By successful here I mean actively played by a sizable number of gaming groups, say at least a few hundred groups actively playing it or having played it.  Successful here does not mean covering its costs, artistic merit or meeting the game designer's vision (though I agree that those are alternate means of defining successful).

So, by successful basically I mean widely played.

What are the certain things?

Essentially, to be widely played an rpg needs to be about having adventures, if in having adventures players gain additional cool abilities for their characters that will make it more widely played yet.

What do I mean by adventures?  What most people mean.  Going to strange places, fighting evil foes, defeating enemies, finding lost treasures, discovering new worlds, forging peace between warring nations (ideally by whacking a few guys who are trying to stop peace happening).  Adventures are essentially external events the PCs participate in, rather than internal events the PCs experience.  Adventures need not have all the stuff above, but they'll have some of it.  If a person outside roleplaying would describe it as an adventure, it probably is.  If it would work in a blockbuster movie, that's probably an adventure.  If it would work in an arthouse movie, that's probably not.

So, rpgs about having adventures may be widely played, rpgs which are not about having adventures will at best have limited play.  If you design an rpg which is not about having adventures, you'd better have one of those alternative definitions of success in mind if you don't want to be disappointed.

Edit:  To be clear, this is a spinoff from Mythusmage's thread, I think I'm saying the same thing he was but his had got bogged down a bit in definitions.  To be further clear, I own and like games that don't fit this definition of successful, which doesn't mean I don't think this a meaningful definition.

So, a financial and marketing success with current gamers?  You may be right.  I might quibble about Primetime Adventures which, despite the name, doesn't really code adventure into its game system (and which I'm pretty sure has hit a few hundred gaming groups).  What do you think?

Too, it's hard to prove a negative.  Even if there aren't any non-adventure game systems that have had that kind of success yet, the claim that it couldn't happen is always going to be unprovable, right?

Certainly I think you can say without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of the current market is about good-vs.-evil conflicts resolved through violent physical means.

I don't know much about the industry or game design, but I think you're right Balbinus. I mean a quick glance at my games fits the certains things in your post and some if not all, those games are successful ...well I'm still sad that Jorune didn't really catch on,

Regards,
David R

Balbinus, one more step, and you´ll be on the Adventure Gaming side!

See, this is why I think the term is superiour to "trad-games" and descriptive at the same time.
It captures the essence.

One of the most successful RPGs ever, Vampire: The Masquerade, doesn't seem to measure up to your criteria.  At least insofar as your definition of "adventure" is concerned.

Settembrini, I largely agree with your divide, I'd be quite happy to see it more widely used.

David, Jorune had the adventure element, but it was too outre for most gamers.  Familiarity is also an issue, adventure is a starting point, but it's not enough on its own.

Tony, PTA is an interesting challenge, IMO the most exciting of the indie games and the one I would most like to see with a major marketing push behind it (which won't happen, but it would be nice if it did).  PTA is still mostly about external events, it also ties to a highly recognisable structure (the tv series).  It suggest to me that other models may be possible, but most of the actual plays I've read for PTA (and I think I've read all of them) tend still to be about series which have adventures within them.

It's tied to my view that the rpg as a medium is at its best when telling stories (whatever one means by that) about external events, not internal conflict.  Now, we can't be sure that a game about something other than adventure couldn't be huge, one can't prove a negative as pointed out, but I think the nature of the medium makes it unlikely.  In addition, for all we may note that this only really applies to current gamers, the only game notable for bringing in many new gamers was Vampire and that as generally played is definitely about adventures.

I appreciate there is a dream that with the right rpg another new wave of entrants might be found, and it may be so, but if so I would expect it to be an rpg about adventures still, I think the odds on a game which is about internal experience or say relationship conflicts to be big to be so remote as for that not to be a sensible design goal for such a game.

Well, I don´t know. People used to run Blade-like stuff with it.
But Vampire LARP really is a totally different animal.

Although: It´s a political adventure. You get to scheme and plot and behave like you where an politician. But a politician with angst and who can kick other peoples ass.

Quote from: RedFoxOne of the most successful RPGs ever, Vampire: The Masquerade, doesn't seem to measure up to your criteria.  At least insofar as your definition of "adventure" is concerned.

As written, no, but as played I think it safely fits within the concept of adventure.

It's the blockbuster test really, could you make a summer blockbuster about it?  Interview with the Vampire says yes.

Quote from: SettembriniWell, I don´t know. People used to run Blade-like stuff with it.
But Vampire LARP really is a totally different animal.

Although: It´s a political adventure. You get to scheme and plot and behave like you where an politician. But a politician with angst and who can kick other peoples ass.

I'm talking about tabletop, I think larping has different requirements for success to tabletop.

Quote from: RedFoxOne of the most successful RPGs ever, Vampire: The Masquerade, doesn't seem to measure up to your criteria.  At least insofar as your definition of "adventure" is concerned.

Eh? I think Vampire fits into the adventure criteria pretty well :

QuoteGoing to strange places, fighting evil foes, defeating enemies, finding lost treasures, discovering new worlds, forging peace between warring nations (ideally by whacking a few guys who are trying to stop peace happening).

I mean, Vampire characters do the above stuff - kind off right? I mean add in Kewl powers, and you're good to go

Regards,
David R

A few hundred groups on reflection was too high a bar, really what I am getting at is played outside the designer's peer group and friends.  Basically, third party play.

Quote from: BalbinusA few hundred groups on reflection was too high a bar, really what I am getting at is played outside the designer's peer group and friends.  Basically, third party play.

By that measure, Midknight's dolls game is a success.  He distributed it through the web and p2p networks and I've heard of groups upstate that have actually played the thing.

Quote from: RedFoxBy that measure, Midknight's dolls game is a success.  He distributed it through the web and p2p networks and I've heard of groups upstate that have actually played the thing.

That probably is a success isn't it?  A success that costs us all san admittedly, but no less so for that.

Quote from: BalbinusThat probably is a success isn't it?  A success that costs us all san admittedly, but no less so for that.

It burns.  It burns, but you're right.

Quote from: RedFoxBy that measure, Midknight's dolls game is a success.  He distributed it through the web and p2p networks and I've heard of groups upstate that have actually played the thing.

Dude. That's mean. You shouldnt have exposed us to that.