Quote from: J ArcaneCrawford's a wierd fucker anyway.  The man hasn't developed a damn thing in years.  At least the Forge folks manage to produce a game now and then.  Crawford seems to have gone off the navel-gazing deep-end.

Erasmatron...that's what I was thinking of.  Thankee for the linkee!

QuoteOh, and IIRC, Wil Wright is the one who first called SimCity an "electronic toy" rather than a game. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was quoted in every review of SC2000 when it came out.

I know Maxis started using it a lot in their ad copy.  Wiki suggests it may, indeed, have been Maxis who coined it.  I think doing so was a bit misguided.  The Sim series are still games, just games with different goals and design focuses, and I don't think they deserve to be redefined to some whole new term just because they don't break things down into levels.

That was more a side comment anyway.  What really just struck me was the similarity between your comment about story being an artifact of experience, and Will Wright's theories about game design.

Quote from: J ArcaneI know Maxis started using it a lot in their ad copy.  Wiki suggests it may, indeed, have been Maxis who coined it.  I think doing so was a bit misguided.  The Sim series are still games, just games with different goals and design focuses, and I don't think they deserve to be redefined to some whole new term just because they don't break things down into levels.

That was more a side comment anyway.  What really just struck me was the similarity between your comment about story being an artifact of experience, and Will Wright's theories about game design.

Absolutely, I wasn't being combative or nitpicky, more responding to Pundit's assumption that there was some kind of Swine vs. Gamer deathmatch in the computer world.

Quote from: KenHRAbsolutely, I wasn't being combative or nitpicky, more responding to Pundit's assumption that there was some kind of Swine vs. Gamer deathmatch in the computer world.

Well, it's kind of hard to really determine.  In terms of overall success, the more free and open titles tend to do a lot better.  GTA and the Sims are excellent examples.

But the number of more linear titles rather vastly overwhelms the number of less linear titles.  In some genres, like RPGs, linearity seems to be the expected order of the day, with even games from traditionally non-linear series going the way of the railroad, like Oblivion did, and the Bioware games have.  Final Fantasy and it's near-non-interactivity still rules the roost sadly.

FPS games are ruled by linearity to the extent that some people use it as one of the defining characteristics of the genre.  

But there is still stuff like the GTA series, The Sims, and many MMOs that manages to take at least a semi-non-linear approach, and succeed at it massively.  

The main issue though, is less idelogical than it is economical.  Open-ended games are much harder to develop and take more time, than just sticking the player through a series of railroads.  And in a corporate world like game publishing, easy and cheap tends to win out than hard, risky, and expensive.

Most of the successful non-linear games have come from companies with extablished track records and bankrolls big enough to afford the risk.  Blizzard, EA/Maxis, Rockstar.  The guys who, like the Beatles, got so huge that they could experiment with whatever they wanted and not have to worry anymore.

Quote from: J ArcaneBut the number of more linear titles rather vastly overwhelms the number of less linear titles.  In some genres, like RPGs, linearity seems to be the expected order of the day, with even games from traditionally non-linear series going the way of the railroad, like Oblivion did, and the Bioware games have.  Final Fantasy and it's near-non-interactivity still rules the roost sadly.

Yeah, I've noticed that quite a bit.  I've never really gotten into the FF games, but even stuff like Baldur's Gate left me cold when I finally picked it up (I confess I like Icewind Dale far more than BG).  I grew up with party-based CRPGs like Ultima III, Wasteland, and the Gold Box games.  BG's structure left me cold.  Only two games have done the story thing well for me: Ultima IV and Planescape: Torment.  The former still gave you tons of leeway in play, and the latter just combined a great story with a fantastic evocation of setting.

I just don't get the desire to be led by the nose for 30+ hours.  To tie it back into tabletop games, I don't want to experience the GM's awful Terry Brooks/David Eddings wannabe novel or act out some adolescent emotional meltdown and call it drama.  I want to have a good time with my friends and not think about work, bills, the mildew spot in the bathroom, etc.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe main issue though, is less idelogical than it is economical.  Open-ended games are much harder to develop and take more time, than just sticking the player through a series of railroads.  And in a corporate world like game publishing, easy and cheap tends to win out than hard, risky, and expensive.

Most of the successful non-linear games have come from companies with extablished track records and bankrolls big enough to afford the risk.  Blizzard, EA/Maxis, Rockstar.  The guys who, like the Beatles, got so huge that they could experiment with whatever they wanted and not have to worry anymore.

That's an interesting analogy, and not too far off the mark.

An interesting success story in this area (it's been getting notice in print media here and there) is the free roguelike Dwarf Fortress.  Gotta say, once I got used to the interface, this game has been responsible for more of my lost nights than anything recently, and the game's only in alpha.  The designer's full plans for the game are wickedly ambitious.

Anyway, this is getting off the subject.  I think that you have something here.  Maybe looking at the parallels between sandbox games on the computer and RPGs on the tabletop might yield some insights into why people actually play the latter rather than breaking out a copy of (gag) Talisman or Return of the Heroes.

Quote from: KenHRAnyway, this is getting off the subject.  I think that you have something here.  Maybe looking at the parallels between sandbox games on the computer and RPGs on the tabletop might yield some insights into why people actually play the latter rather than breaking out a copy of (gag) Talisman or Return of the Heroes.

Not at all. This is exactly what this thread needs and is about (in a kind of way ). Your last line is particularly interesting.

Regards,
David R

My view on the computer games thing might be totally off, like I said, I'm ridiculously uninformed about it.  It was just reading what I did here, that I saw the interesting parallel.

And whether or not there's a swine vs non-swine conflict in the computer gaming world, there's a clear lesson in the success of open-ended broad games vs. narrowcast games in the computer world for those of us who are pen-n-paper fans.

I should note that the ONE computer game genre I really love are roguelikes; I've been playing roguelikes since 1986 (especially nethack). This Dwarf Fortress game looks awesome, and I might have to give it a try. hehe.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAlso, its much easier to turn a bad roleplayer into a good roleplayer if the person in question is good at being a human being. And its much easier to make someone good at roleplaying than it is to make someone good at being human.

Well, first, I'll be clear about what I mean.

A "good roleplayer" is one who brings their character alive to others.

A "good player" is a person who adds to the fun of the whole group.

The two sometimes clash, sometimes help each-other. Thinking of the difference between the two helps us understand situations like, "But it's what my character would do!" "You bastard." Or situations like, "Yes, his character is stupid, but we love the guy."

Anyway, as RPGPundit said, it's easier to make someone a good roleplayer than make them a good player. I wouldn't say that a bad player is a "bad human being." It can be all about the right combination of players - haven't you ever been great in one group, and found yourself being a dick in another group?

Quote from: joewolzIs bad social dynamics really that big of a problem?

I think so, yes. Quite often, people quite simply don't get along. Like you, I meet people individually before bringing them to the game group. But that's not infallible. On Monday, we had a Geektogether - I contacted the four GMs I knew and organised a night at the pub, asking them to bring their groups, and I added in some of the gamers without groups I knew, too. Two of the GMs are friends of mine, they both think I'm a fine person, but they hate each-other; or rather, one barely remembers the other, but remembers him with distaste when you remind him, and the other hates. But both like me, and I like both of them. So it could easily have happened that I might meet them both, get along with them wonderfully, then bring them together in a group, and... BOOM.

People are like chemistry. A and B and C make a useful compound, and bubble along nicely on their way there, while A and B alone make an explosion and B and C don't react at all, good or bad.

I think that if you hope to move your group along and actually achieve something - whether it's a game group, work or sports - then a little tension can be good. A little tension gets people discussing things, thinking about things, caring about things, and stuff happens. If everyone gets along perfectly, then maybe you just talk shit instead of gaming, working or sporting...

So for example in my own group, I had three players, and we all got along so well that though the session starts at 7pm, we never actually gamed earlier than 8:30pm, and even after that there were lots of jokes and asides and... the campaign kind of wandered around a bit aimlessly. Now we added a fourth player. He's not super-brainy or knowledgeable about the setting, but he's active. He doesn't know the rest of us well, so there's less idle chat, and things are happening!

Now, I would not suggest that everyone has to actually get something "done" in a game session, or work day, or sports match. If you're having fun fucking about, great! I'm just saying that if you do want to get something done, then sometimes it actually helps to have people you don't entirely get along with, or at least don't know well, so that all you've in common is the activity, and you focus on that.

But yes, it's very true that arguments and people simply not getting along at the player level make many game groups have not much fun, or break up. If you're in your happy game group for years on end, it can be hard to realise just how many gamers are out there, floating around from group to group, trying to find the right one.

But from my point of view, it doesn't really matter what the percentage is of "in a group and happy" gamers is compared to those who are not in groups, and/or not happy. The point is that getting a game group and keeping it has to come first. Whether GNS or AGE or any of those models and theories are correct doesn't matter to someone who doesn't have a game group, or can't keep one. It's like offering sex technique advice to some guy who doesn't know where to meet girls, and never gets more than one date.

So from my point of view, it's not really that rpg theories are wrong, but that they're irrelevant to the real problems that happen in rpg sessions. If you can get a game group and keep it, and if you get along reasonably well with the people in your group - if everyone is a "good player" - then all the rest will generally fall in place well enough. I think the rpg theorists miss the point - that it's about people. I simply cannot think of players I know, looking up rules and rolling dice and being proud of the beer stain on their character sheet, and at the same time as thinking of them, talk about "shared imaginary space" or the like. It just misses the point.

Quote from: JimBobOzI simply cannot think of players I know, looking up rules and rolling dice and being proud of the beer stain on their character sheet, and at the same time as thinking of them, talk about "shared imaginary space" or the like. It just misses the point.

Mine do, a bit.

Though they say "fiction" instead.

Okay, actually, they're more likely to say "Dude, lame.  Do it better." to each other, and only break out words like "Fiction" when the session is over.

Quote from: RPGPunditMy view on the computer games thing might be totally off, like I said, I'm ridiculously uninformed about it.  It was just reading what I did here, that I saw the interesting parallel.

And whether or not there's a swine vs non-swine conflict in the computer gaming world, there's a clear lesson in the success of open-ended broad games vs. narrowcast games in the computer world for those of us who are pen-n-paper fans.

I should note that the ONE computer game genre I really love are roguelikes; I've been playing roguelikes since 1986 (especially nethack). This Dwarf Fortress game looks awesome, and I might have to give it a try. hehe.

RPGPundit

Yah, I was funnin' more than anything else...this chest cold has me feeling punchy.

You've gotta try DF.  The wiki for the game helps immensely, as the learning curve is wickedly steep.  That an alpha release gives so much in terms of gameplay is incredible, and the developer is devoted to pulling off a massive persistent world sim.  Check the development notes on the site!

More on topic: I'm still trying to put my thoughts together to address David R's last post. I mean...I suppose my tastes lean toward what rgfa posters call Gamist, but I hate just about any dungeoncrawl boardgame with a passion (the only fantasy boardgame worth playing is AH's Magic Realm, and that's the truth).  The answer, I'm finding, is not quite as simple as I thought it would be.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo for example in my own group, I had three players, and we all got along so well that though the session starts at 7pm, we never actually gamed earlier than 8:30pm, and even after that there were lots of jokes and asides and... the campaign kind of wandered around a bit aimlessly. Now we added a fourth player. He's not super-brainy or knowledgeable about the setting, but he's active. He doesn't know the rest of us well, so there's less idle chat, and things are happening!

This is an interesting point.  In my Trav group, partially because we're old friends who don't really get to see one another due to geographic distance, we start BSing from the start, and it takes a while to get the game going.  And there are constant jokes and South Park references once it does.

One of my players, named Jim, hasn't yet been able to make a session, as his line of work has been playing havoc with his schedule (he's a full-time artist and takes on any odd job that comes his way to make ends meet).  But he has exactly the kind of effect on the game that your fourth player does.  Jim will test boundaries, try off-the-wall things, ask if he can try something that's outside the rules.  He's not afraid to wander about and do his own thing once in a while.  It keeps me on my toes and focused on the game.  It gets everyone else involved as they try to stay a step ahead of him and avoid whatever kind of trouble he's brewing up.

In theory, he sounds like the biggest pain in the ass player in the world.  But I go out of my way to get Jim into any of my games because in practice, he makes us concentrate on the game more and brings us to places we'd never think to go ourselves.  I can't wait until his schedule calms down and he's back in the group.  I love the joking and socializing, but when everyone is present, our games are simply magical; Kev's the planner, Chris is the action guy, Steve is the devil's advocate, and Jim is the catalyst that brings it all together.

Quote from: KenHR(the only fantasy boardgame worth playing is AH's Magic Realm, and that's the truth).

Just wanted to say: I love MR.

But I'm not sure I'd go along with that sentiment. True, Talisman is dreck (based on one playing). But SPI's Swords & Sorcery looks promising, if only I can get around to trying it one of these days. I also wouldn't write off Dragon Pass, Barbarian Kings, Nomad Gods, Divine Right, Albion: Land of Faerie...though with the caveat that most of these games are more "army level" than "individual level" fantasy.

Quote from: Elliot WilenJust wanted to say: I love MR.

But I'm not sure I'd go along with that sentiment. True, Talisman is dreck (based on one playing). But SPI's Swords & Sorcery looks promising, if only I can get around to trying it one of these days. I also wouldn't write off Dragon Pass, Barbarian Kings, Nomad Gods, Divine Right, Albion: Land of Faerie...though with the caveat that most of these games are more "army level" than "individual level" fantasy.

Ah, I should have been more specific.  Those games are, indeed, excellent, but I was thinking more about the individual-level games.

I still regret not picking up the Divine Right reprint when it was available...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMine do, a bit.

Though they say "fiction" instead.

Okay, actually, they're more likely to say "Dude, lame.  Do it better." to each other, and only break out words like "Fiction" when the session is over.

You see this is exactly what I'm talking about. What do gamers actualy say and do? I mean my group uses the term story post game...as in "Whoa, did you think the story would turn out like that"

I'm sure they meant game. I don't think words like gamist, narrativist etc are accurate terms when trying to define a particular playstlye or game. More relevent to focus on what a particular games does - what is the focus of the game - social interaction, combat, investigation etc and keeping in mind that at the end of the day, it wont survive actual play. How do we improve upon these concepts using rules, advice etc. Part theory, part craft, all useful.

This also works with design. What is the focus of your game and what kind of rules would better serve said focus.

Okay please remember I'm not to hip to all this theory stuff, so you don't need to use the pointy end of your swords. Smacking me up with the hilt will suffice

Regards,
David R

QuoteAnyway, this is getting off the subject. I think that you have something here. Maybe looking at the parallels between sandbox games on the computer and RPGs on the tabletop might yield some insights into why people actually play the latter rather than breaking out a copy of (gag) Talisman or Return of the Heroes.

Ultimately, I think it's very simple:  Your own story is always going to be more interesting to you than someone else's.  

As the old joke goes, your vacation slides are always a hell of a lot more interesting to you than they are to the poor friends and family members you're forcing to sit through them.

Or why no one likes hearing "let me tell you about my character" . . .