TheRPGSite

Hey all, the Landmarks thread has disappeared due to a technical error on the part of one of the mods. Let's hope they can get it back.

Anyways, I was going to suggest that since its stopped being about the Landmarks long ago we switch it to another thread, so I'm starting this one right here.

Ryan: you claimed on that thread that most groups start out with characters created in isolation, where they have to come up with some kind of slapped-on excuse to justify why they're a party, and where the characters usually come with no dependents, no family, no net of friends and connectedness.

Let's say that's true, that many, if not most gamers play D&D that way anyways (I don't think that criticism really applies so easily to other RPGs).  

Have you stopped to think this might be because those D&D players LIKE IT that way?  I mean, is it basically your plan to fuck up a good "rescue the princess" adventure by having the heros have to play through all kinds of shitty subplots with their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins once removed, etc?

Do you really think that for those who have not ALREADY added more sophistication to their character's family lives or whatever, such a change if forced upon them would be unwelcome?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHave you stopped to think this might be because those D&D players LIKE IT that way?  I mean, is it basically your plan to fuck up a good "rescue the princess" adventure by having the heroes have to play through all kinds of shitty subplots with their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins once removed, etc?

If the subplots involved their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins then I agree it likely to be boring. But there are other subplots that complicate the rescue the princess that aren't boring.

You are missing a point just I contendRyan is. Players like choices. If you keep using traditional plots like recuse the princess, bash the dungeon, etc then they will feel the same as being railroaded because they keep doing the same things over and over again. "The been there done that" syndrome.

The way to beat that is introduce complication into the basic plot. With complication and choice you can run five "rescue the princess" without making the players eyes glaze over.

Finally I don't think most GM know how to do that well these days. With the emphasive on intricate stories in all the setting their plots are what is fed to them rather thing making their own or winging it. I think the solution are product that teach to how to get from where they are now 'Point A' to 'Point B' where they can run session by winging it in response to what the players are doing.

I agree with all your points, Estar. But MY point is that if gamers make their PCs have no family relations or connections to the community, it might be just because that's the sort of game it is, the sort of thing they want to play, and that there isn't necessarily "something wrong" that needs to be fixed, nor are these gamers ignoramuses in need of being enlightened.

RPGPundit

Just to amplify:

I am one of those people who prefers players to make the character they want to play. And when I am not the DM, I like to be able to make the character I want to play.

Thats buy-in.

I'm ok with minor things like.."no evil characters" or "no psionics". But even when it was my friend saying "I am not going to allow halflings or monks in this campaign", I was pretty quick to drop out, or subtly hint that I was going to drop out. I just like to have all the options. Usually when I see someone messign with the baseline parameters like that, it's a sign of a very short-lived campaign.

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree with all your points, Estar. But MY point is that if gamers make their PCs have no family relations or connections to the community, it might be just because that's the sort of game it is, the sort of thing they want to play, and that there isn't necessarily "something wrong" that needs to be fixed, nor are these gamers ignoramuses in need of being enlightened.

This is the weird leap into anger and negativity that you are always making that is just unnecessary and unproductive.  If I understand what Ryan is saying correctly, he is not implying that there is anything wrong with "a bunch of characters meet in a bar - go!".  I think he is saying that the majority of gamers who like that style are having their needs met already with products that do that.  But that that market is tapped out and getting poached more and more by MMORPGs that satisfy a lot of the needs of those kinds of players (though obviously not all).  

So he is looking for new systems and methods that will create a new demand for an immersive play experience with a stronger foundation for "story".  Whether or not this is possible or sellable, I really don't know.  But I do think it is worth exploring and does not at all imply that the most traditional style of game is broken.

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree with all your points, Estar. But MY point is that if gamers make their PCs have no family relations or connections to the community, it might be just because that's the sort of game it is, the sort of thing they want to play, and that there isn't necessarily "something wrong" that needs to be fixed, nor are these gamers ignoramuses in need of being enlightened.

The short answer is that I agree with your point.  Relations and connections are just tools to help solve what I view as the real problem. There are other ways that work.

The problem is that I don't see enough help for GMs to actually run a fun session for their players from companies making RPGs. I think people have problems running actual sessions. That it isn't a question of enlightment but rather hardly anybody tries to teaches them.

LARPS run using the NERO system pretty much try to be live-action D&D. We have found that there are people that can write kick-ass events but can't run them worth shit. The same with table-top I seen GM that work hard and mean well for their players but when it came to the actual session they sucked and it wasn't fun. I think for 95% if they had something they could read and aides to help them then the game would improve for them. The problem is mostly one of inexperience.

This is couple with with my observation that whether in LARPs or table-top when GMs get jammed, overloaded, etc that they fall back to running things via a script and fighting out the session encounter by encounter because that is easy to do compared to the more fun alternatives.

I hope this makes more sense what I am driving at.

Enjoy
Rob Conley

Quote from: walkerpSo he is looking for new systems and methods that will create a new demand for an immersive play experience with a stronger foundation for "story".  Whether or not this is possible or sellable, I really don't know.  But I do think it is worth exploring and does not at all imply that the most traditional style of game is broken.

Calling it story is a mistake and I don't think it is immersion either, as most people define it. What players want is their choices to have meaning and consequences. At least that what my players keep telling me over the years. I think helping people run Sandbox style settings of different genres and types is the path to take. Giving a GM the knowledge and tools to "wing" it on the fly.

I certainly do agree that now that Ryan has defined what he meant by "story"; I find myself more accepting of his position than I do with the ideas that either the Story-based WW crowd or the Forgies have about "story" and how it should be rammed into RPGs.

Nevertheless, it now leads me to question why Ryan would call it "story" at all; both from the strategic point of view of knowing that he would inevitably have ended up having his points confused with the conflicts regarding those other two ideas about story, and given that what he seems to be talking about is more to do with the elaboration of Characters, than with anything resembling what people normally think of as "story" (ie. creating a novel or a tv script or something like that, with all the consistency and structure those things demand; stuff that doesn't translate well to RPGs at all).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHave you stopped to think this might be because those D&D players LIKE IT that way?

I think that the best argument anyone can make is that it is a neutral condition with no positive or negative elements.  I think that if you start running games where characters "exist" in their world with social connections that many players will like it and embrace the change as a positive.

QuoteI mean, is it basically your plan to fuck up a good "rescue the princess" adventure by having the heros have to play through all kinds of shitty subplots with their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins once removed, etc?

God no.  That would suck.

Here's the basic theory:  If a player writes something down on the character sheet, the player is creating an agreement with the DM that that thing will come into the story during play when and if appropriate.  Social contacts give the play group several interesting gaming hooks.  Loved ones in danger, friends with resources to share, elders to dispense wise advice, etc.

Some people will write "orphan, no friends, hates authority" and play a character that exists in a social vacuum.  Ok; play that way.  I'm not the arbiter of your fun.

I want to work on adding, not subtracting fun.  Maybe the hipporyancratic oath should be "do no harm to fun".

You want to run a quickie pickup adventure were people just make up whatever weird and wonderful characters they wish, and figure out how to make that make sense through emergent play?  Go for it.  You want to try something that seems to repeatably make games more fun for lot of people?  Try some of these ideas.  Neither style should be judged as "right".  Do what works for your group, don't do what doesn't.

Ryan

Quote from: estarCalling it story is a mistake and I don't think it is immersion either, as most people define it. What players want is their choices to have meaning and consequences. At least that what my players keep telling me over the years. I think helping people run Sandbox style settings of different genres and types is the path to take. Giving a GM the knowledge and tools to "wing" it on the fly.

That's why I include an NPC creation chapter in all my games, with tools to create encounters on the fly. Deep PC character prep tends to invest the Players in their characters, a GOOD THING. Deep NPC character prep tends to invest GMs in their NPCs, a BAD THING. NPCs need to be made at different levels, for different purposes. You need a gang of generic thugs to provide some armed opposition? I've got a list of straightforward opponents you can use as is, in seconds. You need a complex leader who has goal, motivations, and resources? I've got a random-or-pick-from-list method of running this up in a minute or two. No GM investment, virtually no prep time.

As far as "How to run a game," that I refuse to do. There are too many styles of GMing for me to think my way is superior, though it works a treat for me. Marco Chacon used to have one up on the JAGS website for Situational GMing, IIRC, but I've never written one.

-clash

Quote from: RSDanceyDo what works for your group, don't do what doesn't.

That's just crazy talk!

:D

Quote from: flyingmiceDeep NPC character prep tends to invest GMs in their NPCs, a BAD THING. NPCs need to be made at different levels, for different purposes.

Hmm, that's an interesting thought.  I'll need to ruminate on that a bit.

Quote from: RSDanceyHere's the basic theory:  If a player writes something down on the character sheet, the player is creating an agreement with the DM that that thing will come into the story during play when and if appropriate.  Social contacts give the play group several interesting gaming hooks.  Loved ones in danger, friends with resources to share, elders to dispense wise advice, etc.

There are games that already have that and I hate it.  I avoid Dependent NPCs in Champions for exactly that reason.  As I mentioned in the other thread before it disappeared, it feels like taping a "Kick Me!" sign to the back of my character.  Yuck.

Quote from: RSDanceySome people will write "orphan, no friends, hates authority" and play a character that exists in a social vacuum.  Ok; play that way.  I'm not the arbiter of your fun.

See, the problem is that once you start making these things a part of the rules and an expectation, they start to become mandatory.  One of the reasons why I put Burning Empires down is that there is an example of character creation in the book.  At one point, the example shows one of the players making a choice along the "orphan, no friends, hates authority" line that didn't have any plot hooks built into it.  The GM's reaction?  It was unacceptable.  "Why don't you just go play X-Wing."  

Quote from: RSDanceyI want to work on adding, not subtracting fun.  Maybe the hipporyancratic oath should be "do no harm to fun".

Then my primary bit of advice to you would be to make sure that none of this is mandatory or required.  Because once it becomes mandatory or required, it's guaranteed to do harm to some people's fun.

The problem is that ties into the game-world are not something that players can do on their own.  

Without rules, then you're in an enormous grey area.  Within D&D 3.5, for example, the rules mandate that my starting PC can only own basically the clothes on her back.  Starting funds are often only enough to buy a bare minimum of adventuring equipment.  By the rules, it's impossible to make, say, a character who owns a house or shop.  That's a major limitation on what sort of ties I can have.  

Now, obviously groups can get around this and come up with their own way of doing things.  However, then you run into trouble.  Suppose someone wants to be a prince of the kingdom.  That could be cool, but does he get that for free?  Should he still just get 1d6x10 gold pieces?  And might another player who just made a common soldier feel a little left out by that?  

I don't think this has been dealt with all that well in many games.  It's not that easy to just improvise because it is an overlap of player and GM authority.  The player gets to decide on the PC's background, but if the family is going to show up, that is a part of the GM's territory.

Quote from: flyingmiceAs far as "How to run a game," that I refuse to do. There are too many styles of GMing for me to think my way is superior, though it works a treat for me. Marco Chacon used to have one up on the JAGS website for Situational GMing, IIRC, but I've never written one.

I thinking more of a toolkit approach not some type of uber-theory. Stuff that goes "If you want to do ... ".

Software development has a problem in that nobody has a straightforward way of writing software of arbeitary complexity. Beyond a certain it become an art. However there are things called algorithms and patterns that are useful to a programmer. They are used as a building block to make the final software. Algorithms and patterns nearly always start out as "If you want to do X"

What I am talking about is algorithms and patterns for GMs. Something beyond the traditional "Don't be a dick to your players" advice. A GM can then combine them to get the game he wants to run for his players.

Quote from: estarI thinking more of a toolkit approach not some type of uber-theory. Stuff that goes "If you want to do ... ".

Software development has a problem in that nobody has a straightforward way of writing software of arbeitary complexity. Beyond a certain it become an art. However there are things called algorithms and patterns that are useful to a programmer. They are used as a building block to make the final software. Algorithms and patterns nearly always start out as "If you want to do X"

What I am talking about is algorithms and patterns for GMs. Something beyond the traditional "Don't be a dick to your players" advice. A GM can then combine them to get the game he wants to run for his players.

Uncle Bear used to have a collection of GMing articles a ways back - I never read any, as I'm happy with the way I GM - and have no way of knowing if it is still there. He's a member here, though he doesn't post much. Maybe that would help?

-clash

Ryan:

You're slowing making more and more sense to me as you talk more and more about examples and play (or preparation) in action.

In fact, I'm starting to nod along, a bit, now.  I still don't see this line of thinking as revolutionary, or anything, but it does sound like a solid and fruitful line of stuff to explore.

Quote from: flyingmiceUncle Bear used to have a collection of GMing articles a ways back - I never read any, as I'm happy with the way I GM - and have no way of knowing if it is still there. He's a member here, though he doesn't post much. Maybe that would help?

Thanks I will see if I can find them.

To continue my thoughts, would the RPG industry improve it we all started making products that are easy to GM and help teach new players the techniques and tricks experienced guys know. I am not talking about making another "Robin Laws Guide to Gamemastering". Or intro adventures that one step away from a choose your own adventure book. More altering the format what we are currently using for setting books and adventure away from stories and more toward giving options.

Quote from: RPGPunditNevertheless, it now leads me to question why Ryan would call it "story" at all; both from the strategic point of view of knowing that he would inevitably have ended up having his points confused with the conflicts regarding those other two ideas about story, and given that what he seems to be talking about is more to do with the elaboration of Characters, than with anything resembling what people normally think of as "story" (ie. creating a novel or a tv script or something like that, with all the consistency and structure those things demand; stuff that doesn't translate well to RPGs at all).

Two answers:  First, my target audience is "people who play RPGs", not "people who debate RPG theory on the internet".  For the vast majority of people in the player network, using the term "story" is pretty clear.  The biggest confusion point I think is with the Storyteller System, and if I come up with a clever solution to that problem I'm gonna take it.  But for now, I'm sticking with clarity over clever.

Second, while so far we've been discussing primarily matters related to characters, my vision is much larger than that.  When the discussion enlarges to start discussing rights of directing and narration, as well as acting, I expect to get lots of pushback.  So far, most of the debate is with people approaching the idea from the standpoint of players who want to make sure they don't have their play patterns disrupted without any reward (or skepticism that there is any value in even bothering to experiment at all).  When the power & authority of the classic DM is fully challenged, I think we'll hear from people for whom control of the game world is a key value to how they derive fun (i.e. they like playing "the god game").

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyWhen the power & authority of the classic DM is fully challenged, I think we'll hear from people for whom control of the game world is a key value to how they derive fun (i.e. they like playing "the god game").

Why do you think a group can do the job better in this regard? How can you be sure that the problem isn't due to lack of knowledge or skill on the DM's part. Whether they are a group or an individual it is going to suck if they don't how to make the game they want.

I have to admit Ryan is sounding more and more sensible as he goes along, putting my mind at ease somewhat that he hasn't fallen to the dark side of pretentious self-serving wankery.

Nevertheless, a significant question remains: there are a lot of systems other than D&D (some of them quite old, like GURPS or Champions) that already incorporate all of the sort of things you're talking about; and yet D&D with its equal starting point and PCs-as-adventurers-not-family-men as default has continued to dominate the market.

Surely, if what the majority of gamers wanted to do was to play a character with deep social ties, those other games would have either outsold D&D or D&D would have ended up integrating those sorts of ideas earlier, right?

Also, JHKim in his own backwards way brings some good points into the mix; I'm sure he thinks it would be fine and dandy that PCs get to start being the son of a King for "story's sake"; but what about those of us who find the challenge of the game more important; should players be allowed to shit all over game balance because they want to create a good "story" (or rather, want to use "story" as an excuse to create a character that will outshine everyone else)?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDanceyWhen the power & authority of the classic DM is fully challenged, I think we'll hear from people for whom control of the game world is a key value to how they derive fun (i.e. they like playing "the god game").

And from the players whose sense of immersion is a key value to how they derive fun, and whose sense of immersion will be ruined if they have creative control of anything more than their PCs.

Quote from: RSDanceyWhen the power & authority of the classic DM is fully challenged, I think we'll hear from people for whom control of the game world is a key value to how they derive fun (i.e. they like playing "the god game").

Ryan, you're either communicating very poorly, or you're contradicting yourself. Maybe it's a matter of scale and timing.

I.e., since this all basically boils down to "what does 'the main network' of RPG players really want", if you're talking about things like pitching a campaign and then going back & forth with the players on background and fitting the PCs into the action, or even some light intentions-based task resolution, I think you'll find a fair amount of enthusiasm among RPGers--perhaps most among those groups that you think are "immune" to the pull of computer games.

But talking about "the god game", once more conjures up images of players doing "neat stuff" like establishing major twists to the situation in ways their character couldn't even intend much less bring about. While there's undoubtedly a spectrum of tastes, I think you'll find that if you push it, you'll end up fracturing your "network" over this issue. E.g., I think some players of traditional RPGs would appreciate the ability, when in extremis to call on a "luck" ability and, say, have the daughter of the villain take pity on them and help them escape from a dungeon cell. I believe you'll have far less success "selling" the idea that a player who makes a successful "investigation" roll will be able to declare that the enemy's army of undead has a heretofore unestablished vulnerability, or that the President is really a Red Lectroid, etc.

EDIT: What Haffrung said.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd from the players whose sense of immersion is a key value to how they derive fun, and whose sense of immersion will be ruined if they have creative control of anything more than their PCs.

Correct.  I don't want authorial control over the setting.  I want control over my character and want the setting to respond to my character as if it were a real place.

I think there will also be objection from other types of players who are not interested in authorial control, either.

Quote from: John MorrowI think there will also be objection from other types of players who are not interested in authorial control, either.

The lazy, for starters. Hanging around internet RPG forums, you'd get the impression that everyone who plays RPGs is either a frustrated world-builder, budding game-designer, or wannabe novelist. That may be true for a lot of GMs, but in most groups I've see the GM is the hardcore gamer and the players are more casual players who aren't itching to take on more responsibility for running the game. GMs aren't people who jealously hoard authority - they're people have to take on responsibilities and work that most gamers simply don't want.

Quote from: HaffrungThe lazy, for starters.

I prefer to call them casual players. :D

Quote from: HaffrungGMs aren't people who jealously hoard authority - they're people have to take on responsibilities and work that most gamers simply don't want.

Yup.  And the advantage over video games is not only that the GM is more flexible than any MMORPG software but also that the players don't have to master any sort of interface or buy any special hardware to play.

It's nice to have a bag of generic mooks.

Quote from: RPGPunditSurely, if what the majority of gamers wanted to do was to play a character with deep social ties, those other games would have either outsold D&D or D&D would have ended up integrating those sorts of ideas earlier, right?

It may get me in a lot of hot water, but I think that in general, D&D has always been "the best" RPG.  Mechanically, it has struck a better balance between various competing agendas than most other games, and it has been updated regularly enough that it has remained reasonably close to the front edge of game design theory (although it got pretty long in the tooth in 2E).

Most other games have started life by saying "this game is different from D&D because..." (even if sometimes the word "different" is replaced by "better").  By moving off of D&D's baseline, the result has been to miss that subtle point of balance that D&D has always intuitively hit, with a reduced player network as a result.

That balance point was based on the old 4+1 player segmentation.  If the community becomes a 3+1 network, D&D's balance point will fail.  And that is what I am predicting will happen.

There's a challenge to losing the Power Gamers.  They serve as a force to push things forward.  They're little engines of pacing.  Without them, games bog down.  The Power Gamer's need to always be doing something helps to keep the overall group focused on forward progress.  Mechanically, D&D does not have much support to generate that force.  It has always simply been a covert assumption that the players provided the motive force.  In their absence, we'll want to consider ways to make "pacing" something that happens by design, not by accident.

However, the Power Gamers also bring a lot of baggage to the table.  They tend to "break" things.  Power Gamers don't like character-driven rationales for making sub-optimal choices.  Groups with Power Gamers are also groups that fight against a subtle tension to keep the Power Gamer under control, lest the game devolve into an environment where everyone else has to behave like the Power Gamer to avoid being dominated.  D&D does have lots of rules designed to constrain that behavior, rules that inadvertently also limit the creative abilities of players who might otherwise be able to moderate their competitive instincts towards a common goal of shared fun.  A redesign that begins by losing the assumption that certain kinds of activity must be strictly regulated will produce interesting new approaches.

So my argument is not "change for change's sake".  My argument is "let's project the impact of change that is going to happen no matter what we do, and try to get out in front of it and benefit from those changes wherever possible."

QuoteWhat about those of us who find the challenge of the game more important; should players be allowed to shit all over game balance because they want to create a good "story" (or rather, want to use "story" as an excuse to create a character that will outshine everyone else)?

Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter.  How do we generate balanced play and fun play in a world where everything that is not forbidden is permitted, vs. the world we have now, where everything that is not permitted is forbidden?

I'm going to honestly tell you that right now I don't have answers to all the potential questions.  I'm going to work on generating those answers as I work.  I find that for me, the process of setting my thoughts down in writing, sharing that with others, and debating the material tends to help me generate solutions to problems.  My instincts are that my brain has good ideas on how to solve these problems, but to get them into some kind of communicable form, work needs to be done first.

I can sort of feel the guidelines that shape those ideas now.  I have a sense that there's an aesthetic power to the idea of a shared story experience that doesn't exist in the DM vs. Player (or DM owns world, Player owns Character if you prefer) mode of play.  I think that defining that aesthetic will help create limits mutually acceptable to all the participants.  I think that we need to evolve rules of group decision making that supersede individual decision making when there is intra-participant conflict.  And I think that we can create "costing models" so that people have to make economic decisions (here I am using economics in its broadest sense, that of balancing risk vs. reward) and don't feel like there are never consequences for selfish actions.

One of the things I like about Ron Edwards' thoughts about game theory is that he identified a number of dysfunctions which I accept on the basis of personal observation.  There are certain kinds of behavior, and certain kinds of people who can be extremely disruptive of the game group.  I think we can learn a lot about how healthy game groups work by considering the kinds of dysfunctions that sometimes infect them.  From that analysis we may be able to develop rule-based safeguards to help avoid those kinds of problems in a more open ended, less constrained story telling mode than what D&D uses as its baseline.

So in summary:  Answer hazy, ask again later.

Ryan

Ryan...

This may sound totally odd, but have you considered the possibility of games where the authority structure actually changes during play based on group choice?  

So, for example, there might be one structure for times when "GM plays the setting" (exploration), a different one for "We're making story together" (authorial), and yet another for "GM as the enemy" (adversarial), with smooth transitions between them.

This is something I'm screwing around with right now, and it...   certainly has an effect on the landscape, so to speak.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThis may sound totally odd, but have you considered the possibility of games where the authority structure actually changes during play based on group choice?  

Yes, I absolutely have.  I think that there are times when it makes sense for everyone to be involved in everything, and times when it makes sense for there to be advantages to hidden knowledge.  I think that sometimes you want a "banker", and sometimes you want a "referee", and sometimes you want a "judge".  Flowing seamlessly between various modes will be key to success, in my opinion.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyYes, I absolutely have.  I think that there are times when it makes sense for everyone to be involved in everything, and times when it makes sense for there to be advantages to hidden knowledge.  I think that sometimes you want a "banker", and sometimes you want a "referee", and sometimes you want a "judge".  Flowing seamlessly between various modes will be key to success, in my opinion.

Wicked.

I agree on these points.  Very, very strongly.  That "flowing seamlessly" bit, though?  I can tell you already - it's a tricky bastard.

As it sits right now, players can move from speaking in-character to describing character action in a flow that is astonishingly natural.  And that, to me, is the target - when a group can move between all the different modes of play just that simply, and everyone is deeply invested in character, in setting, and in the flow of events - and knows when it's time to focus on which one and slip over to the format that suits, because the overall way of playing and learning the game makes it dead obvious.

I guess if...

• the 99/00 WotC Survey data was sound
• the conclusions drawn from that data about 4+1 player segmentation was accurate
• there were not in fact large groups of gamers not represented in this data
• players actually were leaving TTRPGs on masse for MMORPGs and not playing both
• it was certain it was the "Power Gamers" specifically who were leaving
• the other 3+1 players were not leaving as well
• the other 3+1 players were changing what they want from TTRPGs
• what they really wanted was Narrativist / Story Now / Storytelling Games
• Narrativist / Story Now / Storytelling Games didn't inherently diminish other important elements of TTRPGs

... then you might be right, and I'd agree this is a good course of action.

There are a lot of assumptions there, and several points I'm convinced are in error.  So, this is a path I'm not going to follow myself.  It doesn't lead to games I'm very interested in playing (and by extension creating).

But I honestly think you should trust your instincts and make the game you want to.  It's worth giving it a shot. :)

Quote from: StuartBut I honestly think you should trust your instincts and make the game you want to.  It's worth giving it a shot. :)

Hey, it worked for Byron Hall!

I'm going to step away from the current conversation for a moment to switch to my Journalist mode, and ask a couple of questions I've been meaning to ask you, Ryan.

It seems to me that a lot of what you started writing, and when you started writing it, struck me as being timed to coincide with the announced release of 4e.

So here's the questions:
1. Did you know, ahead of time, that 4e was going to be announced?
2. If so, do your current statements indicate that you disagree with the direction WoTC is going with 4e?

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartBut I honestly think you should trust your instincts and make the game you want to.  It's worth giving it a shot. :)

As long as he doesn't say "Anybody who doesn't like what I like is wrong."

If that happens, I'll have no choice but to kill him and take his stuff.

Quote from: RPGPundit1. Did you know, ahead of time, that 4e was going to be announced?
2. If so, do your current statements indicate that you disagree with the direction WoTC is going with 4e?

I knew since late spring that 4E was in active development and that WotC R&D had switched gears to focus on a 2008 release.  I did not know they intended to announce at GenCon until the week before the con (I was guessing they were going to announce at Winter Fantasy in 2008 that the books would be on-sale in August '08).

I don't disagree with the direction WotC is going, because I can't figure out what that direction is.  They've been less than forthcoming in every respect in explaining what they're doing.

It appears that they're trying to reduce the total rules payload of the game, and I think that is a good idea.  3.0 was already pushing the boundaries, and 3.5 pushed beyond the boundaries of what is a usable payload for most groups.  Dialing that back is probably necessary.

it also appears that they've realized that monsters with the same level of complexity as PCs is a failed design paradigm, and they need to move to monsters that are vastly simpler for a DM to use in combat.  That also seems to me to be a logical extension of the observation of play over the past 7 years.  High level monsters are just too freakin' hard to play effectively unless you specialize and only feature certain kinds until the DM gets real good at using them.

Pretty much everything else I have heard/seen/read about 4E looks like very shallow cosmetic changes.  I'm not saying that's bad, I'm saying they're sharing so little about what they're doing that it is almost impossible to dig in and see what strategy they are pursuing.

I've been out of that building for seven years.  During that time, I made a living telling other people what was going on inside the industry, and how the customer population was changing.  I think I'm pretty good at doing that.  Many of my predictions have been borne out by actual events.  I think I am right on target regarding the move from 4+1 to 3+1.  And that's what's driving me now; a desire to see how right I am.  In a sense, for me, "publishing a roleplaying game" has become a hobby pursuit - I don't imagine for one second that there's anything like a living wage in doing so.  But I have the luxury of being able to work at my own pace, towards my own objectives, just for fun, so I'm gonna.

Wizards of the Coast does not seem at all interested in exploring the idea that their customer population is dramatically and rapidly changing.  I think they are responding, that is reacting, to things like WoW, because you'd have to be deaf and blind not to see the kind of effect it is having on the player network.  And I think they see a path to transform the game from a paper game to a paper-digital hybrid, and in that shift to potentially move to a subscription based revenue model, which I am certain they believe will make them a lot more money than the old paper-only, unit book sale model.

I seriously doubt that anyone inside Wizards has an audience for the idea that D&D, as it is currently published, has become a dead-end, with a limited future lifespan as a viable commercial product.  And frankly, given the immense amount of money paid for it first by Wizards, then Hasbro, they probably cannot politically espouse that view even if they hold it.  My sense is that they're doing the best they can to do the best version of D&D they know how to make, and I wish them all the success in the world.  A healthy D&D is a good thing for RPGs, no matter what other factors are in play.

Ryan

Term Check what is meant by 4+1 and 3+1?

Thanks
Rob Conley

Quote from: estarTerm Check what is meant by 4+1 and 3+1?

Thanks
Rob Conley

In 1999/2000 WotC did a survey of about 1,000 gamers between the ages of 12 and 35.  Based on the questions that were asked, a breakdown of gamers (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html) was suggested:

Thinker -- Strategic/Combat Focus
Power Gamer -- Tactical/Combat Focus
Character Actor -- Tactical/Story Focus
Storyteller -- Strategic/Story Focus

This is the "4" and the +1 is:

Basic Roleplayer -- strategy, tactics, combat and story in rough equilibrium

The 4 primary types each account for 22% of the surveyed player community.  The +1 type accounts for 12%.

While the WotC survey also indicated people would play both videogames and tabletop games, Ryan believes the "Power Gamers" are going to stop playing TTRPGs on masse for MMORPGs.  

So instead of 4+1 the player community will become 3+1.

Where I find all of this problematic is that this previous research:

* is suspect due to anomalies in the way statistics were presented
* didn't consider players under 12
* the questions asked were unknown and could have been leading
* the 4 types mentioned above seem to be a variant of Gamist / Narrativist with a further break down into short-term and long-term.  Many, many people site other reasons for playing RPGs.

But even if you accept all of the WotC research and conclusions -- it STILL doesn't seem to back up any of the claims Ryan is currently making.

Quote from: StuartWhile the WotC survey also indicated people would play both videogames and tabletop games, Ryan believes the "Power Gamers" are going to stop playing TTRPGs on masse for MMORPGs.  

So instead of 4+1 the player community will become 3+1.

Well, I think that if the exodus Ryan believes is happening really is happening, it's possible that the hobby will lose some (though probably not all) of the entire "Combat Focus" side of the equation, because computers games should be appealing to Thinkers as well as Power Gamers, especially as MMORPGs and the scenarios in FPSs like Day of Defeat get more complex.

But I think that raises the question of what a "Story Focus" is for Character Actors and Story Tellers and I think that leaves us back with the old split between world-oriented play (the "sandbox"), where the goal is verisimilitude, and story-oriented play, where the goal is good story quality.  I think there is a Strategic and Tactical version of both of those goals so that they might appear to overlap, but they are not the same at all and often conflict with one another.  And if one assumes that the focus is always story quality and implement mechanics to improve story quality at the expense of verisimilitude, you'll wind up alienating the people who value verisimilitude.  And if you make story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory, you'll wind up alienating people who really do want the GM to run their characters through a story but have very little interest in having a hand in making it happen.

I'm still unclear of why, if the 4+1 model is becoming commercially unviable, a 3+1 model could be viable. Surely, the only way the new model could be viable is if lots of people who don't play TRPGs today start playing and buying in the future. How is that going to happen?

I mean, are there lots of existing gamers out there itching for a storyteller-driven game? Or do you hope that lots of non-gamers will become gamers because of the fresh appeal of story-driven RPGs? If so, I'd take a look at the euro boardgames market. The parameters of what non-gamers will tolerate in terms of playing time, rules length, etc. are pretty well established. Anything more than about 2-3 hours playing time, and 8-12 pages of rules is a non-starter for all but a fraction of the game-playing market.

Good points John.  

If the goal is generating a "good" story you also need to consider the amount of time during which the "story" is resolved.  Is it a game session?  A campaign?  What would the Lord of the Rings the RPG look like as an individual session?  Would the journey from Rivendale to the doorway to Moria constitute a good story?  What if the players battled the Watcher in the Water, got inside and started exploring Moria?  Is that a good story?  How is that session different from what people already do with RPGs?  Would you need to run through the entire Lord of the Rings in one game session for it to be good story?

Stories usually have a primary protagonist as well.  Is the player with the Samwise character going to enjoy the story from the above RPG session (Rivendale to Moria) as much as the player with Gandalf?  Why would you want to play Ron Weasley when the other guy at the table gets to be Harry Potter?  The flip side to that is without Harry Potter, the adventures of Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger would not be "good story".

Some comics and TV shows (particularly soap operas) do a good (subjective, I know) job managing multiple characters without a single protagonist.  'Heroes' is a recent good example.  The downside is that they're all protagonists in their own story arcs and only 'crossover' with each other from time to time.  You rarely see a story where a group is travelling around together and they are all equal protagonists.

Creating a good story is hard enough.  Add on the extra challenges of multiple, equal protagonists, and it becomes quite challenging.

Quote from: HaffrungI'd take a look at the euro boardgames market. The parameters of what non-gamers will tolerate in terms of playing time, rules length, etc. are pretty well established. Anything more than about 2-3 hours playing time, and 8-12 pages of rules is a non-starter for all but a fraction of the game-playing market.

This is exactly the angle I'm approaching game design from. :)

Quote from: HaffrungI'm still unclear of why, if the 4+1 model is becoming commercially unviable, a 3+1 model could be viable. Surely, the only way the new model could be viable is if lots of people who don't play TRPGs today start playing and buying in the future. How is that going to happen?

Part of the assumption, I believe, is that the existing 4+1 network leads to a community of play, centered on D&D, which is unattractive to people on the fringes. Some of these people play games which are similar in broad outline to D&D, provided they can form groups for them. Runequest, Rolemaster, and GURPS [Fantasy] are early examples; nowadays you also have some story games like The Shadow of Yesterday and Burning Wheel. Other people simply don't play RPGs at all--though they may have at one time.

So the argument here is that a game which is centered on the 3+1 population will indeed appeal to some of the fringe population and either gain them back or at least retard further erosion. Whereas chasing the Power Gamers will just lead to a more and more complex and video-game-like game, less able to satisfy the other groups, and ultimately (so RSD claims) fruitless because computers can't be beat at their own game.

The problem with this IMO is that, just as Ryan has said, very few people are perfect types. Not only the Basic Gamers but most everyone else has a bit of PG in them: an appreciation of attacking challenge through character which translates into discomfort with a game-world that's too easily manipulated, which doesn't "push back".

The other problem, at least for Ryan's project as I've seen it described thus far, is that it sounds like an attempt to layer a bunch of storytelling mechanics/guidelines on top of D&D. While this may enhance the game for some of the 3+1, it really does very little to attract the "fringe" which has rejected D&D not only because it supposedly lacks "storytelling", but also because they're left cold by the mechanics. (Overly complex, Feats, XP system, class & level-based, high power curve, etc.)

Quote from: John Morrow….And if one assumes that the focus is always story quality and implement mechanics to improve story quality at the expense of verisimilitude, you'll wind up alienating the people who value verisimilitude.  And if you make story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory, you'll wind up alienating people who really do want the GM to run their characters through a story but have very little interest in having a hand in making it happen.

Agreed.  It’s my view that the portion of the market that wants “story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory” is not enough to save the hobby.  It’s my understanding these types of games already exist so if there was a huge segment of the gamer population that wants this you would see it in large absolute sales of these products.

I also strongly question the assumption that “story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory” cannot be implemented better on a computer.  In fact, I think a computer game would serve this game type better than it serves Combat Focus.*  In the classic case of where a player “narrates” what is behind the door within reasonable limits (no Jabba the Hut in a Fantasy RPG) those narration options can just be pulled from a menu.  Basically, what you have is a game where all the computer game builder tools are accessed by the players.  Wnat to drag and drop some orcs behind a door, no problem.  Add an inn an importanct NPC, no problem either.

On the question of who gets to ultimately choose (who gets the narrative control), maybe a drama point spending system, maybe even secret, maybe by vote of the players.  Especially if the goal is to eliminate bad GMs this removes entirely the need for GMs or a programer to make up the story.  Better yet, you can have the computer record the story you make for playback later and to show others.  The ability to show others I think would be a strong incentive to the Story Teller gamer to use a CSTG (computer story teller game).  

The computer becomes an even better medium for Story Telling gaming where the combat decisions and outcomes of adversaries are under player narrative control.  Since the thrill to the Power Gamer of overcoming a challenging opponent with unknown tactics (not much of one with today’s AI) is no longer important.  Rather the players play the NPCs, and narrate their actions.  The programmer has a much easier AI task as a human will make the decision about what happens next not the AI.  The programmer can just provide menu options and doesn't need to come up with a decision algorithm.

Now here is the rub / real reason computer games triumph IMO, time and ease of use:

Quote from: Haffrung… If so, I'd take a look at the euro boardgames market. The parameters of what non-gamers will tolerate in terms of playing time, rules length, etc. are pretty well established. Anything more than about 2-3 hours playing time, and 8-12 pages of rules is a non-starter for all but a fraction of the game-playing market.

I’d say the success of Wii is another great example of ease of use triumphing graphics and sophistication of game play.   The intuitive control allows people to enter the game easily.

IME, about the only folks in the 4+1 model that are willing to wade through heavy rules are the Tactician and Power Gamer types.  And TRPGs will always give such players a sense of satisfaction that CRPGs cannot, the defeat of challenges not limited by AI, and the ability to defeat those challenges in ways not limited by AI.

Players truly interested in “story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory” are less likely to care, since what’s the point of intricate rules if you are story-oriented.

It’s the time and complexity factor that keep most people away from RPGs.  I doubt the added need to get creative on the fly “players actively want to create stories mandatory” is going to seem any less difficult to the masses and thus any more attractive.  That is if you want good stories.  

The collaborative story where I write one paragraph you the next is an old creative writing exercise and can serve as a good example of what most folks will think these games are about.  Most such stories are not very good in my recollection even when people work together.  But neither is the first draft of most writing, except with a single author the story is usually more internally coherent.  So I doubt anyone will want to here the recollection of a Story Teller game anymore than they want to hear you recount your hack-n-slash game.  Yet if you could make a movie of it with a CSTG then I’m sure people will watch, and they could even review and rate it. :)


* I don’t think computer games fill all the Combat Focus jones because of the limited actions you can take with the environment and the limitations of AI.

Quote from: XantherI also strongly question the assumption that "story-oriented mechanics that assume players actively want to create stories mandatory" cannot be implemented better on a computer.  In fact, I think a computer game would serve this game type better than it serves Combat Focus.*  In the classic case of where a player "narrates" what is behind the door within reasonable limits (no Jabba the Hut in a Fantasy RPG) those narration options can just be pulled from a menu.  Basically, what you have is a game where all the computer game builder tools are accessed by the players.  Wnat to drag and drop some orcs behind a door, no problem.  Add an inn an importanct NPC, no problem either.

On the question of who gets to ultimately choose (who gets the narrative control), maybe a drama point spending system, maybe even secret, maybe by vote of the players.  Especially if the goal is to eliminate bad GMs this removes entirely the need for GMs or a programer to make up the story.  Better yet, you can have the computer record the story you make for playback later and to show others.  The ability to show others I think would be a strong incentive to the Story Teller gamer to use a CSTG (computer story teller game).

This reminds me strongly of the buzz some 10-15 years ago (That long?  Ouch. :pundit: ) about "interactive media" -- computerized books, or movies, where the reader or audience could make choices to affect which ending they'd see.  Or "hyperplot" books where they could be read in any order.

There was a lot of buzz in the "ultra techie" community that died shortly after the first attempts were made.

Quote from: Old GeezerThis reminds me strongly of the buzz some 10-15 years ago (That long?  Ouch. :pundit: ) about "interactive media" -- computerized books, or movies, where the reader or audience could make choices to affect which ending they'd see.  Or "hyperplot" books where they could be read in any order.

There was a lot of buzz in the "ultra techie" community that died shortly after the first attempts were made.

This is quite true.  I was in the "ultra techie" / media community during that time and remember it well.  My undergrad thesis was on "Interactive Cinema". :)

Quote from: Old GeezerThis reminds me strongly of the buzz some 10-15 years ago (That long?  Ouch. :pundit: ) about "interactive media" -- computerized books, or movies, where the reader or audience could make choices to affect which ending they'd see.  Or "hyperplot" books where they could be read in any order.

There was a lot of buzz in the "ultra techie" community that died shortly after the first attempts were made.

I remember the hyperplot books, turn to page x if you do this.  The question is one of content creation cost and demand.  Frankly, I don't think the demand is high enough to justify the cost at the moment for such things.

On the computer game front, I think you could use the Never Winter Nights engine, I think it is, that allowed a "DM" to build a dungeon and alter it on the fly (drop items etc.).  In working with such game level design egines you usually can toggle between design mode, to a "play" mode.  You'd just make the design mode multi-user as well and slap on an interface to determine who gets control.

I'm just thinking it's possible and could meet the goals of such games.  I have no idea that they will come if you build it.

Quote from: XantherI remember the hyperplot books, turn to page x if you do this.  The question is one of content creation cost and demand.  Frankly, I don't think the demand is high enough to justify the cost at the moment for such things.

1) The Warlock of Firetop Mountain was, and is, totally awesome.
2) The Citadel of Chaos, and The Forest of Doom also bring the awesome.
3) They're making new Fighting Fantasy (http://www.fightingfantasygamebooks.com/) books.

Quote from: Stuart1) The Warlock of Firetop Mountain was, and is, totally awesome.

That pinged some long-untouched pleasure synapse in my brain.

Quote from: Stuart2) The Citadel of Chaos, and The Forest of Doom also bring the awesome.

So did that.

Quote from: Stuart3) They're making new Fighting Fantasy (http://www.fightingfantasygamebooks.com/) books.

To the internet!

Those aren't the same thing as hypermedia. I remember those (in fact have a bunch, they are indeed awesome, you should visit gamebooks.org and http://www.the-underdogs.info/gamebook.php )

But the hypermedia stuff came later. Some of it was pretty interesting; in fact I remember one custom application for the Mac, apparently made without Hypercard for some reason, that was something like some dude's senior thesis circa 1990. They were artier than the FF type books, more Dictionary of the Khazars-ish.

And the madness continues... here (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Entries/2007/10/18_Show_Me_Your_Stance!.html) on the 18th, and here (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Entries/2007/10/20_Grab_dice%2C_roll_dice!.html) on the 20th.

The post of the 18th is simply recycled Forger nonsense about "Stance" and the like. That of the 20th brings in some new ideas, very thespy stuff where the players get to make shit up to get a bonus on their dice rolls. "If I lose, you get to rescue the princess." By raising the stakes you get more dice to roll, but it's all rather abstract at this stage.

Despite RPGPundit's recent blog post (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/622430441/item.html), old Dancey is using the Forger definition of "story" or "narrative", or at least it's closer to that than anything else, at least anything we have in the English language.

I think Gingerbread Man Dancey has been popping too much acid and not rolling enough dice with actual gamers.

Kyle, look at my entry for today (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/622573216/item.html).  I think that I'm done defending him once and for all, if this is where he's going and wants to drag RPGs toward.

RPGPundit

You do realize what's he doing right? He's trying to reach the traditional gamers who might like Forge ideas. Once he's got enough who are interested, he will attempt to sell his latest product to them that basically recycles Forge concepts --- he's basically trying to capitalize on forge ideas with the maintream. A 'revolutionary' new product for an existing market.

You've seen an essay on stances, basically; a concept that even rabid anti-Forgers will probably agree is interesting and reasonably useful in abstract.  What you haven't seen is any mechanics yet.  Before mechanics could be introduced, I have to assume that the people reading the material need a primer on what the fuck I'm talking about when I say "you get the right to enter Director stance and make that change".  The rules for switching stances are coming, and I think they'll be cool (and preserve a whole lot of the D&D experience, while introducing a wider scope to the non GM players.)

Here's a section in the Stances chapter I wrote but did not post because I wanted to see what the reaction would be to no discussion of GM "uniqueness".  This section also contains no mechanics, but it is a roadmap for the territory ahead.  You might find it interesting:


GM Stance
   
In a D20 Game, one participant is usually going to play as the GM.  Therefore we need to talk about the Stance used by the GM.  GMs of course can move freely between Director, Narrator and Actor Stance just like the other players.  But by mutual agreement of all the players, the GM also has access to a special kind of Stance called GM Stance.  GM Stance allows the GM to affect the Metagame.  The Metagame refers to all the things outside the game which relate to the game.  In that sense, it is even more powerful than Director Stance.
   
GM Stance is used prior to the start of play to set the conditions for the game.  GM Stance defines the genre of the game, the basic rules that will be used in the game, the kinds of characters that can be usd in the game, the kinds of materials each participant is expected to bring to the game, and can even be extended to include things like rules for adding new players to the group, setting up regularly scheduled play sessions, etc.
   
GM Stance also provides access to The Plot.  Some groups want The Plot to emerge from the character's actions, and the decisions of the players in Narrator Stance.  This is sometimes called "Sandbox Mode"; initially there is no clear over-arching plot structure to the game, and the players create it from sharing ideas and exploring the world.  Other times, the group calls on the GM to actually structure The Plot and to be responsible for managing Plot related aspects of the game, including substantial facts about the game world which are unknown to the other players.  This is sometimes called "Guided Mode".
   
The most important aspect of GM Stance with regard to The Plot is that it enables the GM to have access to Hidden Information.  Hidden Information means facts about the game world which are not shared with some or all of the other players.  These facts can be trivial, like how many hit points a monster has left after taking wounds in combat, or epic, like the real motives and long term plans of the Villain.  When the GM takes GM Stance, it vests the GM with Authority to tell the group "you don't know" in response to certain lines of inquiry.  It also gives the GM Authority to surprise the players with Plot Twists - changes to the story that are not driven by the behavior of the characters, but instead by the will of the GM.
   
This is very dangerous territory.  The difference between creating a shared story, and having the GM tell a story can be very hard to define.  If the GM uses GM Stance to force the characters into situations the players don't like or understand, the GM has overstepped his or her Authority.  The concept of The Plot and how to manage it is covered in its own section, but for now, simply remember that GMs, like all the other players, have Responsibility to keep the game fun for everyone, along with the Right to create the story.
   
GM Stance allows the GM to access Author Stance for all the NPCs and monsters (because they have Hidden Information).  The GM also has Narrator Stance rights over the organizations in the story as well; essentially a mode of play where the GM Narrates as if an organization were a character.  Generally speaking, the GM uses a combination of GM Stance and Narrator Stance to introduce new shared knowledge into the game for use by the other players.  GM Stance allows the GM to place persistent objects in a scene which can immediately be used within the context of the rules; GM Stance bypasses the general rule that things do not become persistent until used by another player in a later scene.
   
The final aspect of GM Stance is the ability to Judge.  The group authorizes the GM to adjudicate the use of the rules, to set various game values, and to decide when a factor is relevant or not.  This power is not unlimited.  When Judging, the GM has the Authority to use the rules as written to alter the progress of the game, but does not have the ability to alter those rules by fiat (which would instead by a use of Director Stance).  The GM has the ability to translate the effects of Hidden Knowledge into the game via the use of the rules, which means the GM has the power to refuse to explain why a certain ruling may be made if the explanation would reveal Hidden Knowledge.  This establishes an extraordinary bond of trust between GM and players.  So long as the players believe the GM is acting in accordance with their overall wishes regarding the Premise, all will be well.  But if the GM appears to be pursuing a separate agenda, divisive conflict may arise.  Therefore, it is crucial that the GM only use the powers of GM Stance when absolutely necessary, and only to advance the major goals of the group as a whole.
   
It is possible, and even likely, that the GM will agree to share GM Stance from time to time with another player.  Cooperative modes of GMing are possible, where one person is responsible for "running the world" and another is responsible for "running the GM characters".  In a game with very little Hidden Knowledge, being played in Sandbox Mode, the GM may play a character just like the other players, only using GM Stance occasionally to resolve disputes.
   
The GM should make absolutely clear to the other members of the group when he or she has taken GM Stance.  The difference between Narrator Stance and GM Stance can be subtle, and the players need to know which mode the GM is working in.  As with the other Stances, some physical manifestation of GM Stance may be an appropriate visual cue.

Ryan

Oh boy!

I bet €uros to Dollar$ that Ryan hasn´t tried this out even once.

Good luck, Mr. Gorski!

Ryan, pardon the use of the word but what you're saying here sounds extremely "incoherent".

I mean, If the GM has "GM stance" and the players can get "Director stance" then what happens when the players start saying something happens in the world that goes against the GM's "GM Stance"-based "hidden information"?
At the end of the day, what you are suggesting only adds confusion and solves nothing, and in fact it creates a power struggle between players and GMs that never existed before, because you're suddenly saying players are supposed to be allowed to do the GM's job, only not all of the GM's job, and the GM can still trump them, but they're supposed to vote, but the GM knows secret things the players don't, but the players can use director stance to change the world outside their own character, etc etc. ad fucking nauseum.

Its an absurd jumbled mess.

If you want to create some kind of a player "empowerment" where you give players the ability to dictate what goes on in the world, you HAVE TO by default castrate the GM.
The Forgers know this, you must realize it to: you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the GM is the ultimate power, or he isn't.

Beyond that is still the entire question about whether its practical as far as the typical player group's stability to castrate the GM, and whether its financially marketable to promote games where the GM is castrated. I'd answer no to both those questions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, If the GM has "GM stance" and the players can get "Director stance" then what happens when the players start saying something happens in the world that goes against the GM's "GM Stance"-based "hidden information"?

DM Stance trumps Director Stance.  The GM can cancel the proposed Director Stance action.

Entering Director stance needs to occur in very strictly limited, very controlled situations, to achieve very precise objectives.  Having a player (even the GM) play the game from Director Stance leads to disaster.

You use Director stance for a handful of really good reasons, and for nothing else.  Director stance can be toxic to the body of Storytelling, but occasionally it is the only useful and fun way to play.

A brief (but probably not exhaustive list) would be:

*  You earned to the right to "add or modify a rule" and you're exercising  that right.

*  Something went horribly awry in a scene, and rather than continue on and cope with it, the scene needs to be rewound and run again to obtain a "better" outcome (and rules for this power need to be strictly limited as well; we can't just have a player who fucked up something call to re-write a scene willy-nilly).

*  A major aspect of The Plot needs to be introduced, and rather than working through it in a long session of Narration, it gets introduced quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

*  The characters have moved into an area of the game world which is mostly undefined, and rather than explore it in a long session of narration, the area is brought into the game quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

Now you might ask:  Aren't all of these things usually GM fiat?  And my answer would be "yes", they usually are.  But in the Storytelling Game, sometimes players get to do this stuff as well.  Some will choose to do it, and some will choose not to do it, but having the option to do it creates a very different animal than the classic RPG.

Ryan

Quote from: pigames.netYou do realize what's he doing right? He's trying to reach the traditional gamers who might like Forge ideas. Once he's got enough who are interested, he will attempt to sell his latest product to them that basically recycles Forge concepts --- he's basically trying to capitalize on forge ideas with the maintream. A 'revolutionary' new product for an existing market.

Nothing wrong with that.

"Gee, I'll take this good idea, smooth it out, and sell it to people who don't know about it."

Sounds plenty OK to me if you can make it work.

But why, oh why, Oldest of all Geezers:

Why here?

Because somebody here went out to Dancey's blog and elsewhere, and brought stuff back here to argue about. At that point, it's kind of fair game.

Technically.

But Ryan is supposed to be business savvy. He oughta know this place ain´t gonna make him any money, no?

It doesn't matter. The "meatspace is no longer a criterion" thing will ensure the final product will not only be derivative but plain old nuts.

Forge plus WoW = Comedy Goldmine :crazy:

Please delete.

Delete what? You? Me? This thread? Your post? If so, why post it?

I smell inebriation.

Quote from: SettembriniTechnically.

But Ryan is supposed to be business savvy. He oughta know this place ain´t gonna make him any money, no?

Not everyone here is a luddite.

EDIT: Re, pierce
No, tat all!

I just had some snappy things to say, that actually need not to be said.

BTW: Tommorrow is a working day for me (as was today), so drop your conjectures.

EDIT: Luddite is such a tasteless thing to bring into the discussion, I assume you are American?

DOUBLEEDIT: I apologize to all tasteful Americans. That is: Rotwang and Jeff Rients on these boards. And for the whole country: Stephen Colbert & Toby Keith.

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: Luddite is such a tasteless thing to bring into the discussion, I assume you are American?

Yes. Could I have ice in my cola this time, please?

There´s another American with taste: Weird Al.

Quote from: TimYes. Could I have ice in my cola this time, please?

What for?
To be able to indulge chlorine instead of Coke?

I love the USA, don´t get me wrong.

But calling ME a Luddite is basically moronic-sophomoric-insultonic bullshit.

Quote from: SettembriniTechnically.

But Ryan is supposed to be business savvy. He oughta know this place ain´t gonna make him any money, no?

For the record, from what I've heard so far, I think his product is going to be less usable, inherently, than any of the Forge games. As PI implies, mixing D20 with with all those storytelling mechanics is most likely to yield incoherence--by any definition.

It's also going to be relatively unattractive to trad gamers, as most of the commenters here have pointed out in one way or another.

But--by tying the ideas to D&D, he instantly gains a big marketing advantage. Result is: you get people to buy the stuff, and some of them actually get it to work even though by most measures it resembles modding an electric egg beater to serve as an outboard boat motor.

And that's the same reason Ryan's posting here, I'd guess. Aside from what I'm willing to believe is a genuine and laudable interest in hearing from some very tough critics, he gets free publicity, clickthroughs to his blog, etc.

Quote from: SettembriniBut calling ME a Luddite is basically moronic-sophomoric-insultonic bullshit.

I'm going to refrain from quoting Shakespeare at you, Settembrini, so that I don't further assist you in derailing an interesting thread.

QuoteBut--by tying the ideas to D&D, he instantly gains a big marketing advantage. Result is: you get people to buy the stuff, and some of them actually get it to work even though by most measures it resembles modding an electric egg beater to serve as an outboard boat motor.

And that's the same reason Ryan's posting here, I'd guess. Aside from what I'm willing to believe is a genuine and laudable interest in hearing from some very tough critics, he gets free publicity, clickthroughs to his blog, etc.

Maybe EnWorld is the place to go for that. They have mods who´d protect him, and they have fanboiz, who´d do so, too.
They also have bigger volume.

If Ryan makes money out of his rediscovery of regular roleplaying, out of his personal rediscovery of the holy triple of

context-consensus-consequences,I´ll applaud him for his marketing genius.

It´ll basically be like selling bottled "water of motivation".

Quote from: TimI'm going to refrain from quoting Shakespeare at you, Settembrini, so that I don't further assist you in derailing an interesting thread.

As you might well anticipate of being from non-Anglophonia: I´ve only read my puny share of three Shakespeare-plays. How many pieces of Schiller, or Thomas Mann novels have YOU read?

And honestly, citing Shakespeare (or anyone else except me) doesn´t make your arguments more profound. It just shows your lack of creativity and intelligence.

Quote from: SettembriniAs you might well anticipate of being from non-Anglophonia: I´ve only read my puny share of three Shakespeare-plays. How many pieces of Schiller, or Thomas Mann novels have YOU read?

And honestly, citing Shakespeare (or anyone else except me) doesn´t make your arguments more profound. It just shows your lack of creativity and intelligence.

Jesus H. Christ! You really wear your insecurities on your sleeve, Sett.

Again, Ryan Dancey's skills as a designer, as opposed to marketeer, have yet to be tested. What better place than here to test them, and in appropriately public fashion?

I think Ryan should get a designer blog on therpgsite.
 
Remember how GNS did that on rpg.net a couple of years ago?

It was gooood.

Quote from: SettembriniTechnically.

In others, "I accede the point."

Quote from: SettembriniBut Ryan is supposed to be business savvy. He oughta know this place ain´t gonna make him any money, no?

I'm an anti-Forge guy, but a pro-game gamer. I take a look at all kinds of stuff to see if I can find some use for it in the continuum of my game experience. I'll check out Dancey's book - if I think it's useful, I'll buy it.

In other words, this place might indeed make him some money.

Seanchai

This exchange between Ryan and Mike nicely sums up the central problem with what Ryan is setting out to do:

Quote from: Mike Mearls

Quote from: Ryan Dancey"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.

EXACTLY!

Quote from: StuartThis exchange between Ryan and Mike nicely sums up the central problem with what Ryan is setting out to do:

[SNIP]

EXACTLY!

Mike's analogy is deeply flawed.  People do not play football to tell stories.  People absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyMike's analogy is deeply flawed.  People do not play football to tell stories.  People absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

Most people play RPGs to be embroiled in a story rather than to tell it.

Quote from: RSDanceyThe GM should make absolutely clear to the other members of the group when he or she has taken GM Stance.  The difference between Narrator Stance and GM Stance can be subtle, and the players need to know which mode the GM is working in.  As with the other Stances, some physical manifestation of GM Stance may be an appropriate visual cue.

The implications here are incorrect.

In functional, enjoyable play which makes use of a GM or other authority position, it is generally best if the group assumes that GM authority is always active, unless the GM "cues" the group to say that they're putting it down - for example, when a GM is helping the group create characters.

Here, take a look at this. (http://gamecraft.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=554)  That's a brief ramble about stances in terms of the whole group rather than individual players.  Notice that while the specific way a GM uses authority alters when the group switches "modes", they maintain a form of authority in all modes.

Even when collaborating in the kinds of ways that Pundit would sneer at, if there's a GM, they "chair" or lead that process.

There's a reason for that, and I find myself strangely pleased to steal a bit of Pundit's own phrasing and fuse it with my own, here:

There's always a big dog.  If it ain't the GM, it's someone else.   Giving them tools and encouragement so they can lead the group, instead of tying to teach them to bully invisibly, is good.  Creating an position of universal authority and then screwing about with the person in it?  That generally just don't work.

If you want pure collaboration, design a game with no GM.

Quote from: RSDanceyMike's analogy is deeply flawed.  People do not play football to tell stories.  People absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

No, he's exactly right.  People play games first and foremost for the gameplay.  You can tell a story about the gameplay, but that's not why people play the game to start with.  You can even make a game out of creating stories, but it's still a game, and if you were *really* interested in telling stories, you'd pick another format.  Certainly not a game  where the level of player contribution isn't based on the quality of their storytelling...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe implications here are incorrect.

We'll agree to disagree.  I do not want to position the GM as the leader.  I want to position the GM as a participant with different powers than those of the rest of the group.  That's why I want the GM to be playing in Narrator stance most of the time, not GM Stance, and I want GM Stance invoked and used explicitly.

Otherwise you have the situation where everyone is still asking for permission.

Turning "everything not permitted is forbidden" into "everything not forbidden is permitted" means that you have to have a mechanism to indicate what is forbidden.

Ryan

Let's talk about a game where you "tell a great story".  

Now, whatever your game is about, the challenge of the game should be based on that.  Whether you "win" or "lose" the game as an individual, team, or group, should be based on how well you can meet the challenge of the game.

If you have a game about "telling great stories" - THAT should be the challenge of the gameplay.  Not how well can you manage resources, or how lucky you are at rolling dice.  How GOOD can you tell a story?  Are you a better storyteller than Joe? Can you as a group create a really good story?  The quality of the story is what should decide if you advance or not in the game... not how many hit points you have, what spell you choose, or whether you roll a '20' or not.

System does matter.  A lot.

Quote from: StuartNo, he's exactly right.  People play games first and foremost for the gameplay.

No, he's exactly wrong.  He's suggesting that playing an RPG and telling a story are not equivalent.  They are.  That's what makes an RPG different from DOOM, or chess.  The terms are synonyms.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyNo, he's exactly wrong.  He's suggesting that playing an RPG and telling a story are not equivalent.  They are.  That's what makes an RPG different from DOOM, or chess.  The terms are synonyms.

Ryan

Story is a natural byproduct of roleplaying. Actively telling a story is like narrating without playing a role.

Ryan, can you sum up in one or two sentences just how a story is intentionally told rather than it being a natural occurrence from the game?

Quote from: RSDanceyWe'll agree to disagree.

If you'd prefer to do so, then certainly.

Quote from: RSDanceyNo, he's exactly wrong.  He's suggesting that playing an RPG and telling a story are not equivalent.  They are.  That's what makes an RPG different from DOOM, or chess.  The terms are synonyms.

If you're telling a story, you make decisions based on what would make a good story.

If you're playing an RPG, you make decisions based on keeping your character alive / in the game, managing resources, the luck of the dice, your problem solving skills, etc.

Playing a game is not the same as telling a story.
Playing a game ABOUT telling stories (eg. Once Upon A Time) is still NOT the same as telling a story.
Doing improv acting (eg. theatre sports) is also not the same as telling a story.

However, you can tell a story ABOUT a game, a storytelling game, or theatre sports.

This might help...

If I'm going to tell a story, I know what's going to happen next (or at least where I'm going with it).

If I'm playing in an RPG, I *don't* know what's going to happen next for a variety of reasons.

If you really want a game about telling great stories, it's much, much farther from where you're starting with d20 D&D.

Quote from: StuartIf you have a game about "telling great stories" - THAT should be the challenge of the gameplay.

Absolutely.  So in Ryan Dancey's Storyteller's Guide to D20 Games, wherein the point is to change a stock D20 game (say D&D) from a Roleplaying Game to a Storytelling Game, players should be rewarded for telling a great story.

So there should be reward mechanisms for:

* Creating & sustaining a premise
* Challenging beliefs & goals
* Changing over time in response
* Moving towards a dramatic climax

Those mechanisms should use D20 mechanics, and should be familiar to players of D20 games.

This would be different from most stock D20 Roleplaying games, and certainly different from D&D, where players are rewarded for having their characters overcome challenges, regardless of relevance.  

A group of characters that stands in the middle of a featureless plain and kills wave after wave of mindless zombies gets as much benefit from the D20 reward mechanism (Experience Points) as a group who works through a Great Story.  The difference therefore is that in a D20 Storytelling Game, merely overcoming challenges regardless of context needs to generate no positive (and possibly negative) reinforcement, and fulfilling the objective of telling a Great Story needs to generate positive reinforcement.

Ryan

Quote from: pigames.netRyan, can you sum up in one or two sentences just how a story is intentionally told rather than it being a natural occurrence from the game?

I'm not making the argument of "intent" vs. "natural".  I'm arguing that what most players want out of the RPG experience isn't just a story.  They want a great story.  And I'm arguing that you can engineer the game to generate that result (within some obvious boundaries).

Engineering football to create a great story (which could be done; I wrote a massive treatment for the XFL that I wanted to pitch to the WWF when WotC was doing its wrestling games....never had the chance; too bad.) would be either adding something to football that is not already there, or changing the point of football into a whole new kind of entertainment.

Engineering an RPG to create a great story is just making an existing tool work better as designed and intended.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyEngineering an RPG to create a great story is just making an existing tool work better as designed and intended.

Which designer on which version of D&D set out to make this the intention of the game?  It wasn't Gygax (1st).  It's not Mearls (4th).

Even if the story is about standing on a featureless plain killing wave after wave of mindless zombies?

See, this is your obstacle.  You're saying that RPG's need to turn into something the majority of them currently are not.  You seem to think they are synonymous - why I have no idea. Do you have anything other than your instincts to make this claim - that people are more interested in telling a story then Stuart's experiential claim?

Or is this simply more of the confusion of people saying they like a story when playing RPG's being mistaken for people saying "My goal is to tell a story"?

Unfortunately, the other thread disappeared before you answered my other question - so I'll rephrase given your new example (of what I can only assume you see as "Gamist" play):

When the characters have finished killing wave after wave of mindless zombies while standing on a featureless plain, and the players point back to the log of what occurred, is that a story?

Quote from: StuartWhich designer on which version of D&D set out to make this the intention of the game?  It wasn't Gygax (1st).  It's not Mearls (4th).

I bet it was that Williams guy.

I mean, c'mon.   "Skip?"

Gotta be a fake name.

Quote from: RSDanceyAbsolutely.  So in Ryan Dancey's Storyteller's Guide to D20 Games, wherein the point is to change a stock D20 game (say D&D) from a Roleplaying Game to a Storytelling Game, players should be rewarded for telling a great story.

So there should be reward mechanisms for:

* Creating & sustaining a premise
* Challenging beliefs & goals
* Changing over time in response
* Moving towards a dramatic climax

Those mechanisms should use D20 mechanics, and should be familiar to players of D20 games.

XP isn't the only reward mechanism in d20.  Staying alive/in-game, avoiding downtime, gaining info, freedom of action/decisions, "power ups", etc. are all rewards.

What happens in a d20-RSDSTG when creating & sustaining a premise (comically luck!) or challenging beliefs & goals (Trolls need hugs) runs into the d20 mechanics that players of d20 games are familiar with?  

What happens if the other players don't dig the premise or beliefs one of the other players has decided to pursue?

Quote from: RSDanceyI'm not making the argument of "intent" vs. "natural".  I'm arguing that what most players want out of the RPG experience isn't just a story.  They want a great story.  And I'm arguing that you can engineer the game to generate that result (within some obvious boundaries).

I don't disagree, but my view on people succeeding at this is by not knowing the rules. In my mind, only the GM needs to know the rules. Only then can you can have gameplay more akin to a great story -- encourage the players to truly portray the roles they are assuming (as opposed to using the rules to win) and you can tell some great stories. Artificially nudging players to use special rules to this end just creates more problems (more rules-lawyering in a different way).

Of course, that it just my opinion.

Quote from: James J SkachEven if the story is about standing on a featureless plain killing wave after wave of mindless zombies?

Story.  Not a great story.

QuoteDo you have anything other than your instincts to make this claim - that people are more interested in telling a story then Stuart's experiential claim?

Things essentially every player we surveyed who expressed a preference for playing RPGs self-identified their desires for those games to include (in addition to 6 other factors):

-> Strong Characters and Exciting Story
-> Role Playing

That is, these players essentially all said "it's not an RPG I would like unless it has Strong Characters and Exciting Story and Role Playing".

That's a pretty strong indication I'm right.

QuoteWhen the characters have finished killing wave after wave of mindless zombies while standing on a featureless plain, and the players point back to the log of what occurred, is that a story?

Yes, it's just not a Great Story.

Ryan

Quote from: StuartWhich designer on which version of D&D set out to make this the intention of the game?  It wasn't Gygax (1st).  It's not Mearls (4th).

I'm in Vegas, a long way from my library.  At hand I all I have is the 3.5E PHB.

From the Introduction (page 4).  Second sentence:

"D&D is a game of your imagination in which you participate in thrilling adventures and dangerous quests by taking on the role of a hero - a character you create."

To use a Forge term, the game would be incoherent if it did not deliver thrilling adventures and dangerous quests.  Note the quality qualifiers.  The point is not "participate in adventures and quests".  The quality of those things matters.

From "The D&D Game" (page 4).  Second sentence:

"It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling."

I take that as Designers Intent.  Those 5 things are supposed to drive the game's stated objectives.

I'm willing to believe that if I pulled any version of D&D ever published, I would find something very much like the above at the start of virtually every version.

I'm cheating of course, because I was in the fucking meetings where we made absolutely certain that the game told great stories, and I don't need to read the tea leaves of Designer's Intent.  We had endless discussions about how to make the game more fun to play centered on making sure people could tell the kinds of stories they wanted to be telling.  If someone had suggested "well, this rule is mechanically elegant, and it complies with our design guidelines, but the fact is it just kills the ability to tell a great story, let's put it in anyway", the suggestion would have been dismissed without much debate.  On the other hand, when people said "hey, here's this thing that kind of breaks our design guidelines, and is a little mechanically rough, but we think it promotes a great story approach, let's put it in anyway", we may have debated the topic extensively looking for ways to fix the known problems, but in the end, we'd have likely put it in the game.  Like Paladin alignment restrictions & the requirement that they have a Code of Conduct.

All this handwaving that there's something going on in RPGs other than storytelling has always bemused me.  One of Pundit's extremely valid critiques of Forge theory is that it often does not match observed reality.  Observed reality is that people use D&D in particular, and virtually every other successful RPG in general, as a vehicle to tell stories.  I'm taking that one step further and arguing that the quality of the story matters, and suddenly I'm an apostate.

If there was a large community of people out there using the rules of D&D to run simulations, or to bet on each other's ability to use the rules to win a combat, I'd be more sympathetic to this idea that there's something else going on that matters, but since we all know there are not such communities, I'll just stand here on firm ground of "make the game tell better stories, and you de facto make a better game".

Can it be done?  Unknown.  Result of doing it?  Happier players.  Worth the effort?  I think yes.

Ryan

Quote from: StuartXP isn't the only reward mechanism in d20.  Staying alive/in-game, avoiding downtime, gaining info, freedom of action/decisions, "power ups", etc. are all rewards.

All of those things are designed to enable characters to gain more XP.  XP is the reward mechanism of the game.  Wanna see a game where that's not the case?  Look at World of Warcraft.  At the highest levels, you max XP, and then you play the game of getting cooler gear, because there's nothing else to do in the game.  What happens when the level cap raises?  You immediatley go back to the job of earning XP.

QuoteWhat happens in a d20-RSDSTG when creating & sustaining a premise (comically luck!) or challenging beliefs & goals (Trolls need hugs) runs into the d20 mechanics that players of d20 games are familiar with?

Well now that would be the whole point of trying to write a book about it, wouldn't it.  :)

QuoteWhat happens if the other players don't dig the premise or beliefs one of the other players has decided to pursue?

That needs to be a part of the process too, obviously.  If you have a player who simply refuses to get with the program, you boot them.  If you cannot get some group consensus on such absolutely critical and key aspects of play, do something else, or get a different group.

Ryan

I think that stories from D&D and other RPGS like it, is an emergent property. Like the stories told about life itself. I'm not interested in concentrating, during play, on making a 'great story'. It sounds way to much like editing and grammar checking and spell checking and, well, work.

Consensus is often unachievable; compromise more often is.

The players to boot and the GMs to leave are those who won't compromise.

A lot of this Forger stuff seems to assume really fucked up groups where nobody compromises, where nobody simply enjoys the other players' having fun, and that this is somehow the fault of the rules.

Quote from: RSDanceyIf there was a large community of people out there using the rules of D&D to run simulations, or to bet on each other's ability to use the rules to win a combat, I'd be more sympathetic to this idea that there's something else going on that matters, but since we all know there are not such communities, I'll just stand here on firm ground of "make the game tell better stories, and you de facto make a better game".

Can it be done?  Unknown.  Result of doing it?  Happier players.  Worth the effort?  I think yes.

The survey you cite describes what the customer want. However there is no data other than antedotes and personal observations on what they actually do. And that is just as important to get a good understanding of what is going on.

They tell you they want good story. But WHY are they getting it. I contend because RPGs since 1990 has focused on two things that hurt it's widespread poplarity.

First there is the focus on precanned plot issued by the company.
Second there is the focus on splatbooks and modules of rules.

They sell there no question about that. But it is a case of short term gain for long term loss. Following a company's story-telling limits the choices you present to your players. Even with the release of dozens of splat books eventually you are going to explore all the options a system has to offer. If your focus is on new and better things for your characters there will come a time when you out run both.

Both this combine to rise the barriers for newcomers. As one needs to invest either a continuing plotline or a large body of rules.

I have observed a lot of players becoming disinterested or bored over the years because of these.

But the hope, for me, is that nearly every RPGs has at its heart a simulation of a world. Something that is open ended where rewards can be more just XP and items. And players choices have meaning and consquences.Players and GMs could do more but with the constant barrage of more story, more rules, more stuff! it hard for them to go beyond all that.

The classic RPGs are classic not just because they were first. But they were toolkits to create anything within that genre. Even in something as focused as Metamorphic Alpha the GM was encouraged to make the Starship Warden their own. More importantly they were given support to that in the form of text and tables.  No two were alike because of that.

We know more today about RPG game design than in the 70s. We need to make RPGs that allow GMs to quickly put adventures and settings down on the table.

Rather than mucking around with how RPGs are run with GMs and Players we should focus on making the games easier to prep and play.

QuoteSo there should be reward mechanisms for:

* Creating & sustaining a premise
* Challenging beliefs & goals
* Changing over time in response
* Moving towards a dramatic climax

"Yes, there MUST be a reward system for it!
Because otherwise it´s not fun to have a good story!"
:confused:

Sorry,

1) hard-coding external narrative structure into a game destroys the possibility of holo-deck-gaming, which is the most common form of gaming.

2) Even the Story-Whores should appreciate a fullfillment of their despicable longings in themselves, without a reward system. The "Story" better be fun without reward!

Ryan, good luck with your project.

I'm outta here, though. I have nothing constructive to offer, because I think it's mixed up in so many ways.

I´ll follow Elliots wise leadership.

Don't you guys like train-wrecks?

Quote from: RSDanceyAll this handwaving that there's something going on in RPGs other than storytelling has always bemused me.  One of Pundit's extremely valid critiques of Forge theory is that it often does not match observed reality.  Observed reality is that people use D&D in particular, and virtually every other successful RPG in general, as a vehicle to tell stories.  I'm taking that one step further and arguing that the quality of the story matters, and suddenly I'm an apostate.

The apostacy comes in when you start to suggest that making a "great story" is so important that you should blow the GM-player relationship all to shit, and castrate the GM, in order to be able to "tell" those stories.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDanceyMike's analogy is deeply flawed.  People do not play football to tell stories.  People absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

I think they play RPGs to "live out" stories, not to "tell" them. There's a fundamental difference there.
Players want to live out a character, most of them. Story is a part of that, a byproduct, but the main thing is the character.

Again, it isn't novels, its improv theatre.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDanceyNo, he's exactly wrong.  He's suggesting that playing an RPG and telling a story are not equivalent.  They are.  That's what makes an RPG different from DOOM, or chess.  The terms are synonyms.

Ryan

No, they're not. Telling a story implies that you will create a coherent (and not in the forge sense) story, where the actions of the characters of the story make sense, where there is a beginning, a middle, and an ending, that is plotted out from the start for the most part. Where major characters cannot suddenly die in ways that make no sense to the "Plot".  There needs to be a structure where every part of what you are telling serves some kind of purpose.

RPGs aren't like that. RPGs ramble; RPGs go nowhere sometimes, then have things happen that seem totally out of the blue. Major characters do die suddenly, or in ways that seem to make no sense. All kinds of things happen that, if you took the log of an RPG session, you'd realize it made an absolutely CRAPPY novel.

Instead, RPGs are character studies. They're improv theatre. They are certainly NOT synonymous with "story" in the literary sense.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RSDanceyEngineering football to create a great story (which could be done; I wrote a massive treatment for the XFL that I wanted to pitch to the WWF when WotC was doing its wrestling games....never had the chance; too bad.) would be either adding something to football that is not already there, or changing the point of football into a whole new kind of entertainment.

Engineering an RPG to create a great story is just making an existing tool work better as designed and intended.

Really? You want to make GMs powerless, and you can honestly say this with a straight face?

Do something where suddenly players can dictate to the DM how the world or the session is going to be, and you've changed the game into something that is no longer an RPG, but something entirely different.

For one thing, you've made it into something I would never want to play. Thus, its something I would struggle to my last breath to destroy rather than let the hobby I DO want to play in be changed into that kind of twisted travesty.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? You want to make GMs powerless, and you can honestly say this with a straight face?

Let's review what I want to do.  I want to let GMs:

* Set the genre of the game
* Set the rules of the game
* Limit the kind of characters to be used in the game
* Know things the other player's don't know
* Change the story with arbitrary plot twists
* Play all the monsters and NPCs
* Direct the non-player campaign organizations
* Place persistent objects in scenes by fiat
* Adjudicate the rules as written

And the only real change I make from stock D&D is that the GM has to say they're doing it.

Of course, I'm also advocating the idea that in certain circumstances, the players can add persistent objects & NPCs to the game, can describe the details of their environment, and can control the pacing of events.  Given certain preconditions the players can re-write the details of scenes that have already been played, can add and modify rules, and make wholesale changes to the game world, but doing those types of things is exceptional and will require some mechanic for control to ensure chaos does not result.

Most of those things were the exclusive province of DMs in D&D, and I'm advocating the idea that all the participants (including the DM) be able to do those things.

Is that "making the DM powerless"?

Ryan

Quote from: RPGPunditThus, its something I would struggle to my last breath to destroy

(http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/braveheart.jpg)

FREEEDOOOOOOOM!!!!!

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? You want to make GMs powerless, and you can honestly say this with a straight face?

I'd short-hand what Ryan said:  There is a large and productive middle ground between "The GM is all-powerful!" and "The GM is powerless and castrated."

Quote from: RPGPunditFor one thing, you've made it into something I would never want to play. Thus, its something I would struggle to my last breath to destroy

I'm torn on how to respond to this.  One the one hand, I find it pretty amusing to think that you're actually going to try to struggle to your last breath against something that you can't possibly impact in more than the most glancing way.  You gonna DIE?  You gonna DIE if Ryan publishes his book?  Ryan, you murderer! :D

On the other hand, I find it sort of sad to see the leap of logic from "I wouldn't, personally, want to play this game" to "It must be destroyed!  That which I would not play CANNOT BE TOLERATED!  BURN IT WITH FIRE!"  And that takes away some of the fun of Ryan murdering you with words. :(


Ryan:  If I haven't said so already (and I don't think I have) I think this is a worthy project.  You want to do it, and you're sticking to that in the face of criticism, and that's all to the good.  

That said, I personally think that you may overestimating the number of people who want to be conscious of the ways that they make story with their RPGs.  I think that there are a fair number of people who, for good and proper reasons, don't want that subject to hog the spotlight in their games.  They want it to be happening, but they don't necessarily want it to be explicit.

Selling to a niche within the niche is really not a problem though, unless it leads you to unwise business decisions.  If you're printing a book for every roleplayer in the world, because you follow the logic of "They're all making story, and therefore they all want to pay close attention to how they're making story" then I'd worry for you.

As is, though?  A fairly big name making a D20 product specifically for the folks who do want their story-process more spotlighted?  Sounds all good to me.  Best of luck!

Quote from: RSDanceyOf course, I'm also advocating the idea that in certain circumstances, the players can add persistent objects & NPCs to the game, can describe the details of their environment, and can control the pacing of events.  Given certain preconditions the players can re-write the details of scenes that have already been played, can add and modify rules, and make wholesale changes to the game world, but doing those types of things is exceptional and will require some mechanic for control to ensure chaos does not result.

Yes, it certainly will. That way lies chaos.

QuoteMost of those things were the exclusive province of DMs in D&D, and I'm advocating the idea that all the participants (including the DM) be able to do those things.

Is that "making the DM powerless"?

Ryan

whenever you set up a situation where a player can raise his hand and say "no, in fact, that DIDN'T happen" or "I've decided that instead, the NPC is going to do this...", you are essentially disempowering the GM, and taking away his sovereignty over the only thing he actually does in the game, control the world. What would be the fucking point of playing the GM then?

What's more, you're doing it in a half-assed way in your own case, because you seem to lack the conviction to either allow for a strong GM or to completely declare a "dictatorship of the playertariat" a la Forge. The end result of your idea would be a chaos more unbalanced than that of a typical Forge game even, and what's worse a game that would satisfy no one. GMs wouldn't feel sufficiently empowered, players who hate GMs wouldn't feel sufficiently empowered, normal players would feel overburdened with having to do stuff besides handle their own character, everyone would end up at everyone else's throats.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBI'd short-hand what Ryan said:  There is a large and productive middle ground between "The GM is all-powerful!" and "The GM is powerless and castrated."

Yes, there really is. Its what we have already. The unhealthy extremes are WW-story-based-GMism on the one hand, and Forgey-GM-castration on the other.

QuoteOn the other hand, I find it sort of sad to see the leap of logic from "I wouldn't, personally, want to play this game" to "It must be destroyed!  That which I would not play CANNOT BE TOLERATED!  BURN IT WITH FIRE!"  And that takes away some of the fun of Ryan murdering you with words. :(

Ryan, like you and your Dear Leader's gang, does not seem satisfied to say "Hey i have some cool ideas for a kind of game I'd like to make", and leave it at that. Ryan, like the Forge-swine before him, is talking about some kind of sweeping movement to make changes to all of the Roleplaying Game hobby as a whole. And given that Ryan, unlike you or anyone in your little gang, has actual credentials and name recognition in the gaming world. Unlike Ron Edwards, who is nothing more than a glorified community college science teacher with delusions of grandeur, Dancey really is something of an expert on RPGs. Unlike ANYONE in the Forge or Storygames, Dancey really is a brilliant guy.  He's the sort of RPG-genius the rest of you only imagine yourselves to be.  He might just be able to push to make the kind of changes he seeks.

The kind of impact you Forge-Swine have had to work at for almost a decade in order to slowly corrupt and spread your influence to make more and more games unpalatable to regular roleplayers like me, he could theoretically do in one fell swoop of clever marketing.

So the problem is not about me, its about him: its about his inability to leave it at saying "i'm going to make a game", and instead saying "I'm going to FORCE the RPG hobby to be radically transformed to fit my megalomaniacal vision".  And that is what cannot be tolerated.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm outta here, though. I have nothing constructive to offer, because I think it's mixed up in so many ways.

With the definition of story being so...well, nebulous, perhaps this is a discussion best had after the product in question is out and read.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditWhenever you set up a situation where a player can raise his hand and say "no, in fact, that DIDN'T happen" or "I've decided that instead, the NPC is going to do this...", you are essentially disempowering the GM, and taking away his sovereignty over the only thing he actually does in the game, control the world. What would be the fucking point of playing the GM then?

It's fun. Giving the players more freedom and power, in my experience and estimation, makes for a better end result. And, most importantly, the players don't raise their hand and wreck the game. I've been playing this way for over a decade now and unless the player is there to be a dick (which means they're going to wreck the game no matter what), they just don't raise their hand and cast everything into doubt.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditSo the problem is not about me, its about him: its about his inability to leave it at saying "i'm going to make a game", and instead saying "I'm going to FORCE the RPG hobby to be radically transformed to fit my megalomaniacal vision".  And that is what cannot be tolerated.

OK: Let's be clear.  I have not said, and do not believe that writing this product will force a radical transformation on the hobby gaming industry.  I've said "I'm going to make a game" several times in this discussion, and left it at that.

I have a theory that people who are currently playing D20 games will have more fun if they adjust the way they play in certain ways.  To test that theory I want to provide some tools to a public audience and let them play with them, and then see what they think.  That is the whole point.

If it turns out I am right, then I'll have some evidence to point to for advocacy beyond "I have this idea", which is all I've got right now.  If I am wrong, I'll have engaged in an intellectual pursuit interesting to me personally, and that will have been worthwhile no matter what.

I don't think this book will be sold to more than a couple of hundred people.  I don't think more than a couple dozen will try to implement the things in it.  I'd like to be surprised, but I'm a realist about these things.  So I don't think a couple of dozen people constitute a re-wiring of the hobby, and I certainly don't think it can be forced on anyone anyway.

Ryan

Quote from: SettembriniBut why, oh why, Oldest of all Geezers:

Why here?

Because he's got people who are engaging him in a fairly detailed, fairly logical discussion.

The language is both a bit harsh and a bit vulgar, but there are some really solid ideas on both sides here.

There have been at least a couple of 'Well, that might be OK' from some of the most skepitcal people here.

And if nothing else, it's excellent practice in refining what he's trying to say and how to say it.  No shot fired at a target is ever wasted; at least it's practice.

This is a good place to find intelligent, fairly well-spoken skeptics of a lot of his ideas.  That is a valuable thing.

Quote from: RSDanceyI have a theory that people who are currently playing D20 games will have more fun if they adjust the way they play in certain ways.  To test that theory I want to provide some tools to a public audience and let them play with them, and then see what they think.  That is the whole point.

You are going to play test this a little yourself before publishing, right?  You do play, don't you?  I ask because I'm a little confused as to how this can still be just an abstract exercise for you -- any active gamer would be trying out his ideas almost as fast as they come to him, so the idea that they are still formulating and will one day be a book seems to miss a few steps.

Tell me you're playing with your new rules and they are improving your play.

Quote from: RSDanceyPeople absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

My first impulse is to respond with an emphatic "bullshit".  However:

From my first session in Gary's study in 1971 or 72 to my last a couple weeks ago, neither I nor my compatriots have ever thought of or described it as "telling a story".  Story may come after.  We are there to play a game about having an adventure.

Discussion is useless without definition.  Therefor, Mr. Dancey...

Define, EXACTLY, OBJECTIVELY, and PRECISELY what you mean by "play RPGs to tell stories."

Then we can discuss if you're right or not.  Sans definition, it's all just bloviation.

Quote from: StuartIf you have a game about "telling great stories" - THAT should be the challenge of the gameplay.  Not how well can you manage resources, or how lucky you are at rolling dice.  How GOOD can you tell a story?  Are you a better storyteller than Joe? Can you as a group create a really good story?  The quality of the story is what should decide if you advance or not in the game... not how many hit points you have, what spell you choose, or whether you roll a '20' or not.

System does matter.  A lot.

Hell yes.

In my opinion, the best "story game" out there is Once Upon a Time, a card game put out by Atlas Games. It does not even slightly resemble an RPG, even though most of the designers are well aware of RPGs; one of them, in fact, was Andrew Rilstone, editor of Interactive Fantasy magazine, a periodical which made the Forge look like a bunch of stoned students sitting around talking about nothing. Amongst other things, there's no uneven distribution of powers, no exclusive ownership of story elements, and the gameplay hinges entirely on the players' ability to incorporate (or to manipulate each other into incorporating) the elements they require into the tale.

It's great, but like I said - it doesn't resemble an RPG even slightly.

If storytelling really is the be-all and end-all of RPGing, we'd all be playing Once Upon a Time. There have to be other, compelling factors aside from story drawing us to RPGs, otherwise why would we continue using what are actually very imperfect tools for storytelling? A 100% story-oriented alternative to traditional RPGs is already available in the form of Once Upon a Time, and it hasn't deplaced traditional RPGs in the slightest..

Quote from: RSDanceyHe's suggesting that playing an RPG and telling a story are not equivalent.  They are.

WIRED: You don't think those two are going to cross over at all?

GEORGE LUCAS:  No! Because by definition they're different - storytelling and games are two different  mediums.

(Wired magazine, 1997)

Say what you like about Episode 1-3, George Lucas has made an assload of money by figuring out what people want from stories.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think they play RPGs to "live out" stories, not to "tell" them. There's a fundamental difference there.
RPGPundit

THAT'S IT!!!

That's what I've been trying to say all this time.

In 36 years of gaming, I've collected some fun anecdotes... BUT I'VE NEVER COME AWAY SAYING "DAMN, DID WE TELL A COOL STORY!"

What's fun for me is that rush, that gasp of relief when the last enemy hits the ground and I've got one HP left.  I live for the tension, the cold sweat in my armpits as we try to get out of the situation, the bated breath as the mapper frantically tries to piece fragments of paper together to figure out where the damn teleporter maze just dropped us.

It's got fuckall to do with telling a story about Big Damn Heroes and everything to do with getting a chance to pretend to be a Big Damn Hero.

Everybody go reread Andrew Rilstone's ""All the Boys but my Johnny are Marching Out of Step" (http://ptgptb.org/0002/alltheboys.html)" right now.

Quote from: Old GeezerDefine, EXACTLY, OBJECTIVELY, and PRECISELY what you mean by "play RPGs to tell stories."

To be a successful RPG experience, the game must feature adventuring characters interesting to the participants (at least one; the person playing it), and those characters must face challenges which they resolve through their own actions (as opposed to being an audience for some other group of characters to face challenges).  The characters must change and become more complex over time.  Those changes must be a result of the challenges they face.  From time to time, those characters must resolve a larger issue confronting them within the game world either by dying, or succeeding in some task.

The transcript of that activity is a story.

If you remove:

Characters who adventure
Challenges
Change
Resolution

The game will fail and nobody will play it.

You will note that I purposefully structure this identically to the elements of Great Story:  Premise, Drama, Evolution & Pacing.  This is not an accident.  This is the "synonym" part of "playing RPGs" and "telling stories".

Ryan

Agreed Old Geezer.  That's it for me.  

I read Andrews essay, I'll say thatt strategy and tactics, problem solving in a combat sense, has always been part of the draw  for me though.  However I consider that part of the engrossment since I'll focus on tactics that make world-oreinted sense, not those that maximize loopholes or edge cases in thr rules.

Quote from: RSDanceyTo be a successful RPG experience, the game must feature adventuring characters interesting to the participants (at least one; the person playing it), and those characters must face challenges which they resolve through their own actions (as opposed to being an audience for some other group of characters to face challenges).  The characters must change and become more complex over time.  Those changes must be a result of the challenges they face.  From time to time, those characters must resolve a larger issue confronting them within the game world either by dying, or succeeding in some task.

The transcript of that activity is a story.

If you remove:

Characters who adventure
Challenges
Change
Resolution

The game will fail and nobody will play it.

You will note that I purposefully structure this identically to the elements of Great Story:  Premise, Drama, Evolution & Pacing.  This is not an accident.  This is the "synonym" part of "playing RPGs" and "telling stories".

Ryan

Certainly,

Characters who adventure
Challenges
Change
Resolution

is the draw.  The core of my view is the rules of self drescribed
"story teller" games pretty much kills the "Challenges" part for me.  IF I can say what is behind the door, it's not the "live it" challenge.  

But given the 4 criteria above, if Great Story comes from those 4 things then traditional RPGs have been doing this since day one.

Quote from: RSDanceyIf it turns out I am right, then I'll have some evidence to point to for advocacy beyond "I have this idea", which is all I've got right now.  If I am wrong, I'll have engaged in an intellectual pursuit interesting to me personally, and that will have been worthwhile no matter what.

I don't think this book will be sold to more than a couple of hundred people.  I don't think more than a couple dozen will try to implement the things in it.  I'd like to be surprised, but I'm a realist about these things.  So I don't think a couple of dozen people constitute a re-wiring of the hobby, and I certainly don't think it can be forced on anyone anyway.

Ryan

You more than anyone should be familiar with the power of an idea. We all saw one man's ideas (Rein·Hagen's, about Story-based gaming) completely transform the hobby (and industry) at one point, essentially "forcing" everyone who didn't like or agree with his ideas about how to game out of the hobby.
Then we saw a couple of other dudes' ideas (yours and Peter A's) wipe out that previous ideology and restore things to how they were before, in just one fell swoop.

The lynchpin was the state of D&D at the time. The first took hold when D&D was in a terribly weakened state and the people in charge of it were intellectually bankrupt. The second was heralded by a D&D revival and a new edition.

Its quite easy to "force" an idea on the gaming hobby. Just make D&D do it.

Of course, no one can put a gun to your head and  make you play a certain way. But see how much of what the Forgies or the Swine at RPG.net do right now is based on the fact that they feel "forced" into a corner by the fact that the majority of roleplayers today don't play the way these Swine wish they would?
I'm not so arrogant to believe that situation couldn't be reversed, and the pretentious minority could once again dominate the regular roleplaying majority. I almost gave up on Roleplaying the last time that happened. Not sure I'd be able to handle it again; so I'm going to do everything I can to stop it from happening.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDanceyFrom time to time, those characters must resolve a larger issue confronting them within the game world either by dying, or succeeding in some task.

Okay, what EXACTLY do you mean by this?

What kind of larger issue?

I still have my original player character from Greyhawk.  He's a wandering adventurer.  He never had been anything more.  I have had much fun playing him.  If I still lived in Lake Geneva, I would pick him up Thursday and play again.

What was his "larger issue"?  Or have I not been having fun all these years?  Or am I having fun being a "Failure"?

What you are saying does not match my experience.

Quote from: Old GeezerTHAT'S IT!!!

That's what I've been trying to say all this time.

In 36 years of gaming, I've collected some fun anecdotes... BUT I'VE NEVER COME AWAY SAYING "DAMN, DID WE TELL A COOL STORY!"

You're welcome.

Oh, and thanks, for bringing the 36 years to theRPGsite.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhenever you set up a situation where a player can raise his hand and say "no, in fact, that DIDN'T happen" or "I've decided that instead, the NPC is going to do this...", you are essentially disempowering the GM, and taking away his sovereignty over the only thing he actually does in the game, control the world. What would be the fucking point of playing the GM then?

The GM has 3 executive powers.

He can say "Stop being a dick.  That doesn't happen."

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it breaks the premise of the story".

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it contradicts a previously established fact about the game world." (And he can shift into GM Stance and say: "And I don't have to tell you what that is.")

OR

He can say, "OK, if you want that to happen, here's what you will risk to make it so, and here's how you'll determine if you get to make that change or not." (I.e. "roll dice").

Plus all the god-game stuff, which some people seem to like.  A lot.

Ryan

Quote from: Old GeezerOkay, what EXACTLY do you mean by this?

From time to time, the characters must succeed at something larger than overcoming an immediate life or death challenge.  They must rescue the princess, escort the caravan to its destination, kill the dragon, purify the magic spring, put the genie back in the bottle, whatever.

I would go one step further:  I will say that if the players do not know what the "larger objective" of their story is for more than two game sessions, the group will start to lose interest in continuing to play, or will make up an objective regardless of DM intent.  That is, the drive to have such an objective is so powerful that the group will either get one, or dissolve.

Ryan

Well, the vast majority of the gaming I've done has been "Sandbox world" gaming.  So, players push that.

That's why I still maintain that "story" is an accidental byproduct at best.

Gary sat us down all those years ago and said "You are in the town of Greyhawk.  You have heard rumors of great treasure hidden in the ruins of the ancient castle outside town.  What do you do?"

And the rest is history.

That's the way I've always played.  "What do you do?"  And NOBODY has ever said "I want to tell a cool story."

YMMV.  You may even be right and I'm part of the small unrepentant miniatures wargamer minority.

But what you say about RPG and stories has no correlation to anything I've ever seen.

Quote from: RSDanceyTo be a successful RPG experience, the game must feature adventuring characters interesting to the participants (at least one; the person playing it), and those characters must face challenges which they resolve through their own actions (as opposed to being an audience for some other group of characters to face challenges).  The characters must change and become more complex over time.  Those changes must be a result of the challenges they face.  From time to time, those characters must resolve a larger issue confronting them within the game world either by dying, or succeeding in some task.

The transcript of that activity is a story.

The transcript is. The playing is not. Story is the byproduct, not the goal.

QuoteIf you remove:

Characters who adventure
Challenges
Change
Resolution

The game will fail and nobody will play it.

You will note that I purposefully structure this identically to the elements of Great Story:  Premise, Drama, Evolution & Pacing.  This is accident.  not an

I agree that the RPG game requires characters, challenges, change and resolution.  These things are all important, but they aren't what constitutes a Story.  They are all related to character; the character's origin, the character's challenge, the character's evolution, and the character meeting goals.

A story has all kinds of things that do NOT fit with RPGs. You continue to tiptoe around the issue of plot, of continuity, of story not being a rambling exercise but having events that fit into the predetermined plot, where you don't have characters suddenly die for reasons that serve no purpose to the plot, where characters only act in accordance with their role in the novel, etc etc.

I mean again, are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that RPGs are akin to Novels? That they create story in that way? Because to most normal human beings, THAT is story. Novels, or a told tale, or a TV series, the medium varies, but the method involves a story with beginning, middle and end where the teller already knows all three before he starts (or at least where he does everything leading to that end, everything making sense, rather than the improv spontaneity you see in RPGs).

Again, my two main gripes with you right now are:

1. Your insistence on calling what you're talking about "story". Its not "story". Not in the sense of what normal people think of as story. Something with no plot structure (aside from premise) and no literary consistency (or no ability to maintain literary consistency) is not a story.
For an RPG to be a "story", you'd need to have everyone agree on how it ends first of all, at least in the general sense; you'd have to have no one allowed to do stuff that didn't actually relate to the plot or "enhance" the story in some way, and you couldn't have heros, villains, or major characters of other sorts being whacked by a random kobold.
In fact, you'd better remove dice altogether because rolling random possibilities in no way helps with the telling of a "good story", it hinders it in every way.

2. Your insistence that for what you're actually trying to do, that thing you keep mis-naming "story" (ie. creating more emphasis on characters and the importance of characters in the RPG), you have to for some reason remove power from the GM and turn everything into a fucking socialist collective, rather than figure out how to do it all within the landmarks of the highly successful regular GM-player relationship.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou more than anyone should be familiar with the power of an idea. We all saw one man's ideas (Rein·Hagen's, about Story-based gaming) completely transform the hobby (and industry) at one point, essentially "forcing" everyone who didn't like or agree with his ideas about how to game out of the hobby.

So let's talk about that period, because I think it was incredibly instructive.  I promise not to use the term "brain damage", but I want to talk about some of Ron Edwards' analysis, which I think is spot-on right.

The central core of the idea that drove White Wolf to success was the pitch that its games delivered a more intense storytelling experience than D&D.  

I use the word "intense" on purpose.  Part of the allure of White Wolf was that it was pitched squarely at people going through the stages of becoming adults.  The bottom end was kids entering puberty, and the top end was people leaving college to start their "real lives".  A hallmark of this period of time is that people feel things more intensely than they do later in life.  Emotions become magnified.  And an outlet for those magnified emotions becomes a channel through which people can relieve themselves of the stress of having all that pent up emotion inside them.  White Wolf explicitly sought to provide that outlet.

And I use the word "more" on purpose.  The marketing message from White Wolf (including statements by its founders) often took the uber-position that D&D didn't tell stories AT ALL, and that a "new kind of game" was needed to do that, but we all know that was propaganda and not the actual beliefs of the people involved.  White Wolf evolved out of Lion Rampant, where the core team of Nephew, Tweet, Wiek & Rein*Hagen were experimenting with ways to use RPGs to tell stories differently than D&D told stories.  Their medium of larger exchange were APA zines and the very early internet.

This idea of "more intense storytelling" passed what my consulting partner Luke Peterschmidt & I call a "Blink Test" after the term coined by Malcolm Gladwell in the eponymous book.  In basic terms, that means that when presented with the idea, people instantly accepted it as true.  (The other odd, and important aspect of a Blink Test is that when you ask people afterwards how they reached the true/false conclusion, they are almost always wrong in their self-analysis.  This is a bug in the way the brain works, and it can be exploited once its nature is recognized.)

Once the player network started to "Blink Test" the White Wolf proposition, the follow on activity was to buy and play the resulting products.  And this is where things got really, really interesting.

Edwards notes, correctly, that other than some hand waving exposition, none of the White Wolf Storyteller Games actually presented any game content that was specifically designed to support the White Wolf proposition.  The worlds were interesting, the characters you could make with the games were really interesting, and the game mechanics were reasonably well designed (but not demonstrably better either simply as RPG rules, or specifically as RPG rules designed to generate more intense stories than other RPGs).

But people reacted weirdly to those games.  Because they were told they would get a more intense story experience, and because they clearly desired that, they tried to convince themselves that the White Wolf games actually were different than other RPGs.  Of course, one other interesting effect of the White Wolf marketing was that it reached and attracted an audience of people with very little prior RPG experience:  Women.  And of the men it attracted, it often attracted men who had not found prior RPG concepts interesting enough to learn anyway.  So you have this big population of people who are viewing the whole RPG experience through the lens of one game system, a game system which was marketed explicitly as delivering intense storytelling, and built a community of people who believed that was true, and told each other it was true constantly.

Of course, just because they believed it, and communicated it, didn't make it so.  And that's where Edwards' critique hits the mark.  He bought the value proposition, but didn't see how the product actually delivered on that proposition.  Because, in large measure, it didn't.  Instead of being a system-driven success, it was really a subject-matter success.  Playing Vampires turns out to have a whole potential player population who did not, and would not play Adventuring Heroes.

But Edwards still thinks the value proposition is, well, valuable.  What if you could actually make game mechanics that delivers a more intense story?  Since people already demonstrated that they want that, and are willing to pay money and dedicate time to doing it, it seems foolish not to attempt to actually succeed in the engineering of the product.

What we had for most of the 1990s was a disconnect in the industry which lead to a whole lot of dead-end products.  We had designers looking at White Wolf's success, saying to themselves "ok, I can do that", and then following that lead.  Following that lead even when it meant abandoning a formerly successful line of business.  The followup at FASA to BattleTech was Shadowrun.  The followup to Shadowrun was Earthdawn.  Nobody at FASA stopped the bus and said "hey, we seem to be really good at writing rules for combat games, why don't we focus on doing more of those kinds of games?"  Instead they said "let's do games where stories matter", and went bankrupt.  At TSR, you had people watching White Wolf and saying "we're fucking TSR, we can do better than some startup!"  So they did R.I.P.  (You know, the horror based RPG that they put into their catalogs, and pitched as their next big game, but never made?)  Oh, and they bastardized D&D by connecting it to a series of house-driven settings, where TSR NPCs were always more powerful than your NPCs, and TSR story decisions (often made in novels) were more important than the story decisions made at your game table.  And went bankrupt.

Ironically enough, White Wolf looked at the success of Vampire, and said "ah ha!  We have a winner", and did 3 versions of Werewolf and Mage, 2 versions of Wraith and Changeling, and one long string of Adventure, Aeon, and Trinity.  And nearly went bankrupt.

You can plot that path through just about any RPG company in the 1990s, except Palladium & Steve Jackson Games (both, notably, still alive & kicking!)

Ron Edwards' argument, which I agree with, is that these companies did not fail because people did not want more intense storytelling games.  They failed because the games they made did not deliver.  And worse, they often made more intense storytelling for the publishers at the expense of player fun.  There was a lot of intense storytelling done in the 1990s.  It just wasn't done by players.

What you had then was an industry that went crazy and ate itself.  Designer desires (to tell great stories) swamped player desires (to get tools to tell great stories).  What Ron Edwards is arguing, and an argument I join my voice to, is that designers who desire to give people tools to tell great stories may be a way out of the dumpster the whole field has crawled up into.

At WotC, we had a group of people who had the force of will to pick up D&D, and force it back into being a game people wanted to use to play.  But that was an exceptionally lucky thing, because Wizards could just as easily have tried to make it the uber-storytelling game in the White Wolf mode, with a massive metaplot and a supplement treadmill from here to eternity.  We made a lot of educated guesses, and we by and large guessed right.  But fixing D&D is only half the challenge.

Because this is not 1987, or 1997.  It's 2007.  And now we have a player network that has a whole bunch of people in it who want "more intense stories".  And we don't have a lot of games that actually deliver on that proposition.  And most of the games which do are thought experiments, and technology demonstrations from the fringe of the fringe, with tiny footprints of distribution, and a channel of communication that amounts to a handful of podcasts and one website.

So lets see what happens if we try to bring some of that technology out of the fringe, and hook it up with the biggest game in the business.  Worst case, in my opinion, is Ryan Dancey looks like a fucking idiot in public.  Again.  Best case, in my opinion, is that someone else picks up the ball and runs with it, and we get a whole new groundswell of games & players who make playing an RPG a central part of their lives.

What I don't see happening is an effect where the industry pulls out a .45 and shoots itself in the head again.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyBecause this is not 1987, or 1997.  It's 2007.  And now we have a player network that has a whole bunch of people in it who want "more intense stories".  And we don't have a lot of games that actually deliver on that proposition.

Oh.

Okay, then.

That just means I'm an old school gamer; I don't give a fuck about 'more intense story'.

In 36 years of this hobby, with literally hundreds of different people, we have NEVER mentioned "story" before, during, or after our campaigns, some of which last for literal decades.

I now understand, thanks to your previous post, that the market has widened greatly.  I am still part of this market, but I am not part of your particular target segment.

Thank you for taking the time to explain things.  I appreciate it.

Carry on.  I'm off to kill some things and take their stuff.

Quote from: RSDanceyThe GM has 3 executive powers.

He can say "Stop being a dick.  That doesn't happen."

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it breaks the premise of the story".

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it contradicts a previously established fact about the game world." (And he can shift into GM Stance and say: "And I don't have to tell you what that is.")

OR

He can say, "OK, if you want that to happen, here's what you will risk to make it so, and here's how you'll determine if you get to make that change or not." (I.e. "roll dice").

Plus all the god-game stuff, which some people seem to like.  A lot.

Ryan

I read those as:

"No, Because..."

"No, Because..."

"No, Because..."

"Yes, But only if..."

Which seems like a perfectly fine, but truncated list.  What about...

"Yes, And..." (Addition of detail)

"Yes, But..." (Addition of a twist or cost)

"Yes, Because..." (Changing the reason for success by basing it on other factors)

"No, But Instead...."  (Replying with an alternative)

...Are those options missing?  Do players have them, too?

Quote from: RPGPunditA story has all kinds of things that do NOT fit with RPGs. You continue to tiptoe around the issue of plot, of continuity, of story not being a rambling exercise but having events that fit into the predetermined plot, where you don't have characters suddenly die for reasons that serve no purpose to the plot, where characters only act in accordance with their role in the novel, etc etc.

I mean again, are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that RPGs are akin to Novels? That they create story in that way? Because to most normal human beings, THAT is story. Novels, or a told tale, or a TV series, the medium varies, but the method involves a story with beginning, middle and end where the teller already knows all three before he starts (or at least where he does everything leading to that end, everything making sense, rather than the improv spontaneity you see in RPGs).

I want to switch analogies.  Let me try to come at this from a different perspective.

I want to compare Storytelling Games to Roleplaying Games the way we could compare Jazz Music to Classical Music.

Jazz is improvisational, but it is improvisational with rules.  It "works" as music people find extremely enjoyable to listen to, despite the fact that prior to a jazz performance, the musicians could not write out the notes they will play.  Listening to a jazz recording can be entertaining, but it is rarely as entertaining as listening to it being created live.  And creating it live is, I have been told by people who have opinions I validate & trust, the most exciting form of musicianship there is.

If you recorded and transcribed a piece of jazz performed live, at the end your transcript would be a piece of music.  The point of the performance was not to create that transcript - it was to create the music itself.  Some jazz is intolerably bad, and some jazz is great.  The medium itself does not confer quality.  But it confers the potential for a unique creative expression unlike virtually all other forms of music.

Prior to starting to play, there may be a basic structure the musicians know they're going to follow, but they don't know how the music will start, continue or end.  They create the beginning, middle and end as they play.  A group that plays together a lot often becomes so adept at this process that it appears they did have the piece all worked out before they started, but if you listened to that group night after night, you'd soon come to realize just how much variation there can be on a theme, and how the creative elements of the performance are constantly in flux.

Is the work not "music" because it can't be written down before hand?  Because it doesn't have a defined start, middle and end?  Because the individual contributions of each performer are unknown until they make them?

Does it matter that such bands rarely have "conductors"?  That they tend to meld joint play with solos according to some instinctive method of passing authority?  That in many cases the "job" of the band leader is to select great musicians and strive to keep them working together, but not to direct their individual greatness?

I watched the Ken Burns series on Jazz.  You could hear echoes of the debate on this topic in this form from the birth of jazz.  Classically trained musicians, used to reading notes from prepared scripts, lead by conductors with total authority to direct the performance shaking their heads and basically saying "that's not music", despite the obvious evidence to everyone's ears that it was.  People saying the point of playing music was to master an instrument.  People saying the point of playing music was to generate an emotional response in the listeners.  People saying the point of playing music was to express something unique and special about the human soul and the human heart.  And other people saying "if you don't do it by reading sheet music and following the conductor, you're not doing it right".

Jazz is improv, but it is not unstructured.  Jazz is collaborative, but it has rules for sharing authority.  Jazz uses classic music notation when transcripted, but it required a host of new additions to the written language of music to allow it to be transcribed.  Jazz worked.

I want to try to jazz-up RPGs.

I wish I had a term as great as "jazz" for what I want to try to do to D20.  I hate the fact that the word "story" has this negative equity that gets in the way of communication, and sidetracks us into debates about terminology that are pedantic, not constructive.  I'm looking & listening.  If I hear or see one, I'm on it like white on rice.  Until then, I'm stuck using the best available term, even though the term itself is causing problems.

Ryan

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhich seems like a perfectly fine, but truncated list.  What about...

"Yes, And..." (Addition of detail)

"Yes, But..." (Addition of a twist or cost)

"Yes, Because..." (Changing the reason for success by basing it on other factors)

"No, But Instead...."  (Replying with an alternative)

...Are those options missing?  Do players have them, too?

I was referring to Pundits' specific criticism that the GM could be told what to do with no recourse.

I think your list is absolutely legitimate.  I think that rules for those kinds of interactions are way more complex than "Say "Yes" or roll dice", but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile design goals, and I think will be a part of my work.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that rules for those kinds of interactions are way more complex than "Say "Yes" or roll dice", but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile design goals, and I think will be a part of my work.

More...    Complex?

:confused:

I don't see how.  Hell, I've given those abilities to players, in a LARP, by means of a subsystem for collaborative scripting, and am doing so again in the tabletop I'm working on.  The whole subsystem takes up about two pages - and it's existence doesn't weaken GM authority as the guy in charge, or make them less of a leader, specifically because it's a thing you switch to, rather than being the central body of play.

I mean, yeah, it's more complex than one line, repeated ad nauseam, if that's all you mean.  But most rules are.

Quote from: RSDanceyI wish I had a term as great as "jazz" for what I want to try to do to D20.  I hate the fact that the word "story" has this negative equity that gets in the way of communication, and sidetracks us into debates about terminology that are pedantic, not constructive.  I'm looking & listening.  If I hear or see one, I'm on it like white on rice.  Until then, I'm stuck using the best available term, even though the term itself is causing problems.

Ryan

Being married to a classical singer, your analogy was very useful.

If you'll take a nickel's worth of your old Uncle Geezer's advice, I'd drop the whole "Story telling" thing, and work harder on refining your jazz analogy, because it's a lot clearer metaphor.

Quote from: Old GeezerBeing married to a classical singer, your analogy was very useful.

If you'll take a nickel's worth of your old Uncle Geezer's advice, I'd drop the whole "Story telling" thing, and work harder on refining your jazz analogy, because it's a lot clearer metaphor.

Again, I agree with the Geezer.  (On this, and on his take on the use "story" above with regard to his own gameplay experiences; his take is similar to my own.)  Tabletop RPGs are a medium where players live out a second life in a secondary world, and as with our first lives in the primary world of everyday life the narratives that people derive from these lives are something constructed after the fact; it's akin, at first, to war stories told at the local vet's club and later moves into memoirs and (auto)biographies.  While you're at the table, you're not talking in the past tense because you're there in the moment--the present--as things happen.  There is no true protagonist because the emerging present can cut down anyone at any time for any reason; only in hindsight, after it's over, can the narrative account be put in such terms.  That's why "story" is the wrong term for this medium; it's also why tabletop RPGs that attempt to emulate other media that are good for storytelling--like movies, comics, etc.--so frequently run afoul of significant problems in their rules, their play, or both.

Quote from: RSDanceyStory.  Not a great story.

OK, so we have the gist of it. Your goal is to change the rules such that you can ensure Great Story.  We agree that John and Jane hero, standing on a featureless plain, killing wave after wave of zombie, is a story.

So, if you're a player who is content with the aforementioned story, either because you're not concerned with story to the extent of it being Great or not, or you actually disagree and think it's a Great Story, there is no need to change anything.  Is this true?

Quote from: RSDanceyThings essentially every player we surveyed who expressed a preference for playing RPGs self-identified their desires for those games to include (in addition to 6 other factors):

-> Strong Characters and Exciting Story
-> Role Playing

That is, these players essentially all said "it's not an RPG I would like unless it has Strong Characters and Exciting Story and Role Playing".

That's a pretty strong indication I'm right.

First, there are three things mentioned in this two bullet points. Second, you make a jump here, from "expressed a preference for playing games which include" to "I wouldn't like it if it doesn't have" to "It's the goal of my play," all focused on Story.  Why not Role Playing? Why not Strong Characters?

Is it possible that the dynamic between these three things is a balance - and that D&D, and games like it, have found the intuitive balance between these three things?  Is it possible that one of the reasons why current, and near future, MMORPG implementations will not destroy the player balance is that they can not achieve the balance between these three things?  Could it be that, a Pundit rants, an integral part of this balance is the GM/Player relationship?

Because, with all due respect, what you've provided is a strong indication that you are not crazy for interpreting the data the way you have.  I have my doubts about whether or not it is a strong indication that you're right. But, hey, it's not my money, time, or reputation - so good luck!

Quote from: RSDanceyYes, it's just not a Great Story.

I'm not as old as OG, but if you're taking any advice - this is the kind of statement that only leads to trouble. It's an objective judgment about a completely subjective thing...

Quote from: RSDanceyEdwards notes, correctly, that other than some hand waving exposition, none of the White Wolf Storyteller Games actually presented any game content that was specifically designed to support the White Wolf proposition.  The worlds were interesting, the characters you could make with the games were really interesting, and the game mechanics were reasonably well designed (but not demonstrably better either simply as RPG rules, or specifically as RPG rules designed to generate more intense stories than other RPGs).

This is only anecdotal, but when I was approached by other people in the mid-90s who were playing White Wolf games, their big sell to me was the vampire element.  It had very little to do with telling more intense stories.

Quote from: RSDanceyOf course, just because they believed it, and communicated it, didn't make it so.  And that's where Edwards' critique hits the mark.  He bought the value proposition, but didn't see how the product actually delivered on that proposition.  Because, in large measure, it didn't.  Instead of being a system-driven success, it was really a subject-matter success.  Playing Vampires turns out to have a whole potential player population who did not, and would not play Adventuring Heroes.

Right. So if the actual sell of the games was playing vampires, rather than a more intense story, how do you reach the assumption that anyone actually bought (with their cash) that value proposition in the first place?  Is it possible that White Wolf's success (and the interest in (I'll avoid all current jargon and insert my own) uh, "experimental" games) actually came from tapping into a desire for something "new" that had very little to do with content?  Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent strategy to attempt to capture that same population (14 to, say, 25?), but it's always struck me as a function less of actuating something new, rather than young consumers looking for something different from what came before.  Progressive, alternative, college radio is a perfect example of a similar desire from a specific segment of the population.

Quote from: rsdanceyBut Edwards still thinks the value proposition is, well, valuable.  What if you could actually make game mechanics that delivers a more intense story?  Since people already demonstrated that they want that, and are willing to pay money and dedicate time to doing it, it seems foolish not to attempt to actually succeed in the engineering of the product.

Is it possible that all the other failures you elucidated (FASA, etc.) came from operating under an incorrect premise, that consumers were actually interested in a more intense story, when what they were really interested in was playing vampires?

Ron has already set the record straight -- lots of people played WW games and were not "brain damaged".  It was only the ones that went looking for "Story Now" in the wrong place, and didn't know enough to stop who Ron believes were affected.

(This is also rubbish.  I'm sure those people would have been "affected" with or without playing any particular games.)

WW games are perfectly acceptable for creating RPG sessions that emulate action movies like Blade and Underworld.  They're not so good for "Story Now" games, or emulating novels / movies like Interview with the Vampire, The Hunger, The Lost Boys, etc.

Quote from: ReimdallIs it possible that all the other failures you elucidated (FASA, etc.) came from operating under an incorrect premise, that consumers were actually interested in a more intense story, when what they were really interested in was playing vampires?

Very true.

Nitpick:

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerTabletop RPGs are a medium where players live out a second life in a secondary world,

Some of the time, yeah.

And some of the time, players instead play against the GM or each other in a game-type-game part of the rules.

And some of the time, they make shit up together, for the sheer joy of it.

And in the best of times, all those things fuse completely, becoming an indivisible whole.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, if you're a player who is content with the aforementioned story, either because you're not concerned with story to the extent of it being Great or not, or you actually disagree and think it's a Great Story, there is no need to change anything.  Is this true?

So long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

QuoteIs it possible that one of the reasons why current, and near future, MMORPG implementations will not destroy the player balance is that they can not achieve the balance between these three things?

I look at the RPG sales data.  I look at the player base sizes of MMORPGs.  I look at the collapse of RPGs in retail.  I look at the market research.  I look at the evidence of my own eyes in the game groups I'm aware of.  And I conclude that the MMORPGs are already well on their way to destroying the player balance.  In my opinion, this is no a potential future.  This is now.

Ryan

Quote from: ReimdallRight. So if the actual sell of the games was playing vampires, rather than a more intense story, how do you reach the assumption that anyone actually bought (with their cash) that value proposition in the first place?

If you want to burn your eyeballs, spend some time reading usenet archives of r.a.g.rpgs.  During that period I was not only gaming every week (several times a week), I was running the-then most successful mailorder hobby game store in the country (RPG International), and I was on the ConCom of one of the most successful annual gaming/genre conventions in the Pacific Northwest (Dreamcon).  I was hip deep in it, that's for sure.  And everywhere you turned was this buzz of people, many of whom had never played a TRPG in their lives, telling you how they were so excited to be STORYTELLING. And how INTENSE it was.  And how their characters were just so AMAZING.  If you invited them to play D&D, you got this hairy-eyeball look like "what the hell would I want to waste my time doing that for?"  

At the time I wasn't clear on the issue Edwards has subsequently raised.  I wish I had been, because I think it would have been really interesting to interview people in the midst of that phenomenon.  Now I have to go by memory as to what I saw and heard during the Rise of Story, coupled with sales data, and the "community memory" of my buddies in the gaming industry.

QuoteIs it possible that all the other failures you elucidated (FASA, etc.) came from operating under an incorrect premise, that consumers were actually interested in a more intense story, when what they were really interested in was playing vampires?

The thing that is starkly fascinating about that period is that as their sales dwindled, and as subsequent games from the same publishers reached smaller and smaller audiences, the publishers did not change their behaviors.  Instead, they doubled down, trying to one-up themselves on how "cool" the Stories of their new Worlds were, and how convoluted and unique their metaplots were.  (The ultimate expression of that was the game which had a metaplot that was kept secret from the players, and when revealed finally after the death of the company proved to be that the game was actually the insane inner world of a psychopathic kid.)

If anything, in my opinion, the D20 "explosion" wasn't so much people getting on the bandwagon to chase sales as it was a decade-long pent up frustration at the lack of stuff the bulk of the player community actually wanted:  self-directed tools to tell great stories, not lists of things someone else was doing that was cool to them, but theater to you.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

Obviously anecdotal, but what's endangering my gaming group isn't MMOs.  It's growing older.  Kids, mortgages, overtime, course prep, getting that paper out, and dinner parties are endangering my gaming group.

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

I, er, don't feel competed with.

My gamer friends that went away into to MMOs were mostly people that spent a lot of time bitching about RPGs, significant money collecting them, and almost no time actually playing.

They're happier.  I'm happier.  New people who want to talk with me about RPGs don't need to listen to them whining, and that means the new people are happier, too.

I doubt that my experience is universal.

I also doubt that it's unique.

Quote from: Old GeezerIn 36 years of this hobby, with literally hundreds of different people, we have NEVER mentioned "story" before, during, or after our campaigns, some of which last for literal decades.

I now understand, thanks to your previous post, that the market has widened greatly.  I am still part of this market, but I am not part of your particular target segment.

I dunno though. I go to cons regularly, so I meet all sorts of gamers. And I often ask them why they roleplay - I use the cons to expand my game acquaintance circle, and use that question as a vetting thing - and almost nobody says, "story."

They talk a lot about getting into character, kicking arse and taking names, exploring different game worlds, escapism and so on. The closest most come to saying "story" is when they say, "oh and if it all has some kind of point to it, a beginning, middle and end, that's nice, too - but not really vital."

I mean, if "story" - some kind of coherent series of events that related to each-other and had a point to them - was the most important thing to players, then they wouldn't mind being railroaded by the GM. That they hate it shows that something else, something they can't get while being railroaded, is more important to their fun. And that something is... getting into character, kicking arse and taking names, exploring different game worlds, escapism and so on.

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.

Since I avoid gaming with social misfits, it's not a problem. Normal people with at least mediocre social skills prefer the company of others to being alone with their computer, most of the time. Just as your own company used to advertise, if you're going to sit in a basement pretending to be an elf, at least invite some friends around.

And plenty do. There are certainly social misfits who don't, but really they're no loss - not to me, though perhaps to a game company. But there are plenty left who are not catpissmen and prefer game groups, so there you go.

Quote from: RSDanceyI look at the RPG sales data.  I look at the player base sizes of MMORPGs.  I look at the collapse of RPGs in retail.  I look at the market research.

Ryan,

I have an MBA.  I know what these strange, alien terms you use mean.  (:D )  (Business school also made me a Socialist, but never mind that for now.

I have been frustrated to the point of pissing myself at the task of trying to get actual, you know, DATA about RPG sales.

Right now, I have only 2 data points.

1)  Paul... er, something... the Marketing Director for Steve Jackson Games, recently said his ESTIMATE of the RPG market was $50 mil per year or so.

2)  During the 80s I worked with Dave Arneson.  I saw some of the info on royalties from the aftermath of the D&D lawsuit.  I can't disclose specifics... but I can say that, in 1977-1982, D&D BY ITSELF was almost $50 M per year.  Not all of TSR... D&D.

So, yeah... the market is shrinking.

What specifics can you tell us?  I watch with slack-jawed amazements at people, including those trying to SELL to this market, work entirely with guesswork and anecdote.

Any one of my profs would have either burned a paper like this or wiped his ass on it.

So, if you can, share some data.

Quote from: HalfjackObviously anecdotal, but what's endangering my gaming group isn't MMOs.  It's growing older.  Kids, mortgages, overtime, course prep, getting that paper out, and dinner parties are endangering my gaming group.

Right.

My old players MMO because we can't coordinate our blasted schedules to game together.  And only two of them MMO with any regularity.

If we were all living within 10 minutes of each other again, I'd rather play D&D than any MMO in the world any day.

Just to clarify...

Quote from: Old Geezer1)  Paul... er, something... the Marketing Director for Steve Jackson Games, recently said his ESTIMATE of the RPG market was $50 mil per year or so.

Paul Chapman.

Who has never, to my knowledge, tried to cry wolf in any direction (even the ones that would support me personally.  *snif* ), and who has never claimed to do more than make estimates.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThey talk a lot about getting into character, kicking arse and taking names, exploring different game worlds, escapism and so on. The closest most come to saying "story" is when they say, "oh and if it all has some kind of point to it, a beginning, middle and end, that's nice, too - but not really vital."

Huh.

My own players damn well expect a story - but only in exactly the sense of "it all has some kind of point to it, a beginning, middle and end".

But, at the same time, they don't want a rigid plot-structure, or railroading, or all-serves-the-theme-all-the-time.

Quote from: RSDanceyThe GM has 3 executive powers.

He can say "Stop being a dick.  That doesn't happen."

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it breaks the premise of the story".

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it contradicts a previously established fact about the game world." (And he can shift into GM Stance and say: "And I don't have to tell you what that is.")

OR

He can say, "OK, if you want that to happen, here's what you will risk to make it so, and here's how you'll determine if you get to make that change or not." (I.e. "roll dice").

Plus all the god-game stuff, which some people seem to like.  A lot.

Ryan

I see; so you are not actually supporting "Say yes or roll the dice", then?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDancey*SNIP*
So lets see what happens if we try to bring some of that technology out of the fringe, and hook it up with the biggest game in the business.  Worst case, in my opinion, is Ryan Dancey looks like a fucking idiot in public.  Again.  Best case, in my opinion, is that someone else picks up the ball and runs with it, and we get a whole new groundswell of games & players who make playing an RPG a central part of their lives.

What I don't see happening is an effect where the industry pulls out a .45 and shoots itself in the head again.

Ryan

I have to say that your analysis is pretty well spot-on, and goes along with what I'd been saying for years now about that whole era.

I even agree that in general, Ron Edwards' overall criticism of White Wolf (that they claimed to produce "story" and did not in fact have any meaningful divergence in terms of system from anything that came before it, ie. they were all hype) is also fundamentally correct.

Now, the fundamental thing that's MISSING from this analysis (yours and/or Edwards') is the fact that WW failed because they DID actually try to force story onto RPGs, in the one and only way you can do so and keep on being an RPG: ie. with the game designers creating the story via metaplot and imposing it on player groups.

The "solution" offered by Edwards is to fundamentally alter everything that RPGs do that makes them definable as RPGs (ie. the playing of a single character, the GM, division of powers between GMs and players), and yet still try to claim that his games are RPGs. If WW created rpgs that didn't really work at telling story (only told stories via setting and metaplot, not system), then Forge games make story-games that fail at being RPGs.
On top of that, they mostly fail at being able to tell consistent coherent stories, as well. At least, in the sense of being able to do it any better than a group of people telling tales around a bonfire or something.

Of course, a big part of where I diverge from your analysis is that I do not believe that the majority of gamers WANT to create the kind of stories that Ron Edwards is talking about: some of them were enchanted by the promise of what WW was claiming (until the saw its results), and most people's response to the Forges' idea of story-games is that they are NOT willing to sacrifice playing an actual RPG for the sake of being able to "tell story" especially the sort of quasi-story-concoction that seems to be the closest that even Forge games can get.

What's more, the Forge Swine KNOW this, which is why they keep trying to use the label of "RPGs", rather than have the guts to try to make it on their own as a seperate hobby; the only way they survive is by leeching parasitically off the good name of games people actually DO want to play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDanceyJazz is improv, but it is not unstructured.  Jazz is collaborative, but it has rules for sharing authority.  Jazz uses classic music notation when transcripted, but it required a host of new additions to the written language of music to allow it to be transcribed.  Jazz worked.

I want to try to jazz-up RPGs.

I wish I had a term as great as "jazz" for what I want to try to do to D20.  I hate the fact that the word "story" has this negative equity that gets in the way of communication, and sidetracks us into debates about terminology that are pedantic, not constructive.  I'm looking & listening.  If I hear or see one, I'm on it like white on rice.  Until then, I'm stuck using the best available term, even though the term itself is causing problems.

Ryan

I'm sorry, but the way I see it with regards to your metaphor with the context of "story", regular RPGs ARE Jazz. They are improv; they are not orchestrated. They produce a finished piece only as a byproduct.

What you're trying to do is take a five-piece Jazz band and try to make them work the way a single classical composer would write music.

The "story" in RPGs as they are now is something that is produced in a wild and uncontrolled way, where the actual playing of the song is important, and not the composition of a finished piece. You seem to be saying that what matters is that the finished sheet music at the end be up to "classical" story-standards.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMy own players damn well expect a story - but only in exactly the sense of "it all has some kind of point to it, a beginning, middle and end".

But, at the same time, they don't want a rigid plot-structure, or railroading, or all-serves-the-theme-all-the-time.

So "story" isn't the main thing for them. Other stuff comes first.

If "story" were the main thing, people wouldn't mind a rigid plot structure and/or railroading, and they'd still be publishing adventure module series like old Dragonlance was.

Most players would rather be active participants in something with no plot than passive observers in something with a strong plot. In practice, most decent game groups manage having most of the players be active participants in a fairly loose plot.

And so we see that in both theory and practice, players value the "active participation" more than the "plot." They're pretty forgiving if it turns out lame or silly, they're not very forgiving if they have no control over things (railroading or plotless), or if nothing happens outside what their characters do ("PCs are heroes, everyone else are zeroes without initiative or brains").

One of my current players quit two other groups to play in mine. This person said that one was railroading to the max, and the other was utterly without plot. They wanted something in the middle. I think that's pretty common.

I think game designers also overestimate their own importance in people having a fun game session. I mean, I know people who stayed in absolutely shite game groups because there was good food and it was a chance to catch up with the other players and swap pirated DVDs. We've a social creative hobby, and for many people if the social's good enough they'll do without the creativity; I rarely hear of people being happy with the creativity but unhappy with the socialness and staying. In the case of the player I mentioned above, that was a factor, too. It was said, "those guys are from a different world to me."

Of course game designers can't affect the social stuff much, so in a way it's natural for them to forget it. But in forgetting it, they overestimate the importance of their game system. Then they start talking about how this or that system will "revolutionise the hobby." But if you remember that it's mainly a social hobby for most gamers, then you'll realise that no system will ever revolutionise the hobby. because in the end it's half a dozen geeks sitting around rolling dice and eating cheetos, and their own social skills, how they get along, and their imaginations really most affect how much fun they have.

The game system is the least important thing in how much fun people have in a game session. I know a guy who disagrees with that, yet his group played Hackmaster for 150 sessions, and is now playing Burning Wheel, and had just as much fun in both cases. Two more different game systems it's hard to imagine, yet somehow they both matched the style of the group. Why? Because people matter much more than a game system.  

Easy for game designers to forget this, though. Especially game designers who haven't been gaming much lately.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo "story" isn't the main thing for them. Other stuff comes first.

That's a damn tricky one.

See, my players want that whole "rising action" thing, with a climactic bit and the capacity to "feel resolved".  They want one event to follow another in a sensible fashion, so that it all makes sense - but they want that more in a world-is-believable than plot-is-solid way, if you follow.  To them, according to their feedback (and signals of enjoyment in game, and so on), the basic absolutely bare components of something "storylike", in the loosest possible sense, are vitally important.

Now, the thing is, all of that stuff is pretty much automatic if the fictional situation for play is any damn good at all.  It doesn't need mechanically reinforced themes, or a strong pre-plotted story arc.  Just good set-up; and Dr.Rotwang's Funnel Method is just as keen for getting this as drawing out a map of relationships.

"Good" story, in any literary sense, is so far down the list of priorities that it might as well not make the list at all.

As to the rest?  I agree, with a few quibbles on phrasing, as usual.

Quote from: Old GeezerWhat specifics can you tell us?  I watch with slack-jawed amazements at people, including those trying to SELL to this market, work entirely with guesswork and anecdote.

Luke Crane just announced that Burning Wheel just printed its 6,000th book.  I assume that means 12,000 books, because BW is a 2-book product.  $25 * 6,000 "units" == $150,000 in gross sales. I would guess that is the best selling "Indie" RPG.  Ron Edwards did a podcast with Paul Tevis where he specified that his games sell about 1,000 copies, with Sorcerer about twice that.  I suspect that Ron is the largest of the Forge-specific publishers.  I have no visibility on sales of Spirit of the Century, but based on ancedotal evidence, I put it between Burning Wheel and Sorcerer.  Let's say there's 10 designers do Ron Edwards' average level of business, with an average of 2 games each.  2 * 10 * 1000 = 20,000 units of sales per year * $25 = $500K/year in retail sales.  So the whole "Indie Games" movement is about the volume of a small but successful 3-T publisher.

Steve Jackson's 2006 Letter to Stakeholders says the company made $2.4 million; 45% from RPGs, I assume that means GURPS.  That's $1.08 million, or about $2.5 million at retail.  

Steve Jackson Games RPGs are about 4% of the market according to Comics & Games Retailer.  So that would make the market $62 million at retail.  GURPS is sold in bookstores, so we don't have to apply a multiplier factor for alternate channels.

Except for Wizards and White Wolf, the average 3-tier publisher is within a percent or two of marketshare of SJG (+ or -), call it +/- $1 million for every other publisher in the top 10.  I'll claim a special pleading for Mongoose, as noted their business is shifting to Europe and I have low visibility.  I'll also claim a special pleading for Games Workshop and White Wolf, and invoke GM Stance and refuse to tell you why.  :)

I put WotC at 50% of the market, and let's assume White Wolf and the other 10 top companies split the rest; the average publisher makes $3.1 million/year (retail) or $1.3 million/year (publisher revenue).

If Wizards of the Coast is 50% of the market, then WotC's RPG games generated $31 million at retail, and at a standard discount of 57% off SRP, that's $13.33 million of revenue.  Based on my knowledge of the business, I accept that as a valid figure, but I won't give you specifics to back up either the 50% number, or why I think the figure is valid. (Not can't: won't.  Sorry.  Wish I could.)

Wizards execs have said that the 3E PHB generated 1 million unit sales.  I do not know if that means 3E and 3.5E, but I do know that we sold 300K units in 30 days on launch, so a 1 million unit sales figure for 3E alone does not seem unreasonable.  So that one book generated $25-30 million in revenue (depending on when the price increase hit), but did that over 4 years, or over 7 years if its both 3E and 3.5E.  Worst case, PHB sales over 7 years would be $4.2 million/year (retail) or $1.8 million/year (publisher revenue).  

A quick guess would be that of the $13 million (publisher revenue) about 1/3rd comes from the 3 core books and maybe the FRCS.  1/3rd likely comes from the generic core book related products.  The remaining 1/3rd comes from everything else (campaign setting supplements, adventures, map books, etc.)

I have insider information from several companies that publish well known RPGs.  Since 2003 a 10K unit RPG core book is a "success".  A 5K RPG is "normal".  A 2K RPG is "increasingly common".  And that's core books - the supplements are de facto running even smaller print runs.

Here's the really frightening thing.  If you assume there are 500 core hobby stores that take 1 copy of anything the top 10 publishers produce, and 2,000 book stores that do the same, then any time you're selling 2,500 copies of a book, you're essentially stocking the shelves.  And if you sell 5,000 copies of a book, that means one person per store bought a copy, with one on the shelf.  There is no such thing as a viable 1 player network.  That means a whole lot of product is being purchased as literature, not as game product, which means the work put into those products is not being realized a maximum value by the purchasers, which means those sales are extremely fragile.  Right now, 2-5K hard core reader/collectors may be the whole RPG market outside of D&D and White Wolf sales, and direct sales by publishers not using the 3-T model.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyI have no visibility on sales of Spirit of the Century,

http://drivingblind.livejournal.com/303210.html

Merry Christmas.

When were rpg sales anything other than:

1st D&D
2nd White Wolf
|
|
|
|
|
|
3rd Palladium/SJGames
4th SJGames/Palladium
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5th Everyone else

Hasn't it always been like this? Was there ever a time when some "indie" guy could pop up from nowhere and get sales in the millions?

I´ll promise to not touch the touchy issues of story, but this is sales-talk, I must participate in.

QuoteRight now, 2-5K hard core reader/collectors may be the whole RPG market outside of D&D and White Wolf sales, and direct sales by publishers not using the 3-T model.

I´d challenge that assumption pretty strongly. Why? Because I believe there are multiple 2-5k hard core market segments, without serious overlap.

Example: Palladium. They sold ~1500 of those Megaversal Helper Cards as of last December. So I´d assume, as they keep selling them, that there´s at least a thousand ultra hard-core Palladds and Palladies who´d buy EVERYTHING, along with some n-thousand hard- core people who ONLY buy Palladium stuff. Rifts-books still sell in the strong thousands, reaching the tens once a blue moon.
I´d really think there could be networks and mini-markets of that kind for other games.
Think GURPS, or the GDW-Diadoch-market. I don´t see a big overlap there.
Or Battletech, Shadowrun and L5R. Cthulhu in Germany is also of that kind: Many people buy Cthulhu and nothing else.
I know tons of people who only follow one or two systems.

So my point remains:

There could well be a dozen 2-5k groups of people, that only ever buy their stuff, instead of a bunch of buy-it-all-collectors.

And that would mean the number of unique customers who purchase RPG products might be an order of magnitude greater!

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

I look at the RPG sales data.  I look at the player base sizes of MMORPGs.  I look at the collapse of RPGs in retail.  I look at the market research.  I look at the evidence of my own eyes in the game groups I'm aware of.  And I conclude that the MMORPGs are already well on their way to destroying the player balance.  In my opinion, this is no a potential future.  This is now.

This is the part that bugs me.  I think it's awesome you want to make your own game!  Seriously.

But it's all these claims about MMORPGs and what gamers really want (Story Building Games) that you keep reiterating.  You've got nothing to back this up.  In fact the market research you did yourself says exactly the opposite.  But you still make claims about the market research backing up your position.

Quote from: Mark TwainThere are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

:pundit:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMy gamer friends that went away into to MMOs were mostly people that spent a lot of time bitching about RPGs, significant money collecting them, and almost no time actually playing.

They're happier.  I'm happier.  New people who want to talk with me about RPGs don't need to listen to them whining, and that means the new people are happier, too.

Sure. But you can understand why the folks selling games would want them to continue to buy their products.

Seanchai

I've been reading this thread with interest, although i admit that this sort of analysis usually bores me to tears.

So i'll post my 2 cents.

I want to reply to Ryan's quoted number of people who said they play for 'story'. As has been seen in this thread and fuck knows how many others, what that term really means as regards RPGs is by no means nailed down. Was that how the question was asked in the questionaire? "Do you play for story?"

If i was asked that question, i would have to reply something like this, "Unless i have a reason why, i find it less interesting." The 'why' in question might be "why are you going into the dungeon?" The answer could well be "to investigate local deaths" or "because we want to". Now, over time, all of those 'why's' build up into a pretty big tale as to your adventures. They might contain recurring people and places or it might just be wandering the world, but the 'why's' build up.

I can only speak for myself, but if 'why's' are really all that story is about in the context of RPGs, i've been doing it since i was 12 and so has everyone else that i know. If it's not about the 'why's' what is it about? Just a personal hunch, but it could be that a large proportion of folks who said they play for story meant exactly what i've just posted. Story for them is having a reason to do what you do. ??

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

There are people, right now, playing AD&D.  In fact, I'd guess that Dragonsfoot is one of the more popular RPG sites. With the technology advances allowing more play TTRPG's - as is, not as MMORPG's - across distances, I'd be less inclined to worry about network externalities as 10 years ago; even 5 years ago.

I've said before that I think that is the way to combat MMORPG attrition (if you take for sake of argument that it is a direct threat to TTRPG). Hone the distance play. Make the tools so good that there is little difference between playing D&D across a table or across the world. IMHO it's not to give up by changing the hobby into something else, either story-games or MMORPG.

And to be clear, I don't have any problem with your efforts, I'm just trying to figure out if the underlying reasons you have are as black and white as you appear to make them, or if it's like Luke Crane admitted in another thread here - gut instinct. The former is an issue I'd have to actively track, the latter is a passive game-and-let-game.

Quote from: RSDanceyI look at the RPG sales data.

Which, if I'm not mistaken, have been in decline for years before MMORPG's came into vogue.  Other than the aberration that is D&D 3rd Edition, that is.

Quote from: RSDanceyI look at the player base sizes of MMORPGs.

Do we have any real hard data on how many players have left TTRPG completely for MMORPG? I'm not hounding, I'm truly curious...

Quote from: RSDanceyI look at the collapse of RPGs in retail.

I just want to make sure I'm clear - you mean retail as in FLGS and book store, yes?  Or are you including Internet sales, etc?

Quote from: RSDanceyI look at the market research.

Which, as others, particularly Stuart, have pointed out, might not mean what you think it means. It could...but it seems as likely to not, IMHO.

Quote from: RSDanceyI look at the evidence of my own eyes in the game groups I'm aware of.

I want to make sure I'm clear.  My assumption is you are saying this about people leaving for MMORPG, and not with respect to the Story Now aspects of this conversation - is that correct?

Quote from: RSDanceyAnd I conclude that the MMORPGs are already well on their way to destroying the player balance.  In my opinion, this is no a potential future.  This is now.

I'm just curious - you seem to have been chin deep in the industry at the time, what did people say about video games destroying the TTRPG market?

Quote from: RSDanceyThere is no such thing as a viable 1 player network.  

1 purchase does not make a 1 player network. You seem to be ignoring, as you already had previously in this discussion, that it is mainly GMs who buy books.

I've known lots of gaming groups where the GM is the ONLY guy to have the book.

Here in Uruguay, a game like Amber has a "player network" of about 200 people. And as far as I know, I'm the only person in the entire country who owns the Amber book.

Ditto for Qin, ditto for the new edition of Pendragon, I believe I know of only two other people who own the new edition of WFRP, etc.

And it isn't just a Uruguay thing. In Canada, in my gaming group there were two or three of my six players who owned a copy of the D&D PHB, one who owned a DMG, and one who owned the monster manual (mostly so he could cheat and know all the stats for anything he might face).
A couple of the guys owned the Star Wars rpg.
Every single other game we ran, I was the only guy who ever owned a copy of the book.

So there's the "one player network" for you...

RPGPundit

I don't think anyone's debating the RPG market has seriously shrunk over the years. What *is* being debated, and what hasn't been proven, is that MMORPGs are responsible for that shrinkage.

(Popping back in briefly.)

PI: Correct. Also being debated and by no means proven, is that the "Power Gamer" portion of the RPG market is eroding at a higher rate than the other portions.

Plus a bunch of other contentious assumptions.

Quote from: RSDanceyMike's analogy is deeply flawed.  People do not play football to tell stories.  People absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

Not the people I play with. They play RPGs to immerse themselves in a challenging environment. Sometimes stories are generated during gameplay, though more often it's amusing incidents and out of character banter that are the most memorable part of a session.

Quote from: RSDanceyI'm arguing that what most players want out of the RPG experience isn't just a story.  They want a great story.  And I'm arguing that you can engineer the game to generate that result (within some obvious boundaries).

How in fuck are a bunch of dorks sitting around a kitchen table going to tell a great story, when even enormously talented directors and actors usually fall flat on their faces when they try to generate a great story by improvisation? Even the best works of guys like Robert Altman hardly qualify as great stories. More like wonderfully textured incidents held together very loosely by threads of coincidence.

Great stories are not generated improvisationally in any other medium. It takes a vast ego (or vast naivete) to think they can be generated by fantasy gamers.

Quote from: RSDanceyAnd if you sell 5,000 copies of a book, that means one person per store bought a copy, with one on the shelf.  There is no such thing as a viable 1 player network.  That means a whole lot of product is being purchased as literature, not as game product, which means the work put into those products is not being realized a maximum value by the purchasers, which means those sales are extremely fragile.  Right now, 2-5K hard core reader/collectors may be the whole RPG market outside of D&D and White Wolf sales, and direct sales by publishers not using the 3-T model.

Or it could mean that only one person in an RPG group buys books. I know about 12 guys who have played RPGs in the last few years. Only a couple of them ever buy RPG books. I know guys who have played D&D for over 25 years and never bought anything RPG related except dice.

It's funny, but just yesterday I was talking with an old friend who's in a D&D 3.5 group. I asked him if he had heard about the plans for 4E. He said his DM has been talking about 4E every session, reporting to the group on the latest he'd read about it on discussion boards. Then he commented that nobody else in the group gave a shit about 4E. When it comes out, they may play it. He didn't intend to buy any of the 4E books when the did come out - his DM would do that.

In my experience, RPG groups typically have one or two very motivated and active gamers who read message boards, buy books, and learn the rules. The rest are casual players, who enjoy playing and socializing, but who aren't caught up in system and rules sets. They don't buy RPG books. They just show up and play. And the guys who do buy the books and read them are the DMs. And the players want them to do all the work and run everything except the PCs. And it works.

I absolutely agree with Haffrung on this.  

I would be thrilled if someone could point me to an .mp3 or video file of an actual game session where "Great" story was created.

I am the main GM for my group and I am also pretty much the only one who buys RPGs, I think this is pretty common.

I think the "story" is important to gamers, but it's like so many here have said, it's the "doing" and not the "telling" of it that makes it appealing. I am sceptical that a game mechanic can be created to make better stories happen. I'm not saying it coudn't be fun; some fun things have happened as a result of the wild cards in my Shatterzone game for instance, slightly more often than things I had to say no to anyway. But I don't know if it made the stories any better.

The players already shape the story with the actions of their characters, giving them options that are normally the domain of the GM are as likely to turn out bad as when a GM inserts his or her PC into the game. The specialness of the GM role is key to the nature and appeal of RPGs.

Oh, and that example of fighting wave after wave of mindless zombies as an example of a "bad story"? How do you know? Were you there? It sounds simplistic enough plotwise, but the devil is in the details. I have played game sessions where the plot was no more complicated than this that were fun. Fun because of the role-playing (all the character interaction, talking in funny voices, etc) and the game (fumbles and crits, moving tactically around the map, whatever). Maybe the story after sounds lame (We fought a bunch of zombies and they nearly got us but we won), but a story is more than a plot. A meaningless random encounter ceases to be meaningless if your character is killed during it. RPG's are stories without a net.

Quote from: HaffrungNot the people I play with. They play RPGs to immerse themselves in a challenging environment. Sometimes stories are generated during gameplay, though more often it's amusing incidents and out of character banter that are the most memorable part of a session.

Word.

36 years, hours of fun, I can't remember a single instance of "We created a great story".

See, I'll go one step further (and I've got this huge post I'm working on that I'll never finish so might as well short circuit that now).

It's not even that people think about the doing or telling - it's the building.  In other words, in my little experiential corner of the world, people like taking part in the story, great or not; they even enjoy and want to be able to tell a story, great or not.  What I, personally, have never seen people push to the forefront as explicitly as has been discussed in "theory" or asserted here (as a result of interpreting research) is the building of great story.

So people like story; they'd prefer something over nothing.  But do they care so much about building the great story that they will give way on the "doing" part of the story from the experiential side?  I'm not convinced....

Quote from: StuartI absolutely agree with Haffrung on this.  

I would be thrilled if someone could point me to an .mp3 or video file of an actual game session where "Great" story was created.

I can find you some great comedy...

But other than that, point to Haffrung.

You want videos of the pros from Dover creating Story, Now! ?

Here you go:
http://spione.adept-press.com/?actualplay (http://spione.adept-press.com/?actualplay)

Quote from: HaffrungHow in fuck are a bunch of dorks sitting around a kitchen table going to tell a great story, when even enormously talented directors and actors usually fall flat on their faces when they try to generate a great story by improvisation? Even the best works of guys like Robert Altman hardly qualify as great stories. More like wonderfully textured incidents held together very loosely by threads of coincidence.

Great stories are not generated improvisationally in any other medium. It takes a vast ego (or vast naivete) to think they can be generated by fantasy gamers.

I'm not so sure that this is impossible.  I do contend, however, that it's not easy, and it wouldn't be done by chance in any case.  Improvisational theater is as likely to produce great story as 1 million monkeys typing randomly on computers will produce Hamlet.   Howver, the missing element here is the Gamesmaster as Story Guide.  Do I mean Railroading?  Nope.  I mean simply that the GM has created a sufficiently great BackStory to engender Great Story.   Do I mean a narrative that follows standard "story" form, with beginning middle and end?   No.   That is a feature of Good Story, but insufficient for Great Story.   Great Story requires a whole lot more than just fitting into a story form (which is problematic in a RPG that doesn't usually result in an "end" that can be distinctly recognized anyway).  I think producing Great Story is very difficult, actually, no matter the medium.   But that is not to say that it can not be done.   Nor does it mean that a very well run RPG can not produce one.  It's just that it's not easy to do.  One has to understand what Great Story actually is, for one thing... and once you get a grip on that, applying the principals to something as unwieldy as a Player Group in an Improvisational environment makes it even more difficult.  However, again, it is not impossible.   I would even go further to suggest that for the glorious few gamesmasters and players who can pull it off, it is what I consider to be the Ideal of RPG experience.   But again, I think it rare.  And I'm very unconvinced that anything outside of the Gamesmaster's own inner wisdom, experience and sublime skill will pull it off, regardless of whatever game design rules may be set in place to encourage "Great Story" or not.   The fact is that the rules I've seen to date that encourage "Great Story" are at best capable on their own of producing "Good Story", and even then the GM's personal talent is required.   So Great Story is hard to do, especially in RPGs.  But it *can* be done.   That's my take on it, anyway.  At the very least I'm determined to try to produce Great BackStory in the hopes that it will engender Great In-Game Story.

- Mark

Quote from: HaffrungIn my experience, RPG groups typically have one or two very motivated and active gamers who read message boards, buy books, and learn the rules. The rest are casual players, who enjoy playing and socializing, but who aren't caught up in system and rules sets. They don't buy RPG books. They just show up and play. And the guys who do buy the books and read them are the DMs. And the players want them to do all the work and run everything except the PCs. And it works.

This is my experience of over 25 years.  I do all of the work.  All they do is show up, play their characters and (every once in a while) beg for relationship porn.

OK, what is relationship porn?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOK, what is relationship porn?

"Relationship Porn" is the term I coined for things like fangirls playing Mary Sue characters so that they can hook up with their fantasy pretty boy through some sort of soap opera-style melodramatic romance.  (Though, in my case, I have as many guys as gals asking for this stuff.)

OMG. The horror.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI don't think anyone's debating the RPG market has seriously shrunk over the years. What *is* being debated, and what hasn't been proven, is that MMORPGs are responsible for that shrinkage.

I'll even grant that MMORPGs are a major competing media, I'll argue the "why" of it.  I don't think it has much to do with TRPGs not doing gaming well, but with the inherent time sink and scheduling problems TRPGs of any kind represent.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(Popping back in briefly.)
PI: Correct. Also being debated and by no means proven, is that the "Power Gamer" portion of the RPG market is eroding at a higher rate than the other portions.

Plus a bunch of other contentious assumptions.

I'll argue with the contention that all power-gamers will eventually be playing only MMORPGs.


All that aside.  What I find most unsupported are the assertions that because (1) MMORPGs can't do "story teller" well and (2) the only hope for TRPGs are "story teller" games.   I see no inherent reason why (1) is true, based on my understanding of what is being proposed as the "story teller" solution.  On (2) I think Ryan's own numbers show that this is false.  On hard numbers the "indie games" of the top two designers seem to account for 0.1% or less of the market, even accepting the assumption that all indie games combined account for $500K, that is slightly less than 1%.  

I think this is a damning number on the real drawing power of these games, assuming they all represent the new story teller paradigm.  If only a fraction do then things look even worse.  

Given that one of the supposedly lead games of this group, Burning Wheel, has been around for 5 years almost, if the non-power gamer or even "story teller" players of D&D had always just been waiting for this kind of game, then you would expect at least 22%-44% of the D&D players to have bought the game.  Accordingly, if Story teller games are the last best hope for TRPGs, they have been around long enough that they should have far more than 1% of the market.  But they don't after at least 5 years of trying, despite awards and viral marketing.

Which, Xanther, if I was being a conspiracy theory nut, would be the reason for trying to take d20 and make it Story20. The attempt to hitch the wagon of the story-building games to the horse power of the most widely played game (J. Arcane's objections that really it's just D&D that's so popular) makes sense.

It would be nigh short of a miracle to alter D20 enough for Story-Builders but leave it in tact enough for the Role-Players. If Mr. Dancey can do it...all I can say is Wow.

But I think Mr. Dancey is of the belief that he can change it beyond that point - that he will not have to worry about the Role-Players because most of them will be playing MMORPG's instead. Again, I have my doubts...

Quote from: SettembriniYou want videos of the pros from Dover creating Story, Now! ?

Here you go:
http://spione.adept-press.com/?actualplay (http://spione.adept-press.com/?actualplay)

I actually found listening to Hal's group at RPGMP3 was entertaining -- although almost entirely for the banter, funny characters, jokes, and other non-"story" elements.  The story itself wasn't very spectacular, but I don't think that's really the appeal of RPGs anyway.

It was also *very* useful to hear when the game would grind to a halt over debating / looking up certain rules, or otherwise run really slowly because of the way the rules work in play.

MUCH more useful than an "Actual Play Report" which is usually nothing like "actual play".

You know, there's one thing missing in all this talk about sales.

Age distribution versus percentage of population.

I'm a Boomer.  Most Boomers I know who played RPGs 25 years ago no longer play them.

They do not play MMORPGs, either.

Some of us Boomers do play RPGs, but usually much more casually and much less frequently.  The same for MMORPGs.  We dabble in them.

The Baby Boomers no longer are college age.

Has there been any serious work done on the subject of the average age of RPGers?  Because believe you me, it makes a HUGE difference.  If the average age of RPGers is younger than Baby Boomers, the NEXT question to ask is "Is the percentage of people in this age bracket who play RPGs within statistical bounds of the percentage of Boomers who played RPGs when they were this age?"

If your target audience has shrunk, your sales will too.

Something like that was discussed, if not earlier in this thread, then in the Landmarks thread that was accidentally nuked but is now preserved over at jhkims's site.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSomething like that was discussed, if not earlier in this thread, then in the Landmarks thread that was accidentally nuked but is now preserved over at jhkims's site.

Linky?

Eh, I was thinking of the wrong thread. Stats discussions start around here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=147123&postcount=121) in the thread "Ryan Dancey's Storyteller's Guide to the D20 System".

More in the same thread around here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=147416&postcount=176) and the two following posts. Shortly thereafter Stuart calls RSD's use of stats strongly into question, and I give some supporting points to Stuart's argument. This continues through post 219 (note my post 214 which seems to hit on the same question as you've raised) before going off into an argument between Seanchai and others comparing AD&D1e with D&D3.x

Quote from: RSDanceyI have no visibility on sales of Spirit of the Century, but based on ancedotal evidence, I put it between Burning Wheel and Sorcerer.

I'm by and large not reading this discussion, but thanks to various search tools I came across this statement.  Just wanted to provide some data for the curious.

Visibility into Spirit of the Century's sales is very easy, as I tend to talk about it constantly on my livejournal.  Here's the sales numbers filter:

http://drivingblind.livejournal.com/tag/sales+numbers

Of specific interest:

http://drivingblind.livejournal.com/302851.html (sales numbers)
http://drivingblind.livejournal.com/303210.html (pretty graphs)

Spirit of the Century moved about 1800 print units in its first full year (and another 300-or-so PDFs, I believe).  Don't Rest Your Head moved about 800 units (though that's a print and PDF mix; I think about 1/3rd of those were PDF) in its first year.

I should probably point out that only a very approximate half or less of those print sales were through retail stores -- which might play odd with some of your thinkery, as it seems like you're talking with a retail sales focus.  The other half was direct sales to customers through IPR's site (and, limitedly, Lulu).

Other publisher stuff, in brief:

- Ken Hite reviewed Burning Wheel Revised back in 2003, so the game's probably been out for 3 to 4 years in order to achieve the 6000 units number.  I dearly hope and pray that Spirit of the Century can sustain its sales the way Burning Wheel Revised has -- it's definitely one of the tops.

- Can't speculate about Ron's numbers; I haven't looked into them.

- I've heard from Vincent Baker that Dogs in the Vineyard sells about 700-ish copies a year.

At any rate, I'm definitely not refuting your speculation here, just offering up some data.  An average of 2000 unit-sales per year across all products per publisher, ten top publishers?  Sure, I'd buy that.  Though that said, I'd buy a lot of other scenarios too, as this is a dark territory in which there's very little disclosure.