to reference their 3e books often to look up skills and Feats is pointless. Talking about the objective rules, on the other hand, things we can quote text or page numbers for, is a different matter.

Quote from: jgantsCompare that to things like Feats and Skills, where very specific and detailed rules are given about each individual thing. You can't write down all that on a character sheet, and most people do not desire to memorize that much material.  

I have no idea why you'd need to write skill descriptions down on the character sheet, but adding +1 to your BAB or jotting down: "can grapple without AoO" seems decidedly do-able to me...

Quote from: jgants* A fighter in AD&D never needs to look up anything in the PHB outside of char gen and knowing how much XP to get to the next level.

There's weapon stats, weapon proficiencies, the range your bulleye lantern throws light out to, what your chance to spot a secret door is, et al..

Quote from: jgants* Neither does a thief, who's abilities are not very defined and given a simple chance of success that can be recorded on his character sheet.

It's a little disingenious to say people to have note down all kinds of information for skills in 3e and then gloss over the two pages of description for thief abilities.

Quote from: jgants* Character abilities were pretty static.  There weren't any big choices you had to make when creating a character and leveling up.

Define "big." There were choices to be made. They were permanent. They affected your character. They affected your character's performance.

Quote from: jgantsEvery class has a wide variety of skills and feats.

That's true. And at most, you can choose, what, eight Feats?

Quote from: jgantsMaking poor choices makes the character much less effective.  Thus, you will want to own the books and make sure you pick the right stuff.

Making the wrong choices in AD&D at chargen and when leveling up could also make your character much less effective, particularly given the competitive nature of AD&D.

Again, things like min-maxing were created by AD&D. They thrived under AD&D and became part of our culture. Because min-maxing, metagaming, etc. - despite claims to the contrary - were decidedly possible using the AD&D rules set.

Seanchai

Quote from: obrynThat's absolutely not my experience.

It's not been mine, either. I've run entire games of 3.5 without having read the 3.5 rulebooks.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah, it is. He stated in an editorial in an early Dragon that if you weren't using all rules, you weren't playing AD&D.

And more recently he's said the opposite.

Quote from: SeanchaiIf I counter an assertion you make about 3e by saying, "That's not how people play the game," you're left without recourse, right? Unless you gather enough responses to be statistically significant, saying, for example, people have to reference their 3e books often to look up skills and Feats is pointless. Talking about the objective rules, on the other hand, things we can quote text or page numbers for, is a different matter.

See - there's a difference between "I think stuff works this way" and "people have been talking for over 25 years about how hardly anyone used weapon speeds or armor vs weapon type".

Quote from: SeanchaiI have no idea why you'd need to write skill descriptions down on the character sheet, but adding +1 to your BAB or jotting down: "can grapple without AoO" seems decidedly do-able to me...

Perhaps you didn't notice, but 3e has very finely detailed rules.  Summarizing things is easy enough, but the devil is often in the details.

Quote from: SeanchaiThere's weapon stats, weapon proficiencies, the range your bulleye lantern throws light out to, what your chance to spot a secret door is, et al..

I said outside of char gen.  Weapon stats don't change over time, neither do lantern distances (not that hardly anyone nitpicks things like that, either)   The roll for secret door detection was the same for everyone and never changed (and is the kind of thing a DM would look up, not a player).  Proficiencies were optional rules.  Etc.

You keep comparing apples to oranges here.  We're not talking about "every rule in the entire set of AD&D 1e books" compared to "every rule in the entire set of D&D 3e books".  We are talking about what rules does a player need to know during an average session in 1e vs. 3e.

Since it's incredibly obvious that 1e was designed for the DM to keep track of the rules (since things like combat rules weren't even in the PG, they were in the DMG) and 3e was designed for player rule mastery (as the designers themselves have stated were a design goal), I'm not quite sure why you insist on arguing this point.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's a little disingenious to say people to have note down all kinds of information for skills in 3e and then gloss over the two pages of description for thief abilities.

Again, there is a different level of details here.  Thief abilities in 1e had descriptions that basically said "Remove Traps - Roll to remove a trap".  In 3e, skills are very detailed as to what the different uses of the skill are, what the DC for those uses might be, whether or not you can use the skill with armor, whether or not you need tools, etc.

Quote from: SeanchaiDefine "big." There were choices to be made. They were permanent. They affected your character. They affected your character's performance.

No, there weren't.  AD&D was very static in development.  A fighter, for example, had absolutely nothing to choose when going from say, 7th level to 8th.  Neither did a magic-user or cleric.  In 1e, I don't even think a thief did (I'd have to have the book in front of me to be sure, but I think thieves in 1e had their abilities set by level in a table).

Quote from: SeanchaiThat's true. And at most, you can choose, what, eight Feats?

Yeah, out of what - 100 feats?  That's a lot of decision-making.  The game was purposely designed that way, so I don't see how you can argue the point.

Quote from: SeanchaiMaking the wrong choices in AD&D at chargen and when leveling up could also make your character much less effective, particularly given the competitive nature of AD&D.

Again, things like min-maxing were created by AD&D. They thrived under AD&D and became part of our culture. Because min-maxing, metagaming, etc. - despite claims to the contrary - were decidedly possible using the AD&D rules set.

What choices?  There really wasn't much to min-max in AD&D.

There weren't a heck of a lot of choices in 1e even at char gen.  Once you chose a race and a class, that was pretty much it.  Everything else in AD&D was either completely random (like ability scores - unless the DM let you switch the scores around) or static (like race/class abilities).

Let's see - a fighter gets to choose a weapon specialty (though I believe that was an optional rule).  And if a magic-user is lucky, the DM will let him choose his starting spells instead of just sticking him with what the DM wants.  A cleric might get to choose a specific deity to worship, but most of the time it would be glossed over to the simple "you can use blunt weapons" bit.  Oh, and everyone gets to buy their own equipment (based on randomly-rolled starting money and DM fiat on what weapons/equipment are available).

Yeah, that's a ton of opportunities for min-maxing...  :rolleyes:

Min-Maxing became a part of the hobby with point-buy games.  You know, games that actually let you make choices and switch around abilities.  AD&D was sooo not that game (whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal preference).

Quote from: StuartAnd more recently he's said the opposite.

Which kind of makes you wonder how that could be. He's said two things that cannot both be true, one around the time he designed the game and one two decades later. Throwing them both out is probably the best thing to do, but if pressed, I'd pick the one that isn't revisionist.

Seanchai

Especially since it facilitates your troll.

Quote from: jgantsPerhaps you didn't notice, but 3e has very finely detailed rules.  Summarizing things is easy enough, but the devil is often in the details.

Give us an example of a Feat that has "very finely detailed rules."

Quote from: jgantsWeapon stats don't change over time, neither do lantern distances (not that hardly anyone nitpicks things like that, either)

They can, but I was thinking of finding a weapon and starting to use it. If you've previously used a short sword but start using a bastard sword from a fallen foe, now you've got to get it stats.

Quote from: jgantsProficiencies were optional rules.

As I said, weapon proficiencies. They're on pages 36 and 37 of the PHB, and not optional.

Quote from: jgantsYou keep comparing apples to oranges here.  We're not talking about "every rule in the entire set of AD&D 1e books" compared to "every rule in the entire set of D&D 3e books".  We are talking about what rules does a player need to know during an average session in 1e vs. 3e.

No, that's what I'm talking about.

Quote from: jgantsSince it's incredibly obvious that 1e was designed for the DM to keep track of the rules (since things like combat rules weren't even in the PG, they were in the DMG) and 3e was designed for player rule mastery (as the designers themselves have stated were a design goal), I'm not quite sure why you insist on arguing this point.

AD&D was designed so that the players only dealt with so many rules at the start of the game, but learned them as they went along. It's true that with 3e the players start the game dealing with more rules (mostly combat), the same mechanism is there.

Quote from: jgantsAgain, there is a different level of details here.  Thief abilities in 1e had descriptions that basically said "Remove Traps - Roll to remove a trap".  In 3e, skills are very detailed as to what the different uses of the skill are, what the DC for those uses might be, whether or not you can use the skill with armor, whether or not you need tools, etc.

Really? Without look at the description, does Find/Remove Traps cover a pit trap? How many times would a thief need to roll Find/Remove Traps for a particular trap? Could a thief try to Find/Remove any trap? What limitations apply?

Quote from: jgantsA fighter, for example, had absolutely nothing to choose when going from say, 7th level to 8th.

I was speaking about characters, not classes. But there were things to choose, such as weapon proficiency slots, spells, etc..

Quote from: jgantsYeah, out of what - 100 feats?

There are less than 50 Feats without prerequisites, fewer if you're not playing a spellcaster.

Quote from: jgantsWhat choices?  There really wasn't much to min-max in AD&D.

Depending on the method used to generate Ability Scores, the placement of Ability Scores. Choice of race, class, armor, weapons, weapon proficiencies, spells, languages, alignment, multi- or dual-classing, and, most importantly, magical items.

You're right that a lot of AD&D was random - which is why players spent time on their choices, maximizing them as much as possible.

Quote from: jgantsMin-Maxing became a part of the hobby with point-buy games.

When was the first point buy system published again? The early 80's? If I can a reference to min-maxing behavior before then - say in an old Dragon - will you accede the point?

Seanchai

I'm not sure if there's any point continuing the debate on this... Seanchai, can you point to any other message boards, blogs, etc. where there's been a similar discussion and there was anyone arguing the same point that you are?  I get the feeling it could just be you, and you seem beyond convincing... which makes this seem a bit pointless. :confused:

I think the red box had point trading for stats. 2 for one I think, up to some max.

I hope you're all having fun debating with Seanchai, because that's really the only reason to be in this.

White box had point trading for stats, although there's some debate lately whether it was literal point trading or "virtual". I can't be bothered to look up the discussion--probably either DF or the original D&D message board, but the gist of "virtual" was that if your Wisdom wasn't high enough to get your XP bonus as a Cleric, you could count surplus of Intelligence over 9 on a 2-1 basis to make up the deficit, but you didn't actually trade away your Intelligence or raise your Wisdom. I think this is probably against the intention of the author but it's an interesting approach nonetheless, particularly once ability scores start to mean something concrete as in Greyhawk.

The 3-hole-punched Basic D&D had point trading for stats.  You could reduce scores to increase your prime requisites on a 2-for-1 ratio, IIRC.  There were, I think, a number of funny little restrictions on it - like Dwarves can reduce Dexterity, and so on.

I looked through the books a few months ago, and this caught my eye.  Sorry I don't remember details.

-O

Wow, just finished reading this whole thread. I would say this topic is thoroughly "rended"...;)

Quote from: Elliot WilenI hope you're all having fun debating with Seanchai, because that's really the only reason to be in this.

White box had point trading for stats, although there's some debate lately whether it was literal point trading or "virtual". I can't be bothered to look up the discussion--probably either DF or the original D&D message board, but the gist of "virtual" was that if your Wisdom wasn't high enough to get your XP bonus as a Cleric, you could count surplus of Intelligence over 9 on a 2-1 basis to make up the deficit, but you didn't actually trade away your Intelligence or raise your Wisdom. I think this is probably against the intention of the author but it's an interesting approach nonetheless, particularly once ability scores start to mean something concrete as in Greyhawk.

Actually, Gary recently said that you didn't actually change the stats.  Can't find the thread, though.

That said, we always thought you just traded stats.  Hey, my first houserule was an accident.  I think I'll keep it.

Ah, I couldn't remember if he said he meant to change or not change the stats. I still suspect the text implies otherwise but I can't be bothered to look it up. I do like that approach, though; it increases the reasonable options within each class.