# Ryan Dancey on Redefining the Hobby (Updated: time elements in a storytelling game)



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

Ryan Dancey has gone on a posting spree pre-GenCon on his Blog.  His subjects start by discussing the state of the hobby of "roleplaying."  Then he moves to discussing ways to reinvent the hobby.

The relevant posts are:
Climb the Highest Mountain
Keep Hope Alive!
Step 1: Redefine the Hobby
Step 2: Redefine the Experience 
Step 3: Redefine the Game World 
Step 4: Redefine the Platform
STep 5: Redefine the Rules
Final Thoughts: Wrap Up
Storytelling Games 1: Thinking Hard
Storytelling Games 2:  Vive La Resolution! New!

I don't expect everyone to agree with everything here, in fact I don't.  I do think it is a pretty good start for a discussion of the issues.

A few excerpts (which doesn't nearly begin to cover everything): 

Here is a chart he used during a seminar showing the relative sizes of the hobby games industry.  The ribbon of blue at the bottom is all tabletop RPGs combined.








> The term “Roleplaying Game” has a lot of baggage.  It makes the tacit assumption (demonstrably false) that the primary entertainment value is “playing a role”.  30+ years of negative brand equity have accumulated around “Roleplaying Games” (and Dungeons & Dragons in particular); from concerns about the satanic nature of the content to fears that the games are psychologically damaging, to simple social stigma attached to the geek image of the participants.  It’s time to cut that monicker loose.






> The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not “play a role”.  The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”.  Roleplaying is a tactic, not a strategy.  Some participants want to play roles, and that’s fine.  Others want to provide narrative structure.  Still others want to create systems for interaction and adjudication.  And another group wants to generate environments.  All of these people need to be made co-equal for the hobby to succeed long term.
> 
> Therefore, I think we need to engage in metamorphosis from “roleplaying games” to “storytelling games”.  And in that change lies the seeds of our success.






> The MMORPG platform (our “television”) has three critical areas of weakness (likely unfixable) which we can exploit to segment the storytelling hobby from the MMORPG hobby, to our advantage.






> What we need to do is avoid the temptation to try and make our hobby more like the MMORPG hobby.  We need to focus our efforts on segmentation:  making a clear difference between the two formats, and making strong and believable statements about why people will enjoy themselves participating in the Storytelling Game hobby


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

As an immediate reply, not that Mike Mearls makes a good counterpoint in the last thread (last at this time, anyway).

A partial quote:


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


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 14, 2007)

> What we need to do is avoid the temptation to try and make our hobby more like the MMORPG hobby. We need to focus our efforts on segmentation: making a clear difference between the two formats, and making strong and believable statements about why people will enjoy themselves participating in the Storytelling Game hobby




That is a very well put summary of the concept that "D&D should not be videogamey". Not because it's a bad thing per se (in fact many of us gamers also enjoy playing CRPGs or MMORPGs), but because to stay strong (or survive) it must be different. 

The more it tries to emulate the features of a computerized game, the more the limitations of running the game "live" (i.e. with a DM) become evident, while at the same time the strengths of it (which a computer can never emulate) become less and less relevant. Going too far means that at a certain point there's less reasons to play a RPG that works like a CRPG, when you can play a CRPG that does its own things much better...


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Aug 14, 2007)

Did he say where did the sales data for the chart on the hobby games business came from?


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Did he say where did the sales data for the chart on the hobby games business came from?




No.  Just that he used it during a seminar.

He does credit the Daedalus Project with MMORPG chart he gives in the same post.  The image is so small, it's hard to determine whether there is any tabletop information in that chart.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Aug 14, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Did he say where did the sales data for the chart on the hobby games business came from?




An excellent question.  I can think of a few avenues that were not likely polled.


----------



## Treebore (Aug 14, 2007)

An interesting topic, but I am separating myself from the "save the hobby" movement. The guys who make a living off of the hobby can worry about it.

I'll just worry about "my gaming" and supporting just the companies I like. If that helps keep the hobby alive, or even helps save it, great. If it doesn't, its not my livlihood. I have much more important, and up close and personal things, to worry about.

Still an interesting "exercise" to discuss. Plus I in no way hope that the hobby fails. Even if it fails I believe it will stay alive enough for me to keep finding games.

So I'll leave the worrying up to the people who have the resources, and direct concerns, and direct input, to effect how things are done.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 14, 2007)

Maybe we just need a new name for it?  Call it "Collective tabletop non-electronic blogging" or something full of popular buzzwords.

Still, I think a lot of the stigma is not necessarily stuck to roleplaying, but D&D itself. For instance,  D&D Tactics is due out for the PSP this week, and just about every review of it used the terms "nerd" or "geek" or some variant.  Which you don't usually see when it's a conversion of some other p&p RPG (though not that there are many of those, these days).


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Maybe we just need a new name for it?  Call it "Collective tabletop non-electronic blogging" or something full of popular buzzwords.
> 
> Still, I think a lot of the stigma is not necessarily stuck to roleplaying, but D&D itself. For instance,  D&D Tactics is due out for the PSP this week, and just about every review of it used the terms "nerd" or "geek" or some variant.  Which you don't usually see when it's a conversion of some other p&p RPG (though not that there are many of those, these days).




I read an column in the local papers "young adult enterainment" section that mentioned D&D.  The column was discussing "dating dealbreakers."  No, she didn't directly list D&D as one of those.  Instead, she listed something she said was "barely a step up from playing D&D."  

Now, the section definitely goes for the "hip vibe," so that might be part of it.  Then again, the main editor of the section is a regular at my regular comic book store.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

Well, is it just me, or Dancey suddenly make a 180° turn with...



> ... the worst thing we could do is spend time & resources trying to make a digital environment to virtualize the tabletop experience...




I have a feeling, he was proponent of virtualization and tools such as e-tools and their better version based on some game engine (Arcanum was it?).


----------



## FireLance (Aug 14, 2007)

While I don't necessarily agree that we need to change the name of the game (and especially not from "Roleplaying Game" to "Storytelling Game" ), I do agree on one point: table-top games have got to focus on their strengths instead of trying to copy the strengths of online games, and need to deliver a value proposition that capitalizes on those strengths. So what can't online games deliver (yet) that table-top games can? Off the top of my head (and please correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not very familiar with online games):

1. Ability to permanently affect the game world.
2. Flexibility in character creation and advancement beyond a limited menu of choices.
3. Ability to introduce player-created content into the game world (related to the two points above).
4. Flexibility in character action and objectives beyond a limited menu of choices.

I think the difficulty will be coming up with a table-top game with these as explicit design goals, and actually implementing them through the fallible hands of thousands of DMs.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> I have a feeling, he was proponent of virtualization and tools such as e-tools and their better version based on some game engine (Arcanum was it?).




I think you might be confusing him with Jim Butler, who seems to have been one of the people moving eTools in that direction.  I've seen Ryan push towards an electronic component to the game, but not necessarily a virtualization one.

In fact, I remember someone from WotC stating that eTools wouldn't be a "virtual tabletop."  At the same times, more and more eTools content seemed to be aimed in that direction (all the monster sounds, and 3D images they were creating).


----------



## RyanD (Aug 14, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> I have a feeling, he was proponent of virtualization and tools such as e-tools and their better version based on some game engine (Arcanum was it?).




I was never a fan of that strategy.  I wanted eTools to be a suite of software that DMs would use to create content like that found in WotC modules, and players would use to make PCs correctly and quickly, avoiding the problems of complexity.  I was a very strong opponent of the idea that eTools should be a virtual D&D tabletop.

Ryan


----------



## Maggan (Aug 14, 2007)

So, I can't help to think that what Ryan means by "storytelling games" is not what I believe gamers today think of as storyteller games; either World of Darkness, or the short games such as Baron Münchhausen.

That'll create confusion, no doubt.

/M


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 14, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Did he say where did the sales data for the chart on the hobby games business came from?




I have to say that the chart above leaves me a bit meh... Perfectly ok from his point of view to compare for example RPG with CCG, because he's talking about the size of the industry/business. So I guess that the vertical axis shows company profit per area or something like that?

However, from MY point of view, the point of view of a gamer, I'd be much more interested in comparing the two by the amount of people that actively play RPG vs CCG. That is more important to me than industry profit/revenue, because even the hopefully unlikely case that the industry itself stop isn't going to stop my hobby. OTOH, lack of gamers WILL stop me playing as well...

It's not clear what the chart actually shows... The vertical axis is certainly in $, but could even represent the average amount of money spent per year by a gamer. Or MIGHT be in fact a factor proportional to the amount of gamers... 

IF that's the case, the chart would tell that the amount of RPGers has halved in time, exactly due to the coming of CCG in the 90s, like half of the RPGers moved to CCG while the other half remained (and still remains) solidly into RPGs. 
It also shows that the growth is all in CCG and not in RPG. 
At the same time it shows how unstable the gaming community of CCG is (going up/down every other year), perhaps because of younger age CCGers are more sensible to new fashionable games/hobbies coming out? It would suggest that CCG segment has better chances to strike a fortune, but also much higher risks than the smaller but more stable RPG segment...


Just my 2cp.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 14, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Did he say where did the sales data for the chart on the hobby games business came from?




My data is based on public & private sources.  For 2006, I estimate the size of the tabletop RPG business (exclusive of miniatures & support products like magazines, dice, etc.) at $17-$20 million (at wholesale).

To put that in context, my estimate for the size of the TRPG category in 2001 was $30 million; I estimate we've lost roughly half the total market in the past 6 years.

For a public source of data worth discussing, review the figures in Comics & Games Retailer. While this data is notoriously unreliable in detail, it has proven to be reasonably accurate in terms of trend analysis and overall volume of business.  I'm looking at issue #185 (August 2007).  Monthly averages for unit sales volume throughout 2006 and 2007 have been less than 60 units consistently.

Let's assume the average SRP of those products is $30.  Let's assume there's 2,000 stores selling TRPGs (there aren't but this is a way of accounting for the bookstores).

60 books * $30 * 2,000 stores * 12 months == $43,200,000 in projected retail sales.  The average discount works out to be about 43% of SRP, so publisher revenues in this model would be $18,576,000.

Note:  That figure is likely over stated because the total unit volume is less than 60 books, the aggregate SRP is probably lower than $30, and there are certainly less than 2,000 stores selling the average number of books per month.  But its a workable place for discussion, and helps account for things like PDF sales, Amazon.com, etc.

That figure jibes with other (non public) data I have, and it seems to be a good fit with observed trends in the retail stores I visit & correspond with.

Scott, if you'd like to provide more specific sales data on WotC's RPGs, I'm all ears.

Ryan


----------



## MerricB (Aug 14, 2007)

How much of a shift has there been from sales of D&D at Game Stores to sales of D&D online & at book stores?

Cheers!


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 14, 2007)

RD's blog has got me thinking, as usual.

A lot of people *play* (not DM) D&D for the same reasons that people play MMO's: for socialising, avatar empowerment, strategic thinking and group strategic thinking. This is the crossover between the two game types and I think is why 3ed has been so successful (relatively speaking), because it tapped into the exact same effort/reward feedback loop that now makes MMO's so addictive.

One problem with tabletop roleplaying though is that the *DM* does not necessarily play for those reasons. In fact I would say many DM's fit perfectly into RD's "[wants] to tell a great story" model, even if most players probably do not. As long as you have this dichotomy, any one theory of 'redefining the hobby' is going to run into trouble. Successfully marketing to both players and DM's will always be a neat trick, and it's a problem that MMO's simply don't have.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 14, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> However, from MY point of view, the point of view of a gamer, I'd be much more interested in comparing the two by the amount of people that actively play RPG vs CCG.




There used to be vastly more people playing TRPGs monthly than playing Magic monthly.  In 1999 we estimated the monthly player community at 1.5 million players (for D&D) and about 2-2.5 million players (all TRPGs combined).  I believe that total increased from 2000-2003, but I don't have access to any reliable data to support that conclusion, it's just a guess.

Here's the math for Magic:

Assumptions:  The average player buys 2.5 displays worth of each expansion.  Assume the average booster display contains 36 booster packs, at SRP$3.49.  Assume 3 expansions per year.

Assume the US wholesale value of Magic is $50 million (that means WotC sells $50 million worth of Magic to its wholesalers).  The Magic discount is about 45% of SRP.  So the retail value of Magic in the US is about $110 million.

$110 million / 3 expansions / 36 boosters / $3.49 / 2.5 displays per expansion == 116,733 players.

Assume a significant overhang for people trying out the game but not becoming dedicated players, speculators, grey market sales, etc, and it would be fair to estimate the US player community for Magic is between 150,000 and 200,000 players.

Magic accounts for about 33% of total CCG sales in the US, so if we assumed that everyone playing every other game exclusively played those games (which we know is false, but gives us a hard upper limit on players) the US CCG population is between 450,000 and 600,000 players.

The interesting question becomes:  After WoW growing to 9 million players, and the TRPG business losing half (or more) of its volume from its recent height, how many people are still playing a TRPG monthly? My gut instinct tells me that the figure has probably fallen by 50%, to somewhere around 1 million people.

Of course, there's very little relation between the number of people *playing* TRPGs vs. the number of people *buying* them.

Ryan


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 14, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> The interesting question becomes:  After WoW growing to 9 million players, and the TRPG business losing half (or more) of its volume from its recent height, how many people are still playing a TRPG monthly? My gut instinct tells me that the figure has probably fallen by 50%, to somewhere around 1 million people.



This may sound like a dumb question, but is there actual data that MMO's and TRPG's/CCG's are substitutes?


----------



## RyanD (Aug 14, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> This may sound like a dumb question, but is there actual data that MMO's and TRPG's/CCG's are substitutes?




I did not believe that they were in 2000.  We studied EverQuest and Ultima OnLine extensively, trying to determine to what extent the two modes of play overlapped and directly competed.  My conclusion at the time was "not much".  We found small amounts of overlapped, and many lapsed TRPG players in MMORPG play, but we did not find people leaving TRPG play groups to move to MMORPG play patterns.

That started to change with City of Heroes and accelerated with World of Warcraft.  I now believe the data shows strongly that WoW in particular appeals so powerfully to a certain subset of TRPG players that they are quitting tabletop gaming to play MMORPGs almost exclusively.  That segment is the *Power Gamer* group.

(A Power Gamer is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Tactical/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy playing a character that has a minimum of personality (often, this kind of person plays a character that is simply an extension of the player). This kind of player enjoys short, intense gaming experiences. The consequences of a failed action are minimized for this player, who will roll up a new character and return to the fray without much thought for the storyline implications of that action.)

This change in the competitive environment is a huge driver in the current problems faced by the TRPG hobby as a whole, because these Power Gamers often agitate successfully for others in their game groups to shift modes with them, knocking big, irreparable holes in the player network.

I would like to cite specific data supporting these conclusions, but none of the information I have is publicly available, unfortunately.  It would be great to see some independent (and public) research done on this topic.

Ryan


----------



## meomwt (Aug 14, 2007)

WoW may well have 9 million subscriptions, but that is a worldwide figure (RD's sales data for RPG's and CCG's are USA-based). It also doesn't take into account how many people have played it for a little bit and given up (real life, grind issues, cost factors, etc.). That seems to be a common phenomenon from what I understand.

Perhaps we also need to look at how many people have played an MMORPG then moved on to tabletop gaming as a result?


----------



## Whisper72 (Aug 14, 2007)

To add to the differentiation issue, I believe that the most important difference between tabletop and computer RPG is the whole tabletop thing. The face to face socializing. This, and the versatility of a live DM which makes the boundaries of TRPG limitless, are the main differentiating factors which can never be (fully) replaced by CRPG's.

As to numbers, there are, I think, several factors which contribute to the problems which now face the market, these are IMHO, and not supported by actual data, but my field of expertise is marketing intelligence and consumer trend analysis, so these are not complete groping in the dark.

First, the whole versioning issue is splitting the market as bad as the various game worlds were for ADND2E. People playing 3.0 versus 3.5, the whole glut in the market of different games launching almost daily, all with their own game systems. This makes finding playing groups willing and able to play the same game harder and harder. In general, the more a game gets played, the more ppl invest in it. As experience in other markets has shown, too much (different) offers lead to not buying / not investing.

I do not understand why WotC for example chose to use another system for Star Wars then the generic d20 (SAGA).

Furthermore, the barriers to entry are farily steep. Even if this is not true in reality (only need the core books for DnD), with the whole slew of products, it sure feels like it. I believe the game needs an entry level product, and the other products need to be labeled more clearly in several 'levels' or 'lines' and 'fields', such that people have a clearer overview of which products are or are not for them: more of a crunch lover: the crunch line, etc. etc.

Even on these boards, one regularly hears of ppl playing the game without even bothering to buy the PHB. With a cheaper 'entry level' PHB, these ppl might be tempted to buy and then later on upgrade.

Another split in the market is one of generations. I get the impression that there are roughly three types of players in the market:
- old guard who grew up with previous editions, but are extremely time constrained. They may buy out of interest / collection drives. These ppl are generally affluent enough to invest heavily (have had jobs for some time now) but rarely play. Their main problem which has to be solved is how to find like-minded ppl.
- semi-old guard who grew up with the late 2nd edition, 3rd edition, now have a job but still find plenty time to play, have regular gaming groups. These probably buy the most stuff
- the youngsters, who started into the game relatively recently. They are torn between CRPG and TRPG, and do not have a lot of buying power.

One of the problems is that a lot of the semi-old guard is probablyt still languishing in their old 2nd ed and 3.0E products, and these ppl do not see many products that they would be interested in.

The combination of these factors cause for sales to drop.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 14, 2007)

meomwt said:
			
		

> WoW may well have 9 million subscriptions, but that is a worldwide figure (RD's sales data for RPG's and CCG's are USA-based). It also doesn't take into account how many people have played it for a little bit and given up (real life, grind issues, cost factors, etc.). That seems to be a common phenomenon from what I understand.



If I understand you correctly, this is a common misconception levelled at Blizzard's figures. The small print on every press release says that the subscription total includes *only* active subscriptions and new purchases still within the initial free month. Now there may well be active subscriptions without active players, but I doubt Blizzard cares very much.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Aug 14, 2007)

Do people really think that shifting from "role-playing games" to "story-telling games" is any less geeky? C'mon folks. D&D is what it is. It may pass through phases when it's less geeky or more geeky, but it will always be geeky.

D&D will never be "cool" to non-D&D gamers. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 14, 2007)

Whisper72 said:
			
		

> I do not understand why WotC for example chose to use another system for Star Wars then the generic d20 (SAGA).




Should be said that the new Star Wars is NOT SAGA...not in the game system sense. It is the Saga Edition. As in...the Star Wars Saga.

It is very much d20, abliet tweaked significantly.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> I was never a fan of that strategy.  I wanted eTools to be a suite of software that DMs would use to create content like that found in WotC modules, and players would use to make PCs correctly and quickly, avoiding the problems of complexity.  I was a very strong opponent of the idea that eTools should be a virtual D&D tabletop.
> 
> Ryan




Oh... ok. My mistake than. Sorry.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> To put that in context, my estimate for the size of the TRPG category in 2001 was $30 million; I estimate we've lost roughly half the total market in the past 6 years.




That would be true, if the dollar would have same value. Otherwise you should have to correct your estimates by this, which means they are more pessimistic. $30 million in 2001 =/= $30 million in 2006:



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> For a public source of data worth discussing, review the figures in Comics & Games Retailer. While this data is notoriously unreliable in detail, it has proven to be reasonably accurate in terms of trend analysis and overall volume of business.  I'm looking at issue #185 (August 2007).  Monthly averages for unit sales volume throughout 2006 and 2007 have been less than 60 units consistently.




Well... how much units did they (or any other source) reported in say 2001 or 1996? Or any other year. Is those 60 units per month significanlty less or more? Or what?

Also, is C&GR sampling just US market or international? Because if they sample US-only or just some part of the market, some effects of RPG-market shrinkage might be compensate by export of these products abroad. (Good for producers at least, not so much pro FLGS and players though).

I don't know much about these things, nor I am economist, these are just things coming to my mind reading these estimates.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 14, 2007)

Ryan Dancey, as usual, says a lot of provocative things.

To be honest, I don't think there is very much in the latest blog series that I can take issue with or that I disagree with.

Problem: it's more of a diagnosis than a prescription or treatment plan.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Aug 14, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> My data is based on public & private sources.  For 2006, I estimate the size of the tabletop RPG business (exclusive of miniatures & support products like magazines, dice, etc.) at $17-$20 million (at wholesale).




If that is correct (and I know it isn't), then Mongoose has a huge, dominating share of the market.  

And we don't.

We're good, but not _that_ good


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 14, 2007)

So Ryan's RPG data is an *estimate *of a 50% reduction over 6 years from an original *estimate*? Yeah that's going to be an accurate figure.


----------



## Belen (Aug 14, 2007)

Brilliant!



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Mike, I think your analogy is flawed.
> 
> A better analogy would be to say "the point of going to the movies is to see pretty pictures".  The game part of roleplaying game has the same relationship to the value proposition as the motion pictures do to the movies.  You have to have them - that's the medium involved in the art form.  But they're NOT THE POINT of the art form.  The point is to tell a great story.  Movies are 1 to many.  1 entity tells the story, and many people receive it.  Storytelling games are many to many -- a group tells a story collectively, and they all enjoy it collectively.  Expand that to a community, and a group interacts with a community story, telling a small part of a larger tapestry which they are a part of but not all of.
> 
> Focusing on the "game" part of the equation as the value driver is to miss the forest for the trees.  On the other hand, take the story out of the equation, and you might as well be playing chess.


----------



## Belen (Aug 14, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Did he say where did the sales data for the chart on the hobby games business came from?




I think you should listen to him.  He seems to have hit the nail on the head to where my own personal thoughts have been moving and why WOTC has slowly been pushing me to look at older editions of D&D again.

Current D&D seems to sacrifice story for rules.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Current D&D seems to sacrifice story for rules.




To me, it seems more like current D&D gives you rules and lets you work out the story.

Of course, there's no way at all to say if people PLAY this way or the opposite beyond anecdotal evidence and that's not terribly helpful.

For my part, I prefer this approach. I can do the story part just fine on my own and would very much prefer to have the rules good and spelled out so its one less thing to think about while keeping the story, itself, going.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 14, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> Now there may well be active subscriptions without active players, but I doubt Blizzard cares very much.




Heck there are cases of people with multiple subscriptions so they can go on raid's with their other characters run via scripts.


----------



## Belen (Aug 14, 2007)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> If that is correct (and I know it isn't), then Mongoose has a huge, dominating share of the market.
> 
> And we don't.
> 
> We're good, but not _that_ good




Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 14, 2007)

I think this is a good thread inspired by some great blog posts. I _dont agree _ with much of it. But I like that is being posted. 

I also think *mearls* full reply is worthy of reposting here.



> "The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not “play a role”.  The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”. "
> 
> I think this is a horribly, horribly flawed view of why people play games like D&D. It's akin to saying that people play football to tell great stories. Great stories may arise as a consequence of play, but they aren't the reason why people play in the first place.
> 
> ...


----------



## Belen (Aug 14, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> To me, it seems more like current D&D gives you rules and lets you work out the story.
> 
> Of course, there's no way at all to say if people PLAY this way or the opposite beyond anecdotal evidence and that's not terribly helpful.
> 
> For my part, I prefer this approach. I can do the story part just fine on my own and would very much prefer to have the rules good and spelled out so its one less thing to think about while keeping the story, itself, going.




Well, we may have to agree to disagree.  IME, the wealth of rules have impeded the breath and types of stories that can be run with D&D.  In addition, the rules have severely limited the story aspects I receive from my players.  A good portion of players tend to be far more insular and attentive to character building rather than interaction with one another or the game world.

I am not saying that rules are bad; however, the sheer focus that WOTC places on them has had a negative effect.  I would say that this is fairly true for my area.  I have gamed with a lot of people in my area when I was a WOTC delegate.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 14, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> So, I can't help to think that what Ryan means by "storytelling games" is not what I believe gamers today think of as storyteller games; either World of Darkness, or the short games such as Baron Münchhausen.
> 
> That'll create confusion, no doubt.
> 
> /M




Who says its confusion? As soon as you say something like the point of role-playing is to "tell great stories", your entering the world of darkness, and in more ways then one.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 14, 2007)

I think one problem with trying to put RPGs across as "storytelling" is that there are a number of people who are less interested in "storytelling" than in "being part of a story."  Most of the players who do not GM that I've played with over the years are people who want a GM to weave a story that they get to take part in.  They have no interest in telling the story themselves.

Obviously by taking an unscripted part in the story, they are in fact contributing to the story, but I think if you were to ask most of them, they would not agree that they are "storytelling," and would probably be intimidated by the suggestion that are.  Many players want a more passive role in the storytelling, leaving the GM to take the active role.  This I think is the appeal of the MMORPGs to so many people - they get to take part in somebody else's story without some of the inconveniences of setting up a TRPG (players, schedules, someone willing to GM, etc.)

I understand that there are a number of hurdles, both real and perceived, to growing the industry, but I'm not sure that a shift from portraying the game as roleplaying to storytelling will remove many of the hurdles and not just replace them with new ones.  I do think there is merit in trying to increase understanding of the game and its advantages, and not just trying to be an offline version of a MMORPG.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.




And yet the company still exist, still publishes hell lot of products, buy new licences and so on. They either print their own money or they sell their products to someone. The fact they you have not met anyone who uses or buys Mongoose products just proves the value of anecdotical evidence. That is no value at all!

Check rpg.net for Exalted... seems like they are played by half of the world, right? Check the numbers? They are not even in top15 buyed games, I guess.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 14, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> That is a very well put summary of the concept that "D&D should not be videogamey". Not because it's a bad thing per se (in fact many of us gamers also enjoy playing CRPGs or MMORPGs), but because to stay strong (or survive) it must be different.
> 
> The more it tries to emulate the features of a computerized game, the more the limitations of running the game "live" (i.e. with a DM) become evident, while at the same time the strengths of it (which a computer can never emulate) become less and less relevant. Going too far means that at a certain point there's less reasons to play a RPG that works like a CRPG, when you can play a CRPG that does its own things much better...



 I believe there are strengths to CRPGs that tabletop RPGs could bear to emulate more, namely visual attractiveness, immediacy of fulfilment and ease of management.

Visual Attractiveness: *some* level of visual representation that sparks the interest of the players and serves as a focus for their imagination and attention. This can range from an evocative artwork on a DM Screen to PC Portraits to counters/miniatures to spell-effect templates to battlemaps to fully-realized Dwarven Forge terrains.

Immediacy of Fulfilment: it's that delay between "hey, let's game" and actually gaming. With a CRPG, you only have to wait for the computer to startup and the game to load. The more "out-of-the-box" an adventure can be, the better. Pre-gen characters of the appropriate level (with character hooks included), sidebars at the start of an adventure to help DMs who didn't have much time to read through (like "this item will be important in Area 13-G"). The DM Preparation Guide in the DMG2 and the Delve Format in the new Expedition modules are a step in the right direction.

Ease of Management: stuff to relieve the pressure of remembering lots of rules and conditions. In a CRPG, the computer does all the math and rules. We can't (yet) have a self-calculating paper character sheet. But stuff like the Action cards included in the Fiery Dragon's BattleBox, or the Condition Cards posted in ENWorld's news page really help remind a player of what he can do or what's affecting him.

If a game's rules are the software, the tools to use those rules are the hardware. And the hardware now is hardly different from what it was 30 years ago (paper, dice, pencil).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Well, we may have to agree to disagree.  IME, the wealth of rules have impeded the breath and types of stories that can be run with D&D.  In addition, the rules have severely limited the story aspects I receive from my players.  A good portion of players tend to be far more insular and attentive to character building rather than interaction with one another or the game world.
> 
> I am not saying that rules are bad; however, the sheer focus that WOTC places on them has had a negative effect.  I would say that this is fairly true for my area.  I have gamed with a lot of people in my area when I was a WOTC delegate.



 To be honest, I expect your experience isn't limited to your area and it probably IS more common, though I really can't say for sure if it is or isn't.

It always seemed to me that those kind of players were always there, and always the most common. Its not a bad thing, it just seems to me that its the way things are. I think that D&D has a way of attracting people that like to tinker with numbers, even pre-3e, more that it does on the story end.

So maybe WotC isn't helping it by pushing rules, but then again maybe it wouldn't make a difference. If the people want rules, they'll get it, and that seems to be what they've wanted for a great many years now.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.



 Whether he partakes in narcotics or not, I have a feeling he might be in a good position to know what Mongoose's actual wholesale figures were in 2006.  So, if Mongoose is as small a segment of the industry as you seem to believe from your conversations on ENW and CM, then Ryan's numbers are even further off than MongooseMatt suggests.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 14, 2007)

There is no doubt in my mind that TRPGs need to be sure to play to their strengths, & that many TRPGs could do so better than they are doing today.



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Of course, there's very little relation between the number of people *playing* TRPGs vs. the number of people *buying* them.




& this is a very important thing that must be realized. Especially when comparing TRPGs to other games. Trying to compete with other products on their terms is a recipe for disaster. The income generated by a TRPG & a MMOG may both be in the same dollars, but it is far from the same.


----------



## TheCrazyMuffinMan (Aug 14, 2007)

The medium might be well taken into account when one is serving a message, but that doesn't make it the message. 

The truth is, serving the tactician mentality in TRPGs does nothing to cost the storytellers _on its own._ A skilled DM knows how to serve both, or to deal with extremes of either. While trying to copy a style isn't the wisest thing to do, trying to oppose that style is not much better. Let both styles evolve as needed, in their own right. If MMOs and TRPGs acquire similar styles over natural development, so be it. Trying to copy MMOs and trying to anti-copy them, or actively thwart anything that can associate TRPGs therewith, are equally futile.

As for RPing via the internet: It is more than possible, and feasible, with instant messaging (a social medium that bridges the distance gap), and though it does weaken in some ways (you're not all together, rolls less obviously verifiable), it actually strengthens in others (ready access to rules solutions, easier private notes). It's more of a choice/circumstance thing. While it clearly isn't the way some would prefer, it's hardly the 'worst thing you can do' in any objective sense.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 14, 2007)

The reason people play is to have fun, and people have fun for different reasons.  One reason, as Ryan noted, that the numbers are falling is that if you're just looking for the power gamer hack & slash experience, what exactly does D&D offer you that Warcraft doesn't?  The inconvenience of not being able to play whenever you want?  The lack of 3D graphics?  The scent of unwashed gamer?  No, if you're after kill monster, loot bodies, level up, WoW beats the crap out of D&D.

Now there's lots of other kinds of fun as well, and some of those computer games suck at.  The telling a great story is one way to have fun - even if the player is more into 'play a role' or 'socialize with friends' or whatever, those are not inhibited by creating a good story.  I prefer story-creating to story-telling, as many players will think of railroads when you say this.  They think it means the GM will tell them a story.

I've got a breakdown of how I do this on my blog, but the short version is you can get an awesome game experience by trying to follow a story structure - introduction, exposition, rising action, climax, coda - within a single night's session.  You do this by remaining flexible and using scene cutting to push the game along, as well as introducing and pushing conflict at the characters.  Metagame mechanics also help a great deal by giving the players more authoritarian control.  Fast simple rules help as well.


----------



## TheCrazyMuffinMan (Aug 14, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> The reason people play is to have fun, and people have fun for different reasons.  One reason, as Ryan noted, that the numbers are falling is that if you're just looking for the power gamer hack & slash experience, what exactly does D&D offer you that Warcraft doesn't?  The inconvenience of not being able to play whenever you want?  The lack of 3D graphics?  The scent of unwashed gamer?  No, if you're after kill monster, loot bodies, level up, WoW beats the crap out of D&D.




I see your point, and I like your blog, but I do have a minor response:

This hypothetical power-gamer is free to lean toward both games if he so desires. I myself am a rather blatant tactician, both as a DM and as a player (though I do lean to storyteller mentality when it helps the most), and I can see some things I like about D&D.

An interesting new system in which to test my ability to rise above my opponents, with about 30+ years of history and development behind it, leading to more twinking options.

The knowledge that I am facing challenges created by a learning, adapting, thinking, knowing force, rather than an AI.

The challenge of getting said force to accept a new class that's good enough for my powergaming self, yet not game-breaking enough for the DM to reject.


Question: There are many power gamers, many that have some of those conceptions of tabletop gaming. However, how many players are as one-sided about this approach as the hypothetical one in your post?


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 14, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Do people really think that shifting from "role-playing games" to "story-telling games" is any less geeky? C'mon folks. D&D is what it is. It may pass through phases when it's less geeky or more geeky, but it will always be geeky.
> 
> D&D will never be "cool" to non-D&D gamers. That's just the way it is.




My thoughts exactly. We are all a bunch of nerds, and are never going to be not-nerds. The only thing to be done is to embrace and learn to love your nerditude.

-The Gneech


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 14, 2007)

_Therefore, I think we need to engage in metamorphosis from “roleplaying games” to “storytelling games”. And in that change lies the seeds of our success. _

I tried to come up with a really observant, insightful response that would express a counterpoint to this idea, but I'm afraid all I've got is

YUCK!! EWWW!!!


----------



## bento (Aug 14, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> I've got a breakdown of how I do this on my blog, but the short version is you can get an awesome game experience by trying to follow a story structure - introduction, exposition, rising action, climax, coda - within a single night's session.  You do this by remaining flexible and using scene cutting to push the game along, as well as introducing and pushing conflict at the characters.  Metagame mechanics also help a great deal by giving the players more authoritarian control.  Fast simple rules help as well.



But the problem with this structure is when you're GMing a multi-session adventure.  There is no  introduction, players most likely won't reach an end point, and GMs have to deal with players wandering away from the adventure at any time.  While some GMs have the experience to fit a multi-session adventure into episodes, I'm in a group that stops at midnight, not when the episode is complete.

The more I read these threads the less attractive my own TRPG experiences feel.  While there are some sessions that are gold, these are maybe one out of four.  More likely its driving over an hour to get to the game, waiting up to an hour for everyone to show up, social talk and order pizza, and only three hours of TRPG, with much of it spent trying to keep the players on track or having them deal with a resource issue.

If anything, I'd like to see a change in mindset about how TRPGs are run, beginning with giving players an  overview of the adventure (tonight you're going to go to a castle and kill a vampire) and shrinking character management with tools to minimize valuable play time.  Maybe TRPGs should be more like board games where there are pre-set paths to travel and player options fit on one card.  I didn't like the board game Descent, but maybe there are some things that game offers that should be considered.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 14, 2007)

Arguably, a game like Final Fantasy X does the storytelling thing better than TRPGs. So, I don't know that focusing more on the storytelling aspects is really focusing on the strengths of the medium either.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 14, 2007)

It's strange that a lot of us have been playing for decades and we still can't solidly define what RPGs really are.  

I don't like "story telling game" - reminds me too much of railroading, and if I wanted railroading and limited options I'd go with a MMORPG.  I play RPGs because it's a chance to explore an imaginary setting with a limitless set of options (hopefully).  And you're not just exploring physical terrain - you explore (and interact with) magic systems, political systems, social systems, ecological sytems, etc.  Plus you can roll dice, level up, manage resources, make jokes, see what NPCs will do in response to what you do.  I don't want the DM to have an agenda when he's adjucating all of this.

So my character could, for example, come across a dragon in charge of a band of wizards (social system) who have developed a network of portals (magic system) to try to dominate the local region (political system).  My character gets to talk to rulers, fight the monsters, figure out how the portal system works.  He can kill all the monsters, take over the thing, and use it as a base for further exploration - or just blow the thing up, marry the local duchess, and outfit a ship for further exploration.  Or find an alternate dimension within the portal system.  Or whatever - the ideal situation IMO is the flexibility I have to define the events.  The basic problem with MMORPGs IMO is that even a bad DM is nearly infinitely more intelligent and creative than a computer.  

IMO a good DM reacts to the situations and allows players to choose their own actions.  This makes story telling pretty much impossible because *there's no story to tell until after the action is over* and at that point folks are probably to busy declaring actions for the next round of events.  If any story telling goes on, it's after the game, not a part of it.

MMORPGs also have too many PCs, AFAICT.  And those PCs aren't immersed in the setting at all - they're obviously just metagaming and building up their characters (except for a few crackpots that are too used to RPGs).  Large hordes of people meandering about, clubbing things.  No one seems to have any investment in the world other than accumulating stuff and becoming more powerful.   To me, it doesn't resemble any sort of real fantasy world in the least.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't like "story telling game" - reminds me too much of railroading, and if I wanted railroading and limited options I'd go with a MMORPG.



And the sooner that 'railroading' loses this ridiculous extreme-end-of-the-spectrum connotation that it seems to have acquired, the happier I'll be. Different thread I guess.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 14, 2007)

The future of TRPGs:

1. Kill the story.
Stories are the realm of books and movies. In a game, stories are told after the fact. In an RPG, the purpose is to GAME the setting, not to tell stories in it. Things like plot, theme, and character development can be used as analogies, but really RPGs are about setting, events, experience, and decision making. RPGs are not "storytelling games."

2. Bring on the game.
No one complains about a game of chess "killing the story." An hour long fight against monsters is exactly the point of many RPG sessions. The central issue is to make it a fun game, not a boring one. Talking is fun, and so exploring and creating an imagined environment, but roleplaying is about experience and decision-making. True "storytelling games" are just play-by-post affairs. An hour long fight is not a half-assed recreation of a MMORPG battle, it's something quite different. Options are more numerous, reactions less predictable, tactics less reliable. 

3. Play a role.
People play RPGs to play a role, period. Whether they identify with a character or simply empathize with one, that is why they play. Indeed, in my view, even the GM plays a character; the GM's personality and beliefs shape the reality of the world, such that is has a morality, a mood, a consistency of nature, a personality. 

4. Creative endeavors.
RyanD's chart is flawed in one important way. It shows sales. People continue to play games for years and years and years, often out of proportion to the number of rulebooks owned. His chart doesn't show RPGs are doomed; it shows his "sell corebooks to the masses" business model was flawed. One thing drives the RPG industry; new products that people want. Not "customer service." Not "brand." Both of those things are important, but I don't buy music CDs based primarily on customer service or brand. I don't want a "music service." I buy a CD because I value the creativity that produced it. Monster manuals may be geared toward GMs, but players buy them, too... not for nefarious purposes, I think, but simply because they enjoy reading about monsters. That's why the "encounter format" versions of monsters and the dearth of world-specific information and ecological stuff has made monster manuals less popular now than they ever have been. People enjoy the FR setting and Eberron and such because it puts that information back... in a sense, the Monster Manuals are mainly reference cards for the published settings. 

RPGs are readable in a way MMORPGs are not. Above all else, they are books about games, and should cleave to the fact that they are books.

Trying to sell an RPG "service," whether in the form of a subscription to game supplements, pay for play, even magazine subscriptions, has never been a source of great profit. 

5. It's the product, stupid.
Look at how the poker industry makes money. You sell cards. You sell books about poker. You sell poker chips. You have poker conventions. The same goes for baseball: You have ticket sales. You have TV. You have actual baseballs. You have little league.

So to make money, the RPG industry should produce a lot of products catering to both the enthusiast and the enthusiastic novice. I don't know what kind of profit they turned, but D&D for Dummies was a fanstastic idea for a product. 

Game books, supplements, dice, minis, T-shirts, events, novels, how-to guides.

Selling "customer service" is the same as selling air. How is the RPG industry going to service a customer better than the GM?


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 14, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> But the problem with this structure is when you're GMing a multi-session adventure.  There is no  introduction, players most likely won't reach an end point, and GMs have to deal with players wandering away from the adventure at any time.  While some GMs have the experience to fit a multi-session adventure into episodes, I'm in a group that stops at midnight, not when the episode is complete.




Part of what led me to this structure is a long series of fizzling game groups.  We'd get some people together, I'd have some big long multisession arc to set up, and it would die off before we got anywhere.  I changed my perspective.  I would not spend much time setting future games up - most of my effort needed to be to make *tonight* a completely awesome game.

The trick is to control the flow so that when midnight rolls around, the episode is complete.  That, or you throw in a twist or complication and announce a 'To Be Continued' episode.  Next game, your recap is the introduction and you start right back in the action.  Again, this is not railroading because you aren't pushing them at a paticular conclusion, rather you are pushing them toward an emotionally satisfying one.  The players come to love this, and I've been threatened with a dice-pelting for doing the TBC on more than one occasion.  Players want to finish the episode tonight!



> The more I read these threads the less attractive my own TRPG experiences feel.  While there are some sessions that are gold, these are maybe one out of four.  More likely its driving over an hour to get to the game, waiting up to an hour for everyone to show up, social talk and order pizza, and only three hours of TRPG, with much of it spent trying to keep the players on track or having them deal with a resource issue.




I've found that by planning for social time it makes everything go a lot smoother.  If you game at six, plan to get together to eat and hang out, maybe play a card game or video games or something.  Then when its time to game, you can game!



> If anything, I'd like to see a change in mindset about how TRPGs are run, beginning with giving players an  overview of the adventure (tonight you're going to go to a castle and kill a vampire) and shrinking character management with tools to minimize valuable play time.  Maybe TRPGs should be more like board games where there are pre-set paths to travel and player options fit on one card.  I didn't like the board game Descent, but maybe there are some things that game offers that should be considered.




I don't know if it needs to go down that far.  You can also have asynchronous rules.  Cinematic Unisystem, what I'm running now, has a fairly complete character rule system.  But the bad guys can be put on a quick sheet, and can effectively be run with just a half-dozen numbers.  This'll fit on a 3x5 card easily.  This lets the game be run fast and loose while giving the players plenty of options.

As I was reading through my blog again when digging up the link, I thought maybe I could put something more formal together, like a scene creation form.  Establish the set, the conflict that is explored, and the characters involved.  Simple, but might be effective.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 14, 2007)

meomwt said:
			
		

> Perhaps we also need to look at how many people have played an MMORPG then moved on to tabletop gaming as a result?





My current gaming group has 4 members who started with crpgs and now play trpgs too.  They haven't moved on, but play both WoW and D&D.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.




Perhaps you should check your own level of medication.

Do you realize that Mongoose produces a lot more rpg products than just for D&D?  They make Conan, Runequest, and soon Traveller just to name a few.  In a few years, they could easily be the number 2 or 3 rpg company.

And since he runs the company and knows exactly how much they sell, I don't doubt what he says one bit.  It's much more likely that Ryan's numbers are off.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 14, 2007)

> The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not “play a role”. The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”.




I think that depends on who you ask.  As mentioned in prior posts on this thread, different people play RPGs for different reasons.  Some like character builds, some are story or character-focused, some like world-building, and so on and so forth.

I guess the question to ask is what common theme links all these types of gamers together in the same hobby?  Is it that one hobby has something to offer for many people?  Is it just the spirit of adventure?

Personally, I think TSR's old tag-line of "products of your imagination" needs to make a comeback.  To me, that's the selling point of RPGs.  You can use your imagination to create characters (builds or story), create adventures, tell a story, and so forth.  That's your common theme.  That's what sets apart RPGs from computer games.  The players and GM build the world and are the ones in charge, not some computer program.  The limits are, literally, that of the imagination.




> Therefore, I think we need to engage in metamorphosis from “roleplaying games” to “storytelling games”. And in that change lies the seeds of our success.




I think you're on the right track, though perhaps not in the way you were thinking.

I work at an ad agency who is very big into relevance.  We're also very big into brand identity.  What we're facing right now is whether or not RPGs are relevant to a young audience who has card games and computer games.  As an industry, we could stand to have some new identity.  Personally, I think a good ad agency could do wonders for WotC, which in turn would do wonders for the industry as a whole.

Redefine what a role-playing game is.  Don't shy away from it being a geeky thing, because these days, being a geek is almost a badge of honor.  Give a new face to RPGs.  Show how it has its own niche.  Show what it can do that other RPGs can't.

Advertising, advertising, advertising!  Part of what makes the trading card games so popular is that they have cartoons doing the advertising for them.  My son loves Yu-Gi-Oh even though the plot is the same from episode to episode.  When was the last time there was a TV commercial for D&D?  The 80's?  WotC needs to tap into the Hasbro advertising budget and pimp their products in appropriate avenues.  Sci-Fi channel and Cartoon Network are great avenues.  How about some of the podcasts that Farpoint Media puts out?  Maybe the smaller companies won't have the budget for this, but again, WotC can blaze a trail and the results will trickle down to other companies as well.  The industry as a whole benefits.

Redefinition of our identity coupled with proper advertising is what our industry needs.  Get the word out and pimp that identity, and the rest will fall into place.

(All in my all-so-humble opinion, of course!     )


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 14, 2007)

I was just struck by a thought about perception of gamers.  

When MMORPGs were growing, the image that came to most people's heads when you mentioned online gaming was some guy up all night in his parents basement.  Not a flattering image.  Today if you mention those online gaming, you are more likely to come up with an image of people comfortable in their living room using their XBox or sitting in a front of a nice computer with soft lighting while playing WoW or Second Life.  The image has been shifted from an odd hobby played by odd people, to one of general entertainment.  

Another example would be poker.  Used to be poker evoked images of beer-swilling guys in the garage or seedy games in a dark room.  Now people get the images from the TV poker tournaments.  That image is much more flattering now than it used to be.

There has been no such shift in TRPGs.  The only image that comes to most people's heads is four or five people around a table with odd looking dice talking and acting strange.  Forget changing the game, we need to change the image.  Maybe we need a "reality" TV show.

Cast with attractive people playing RPGs in a warmly lit room without a lot of clutter, they sit in comfortable chairs each with a small side table for some of their things while focused on the more "roleplaying" aspects.  When it is time for combat, the GM (who is the show's host and must of course be very attractive, possibly a well-known personality) says, "Let's shift to the table." or something.  Music builds the tension and everyone moves to a large table that looks like it would belong in an executive conference room.  There the tactical part of the game takes place.  The show adds somewhat blurry cut scenes evoking images of what is happening as the players describe it, but does not directly show the characters - an arm with a sword flashing towards some screaming beast, a hand raised and flames shoot forth etc.  Good editing of course allows much more to happen in each episode than would in a normal hour of gaming.  Each week a player is eliminated for poor roleplaying, poor tactical playing or poor teamwork.  Behind the scenes shots give you a chance to meet the players, see them interacting socially with each other, confessional scenes etc.  On the shows website, the story as played out on the show is transcribed into a narrative tale.​
It could work.  At the least it can't do any more damage than the D&D movies.


----------



## heirodule (Aug 14, 2007)

Something RPGs don't do as well anymore, or could do better.

I was noticing this playing Lego Star Wars II with my kids, and reflecting on other FPSs I've played that had a similar game structure.

"secrets"

You have to figure out where the minikits are, and when you get them, it unlocks certain other chrome benefits.


In D&D there were secret doors, sometimes only discovered by meticulous mapping. 

I play alot of RPGA games, and the "secrets" are usually not as well structured or  "rewarded" as in oldtime D&D or as in these FPSs or Lego Star Wars.

The DM has a role in this, as they're the ones responsible for putting in the secrets and also they usually feel bad if the players "miss" them, and there isn't a "lets replay the level and look for all the secrets this time"

I wonder how to get teh secret-hunting feel mroe into D&D.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I think you should listen to him.  He seems to have hit the nail on the head to where my own personal thoughts have been moving and why WOTC has slowly been pushing me to look at older editions of D&D again.
> 
> Current D&D seems to sacrifice story for rules.





How many books do you need to own in order to write a story and read it to your players?

Keep RPG's a GAME. The story is what happened at the table. Not what you crammed down your players throats.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 14, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Of course, there's very little relation between the number of people *playing* TRPGs vs. the number of people *buying* them.
> 
> Ryan




A group only needs one PHB to operate, if that. We have 2, out of 5 regular players, and another group of 2 people who join us from time to time. Everyone who plays Magic needs cards. Also, pretty much everyone who plays magic needs NEW cards as they are produced to stay on their game. You hardly need the latest Complete X to be able to game. Then theres even more niche products, like Exemplars fo Evil and adventures, aimed squarely at DM's, who are a single person out of a group of several players.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 14, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> And the sooner that 'railroading' loses this ridiculous extreme-end-of-the-spectrum connotation that it seems to have acquired, the happier I'll be. Different thread I guess.




I think gaming style is going to be relevant to any thread that discusses where the RPG hobby ought to go.  Folks are going to want the direction, and products created, to support their gaming style.  

"Railroading" does have an extreme connotation - the metaphor suggests it.  I don't think the metaphor is an appropriate one for something in the gray area of DM control of the situation.  It's like saying that the word "maniac" has acquired a ridiculous extreme-end-of-the-spectrum connotation.  Well...yea.  

"Story telling" puts in the mind of the DM a priority that IMO is at odds with what the game is about.  The traditional game has strong elements of "adjucating the situation" to it - rolling dice behind the screen, deciding on NPC reactions based on versimiltude, etc.  There are very few places, if any, in the core books where the assumption is that the DM will decide outcome based on his arbitrary notions of what makes for an interesting story, and yet that's what "story telling" denotes, and ultimately encourages.  

Deciding that the BBEG is an uncle of one of the PCs is NOT story telling - I don't have a problem with that.  It's the DMs job to define the elements the game world, and how they relate to each other - and choosing interesting elements with dramatic potential is fine.  As long as the DM doesn't determine how the events unfold by going beyond the rule set and versimiltude and just making up something that sounds good.

Granted, this is all gaming style opinion, but IMO it's at the core of what it means to develop the hobby in a direction because you first have to figure out what RPGs are all about.  If you want to use DnD as a story telling vehicle, or to teach math skills, or whatever then that's fine too in a broad sense - I'm just not going to advocate for that approach because ultimately it will create a product that I'm not interested in buying.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 14, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> RD's blog has got me thinking, as usual.




Me too. RD's right more often than he is wrong, and even when he's wrong he's worth thinking about.



> A lot of people *play* (not DM) D&D for the same reasons that people play MMO's: for socialising, avatar empowerment, strategic thinking and group strategic thinking.




Jeez, I can't think of a more apt description of my game group.

Our group is eight 30-something guys, almost all married, engaged, or partnered up; no kids. Various outside interests, a lot of sports, a lot of drinkin'. Typical guys. 

I don't think there are a lot of video gamers amongst them, so I have no idea how successful an MMO would be at pulling any of them away from my group.

Almost all are former D&D players from childhood. Why they played then, why they left, and why they came back, I don't know-- but I do know that our game sessions typically feature: socializing, avatar empowerment, strategic thinking, and group strategic thinking, in roughly that order.

Nobody-- _nobody_-- is here to tell a story. A good story that arises from one of our game sessions is a _fortunate circumstance_, at best, but certainly not the motivation for playing. 



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> That started to change with City of Heroes and accelerated with World of Warcraft.  I now believe the data shows strongly that WoW in particular appeals so powerfully to a certain subset of TRPG players that they are quitting tabletop gaming to play MMORPGs almost exclusively.  That segment is the *Power Gamer* group.
> 
> (A Power Gamer is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Tactical/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy playing a character that has a minimum of personality (often, this kind of person plays a character that is simply an extension of the player). This kind of player enjoys short, intense gaming experiences. The consequences of a failed action are minimized for this player, who will roll up a new character and return to the fray without much thought for the storyline implications of that action.)




I would describe myself and my players as Power Gamers-- but with personal investment in our Avatars. For as lightly as we take the game, nobody at the table takes the loss of our Avatar lightly. It sucks. It feels like "losing."

Interestingly enough to your point, I had one hardcore WoW player join my group, and he left almost immediately after his PC died (around 2nd level).

As a designer, I would focus on delivering that "alternate Power Gamer" experience-- rapid empowerment, meaningful decisions, strategic thinking-- with a "gritty" and consequential "game reality." That is why I maintain that D&D would be a better game if it focused on that portion of the game that most strongly delivers this kind of play: the Sweet Spot, roughly defined as levels 2-8. (1st level is that portion of play where the player becomes emotionally invested in the character, and so it falls outside the actual sweet spot of play.)

The best game prolongs or extends that sweet spot for the maximum real-time duration (measured in the number of game sessions moreso than in hours of play), because this delivers the longest social aspect of the game.


----------



## Virel (Aug 14, 2007)

*Ramble by Gamer w/30+ years of wargames, D&D, AD&D etc*

Interesting stuff to read & and good blog to inspire thought. I don't think we have to have a revolutionary new game concept to save the hobby. We do need a revolution in what's passing for D&D these days.

I apologize in advance but this is the only way I know how to demonstrate my point. I like the folks on the board, I don't want to make you guys mad or get banned etc. I would like to share my input on this stuff.

I've been DMing since 1981, played my first D&D in the late 70's, and I'm a die hard old school DM & player. If you enjoy playing and your friends do too, then it dosen't matter one bit if the whole RPG industry disappears tomorrow. My 1st ed AD&D is still going strong. There are a surprising number of the older games that are still in play or players return too. If you want the key to saving the future of these face to face games, I think the secret will be found in the older formats. 

I've played 3e and don't think much of it. The core idea is good. It wants to be like AD&D despite not having the A in the name. The designers tried very hard to get back to the basics. They also try to build an error proof system to protect players from bad DM's something AD&D, NEVER attempted. The result was a ton of crunchy rules. While some might like that, its not a selling point for most people. I'm ok with playing 3e, if I ignore the system inflicted bogs, it actually has some OAD&D feel to it when limited to core. I know the designers had the right vision in mind...

Before that starts a flame war, it's due to the prep time, tons of rules that slow the game pace, lack of inspiring text, stale ideas, excessive political correctness. It just like the reading primers in public school. They kill the magic of reading and don't inspire, so no one wants to read.

The most important book, is always the PHB, if it can't inspire players and DM's to dream, the game has two strikes against it. The 3e & 3.5e PHB's are good for inspiring bordom because of the way the are written. I hate WotC's version of the PHB, DMG, & MM because they are written in such a dumbed down manner. Guys get someone that actually knows how to write!

*Rules Light and quick to pick up and play. - The current version is a total failure at this. * 

I learned to play by reading the old books back in the day. No one showed me. When I started looking at 3e, I was told dozens of times, you'll need someone to show you how to play. 

Talk about a self imposed barrier to the hobby!

I think what players want, is the same today as it's always been. It's about *Ego Gradification*. It takes different forms etc but that's the core. The question becomes, how is that provided with a game. Or more specifically, how does a pencil and paper (ok table top) game beat World of Warcraft or whatever at Ego Gradication. Yes, you have to beat WoW for a player niche if you want commerical stuff to be around ten years from now.

Pretty simple really, IMHO.

A Players gets the Ego Gradified by having his or her character involved in a personalized, non-linear set of events designed by someone else (DM) that is related to the character so that the player can interact with and effect the direction and outcome of the said events.

The game event has to say, the player and his or her character matter! You make a difference!

I apologize in advance but this is the only way I know how to demonstrate my point.

*So you want to grow the number of players and sell books and other stuff?*

I've turned players away from my AD&D game because I don't have space. Some of them are 3e players that can't find a game. Often they will rant about how bad AD&D is and how it sucks for a while and how if I had a clue and wasn't some silly old fool, I'd be running 3e.  

Back when I had spaced, I'd offer them a chance to play. Most of them took it, seemed to have and wanted to play again. They'd come around in time to just maybe AD&D didn't suck so bad after all. Giving them a free old AD&D PHB, usually won my campaign a new player. Several got inspired and wanted to switch back, saying if they DM'd again they be running and older D&D variant. Three got into wanting to learning to DM - old school formats. The one that had DM'd 3e game said he wouldn't run it again, he was going old school from here on out.  

All three of them branched out into running their version of AD&D in time. I've lost contact with them but I think that's very interesting because two of them wouldn't touch even trying to DM 3e!

My offensive point is the game (all formats) lives of dies based on having a good fair motivated DM.

While 3e might protect from the bad DM, it's not going to make a bad DM a good one. It trades insperation for protection. Games don't grow without insperation.

What needs to happen is a new rules light version of the game. WotC needs suck it up and get someone like EGG or EGG himself to write the books in an inspiring way to put the text magic back into the game. The other part, if you want this stuff to grow is start training DM's. Bad DM's have killed more games and ruined more interest than about anything else in the history of the game IMO. Training is something companies hate to do but teaching the core concepts of how to DM effectively is the key. It's not just the rules thing but how to be fair, how to look at a situation, how to think like a DM, when to be die hard BY THE BOOK and when to throw the BOOK out the window in the game of fun and surprise. Printing another stupid book like DMG II isn't want I'm talking about. 

Face to Face classes or DM classes over the internet. I know I'd pay for that and I'm an old school DM, whos 1st ed AD&D campaign that started in 1981 is running in 2007. Heck, I'd pay for the DM class, even if it was all 3.5 because I know I can always learn more about effective DMing.

I did have a few years off but 20 years + and counting for my AD&D game. 

I wouldn't pay ten cents for a complete set of all the stupid poorly written books that WotC has. 

Fix the DM issue & the lousy non-inspiring books and face to face, paper and pencil games will grow again.


----------



## Ry (Aug 14, 2007)

The story is the thing that happens after the game, because of the situations that the the DM and players created together.  The game itself has a big impact on what that story is like.  In that way, roleplaying games are about creating stories.  

I don't think Ryan Dancey really disagrees with what I just wrote.  

I do think that the above shows "storytelling games" is at least as much of a misnomer as "roleplaying games."  We tell stories from our game experiences where we took roles.  I don't think there's a good word in the English language for X, where Xgames succinctly describes our hobby.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 14, 2007)

FWIW, I think the movie industry is dying a slow death, too.  I mean, for two adults, I'll spend $18 at the theater to watch something that will be out on DVD in 3 months, which I can purchase for that much, if not less. That doesn't include the cost of gas and popcorn.

I don't see how the theater industry is a sustainable model.  It seems to be, but I can't see it lasting forever, honestly.  How can it?


It also seems to me that MMORPGs are offering the same kind of value that home theater systems are offering - cheaper, more bang for the buck, more versatility.  The same reason CDs are going to eventually go the way of the dinosaur - people now buy individual MP3s to get exactly the songs they want. Radio is also dying - people want choices, they want personalized entertainment. 


I think some folks have the idea - D&D needs to be multiple kinds of games if it is to succeed. Firstly, it HAS to be simpler. One should be able to open a box/book, roll characters, and be ready to play in about 30 minutes, tops.  I'd really be interested in seeing a "group study" of teenagers who were not familiar with the game at all, handed dice, a PHB, and a DMG, and told "play a game. You have 4 hours."  I think for WoTC, it would be a HORRIBLE wake-up call.

In fact, I might even be tempted to do such a thing myself.  Just to illustrate the point.


----------



## Virel (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge is on the mark, personalized entertainment based around your character, that's the key.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I'd really be interested in seeing a "group study" of teenagers who were not familiar with the game at all, handed dice, a PHB, and a DMG, and told "play a game. You have 4 hours."  I think for WoTC, it would be a HORRIBLE wake-up call.




Yeah. I see your point. But to be honest... D&D has the product for beginners. D&D Basic set  Which would do the job nicely in 4 hours, I belive. The problem is, when you or anybody decide to begin with the game, he will not be offered this (in most cases) but PHB instead.


----------



## Ry (Aug 14, 2007)

Virel said:
			
		

> personalized entertainment based around your character, that's the key.




Don't forget the DM!


----------



## JDJblatherings (Aug 14, 2007)

I have a problem with buyign any of his reasoning because of the TV and film metaphor he uses:

"Cinemas gave the audience something that TV could not:  Spectacle.  Gigantic panoramic images and thundering multidirectional sound.  Scaling the TV experience up to the cinema experience took nearly 50 years (and still hasn’t fully succeeded). "


uh...pardon me...TV came AFTER the Cinema.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> I have a problem with buyign any of his reasoning because of the TV and film metaphor he uses:
> 
> "Cinemas gave the audience something that TV could not:  Spectacle.  Gigantic panoramic images and thundering multidirectional sound.  Scaling the TV experience up to the cinema experience took nearly 50 years (and still hasn’t fully succeeded). "
> 
> ...




Initially, cinema filled the role of TV - perhaps you've seen some of those early "propaganda" reels about WWII during the 40s. 

TV came along, and cinema had to redefine itself - and it has, as the big budget, spectacle of entertainment that we get today. TV can't afford the multi-million dollar budgets that a movie like Transformers gets. Also, it takes years to make a movie, so a TV audience wouldn't want to wait nearly that long for the next "show" to come along. Dancey's point is that TVs are just now catching up to the kind of big spectacle entertainment that movies provide - people are building their own home theater systems, wide screen, high definition TVs, etc. For some folks (who can afford to do so), watching a movie at home is almost every bit as a good as the theater.  When you can recreate the experience, the value proposition becomes diluted, and the theater no longer has a viable business model. There's no longer any significant differentiation - that's the key.

The day MMORPGs allow people to modify the campaign world, and go where they want, and do what they want, and interact with the environment in a nearly infinite amount of ways, tabletop RPGs will die.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> uh...pardon me...TV came AFTER the Cinema.




So what? Do you think, Ryan Dancey doesn't know that? Why the hell did he wrote this than?



> In the 1950s the cinema industry was confronted by their worst nightmare.  Technology, in the form of the television, threatened to destroy the value proposition embodied in their theaters.  If people could watch movies at home, why would anyone bother to go out to the movies?




The analogy is perfect. Computer games also came AFTER the tabletop RPGs. The fact is, the it has changed the situation. Do you go to the cinema to watch news? I doubt it. Yet it was common, when there was no TV. Instead cinemas improved the experience they offer... (sound, 3D etc. and make artifical "hype" for why it is good to go to cinema instead of sitting home watching TV). Got it?


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 14, 2007)

Well, I'm generally leery of all attemts to rename things for the sake of public relations (Is there a person alive who doesn't roll their eyes when they recognize they're being fed a euphemism?), but if we're gonna go an do that, I think "storytelling games" is even more unwieldy than "roleplaying games" (to say nothing of the obvious White Wolf connection, however unintentional).  I'd prefer to just go with "story games".


----------



## Woas (Aug 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The future of TRPGs:
> 
> 1. Kill the story....
> 
> ...




What you have written reflect my sentiments as well. Especially about the chart and importance of sales. I consider myself an "active member" of the TRPG community. I stay up-to-date on news, products, events and going-ons. But to be honest I could go several YEARS without buying an RPG book! And I have. In 2007 (around April/May) I found out about Iron Heroes and purchased a bunch of IH books. But before that, my previous RPG book purchase was nearly three years ago in 2004!
Maybe people like me are in the minority... I have no way of knowing that. But my purchasing trends are reflected in my gaming group so I must not be the only one.
The thing is though that I get fringe/accessory items like its a drug. All those little do-dads and game-aid items over on Paizo and elsewhere. I can't get enough! And that is why you're message reflects my views.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 14, 2007)

_Creative Empowerment-Roleplaying Spectrum Disorder Games_


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> uh...pardon me...TV came AFTER the Cinema.




He's referring to how cinema had to change once TV came on the scene.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I think that depends on who you ask.  As mentioned in prior posts on this thread, different people play RPGs for different reasons.  Some like character builds, some are story or character-focused, some like world-building, and so on and so forth.




And Ryan touches on that.



> Some participants want to play roles, and that’s fine.  Others want to provide narrative structure.  Still others want to create systems for interaction and adjudication.  And another group wants to generate environments.  All of these people need to be made co-equal for the hobby to succeed long term.




I do think he leaves out the tactical player.  Perhaps it's because he feels that can be served by WoW better and TRPGs won't be able to compete at that level.  Yes, there are a lot of tactical types playing D&D, but I'll be a large number of them like the other elements as well as the tactical element they enjoy.

A lot of discussion here seems to be hung up on Ryan's choice of "storytelling game."  I think his main point isn't that it's an ideal name, but that we need a new name.  

1)  "Playing a role" isn't the primary entertainment value of RPGs.

2)  "Roleplaying game" as a term has a lot of baggage.  I will argue that "D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are even more closely associated with the same stigmas.

Don't like "storytelling games" as a term?  Suggest another.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I think some folks have the idea - D&D needs to be multiple kinds of games if it is to succeed. Firstly, it HAS to be simpler. One should be able to open a box/book, roll characters, and be ready to play in about 30 minutes, tops.  I'd really be interested in seeing a "group study" of teenagers who were not familiar with the game at all, handed dice, a PHB, and a DMG, and told "play a game. You have 4 hours."  I think for WoTC, it would be a HORRIBLE wake-up call.
> 
> In fact, I might even be tempted to do such a thing myself.  Just to illustrate the point.




On the latest version of the WOTC D&D Podcast Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan mention watching a group of kids during a test group. They mention that the kids got almost everything wrong ruleswise, but they got the general gist of it and waaaaaay more importantly THEY HAD FUN. 

My point? Rules mastery or even rules comprehension doesn't come overnight. I've learned and run everything from the red box basic to champions to mekton to D&D 3.5. and at some point during each one of those learning processes I've gotten something wrong at least twice or thrice. AT LEAST. I know nerds and geeks love the idea of perfection, but I'm one of those nerds who live in the real world and in the real world? The map is NOT the territory. 

D&D doesn't HAVE to be simpler. It can be, but I know of 11 -13 year olds who have winged the rules until they had a decent working comprehension of them and to me there's nothing wrong with that. In the real world it's how some of us actually learn. Not by memorizing material and playing back on command but through trial and error and learning RPG's is no different. Ive found that the ones who stick with it usually have a pretty good handle on the rules in the long run.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't like "story telling game" - reminds me too much of railroading, and if I wanted railroading and limited options I'd go with a MMORPG.






> This makes story telling pretty much impossible because *there's no story to tell until after the action is over* and at that point folks are probably to busy declaring actions for the next round of events.




One of the strongest GMs in this area is unabashedly a storytelling GM.  However, he strongly believes that "dice tell the story."  He can name large numbers of dramatic storytelling moments that happened because of a random die roll.  Entire plot lines he had planned for that were useless because of a die roll or player choice, yet the story was stronger for those rolls and choices.

He would modify your statement to "the story isn't done until after the action is over."  However, he would consider those actions and random elements to be part of the story, while it's happening.


----------



## TheCrazyMuffinMan (Aug 14, 2007)

I see a philosophical lean not unlike D&D alignments here:

First, we have Tactics vs. Immersion (Priorities)

Then, we have Form vs. Content (Methods)

Those on the side of Tactics would want to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

Those on the side of Immersion would rather immerse themselves in the world, [edit 8/14, 2:49]or alternatively[/edit] live through their character.

Those on the side of Form would approach things from the perspective of the medium, rather than the message. Anyone familiar with Marshall McLuhan knows what I'm talking about.

Those on the side of Content would approach things from the perspective of gaming content, and put formal issues on the backburner unless the situation specifically called for them.

The purest form of Tactics/Form mentality will likely lean towards Munchkin, WoW and the like, due to preconceived notions of the types of game. They will probably focus on levels, xp, and the like exclusively when playing D&D, and they will likely run characters not QUITE like Pun-Pun, but definitely in the same spirit of optimization. Those really interested in pushing the rules of the game to the very limit, in an attempt to come as close to "winning" as one can, ideally as soon as possible, would be Tactics/Form.

The purest form of Immersion/Form mentality will likely lean towards Vampire the Masquerade and other obvious immersive games, and freely invoke Rem's Law whenever tactical issues are prioritized. They would think very little of the mechanics and much more of their character. They don't let the dice get "in the way of" interacting with the D&D world. Ryan Dancey seems to be channeling this alignment in the OP, albeit more realistically then my purist hypothetical version of the I/F mindset.

The purest form of Tactics/Content mentality will lean towards freeform games and classless ones like Shadowrun, and they would be fond of the mechanical aspects of any game, regardless of medium, and it would likely approach D&D as a specific challenge to building a really good character, and work with the system in order to create a character as good as possible for a certain situation (be it diplomatic, combative, stealth, or anything of the sort.) They would want to aid the party by fulfilling their character's archetype to the best of their ability. Ryan Stoughton's E6, which is all about mechanical balance within an existing ruleset, while maintaining the big picture, has shades of T/C.

The purest form of Immersion/Content mentality will likely lean towards many CRPGs, or d20 variants based on existing popular fiction, and they will prioritize their character and their setting, but they won't constrain themselves in either. Many of these would probably want to introduce a crossover character (like a Keyblade Knight) into D&D, and see how a crossover character's mentality would fit in the context of the campaign. IC
Dungeonmasters could easily lean towards outside inspiration for their segments. The Lunar fan who wants to introduce a Dragonmaster PrC is an example of Immersion/Content mentality.

As you can imagine, one can be neutral toward either, or both. I would be considered either Tactics/Content or Neutral/Content, depending on whether I'm playing or mastering. As a player, I am TC nearly all the way. As a DM and a designer, I swing both ways with regards to priorities (T/I). Overall, I would be NC because I can easily go one way or the other if required.


----------



## AstroCat (Aug 14, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Maybe we just need a new name for it?  Call it "Collective tabletop non-electronic blogging" or something full of popular buzzwords.
> 
> Still, I think a lot of the stigma is not necessarily stuck to roleplaying, but D&D itself. For instance,  D&D Tactics is due out for the PSP this week, and just about every review of it used the terms "nerd" or "geek" or some variant.  Which you don't usually see when it's a conversion of some other p&p RPG (though not that there are many of those, these days).




Interesting I've been following the development of D&D Tactics and I've actually never seen nerd or geek come up... hhhmmm Either way, I might be a geek, but I'm not a nerd.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

TheCrazyMuffinMan said:
			
		

> Those on the side of Story would rather immerse themselves in the world, and live through their character.




I consider these different things.  A storytelling player* is one who wants to have dramatic events happen.  Typically they prefer the cinematic devices including foreshadowing, climax, etc.  They want to look back at the game and see the story the group told together.

The "roleplaying" player (I think "character immersion" player is probably a less confusing term) is the one who wants to immerse himself in his character and the world.  

They tend to be closely related, and usually player that fits one type has elements of the other.  However, I find that each type dislikes things the other type does.  For example, the "character immersive" type will do what he feels his character will do, often to the detriment of the group story.  The storytelling player tends to get irritated by this and considers it selfish behavior.

* I'm not using this term as one excluding DMs.  DMs are playing at the table as well.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.




I was going to ignore this.  Then I was going to make a comment about the accuracy of this evidence being in the same ballpark as the first post, but others beat me to that.

Instead, I'll explain my post.

Mongoose brings in. . . a 'few'. . . million a year (it is a little few, not a big few ).  It doesn't really matter if you believe that or not, but you should consider that we have 24 full-time employees, 3000 sq. ft. of offices in the UK, a miniatures production facility in the US, and we are still bringing in new licences.  We just brought in about half a million's Dollars worth of printing equipment so we can avoid the inevitable route to China.  Despite games like A Call to Arms and Battlefield Evolution, the majority of that is built on RPGs.

Now, our income is in Pound Sterling and, of course, the majority of our revenue is from wholesale.  So, double a few million to change it into Dollars and, well, see where I am going?

_This_ is why I keep saying the RPG industry is not dying a death.  I feel like a voice in the wilderness at times but, from where we are sitting, things are perky!


----------



## TheCrazyMuffinMan (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I consider these different things.  A storytelling player* is one who wants to have dramatic events happen.  Typically they prefer the cinematic devices including foreshadowing, climax, etc.  They want to look back at the game and see the story the group told together.
> 
> The "roleplaying" player (I think "character immersion" player is probably a less confusing term) is the one who wants to immerse himself in his character and the world.
> 
> ...




Good point. Perhaps I could replace the 'and' in the post you're quoting to 'or'? 

Both types are looking at it from the view of the setting. However, the ways they handle it are quite a bit apart. There are Lawful/Neutral disagreements too.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Aug 14, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> So what? Do you think, Ryan Dancey doesn't know that? Why the hell did he wrote this than?
> 
> 
> 
> The analogy is perfect. Computer games also came AFTER the tabletop RPGs. The fact is, the it has changed the situation. Do you go to the cinema to watch news? I doubt it. Yet it was common, when there was no TV. Instead cinemas improved the experience they offer... (sound, 3D etc. and make artifical "hype" for why it is good to go to cinema instead of sitting home watching TV). Got it?





the analogy is awful.  TV whomped film and sure the film industry survives...DVD sales for home TV viewing keep it afloat and is where the future profit growth is for the film industry.


----------



## Mark (Aug 14, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> On the latest version of the WOTC D&D Podcast Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan mention watching a group of kids during a test group. They mention that the kids got almost everything wrong ruleswise, but they got the general gist of it and waaaaaay more importantly THEY HAD FUN.





This sort of thinking always felt like a poor rationalization to me.  It makes an excuse for an awkward product by inferring that a product that was understood and properly played might not have been fun and therefore well-enough should be left alone.  It leads to a situation where the awkward product, which might not actually be any fun once properly learned, can actually drive away the players in the long term.  I want players who understand what they are doing *and* having fun.  If having fun is more important than other factors, then I counter that understanding *and* having fun is MOST important, and that settling for less is a doomed strategy.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

TheCrazyMuffinMan said:
			
		

> Good point. Perhaps I could replace the 'and' in the post you're quoting to 'or'?



Sorry, you hit a pet peeve of mine and I got distracted 



> Both types are looking at it from the view of the setting. However, the ways they handle it are quite a bit apart. There are Lawful/Neutral disagreements too.




Well, Ryan did point out we need "all of these people need to be made co-equal for the hobby to succeed long term."  I think that is an important point.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Aug 14, 2007)

The farther we get into 3.x the more I think that maybe TSR didn't fragment its market so much as it is the nature of the RPG market to fragment.

While players might come together long enough to learn a new edition they eventually drift off to continue the search for their own individually distinct 'perfect' game.  Splinters and pieces.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> TV whomped film and sure the film industry survives...DVD sales for home TV viewing keep it afloat and is where the future profit growth is for the film industry.




One can sell system of tabletop game to PC RPG market. Or can license the setting. See Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic and so on. Try harder.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> the analogy is awful.  TV whomped film and sure the film industry survives...DVD sales for home TV viewing keep it afloat and is where the future profit growth is for the film industry.



Perhaps you should reread the middle blog entry of Ryan's.  He's not really talking about today, he's talking about the 50's.

In the 50's movies were in trouble and less "relevant" because people could stay home and see it on TV.  Movies had to reinvent themselves to remain viable.  RPGs have reached a point where they are less "relevant" to many people because MMORPGs give them what they want with a better experience.  So now tabletop RPGs have to reinvent themselves if they want to remain "relevant."

Of course, even Ryan admits that it's an imperfect analogy.  The point remains, however.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 14, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> This sort of thinking always felt like a poor rationalization to me.  It makes an excuse for an awkward product by inferring that a product that was understood and properly played might not have been fun and therefore well-enough should be left alone.  It leads to a situation where the awkward product, which might not actually be any fun once properly learned, can actually drive away the players in the long term.  I want players who understand what they are doing *and* having fun.  If having fun is more important than other factors, then I counter that understanding *and* having fun is MOST important, and that settling for less is a doomed strategy.





Didja bother reading the rest of my post, because it was kinda supposed to be taken in context.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Aug 14, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> One can sell system of tabletop game to PC RPG market. Or can license the setting. See Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic and so on. Try harder.




oh the PC and video game market? The video game market has trumped the film market. A TV toy considered a fad initially has grown into an industry larger then film. Notice it's computer/video game companies buying the licenses  and doign somehtign with them and not film companies?


It's their nature as games that will allow RPGs to survive not their capacity to challenge an industry that has already surpassed it many times over in sales.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should reread the middle blog entry of Ryan's.  He's not really talking about today, he's talking about the 50's.
> 
> In the 50's movies were in trouble and less "relevant" because people could stay home and see it on TV.  Movies had to reinvent themselves to remain viable.  RPGs have reached a point where they are less "relevant" to many people because MMORPGs give them what they want with a better experience.  So now tabletop RPGs have to reinvent themselves if they want to remain "relevant."
> 
> Of course, even Ryan admits that it's an imperfect analogy.  The point remains, however.




Theater is still here. It didn't reinvent itself. TV and film long since suprassed that media in revenues and audience and yet it survives. 

Making games folks will play will keep the RPG/tabletop gaming industry alive.


----------



## Mark (Aug 14, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> As a designer, I would focus on delivering that "alternate Power Gamer" experience-- rapid empowerment, meaningful decisions, strategic thinking-- with a "gritty" and consequential "game reality." That is why I maintain that D&D would be a better game if it focused on that portion of the game that most strongly delivers this kind of play: the Sweet Spot, roughly defined as levels 2-8. (1st level is that portion of play where the player becomes emotionally invested in the character, and so it falls outside the actual sweet spot of play.)
> 
> The best game prolongs or extends that sweet spot for the maximum real-time duration (measured in the number of game sessions moreso than in hours of play), because this delivers the longest social aspect of the game.





This is another one of those designer axioms that has long bothered me.  While I do not disagree with the premise of a sweet spot, arguably of varying size and range depending on who is playing, I am not sure the heart of the problem is addressed if the goal is simply to stretch the sweet spot.  It, like another I pointed out in this thread, is a doomed strategy that never adequately addresses sweetening, if you will, the point of entry or the viability of long term play.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.




Moderator/

Belen, lose the attitude, or you leave the thread. Don't be rude to other posters.

Thanks


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> He would modify your statement to "the story isn't done until after the action is over."  However, he would consider those actions and random elements to be part of the story, while it's happening.




Well then, name something that's _not_ a story by that criteria.  Looking back on any interesting set of events will lead to the story.  IMO the more meaningful definition of story-telling is when you set out to create a series of events A-B-C-D that you think will produce an interesting result.  The problem is that engineering the result goes against the fundementals of the game - at least as it is currently defined (IMO there have been no substantial changes in this regard between ODnD and 3.5).  There's not a single rule in any edition that I know of that references "story" as a component to deciding on the outcome of an event.

I think every single person who plays DnD wants to run a game where the events are interesting enough and meaningful enough to create a story worth telling.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 14, 2007)

meomwt said:
			
		

> WoW may well have 9 million subscriptions, but that is a worldwide figure (RD's sales data for RPG's and CCG's are USA-based).



True.



> It also doesn't take into account how many people have played it for a little bit and given up



Explicitly _not_ true. The figures Blizzard release are only _current_ subscriptions, not all subscriptions ever.



> That seems to be a common phenomenon from what I understand.



Not really. People like to grouse that, but in pretty much every example, the company only releases current subscribers, since that's all they care about internally, for the most part.


----------



## Mark (Aug 14, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Didja bother reading the rest of my post, because it was kinda supposed to be taken in context.





Don't take it personally.  I am addressing the example from the podcast in your post and not your post as a whole.  The example from the podcast has a context of its own.  Quoting you is merely incidental to your having cited the example of the podcast previously in this thread.  As to your point, since you require my attention to it, I do not necessarily disagree but was not driven to comment on it.  The example of what was mentioned in the podcast or, more accurately, your impression of what was mentioned in the podcast, took my attention and echoed a sentiment I had observed previously and felt compelled to address.

My apologies for the confusion.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 14, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> To me, it seems more like current D&D gives you rules and lets you work out the story.



It's certainly never stopped me and my players from playing very story-driven stuff that's still very clearly D&D. See my Story Hour link for details.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 14, 2007)

TheCrazyMuffinMan said:
			
		

> Those on the side of Story would rather immerse themselves in the world, and live through their character.




I don't consider a story to be immersion.  I prefer to immersion to combat, yet I DON'T prefer being lock-stepped through a series of pre-determined events.  That is not an uncommon thing - I've encountered it once IRL while gaming and seen it somewhat often since on the internet.  Some people prioritize being able to control the direction the game goes, and they say they do this for the sake of the "story".  I wish there was some terminology to distinguish between my priorities and these other priorities.  IMO the "story" term should be dropped from my style of immersion, because I'm not looking to tell any kind of story - I'm looking to play around with elements of the game.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well then, name something that's _not_ a story by that criteria.  Looking back on any interesting set of events will lead to the story.  IMO the more meaningful definition of story-telling is when you set out to create a series of events A-B-C-D that you think will produce an interesting result.  The problem is that engineering the result goes against the fundementals of the game - at least as it is currently defined (IMO there have been no substantial changes in this regard between ODnD and 3.5).  There's not a single rule in any edition that I know of that references "story" as a component to deciding on the outcome of an event.




No, I think you are trying to pigeonhole storytelling as a railroad.  A better example would be to have a story tree with choices along the way (do you allow gollum to go with you or kick him to the curb? both have consequences).  

Of course, a good storytelling GM will be able to handle going off track.  What they really hate, though, are players deliberately trying to put the story off track ("Those ringwraiths are tough, I'll just give them the ring.")

Storytelling oriented players are pretty result oriented, and aren't necessarily "method" oriented.  If a good story comes out of the game it doesn't matter how it came about.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Aug 14, 2007)

emphasizing the "story telling" nature of RPGs is disaster if you ask me, look how much people like to sit at home with the family and friends and tell each other original stories...


it is the GAME nature of RPGs that really matters.


----------



## freebfrost (Aug 14, 2007)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> _This_ is why I keep saying the RPG industry is not dying a death.  I feel like a voice in the wilderness at times but, from where we are sitting, things are perky!



As an aside, I am glad to hear Mongoose is doing well... as long as you proofread Conan 2nd edtion that is...    

Is anyone else intrigued by the timing of these blogs by Ryan?  I find that on the eve of GenCon 40, with the "mysterious" WotC announcement, rumors of 4E, and the general feeling that something is in the air, Ryan comes out of the woodwork with these critiques...

Are you going to clue us in Ryan?  Inquiring minds want to know!


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 14, 2007)

AstroCat said:
			
		

> Interesting I've been following the development of D&D Tactics and I've actually never seen nerd or geek come up... hhhmmm Either way, I might be a geek, but I'm not a nerd.




The people who disdain gamers, are not going to make (or even recognize) that distinction.

-The Gneech


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 14, 2007)

Dancey's take on the decline of role-playing games confirms what Gary has said recently.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 14, 2007)

TheCrazyMuffinMan said:
			
		

> Question: There are many power gamers, many that have some of those conceptions of tabletop gaming. However, how many players are as one-sided about this approach as the hypothetical one in your post?




Of course I have no way to know for certain, but I've known entire gaming groups swallowed by WoW.  It gives them the experience they want, and they are often still with the same players, all fighting together over Teamspeak.

For what you're describing, there are just other games that offer that experience better than TRPG.


----------



## bento (Aug 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Theater is still here. It didn't reinvent itself.



Well cinema certainly did something in the past 57 years since it came under threat from television.  

For one thing the "star system" by which studios owned the actor and actress's contracts was abolished.  This allowed talent to go from one big picture to another.  Look at the movies many actors/actresses in the 1940s and 1950s were in.  It wasn't always one big picture after another.

A federal anti-trust suit in the late 1940s unteathered studios from the theater chains.  The need for studios to fill the theater pipeline with one to two new movies a week was dead.  Studios could now spend more on fewer pictures, rather than having to spend less on more.

Motion picture technology experimented and changed with wider screens and better audio.  Also a major shift away from black and white towards color.  These new technologies help usher in movies with much larger scope, such as Cleopatra and Lawrence of Arabia.  There's a level of technical quality that's just higher when comparing movies (as a whole) from the 1940s to those made in the 1960s.  

Hollywood moved away from the Hays Commission, which censored movies as if they were watched by the complete age spectrum, towards the current rating system.  This helped liberalize the types of stories which were being presented at the movies.  Movies offered more violence, sex, and adult situations than were available through standard broadcast television.

Since the 1970s it's been television that's been catching up with the movies.  The mini-series concept helped bring spectacle to the small screen, and cable television brought in some of the grittiness that standard syndicated programming was forced to stay away from.

Being "still here" doesn't necessarily mean "hasn't changed at all with the times."


----------



## TheCrazyMuffinMan (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't consider a story to be immersion.  I prefer to immersion to combat, yet I DON'T prefer being lock-stepped through a series of pre-determined events.  That is not an uncommon thing - I've encountered it once IRL while gaming and seen it somewhat often since on the internet.  Some people prioritize being able to control the direction the game goes, and they say they do this for the sake of the "story".  I wish there was some terminology to distinguish between my priorities and these other priorities.  IMO the "story" term should be dropped from my style of immersion, because I'm not looking to tell any kind of story - I'm looking to play around with elements of the game.





Given this, from several responders, I can and will rework the axes.

EDIT: In fact, I now have. Immersion better handles the dilemma you've stated. I hope this makes my alignment analogy more useful.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 14, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> the analogy is awful.  TV whomped film and sure the film industry survives...DVD sales for home TV viewing keep it afloat and is where the future profit growth is for the film industry.



Well, I disagree entirely with the first part of your statement ("analogy is awful"), but the 2nd part might hold something useful. Much of the film industry is surviving on DVD sales, so perhaps a similar method might be of use here. Maybe TRPGs could use the MMORPGs and computer/video games to support their own survival. Creating new IP/fluff/non-rules content/etc. in TRPGs is far easier and less expensive than doing it in the computer realm. So perhaps, TRPGs companies, at least the big ones, can survive by, for example, creating and refining settings through the roleplaying games, then leveraging that into the money making MMORPGs. 

Of course, as seen to some extent by D&D Online (and definitely the D&D movies *shudder*), it's not a guaranteed success, but using the "cheaper" TRPG realm to filter the creative ideas and then getting them into the potentially more profitable computer game realm (or even other media like TV and movies) would be a wise thing to consider. With the comic book industry being so hard to turn a profit in, I wouldn't be surprised if the movies are what's keeping Marvel afloat. Same thing here - create the Eberron video games, the Greyhawk movies, etc. and use those to fund the roleplaying games where the next great setting/character/etc. can arise to be exploited for fun and profit in other media.


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> FWIW, I think the movie industry is dying a slow death, too.  I mean, for two adults, I'll spend $18 at the theater to watch something that will be out on DVD in 3 months, which I can purchase for that much, if not less. That doesn't include the cost of gas and popcorn.
> 
> I don't see how the theater industry is a sustainable model.  It seems to be, but I can't see it lasting forever, honestly.  How can it?
> 
> ...




Not to mention how long it takes a DM to build NPCs. Especially NPCs over 5th level. What a headache!


----------



## Belen (Aug 14, 2007)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Mongoose brings in. . . a 'few'. . . million a year (it is a little few, not a big few ).  It doesn't really matter if you believe that or not, but you should consider that we have 24 full-time employees, 3000 sq. ft. of offices in the UK, a miniatures production facility in the US, and we are still bringing in new licences.  We just brought in about half a million's Dollars worth of printing equipment so we can avoid the inevitable route to China.  Despite games like A Call to Arms and Battlefield Evolution, the majority of that is built on RPGs.




I do not disagree that your total income equals a few million a year.  However, I was disagreeing with your implication that the RPGs were doing so.  Hell, the only store in our area that bought a Conan book has seen it sit on the shelf for 15 months.


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I think some folks have the idea - D&D needs to be multiple kinds of games if it is to succeed. Firstly, it HAS to be simpler. One should be able to open a box/book, roll characters, and be ready to play in about 30 minutes, tops.  I'd really be interested in seeing a "group study" of teenagers who were not familiar with the game at all, handed dice, a PHB, and a DMG, and told "play a game. You have 4 hours."  I think for WoTC, it would be a HORRIBLE wake-up call.
> 
> In fact, I might even be tempted to do such a thing myself.  Just to illustrate the point.




I believe they mentioned this exact setup on the last D&D podcast, and if I recall correctly, what they ended up with was... kids playing D&D 'wrong'... but having an insanely great time playing it.

And not a little wrong.  Like wrong on serious, fundamental levels.  But people loved the heck out of it.

I think the podcast they talk about this on is the second half of Mearls and Noonan answering from the e-mailbag.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> "Story telling" puts in the mind of the DM a priority that IMO is at odds with what the game is about.  The traditional game has strong elements of "adjucating the situation" to it - rolling dice behind the screen, deciding on NPC reactions based on versimiltude, etc.  There are very few places, if any, in the core books where the assumption is that the DM will decide outcome based on his arbitrary notions of what makes for an interesting story, and yet that's what "story telling" denotes, and ultimately encourages.




No no no.  This is not what I, and I'm certain the others on the pro-story side, are talking about.  I don't use a screen in any game that I run, I don't usually play at a table and even then I don't like having a barrier between me and the players.  Heck, the game I currently run the GM doesn't even roll dice!  A good game for story creating will give the players their own 'fudge points', so that if they think they really need to make that shot or avoid that blow or whatever they can do so.

Story creating gaming is most explicitly *NOT* deciding outcomes based on notions of what makes for an interesting story!  It is about deciding what conflicts and the pace of the game in the interest of making an interesting story.  

I know people have a hard time grasping that story based gaming doesn't have to be railroading.  Heck, I've posted my notes and then the results of the game to prove it before.  But just because you want to guide things into a intro-expo-climax-coda structure and push personal conflicts at the players does not mean you are railroading them.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I do not disagree that your total income equals a few million a year.  However, I was disagreeing with your implication that the RPGs were doing so.  Hell, the only store in our area that bought a Conan book has seen it sit on the shelf for 15 months.




In that case, you are completely right.  I apologise.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 14, 2007)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Mongoose brings in. . . a 'few'. . . million a year (it is a little few, not a big few ).  It doesn't really matter if you believe that or not, but you should consider that we have 24 full-time employees, 3000 sq. ft. of offices in the UK, a miniatures production facility in the US, and we are still bringing in new licences.  We just brought in about half a million's Dollars worth of printing equipment so we can avoid the inevitable route to China.  Despite games like A Call to Arms and Battlefield Evolution, the majority of that is built on RPGs.
> 
> Now, our income is in Pound Sterling and, of course, the majority of our revenue is from wholesale.  So, double a few million to change it into Dollars and, well, see where I am going?
> 
> _This_ is why I keep saying the RPG industry is not dying a death.  I feel like a voice in the wilderness at times but, from where we are sitting, things are perky!



Just curious, but are you willing to share, generally, the percent of sales that are US vs. UK vs. other country?

I just wonder if some disconnect between numbers and between anecdotal evidence of "gamers we know" or "stores nearby" might because you have a strong presence outside of the US, whereas at least with myself - "gamers I know" and "stores nearby" have actually very little presence outside of the US. 

And as skeptical as I am of Ryan's numbers as well, it's at least a methodical way to try and come to a number in an industry where sales numbers are typically quite secret (thanks, by the way, Matt, for sharing what info you have). One problem I see with his numbers is figuring that rounding the numbers up to more generous levels accounts for PDF sales and Amazon, etc. Not sure what the latest numbers are for PDF sales, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon sales are at least equal to FLGS sales across the industry. Throw in some chain bookstores as well (which, I don't *think* his numbers include), and the FLGS market is actually the minority of sales.

But, I have no numbers to back that, just some background having worked at Borders bookstores HQ as well as reasoned thinking. So I could be entirely wrong, of course. But I'm thinking it's a safe bet that Amazon sales are far, far larger than what Ryan is factoring at least for industry leaders like WotC. What would be interesting is if Scott could mention percent of D&D sales through Amazon vs. FGLS, etc. It could potentially shot a very large hole in Ryan's estimate.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 14, 2007)

Virel said:
			
		

> I've been DMing since 1981, played my first D&D in the late 70's, and I'm a die hard old school DM & player.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Fix the DM issue & the lousy non-inspiring books and face to face, paper and pencil games will grow again.





Heh.  I started playing and DMing on Christmas day, 1979.    Blue Box set.

I just wanted you to know that what you wrote didn't fall on entirely deaf ears.  I agree that the current edition is horribly designed for DMing, and that the game is made or broken by having good DMs.

RC


----------



## JDJblatherings (Aug 14, 2007)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Well, I disagree entirely with the first part of your statement ("analogy is awful"), but the 2nd part might hold something useful. Much of the film industry is surviving on DVD sales, so perhaps a similar method might be of use here. Maybe TRPGs could use the MMORPGs and computer/video games to support their own survival. Creating new IP/fluff/non-rules content/etc. in TRPGs is far easier and less expensive than doing it in the computer realm. So perhaps, TRPGs companies, at least the big ones, can survive by, for example, creating and refining settings through the roleplaying games, then leveraging that into the money making MMORPGs.
> ....





I had a hope that there would be some sort of cross industry support and promotion for D&D when Hasbro bought WoTC but it never materialized.  WoTc seemingly can't risk the expenditures and the whole situation is too small for Hasbro to put much concern into.
there has to be enough effort (and money) behind such an effort for it to work.


----------



## buzz (Aug 14, 2007)

Ryan Dancey's blog said:
			
		

> Therefore, I think we need to engage in metamorphosis from “roleplaying games” to “storytelling games”.  And in that change lies the seeds of our success.
> ...
> We seize the key differences between our format and the MMORPG:  Joint creativity, and the group dynamic, and we refocus the hobby on making those differences the centerpiece of the experience.



Already happening. 

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/
http://www.story-games.com/forums/
http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/
http://planet-sg.ogrecave.com/
http://community.livejournal.com/ige/
http://goplaynow.org/
http://www.ashcanfront.net/

That said...


			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> I think this is a horribly, horribly flawed view of why people play games *like D&D*.
> ...
> Ryan, you'll note that I didn't say that game replaces story for RPGs. I simply said that story isn't why people play RPGs. I don't think people play RPGs for the pure game experience, either. I think people play RPGs for a staggering number of reasons. To pin it on one specific motivator misses the entire point of RPGs.



I also agree with this. Transforming D&D into a Narrativist, shared-authority story-game (or railroaded "StoryTelling" game) is not going to save it. The tactical, Gamist thing that D&D does so well is a huge draw for, obviously, a whole lot of people. That MMORPGs and CRPGs are very good performers in this design space is simply a very unfortunate thing for D&D.

Ergo, assuming D&D can be saved at all, it's by emphasizing its strengths over its digital competitors. The creation of story, however, is _not_ one of those strengths.

I'm actually quite encouraged by Mearls' and Noonan's podcast, as well as the "Design & Development" article series on the WotC. I think it's very apparent that the team at WotC understands the tactical, Gamist appeal that's at the core of D&D, and they're working hard to make D&D do that as well, and as easily, as it possibly can, ideally in ways that MMORPGs/CRPGs don't.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 14, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> Don't take it personally.  I am addressing the example from the podcast in your post and not your post as a whole.  The example from the podcast has a context of its own.  Quoting you is merely incidental to your having cited the example of the podcast previously in this thread.  As to your point, since you require my attention to it, I do not necessarily disagree but was not driven to comment on it.  The example of what was mentioned in the podcast or, more accurately, your impression of what was mentioned in the podcast, took my attention and echoed a sentiment I had observed previously and felt compelled to address.
> 
> My apologies for the confusion.




Yeah, didn't mean for my response to come out harshly at all and I didnt take it personally. No harm no foul, its just that I meant for the whole thing to be taken in context. Youre right about the podcast quote, but even then I pulled the quote out of it's original context which was part of a mail bag Q & A thing they were doing. 

No apologies needed D00d.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 14, 2007)

[cheeky mode]Just maybe the industry should embrace "role-playing games" and try to demonstrate why CRPGs are _not_ role-playing games.[/cheeky mode]


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 14, 2007)

_Radio is also dying - people want choices, they want personalized entertainment. _

And yet... Dallas radio was shook up by the invasion of Jack FM. The basic format is "songs people like" with little or no genre restrictions, no celebrity DJs, no requests. It's like someone put 300 awesome songs on a computer and hit random play. Yet it rolled over the other stations like a juggernaut.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> No, I think you are trying to pigeonhole storytelling as a railroad.  A better example would be to have a story tree with choices along the way (do you allow gollum to go with you or kick him to the curb? both have consequences).




I would hazard a guess that 99% of the population (non RPG'ers as well) would not recognize your definition of story telling.  Story telling is when someone sits down and tells you something that happens - A to Z.  There's no aspect of audience choice in conventional story telling.  A movie, or book that tells a story - you read it, it tells you what happens.  The problem with conflating what you're talking about with story telling is that people don't really preserve choices a lot of times in story telling gaming.  They *don't* accept the fact that you may or may not side with gollum, for example.  

I could point to any given instance of this on this board - PC death for example:  your PC died, get over it and make up a new one.  but NO, the DM had his heart set on that particular PC because he had all these events and stuff mapped out.  That's the railroad aspect of story telling - rather than being prepared to handle events, the DM instead has a preference about what they should be, and the real choice that players have in the game is proportionately diminished.



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> Of course, a good storytelling GM will be able to handle going off track.  What they really hate, though, are players deliberately trying to put the story off track ("Those ringwraiths are tough, I'll just give them the ring.")




And IMO this is where the chinks in the story telling armor start to appear.  "Players deliberately strying to put the story off track" ????  Remember - the story is something (supposedly) that happens AFTER the events, then how can they pull the events "off the track".  Don't the events create the track?  



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> Storytelling oriented players are pretty result oriented, and aren't necessarily "method" oriented.  If a good story comes out of the game it doesn't matter how it came about.




This seems to be to contradict your example of players pulling the story off track.  The players decide to give the ringwraiths the ring, for example.  Now the ringwraiths having the ring IS the story - so why would a DM have an opinion that that's a bad thing?  Because the DM is really engineering the result and claiming not to - otherwise he would just roll with it and there would be no example of a "good story" or "bad story" - just events and the way they were adjucated.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> No, I think you are trying to pigeonhole storytelling as a railroad. A better example would be to have a story tree with choices along the way (do you allow gollum to go with you or kick him to the curb? both have consequences).




Oh.  You mean _Endless Quest_ books.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 14, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> I think it's very apparent that the team at WotC understands the tactical, Gamist appeal that's at the core of D&D, and they're working hard to make D&D do that as well, and as easily, as it possibly can, ideally in ways that MMORPGs/CRPGs don't.




Completely agree, both with your observation and the strategy.

If Mearls wasn't the architect of this focus, I would be surprised if he isn't at least its most vocal champion at this point.


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 14, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> I know people have a hard time grasping that story based gaming doesn't have to be railroading.  Heck, I've posted my notes and then the results of the game to prove it before.  But just because you want to guide things into a intro-expo-climax-coda structure and push personal conflicts at the players does not mean you are railroading them.




Well look - since you're typing the word "no" more than once I realize there's an emotional issue here and I'll try to be sensitive and understand what you're saying.  But I've always had a difficult time in sorting out what "story tellers" say about gaming, and at times the statements seem to flat-out contradict each other.

Once you want to "guide" events in a certain pattern, then you're railroading.  I really think it's as simple as that.  Sure, there are degrees.  For example, you might have expect a BBEG to escape the final battle, and instead he gets killed.  Either way, you construct telling about the events in such a way that it seems like a climax.  You respected the results of the dice, and made a story of them.  So that's story telling but it's still a game, right?

Well, maybe not.  The problem IMO is that the examples don't always work out so nicely.  The DM is still oriented towards engineering results in such a way as to produce a desired result.  So what if his skills enable him to work with a random set of events - the desire for a certain outcome is enough, IMO, to lead to a situation where, because of fatigue, lack of ideas, or mistake, the DM is going to step outside of the role of adjudicator of events and instead become a determiner of events in a way that excludes the random chance and player choice that is a fundemental part of the RAW.  

Having your heart set on a certain outcome, whether it's generally defined (ex. intro-coda thing) or specifically (the BBEG will escape) puts the DM into a similar box - it's just a matter of degree, and a matter of time until the DM starts fudging.  It's a matter of orienting the DM into thinking that he has to produce a result according to a certain pattern - in a way that exceeds the capabilities of the tools that he has to work with.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Once you want to "guide" events in a certain pattern, then you're railroading.  I really think it's as simple as that.




We just had a thread on this recently.  The general opinion was that it's not railroading unless it's "bad railroading."

Some quotes from the thread most seem to see the trend:


			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> The plot that actually lets PC actions influence its structure is, to me, the opposite of a railroad.





			
				sniffles said:
			
		

> I don't think non-railroading means a plot-free game. To me it means that the GM offers options and gives the players the freedom to choose any of those options or come up with something of their own, rather than trying to push them in a certain specific direction.





			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Railroading is as Thornir describes it, the PCs actions do nothing to affect the progress of the plot from point A to B to C.




You may have a different definition of railroad.  However, if you stick to it you are going to be discussing something else than what most people here are discussing when they are discussing railroading. (yes, there are other definitions of railroading out there.  Most aren't using the one you are, though).

If you want to go further with this, I suggest that thread (or start another on the definition of railroading).


----------



## Belen (Aug 14, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Completely agree, both with your observation and the strategy.
> 
> If Mearls wasn't the architect of this focus, I would be surprised if he isn't at least its most vocal champion at this point.




Otherwise known as "How to make D&D more boring?"


----------



## TheCrazyMuffinMan (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> We just had a thread on this recently.  The general opinion was that it's not railroading unless it's "bad railroading."
> 
> Some quotes from the thread most seem to see the trend:
> 
> ...




There are times when what most call 'railroading' is the lesser of two evils. If the party are twiddling their thumbs or bantering for hours in a way that doesn't move anything forward (as opposed to thinking about what to do next, or looking over their options and capabilities), the DM may have no choice but to either gently nudge them into doing -something- to move forward, or to put them in a situation where they have no choice but to respond. This would be railroading, at least temporarily, but it would break the standstill.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Aug 14, 2007)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Just curious, but are you willing to share, generally, the percent of sales that are US vs. UK vs. other country?




It is not quite as simple as a straight percentage   I cannot begin to tell you what effect the plummeting Dollar has had, together with the problems in the three tier distribution system, problems that are quite unique to America.

When we first started, there was an 80/20 split between the US and the rest of the world.  However, things have evened up greatly, with Europe developing at an amazing pace.



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> And as skeptical as I am of Ryan's numbers as well, it's at least a methodical way to try and come to a number in an industry where sales numbers are typically quite secret (thanks, by the way, Matt, for sharing what info you have).




Overall, I'm not knocking what Mr Dancey has done (I always tend to listen when he speaks), I'm just saying one figure is flawed 



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> But, I have no numbers to back that, just some background having worked at Borders bookstores HQ as well as reasoned thinking. So I could be entirely wrong, of course. But I'm thinking it's a safe bet that Amazon sales are far, far larger than what Ryan is factoring at least for industry leaders like WotC. What would be interesting is if Scott could mention percent of D&D sales through Amazon vs. FGLS, etc. It could potentially shot a very large hole in Ryan's estimate.




We haven't really tackled Amazon, for various reasons.  Drivethru, for example, brings in greater revenue for us on a monthly basis.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Aug 14, 2007)

Tactical Strategic Roleplaying games. 

  Couldn't resist.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 14, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> On the latest version of the WOTC D&D Podcast Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan mention watching a group of kids during a test group. They mention that the kids got almost everything wrong ruleswise, but they got the general gist of it and waaaaaay more importantly THEY HAD FUN.




I find this very telling, and I think it supports Ryan's assertion that the game is about the story - not about the rules.

I think in this regard, 3rd edition has gotten it wrong - too many rules; not enough story.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Otherwise known as "How to make D&D more boring?"




Also known as "how to attract more people to the hobby".


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 14, 2007)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Tactical Strategic Roleplaying games.
> 
> Couldn't resist.




Actually, it stood for Tactical Studies Rules.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Mongoose brings in. . . a 'few'. . . million a year (it is a little few, not a big few ).  It doesn't really matter if you believe that or not, but you should consider that we have 24 full-time employees, 3000 sq. ft. of offices in the UK, a miniatures production facility in the US, and we are still bringing in new licences.  We just brought in about half a million's Dollars worth of printing equipment so we can avoid the inevitable route to China.  Despite games like A Call to Arms and Battlefield Evolution, the majority of that is built on RPGs.




I'm a great mongoose fan. 
I'd be very excited and optimistic by that words if it weren't for the fact that Conan RPG's new edition stepped back into a full B/W product.  :\


----------



## gizmo33 (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> The general opinion was that it's not railroading unless it's "bad railroading."




IMO that's a useless definition.  In any case I really think it serves no purpose to continue to discuss this.  "Decision trees" being mentioned in the definition of story telling?  Railroading = bad railroading?  I'm trying to get into the habit of stopping conversations in EnWorld any time the posts exceed the bounds of basic English and logic.  If this actually represents the consensus of the community than I guess we'll see what comes of it.  Maybe the next Player's Handbook will explain these terms (I won't hold my breath).


----------



## Ry (Aug 14, 2007)

I'm noticing that when we talk about Dancey, there's something of a routine where people are finding the most objectionable thing on the page and responding to that.

Allow me to say oi...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> IMO that's a useless definition.  In any case I really think it serves no purpose to continue to discuss this.  "Decision trees" being mentioned in the definition of story telling?  Railroading = bad railroading?  I'm trying to get into the habit of stopping conversations in EnWorld any time the posts exceed the bounds of basic English and logic.  If this actually represents the consensus of the community than I guess we'll see what comes of it.  Maybe the next Player's Handbook will explain these terms (I won't hold my breath).





Last time I polled, folks overwhelmingly decided that railroading meant whatever the players say it means, regardless of what it is.  IOW, they decided that there were no objective criteria to the term.  And even when that was pointed out, they _still_ decided the same thing.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> Already happening.
> 
> http://www.indie-rpgs.com/
> http://www.story-games.com/forums/
> ...




I hope, that you understand the fact, that the above mentioned activities form just marginal part of overall RPG business. One can take it as kind of a natural experiment with "different brand", "different aprroach" and see, that on global scale (impact on majority of consumers) this does not work. It might work very well for small group of people (several per mille), but if this should replace D&D, we are doomed already.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Otherwise known as "How to make D&D more boring?"




Please explain how this:



> WotC understands the tactical, Gamist appeal that's at the core of D&D, and they're working hard to make D&D do that as well, and as easily, as it possibly can, ideally in ways that MMORPGs/CRPGs don't.




makes D&D more boring.

Take your best swing, I want to see you (knee)jerk this one out of the park.

Or are you just trolling? Going for some sort of unofficial thread-crap record? Is Circus Maximus offline today or what?


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I think in this regard, 3rd edition has gotten it wrong - too many rules; not enough story.




I'd rather have a rule for everything and then cut out what I don't like rather than have a lack of rules and then have to make them up on the spot as I go.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 14, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a rule for everything and then cut out what I don't like rather than have a lack of rules and then have to make them up on the spot as I go.




I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there are too many unnecessary rules. The game would be just as fun without "spell turning" or reserve feats, or the complexities of the warlock class, or any of the host of other secondary miscellaneous stuff.

I'll take a Planescape boxed set or the Al-Qadim setting book over Bo9S or Races of Stone any day of the week.


----------



## buzz (Aug 14, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> I hope, that you understand the fact, that the above mentioned activities form just marginal part of overall RPG business. One can take it as kind of a natural experiment with "different brand", "different aprroach" and see, that on global scale (impact on majority of consumers) this does not work. It might work very well for small group of people (several per mille), but if this should replace D&D, we are doomed already.



Anything that is not D&D or WW is a marginal part of the overall RPG business. What I'm trying to point out is that a) they're doing what Dancey is talking about and 2) they have been growing rapidly as a community/grassroots movement. In a time when Dancey and others are talking about how to keep D&D from dying, the indie scene is flourishing.

IIRC, the IPR/Forge booth was the biggest RPG-only booth at GenCon last year; Mearls said that it was their stuff WotC folk were grooving on after the con. This year, there's going to be a whole diaspora of booths spun off from IPR/Forge.

This is where the exciting stuff is happening. These are the games that can't be easily emulated by MMORPGs. Whether they are a formula for industry success, I dunno. That doesn't seem to be their focus. Their focus seems to be taking RPGs in new directions, and getting people excited about playing them.

In the "long tail" that's coming for RPGs, I think this stuff is going to fare very well.

That said, I want the indie _and_ I want my D&D. I hope both prosper as the hobby moves forward.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Virel said:
			
		

> *Rules Light and quick to pick up and play. - The current version is a total failure at this. *
> 
> I learned to play by reading the old books back in the day. No one showed me. When I started looking at 3e, I was told dozens of times, you'll need someone to show you how to play.




I have had the exact opposite experience.  I taught myself to play all editions of D&D.  In 1st ed., I had to memorize almost literally the entire Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, because they were mined with odd rules that didn't follow a central system, were difficult to remember, and had major impacts on play if the situation they were designed to adjudicate ever came up.

In 3rd ed., it took me about 30 minutes to work out the basic system, and another 30 to learn Attacks of Opportunity and special combat actions.  After that, it was just a question of looking up spells and feats on a case-by-case basis to understand what they do.



> I've turned players away from my AD&D game because I don't have space. Some of them are 3e players that can't find a game. Often they will rant about how bad AD&D is and how it sucks for a while and how if I had a clue and wasn't some silly old fool, I'd be running 3e.
> 
> Back when I had spaced, I'd offer them a chance to play. Most of them took it, seemed to have and wanted to play again. They'd come around in time to just maybe AD&D didn't suck so bad after all. Giving them a free old AD&D PHB, usually won my campaign a new player. Several got inspired and wanted to switch back, saying if they DM'd again they be running and older D&D variant. Three got into wanting to learning to DM - old school formats. The one that had DM'd 3e game said he wouldn't run it again, he was going old school from here on out.
> 
> ...




If there is a point to this, I've missed it.  Exactly how does 3rd edition inhibit my inspiration?  What is it about 1st ed. that provides it?  I've played both extensively, and I don't have any idea where you're coming from with these vague edition war claims.



> What needs to happen is a new rules light version of the game.



What, you mean like 1st ed?  Seriously, all you really need to know to start playing 3rd ed., assuming your DM knows what he's doing, is this:

If you want to attempt to do something, ask the DM, roll a D20, add whatever bonus the DM tells you to, tell the DM what you got.

Spells complicate things, but they always did.



> WotC needs suck it up and get someone like EGG or EGG himself to write the books in an inspiring way to put the text magic back into the game.



For what it's worth, I always hated Gygax's prose.



> The other part, if you want this stuff to grow is start training DM's. Bad DM's have killed more games and ruined more interest than about anything else in the history of the game IMO. Training is something companies hate to do but teaching the core concepts of how to DM effectively is the key. It's not just the rules thing but how to be fair, how to look at a situation, how to think like a DM, when to be die hard BY THE BOOK and when to throw the BOOK out the window in the game of fun and surprise. Printing another stupid book like DMG II isn't want I'm talking about.



Considering that Robin Laws has penned some of the best advice to DMs that was ever written, and that advice was reprinted in the DMG II, I think that you're contradicting yourself.



> Face to Face classes or DM classes over the internet. I know I'd pay for that and I'm an old school DM, whos 1st ed AD&D campaign that started in 1981 is running in 2007. Heck, I'd pay for the DM class, even if it was all 3.5 because I know I can always learn more about effective DMing.




This is about the last thing I'd do with my money.  I can see where you'd perhaps want some sort of free workshop at a local gaming store as a promotional exercise, but charging people to learn how to use a game--and operating as though this were the standard way to learn it--is probably the quickest way to eliminate existing desire to learn the game.



> I wouldn't pay ten cents for a complete set of all the stupid poorly written books that WotC has.



That's nice.  I happen to like them.  I haven't opened my 1st ed. books in years, except to jog my memory concerning a few pieces of line art.

Boy oh boy, do these Edition Wars posts further the aims of constructive discussion.  

"Older is better!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
"Nuh uh!  Gary rules!"
"No way!  He sux!"
etc.


----------



## heirodule (Aug 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> And IMO this is where the chinks in the story telling armor start to appear.  "Players deliberately strying to put the story off track" ????  Remember - the story is something (supposedly) that happens AFTER the events, then how can they pull the events "off the track".  Don't the events create the track?




How does the Star Wars "destiny" mechanic fit into this?

D&D could probably use more, not less, story-hook stuff in the mechanics.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a rule for everything and then cut out what I don't like rather than have a lack of rules and then have to make them up on the spot as I go.




Same here. 
Lots of rules = lots of options.

Just make the basic set of rules lighter and simpler, so people can learn how to play it and start playing it really fast and go fo what is important: the fun.
Then name all the rest of the rules presented in other released books with a big OPTIONAL RULES tag over them, so people won't get confused and will stop whinning about how "rules-heavy" D&D is...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I do think he leaves out the tactical player.  Perhaps it's because he feels that can be served by WoW better and TRPGs won't be able to compete at that level.  Yes, there are a lot of tactical types playing D&D, but I'll be a large number of them like the other elements as well as the tactical element they enjoy.



I think MMORPGs actually fail at tactical play.  The variables are too limited, the encounters too routine, and the realtime movement and action system too messy.  Give me a tile-based, turn-based tactical game with dozens of sourcebooks worth of options over a single avatar that has a cripplingly limited repertoire of options with which to slog through 500 hours of identical combat situations that require no tactics because combat is automated anyway, any day.  Diablo was fun for about the first three levels, after which I just took every character class for a test drive to see what they could do, and then dropped it.  It failed to satisfy my desires for complicated tactical combat.  I played WoW for a week, and then dropped it as well, when I realized it was just Diablo again, but with more character classes and prettier backgrounds.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there are too many unnecessary rules. The game would be just as fun without "spell turning" or reserve feats, or the complexities of the warlock class, or any of the host of other secondary miscellaneous stuff.




Actually the only "necessary rules" are those presented in the PHB.
The other tons of rules were never meant to be necessary, so they can't really be called "unecessary", they were meant to be optional, and more options is a good thing not a bad thing.

That's why I believe WOTC should release their supplementary books with a big warning on the cover: YOU DON'T NEED  THESE RULES TO PLAY D&D, USE THEM ONLY  IF YOU LIKE THEM. WOTC WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSABLE IF YOU DO OTHERWISE.


----------



## freebfrost (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I do not disagree that your total income equals a few million a year.  However, I was disagreeing with your implication that the RPGs were doing so.  Hell, the only store in our area that bought a Conan book has seen it sit on the shelf for 15 months.



That's a local experience though.  

I've purchased the entire Conan line from my local store as well as multiple copies of the Conan core and pocket books for my players.  So from my experience, Mongoose is easily the #1 RPG retail producer.

The point being that Matthew is in a much better position to tell us how his company is doing from a global perspective, as opposed to localized perceptions.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 14, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> Anything that is not D&D or WW is a marginal part of the overall RPG business.




Well... I think games, that hold per cent or more of the market are not marginal. So let's not limit us to D&D and World of Darkness. If I would also use the numbers from C&GRM show us that d20 Modern, GURPS, Shadowrun, Warhammer FRP, Serenity, Castles & Crusades, Hero System and BESM still create noticeable part of the market.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to point out is that a) they're doing what Dancey is talking about and 2) they have been growing rapidly as a community/grassroots movement. In a time when Dancey and others are talking about how to keep D&D from dying, the indie scene is flourishing.




Yeah, I understand. But there is still a problem with scale. The question is whether this approach is able to hold in larger market, if it will still grow and flourish. That is something, you or I can not say. When a game with several millions of players is dying (and I doubt it is acutally dying) you would need a rise in tens of thousands of per cents (from those few thousands gamers of indie RPGs).

Ask yourself this question... How quickly has D&D grow from the state of 1974 to 1983 and compare it with the grow of indie movement (Sorcerer is if I am not mistaken a game from 1998) till now... 2007. If the grow is adequate it is alright. Otherwise I have my doubt about this strategy will save the hobby.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> IIRC, the IPR/Forge booth was the biggest RPG-only booth at GenCon last year; Mearls said that it was their stuff WotC folk were grooving on after the con. This year, there's going to be a whole diaspora of booths spun off from IPR/Forge.




Yes. But we are talking here about common gamer, not a game designers neither "semi-profesional gamers" who know what all this indie hype is about. The booth on GenCon is one thing. The true impact on the market is something completely different.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> This is where the exciting stuff is happening. These are the games that can't be easily emulated by MMORPGs.




Yeah. I agree on that. It would be hard to emulate those.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Whether they are a formula for industry success, I dunno. That doesn't seem to be their focus. Their focus seems to be taking RPGs in new directions, and getting people excited about playing them.




I know. And I agree. But the problem here is, that we are talking (as far as I know) about industry success. Because, to put it more simple, if there would be no industry there would be less of those cons and less booth and less gamers which might go the indie way. So they would also not grow and flourish. They would die too!



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> That said, I want the indie _and_ I want my D&D. I hope both prosper as the hobby moves forward.




Sure. I am just pointing to the fact, that as a natural experiment of some Ryan's ideas this doesn't go very well in question of industry success and saving the hobby. I am not questioning other aspects of indies.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 14, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Actually the only "necessary rules" are those presented in the PHB.
> The other tons of rules were never meant to be necessary, so they can't really be called "unecessary", they were meant to be optional, and more options is a good thing not a bad thing.




I would argue that the PHB has reams of unnecessary rules.  Ironically, those reams (mostly found in the Spells chapter) are some of the few that are rarely proposed for the cutting-room floor by "rules light" afficiandos whose definitions of "rules light" always seems to resemble "the version of D&D that captured my imagination when I was 12."


----------



## bento (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there are too many unnecessary rules. The game would be just as fun without "spell turning" or reserve feats, or the complexities of the warlock class, or any of the host of other secondary miscellaneous stuff.
> 
> I'll take a Planescape boxed set or the Al-Qadim setting book over Bo9S or Races of Stone any day of the week.



True and I've been thinking about this.  We're past the point of bloat, and now we have so many options to character building and alternate rules that its difficult to get everyone at the table to agree on what to play.  Players want more build options to create cool characters, while DMs want fewer as it's more stuff to keep track of.  As a GM I prefer running settings that have fewer, but stronger, elements.  

What if we could simplify player choices while making the story elements stronger?  More evocative settings with a wider variety of encounter-types.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 14, 2007)

> The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”.



I don't think that's true.  Cool stories have come out of my gaming, but "telling a story" was never the goal.


----------



## Ry (Aug 14, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a rule for everything and then cut out what I don't like rather than have a lack of rules and then have to make them up on the spot as I go.




While I think modifiers for a thousand situations are more than I want, I'd like to have a core mechanic that was consistent across the board and guidelines for universally applying it.  D&D sort of has that, but sort of not.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 14, 2007)

I think Ryan makes some very good points (and he should, given his access to data and history in the industry).  I agree with his general trends … and I think the TRPG industry is destined for change, and needs to change.  I don’t think what we see as “traditional” TRPGs necessarily need to go away, but I do think they need new outlets, new ways to plug in, and new ways to overcome barriers to entry.

I don’t necessarily agree with the idea of recapturing RPGs as “storytelling games.”  True, that’s one way to describe them, but lots of people play D&D in a manner where the storytelling aspect is but a small part of the game.  In my own case I prefer a balance of storytelling, tactical combat, exploration, and problem solving.  Computer games can tell a story, but they aren’t the same thing and don’t deliver the same experience.

What’s unique I think to TRPGs is the social aspect of the game, and the cooperative nature.  In fact, were I to reinvent the “brand” that is TRPGs, I’d call them *cooperative experience* games (CX for short, since CEX sound sleazy).  CX games are marked by group shared experience and pursuit of a goal where cooperation is a necessary part of the game model.  This is in contrast to competitive experience games, whether CCGs, tabletop wargames, video games, or most traditional boardgames or card games where competitive play results in winners and losers.

Note that that definition is broader than just tabletop RPGs, and can include certain board/card games as well as some MMORPG models – which I don’t think is a bad thing.  If you take the cooperative experience model, you have the opportunity to expand a traditional RPG with other ways to play and connect. This can include tabletop play with miniatures, or card-based games, or online play (whether in MMO mode or in “virtual tabletop” mode).

The holy grail in my opinion would be to enable these various modes of cooperative play to interact – so that the virtual tabletop player can play the same game along side a face-to-face tabletop group, for example, or a player with an MMO interface can connect to a virtual tabletop group.  

The technology is coming though it still needs maturation.  But I think TRPGs as CXG’s will need to tap into the modes of communication that are now prevalent under Web 2.0.  We live in an increasingly networked, connected, yet distributed society, and the extent to which future CX models can leverage that will indicate their success or failure (perhaps WOTC’s DI is a step in that direction, perhaps not).  I can imagine a variant of D&D played via cell phone and laptop, where some players are physically resident around a table with map and miniatures, and some are physically distributed but sharing the same experience.  Or perhaps they are all distributed, but via cell phone/PDA interface, SMS, and voice are all participating in the same game … and then bring the PDA that contains their character sheet and game system to the table when they meet face-to-face and it becomes just another tabletop tool, like taking your PHB to the game.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 14, 2007)

I'll tell you exactly what the problem is with RPGs. I speak as a "power gamer" that does not play WoW or MMORPGs.

In fact I think the "trend" of power gamers leaving tabletop for WoW is overrated. Most of my tabletop group used to play WoW a lot! Hours every night. Now, most of them have cancelled their WoW accounts and show no inclination of going back. Why? Because they have been there. Done that. They have done every quest. Hit max level with multiple character classes. There is just nothing there for them anymore. Now they are all playing LotR online, and when they get tired of that they will quit that and move on. However, our multiple D&D games involving these players are going strong. We have to turn players away in fact.

What keeps them interested in D&D? Its simple, its the fact that there is no computer imposed limit on their character or the things they can do. There is no "grinding" for levels, no raids that become little more than an excersize in resource management.

In my experience D&D is fun because you get to hang out with your friends in person. No MMORPG can match this. Ever.

D&D is also fun because you have a personal investment in a character that is often an integral part of a campaign. If your character is part of killing a big bad, then he stays dead. It is not instanced ad infinitum for a thousand other players. This ability to make unique and  persistent changes to the campaign is one advantage of TRPGs that MMORPGs by their very nature cannot match.

Likewise, I can make any character I want. I can do anything I want. No computer arbiter can ever match face time with a human DM. Just not going to happen.

So in a nutshell, I see the following pros to tabletop:

1) Freedom of action
2) Unique and persistent world experience
3) Face time with your friends

I see the following cons to tabletop:

1) Bad DMs can create an inconsistent play experience or impose artificial rules restrictions
2) complex calculations or resource management can take extra time when done manually
3) lack of graphical appeal

For MMORPG's I see the following pros:

1) neutral computer arbiter ensures a consistent experience and speeds up play
2) graphical appeal
3) can play any time and stop any time

I see the following cons:

1) You can't really play with your friends, unless everyone gets their computers together in the same room and on the same LAN
2) Your experience is neither unique nor persistent. No matter what quests you have done, what items your character has, or what class abilities you choose as you level up. Guaranteed that 100 other players out there have the same abilities and stats as you, and guaranteed that thousands of other players have all done the same quests and garnered the same items.
3) You can't really do whatever you want, you are confined to the limits of game engine.

In a nutshell, I think the cons of tabletop play can be mitigated or reduced, whereas the cons of MMORPG's cannot be due to their very nature. Likewise, many of the advantages of MMORPGs can be incorporated into the table top experience. The threads on using projectors and the NWN engine to make a graphically beautiful dungeon effectively eliminates the graphical appeal problem. Likewise, the dungeon tiles provided by WotC and Paizo also help in that regard.

DM consistency is a tough issue to tackle but a lot of it can be mitigated by making the DMs job easier. Reworking high level play so that power gamers feel that they have gotten more powerful, but also providing more tools to the GM, like quick and easy NPC generators to allow them to come up with equal challenges in seconds or minutes instead of hours. 

Likewise, I think treatises on high level adventure design and how to work with instead of nerfing high level PC abilities is much needed. One big problem with high level play is the burden placed on the DM. Most DMs avoid it altogether because it is such a burden. This leads only to player frustration and is a major reason why so-called "power gamers" migrate to MMORPGs in the first place!!


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I would argue that the PHB has reams of unnecessary rules.  Ironically, those reams (mostly found in the Spells chapter) are some of the few that are rarely proposed for the cutting-room floor by "rules light" afficiandos whose definitions of "rules light" always seems to resemble "the version of D&D that captured my imagination when I was 12."




I totally agree.
That's why I said earlier that they should make the basic set of rules (the rules you really need to start playing the game and start having fun) even simpler and lighter. Everything else is optional for us "rules-heavy" afficiados. Everybody is happy, no one feels obligated to learn lots of rules to play it if they don't have fun with them.
It should be like this already... but oh well... :\


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The future of TRPGs:
> 
> 1. Kill the story.
> Stories are the realm of books and movies. In a game, stories are told after the fact. In an RPG, the purpose is to GAME the setting, not to tell stories in it. Things like plot, theme, and character development can be used as analogies, but really RPGs are about setting, events, experience, and decision making. RPGs are not "storytelling games."
> ...





QFT.

Kill the Story.  And take its stuff.

When I play in a really fun session, I sometimes tell a story _about_ the session.  Just like I can do with a board game: last night playing Memoir '44 I killed 4 of my friend's damaged units with a single Air Strike.  I went from zero VP's to having won the scenario in one shot.  There: I just told a story about a game of Memoir '44.  But Mem44 is not a "storytelling game", and if it was I suspect we wouldn't be playing it.


----------



## Creeping Death (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I find this very telling, and I think it supports Ryan's assertion that the game is about the story - not about the rules.
> 
> I think in this regard, 3rd edition has gotten it wrong - too many rules; not enough story.





Whose story?  Mine?  Yours?  Get the rules out that define certain interaction and then let the story be told around that.  Isn't that why we have so many different systems?  Some stories just can't be told within a certain rule set.

The story elements I remember from past editions that I never liked and always removed was demi-human level limits.  What I like about the current system that I never saw in previous editions are monster advancement with class levels.  Templates are a great way to reinvent old creatures.  These are rules that actually inspire stories and fuel thought.  Trip mechanic, wealth guide lines, and level charts are for consistency and defining how certain things interact.

I still don't understand the 'too many rules' point of view.  What is too many?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Aug 14, 2007)

My game group is much like Wulf's. We gather 'round the table because we're friends, and we like spending time with each other. D&D is no more or less than the preferred platform for spending that time. Some guys get together for poker, some for watching The Big Game. We? We get together for D&D.

As others have said, Story is a happenstance. It's a nice side-benefit. But really, we remember Events. Like when Lohi the Dragon Shaman held on when everyone else was dropped and used his healing aura to prevent a TPK. Or whatever. Point is, it's these individual signposts that stand. The larger story only provides a way to lead from one signpost to the next. And even then, the point is that it's us guys hanging around the table, throwing dice and having fun.

So: rather than waste time with a genre title switcheroo, RPG game makers should spend time figuring out how to make the "hanging around, throwing dice, having fun" more accessible. Make D&D less cumbersome. Don't require all players to read a tome that looks suspiciously like a school textbook. Make the initial time and effort investment really low, and you'll expand the hobby.

-z

One simple, easy example of this notion in action? Cut the spells from the Player's Handbook. Only playes of magic-using classes need that info. To the player of the Fighter, all those spells add zero value to an already intimidating block of dense rules.


----------



## Mark (Aug 14, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Yeah, didn't mean for my response to come out harshly at all and I didnt take it personally. No harm no foul, its just that I meant for the whole thing to be taken in context. Youre right about the podcast quote, but even then I pulled the quote out of it's original context which was part of a mail bag Q & A thing they were doing.
> 
> No apologies needed D00d.





Cool.  I think we both had parallel points to make that were not necessarily at odds with one another.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there are too many unnecessary rules. The game would be just as fun without "spell turning" or reserve feats, or the complexities of the warlock class, or any of the host of other secondary miscellaneous stuff.




And here is one of the elements that make any hobby game tough, disagreements.  I see absolutely no "complexities of the warlock class."  In fact, if I wanted to go rules light at all costs, I would replace the arcane casters with the warlock.

We obviously have different views of very basic things.  Yet both of us are attracted to RPGs.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

Meh.
The big % of the problems in RPG are bad DMs.
It's not the industry, marketing, MMORPGs, technology, etc.
The whole RPG Market, no matter how good or bad or dumb or smart it is, no matter what it does or doesn't to make its product better, is a hostage of all the DMs out there.
No matter how good a product is, if it falls on the hands of a bad DM, the game is gonna stink. No matter how bad a product is, if the DM is good one, the game is gonna fly! A big % of the success of a game experience is about the DM, not the game itself.

It's just like Jeet Kune Do.
If you watch Bruce Lee fighting you may think "Whoa! That jeet kune do thing is unbeatable!"
You are wrong, Bruce Lee is unbeatable.
I hope I made my analogy clear.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 14, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> Kill the Story.  And take its stuff.
> 
> When I play in a really fun session, I sometimes tell a story _about_ the session.  Just like I can do with a board game: last night playing Memoir '44 I killed 4 of my friend's damaged units with a single Air Strike.  I went from zero VP's to having won the scenario in one shot.  There: I just told a story about a game of Memoir '44.  But Mem44 is not a "storytelling game", and if it was I suspect we wouldn't be playing it.




Damn straight!


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 14, 2007)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> I still don't understand the 'too many rules' point of view.  What is too many?




You have reached the "too many rules" point in a game when the amount of rules in it make a DM and/or the players stumble over them every 5 or 10 minutes, making them flip through a book to get the correct (and errata-ed) wording of a rule and then try to bend either the rule to the scene at hand, or the scene to fit the rules.

Which is, of course, highly individual and very much depending on personal preferance, experience, play style, and the will to "be wrong"...and thus not really a helpful measure. Still pops up all the time, of course.


----------



## buzz (Aug 14, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> Well... I think games, that hold per cent or more of the market are not marginal. So let's not limit us to D&D and World of Darkness. If I would also use the numbers from C&GRM show us that d20 Modern, GURPS, Shadowrun, Warhammer FRP, Serenity, Castles & Crusades, Hero System and BESM still create noticeable part of the market.



Combined, they're part of the 10-12% that is not D&D or WW. Individually, they're each lucky if they have 1-2%.



			
				Alnag said:
			
		

> Yes. But we are talking here about common gamer, not a game designers neither "semi-profesional gamers" who know what all this indie hype is about. The booth on GenCon is one thing. The true impact on the market is something completely different.



As far as I know, gamers go to GenCon. To see a continued, growing presence on the part of the indie folk both there, and at Origins, and at local cons... that means something.

They are also doing a ton of con organizing, i.e., local cons for the common gamer.



			
				Alnag said:
			
		

> But the problem here is, that we are talking (as far as I know) about industry success. Because, to put it more simple, if there would be no industry there would be less of those cons and less booth and less gamers which might go the indie way. So they would also not grow and flourish. They would die too!



I agree that it's maybe not a great model for the industry _as it exists now_. However, it could be a new model that's good for the _hobby_.

As for comparing anything to the D&D boom of the 70s-80s... it's an unfair comparison, IMO. You're talking about the birth of the entire hobby.


----------



## Creeping Death (Aug 14, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> You have reached the "too many rules" point in a game when the amount of rules in it make a DM and/or the players stumble over them every 5 or 10 minutes, making them flip through a book to get the correct (and errata-ed) wording of a rule and then try to bend either the rule to the scene at hand, or the scene to fit the rules.
> 
> Which is, of course, highly individual and very much depending on personal preferance, experience, play style, and the will to "be wrong"...and thus not really a helpful measure. Still pops up all the time, of course.




Thanks, that helps clarify things more.  Then so far, to me anyways, core D&D does not have too many rules.  

It has also removed the situation: 
DM: Bad guy punches your mage for 2 points of damage
Me: I cast burning hands.
DM: Well, you can't he's now too far away.

Challenge players within the rules, not by having the enemies defy the rules.  Anyways thats a different topic for a different thread.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> As far as I know, gamers go to GenCon.



However, I'll wager the percentage of gamers going to GenCon is smaller than the percentage of the market that non D&D/WW RPGs hold.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.




Man, it must be just your area, because up here in Vancouver (and it's a fairly big gaming scene) *Conan* alone does big business.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

GenCon? What's that?
A place where they genetically recreate dinosaurs?


----------



## freebfrost (Aug 14, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> GenCon? What's that?
> A place where they genetically recreate dinosaurs?



They spare no expense!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 14, 2007)

Following up on my "barriers to entry" note:

It seems to me that there are perhaps five real or perceived barriers to entry to current TRPGs like D&D:

1.	Exposure.  Let’s face it, if you don’t know about the game, you aren’t going to play it – or if you know about it but feel it doesn’t fit you, the same is true.  This is in part up to the marketing of the game companies, but part of it is the game identity that Ryan is talking about shifting.   To me it makes no sense that you can sell enough Harry Potter books – a solitary activity without interaction – to make Jo Rowling a billionaire, but can’t tap that same trend to take RPGs mainstream.

2.	 Cost.  There is an initial cost, that isn’t necessarily apparent to the early user.  It’s relatively small (~$30 for a PHB plus dice), but given the volume of publications, it isn’t obvious to the novice what is needed, and the sheer volume of stuff can be intimidating.  The novice doesn’t know where to start, and the cost of evtry looks much higher than it really is.I suspect “Basic” sets only appeal to younger players, because adults want to start with the real thing!

3.	Knowledge base.  Let’s face it, there’s a lot to learn in the D&D PHB.  It can be very intimidating to a rank novice to break open the PHB and try and figure out how to game.  Those of us who have played a lot of D&D realize that learning a TRPG can actually be quite simple, if you’re guided by someone experienced … but if you’re not, not many people are just going to pick up the game and start playing (this board is populated by exceptions, myself included – but we’re the few fish than managed to jump the rocks waterfalls and swim upstream; most of the potential gaming population needs help getting out of the ocean).

4.	Social network.  D&D needs friends, and structured time – which is probably why it primarily gets people to enter at a time & place when they’re more socially active but have barriers (cost, transportation) that facilitate getting people together for low-cost activity.  [I’m typing this at the airport, after having listened to Ryan Dancey’s interview on the Fear the Boot podcast on the way to the airport, so this fact of the demographic is stuck in my mind.]  This can be a barrier to experienced players, too. I’m a perfect example – as an adult with all the competing adult & family demands who relocates to a different part of the country every 2-3 years, I find it very difficult to locate a group to play with that fits my gaming preferences.

5.	Stigma.  This may have been reduced significantly over the past few years, but I do still wonder of D&D gamers aren’t still ltagged as socially inept hygienically-challenged geeks hiding in basements … despite the fact that frankly, to successfully play a socially-based cooperative experience game you actually need reasonable social skills.  Just add a shower and get out of the basement now and then.

Those five barriers to entry explain to me a lot of why MMORPGs are expanding while the TRPG population stays flat.  It’s easy to enter – buy one box of software (admittedly for a cost much greater than the entry cost of D&D, but there’s a big difference when the novice can pick up the one and only box that enables access to the complete game vice being confused about what all is needed to play among the hundreds of books and other products).  The computer handles the rules; there’s a fast-play that gets you playing within a few minutes with no expertise required – you don’t need a friend who is an experienced DM to teach you the game.  There’s a community readily available online, and no stigma since you’re doing it on you own time, privately.

Now, I’d argue that MMORPGs lack the freedom of expression and development of other cooperative experience games (though as the genre matures I think that is limited only by programmer skill).  I also think that they promote a sort of inept social networking, but that’s admittedly skewed by my own experiences, which haven’t been positive (with the possible exception of time spent on EN World’s NWN persistent server, while it lasted.)  But there’s probably some happy middle ground between MMOs and TRPGs that can be found – if the D&D barriers to entry can be reduced.

In a way it's a shame the organized play efforts have failed, because I think they'd address some of these items ... but then again since they have failed, perhaps they are a flawed model.


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Otherwise known as "How to make D&D more boring?"



 Dude - you might want to check out some WoD games. Or maybe Amber diceless...


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

> Otherwise known as "How to make D&D more boring?




You probably never played that WoD game, can't remember the name, where you play a ghost and have to cry all the time.
THAT'S boring!


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 14, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> You probably never played that WoD game, can't remember the name, where you play a ghost and have to cry all the time.
> THAT'S boring!




I think you're thinking of Cyborg Commando.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think you're thinking of Cyborg Commando.




I know this game but never played it.
But with a name like that it can't be bad, can it?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 14, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> Otherwise known as "How to make D&D more boring?"




Moderator/
Trolling after I've warned you about your attitude in this thread?

3 day ban.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 14, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> One simple, easy example of this notion in action? Cut the spells from the Player's Handbook. Only playes of magic-using classes need that info. To the player of the Fighter, all those spells add zero value to an already intimidating block of dense rules.




Mmm... sacred hamburger.

My own research into the mechanics of spells leads me to believe that 75-90% of the spells could be condensed into one or two dozen spell templates. 

The Evocation school alone is little more than (energy type)+(ray or AoE)+(maximum caster level).

But you have to slaughter an awful lot of sacred cows to get there...


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 14, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Mmm... sacred hamburger.
> 
> My own research into the mechanics of spells leads me to believe that 75-90% of the spells could be condensed into one or two dozen spell templates.
> 
> ...




I'd love to see that done.
I always believed the same and always thought it would be much better to have a smaller, condensed but not limited, spell list. 

Couldn't scourching ray, flame arrow, burning hands and fireball be just one spell?

I'm not hindu, I can eat cows!


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 14, 2007)

New post in the series is up - Step 2: Redefine the Experience

Selected quotes:


> Across more than 30 years of time, the template established by the earliest D&D releases has dominated the tabletop roleplaying game format.  That template is:
> 
> 1.  A set of rules which seek to describe in detail how characters interact with the environment of the game.
> 
> ...





> In addition, a disproportionate burden is placed on the Game Master, who is called on not only to write a great story framework for the game, but be responsible for the actions of a diverse cast of characters, be well versed in a much larger ruleset than that required of the players, and often be called on to organize, and host, the gaming group as well.
> 
> This means that one person shares a much greater burden than the others, which limits the number of people who will take on that burden, which in turn limits the diversity of the game groups available, and creates restricted paths in the social network of gamers.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Aug 15, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Mmm... sacred hamburger.
> 
> My own research into the mechanics of spells leads me to believe that 75-90% of the spells could be condensed into one or two dozen spell templates.
> 
> ...




Reserve Feats and and the Warlock class are halfway there anyway. IMHO, spells--as in ritualistic, formulaic, component-needing, PHB style spells--should be magic items (scrolls) or prestige class abilities. Point being: not in the PHB.

Limit the "magic user" class/role in the PHB to something purely mechanical, like what we see with the Warlock, and you'd cut way, way down on the user unfriendliness of D&D in general, and the PHB in particular.

-z


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 15, 2007)

Interesting.

Ryan's thoughts on GMless or GM-lite play exactly mirror my own - that it is A, if not THE, potential future for the hobby.  In particular, the idea of reducing the GM's workload to considerably below AD&D levels (to say nothing of d20 levels) gels with where I see successful roleplaying games going.

Mind, I don't necessarily agree with Ryan's method for getting there, or even with his Story emphasis.  I think board games are at least as good a model to pursue, especially in light of their recent resurgence.

Then you have his usual open source advocacy, which is probably correct from a game design standpoint but seems, in this case, to almost completely ignore the commercial aspect in a way the indie-est RPG does not today. 

I find this one a lot more interesting and insightful than its predecessor, in any case.


----------



## Virel (Aug 15, 2007)

I've ran AD&D with co-DM's before the additional input was a good thing. However, the idea of having say seven people doing game by committe probably isn't going to work quiet as well as he makes it sound for most people. 

Seven DM/Players is sort of like having seven cooks making the soup, instead of soup, you'll usually end up with slop. 

Anyway, you slice it the end result is it comes down to a DMing issue. Spread the work load of the DM out etc. 

Whatever, the NexGen games are the DM's work load needs to be no more than the AD&D level. Less would be better.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 15, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Mind, I don't necessarily agree with Ryan's method for getting there, or even with his Story emphasis.



I'm not sure how much of this is "this is the right way" and how much is "we need to find a new way, and here is a direction to consider."



> I think board games are at least as good a model to pursue, especially in light of their recent resurgence.



But that goes back to trying to emulate something in their strength, as his discusses with MMORPGs.  If I want to play a board game, why would I play something _like_ a board game but not a board game?  Sure there will be those looking the sweet spot that RPGs will take up, but they will be the rarity.  

I believe Ryan does have a point in that RPGs will survive because of what they do that's different from the other options.  These differences should be developed and focused on, at some level.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 15, 2007)

Speaking as a player of boardgames, they're *not* the route that D&D needs to go down. All the attempts at moving the D&D experience to the more structured form of the boardgame (Talisman, Runebound, Descent, WoW:tbg) are terrible at even coming close to anything resembling a RPG. Not just that their gameplay is inferior, but that it counts out the vital part of the RPG: the imagination.

Boardgames might provide a jumping in point for some aspects of RPGs (mainly the tactical), but no more.

Cheers!


----------



## mearls (Aug 15, 2007)

I posted to Ryan's blog, but I might as well post here.

I don't think the solution to the problem of "DMing is too hard" is necessarily "Distribute the work amongst the entire group."

A more elegant solution might be, "Make it less work to DM."

There's no magic, minimum burden of work required to run an RPG. One of the long-term goals of RPG development is to make DMing less work, more fun.

I think Ryan has some interesting ideas. Regardless of where this is heading, I'm sure the end result will be worth watching. It's about time that someone in this hobby started shaking things up.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 15, 2007)

Olgar, your post has shown me the way. As a community, we do not need to try and bring hundreds of thousands of fresh faces into the fold, we only need to indoctrinate two.

Kirby and William King lead to Gayle King, Gayle King leads to Oprah Winfrey and Oprah Winfrey leads to the World. 

Hahahaha, hahahahahahahaha, muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## mearls (Aug 15, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Speaking as a player of boardgames, they're *not* the route that D&D needs to go down. All the attempts at moving the D&D experience to the more structured form of the boardgame (Talisman, Runebound, Descent, WoW:tbg) are terrible at even coming close to anything resembling a RPG. Not just that their gameplay is inferior, but that it counts out the vital part of the RPG: the imagination.
> 
> Boardgames might provide a jumping in point for some aspects of RPGs (mainly the tactical), but no more.




D&D doesn't need to become more like other games.

D&D needs to become more like D&D.

Up thread, someone talked about getting people into AD&D even though they pester him to run 3e. I think there's something inherently fun, interesting, and humanizing to RPGs that makes them appealing across rule sets. R&D works to make the game more fun, easier to learn, and more interesting, but RPGs at their root present a basic sort of experience you can't find anywhere else. Only a really, really bad RPG design could eliminate it.


----------



## buzz (Aug 15, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> However, I'll wager the percentage of gamers going to GenCon is smaller than the percentage of the market that non D&D/WW RPGs hold.



Well, obviously. 

I meant more that I don't think the people who attend GenCon are some special breed of gamer. I don't think the increased indie presence there (and many other cons) is something to be casually dismissed. Otherwise, you could dismiss anyone's presence there. E.g., that ENWorld grew to point that they now have a booth. This stuff matters.


----------



## buzz (Aug 15, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> A more elegant solution might be, "Make it less work to DM."



I want to sign up for your newsletter AND have your baby.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 15, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I posted to Ryan's blog, but I might as well post here.
> 
> I don't think the solution to the problem of "DMing is too hard" is necessarily "Distribute the work amongst the entire group."
> 
> A more elegant solution might be, "Make it less work to DM."




For myself, it's just cost vs benefit, like everything else. As a DM, if I spend lots of work and get lots of reward I'm fine, little work for little fun is bleh anyway. I think the work isn't a problem for my enjoyment of the game, but only whether the players reward that work with a fun experience for all.



> I think Ryan has some interesting ideas. Regardless of where this is heading, I'm sure the end result will be worth watching. It's about time that someone in this hobby started shaking things up.




It's a conundrum for me. I always appreciate what Ryan Dancey says, he's a very important opinion.
On the other hand, anything based on the Comic & Games Retailer information is worthless as a point of discussion IMO, so it goes counter to me reading much of the thread.

The self-selected, limited draw nature of the survey, the fact that it doesn't include sales to the book trade and Massive Online Retailers like buy.com and amazon.com, it's worthless. As prices of books go up, discount sales become a larger percentage, meaning that a system that tracks only the declining half of the equation is just worthless....

Now, I trust Ryan Dancey to a great extent, and he says other sources, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and all... but it's just hard!


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 15, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> I meant more that I don't think the people who attend GenCon are some special breed of gamer. I don't think the increased indie presence there (and many other cons) is something to be casually dismissed. Otherwise, you could dismiss anyone's presence there. E.g., that ENWorld grew to point that they now have a booth. This stuff matters.




I'll argue that the typical GenCon attendee is more of a "committed gamer" than the typical gamer.  Eliminate the locals who go because it is nearby and you probably have almost all committed gamers (and those traveling with committed gamers).  

That crowd is the sort that is more likely to appreciate the indie-RPG table.  In fact, many of them would probably be satisfied finding a game that has a gem buried in a horrible impenetrable system.  Not that there isn't quality out there, just that search is often the reason they get explored.

Right now I would love to have a monthly game where we try a new system each time.    I don't think I have the group to do it, but some are interested.  Even then, I think I would be the one introducing the new games most of the time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> emphasizing the "story telling" nature of RPGs is disaster if you ask me, look how much people like to sit at home with the family and friends and tell each other original stories...



You mean, nearly all parents of young children? It would be an amazing day if RPGs were half as successful as that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

rycanada said:
			
		

> I'm noticing that when we talk about Dancey, there's something of a routine where people are finding the most objectionable thing on the page and responding to that.



I think that's pretty much any message board discussing anything controversial on the Internet.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

The absolute hatred of "story" among many at this site is fine, it's opinions after all, but to insist it can't be financially successful is to ignore the success of White Wolf, which very explicitly is about telling stories, even going so far as to rename RPG elements in line with that: Storyteller, Chronicle, etc.

If "story" doesn't work _for you_, fine. But you are not the market. None of us is, whatever we like or don't like.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Aug 15, 2007)

I think that Ryan has a point.

In 24yrs I have been a DM the vast majority of the time. I don't do dungeoncrawls save as part of the overarching plot (created by myself and my players in concert). I loathe DMing them for anyting but a brief time and loathe playing in them slightly less. The fact is, the best dungeoncrawl I have ever participated in wasn't D&D but was Oblivion for the Xbox360 and the PC. It was more fun than any tabletop dungeoncrawl because that is what it was and that is what it excelled at....ok there was a story but a story that merely linked a number of rather cool dungeons, even dungoens in hell.  

D&D cannot compete with this, no way. D&D needs to be whatever the players and DMs want it to be, but officially WoTC needs to play to the strengths of the game ie. the social element, the playing of a role and the potential to have an immersive experience in a world of infinite possibiliy. If one is going for the thrill of the kill, cool magical effects, great visuals and a more superficial experience, CRPGs beat D&D any day. CRPGs cannot compete with Tabletop RPGs in the deeper aspects of the game.



Sundragon


----------



## jasin (Aug 15, 2007)

It's rather late as I'm reading this so I might be missing something, but how is the concept of rules being fed back into the community connected to the concept of distributed DM-ing?

The rules being fed back into the community and creating a reputation economy made perhaps the majority of the traffic on D&D newsgroups and forums in early 3E days... and still makes a decent percentage now. It works just like Ryan describes, with people who are good at writing rules getting more exposure and their rules being more likely to be adopted by others.

In fact, if I had to pick a single thing which made up my mind to switch from 2E to 3E, it was a homebrew class for unarmoured, agile, somewhat mystical swordmen like the characters from _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_: Hong Ooi's martial artist.

This kind of vitality, with people constantly crafting new rules to fill perceived gaps and subjecting them to the review of the community, was a great part of the attraction of early 3E for me, and I'd very much like to see it return. (In fact, it's one of the strengths of P&P RPGs compared to MMORPGs for me: the ability to tweak the game to my own tastes, in different ways for different campaigns, rather than having to hope that the developer will publish the add-on I'd like.) But I don't really see how it's connected with Ryan's idea of distributing the tasks of a DM to multiple people in the group.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 15, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> It's rather late as I'm reading this so I might be missing something, but how is the concept of rules being fed back into the community connected to the concept of distributed DM-ing?




At a guess, Ryan probably sees Distributed DMing and Distributed Development as benefiting from many of the same creative processes.

Is that true?  I'm not really sure, but it seems to be the link he's drawing and it is an intriguing one.

Alternately, Ryan may just be pushing the distributed development model he's long advocated alongside his new concept.  I imagine he'll chime in here or on his blog and explain which, or come at it from a completely different direction.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 15, 2007)

> The Evocation school alone is little more than (energy type)+(ray or AoE)+(maximum caster level).




Something like this?

[Energy][Attack]
Evocation [energy]
Level: 1 (Touch), 2 (Ray), 3 (Line and Burst)
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range:  Touch, Close (Ray), 120ft. (Line), Long (Burst)
Area/Effect: Touch attack (Touch), Ranged touch attack (Ray), 5ft wide line (Line), 20ft. radius burst (Burst). 
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: No (Touch and Ray), Yes (Line and Burst), Fortitude half (cold, electricity and sonic), Reflex half (acid and fire)
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you learn this spell you determine its energy type and attack type. Once chosen, you cannot change it unless you learn the spell again and choose a different combination of energy type and attack type. The attack type determines the spell’s range, area, saving throw and level. Each combination is a different spell on your list of spells.
Energy types are: acid, cold, fire, electricity and sonic. Attack types are: touch, ray, line and burst.

Acid: The spell deals 1d4 points of damage per caster level and it deals half that damage in the following round. If the spell allows a saving throw, succeeding in the saving throw cancels the extra damage. 

Cold: The spell deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level and the target(s) is(are) slowed for 1d4 rounds. If the spell allows a saving throw, succeeding in the saving throw cancels the slowing effect. 

Fire: The spell deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level and it sets the target(s) on fire. If the spell allows a saving throw, succeeding in the saving throw prevents the target from being caught on fire. The DC for extinguishing the fire on further rounds is the same used for the spell.

Electricity: The spell deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level and the target(s) is(are) dazed for one round. If the spell allows a saving throw, succeeding in the saving throw cancels the dazing effect. 

Sonic: The spell deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level and the target(s) is(are) stunned for one round. If the spell allows a saving throw, succeeding in the saving throw cancels the stunning effect. Sonic damage deals only half damage to living creatures, but full damage to objects.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 15, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> It's rather late as I'm reading this so I might be missing something, but how is the concept of rules being fed back into the community connected to the concept of distributed DM-ing?




My basic prescription for emphasizing the differences between MMORPGs and "Storytelling Games" is:



> 1.  A truly persistent environment, where participant actions shape and redefine the game world in lasting and meaningful ways using the power of emergence.
> 
> 2.  Participant created content which expands the game world, sorted & made accessible through the power of a reputation economy.
> 
> 3.  The ability to interact with one another in various social network configurations, from very small (2 people) to very large (10,000+ gatherings), from “party” focused adventures to city, national, and world sized population systems.




#1 leads to breaking up the GM/Player duality (all participant actions should shape and redefine the game world, not just one persons (the GM) actions.

#2 links to the concept of distributed design & development, with feedback into the community resource pool

Ryan


----------



## buzz (Aug 15, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'll argue that the typical GenCon attendee is more of a "committed gamer" than the typical gamer.  Eliminate the locals who go because it is nearby and you probably have almost all committed gamers (and those traveling with committed gamers).
> 
> That crowd is the sort that is more likely to appreciate the indie-RPG table.  In fact, many of them would probably be satisfied finding a game that has a gem buried in a horrible impenetrable system.  Not that there isn't quality out there, just that search is often the reason they get explored.



One wonders then why any company even bothers to show up at GenCon.


----------



## HeinorNY (Aug 15, 2007)

RyanD
Considering all these changes that you are talking about, what about all the D&D gamers that really don't care about the story, those that care only about monster bashing, getting gold and magic items, creating powerful characters, etc. I think there is a considering amount of people that plays the game for that kind of fun.
What will be left for them? Go play WoW?

What about those DMs that enjoy all the work, all the tons of rules, all the trouble and all the responsability of the game, all the power!
What will be left for them?


----------



## HinterWelt (Aug 15, 2007)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> _This_ is why I keep saying the RPG industry is not dying a death.  I feel like a voice in the wilderness at times but, from where we are sitting, things are perky!



You aren't alone Matt...it just feels like it. 

If it is not clear, I hold your same views.

Bill


----------



## Arksorn (Aug 15, 2007)

Instead of "storytelling game" I suggest "adventure game." That sounds cooler and covers more groups...those that like to tell stories about adventures and those that like to smash things on adventures. Everyone likes adventures, except Hobbits.

Plus it is easier to explain to new players. "An adventure game is like playing through the Indian Jones movies, or LoTR, or any number of other popular movies. It is better than computer games that try to do the same thing because there are no software limitations."

Also, the idea that the tactical powergamer would like WoW is, at least in my case, wrong. I do not get much enjoyment out of the "tactics" of clicking on monsters till they are dead. I much prefer the battlemat where I can manuever and employ actual tactics.

No offense to WoW players, I greatly enjoy that game as well, I just don't think there are much tactics involved (although I have not played much past 10th level).


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 15, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> One wonders then why any company even bothers to show up at GenCon.




Buzz.  You get your products to the "committed gamers" and they spread the word through the gamer grapevine.

Indy games do get the buzz, but a significant segment of the people hearing it aren't interested.



			
				Arksorn said:
			
		

> Instead of "storytelling game" I suggest "adventure game." That sounds cooler and covers more groups...those that like to tell stories about adventures and those that like to smash things on adventures. Everyone likes adventures, except Hobbits.




I like it, but I think that term has been associated with computer games long before the MMORPGs began to take hold (not that early versions didn't start appearing soon after).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 15, 2007)

Arksorn said:
			
		

> Also, the idea that the tactical powergamer would like WoW is, at least in my case, wrong. I do not get much enjoyment out of the "tactics" of clicking on monsters till they are dead. I much prefer the battlemat where I can manuever and employ actual tactics.
> 
> No offense to WoW players, I greatly enjoy that game as well, I just don't think there are much tactics involved (although I have not played much past 10th level).




As a player of both WoW and D&D, I have to step in here.

WoW DOES have tactics and a tactical gameplay that gets involved. Mainly it comes into play once you get into the end game stuff and organizing 10-25 people on complicated boss fights. Its not the same KIND of tactical fights that D&D is, but there are definitely tactics and more than just 'click and kill' involved. Especially when one person messing up just slightly for a number of reasons can cause everyone to die right then and there.

Not to say D&D should share this kind of thing. As has been said by others, D&D and video games(MMORPGs or more traditional RPGs) should evolve their own ways. If something works for both, awesome. But don't try to force them upon one another because there are a great many things about both that just plain won't work.

...course, I think the Power Gaming types in video games would LOVE the options and such in D&D if they knew just how much they could do.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

Arksorn said:
			
		

> No offense to WoW players, I greatly enjoy that game as well, I just don't think there are much tactics involved (although I have not played much past 10th level).



 

No offense, but since you've gotten to level 10, you haven't really seen anything of the game yet. There are plenty of tactics involved, whether soloing, grouping or raiding.

I'll put Onyxia up alongside a typical D&D dragon any day of the week -- they're quite comparable, unless the DM spends a LOT of energy coming up with the most involved dragon fight ever. (And even then, Onyxia's fight is pretty complex.) And she's really just the tip of the iceberg.

Heck, you don't even need to raid to see this stuff. Just get high enough to go into the Deadmines for involved, interesting fights.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 15, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Our group is eight 30-something guys, almost all married, engaged, or partnered up; no kids. Various outside interests, a lot of sports, a lot of drinkin'. Typical guys.




Mostly my group, save that two have kids. One person's kid and her boyfriend play with us.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't think there are a lot of video gamers amongst them, so I have no idea how successful an MMO would be at pulling any of them away from my group.




Mostly my group. I'm the only one of them that has played an MMO or even really much in the way of computer games.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Nobody-- _nobody_-- is here to tell a story. A good story that arises from one of our game sessions is a _fortunate circumstance_, at best, but certainly not the motivation for playing.




Totally not my group. Story and interaction are the _only _ reasons we're at that table every single week.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 15, 2007)

I would say that the use of 'Storytelling Game' is a terrible, terrible idea. The term is very loaded among a lot of gamers, who will refuse to look at anything to do with 'storytelling' sight unseen because of the horrific implementations that were tried by people that had no real understanding of the term or what it meant.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 15, 2007)

Arksorn said:
			
		

> Instead of "storytelling game" I suggest "adventure game." That sounds cooler and covers more groups...those that like to tell stories about adventures and those that like to smash things on adventures. Everyone likes adventures, except Hobbits.




I prefer that term too. The existence of the "Storyteller System" also causes problems with calling the genre Storytelling Games.

Cheers!


----------



## Zaruthustran (Aug 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The absolute hatred of "story" among many at this site is fine, it's opinions after all, but to insist it can't be financially successful is to ignore the success of White Wolf, which very explicitly is about telling stories, even going so far as to rename RPG elements in line with that: Storyteller, Chronicle, etc.
> 
> If "story" doesn't work _for you_, fine. But you are not the market. None of us is, whatever we like or don't like.




Whoa, whoa. White Wolf's Vampire game was very much a superhero game. It had a very cool setting, sure. But the mechanics were 100% "power up and smash". People hitting each other with manhole covers or hurled automobiles. "Soaking" a clip's worth of bullets. Punching someone through a wall, having a garou tear off an arm, and so on. Nature and Demeanor weren't really used that often, and many (most) games encourage players to pick behavioral traits anyway. 

Just saying that WW's storyteller system, well, wasn't a system that--from a systems/mechanic standpoint--did all that much to encourage or enable storytelling.


----------



## Shawn_Kehoe (Aug 15, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I prefer that term too. The existence of the "Storyteller System" also causes problems with calling the genre Storytelling Games.
> 
> Cheers!




ESPECIALLY since they rebooted the line back in 2004, when the "Storyteller System" was replaced by the "Storytelling System"


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 15, 2007)

Holy exploding thread, Batman!  That's a lot of reading! 

D+D needs at least *some* amount of story to make it playable...if only to give a rationale for going on to the next dungeon after finishing the last one...and this is usually (but not always) supplied by the DM.  However, any DM worth her-his salt has to be able to hit the curveball and allow the players to take the story in different directions...to me this goes without saying, but from things I've read here and elsewhere some DMs can't hit anything, never mind a well-placed nasty curve. 

Should the game morph so as to *revolve* around the story?  Though I think story should get a bit more mention in the core rules, this proposed morph might be overkill.  Also, if you have the dream situation of 5 or 6 or 7 player/DMs all very and equally creative and imaginitive, I can just see the result: "My story next!"  "No, *my* story!"  That said, having not DMed 3e I can't say I'm in any great hurry to try, given what I've heard about the work involved; reducing that would be a good step.

D+D also needs at least *some* amount of rules to make it playable.  0-1e probably didn't have enough.  2e maybe had enough but they weren't very good.  3e has too many.  A few more editions and with luck they'll find the bullseye! 

I also agree with those above who have said the 3e core books are just a little too dry and textbook-like.  Love them or hate them, Gary Gygax's quirky turns of phrase gave the game flavour and atmosphere it just doesn't have now.

As for sales numbers, I cannot for the life of me understand why direct collateral sales (dice, mini's, etc.) aren't counted in the sales figures.  They sure as hell count in my purchase figures! 

Lanefan


----------



## Toben the Many (Aug 15, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I'll tell you exactly what the problem is with RPGs. I speak as a "power gamer" that does not play WoW or MMORPGs.
> 
> In fact I think the "trend" of power gamers leaving tabletop for WoW is overrated.




I think this is an excellent point. While there are certainly people who are leaving D&D for World of Warcraft and etc...not everyone will. More importantly, I'm not convinced that a vast majority of power gamers will. 

For me, my skepticism comes with the massive time sink it takes to get into an MMORPG. I know, I know. You can schedule a weekly game with your buddies on the old WoW server. However, I know very few people who are willing or capable of doing that. Usually, one person in the group is home sick from work for a day, levels up and then everyone scrambles to catch up...and all of the sudden your "we'll only play on Thursdays" vow goes right out the window. 

More importantly, the stats don't reflect this. The average WoW player plays for 17 hours a week. What if I don't have that much time? How can I get my fix? Gee, there's this game called D&D and I only need to play it for 4 hours a week to get my fix. 

As of late, I've seen many MMORPG players coming back to the table after getting over their addicition.


----------



## Toben the Many (Aug 15, 2007)

Going back to the Original Post, however....

We can talk about the state of the industry all we want or TRPGs vs. MMORPGs. It's all been said before.

Ryan Dancey makes some intriguing points. Basically, what if D&D were more like Warhammer Quest or Arkham Horror? 

Both of these board games are cooperative and require no DM. Yet, in Arkham Horror, the game very much follows the "plot" of a Cthulu Adventure. The players can decide upon the main villain or threat, or it may be chosen randomly. Then, various encounters are decided upon by cards being drawn. As the players progress through the story, they find clues, put them together, and shut down gates to other dimensions. There is rising action as the Elder God in the scenario grows closer to coming to earth. Warhammer Quest follows the outline of a basic dungeon crawl, complete with an end room featuring a final boss and mounds of treasure. 

Either of these formats would only need a slight push to turn them into full-blown communal storytelling type games.

My only problem with such a proposal is how NPCs would be handled. For example, if you head into a tavern and decide to talk to the barkeep, who plays the barkeep? One of the players? This to me, presents more problems than one of having a bad DM. Because it now requires all of the players to be really good roleplayers. In a typical D&D game, if the DM is at least halfway descent at roleplaying, and most of the players are not...the game can still cost along fairly well. 

In a true DM-less game, there really is no roleplaying, because the DM's role is determined by random card draws or chart consulting. The players might have to convince a barkeep of something, but that barkeep is merely stats on a card, and the player needs to make a role to convince him. The idea of taking on a "role" is absent, because there is no one to reflect or respond with the player. 

Anyone want to tackle this? In a true DM-less game, how do you handle NPCs?


----------



## SHARK (Aug 15, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I'll tell you exactly what the problem is with RPGs. I speak as a "power gamer" that does not play WoW or MMORPGs.
> 
> In fact I think the "trend" of power gamers leaving tabletop for WoW is overrated. Most of my tabletop group used to play WoW a lot! Hours every night. Now, most of them have cancelled their WoW accounts and show no inclination of going back. Why? Because they have been there. Done that. They have done every quest. Hit max level with multiple character classes. There is just nothing there for them anymore. Now they are all playing LotR online, and when they get tired of that they will quit that and move on. However, our multiple D&D games involving these players are going strong. We have to turn players away in fact.
> 
> ...




Greetings!

Outstanding points, Dragonblade! Just excellent, my friend! I would add a few additional comments.

(1) Time Laborious: WOTC fumbled a glorious opportunity with E-Tools. That, right there--was a salient opportunity to revolutionize the hobby. Not so much to make it into a video-game; but rather, they could have established a robust and powerful software program that could grow with the DM and needs of the campaign; and take care of 90% of the math, tables, research, and configuring that DM's need to do to make not only a game session and module fly, but also a campaign to get off the ground and really soar.

So many people complain of the time constraints, of making up characters, npc's, monsters, etc, etc. All of that could have been taken care of by WOTC. Instead...we got E-Tools, and then...*nothing*. That coup alone could have juiced the hobby like little else. 

Why? 

Because in one mighty swoop, DMing would become far easier, and far less time consuming.

This then, would have allowed it to develop that it would be much easier to gain and interest more people into DMing--which increases the hobby.

In addition, with so much more time on the hands of the average DM, I submit that you could also see a significant increase in their skill/plot/character/campaign development abilities, which in turn translates into MORE FUN for the players; which in turn contributes to a stronger, healthier hobby.

Instead, they choked. They had the money. They had the prestige. They had the talent pool, and the resources.

And they CHOKED!!!!!

Much to the chagrin and disappointment of many, many people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 15, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> D&D cannot compete with this, no way. D&D needs to be whatever the players and DMs want it to be, but officially WoTC needs to play to the strengths of the game ie. the social element, the playing of a role and the potential to have an immersive experience in a world of infinite possibiliy. If one is going for the thrill of the kill, cool magical effects, great visuals and a more superficial experience, CRPGs beat D&D any day.




Sure, if you want to play a wizard that looks like a quarterback in a dress. Or you like watching gnomes run by going "choo choo!" and doing the locomation. Or if you really get a sense of heroic adventure by CaptainCrunch announcing "xp 2 low, loot sux" after you nail a difficult boss. Or you are forced to discard the coolest looking armor because no one will group with you unless you wear the Ugly Gray Breastplate of Plusses to Everything.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 15, 2007)

Ryan Dancey said:
			
		

> The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not “play a role”. The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”. Roleplaying is a tactic, not a strategy. Some participants want to play roles, and that’s fine. Others want to provide narrative structure. Still others want to create systems for interaction and adjudication. And another group wants to generate environments. All of these people need to be made co-equal for the hobby to succeed long term.
> 
> Therefore, I think we need to engage in metamorphosis from “roleplaying games” to “storytelling games”. And in that change lies the seeds of our success.




Didn't we already have this revolution? Did Mark Rein*Hagen hack Dancey's blog or something?



			
				Belen said:
			
		

> Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years.  That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.




Mongoose appears to be the new Palladium: Online communities are filled with people who swear they've never seen a Mongoose gamer, and yet Mongoose is -- almost without a doubt -- the most successful company to emerge in this industry in the last decade. They run dozens of profitable game lines, and continue to expand their range of offerings at a rapid pace. And they're doing all this during a time period when most of the industry is in a period of severe retreat.

I, personally, haven't seen anything to convince me that they've meaningfully improved their offerings from the early days of the D20 license when they churned out virtually unedited schlock as fast as they could secure time on the printing presses. I consider their success to be predicated entirely on clever branding and saturation distribution of mediocrity. More recently they seem to have extended this strategy by securing popular, well-recognized licenses and then using those licenses to continue churning out their mediocrity.

Although, like a stopped clock, they're right some of the time: Amidst all the garbage I've seen from them, they've had a few really good Mike Mearls supplements, for example. On the other extreme, though, this is the company that produced a first edition of the Conan RPG so dreadful that it was completely unusable. But its a testament to their channeling of P.T. Barnum that they managed a customer relations coup by offering anyone who bought the flawed first edition the "unbeatable" opportunity to buy a copy of the second edition at the same price point that they would sell the books to their distributors (in other words, at a price point that guaranteed them full profits from the second edition). And they were widely thanked throughout the many fan forums for their generosity!

(I wish I could convince my customers to buy a pre-alpha copy of a product at full price and then buy a copy of the final release all over again at full price. And thank me for the privilege.)

But, as much as I may look at the quality of their offerings with askance, there's no questioning their success.

And let me be honest: As much as I may mutter under my breath about the failures I see in Mongoose as a company, I'm taking notes on what leads to their success.

My hat's off to Matt and everybody at Mongoose. Bravo and keep up the good work. (And hire an editor.   )

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 15, 2007)

In my view, the beauty of RPGs is that when the Joker faces Batman, there is a real possibility of the Batman getting killed. Is that a "great story?" Or how about Legolas getting critted by an unnamed Harad?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Whoa, whoa. White Wolf's Vampire game was very much a superhero game. It had a very cool setting, sure. But the mechanics were 100% "power up and smash". People hitting each other with manhole covers or hurled automobiles. "Soaking" a clip's worth of bullets. Punching someone through a wall, having a garou tear off an arm, and so on. Nature and Demeanor weren't really used that often, and many (most) games encourage players to pick behavioral traits anyway.
> 
> Just saying that WW's storyteller system, well, wasn't a system that--from a systems/mechanic standpoint--did all that much to encourage or enable storytelling.



Yeah, so what? I know there's a group out there that insists that people can only play the games encouraged by the rules, but White Wolf (among others) show otherwise.

This is especially the case in White Wolf, since so much focus is given in the DM, er, Storyteller advice into crafting the game AS a Chronicle.

Heck, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is explicitly about superheroes, and it has possibly the best of class advice for crafting a game that works as a story that's both episodic and hangs together in seasons.

White Wolf's success isn't because it lets players be vampire superheroes. Rifts did that years before. It succeeded because it married a topic to a style of play that had been a marginal sort of play previously. As we can see on this thread, suggesting that D&D players think about stories causes quite a few of them to freak the hell out.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Aug 15, 2007)

Toben the Many said:
			
		

> Ryan Dancey makes some intriguing points. Basically, what if D&D were more like Warhammer Quest or Arkham Horror?




My group enjoys those games because everyone gets to be a PC/no one has to be the DM. It's perfect for those times when no one can DM because everyone is too busy with life/work/whathaveyou, and yet the whole group still can get together for a game.

A hybrid would be a game that had a guiding GM, but that gave the players a greater degree of influence over the course of the story. Say, something like the horror game that Piratecat mentioned a while back. Dread . 




> Anyone want to tackle this? In a true DM-less game, how do you handle NPCs?




Well, I think you nailed it. A DM-less RPG (in other words, games that are more open/expansive than a board game) would require a pretty sophisticated group of players. I'm not sure that's the route to go if the goal is to expand the playerbase.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 15, 2007)

Perhaps the biggest advantages of tabletop rpgs is that they're extremely cheap to play. Only 1 person in a group of 5-6 actually needs a copy of the rules, and beyond that all you need to play are pencils and paper (which it can be safely assumed everybody already has -- though you might need to buy a pad of graph paper for a buck or two) and dice (which varies by game -- back in the 80s most games game in boxes that included dice so assuming everybody was willing to share a single set that's no extra investment, some games use only six-sided dice which most households already have (or if not you can buy a set at the supermarket for ~$2), and even if every player in the group buys a full set of polyhedral dice we're still only taking, what, a one-time investment of $5 per person (confession: I haven't bought a set of polyhedral dice in ~15 years and have no idea what they actually go for nowadays)?). Sure it's _possible_ (at least for most games) to buy assorted accessories (GM screens, characters sheets), supplements, adventures, and of course minis to the tune of $100+ a month, but none of that stuff is really necessary and it's perfectly possible to play the game (or at least most games) without any of it.

This is something that the rpg industry seems to have spent the last 20 years trying to change (or at least downplay) which, at least IMO, is ultimately a mistake as it obscures one of the few truly undeniable advantages rpgs have over pretty much all of their competition. Why not make the fact that for a single $40 investment (boxed set with ~100pp rulebook, intro adventure, character sheet blanks, and whatever dice are needed to play -- pretty much the same model we saw in the early-mid 80s, when rpgs were at ther peak of popularity) an entire group of people can be entertained for at least months, probably years (and possibly a lifetime...) into a selling point, or even _the_ selling point?

I'm still playing with 1E AD&D rulebooks I bought close to 25 years ago, and have never given WotC a cent of my money (the last "Official D&D" product I purchased was sometime around 1993) but I'm still "supporting the hobby" by playing the game, talking about the game, introducing new people to the game, and increasing its visibility. I'm pretty sure that WotC has written me off as part of their customer-base (they'll make an occasional nostalgia-based appeal to try and lure me into the fold of the current edition, but as long as I'm not buying they're not listening to me), but why shouldn't they be holding people like me up as paragons of what the game is capable of? A single investment and you can still be having fun a quarter century later; no console game or MMORPG is ever going to match that!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> A single investment and you can still be having fun a quarter century later; no console game or MMORPG is ever going to match that!



Why can't a console game do that?


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Why can't a console game do that?



 So you know a lot of folks who are still playing _Adventure_ or _Swordquest: Earthworld_?


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Aug 15, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Sure, if you want to play a wizard that looks like a quarterback in a dress. Or you like watching gnomes run by going "choo choo!" and doing the locomation. Or if you really get a sense of heroic adventure by CaptainCrunch announcing "xp 2 low, loot sux" after you nail a difficult boss. Or you are forced to discard the coolest looking armor because no one will group with you unless you wear the Ugly Gray Breastplate of Plusses to Everything.




You've never player Elder Scrolls: Oblivion have you?

I don't know what you are referring to, but I wouldn't play crap like whatever you are referencing.



Sundragon


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Aug 15, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> I, personally, haven't seen anything to convince me that they've meaningfully improved their offerings from the early days of the D20 license when they churned out virtually unedited schlock as fast as they could secure time on the printing presses. I consider their success to be predicated entirely on clever branding and saturation distribution of mediocrity. More recently they seem to have extended this strategy by securing popular, well-recognized licenses and then using those licenses to continue churning out their mediocrity.




The Conan RPG is excellent. It along with True20 from Green Ronin, is my D20 ruleset of choice. Its what D&D can be without magic glut. Its a great D20 system. A new version is coming out soon that promises further improvements. Runequest is quite good though different from D20 and is OGL like Conan so publishers can capitalize on this. Mongoose IMO is a matured company that is making excellent products with high production values and excellent support. The Conan line has great support and the writing is top notch. I was no fan of the Quintessential series, but that was a long time ago.

I would place the materials they have created in the last few years right up there with WoTC and Green Ronin. I get a lot more use out of recent Mongoose and Green Ronin materials than I do from WoTC these days. I am also looking forward to seeing what they do with Elric.



Sundragon


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> So you know a lot of folks who are still playing _Adventure_ or _Swordquest: Earthworld_?



Good lord, not Swordquest, are you kidding?

But Atari 2600 in general? You bet. There's a pretty substantial scene of videogamers owning and playing classic console games.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 15, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> Combined, they're part of the 10-12% that is not D&D or WW. Individually, they're each lucky if they have 1-2%.




Well let's pretend, that you are right, and these games have those 2%. How much is that in absolute numbers? Somebody probably knows more about this, but let's say we have 5 millions of players worldwide. (Just my wild guess, but still). Those 2% woud mean 100,000 players than.

Now compare that with those indie games... best one has sold how much? How many players acutally play those games? That is completely different league...



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> As far as I know, gamers go to GenCon. To see a continued, growing presence on the part of the indie folk both there, and at Origins, and at local cons... that means something.




As somebody already point out, the visitors of gamecon are not a good sample of the gamers out there. It is unnecessary activity of a gamer. Most of the causal gamers never visit this con or any other. But those casual gamers are pretty much the big base of buyers. If you will not appeal them... well, you might get your game hyped on forums or cons, but that is pretty much all.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> They are also doing a ton of con organizing, i.e., local cons for the common gamer.




Are you sure, that common gamers visit cons? For what purpose?



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I agree that it's maybe not a great model for the industry _as it exists now_. However, it could be a new model that's good for the _hobby_.




Hobby yes, industry I am not so sure about.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> As for comparing anything to the D&D boom of the 70s-80s... it's an unfair comparison, IMO. You're talking about the birth of the entire hobby.




As far as I understand Ryan Dancey, he is speaking about rebirth of the hobby. Anything less would miss the point. So the comparison is important. Indie revolution is very small scale, very local and globaly unsuccesful. That would not save the industry. I am sorry...

Also imagine, that you would want to do those "one-man" publishing for like thousands or tens of thousands people. That would require different approach which I am worried the indies are not prepared to. They still sell in hundreds at the very best, which could be managed. That is not a model that can simply be just made larger.


----------



## Delta (Aug 15, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> Yeah. I see your point. But to be honest... D&D has the product for beginners. D&D Basic set  Which would do the job nicely in 4 hours, I belive. The problem is, when you or anybody decide to begin with the game, he will not be offered this (in most cases) but PHB instead.




I also think that the major problems confronting modern D&D are the barrier to entry of new players (rules-wise) and the difficulty DM'ing. Simplifying the game would help both these problems (reduce classes, reduce skills and feats, reduce equipment and spells, nix AOOs and reduce special attack options, etc.). Failing that, a good introductory Basic set is a must.

But the problem with the recent "Basic" sets, like the one you link to, is that it seems that they cut out the personalized character-generation step, which is so much what hooks people on D&D that I think it's nigh-madness on the part of WOTC. To my understanding, the Basic set:

- Has 4 fixed characters to choose from.
- Has no character-generation capacity.
- Doesn't even have ability scores.

That's not D&D, and its lacking the whole major point that hooks people on D&D, and the experience is not transferable to D&D. You've got to have a Basic set with "real" D&D character generation (not pregenned characters, not templates) or you've missed the whole point of an RPG. 

If WOTC finds it technically impossible to present "real" character generation in the context of a stripped-down Basic set, then that is a bright-red flashing sign that the game is simply far too irreducibly complicated. It must be simplified or Dancey's perceived death-spiral will be unavoidable.


----------



## Yair (Aug 15, 2007)

I don't think egalitarian storytelling can work. Most players won't contribute much, but that's not really the problem. What bothers me is that things can't work well in terms of unexpected twists and surprises and so on; to make a good game, you need a united vision that just can't be provided by a commitee, I think.

Still, it's an interesting concept. It allows everyone to play more and lowers the burden. I've long wanted to try a bit of Mythic, which seems to be intended to do just that. I just don't have the time to try it out, though


----------



## Roman (Aug 15, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Something like this?
> 
> [Energy][Attack]
> Evocation [energy]
> ...




That's actually pretty good. I would probably only add a way to increase effects (range, area, damage, etcetera) by increasing the level of the spell.


----------



## Delta (Aug 15, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> My own research into the mechanics of spells leads me to believe that 75-90% of the spells could be condensed into one or two dozen spell templates... The Evocation school alone is little more than (energy type)+(ray or AoE)+(maximum caster level).




That's a development that I'm not at all worried about. It would be the final nail in the coffin of D&D if it went in that direction.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 15, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> That's a development that I'm not at all worried about. It would be the final nail in the coffin of D&D if it went in that direction.



I think it would work great for a simplified or basic version of D&D, with the more complicated spells listed as options for those who want greater spellcasting complexity.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2007)

> 4. Social network. D&D needs friends, and structured time – which is probably why it primarily gets people to enter at a time & place when they’re more socially active but have barriers (cost, transportation) that facilitate getting people together for low-cost activity. [I’m typing this at the airport, after having listened to Ryan Dancey’s interview on the Fear the Boot podcast on the way to the airport, so this fact of the demographic is stuck in my mind.] This can be a barrier to experienced players, too. I’m a perfect example – as an adult with all the competing adult & family demands who relocates to a different part of the country every 2-3 years, I find it very difficult to locate a group to play with that fits my gaming preferences.




I think this is one area where the Virtual Table Top has a real shot at gaining an audience.  It takes the convenience factor of an MMORPG, and gives you an experience that is certainly comparable to table top.  Hopefully the DI will approach things in this way.

Imagine being able to run a "Newbies D&D" run by gaming luminaries once a month and draw from online populations.  I could see this having a pretty decent impact on new blood entering the hobby.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 15, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> That's a development that I'm not at all worried about. It would be the final nail in the coffin of D&D if it went in that direction.




I bet I could lift this quote and place it back before the advent of 3e.

Good design trumps sacred cows. Every time. Sacred cows are only relevant to _existing_ gamers, and the _existing_ gamers aren't enough to make RPGs "successful." That's the point of the whole thread.

Final nail in the coffin *for you*? Maybe. Sorry to see you go, but the industry has to be ready to churn you eventually.

The "Lite Edition" only has to replace you with one new gamer to hold the status quo.

You're betting that such a change would drive away more players than it attracts. I'd happily bet against you.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 15, 2007)

Looking at Step 2, I will wish Ryan Dancey good luck.  I do not for one second see this idea of a distributed-GM, storytelling game having more appeal than traditional TRPGs.  If executed well, it might catch a segment of the market and bring some additional people in the way that WW Vampire did when first introduced, but I don't believe it will overtake the market.  

On top of all that, perhaps it will be revealed in later steps, but where is the business model in this idea that will generate growing sales on the order of CCGs etc?  Isn't that one of his arguments against TRPGS, that they are not generating growing revenue?  I'm not seeing how this redefined experience solves this problem, unless he believes it will be so popular that everyone will want to buy it.  Maybe it will be a success and will generate huge sales as everyone buys the rules.  Surely WotC saw their best years when the released core books, because the majority of players were buying them.  Once the masses buy into this new game system, what keeps them coming back for more purchases to continue growing revenue?


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Aug 15, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Actually, it stood for Tactical Studies Rules.




I know. I was creating a NEW name that had the old 'buzz' letters in it.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 15, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think it would work great for a simplified or basic version of D&D, with the more complicated spells listed as options for those who want greater spellcasting complexity.




Spells are supposed to have colorful names, be quirky to deal with, and rather flamboyant, in D&D. It's not only simple... it's a change, which in some ways is not desirable. Instead of evard's black tentacles you would have Area Entangle with Damage. 

Sort of an anti-Hero System... instead of taking generic powers and building cool spells, you would be taking cool spells and turning them into generic powers.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 15, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> You've never player Elder Scrolls: Oblivion have you?




No, my experience with Morrowind pretty much killed that possibility.


----------



## mrswing (Aug 15, 2007)

I think the 'adventure game'-description is definitely the best. Storytelling game conjures up images of people sitting around a campfire, taking turns to add new parts to a story. Not everyone can do that or _wants_ to do that. 

The primary reason to play any RPG is to have fun - on that, everyone agrees. What constitutes fun is different for almost everyone. 

For me, and for most people I played with, playing a game which had the characters as the lead heroes in a strong plot was ultimately most rewarding. The 'trouble' with D&D (or the defining characteristic) is that it basically took a part of LOTR (the mines of moria) and developed that into the archetypal RPG experience: a diverse group enters a 'hole in the ground', discovers all kinds of monstrous enemies, and ends up facing a boss monster/NPC. It's a very limited paradigm on the one hand, on the other it's clear and it allows for an infinite amount of variations in the details. However, as a story experience it is unfulfilling IMHO, especially if it is repeated ad nauseam. As a tactical exercise, it can remain fun, especially due to the enormous number of variables which change every time (monsters, traps, new abilities of PCs, in some cases the backstory to the adventure). 

The main hurdle to telling novel- or movielike stories in D&D is the experience mechanism. You have to accumulate a large number of XPs to progress. Therefore, as an adventure designer you are forced to send huge numbers of opponents to be defeated by the PCs, or their progress will be too slow. Most D&D modules contain absurd numbers of opponents (something which was ported to most CRPGs). 

On the other hand, where a short story may get away with introducing one monster, and a novel with a handful of weird creatures, monsters lose most of their mystique in D&D because they are basically XP generators. No RAW D&D adventure could get away with introducing only one monster, which has very special powers and/or weaknesses which the characters must discover and exploit. In other fantasy games  this would however be a perfectly valid and probably memorable scenario - Fantasy HERO, for example, or even Conan d20 - both games in which the experience factor is handled quite differently, or Warhammer, or BRP. (Conan proposes a very freeform type of XP gain, in which the GM decides after a number of adventures to raise the level of the PCs). 

The other big storytelling hurdle, and the one which leads to railroading on both the part of  the adventure designer and the DM, is the fact that the protagonists of the tale (PCs) have free will and at times will completely derail the intended plot. Case in point, when I was playing in Shadows over Bögenhaven, as a halfling thief, my character pretended to be a merchant to glean some necessary info. One thing led to another, and before long I was getting ready to open a trading house... great fun, it turned out, but not what the GM and module had in mind (not to mention the rest of the group). So I had to shut the shop down, for the greater good...  

Actually, the storytelling aspect of RPGs is best realized in very small groups, ideally one player and one GM. As both are there to have fun, the player will generally be far less inclined to deliberately run off the (more or less) intended track. I've played CN3 like this (using Rolemaster), and it worked a treat, just like several Flashing Blades adventures and - best of all, probably - the James Bond modules for  Victory Games (though I played them with a heavily houseruled version of Top Secret 1st. ed.). In these games, the plot was clear, the PC had a natural inclination to follow the trail of the plot, and in general, a great time was had by both. 
Changing this to a group experience is not impossible, but far more difficult. And it may definitely conflict with the concept of fun of many gamers (especially those who love the entire D&D paradigm as is).


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 15, 2007)

mrswing said:
			
		

> On the other hand, where a short story may get away with introducing one monster, and a novel with a handful of weird creatures, monsters lose most of their mystique in D&D because they are basically XP generators. No RAW D&D adventure could get away with introducing only one monster, which has very special powers and/or weaknesses which the characters must discover and exploit.




Why not? As long as it's a high CR or there are lots of it, this presents no problem at all. Plus there are ad hoc awards, which are by the RAW part of the experience system.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 15, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Spells are supposed to have colorful names, be quirky to deal with, and rather flamboyant.




And rules are not.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> As we can see on this thread, suggesting that D&D players think about stories causes quite a few of them to freak the hell out.




Or we've been meaningless participants in enough games that are essentially "drama queen's story hour". Or played through pretty much any 2nd edition module, where all you did was basically click "turn the page" and roll a die now and then.

DM: "The soldier lasy dying and asks you to come closer to impart some last words"
Player: "I cast Heal on him"
DM: "... It doesnt work. Look, my story says he dies giving you some vague clues, and thats whats going to happen!"
Player "Wake me when I matter"

Hell, I've seen DM's people here seem to respect on this forum advocate this exact same crap because it might wreck their precious plot. 

Its one thing to walk into an adventure with a vague outline, its another thing to walk in with a polished "story" because the latter presumes you know PC actions. Hell, in many ways, its far more "video gamey", where your character stands around like a moron in a cut scene whil;e the BBEG waltzes off with the widget of doom or whatever.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 15, 2007)

You know what game my seven-year-old is most interested in right now? Marbles. Actual "draw a circle on the ground & flick glass balls around" _marbles_. Sure, he enjoys his _Star Wars: Battlefront_, _Lego Star Wars_, &c.; but he'll drop those in a second to play marbles.

So the idea that video games will ever make _anything_ obsolete is laughable to me.

Not that these aren't important topics, just that that puts it all in perspective for me.



			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Don't shy away from it being a geeky thing, because these days, being a geek is almost a badge of honor.




The truth is that nigh everyone realizes they are some form of geek. Poker geek. Garden geek. Music geek. Movie geek. Whatever.

Sometimes we give lip-service to geek stereotypes for fun, but it's just talk. We don't really mean it.

The very few people who really believe "geek" is a negative are the real geeks & not even worth wasting another word on.

Or they're still in middle-school. Just smile knowingly until they graduate. (^_^)

If you don't believe me, start telling people you're a gamer. Ask about their hobbies, & notice that you don't deride them for that. Tell them about your hobby, & notice that--not only do they seldom have a negative reaction--a good number of them will actually be interested to know more about it.



			
				der_kluge said:
			
		

> I don't see how the [cinema] theater industry is a sustainable model.  It seems to be, but I can't see it lasting forever, honestly.  How can it?




The traditional model isn't. The way most theatres are evolving isn't either.

Companies like the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin (& beyond now) are reinventing movie theatres in ways that can survive, however. Instead of keeping the same snacks & raising the prices, they actually serve food & drink that is worth the price. Instead of treating you as merely eyes they can sell to advertisers, they create events that celebrate film & provide entertainment beyond what's on the screen.

They aren't the only one, & you're going to see more & more of this.

The striking thing to me is how obvious Alamo's moves seem. Especially when compared to what the others are doing. But I guess that's often the hallmark of genius: It leaves you wondering why you didn't think of it yourself.



			
				Alnag said:
			
		

> Yeah. I see your point. But to be honest... D&D has the product for beginners. D&D Basic set  Which would do the job nicely in 4 hours, I belive. The problem is, when you or anybody decide to begin with the game, he will not be offered this (in most cases) but PHB instead.




That is a problem.

The other problem is that the introductory sets don't seem to introduce the game I want to introduce people to. It's something vaguely similar, but--for me--it misses the mark. My old Basic Set & Prince Valiant have been my choices for this task. Even Dungeon Squad looks like it would do it better to me. (In fact, it was created when the author's attempt to introduce people to the hobby via 3e failed.)



			
				DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a rule for everything and then cut out what I don't like rather than have a lack of rules and then have to make them up on the spot as I go.




<shrug> I'd rather not have to waste time weeding out a bunch of (for me) useless rules. (Because there's an awful lot I want to handle with quick _ad hoc_ rulings rather than using a rule, whether made up in advance by someone else or made up by me on the spot.)

Pohtaytoh, pahtahtoh.



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Actually the only "necessary rules" are those presented in the PHB.




Which is still too much for many people. Which wouldn't bother me so much if D&D weren't the flagship of the industry.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> DM consistency is a tough issue to tackle




No it's not. It just takes the players realizing that the DM is human & that--while that has its advantages--they have to give him some slack due to its disadvantages. They have to extend him the benefit of the doubt that taking on a tough job for their sakes deserves. It just takes the DM being willing to listen to the players & fairly consider their input. It's that easy.



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> We obviously have different views of very basic things.  Yet both of us are attracted to RPGs.




Right. Ideally the flagship RPG would be a decent gateway into the hobby for as wide a group of potential gamers as possible.

But, it can't be a "designed by committee" "try to be all things to all people" kind of thing either. It has to have enough focus to remain compelling. A gateway that the widest number of potential gamers can most easily pass through, but once through they'll find other games that expand the experience in the way that fits them.

That, I think, is a tall order.



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> The big % of the problems in RPG are bad DMs.




I don't think that's true. I think "bad DM" isn't really as common as it is made out to be. I think the "bad DM" fairly quickly drops out or learns to be an "adequate DM".



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> My own research into the mechanics of spells leads me to believe that 75-90% of the spells could be condensed into one or two dozen spell templates.




I kind of had the impression that the 3e designers had actually done that. Then they just rebuilt most of the spells from those templates. Maybe not entirely formally, but effectively.

That's probably another one of those "I'd like 3e more if it weren't trying so hard to be D&D" things. I liked the spells in earlier editions that didn't fit to templates. I don't like that 3e regularized things so much, but didn't just give me the templates.


----------



## buzz (Aug 15, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> Well let's pretend, that you are right, and these games have those 2%.



I'm just going by the numbers Ken Hite produces each year.



			
				Alnag said:
			
		

> Now compare that with those indie games... best one has sold how much? How many players acutally play those games? That is completely different league...



The best ones have sold in the thousands. The bigger point, though is that, as a community, it's not an insignificant number, and it's growing. It's also a very active, vocal community focused on pushing design forward and getting people to game. I think it's also telling that it's indie publishers who have won the Origins RPG award the last two years, not to mention finding more and more spots in the Ennies each year.



			
				Alnag said:
			
		

> As somebody already point out, the visitors of gamecon are not a good sample of the gamers out there.
> ...
> Are you sure, that common gamers visit cons? For what purpose?



I find it kind of bizarre that both you and Glyfair are trying to basically make the argument that cons in general, and GenCon (_the_ signature con of the hobby) in particular, are in no way representative of the hobby. If GenCon was only for die-hard gamers with, apparently, no ability to tell good from crap, why do so many publishers make such a big deal about it?

And it's not that the indie folk are _going_ to cons, it's that they're creating cons. These folk are really focused on _getting people together and actually playing_. I think that's awesome.

As far as I understand Ryan Dancey, he is speaking about rebirth of the hobby. Anything less would miss the point. So the comparison is important. Indie revolution is very small scale, very local and globaly unsuccesful. That would not save the industry. I am sorry...[/quote]
No, he's talking about competing with WoW. Judging any effort a failure because it doesn't duplicate the boom of the hobby's creation is like judging a 2007 dot-com startup by the standards of 1998.



			
				Alnag said:
			
		

> Also imagine, that you would want to do those "one-man" publishing for like thousands or tens of thousands people. That would require different approach which I am worried the indies are not prepared to. They still sell in hundreds at the very best, which could be managed. That is not a model that can simply be just made larger.



Admittedly, it's not necessarily a model for a WotC-sized operation. Then again, given that both WotC and WW ended up being purchased by a larger, non-RPG corporation in order to survive, it may be that their model isn't a sustainable one that should be duplicated.

Anyway, we're derailing this thread somewhat.   

Regardless, my point was not that the indie method is an industry cure-all. I was more pointing to them already pursuing the "story focused" design goal Ryan was talking about. I also think they're taking a novel approach to the hobby, and their efforts should not be ignored.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 15, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Just saying that WW's storyteller system, well, wasn't a system that--from a systems/mechanic standpoint--did all that much to encourage or enable storytelling.




I don't think a system, by itself, _can _ do that. Really, it just illustrates that people can play Vampire just as badly as they can D&D.


----------



## KenSeg (Aug 15, 2007)

I think the virtual tabletop gaming option is one that should be explored by WOTC. After several years of reading threads here and elsewhere, one of the most common comments is that a group dissolved when one member had to move or some other similar disruptive event.  Virtual tabletop gaming would solve this in part in that you could continue to game with friends regardless of distance. I know I would love to get together and throw the bones again with my old high school friends (Ernie, Jim, Kyle, etc...). My current group is made up of two married couples that have gamed together for 20 years now. If one of us had to move due to work, it would enable us to continue our gaming together and you could add players without the barriers of location/isolated communities/etc.

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 15, 2007)

This is what I got out of Ryan's last entry...

The model he describes very much sounds like Round-Robin GM'ing, which I've advocated for years on these very boards.  I was even planning on running a couple of sessions of it at Gen Con this year, but chose not to go at the last minute...


Anyway, RR GM'ing is essentially a game whereby everyone takes turns GM'ing, and continues the "story" from the last GM. At first, someone has to create the story out of nothing, and that's the hardest part - but when pressed to be creative on the spot, people usually turn up pretty good stuff.

These games almost always tell a story. I've ran this scenario many times over, and while it's completely different every time, the basic format remains the same - It almost always manages to fit into a 4-hour slot - you get plot development, introduction of a MacGuffin (not always, but most of the time), introduction of a villain, some combat, and a final showdown, and resolution.  It's amazing how it manages to just work itself out that way.  The games are extremely free form and almost paint Impressionistic-level paintings with wide brush strokes of narrative across a huge swath of campaign. But they're always fun and always interesting.

Even at it's best, a regular game of D&D hardly comes close, actually, because the "story" is gestalt - greater than the sum of its parts, contributed by more than one person, with twists and turns the original author couldn't possibly dream up. 

The biggest problem with Round-Robin GM'ing is that everyone at the table has to be comfortable GM'ing. Not everyone is, and the better the GM, the better this game becomes. I've ran this at Gen Con with ENWorld folks whom I consider to be excellent GMs, and it turns out superb. 

CAPES! is another game which sort of utilizes the same model - each player sort of takes turning dictating how the story turns out. The rules are very broad - you resolve an entire scene with the dice (I think they're are dice; I've only played it once) or by raising the stakes against those who oppose the resolution of the scene in the same manner in which you wish it to occur.  In D&D, this would be sort of like saying, "I walk into the room and kill everything" and the DM says, "Ok, roll the dice". In such a system, armor class and hit points are more or less meaningless minute details that only seek to complicate the game. Personality and story are very much in tact - role-playing does not have to be discarded. But the minutia of the game (which I suspect many people find enjoyable) is painted over in broad strokes. Attacks of Opportunity are replaced with broad decision trees regarding how and where the party wishes to go and what they do.  The game is fundamentally changed on many levels if you go to that extreme.

I believe what Dancey is advocated is more a round-robin approach. In Round-Robin, the current GM plays the roles of the monsters and NPCs, and his own PC becomes an NPC for the duration of GM'ing. 

For Round-Robin to be successful, though, the game has to play fast - very fast, like C&C or 1e fast. 3rd edition is much slower; chargen takes longer. I don't much care for C&C, but I've often felt like it would be the perfect vehicle for Round-Robin because combat is much faster, and chargen is a snap. With this game, pace and speed is crucial.

Anyway, I've blathered on enough.  Those are my thoughts.


----------



## Delta (Aug 15, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I bet I could lift this quote and place it back before the advent of 3e.
> 
> Good design trumps sacred cows. Every time. Sacred cows are only relevant to _existing_ gamers, and the _existing_ gamers aren't enough to make RPGs "successful." That's the point of the whole thread.
> 
> ...




Frankly this has nothing to do with 3E, or my own purchasing habits, or sacred cows, or a Lite Edition, or any of those things.

Making D&D get a whole dimension more abstract will make it even less interesting to new players. If the options are (a) making spells & monsters specific & visceral and easily pictured, vs. (b) making spells & monsters abstract templates that players have to translate into specific in-game uses, then yes, I'll happily bet that (a) draws in more players.

Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players. It would simultaneously be flushing out the campaign flavor that draws people into the game in the first place.

Did the Epic spell system not serve as a sufficient attempt at this already?


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 15, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Or we've been meaningless participants in enough games that are essentially "drama queen's story hour". Or played through pretty much any 2nd edition module, where all you did was basically click "turn the page" and roll a die now and then.




Then you haven't played a storytelling game; you've played a bad imitation of one done by people who 'don't get it'. 2E modules were especially bad like that, but so were a lot of GM's. 

They were like this one guy who used to be my boss. Everytime IBM farted, it was The Next Big Thing That Would Solve All Our Problems. So he'd buy up a ton of software, install it on everyone's machines and we'd be told we were now a 'XX shop'. Of course we didn't get any training on it, so he always wondered why the great and wonderful software never performed as advertised. 

Storytelling was and is much like that. People were told it would Save Their Game, and then it was dumped on them with little explanation or training; not even essays in the book like Vampire had to tell you the intent and such behind the way the game was designed. 

Is it any wonder that so many people did it so badly that it soured people on the very term sight unseen? It didn't matter that what they disliked _had no relationship to actual storytelling gaming. _ Most of the dislike (ironically, much like the so-called Satanist accusations against D&D) is born from a combination of hearsay, rumor,  and outright lies.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 15, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players.




But isn't it really the case that--while this is true for some people--for other people the abstract method is less work while the reading & understanding lots of concrete options is more work for them?

I'm not convinced that one is better for everyone than the other. Neither am I convinced that one is better for significantly more people than the other.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 15, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players. It would simultaneously be flushing out the campaign flavor that draws people into the game in the first place.




I would never advocate such a system without including a suitable selection of premade spells for player convenience.  Those would, ideally, fit onto cards which would either come in the game box or be in the back for photocopying, like character sheets often are.

With that said, what 'campaign flavor' is it that draws people to the game, again?  The bestselling fantasy game of all time, Final Fantasy 7, used the naming convention 'Fire,' 'Fire 2' and 'Fire 3' in its English-language release.  It had plenty of 'campaign flavor,' but it sure as heck didn't come from the names of the spells.

I assume you mean the 'campaign flavor' of 'Jack Vance's elaborate and quirky spell naming structure,' which is, I'm sure, even more eminently marketable and widely known today than it was when D&D first came out.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 15, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> I find it kind of bizarre that both you and Glyfair are trying to basically make the argument that cons in general, and GenCon (_the_ signature con of the hobby) in particular, are in no way representative of the hobby. If GenCon was only for die-hard gamers with, apparently, no ability to tell good from crap, why do so many publishers make such a big deal about it?



Yes, I am, stating that the GenCon is not representative of the hobby.  It is representative of one section of the hobby (the die hard player).  There are casual gamers there, bit they are the minority (mostly local players and those traveling there with die hard gamers).

I certainly am not saying die-hard gamers have "no ability to tell good from crap."  What I am saying is that die-hard gamers have different tastes from the casual gamer.  That indy games are attractive to die-hard gamers doesn't mean that indy games are attractive to casual gamers.  Some might, some might not.  There is also the complication that many (probably most) casual gamers aren't looking for another game.

Why do they make a big deal about it?  Because the diehard games spend the most money on gaming.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> And it's not that the indie folk are _going_ to cons, it's that they're creating cons. These folk are really focused on _getting people together and actually playing_. I think that's awesome.




I agree.  I even know non-indy gamers that are focused in "getting people together and actually playing."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 15, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> Making D&D get a whole dimension more abstract will make it even less interesting to new players.




My example was deliberately as abstract as possible (because Evocation has the most room for compression), but certainly more abstract than I would recommend.

But there's no reason that the game is better served by Detect Undead _and_ Detect Animals than it would be by Detect Creature.



> If the options are (a) making spells & monsters specific & visceral and easily pictured, vs. (b) making spells & monsters abstract templates that players have to translate into specific in-game uses, then yes, I'll happily bet that (a) draws in more players.




Those were not the options that were presented. 



> Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players.




No, it wouldn't, your inability to conceptualize notwithstanding. It would make it both simpler and more empowering.



> It would simultaneously be flushing out the campaign flavor that draws people into the game in the first place.




You're suggesting that new players are drawn to D&D because of an expectation that they will find certain spells in the PHB? The amount of arcanum that players have to assimilate before they can even play one game is a GOOD thing?

I'll be as kind as possible and simply say I doubt that particular line of thinking is driving Wizards R&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 15, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Instead of evard's black tentacles you would have Area Entangle with Damage.
> 
> Sort of an anti-Hero System... instead of taking generic powers and building cool spells, you would be taking cool spells and turning them into generic powers.



They would be both. The rules name would be "area entangle". The game-world would call it "Evard's Black Tentacles". A player coud refer to it by either name, exactly like the Hero System.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 15, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Right. Ideally the flagship RPG would be a decent gateway into the hobby for as wide a group of potential gamers as possible.
> 
> But, it can't be a "designed by committee" "try to be all things to all people" kind of thing either. It has to have enough focus to remain compelling. A gateway that the widest number of potential gamers can most easily pass through, but once through they'll find other games that expand the experience in the way that fits them.




I think your ideal gateway RPG is largely mythical.  I think we are distracted by the fact that historically RPGs have had a gateway RPG - D&D.  That changed a bit during the 90s when _Vampire_ started growing.  I know that _Vampire_ brought in a lot of roleplayers who would never have gotten in through D&D.

I think, in a more realistic world, that there would be several "gateway RPGs."  Think about it, is there a gateway video game?  No, there are many games.  There might have been back when Space Invaders, Pong & Pac-Man ruled the roost, but today gamers get in through many, many different doors.

When Ryan pointed out that having a single RPG being dominant would help the industry, I disagreed.  I think there is room for two or three RPGs being dominant, each addressing different things that might draw players into the hobby.  

The problem with that is hobby gamers are pretty passionate with loves and hates.  Look at all the D&D hate, the Eberron hate, the Vampire hate, the Games Workshop hate, etc.  Go ask a handful of Privateer Press gamers about Games Workshop or WizKids, you'll often hear a lot of venom.  That hate will be increased with multiple dominant systems, and that in itself is off-putting.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 15, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The rules name would be "area entangle". The game-world would call it "Evard's Black Tentacles". A player coud refer to it by either name, exactly like the Hero System.




Or give it his OWN name, which is even better.

And change it from black tentacles to the grasping ghosts of his ancestors. Again, cooler.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 15, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think, in a more realistic world, that there would be several "gateway RPGs."  Think about it, is there a gateway video game?  No, there are many games.  There might have been back when Space Invaders, Pong & Pac-Man ruled the roost, but today gamers get in through many, many different doors.




Absolutely agreed.

I notice that many of the negative responses here focus on Ryan's idea changing D&D (with an implied 'threat' to 'their game').  I don't believe Ryan is talking about changing D&D - I believe he's talking about creating a new "gateway RPG" that is independent from it, and, I suspect, in large measure independent from the existing fanbase.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 15, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And rules are not.




So what? the rules for spells in D&D are pretty simple. Some particular spells are a headache, but that would be true in any system, and it's certainly not true of (energy type) (shape of effect) spells.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 15, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I would never advocate such a system without including a suitable selection of premade spells for player convenience.  Those would, ideally, fit onto cards which would either come in the game box or be in the back for photocopying, like character sheets often are.
> 
> With that said, what 'campaign flavor' is it that draws people to the game, again?  The bestselling fantasy game of all time, Final Fantasy 7, used the naming convention 'Fire,' 'Fire 2' and 'Fire 3' in its English-language release.  It had plenty of 'campaign flavor,' but it sure as heck didn't come from the names of the spells.
> 
> I assume you mean the 'campaign flavor' of 'Jack Vance's elaborate and quirky spell naming structure,' which is, I'm sure, even more eminently marketable and widely known today than it was when D&D first came out.




Can I point out that Harry Potter uses dog latin names for the same effect? Thanks to _The Sword and the Stone_ and Shakepeare's _The Tempest_, we all know how bipidy-bobbidy-boo type spells work.


----------



## Delta (Aug 15, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, it wouldn't, your inability to conceptualize notwithstanding.




Thanks for the insult. I'm done here.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Good lord, not Swordquest, are you kidding?
> 
> But Atari 2600 in general? You bet. There's a pretty substantial scene of videogamers owning and playing classic console games.



But I imagine the games they're playing are mostly/entirely the arcade-style ones that wouldn't normally be considered analogous to (or in direct competition with) tabletop rpgs. I agree that some console-games are endlessly replayable, the same way pinball, poker, chess, basketball, golf, etc. are, but not really the story-based/rpg-analogue ones -- you can play _Space Invaders_ or _Kaboom!_ forever, but once you've won/finished the _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ game there's not a lot of appeal in playing it again. Maybe this has changed with later consoles and more elaborate games, but my experience with rpg-type console games in the 80s was that they'd be played obsessively for a couple weeks (however long it took to beat/finish the game) but then they'd be put away and rarely/never replayed after that, and as the complexity of the games increased the initial period of play increased but the replayability did not (and, if anything, decreased).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Or we've been meaningless participants in enough games that are essentially "drama queen's story hour".



I have been a vigorous opponent of doing this to players.

To equate story-driven games with "sit there and watch the DM tell you a story that he won't ever get around to doing as a bad novel" is just as inaccurate as saying the folks who want to focus on the game first, story second, should just be playing DDM. The extremes do not represent how it goes the majority of the time.



> Hell, I've seen DM's people here seem to respect on this forum advocate this exact same crap because it might wreck their precious plot.



I'd like to see some links. Because when I've seen people advance that here, everyone jumps on them and screams like howler monkeys, and rightly so.



> Its one thing to walk into an adventure with a vague outline, its another thing to walk in with a polished "story" because the latter presumes you know PC actions.



No argument. That's not what's being advocated. 

You know, this is sort of the tequila syndrome: Lots of people have BAD tequila experiences and swear it off for good, many of them getting sick just from the smell of it. And many of them never realize it wasn't the tequila that was the problem, it was how it was handled.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> But I imagine the games they're playing are mostly/entirely the arcade-style ones that wouldn't normally be considered analogous to (or in direct competition with) tabletop rpgs.



You're changing the argument here.

It was originally "there are people getting 20 years of fun out of console games."

To start qualifying that argument now is bogus. Yes, there are people getting 20 years of fun out of arcade games. Maybe it's not _you_, but your standards (nor mine) do not determine what other people enjoy. Just look at the music sales charts for proof of that. 

RPGs are great, but they are not unique in having long-lasting appeal. Bolstering RPGs by tearing down other sorts of entertainment hasn't ever worked. For all the high-fiving that went on when WotC put out their jokey ad about "if you're going to be sitting in the basement, pretending to be an elf, shouldn't you have some friends over?," does anyone think that ad made even one person say "hey, I should play tabletop RPGs instead of this MMORPG!"

Not even one.

RPGs need to be sold on their own merits, not by constructing problems with other forms of entertainment and presenting RPGs as the solution to these invented problems. Because if RPGs are going to be sold as a better mousetrap, they're inevitably going to get improved upon and passed by one of these days.


----------



## GrimGent (Aug 15, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> In my view, the beauty of RPGs is that when the Joker faces Batman, there is a real possibility of the Batman getting killed. Is that a "great story?" Or how about Legolas getting critted by an unnamed Harad?



Perhaps not a _great_ story, no, but a story nevertheless.

A little while ago at another forum someone asked me how a game session can produce any kind of a story if there's a chance that it will all end up with a random TPK. I answered: "Then it's the story of a TPK, of course. And if your character is killed by a housecat right after the game has started, why, then it is the story of how he goes out one day and is killed by a housecat; and before his death, it is just the story of him going out, and right after that it's the story of him getting attacked by the ferocious feline, and finally it's the story of him dying at the claws of the murderous moggie." Only the beginning, the initial circumstances usually determined by the GM, can be fixed in place. After that, you will be in the middle of a story that is generated gradually, action after action, round after round, until the end in which whatever problems were involved with that original situation have been resolved properly. That might mean returning to civilization with newfound fame and loot, or it might mean suffering a gruesome death. Most RPGs don't guarantee _happy_ endings. But a TPK is still an ending in a very concrete sense.

It's not the GM who's telling the story, you see. It's everyone at the table, and the tale only takes shape during the telling: as soon as you describe how your paladin slashes at a goblin, and as soon as the GM confirms the results, you have added another detail to it, although it won't be _finished_ until later.


----------



## buzz (Aug 15, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Why do they make a big deal about it?  Because the diehard games spend the most money on gaming.



If I knew industry folk would post to it, I'd be half tempted to start a new thread on this subject.* Because, honestly, I have a really hard time buying that, e.g., WotC builds a booth half the size of a city block, with WW2 tanks, castle walls, and an army of demo teams that hand out free stuff so they can maybe sell some product to a thousand or so "diehard gamers", much less do a bunch of seminars (for which their staff gets paid) that cost attendees $0 to view.


* I did: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3701245#post3701245


----------



## JustinA (Aug 15, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> The Conan RPG is excellent. It along with True20 from Green Ronin, is my D20 ruleset of choice. Its what D&D can be without magic glut. Its a great D20 system. A new version is coming out soon that promises further improvements. Runequest is quite good though different from D20 and is OGL like Conan so publishers can capitalize on this.




So I've heard. Unfortunately for Mongoose, the last product I bought from them was Conan: The unplayable and unedited first edition release. After spending half an hour realizing that I had just been royally conned, I threw the book into a box.

When they announced the "great deal" of offering to sell me the same book a second time, it didn't compel me to give them more money or dig the book out of the box. The book remains there to this day.

My flip-throughs of Mongoose product at the LGS have not revealed any substantial improvements in editorial standards or game design. I already own several editions of RuneQuest, and nothing I've heard about the new release convinces me that the new edition offers anything to me.

Is Mongoose publishing better products than the unusable drek they were publishing a few years ago? Probably. Is it good enough to make me forget that they burned me over and over and over again? Not yet.



			
				Delta said:
			
		

> But the problem with the recent "Basic" sets, like the one you link to, is that it seems that they cut out the personalized character-generation step, which is so much what hooks people on D&D that I think it's nigh-madness on the part of WOTC. To my understanding, the Basic set:
> 
> - Has 4 fixed characters to choose from.
> - Has no character-generation capacity.
> - Doesn't even have ability scores.




Ding, ding, ding!

The D&D Basic Set used to be a complete and open-ended game. If you wanted higher-level adventures you could go out and buy the Expert Set. If you wanted a more robust, detailed, and complex version of the game you could go out and buy AD&D. But the game you were given was a complete roleplaying system in and of itself.

The more recent versions of the Basic Set haven't achieved this. Their primary design goal appears to be nothing more than a teaser trailer of what an RPG can actually be. The game is essentially not playable beyond the sample scenarios included in the set.

If I bought these Basic Sets out of the blue, I would be pretty disappointed. They're essentially WotC asking people to pay for an extended advertisement of the PHB. They have neither the extendability of an actual RPG nor the replayability of a board game.

Even more baffling, however, is that the game doesn't even serve as a decent introduction to D&D: The mechanics, while similar, are fundamentally altered and the entire approach of the game is distinctly different from an actual RPG.

Now, I will note that I have not purchased the most recent revision of the Basic Set. I bought the version immediatley prior to it, however, and was not impressed in the least. I had been planning to give it as a present to introduce a friend to RPGs, but decided -- after looking at it -- that it wasn't going to accomplish anything. I looked at the advertising copy and read reviews for the new revision and didn't see anything that these fundamental design flaws had actually been addressed.

In my ideal world, there would be three products:

D&D: The Boardgame
D&D: Basic Set
D&D (PHB, DMG, MM)

The boardgame would be similar to the old DUNGEON boardgame, but would use mechanics more directly derived from D&D. The result would be a replayable boardgame experience. This would be quite distinct from an actual RPG, but it would have the appeal of a traditional boardgame while introducing people to both (a) the D&D brand name; and (b) some fundamental concepts of RPGs. If you designed it right, the boardgame could be extended through "adventure packs" that would give new scenarios.

The Basic Set would feature a stripped down version of the core rules. It would be fundamentally the same game, but without the bells and whistles and options which lead to inaccessible complexity. Most importantly, it would be a complete RPG in its own right.

And D&D would continue to be D&D: A complex RPG with options and rules covering lots of diferent scenarios, continually extendable through a series of supplements.

This continuum of gaming would let people find their own comfort level in terms of complexity, gameplay, and preparation -- without trying to find the magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution for "what people want". What people want varies considerably. You don't succeed as an automobile company by making nothing except SUVs.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You're changing the argument here.



I'm not changing _my_ argument at all, I just maybe didn't state it clearly enough the first time around so you misunderstood what it was. My point wasn't that _no_ other game offers the same sort of long-term replay value as tabletop rpgs, because many other types of games clearly do -- a deck of cards or a chess set or a basketball is both a cheaper investment and has as much or more long-term replay value than even the cheapest and broadest rpg. I wasn't considering those in my comparison, though, because people don't normally see cards or chess or basketball as being in direct competition with tabletop rpgs because they offer significantly different experiences and rewards. I would place arcade-style console games into that same category -- playing "Frogger" isn't any more analogous to playing D&D than playing golf is. 

However, "rpg-style" console games (later-generation ones from the 90s-00s at least) _are_ frequently cited as direct competition for tabletop rpgs (and even as rendering tabletop rpgs "obsolete"), because they do have a lot of the same appeal -- explore a fantastic/imaginary world, participate in a story, take on a fictional role, kill things and take their stuff, etc. -- and because they have several distinct advantages over tabletop rpgs -- cool graphics, you don't have to read a rulebook in order to start playing, you can play at your own pace and don't need to gather together a bunch of like-minded friends in order to play, etc. But these advantages are balanced out by (among other things) the fact that they're finite and generally have minimal replay value -- it's assumed that once you've finished/beaten the game that you'll move on and buy another one. 

That, nothing more or less, is what I meant to say originally.


----------



## scourger (Aug 15, 2007)

The blog presents some interesting points.  I agree that "roleplaying" and "D&D" have negative connotations.  The biggest is the alleged satanic influence.  It is not helped that the MM is full of demons, devils, etc.  Those aspects are easy to ignore if you don't care for them, but they are very prominent to the outside observer.  It is an element fo which I am reminded when I preview many new products, and I think it is one that the hobby could stand to lose.  

I also agree that the game is about storytelling.  But, power gaming, strategy and tactics are big elements, too.  Sean Reynolds had a four-quadrant analysis on his web site that WotC commissioned several years ago, but his site is down.  That analysis presented essentially those four elements as the composite of role-playing gamers.  So, while storytelling is important, the other factors are important, too.  

The game is just that at its base--a game.  Players first want a consistent game that isn't too hard to understand and play.  Then, the story evolves from their power, tactical and strategic choices.  

I think the biggest thing missing in the RPG experience is collective play.  The living games came close, but they just didn't get there.  MMORPGs do much better because they have millions playing in a shared world.  

For me, _Savage Worlds_ presents a great new direction in gaming.  It is finely granular enough for my players to be interested but remains coarsely granular enough to be easy for me to run.  Now, if they would just offer living play at home like _Witch Hunter_ promises, it would be a great combination.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 15, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> However, "rpg-style" console games (later-generation ones from the 90s-00s at least) _are_ frequently cited as direct competition for tabletop rpgs (and even as rendering tabletop rpgs "obsolete"), because they do have a lot of the same appeal -- explore a fantastic/imaginary world, participate in a story, take on a fictional role, kill things and take their stuff, etc. -- and because they have several distinct advantages over tabletop rpgs -- cool graphics, you don't have to read a rulebook in order to start playing, you can play at your own pace and don't need to gather together a bunch of like-minded friends in order to play, etc. But these advantages are balanced out by (among other things) the fact that they're finite and generally have minimal replay value -- it's assumed that once you've finished/beaten the game that you'll move on and buy another one.




FWIW, most dedicated console RPG fans I've met, myself included, play the classics of the genre many, many times.  I would assume that's the driving force behind releasing, for example, Final Fantasy 6 on at least four successive systems whose fanbases largely overlap.  I've played FF6 seven times and know of at least one person in my family who has played it nine times.  At least among the console RPG market dedicated enough to post about it on message boards, those numbers aren't out of the ballpark by any means.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 16, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Then you haven't played a storytelling game; you've played a bad imitation of one done by people who 'don't get it'. 2E modules were especially bad like that, but so were a lot of GM's.



I think this points to the fact that storytelling games aren't easy for most people to run -- or, at the very least, that storytelling games haven't been presented in a way that makes it clear how to run them.

How do you make storytelling as easy as dungeon-crawling?


----------



## Irda Ranger (Aug 16, 2007)

Two new posts:

Step 3: Redefine the Game World 
Time Out: Gamer Segmentation 

To me it looks like Ryan has anticipated many of the "but, but, but ..." posted here. At this time I only have two comments:

1. "Adventure Game" is _waaaaaaayyyyy_ better than "Story Game." Way better. If I really tried to express how "way" better it is, I might run out of "a"'s, and I need those. Despite what some posters here may think "Story Game" should mean, or what it means to them, it means to me (and many, I expect), being "told" a story, like in Kindergarten or when your buddy is telling the story about how drunk he got in Cancun. Stories have "tellers" and "listeners". Listening to a story can be fun - but not for 4-6 hours at a stretch once a week.  D&D doesn't have "listeners", but I'm pretty durn sure it has "adventurers." 

To quote:



			
				half the people in this thread said:
			
		

> We don't tell no stinkin' stories during D&D; we tell stories about D&D, afterwards like ... if they're worth tellin' and there ain't no "hip" posers around to make a scene.



Right on.

2. Co-GM-ing sounds nice at first, but I don't think it works most of the time (session to session maybe, but does the "Mapping GM" share information with the "Monster GM"?  At what point is everyone sitting behind the (metaphorical) GM screen, and there's no players left?  Part of the joy of playing D&D (as a PC) is that you can pretend that the world is "complete", and that your PC simply doesn't know it all yet. Once you've seen behind the curtain, some of the magic is gone.  I have "farmed out" some GM work, like making churches, towns or organizations, but I think only one person can really be in the driver's seat at any given time.

I withhold all other comments until after Ryan has had his full say. I'm sure that he's given this a lot of thought, and I want to see the whole picture before I respond. Or even think about it too hard.


----------



## ST (Aug 16, 2007)

Well for one thing, a "storytelling game" should probably have the rules (the game part) actually deal with story elements. In the way that you can use D&D 3.5 to arbitrate combat and skills use, these games arbitrate how the story comes together.

The indie games that do this already (not too popular on these boards, admittedly) work off the English 101 idea that a story has a theme, or premise. Other games, like Buffy or Primetime Adventures, work more on "We're simulating a TV show" and put a story together like they would.

The complaints people have had on the last few pages are mostly dealing with the suck that happens when a GM's trying to impose a story. Something like D&D, where the rules deal with a simulation of what is happening, don't give the player access to the same story elements as the GM, so they have to work at it to get you involved in co-creating the plot and theme.

One example: No matter how high your skill roll, you aren't going to find somebody in D&D if the GM's decided they're not around. In some of the storytelling games out there, the outcome of that skill roll might determine whether the person's there, or they're there but uncooperative, or your nosing around got you into trouble -- the mechanics are helping the story develop rather than trying to simulate an objective reality.

I'm afraid that's not a very good explanation; you'd be better off looking up something like Primetime Adventures or The Shadow of Yesterday and looking at how they explain it.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Aug 16, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> The Basic Set would feature a stripped down version of the core rules. It would be fundamentally the same game, but without the bells and whistles and options which lead to inaccessible complexity. Most importantly, it would be a complete RPG in its own right.



No doubt some clever fellow at WotC thought of that. 

And then some suit thought "But if we sell them a working game, they may never actually buy the Core Rule books!  Sell them something broken and useless instead, so they _have_ to upgrade! Yeah. Profits, here we come."


...

Cynical? me? Why do you ask?


----------



## Jim Hague (Aug 16, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> No doubt some clever fellow at WotC thought of that.
> 
> And then some suit thought "But if we sell them a working game, they may never actually buy the Core Rule books!  Sell them something broken and useless instead, so they _have_ to upgrade! Yeah. Profits, here we come."
> 
> ...




Undoubtedly because you're a) misinformed and b) jumping on the bandwagon with the 'hate WotC' crowd.


----------



## Rothe (Aug 16, 2007)

I'll have to pass on what I see Ryan saying.   

In the 'ole adventure format I thought players created the story by the actions they chose.  That is, the story is your classical campaign journal entry.  I find these storie more intriguing as you never know as player or GM exactly where things are going.   I view the GM's role as setting the stage (setting, adventures and politics and regiosn preped) where many stories are possible for the players to create.  A attuned GM will try to make sure he has the stage set for the stories his players like best, be they average joe adventurer, save the world, solve the mystery, hack and slash, exploration of the world, exploration of character and self through moral conumndrums, role immersion, etc. 

There is still plenty of story told by PCs and the idea of the GM being the only one telling the story is backwards from my experience with OD&D to present.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 16, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> I'll have to pass on what I see Ryan saying.
> 
> In the 'ole adventure format I thought players created the story by the actions they chose.  That is, the story is your classical campaign journal entry.  I find these storie more intriguing as you never know as player or GM exactly where things are going.   I view the GM's role as setting the stage (setting, adventures and politics and regiosn preped) where many stories are possible for the players to create.  A attuned GM will try to make sure he has the stage set for the stories his players like best, be they average joe adventurer, save the world, solve the mystery, hack and slash, exploration of the world, exploration of character and self through moral conumndrums, role immersion, etc.
> 
> There is still plenty of story told by PCs and the idea of the GM being the only one telling the story is backwards from my experience with OD&D to present.




Considering that Ryan is pretty clear about advocating GMLite or GMLess play, I'd say what you see him saying is very much not what he's actually saying.  

Ryan is advocating a system in which the players take a more direct level of control over the story via metagame and narrative mechanics, distributed or nonexistent GMing and other methods of shared authority introduced in the indie gaming scene.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 16, 2007)

Although this will probably get lost in the 3E news, Ryan has posted part 3: Redefine the Game World.  Along with a related subject, Gamer Segmentation

Bits and pieces


> The truth is that the RPGA didn’t factor in much of our planning prior to 3rd Edition, and it certainly didn’t factor into much of TSR’s planning.  Interestingly, while reviewing files at TSR prior to the acquisition, I found a document I believe was written by Gary Gygax which described in detail the modern model of a successful support organization for the players, with extensive detail on the kinds of programs it should run and the interests it should serve.  That was a pretty good platform, but for a host of reasons, neither TSR nor Wizards of the Coast followed that model.





> I believe that Storytelling Games need to be tightly coupled to a large shared world environment.  There might be many such worlds, or a few, and there might be “forks” or iterative versions of such worlds, in many combinations. The market will sort that out.  But on a go-forward basis, I think that we need to consider the game & the world as one cohesive, integrated entity, and design accordingly.





> The place we stand & fight is on persistence.  The MMORPGs have a big problem with persistence.  In effect, they are a write-once, read-many application.  That means that the developers spend a lot of time creating an environment for everyone to play in at the same time.  If the participants are given the power of persistence, a small group of players (those who play the most, or those who spend the most time figuring out how to manipulate the game game environment) will dominate, and new players, or less active players, will find themselves in a nearly incomprehensible environment.


----------



## subrosas (Aug 16, 2007)

Just a few thoughts regarding the growth of games such as WoW vs. the decline of table top games:

The fundamental differenced between CRPGs (massive or not) and table top rpgs is that of pacing. Computer games will never be able to adjust pacing on the fly to keep the interest of players. Never. It isn't a computable problem. At best you might be able to set some sort of interest measures along with some sort of narrative generation to heuristically alter the flow of game-time, but it will always be weaker than the table-top version, since computers are notoriously bad at detecting player boredom   

This is what table top games should be emphasizing: teaching gm's how to on-the-fly alter the narrative flow (time granularity, etc.) as the players gain or lose interest; providing support for quick changes in narrative flow (i.e. quickly resolved rules for when players are bored, detailed rules for when players appear intensely engages, etc.). I should be able to quickly and easily convert a mook into a boss, and vice versa.

Everything else will be evenetually duplicated by CRPGs. This includes story, tactical challenge, avatar advancement, socialization, even player empowerment re: setting, persistence.... The only thing a computer cannot and will never be able to do is to look you in the eye and decide to hurry up the description of a journey from Random-Rpg-Town to Random-Rpg-dungeon.

Whether or not this distinction will be sufficient to maintaining a viable rpg market will be determined in time (I certainly can't speak to the facts on that).


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 16, 2007)

subrosas said:
			
		

> Just a few thoughts regarding the growth of games such as WoW vs. the decline of table top games:
> 
> The fundamental differenced between CRPGs (massive or not) and table top rpgs is that of pacing. Computer games will never be able to adjust pacing on the fly to keep the interest of players. Never. It isn't a computable problem. At best you might be able to set some sort of interest measures along with some sort of narrative generation to heuristically alter the flow of game-time, but it will always be weaker than the table-top version, since computers are notoriously bad at detecting player boredom
> 
> ...




Actually, I think that's one of the EASIEST things for a computer, or at least a game, to do.  Not to decide the pacing for you, but to let you decide it.

Might and Magic games have been doing this since the late '80s, courtesy of the _town portal_ and _Lloyd's beacon_ spells.  Final Fantasy games have been doing it since the introduction of the airship.

By contrast, player created content that is as EASY to implement as it is in a tabletop game will be a huge design hurdle, one that may not be overcome in our lifetimes.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 16, 2007)

subrosas said:
			
		

> This is what table top games should be emphasizing: teaching gm's how to on-the-fly alter the narrative flow (time granularity, etc.) as the players gain or lose interest; providing support for quick changes in narrative flow (i.e. quickly resolved rules for when players are bored, detailed rules for when players appear intensely engages, etc.). I should be able to quickly and easily convert a mook into a boss, and vice versa.




In don't feel this should be the thing you want to push to differentiate RPGs from online games.  The problem is that only good or better GMs will be able to handle this well.  Even with a game designed to make it easier, it requires skill and experience.  Pushing a game based on something that only a fraction of GMs will do well is a mistake, in my opinion.

Even Ryan has been pushing in the direction of taking much of the responsibility of running a good game off the GMs shoulders in this series.  On flaw of the current game is that the GM has so much of the weight of the game on him that the game's success requires access to something they have little control over, great GMs.

That doesn't mean that having these tools isn't a worthwhile feature of a roleplaying game  I agree that it would be.


----------



## subrosas (Aug 16, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that's one of the EASIEST things for a computer, or at least a game, to do.  Not to decide the pacing for you, but to let you decide it.
> 
> Might and Magic games have been doing this since the late '80s, courtesy of the _town portal_ and _Lloyd's beacon_ spells.  Final Fantasy games have been doing it since the introduction of the airship.
> 
> By contrast, player created content that is as EASY to implement as it is in a tabletop game will be a huge design hurdle, one that may not be overcome in our lifetimes.




There is a world of difference between a VCR looking you in the eye, realizing that you are bored, and finding a way to spice up or speed up the story and you hitting a fast forward button.

Likewise there is a world of difference between having WowW altering how long it takes to walk from Mulgore to Durotar for an individual based on how much interest you show on your face and providing flight paths as a device to speed travel. 

Think about it.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 16, 2007)

subrosas said:
			
		

> There is a world of difference between a VCR looking you in the eye, realizing that you are bored, and finding a way to spice up or speed up the story and you hitting a fast forward button.
> 
> Likewise there is a world of difference between having WowW altering how long it takes to walk from Mulgore to Durotar for an individual based on how much interest you show on your face and providing flight paths as a device to speed travel.
> 
> Think about it.




Yes.

One is subject to the whim of an individual who may misinterpret my expression and fast-forward through something I was interested in because I just bit down on a bad snack.

The other is under my control and will never, ever get wrong what I want to do.

Lloyd's Beacon > GM Fiat.


----------



## NemesisDragon (Aug 16, 2007)

dito lol  (sorry for a useless post, somehow i got posted in the wrong thread, sorry guys   )


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 16, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> On flaw of the current game is that the GM has so much of the weight of the game on him that the game's success requires access to something they have little control over, great GMs.




That's one of the game's greatest assets... it's not a flaw at all.  The game is as good or as bad as the DM.

If he's really good, then the game surpasses expectations.  If he's bad... well that's a self-correcting problem.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 16, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> That's one of the game's greatest assets... it's not a flaw at all.  The game is as good or as bad as the DM.
> 
> If he's really good, then the game surpasses expectations.  If he's bad... well that's a self-correcting problem.




In that you... either happen to have another great GM waiting in the wings, or you don't game?

How is it an ASSET that a bad GM can ruin a session?


----------



## subrosas (Aug 16, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> One is subject to the whim of an individual who may misinterpret my expression and fast-forward through something I was interested in because I just bit down on a bad snack.
> 
> ...




<Shrug /> It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not. At the end of the day the difference between rpg's and crpg's will come down to the ability to on-the-fly alter narrative flow and the granularity of the story. It's not accidental that all the examples you've provided deal with travel. In a table top rpg we can hurry through battles and linger over a conversation, or vice versa. Where's the Lloyd's Beacon for a diplomatic dinner in WoW? Or a zepplin that will hurry us through a boring battle in EQ?

My argument wasn't that this is the best quality of table top RPGs, just that in the long run it will be the primary distinctive quality.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 16, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In that you... either happen to have another great GM waiting in the wings, or you don't game?
> 
> How is it an ASSET that a bad GM can ruin a session?




No matter what rules or business models anybody adopts, nothing will change the fact that roleplaying games are played in and DMed by human beings.

An irritating human can even ruin the fun of a game of Chess.  Every option beyond that limited set that you add which increases the game's "possibility horizon" amplifies the effects of the human element.  For example, the guy that takes forever to take his turn, or who hums tunelessly while you're taking yours, or who throws a fit when things go against him, or who eats nachos and makes a mess out of the components, or ... you get the idea.

In D&D, the brilliance of a game session can go beyond the potential of the written rules to express the brilliance of the individuals who are playing.  As a game of the imagination, it can go far beyond the letter of the written rule.  This open-ended nature allows for imagination, creativity, vision, knowledge and even common sense to supplement the rules and create an infinitely more complex play experience.

The "human element" is what makes D&D great.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 16, 2007)

subrosas said:
			
		

> <Shrug /> It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not. At the end of the day the difference between rpg's and crpg's will come down to the ability to on-the-fly alter narrative flow and the granularity of the story. It's not accidental that all the examples you've provided deal with travel. In a table top rpg we can hurry through battles and linger over a conversation, or vice versa. Where's the Lloyd's Beacon for a diplomatic dinner in WoW? Or a zepplin that will hurry us through a boring battle in EQ?




In WoW or EQ, I have no idea.  Such games hold no appeal to me.

In Final Fantasy, however, a) is covered by hitting the start button and b) is covered by using a GameShark code.   Not that I want to skip either in a game I like, but if I did, I'd have the options.



			
				subrosas said:
			
		

> My argument wasn't that this is the best quality of table top RPGs, just that in the long run it will be the primary distinctive quality.




I disagree.  User created content, including on the fly, is more likely to remain the primary distinction.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 16, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> No matter what rules or business models anybody adopts, nothing will change the fact that roleplaying games are played in and DMed by human beings.




Well Ryan has suggested changing the second part.  He's suggesting they be DMed by more than one human being at a time.

I personally think that won't work as an absolute goal.  However, the general concept of moving some of the responsibility for the game from the DM to the players (or elsewhere) is a good one.  I'm not suggesting getting rid of the DM.  I'm suggesting moving some of the weight elsewhere.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 16, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> No matter what rules or business models anybody adopts, nothing will change the fact that roleplaying games are played in and DMed by human beings.




Actually, rules can very easily change the "fact" that roleplaying games are DMed by human beings - I've *played* RPGs that were not DMed (or GMed, just so you know this is not a semantic quibble).  Are the better?  Worse?  For the most part, they're just different, and they're different in a variety of ways.  They're all, admittedly, played with human beings, though.



			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> An irritating human can even ruin the fun of a game of Chess.  Every option beyond that limited set that you add which increases the game's "possibility horizon" amplifies the effects of the human element.  For example, the guy that takes forever to take his turn, or who hums tunelessly while you're taking yours, or who throws a fit when things go against him, or who eats nachos and makes a mess out of the components, or ... you get the idea.




Yes.  None of those people possess in-game or out-of-game authority over the other players by virtue of the game system, however.  Their ability to impair the experience to the point where the only way to win is not to play is limited by their possessing a limited amount of control over said experience.



			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> In D&D, the brilliance of a game session can go beyond the potential of the written rules to express the brilliance of the individuals who are playing.  As a game of the imagination, it can go far beyond the letter of the written rule.  This open-ended nature allows for imagination, creativity, vision, knowledge and even common sense to supplement the rules and create an infinitely more complex play experience.
> 
> The "human element" is what makes D&D great.




Quite possibly so, but you could say this of any RPG, including ones without a GM.  Nor does this justify the position that REQUIRING a good if not great GM is a boon to the game.

You're arguing that the BENEFITS of a good if not great GM justify the RISK of an average to poor one.  I even largely agree with your conclusion, although I would disagree with some of your reasoning.

What you are not justifying, however, is the position that requiring above-average competence and commitment from one of the players makes the game better.  A system that allowed for exceptional play but did not require it would seem to be superior, because it would provide the same reward without the attendant risk.


----------



## subrosas (Aug 16, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In WoW or EQ, I have no idea.  Such games hold no appeal to me.



Did you misread my original post? It started out by stating that:


			
				subrosas said:
			
		

> Just a few thoughts regarding the growth of games such as WoW vs. the decline of table top games:




I think it's great that you have a very high regard for single player CRPG. That has nothing to do with what I posted.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I disagree.  User created content, including on the fly, is more likely to remain the primary distinction.




People have been modding games like Civilization, NWN, etc. for years and then playing them with and against other human beings. I suppose a lot of this depends on what you consider "part of the game." For instance,  the modding aspect of NWN was central for many to what the game was...

While these are not Massive online games, Eve Online is, and despite its flaws it remains an interesting experiment.

In retrospect I'd probably add a limit to my argument - it seemed too obvious to mention when I first posted my thoughts, but here goes anyways - user created content is feasible and will increasingly appear in online CRPGs given the restriction that it play by the game's rules and remains computable. Thus a guild of players in a MMoG might create their own town, or city, or even nation state. But they cannot redefine how time works in the game (my original basic point).

Edit: lol, nice self contradiction. My apologies to MoogleEmpMog - for some reason I wrote "CRPGs (massive or not)" in my original post and then jumped on him for talking about single player CRPGs. Bah, I get tired too early these days and stop making sense at an early hour, so I yield the field and return to lurking.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 16, 2007)

subrosas said:
			
		

> This is what table top games should be emphasizing: teaching gm's how to on-the-fly alter the narrative flow (time granularity, etc.) as the players gain or lose interest; providing support for quick changes in narrative flow (i.e. quickly resolved rules for when players are bored, detailed rules for when players appear intensely engages, etc.). I should be able to quickly and easily convert a mook into a boss, and vice versa.




This seems easy enough.  Allow players to change the pacing.  

eg. Let's say we're cleaning out a dungeon room-by-room and I'm getting bored.  I can say, "You know, I'm getting bored; I want to make a Dungeon-wise roll to find the lost treasure of clan MacGuffin."

Success: "You find the treasure, and the great wyrm that watches it is sleeping on the job."

Failure: "You find the treasure, and a dragon guarding it."

Whether or not the group is okay with this roll is a different issue (of people enjoying the same things).


----------



## RFisher (Aug 16, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think your ideal gateway RPG is largely mythical.  I think we are distracted by the fact that historically RPGs have had a gateway RPG - D&D.  That changed a bit during the 90s when _Vampire_ started growing.  I know that _Vampire_ brought in a lot of roleplayers who would never have gotten in through D&D.
> 
> I think, in a more realistic world, that there would be several "gateway RPGs."




Sure. I was painting in broad strokes. Not everyone comes to the hobby through D&D. (My first regular group played _Traveller_.)

But, there is no denying that D&D still dominates the market in an unbelievably huge way. (Hasn't Vampire "lost ground" vs. D&D since 3e?) That means that it _is_ the gateway for a _lot_ of people. More importantly, though, is the _potential_ that market dominance has for being a better gateway. Not the only gateway, but it could be the most effective one.


----------



## Rothe (Aug 16, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Considering that Ryan is pretty clear about advocating GMLite or GMLess play, I'd say what you see him saying is very much not what he's actually saying.
> 
> Ryan is advocating a system in which the players take a more direct level of control over the story via metagame and narrative mechanics, distributed or nonexistent GMing and other methods of shared authority introduced in the indie gaming scene.




I wouldn't agree with GMless play.  What does he mean by story?  When I think control over the story it is players actions which determine which way it goes, i.e., there is no plot protection for anyone.  The BBEG could die in the first encounter by bad luck or thinking outside the box by players.  

What I thought he was saying is when you approach a cooridior player 1 pipes in "OK this corrdior has a trap, I'm going to disarm it and if I succeed I find a +1 sword."  That I wouldn't care for as a player or GM.  I'm assuming the players are being reasonable here within the group dynamic.  Player suggestions on the setting components they would like, speculations on the what and why of what is really going on in the world are great and I use them.  I'll also use player metagame ideas about what would make sense for their opponents to do.  But there is no surprise or sense of discovery if I as a player define the obstacles ahead of me, and even worse if I assume the outcome of them to the extent I think Ryan is suggesting.

It sounds to me like those writing exercises where I write a paragraph, then someone else writes one, etc.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> To me, it seems more like current D&D gives you rules and lets you work out the story.
> 
> Of course, there's no way at all to say if people PLAY this way or the opposite beyond anecdotal evidence and that's not terribly helpful.
> 
> For my part, I prefer this approach. I can do the story part just fine on my own and would very much prefer to have the rules good and spelled out so its one less thing to think about while keeping the story, itself, going.



AMEN!!!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 16, 2007)

subrosas said:
			
		

> Edit: lol, nice self contradiction. My apologies to MoogleEmpMog - for some reason I wrote "CRPGs (massive or not)" in my original post and then jumped on him for talking about single player CRPGs. Bah, I get tired too early these days and stop making sense at an early hour, so I yield the field and return to lurking.




No worries.


----------



## ST (Aug 16, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> I wouldn't agree with GMless play.  What does he mean by story?  ...
> 
> What I thought he was saying is when you approach a cooridior player 1 pipes in "OK this corrdior has a trap, I'm going to disarm it and if I succeed I find a +1 sword."  That I wouldn't care for as a player or GM. ... But there is no surprise or sense of discovery if I as a player define the obstacles ahead of me, and even worse if I assume the outcome of them to the extent I think Ryan is suggesting.




Just FYI, there are actually games that work this way (Donjon, for one), and they're pretty fun. By which I mean, they allow you to modify the game world, not that they let you define all the conflicts and fiat all the outcomes -- obviously that's never going to be fun. 

Many more games allow you to narrate in minor changes with a successful roll or expenditure of a resource. 

One thing that may be tripping you up is a focus on the imagined environment as "the point" of the game. I've been in lots of games where the scene details are changeable by the players (for instance, a Zelazny-style _Chronicles of Amber_ game where you could, in character, say "I round the corner and find a magic sword"), and those games still had interesting conflicts. You just didn't make the stuff you could do "effortlessly" the focus of the conflict.

I see that you prioritize things like "surprise" and "sense of discovery", so it sounds like a coherent imagined game-world is important for you. In that case, think of co-DMing as a situation where each of you play a "name level" PC and a lower level character, and when it's your turn to run things, your high level PC sets up situations the other players' low-level PCs have to deal with. That allows for collaborative story creation without jeopardizing the imagined fidelity of the game world.

But generally, collaborative-narration games work because their design allows for it. Straight-up collaborative D&D where the player is also the DM doesn't work, because it's not designed for that possibility. Or to try to sum up a too-long post, yes, if the game's about killing things and taking their stuff, you don't let the players handle that part. But if it's about something else, they could.


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 16, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I'd prefer to just go with "story games".



I'm still only on page 3, and this quote is from page 2, but I just wanted to say that I almost made the same comment in almost the same format.

Although, Dragonhelm's mention of "products of your imagination" has got me thinking...

Edit: And, of course, Buzz went and greatly expanded upon GreatLemur's post many times over.  That's what I get for surfing these forums once every few weeks...


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 16, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> But, there is no denying that D&D still dominates the market in an unbelievably huge way.




And I think that's what Ryan wants to change.  He doesn't necessarily want to eliminate D&D's importance, he just wants to create something that's as important.

From Ryan's blog entry that began this series:


> People ask me if I have plans to return to the hobby gaming industry.  My answer is a qualified “no”.





> There is, however, one last mountain that remains.  No tabletop roleplaying game has ever consistently outsold Dungeons & Dragons, over more than 30 years of history.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 17, 2007)

Two more updates (one came during the ENWorld downtime last night)

Step 4: Redefine the Platform 
STep 5: Redefine the Rules

Lots of interesting, controversial ideas.



> I believe that the Power Gamer faction of the player demographic is going to shift their play primarily to MMORPGs over time, which will change the overall audience of tabletop gaming.  With the Power Gamers absent, their need for complex tactical rules for combat is removed from the equation.  In reaction to that change, I believe we need to replace physical combat with dramatic conflict as the core of the game experience.  Playing to the strengths of the remaining 3 segments (plus the “Basic Gamers”) means we have to re-think what a tabletop Storytelling Game should emphasize.






> Currently, Dungeons & Dragons spends the bulk of its rules-payload on resolving physical conflicts between groups of individuals.  It has virtually no support for resolving the actions of large groups en masse, nor does it provide tools for economic or political conflicts.  And when used to resolve social conflicts, the game’s resolution level (10 seconds), and emphasis on physical conflict tends to reduce such conflicts to pure roleplaying exercises with very little gameplay.  That is a big area where the game platform needs to be restructured and improved.
> 
> In addition, Dungeons & Dragons has but one mode of play:  first person realtime narrative.  In other words, the game has no rules for, and makes no allowance for the concepts of narration outside of the things an individual character can do on its player’s “turn”.






> Another major issue to be addressed is the tacit assumption made throughout D&D that unless a game object is explicitly identified in the environment that thing does not exist.  This places an immense burden on the GM to attempt to think through very complex physical environments, and greatly limits the player’s range of options and creativity.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 18, 2007)

That's an interesting idea that the "power gamers" won't hang around on the tabletop too much longer. Not sure whether I agree or not. I think I agree in theory, but I'm not so sure in practice.

The other two quotes represent lines of thinking in the (IMHO) right direction.

Has he not encountered Risus?

If he's not there yet, he's getting close to realizing that this "tacit assumption" is only an assumption of the later editions & a misnomer that some of us read into the original. That the game should be much, much more than just what the rules cover was a key element.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 18, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> That's an interesting idea that the "power gamers" won't hang around on the tabletop too much longer. Not sure whether I agree or not. I think I agree in theory, but I'm not so sure in practice.



I'm certain there will be power gamers around (no matter the definition you are using).  If nothing else, some are part of a group and will play what the group is playing.


----------



## F4NBOY (Aug 18, 2007)

> The D20 System, especially as expressed in Dungeons & Dragons, has probably reached the end of its useful commercial life.




Yeah right!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 18, 2007)

I'd just like to say that I agree with everything MoogleEmpMog has said in this thread.  If 4E actually does take a hint from some of the better indie games and gives us a more developed system for resolving conflict and creating story--and the game mechanics to constrain and guide that process--it will probably change my mind about converting.  It will merge my favourite game with some of the things that I really love about recent indie games.  In other news, I also agree with pretty much everything Ryan Dancey says in Step 5.


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 19, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Speaking as a player of boardgames, they're *not* the route that D&D needs to go down. All the attempts at moving the D&D experience to the more structured form of the boardgame (Talisman, Runebound, Descent, WoW:tbg) are terrible at even coming close to anything resembling a RPG. Not just that their gameplay is inferior, but that it counts out the vital part of the RPG: the imagination.
> 
> Boardgames might provide a jumping in point for some aspects of RPGs (mainly the tactical), but no more.
> 
> Cheers!




What about something like Arkham Horror?  I've been meaning to pick it up for a while, and I'd love to hear your opinion of it.


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 19, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> FWIW, most dedicated console RPG fans I've met, myself included, play the classics of the genre many, many times.




Seconded! I've played through the original Seiken Densetsu (the black and white Gameboy game known as Final Fantasy Adventure stateside) and Final Fantasy 4 (originally released as FF2 here) more times than I can remember.


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 19, 2007)

"Story Games" has some appeal, and it's already being used, but it has a heck of a lot of baggage.  I totally agree with whoever said upthread that stories have a teller and a listener, (or an author and a audience, more generally) and that D&D Players are not an audience.  Plus there's the White Wolf baggage.  People have gone so far as to call what White Wolf's co-opting of Storytelling Brain Damage, and given a lot of the content of the Will Hindmarch's chapter from MIT Press's Second Person, it looks like some folks at White Wolf has bought into a lot of the stuff that people are objecting to in this thread.

Dragonhelm's reiteration of "Products of your Imagination" keeps growing on me.  A lot!

"Adventure Games" is the official name for the hobby gaming industry that GAMA came up with, isn't it?  This was much to the confusion of the folks making table top wargames (especially historical ones), but it's a pretty good name for a lot of RPGs.  Some horror games aren't really adventures, and Breaking the Ice and such doesn't fit, but "Adventure Games" isn't bad.

So - What's in a name, my fellow hobby redefiners?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 19, 2007)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> People have gone so far as to call what White Wolf's co-opting of Storytelling Brain Damage



While I might be sympathetic to the author's thesis, the presentation has got to be the most rambling, unfocused mess of essay I've ever read.  What, exactly, I would ask him, are you talking about in this paragraph?  Or this one?  That's a nice list of things; why is it here?  Are you going to connect any of this to your thesis, or am I going to have to wait for the movie to come out?

I practically had to deconstruct (whoops, shouldn't use those nasty postmodern terms) the essay in order to reverse-engineer the thesis out of it, and figure out why the author thought I should agree with him.


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 19, 2007)

I'm with you.  I really really don't like Ron's writing.  It's the big reason why I haven't picked up Sorcerer, even though I've liked every game I've ever bought that said it was influence by it.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 20, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> That's an interesting idea that the "power gamers" won't hang around on the tabletop too much longer. Not sure whether I agree or not. I think I agree in theory, but I'm not so sure in practice.




Again I agree in theory, if there was only one variable to power gamers reasons for playing an RPG, but it fails to take into account cost (although a PG that is too cheap to afford a $15 a month MMORPG subscription is perhaps not the sort of RPG customer they want?), another is the social side. Chatting with strangers or even friends over the internet is not the same as meeting up with mates on a Sunday night and having a chat over pizza before gaming.

Considering the Power Gamers generally have the least amount of time invested in RPGs "away from table" (IE: They level up their characters, but they aren't writing essays about their backstory), I don't see why they can't find the time for both MMORPG and table-top.

I don't think writing off 22% of your existing customer base is a good way to save the industry.

They could do with doing that survey again to see if RPGs are really looseing that part of the demographic, becuase according to Ryan the balance should be very different now.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 20, 2007)

I must admit, that I am seriously surprised by Ryan Dancey's conclusion of his article series. I was seeing the course he is heading, but I didn't wanted to belive. I mean, his (Dancey's) research about 2 axis model and what players want etc. is usually used as counterargument to Ron Edwards GNS/Big Model.*

You simply can hold both grounds at once, either work one or the second. These are in contradiction. Yet Ryan Dancey somehow doesn't see this as a problem and goes directly from that resarch to indie gaming. I can say only WOW!


----------



## RFisher (Aug 20, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> [...] another is the social side. Chatting with strangers or even friends over the internet is not the same as meeting up with mates on a Sunday night and having a chat over pizza before gaming.




I feel the same way, but I've got some old friends who have really pushed me to get an XBox so that I could join in on some of the multiplayer games because that really is how they keep in touch with each other.


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 20, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Well Ryan has suggested changing the second part.  He's suggesting they be DMed by more than one human being at a time.
> 
> I personally think that won't work as an absolute goal.  However, the general concept of moving some of the responsibility for the game from the DM to the players (or elsewhere) is a good one.  I'm not suggesting getting rid of the DM.  I'm suggesting moving some of the weight elsewhere.




Frankly games like Shadow of Yesteryear, Burning Wheel and Sorcerer (among others) have already created the basic engines for doing this. It is not removing or even alternating GMing so much as letting the players have dramatic, scene and story control.

A storytelling system is not one where the DM tells a story but where the players tell a story. These games are set up so that the story is based off the characters. XP, advancement bonuses to checks..most of the engine of the game is really based on what the players want from the story. 

A good example of storytelling control by the player is from Burning Wheel's contact (or circles) rules. If the player wants there to be some sort of NPC in the city. If the roll is successful the player describes the NPC that they want to contact adn that contact has a benign disposition/goal to the character. A failed roll means that the NPC exists but has  conflicting goals with the player. 

In this case the player has brought in some storytelling control into the story.

I feel this is more what RyanD was saying; but i could be completely wrong.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 20, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> his (Dancey's) research about 2 axis model and what players want etc. is usually used as counterargument to Ron Edwards GNS/Big Model.*




The GNS model is a good model for the taxonomy of RPGs.  It can be used fairly accurately to describe almost any RPG, and differentiate it (or identify it) with others.  It is a very useful tool.

Where the difference of opinion is that I have hard data (that I trust) that shows that player psychographics don't map to the GNS model.  In other words, the GNS model describes the games, but the WotC model describes the players.

Work still needs to be done to map GNS game taxonomy to WotC player psychographic preferences.  In other words, we should study how the WotC player segments respond to different values on the GNS model to see if there are high-value peaks, and low value valleys.  Those peaks and valleys could then become design objectives (and things to avoid in design).  We would likely find assumptions challenged - there are probably peaks in unexpected places, and valleys where the conventional wisdom perceives high value.

I'm hopeful that at some point that work can be attempted.

Ryan


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 20, 2007)

Updated with the final post.  Nothing really new in it, but it is a nice summation of the previous posts.  Oddly enough, a good place to point people so they can decide whether they want to read his ideas in detail.


----------



## Brian Gibbons (Aug 20, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> In D&D, the brilliance of a game session can go beyond the potential of the written rules to express the brilliance of the individuals who are playing.  As a game of the imagination, it can go far beyond the letter of the written rule.  This open-ended nature allows for imagination, creativity, vision, knowledge and even common sense to supplement the rules and create an infinitely more complex play experience.
> 
> The "human element" is what makes D&D great.



Yes, the problem is that, while a great GM can make for a great game, there's really not that many great GMs.  In a sense, most people who play D&D (or even RPGs in general) are self-selected, to the extent that we all either are, have or have had a great GM in our play group.  I would expect that posters on ENWorld are even more self-selected, with a large majority being comfortable GMing.

That's not the norm.  Most people who play D&D do just that; they don't have the time, ability, skill or inclination to GM, and have been lucky enough to attach themselves to someone who can provide them with the play experience they want.

If a group of friends want to play a board game, a collectible card game, an online game, a video game or what not, they go out and purchase the game, might spend some time reading the rules, and then all sit down and play.

In D&D (and most RPGs), the most important part of the play experience can't be purchased in a box set.  If no one in your group of friends has the time, ability and skill to be at least a marginally competent GM, you simply can't play, so you move on to some other recreational activity.

The overwhelming majority of the nature of the play experience is based on the GM.  It's possible to have a lousy game even with an excellent GM, but very difficult to have an excellent game with a lousy GM.

I could easily be persuaded that removing the GM bottleneck is a necessity if RPGs ever want to be more than a dying niche market.


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 20, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> The GNS model is a good model for the taxonomy of RPGs.  It can be used fairly accurately to describe almost any RPG, and differentiate it (or identify it) with others.  It is a very useful tool.
> 
> Where the difference of opinion is that I have hard data (that I trust) that shows that player psychographics don't map to the GNS model.  In other words, the GNS model describes the games, but the WotC model describes the players.
> 
> ...




This is very interesting, could you elaborate


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 21, 2007)

Brian Gibbons said:
			
		

> I could easily be persuaded that removing the GM bottleneck is a necessity if RPGs ever want to be more than a dying niche market.




I don't think you remove that bottleneck by making everyone need to GM to some extent, which is what a lot of these Story lead games seem to do.


----------



## RyanD (Aug 21, 2007)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> This is very interesting, could you elaborate




Assume a scale from 1 to 10.  That gives us a matrix of 1,000 potential points in the GNS spectrum.  We don't have to design 1,000 games, but we could probably design 100 games that would be statistically representative of the whole matrix.  "Games" in this case meaning "enough game to be played and graded by test groups"; not necessarily a complete game designed to be played over a number of sessions, or even pushed really hard mechanically.

Now, induce a large number of independent game groups to test these games, and rate them.  Before they "qualify" to partake in the test, you do another test on those individuals to segment them psychographically.

Now you compare ratings on the games to the psychographic profiles of the players.  You're looking for surprises - combinations of G, N & S that trigger high ratings, or low ratings.  Finding one or two of the segments like a particular combination will not be rare.  Finding a place where all 4 + the Basic Gamers respond strongly will be rare.  But once found, you would have the blueprint for a game system that would likely be very competitive in the market.

Likewise, if you find things where everyone expresses dislike, you can learn a lot from that too.  Studying the failures may teach you a lot about things to be sure you avoid in development -- and you may find things that are not conventional wisdom; i.e. new knowledge that we haven't had before which can be fed back into the R&D cycle to generate overall improvements, even in existing games.

That's the kind of research I'd do if I had a million dollar pure RPG R&D budget at my disposal.

Ryan


----------



## Alnag (Aug 21, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Where the difference of opinion is that I have hard data (that I trust) that shows that player psychographics don't map to the GNS model.  In other words, the GNS model describes the games, but the WotC model describes the players.




Well Ryan... the problem as I see it, there are two problems, as I see them. First, in you research you speak about some generall preferences common for all gamers. Which is fine with me. Though GNS somehow doesn't present all these preferences in games produced with this philosophy... especially in the gamist segment. So this is first think, that doesn't fit well.

The second one is... that GNS-based game are usually very narrowly focused on one thing which does not corellate with statistical chance to have a group of players with this one preference at one table. That is second problem.

Finally, there is serious "NO evil Dancey has make this research up" from GNS guys I hear every other day, because they also somehow feel this two things does not fit together. It might still fit with some of the games, but I can't see how it does fit with the philosophy behind them.

Of course I respect your opinion, though I do not agree with you on this one.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 21, 2007)

Brian Gibbons said:
			
		

> The overwhelming majority of the nature of the play experience is based on the GM.  It's possible to have a lousy game even with an excellent GM, but very difficult to have an excellent game with a lousy GM.




I don't think that's really true.

The more I think over my experience, the more I think most of us are mediocre GMs, but that we still tend to have good games most of the time. I haven't known that many excellent GMs, but I've been a part of lots of excellent sessions. I think most bad GMs very quickly either stop, lose their players, or become better through experience & maturity.

Bad GMs just aren't an epidemic (but, rather, are self-correcting), & people are having lots of fun with mediocre GMs every day.

& I don't think this is attributable to the power of good rules to make a mediocre GM great, because many of those excellent sessions I've been a part of were using rules that would probably lose a "which is the best system" poll around here.


----------



## Brian Gibbons (Aug 22, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> The more I think over my experience, the more I think most of us are mediocre GMs, but that we still tend to have good games most of the time. I haven't known that many excellent GMs, but I've been a part of lots of excellent sessions.



I suppose how important you consider the GM depends in part on what you consider his role to be.  I generally include the preparation stage of adventure and encounter design as part of a GM's responsibility.  I would think it's difficult to overestimate how important those foundational aspects are to the success of a game session.  I would also contend that people with the ability, time and energy to prepare adventures successfully and consistently are a distinct minority among the total population of potential gamers.

Even leaving that aside, I would argue that the GM's actual role at the table is the single largest factor in determining how much fun the group is going to have for the evening.  I think RPGA play is instructive--even with everyone playing the same adventure with the same rules and restrictions, there is an overwhelming difference in level of enjoyment based on the quality of the GM.

Sure, I've had fun in games with a good group of friends and a bad GM, as well as with a bad group of players and a good GM.

The difference is that, in the former case, my enjoyment was more because of the people I was spending time with than what we were doing.  A group of friends who have a great time getting together just to hang out can certainly have a great time getting together to hang out while a D&D game goes on in the background, but that really doesn't tell us anything about the ability of the game itself to create an enjoyable experience.  In the latter case, the enjoyment, while decreased from what it could have been, sprang from the game itself and the skillful running thereof.



			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> Bad GMs just aren't an epidemic (but, rather, are self-correcting), & people are having lots of fun with mediocre GMs every day.



Sure, but it's self-correcting in the sense that players who can't find a good GM might instead find another hobby.  That does not strike me as a good thing.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> What about something like Arkham Horror?  I've been meaning to pick it up for a while, and I'd love to hear your opinion of it.




I love Arkham Horror as a solo game, but as multiplayer, it has *way* too much player downtime and takes too long. It's got a great feel, but ultimately you feel like you're playing a game, and don't have enough input into creating a story.

Not to say that you can't create stories about your experiences (see here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/167433 ).

My review of the solo game of Arkham Horror is here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1325784#1325784

Cheers!


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 22, 2007)

I guess I'll look over at boardgamegeek rather than bug you here about Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10547).

Thank you so much!
-George


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

Ryan has an interesting example of what a game might look like in his vision here.  It's not the intent (the intent is to answer another question), it basically shows how Star Wars might have worked if run as a game.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 22, 2007)

> The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not “play a role”. The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”. Roleplaying is a tactic, not a strategy. Some participants want to play roles, and that’s fine. Others want to provide narrative structure. Still others want to create systems for interaction and adjudication. And another group wants to generate environments. All of these people need to be made co-equal for the hobby to succeed long term.
> 
> Therefore, I think we need to engage in metamorphosis from “roleplaying games” to “storytelling games”. And in that change lies the seeds of our success.




I definately agree to this, but the other part of role-playing games that I really enjoy which they have not mentioned (in this quote anyway) is the "building up" aspect.  Attaining that new level, the new feats, spells, abilities, etc.  For me, this is just as much fun and just as important as a good story and playing out believeable characters.  I think this is the aspect of MMORPGs they are trying to capture, and I don't see why that aspect is such a bad thing since it does not affect story telling or roleplaying.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 25, 2007)

Ryan has posted a new entry which essentially shows how the classic Dragon's Lair game would be run as a storytelling game.


----------



## jasin (Aug 25, 2007)

Ryan Dancey said:
			
		

> All the #1 envelopes are opened at the start of the session.  The #2 envelopes are opened when the dragon has lost 1/3rd of its health, and the #3 envelopes will be opened when it has lost 2/3rds of its health.



I found it funny how much this reminded me of the dragon fight on WotC's site, where the dragon breathes after the fighter takes him down below half hp.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Aug 25, 2007)

> I love Arkham Horror as a solo game, but as multiplayer, it has *way* too much player downtime and takes too long.




When we play Arkham Horror, we house-ruled that, to keep everyone invovled as much as possible, the player to the left of the current player reads the "Arkham Encounter" cards (if needed), and the player to the right reads the "Other-World" encounters (again, as needed.)  

Also, we "assign" tasks; one player is responsible for money, another for health, a third for Sanity, etc.

We also take turns reading the Myhtos cards.

(And typically, the people I play with aren't even Role-Players!!!)


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 25, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I found it funny how much this reminded me of the dragon fight on WotC's site, where the dragon breathes after the fighter takes him down below half hp.




Actually, his previous post on his blog (not quoted in the original post because it is mostly off topic) was comparing a WoW "how to fight <some dragon>" with the dragon fight on WotC's site.  I'm sure he meant it as a comparison with his suggested method.


----------



## ST (Aug 26, 2007)

The Dragon's Lair bit is interesting in that it covers hidden information introduced by both GM and player, but, eh...

It's a clunky implementation of something non-mainstream games have included in various ways for years. People haven't done it like this, with the stuff written ahead of time and sealed in an envelope, then voted on later, sure. But the idea, again, isn't anything new.

So I guess if you think those ideas are interesting, it's worth checking out FATE and The Mountain Witch, among others, to see how they've been implemented.


----------



## TheCrazyMuffinMan (Aug 26, 2007)

RyanD said:
			
		

> Assume a scale from 1 to 10.  That gives us a matrix of 1,000 potential points in the GNS spectrum.  We don't have to design 1,000 games, but we could probably design 100 games that would be statistically representative of the whole matrix.  "Games" in this case meaning "enough game to be played and graded by test groups"; not necessarily a complete game designed to be played over a number of sessions, or even pushed really hard mechanically.
> 
> Now, induce a large number of independent game groups to test these games, and rate them.  Before they "qualify" to partake in the test, you do another test on those individuals to segment them psychographically.
> 
> ...




That's a great idea Ryan! I'm totally onto it!


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 26, 2007)

I wrote about the Dragon's Lair on my journal, but since people are discussing it over here, I figured I'd share a bit.

I wasn't sold on the voting mechanic (I think the first poster over there mentioned that, too).  I'd rather just assume that all of the "secrets" that the player's write about the dragon are true, until proven otherwise, like through a veto mechanic tied to a limited in-game resource, like the "story points" he mentions.  I also found it strange that the voting mechanic does not specifically address what happens in the unlikely occurrence that contradictory or conflicting secrets are revealed. Presumably the players would vote for one over the other, but it's entirely possibly that both receive a majority (or unanimous!) vote.

I don't think that his "story points" as they're outlined in the example reward or punish the right things - I would think that having your secret accepted into the game-fiction is its own reward. Since players are already limited in the number of secrets they can submit, making a player pay yet another resource (a story point) when nobody else likes their idea seems overkill.

That said - I really, really like secrets that are slowly revealed over play, and player input structured into the mechanics is always welcome at my table.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 27, 2007)

Ryan has updated with a bit about time in a storytelling game.  He starts with a discussion about why there is no facing rules in D&D, and then expands upon this in relation to storytelling games.


----------



## Zoatebix (Sep 6, 2007)

It's an interesting post, but the comments that occur after the post are even better.  I love the idea that turns or rounds or what have you last "as long as it takes to get to the next decision point."  I had no idea that a lot of wargames had gone down that path - I need to start checking out wargames again!


----------

