TheRPGSite

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 :D ...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 :D

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 (http://www.crimsonvulpine.com/dolls/) 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 (http://www.crimsonvulpine.com/dolls/) 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 (http://www.crimsonvulpine.com/dolls/) 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.

Quote from: ImperatorDude. That's mean. You shouldnt have exposed us to that.

You got off easy.  I was roped into play-testing it.

Quote from: RedFoxYou got off easy.  I was roped into play-testing it.

I feel sorry for you, mate. But we are innocent. We did nothing that bad to you.

Quote from: ImperatorI feel sorry for you, mate. But we are innocent. We did nothing that bad to you.

You're right.  Maybe the cycle of abuse should end.

Quote from: David REh? I think Vampire fits into the adventure criteria pretty well :



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

Regards,
David R

Not according to the book they don't. According to the book they sit around and lament their lost humanity, and engage in witty banter and beaurocratic power struggles with other vampires who lament their lost humanity.
That's 1st edition vampire, anyways.

RPGPundit

According to the book they sit around and lament their lost humanity, and engage in witty banter and beaurocratic power struggles with other vampires who lament their lost humanity.

Now... what kind of Katana and shotgun do you want to take to the sitting around?  Do you want super-speed, claws, or blood magic?  Better bring extra ammo... just in case.

Quote from: RPGPunditNot according to the book they don't. According to the book they sit around and lament their lost humanity, and engage in witty banter and beaurocratic power struggles with other vampires who lament their lost humanity.
That's 1st edition vampire, anyways.

RPGPundit

Really, that was the first edition? Haven't played Vampire in years, but I do remember that our games were always action packed. But then again, Near Dark was my main source of inspiration for the campaign - the only Vamp game I ever ran.

Regards,
David R

Vampire first edition was.... dreadful. I think I was scarred for life. The system was broken, the mood pretentious, the gulf between the game fluff and the character abilities was an abyss, and the vamps being played were... pure wankery.

-clash

Quote from: David RReally, that was the first edition? Haven't played Vampire in years, but I do remember that our games were always action packed. But then again, Near Dark was my main source of inspiration for the campaign - the only Vamp game I ever ran.

Regards,
David R

I have always needed to mod the system somewhat to get action into it. The simplest fix was to allow separate Dodge pool from Attack pool.

Once that is done, combat becomes viable and you get some serious killing going on.

The ones I could never get to work were Wraith, Hunters and to a lesser extent, Mage.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceVampire first edition was.... dreadful. I think I was scarred for life.

But were you.....brain-damaged? :p

Quote from: Zachary The FirstBut were you.....brain-damaged? :p

No, I meant literally, on the neck. :D

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltI have always needed to mod the system somewhat to get action into it. The simplest fix was to allow separate Dodge pool from Attack pool.

Once that is done, combat becomes viable and you get some serious killing going on.

The ones I could never get to work were Wraith, Hunters and to a lesser extent, Mage.

Bill

I'm pretty lousy when it comes to all the rules stuff. You are probably right right about separating the dodge and attack pools. Funnily enough the only thing that has really bothered me about WW games are the dice pools :D

I'm currently running a stripped down version of Hunter. And Mage, tricky thing to run but my favourite WW game to date..

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BalbinusIt'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.

Well, I think that jumping from the marketing data to the aesthetics that way is pretty questionable, don't you?  McDonalds isn't food at its best, for instance.  I mean, I get that you have the view, and it's a fine view to have, I'm just not sure that this is evidence for it one way or t'other.

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

Yeah, but Brokeback Mountain was a blockbuster too.  I think the blockbuster test may not be as great a match to this argument as you'd hope :D

Boy, Tony:

McDonalds?
Brokeback Mountain?

If there wasn´t a culture war already, I´d start one now.

Quote from: SettembriniBoy, Tony:

McDonalds?
Brokeback Mountain?

If there wasn´t a culture war already, I´d start one now.

What?  I'm confused.  Are you saying that you don't think those are examples of things that are financial and marketing successes?  Or ... what?

I'm honestly not saying that any type of RPG is like (or unlike) either McD's or Brokeback Mountain, if that's what you're concerned about.  I'm just talking about what you can conclude from analogy to "other things that are popular" ... and that it's not very much.  All sorts of things gain popularity for a wide variety of reasons.

How about Titanic?
Sleepless in Seattle?
When Harry Met Sally?
Casablanca?

Citizen Kane?

QuoteI'm honestly not saying that any type of RPG is like (or unlike) either McD's or Brokeback Mountain, if that's what you're concerned about. I'm just talking about what you can conclude from analogy to "other things that are popular" ... and that it's not very much. All sorts of things gain popularity for a wide variety of reasons.

OK. Case settled.

Still you are going the legalistic way again.
The discussion is about adventure. And a definition was given off-hand. Do you really don´t know what an adventure is? What good does come forth by yours and droogs bean counting? Both of you know what is talked about, and you are not really helping. You are obfuscating and derailing the discussion.

Present a reason for the need of an airtight definition for adventure, or shut up.

By the way, look up "adventure novel" for quite a good description of the adventure genre.

Quote from: droogHow about Titanic?
Sleepless in Seattle?
When Harry Met Sally?
Casablanca?

Citizen Kane?

Not trying to stir up a fight but I have often found that there are stories that just do not make good RPGs. For instance, I love Star trek, but that is the most difficult setting to model. Inconsistent technology, inconsistent application of the technology, and inconvenient short term memory (we solved this problem once but we will never use that solution again) make for a difficult rules set for the setting. So, great story, not so great RPG.

And, do not get me wrong, with the right group, any setting can be played. My acid test is can the power gamer screw up the plot/setting.

Bill

Don´t feed the trolls, Hinterwelt.

This here is about adventure, and they know it.
And they know what adventure is.
They are just being wisecracks.

Everybody knows that there are genres other than adventure that are popular in mass-media.

Quote from: SettembriniEverybody knows that there are genres other than adventure that are popular in mass-media.

Then why, in principle, should those genres not be capable of being popular as games?

Quote from: StuartAccording to the book they sit around and lament their lost humanity, and engage in witty banter and beaurocratic power struggles with other vampires who lament their lost humanity.

Now... what kind of Katana and shotgun do you want to take to the sitting around?  Do you want super-speed, claws, or blood magic?  Better bring extra ammo... just in case.

Yeah, but see, that was all stuff that Marc Rein·Hagen was against, it had nothing to do with how he envisioned Vampire going, or what he actually wrote in the manual.

It is, of course, how almost everyone except a few hardcore story-based gaming Swine played it.

RPGPundit

The fact that successful rpgs will tend to be like summer blockbusters does not mean that every blockbuster will make a good rpg.  Arguments don't work both ways like that, it's the old saw that if good philosophers are Greeks then all Greeks make good philosophers.  It's a logical fallacy.

Tony, the aesthetics jump was my explaining why I think rpgs by their nature tend to be most successful when playing to externals, it's not an observation so much as my attempt at an explanation.  I'll follow up on it later.

Quote from: HinterWeltNot trying to stir up a fight but I have often found that there are stories that just do not make good RPGs. For instance, I love Star trek, but that is the most difficult setting to model. Inconsistent technology, inconsistent application of the technology, and inconvenient short term memory (we solved this problem once but we will never use that solution again) make for a difficult rules set for the setting. So, great story, not so great RPG.

And, do not get me wrong, with the right group, any setting can be played. My acid test is can the power gamer screw up the plot/setting.

But is this a problem of not thinking outside the box?

Quote from: droogThen why, in principle, should those genres not be capable of being popular as games?

The external/internal split among other reasons, plus some mass genres work better in some media than others.  I'll post more on that tomorrow.

I think this is certainly true with today's RPG market. Perhaps if we were selling them in the beatnik and hippie era it might be different, but today's kids and young adults want to travel the worlds, meet strange peoples, and kick their asses.

Of course, popular and good are not synonymous, so non-Adventure games aren't necessarily automatically doomed to failure, they'll just have to find their niche and exploit it well.

Quote from: BalbinusThe fact that successful rpgs will tend to be like summer blockbusters does not mean that every blockbuster will make a good rpg.  Arguments don't work both ways like that, it's the old saw that if good philosophers are Greeks then all Greeks make good philosophers.  It's a logical fallacy.

Begging the question is also a logical fallacy.

I know you're off on an external/internal divide, but consider that, for example, film is a very external medium.

Quote from: droogThen why, in principle, should those genres not be capable of being popular as games?

Possibly because they're harder, for the average person approaching a hobby, to recreate on his or her own.

And yes, to underline Balb & Sett's point about blockbusters, nobody's denying that On Golden Pond or whatever didn't make money. The idea is that "the Hollywood blockbuster", which is a genre since perhaps the 1970's of films that producers for better or worse, often worse, rely on to draw big audiences around Christmas and summer, uses the same subjects that RPGs need to achieve widespread play.

(Switching gears)

Upthread another controversy is whether Vampire is an adventure game. Since I've never played it or read it, I feel especially qualified to comment (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=67358#post67358), and I'll do so by patching "adventure", as I've done before, in terms of "experience" (e.g. Merriam-Webster has one definition as "an exciting or remarkable experience"). I.e., "adventure games" are best suited to providing the player with an interactive simulacrum of an experience. Ergo if Vampire is used to play out skulduggery and political maneuvering, so that the players really are doing things that map sort-of isomorphically to skulduggery and political maneuvering, it's an adventure game. But if they're constructing a story about politics, using mechanics and negotation that isn't itself a model of the politics represented, then it's not an adventure game.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPossibly because they're harder, for the average person approaching a hobby, to recreate on his or her own.

If you didn't have roleplaying games already, would it be easy for the average person to recreate an action movie?

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe idea is that "the Hollywood blockbuster", which is a genre since perhaps the 1970's of films that producers for better or worse, often worse, rely on to draw big audiences around Christmas and summer, uses the same subjects that RPGs need to achieve widespread play.

I'd like to see some figures on that.

On what, that Hollywood blockbusters reliably draw huge audiences? You won't get them from me, because a large number of them are flops. But these are the types of movie that studios typically pump huge budgets into in the hope of achieving a huge boxoffice return, on the basis of catering (or pandering if you prefer) to elements of broad appeal.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe idea is that "the Hollywood blockbuster", which is a genre since perhaps the 1970's of films that producers for better or worse, often worse, rely on to draw big audiences around Christmas and summer, uses the same subjects that RPGs need to achieve widespread play.

Ah ... that makes much more sense to me.  Thanks for the clarification.

Here's a list of the most popular (=high-grossing) films:

TITANIC ($600)
STAR WARS ($460)
SHREK 2 ($441)
E.T. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ($435)
STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE ($431)
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST($423)
SPIDER-MAN ($403)
STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH ($380)
LOTR: RETURN OF THE KING ($377)
SPIDER-MAN 2 ($373)
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST ($370)
JURASSIC PARK ($357)
LOTR: THE TWO TOWERS ($341)
FINDING NEMO ($339)
FORREST GUMP ($329)
LION KING ($328)
HARRY POTTER: THE SORCERER'S STONE ($317)
LOTR: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING ($314)
STAR WARS: ATTACK OF THE CLONES ($310)
STAR WARS: RETURN OF JEDI ($309)
INDEPENDENCE DAY ($306)
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN($305)
THE SIXTH SENSE ($293)
CHRONICLES OF NARNIA ($291)
STAR WARS: EMPIRE STRIKES BACK ($290)
HARRY POTTER: GOBLET OF FIRE ($290)
HOME ALONE ($285)
THE MATRIX RELOADED ($281)
MEET THE FOCKERS ($278)
SHREK ($267)
HARRY POTTER: CHAMBER OF SECRETS ($261)
THE INCREDIBLES ($260)
THE GRINCH ($260)
JAWS ($260)
MONSTERS, INC. ($255)
BATMAN ($251)
MEN IN BLACK ($250)

http://www.themegahitmovies.com/popular.htm

QuoteIs there something common to these films in terms of dramatic structure or the human values revealed by the characters under conflict? If so, what are the dramatic structures and human values that compel the audience to recommend these films to friends and to repeatedly watch these movies themselves?

Most of these movies are either fantasy films or action-adventure films with fantastic elements. I use the word "fantastic" to describe the exhibition of extremely imaginative images, or images extraordinarily unreal in conception, design or construction. But not all fantasy films achieve megahit status. Obviously, fantasy elements alone are not sufficient for large box-office grosses. So, what are the essential attributes of a megahit movie?

Some interesting data. I've bolded the films I see as not conforming to the action-movie genre. It's self-refexive, because I'm thinking: "Could you do this film with a straightforward adventure game?" (happy, Settembrini?)

Quote from: droogSome interesting data. I've bolded the films I see as not conforming to the action-movie genre. It's self-refexive, because I'm thinking: "Could you do this film with a straightforward adventure game?" (happy, Settembrini?)

Problem with some of the ones you've bolded /are/ in many cases action/adventure genre (Monsters Inc, is action comedy--you have good guys and bad guys and a chase scene)

Finding Nemo (Classic adventure: Search for lost family member)
Shrek 1  is a spoof of action adventure tropes (especially Disney Movies and Fairy tale "sanitization" ones) Shrek 2 is similar but adds more to the romantic-comedy aspects.

"Action" doesn't mean "lots of guns" or 'car chases' it just means conflict that is resolved often through physical acts. (Chases through doors, smashing into the castle with a giant robo--er gingerbread man..)
Heck Home Alone is in many ways one boy retelling of Magnificent 7 (7 Samurai's descendants.)

And working the other way, which is more to the point of defining the Hollywood blockbuster, here are the most expensive films of all time, adjusted for inflation, per wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films)

War and Peace (1968)   $560,000,000
Cleopatra (1963)   $286,400,000
Titanic (1997)   $247,000,000
Waterworld (1995)   $229,000,000
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)   $216,400,000
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)   $210,000,000
Spider-Man 2 (2004)   $210,000,000
King Kong (2005)   $207,000,000
Superman Returns (2006)   $204,000,000
Wild Wild West (1999)   $203,400,000
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)   $198,800,000
The 13th Warrior (1999)   $190,700,000
Troy (2004)   $184,300,000
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe   $180,000,000
The Polar Express (2004)   $172,100,000
Armageddon (1998)   $171,100,000
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)   $170,900,000
Van Helsing (2004)   $168,500,000
Superman (1978)   $168,000,000
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)   $162,800,000
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)   $162,000,000
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)   $162,000,000
The Perfect Storm (2000)   $161,800,000
Alexander (2004)   $161,600,000
Poseidon (2006)   $160,000,000
The World Is Not Enough (1999)   $159,800,000
Godzilla (1998)   $159,100,000
Stuart Little (1999)   $157,400,000
Pearl Harbor (2001)   $156,900,000
Die Another Day (2002)   $156,000,000
Tarzan (1999)$155,800,000

First of all, I'm amazed that even adjusting for inflation, the most expensive movies are getting more and more expensive. But I guess that proves my point. The most notable aberrations are at the top, but arguably those are movies from before the studios really learned the formula (Cleopatra, War and Peace). Titanic fits the formula in some ways, breaks it in others, but overall the pattern is very clear.

Quote from: droogHere's a list of the most popular (=high-grossing) films:

TITANIC
I'm willing to concede this one.

SHREK 2 ($441)

Totally an adventure. Encounters and battles included.  

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST ($370)

I can't count this one as evidence. I think many people went to it out of a sense of obligation or controversy.

FINDING NEMO ($339)

Total adventure. In fact, it's a quest.

FORREST GUMP ($329). I concede this one. Interestingly, the book is an adventure, but not the movie. In the book at one point he ends up as an astronaut, then crash lands and ends up in the jungle with an intelligent sign-languaging ape. Funny/weird NPCs, battles/movement. It's got it all.

LION KING ($328)

Adventure! Classic quest style.

THE SIXTH SENSE ($293)

I concede this one. Not an adventure.

HOME ALONE ($285)

Very close to an Adventure! Multiple encounters, locations, traps, and the NPC were pretty much made to be beaten. Only lacks movement.

MEET THE FOCKERS ($278)
I concede this one. Not an adventure.


SHREK ($267)
Adventure!

THE GRINCH ($260)

I could concede this one.

MONSTERS, INC. ($255)
Adventure!

Quote from: SilverlionProblem with some of the ones you've bolded /are/ in many cases action/adventure genre (Monsters Inc, is action comedy--you have good guys and bad guys and a chase scene)

Finding Nemo (Classic adventure: Search for lost family member)
Shrek 1  is a spoof of action adventure tropes (especially Disney Movies and Fairy tale "sanitization" ones) Shrek 2 is similar but adds more to the romantic-comedy aspects.
Heck Home Alone is in many ways one boy retelling of Magnificent 7 (7 Samurai's descendants.)

But is there a game that will do Shrek? As is, I mean, not just looking at the surface colour? I'd suggest that the actual plot of the film has little to do with action-adventure.

Similarly with Nemo. Sure, if you deconstruct it to the point where it's about the search for Nemo, you could possibly do it with an existing game (I could do it with HQ). But arguably it's about a lot more than that. And as with Shrek, it doesn't seem to come up on most roleplayers' favourites.

Personally, I think you could make a better case for Titanic – after all, it has guns.

So the larger point is this: obviously, there are many films out there whose popularity does not depend on action and adventure. If we expand the list to all-time favourites (http://www.imdb.com/chart/top), we get things like The Shawshank Redemption and Twelve Angry Men. I already mentioned Citizen Kane.

In fact, I'm sure we all know people who loathe action-adventure. They're often dismissed in RPG circles.

I think this notion depends on circular logic: the most popular RPGs are about action-adventure, therefore that must be what attracts people. Well, I can think of a bare handful of games that step away from that paradigm, and none of them have any sort of marketing budget.

I skipped over this earlier...

Quote from: droogIf you didn't have roleplaying games already, would it be easy for the average person to recreate an action movie?

Basically, yes, I think it would be easier. Aside from the fact that violence has a broad appeal, I also think that externalized conflict is easier to conceptualize and easier to pace. Now, doing it really well for the big screen is a little harder since you need to give the characters some depth, maybe some inner conflict that parallels the external. But we are talking about amateur theater here...actually not even that, more like a popular entertainment akin to sports. Like RPGs, sports have a narrative continuity that imbues the events with greater meaning than the rules themselves. (Is this the year for Elway? Will the Red Sox choke?) They offer visible, visceral, external conflict. And a key part of the appeal, IMO, is that they combine these narrative qualities with unscripted resolution.

Basically, it's easier to position people for violent conflict, and easier to conceptualize the no-holds-barred resolution of conflict through objective, external mechanisms. Whereas internal conflict is hard to sell without having it come off as narcissistic posing.

Greg Costikyan has a few things to say about the uses of violence and externalized conflict over in this Salon.com article (http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/06/21/game_violence/index.html). Might be worth a look.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBasically, it's easier to position people for violent conflict, and easier to conceptualize the no-holds-barred resolution of conflict through objective, external mechanisms. Whereas internal conflict is hard to sell without having it come off as narcissistic posing.

That would depend rather, wouldn't it? It's a no-brainer to suggest that the roleplaying subculture as it exists finds violence easier to deal with. But what about all the other people who watch films and TV?

I show a friend HeroQuest – she snickers at me. I show her Nicotine Girls – she plays it and is impressed. I show another friend It Was a Mutual Decision – he wants to play it. What do you make of that?

There are a variety of people out there with different tastes, and products catering to those tastes will find an audience.(*) But that's not relevant to the definition of successful that Balbinus is using for this thread.

(*)One problem with niche products though is that if they can't be consumed alone--that is, if you need other people to enjoy them with--then they may see even less actual use. E.g. the 1,000 or so people worldwide who might enjoy game X in the abstract can't really enjoy it at all if they're scattered across the globe. Whereas a short story posted on the web could be enjoyed by 1,000 individually isolated people.

Quote from: droogBut is this a problem of not thinking outside the box?

No, it is a problem of what sells. Marketing a game of Action/Adventure is much easier than one of Romance. Another genre that translates well, occasionally, is comedy. Still, some stories translate well to codified systems while others have too many inconsistencies to be transfered well.

I made a my DRATs system for just the purpose of addressing these difficulties. It works but it will never be a commercial success. A lot of people, for whatever reason, do not want to hear that games sell. Telling drama does not.

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not think it will always be so nor that such unconventional games should never be made. However, to believe that there will be wide spread success and commercial gain, well, it is unlikely.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI made a my DRATs system for just the purpose of addressing these difficulties. It works but it will never be a commercial success. A lot of people, for whatever reason, do not want to hear that games sell. Telling drama does not.

But how much have you marketed your game, and to whom? Have you marketed it at all?

I would be interested to look at what you've done.

Quote from: BalbinusBy 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).

By this definition, there are many "generic" systems that can be used either for adventure or not that are successful.

Mind you, I believe that most of those games are being used to run adventures.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBy this definition, there are many "generic" systems that can be used either for adventure or not that are successful.

Mind you, I believe that most of those games are being used to run adventures.

Quite so, and tend to be better suited to that than to more thoughtful dramas.

Essentially, the argument is:

"Here's a test, which I call the blockbuster test:  Could you make a summer blockbuster about the game?  If so (as in the case of Vampire) then that indicates that it will probably sell."  

Now, naturally many blockbusters will not make good rpgs, but my argument is that to be commercially succesful (or to experience play outside the people directly associated with the rpg or its designers, which isn't quite the same thing) one key factor is whether the rpg is the kind of thing that could potentially make a good action orientated movie or thriller.

Other factors also matter, that just gives you the chance, whether you realise that chance is driven by other factors including marketing, but if you are not in that genre I doubt you will ever be that widely played.

Tony raises the interesting challenge of PTA, and Levi of generic rpgs, my answer is that in large part they are used to play adventure type games anyway.  Indeed, the concept of drift is useful here, even if not ostensibly written to produce adventure based gaming, if an rpg can be drifted to effectively provide that sort of gaming it still has a fair chance.

I would also note that in now 30 years of gaming there have been no widely played games that were about issues such as relationships or internal drama, and there have been attempts at that.

Edit:  As an aside, I was a bit brusque earlier in my replies, sorry for that, it was time pressure and nothing more.  I think good challenges have been raised, particularly by Tony, and in answering them I am looking to discuss them further, I'm not saying they're bad points.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(*)One problem with niche products though is that if they can't be consumed alone--that is, if you need other people to enjoy them with--then they may see even less actual use. E.g. the 1,000 or so people worldwide who might enjoy game X in the abstract can't really enjoy it at all if they're scattered across the globe. Whereas a short story posted on the web could be enjoyed by 1,000 individually isolated people.

This is critical.  A niche story or movie can still find an audience an can be enjoyed individually.  A niche game still needs a group, and so you need a group who are collectively willing to commit at least one and quite possibly several evenings to it.

I think that is why the more succesful niche rpgs support short term play, getting a group together for long term play of a niche topic is quite challenging, few will manage it.

I'll start a spin off thread though, because I'm in that sort of mood, on major genres and which are represented in rpgs.

Quote from: Balbinus"Here's a test, which I call the blockbuster test:  Could you make a summer blockbuster about the game?  If so (as in the case of Vampire) then that indicates that it will probably sell."
......................................
I would also note that in now 30 years of gaming there have been no widely played games that were about issues such as relationships or internal drama, and there have been attempts at that.

Point 1: Granted. Ceteris paribus, an action-adventure RPG has an excellent chance of selling to the current RPG subculture.

Point 2: Name them.

Quote from: droogPoint 1: Granted. Ceteris paribus, an action-adventure RPG has an excellent chance of selling to the current RPG subculture.

Point 2: Name them.

Name them huh?  Ok.

It was a mutual decision
Wuthering Heights
Best Friends
Nicotine Girls
Breaking the Ice

All recent I grant you, but none exactly taking the world by storm.  Some of those are a few years old now and still barely played by and large, outside their immediate circle anyway.

Neighbourhood, published 1982, about kids having ordinary childhood adventures may have been as well, but I don't know enough about it to be sure.

Quote from: BalbinusName them huh?  Ok.

It was a mutual decision
Wuthering Heights
Best Friends
Nicotine Girls
Breaking the Ice

You forgot Shooting the Moon. But Nicotine Girls and Wuthering Heights aren't even fully published games, so I think you come out behind.

Of the remaining, a couple are less than a year old. None of them have any sort of mass-market presence.

And there's always the possibility that none of these are actually any good as games, and the killer app is yet to come.

How can you tell?

Since we are doing the movies/rpgs thing, has there ever been a break out indie game ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogYou forgot Shooting the Moon. But Nicotine Girls and Wuthering Heights aren't even fully published games, so I think you come out behind.

Of the remaining, a couple are less than a year old. None of them have any sort of mass-market presence.

And there's always the possibility that none of these are actually any good as games, and the killer app is yet to come.

How can you tell?

You can't tell, you take a view and accept you might be wrong.

I mean, if a year from now we're all playing Relationships:  The Bickering I invite you to quote all this stuff to me.  My money is on that not happening though.

David, break out indie game, probably not though I'll think about it.  That may have more though to do with marketing spend than anything intrinsic to the games themselves.

Quote from: BalbinusI mean, if a year from now we're all playing Relationships:  The Bickering I invite you to quote all this stuff to me.  My money is on that not happening though.

I'll bear that in mind, though a year is probably optimistic.

Quote from: droogI'll bear that in mind, though a year is probably optimistic.

No worries, whenever.  Anyway, I'd be quite pleased to be wrong.  The fact I forecast a thing doesn't mean I like the thing I forecast.

Breakout indie games include Dungeons and Dragons (already dominating the market by 1975, despite it being hand-assembled), everything by Palladium.. and Ars Magica, developed by two college roomates named Tweet and Rein*Hagen.


;)

Does it matter to the "blockbuster test" that there are quite a few very popular games that could never, never, be construed as being typical action-oriented blockbusters?  I'm thinking, for instance, Ars Magica (as mentioned just above), Paranoia, Amber and Call of Cthulhu.

Yes, these have elements of adventure as described in the first post, but I am really, really hard-pressed to think of any hollywood blockbusters that even approximate their formula.

But, like I said, I'm not sure it matters.  I'm still trying to make sure I understand the points being put forward.

I'm not sure the blockbuster analogy is holding up as well I had initially thought, so I'll restate without it.

RPGs which are about or which support having adventures of the type commonly seen in action orientated movies or thrillers are disproprortionately likely to see widespread play when compared to rpgs which are about or which support character issues or interpersonal issues.

How's that?

The support bit is to capture generics.

Quote from: BalbinusHow's that?

Seems fine to me.

Quote from: TonyLBSeems fine to me.

Cool, any thoughts on my genre thread?

Also, if so, does that have any implications for the possibilities of breakthrough rpgs?  I think it does, as it implies that to breakthrough an rpg will cover topics not that different to the ones they already cover.

Then again, I don't believe there will be a breakthrough rpg.

Quote from: BalbinusAlso, if so, does that have any implications for the possibilities of breakthrough rpgs?  I think it does, as it implies that to breakthrough an rpg will cover topics not that different to the ones they already cover.

Well, I don't think that's proven.  Saying that the action-movie formula is a good one doesn't mean that it's the only one.  It might just be the only formula that's been successfully exploited so far.

It's back to that whole "prove a negative" thing, isn't it?

QuoteCall of Cthulhu

Ghostbusters















What?

Or Split Second:-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105459/trailers-screenplay-E11246-10-2

"We need bigger guns! WE NEED BIGGER FUCKING GUNS!"

:-)

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I don't think that's proven.  Saying that the action-movie formula is a good one doesn't mean that it's the only one.  It might just be the only formula that's been successfully exploited so far.

It's back to that whole "prove a negative" thing, isn't it?

It's definitely not proven, and indeed can't be, it can only be disproved by someone succeeding.

That said, I think it is likely, sufficiently so that I'm not persuaded it's worth people trying to work on games they hope will breakthrough.

PTA is the only one that troubles me, given proper marketing spend I suspect that could break through, I think that could be the game the indie movement has been seeking but nobody in the indie field has a sufficient marketing push.

Quote from: BalbinusPTA is the only one that troubles me, given proper marketing spend I suspect that could break through, I think that could be the game the indie movement has been seeking but nobody in the indie field has a sufficient marketing push.

I really don't think so. There's a reason why RPGs thus far haven't been made to imitate a TV series in its format. Its something that lessens the sense of immersion, which the Forgies believe to be useless but pretty much everyone else loves.

The whole "TV show" thing was tried several times before, its nothing new, even Advanced Fighting Fantasy did it (of all things!), and every time its failed. People just ignored the TV-show gimmick and played it like a normal game.
And since PTA doesn't actually have a normal game and is all about the fucking TV show, its a failure.

RPGPundit

I struggle in any sense to see PTA as a failure, I've read a lot of actual play threads of it and several of them sounded absolutely fantastic, some of the others likely were too but not to my taste.

Besides, I don't rate it because I think it's new, I rate it because I think it gets it right.

Normal game though, most of the PTA actual play's I've read sound much like a normal game, it's not literally about playing actors in a tv show, it's about having a game structured like a tv show.  It's not fallen into that double suspension of disbelief trap that Hong Kong Action Theatre did.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd since PTA doesn't actually have a normal game and is all about the fucking TV show, its a failure.

There are enough people who enjoy playing it to please the author.  It has turned a profit sufficient to please the author.

By my lights, that makes it a success.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere are enough people who enjoy playing it to please the author.  It has turned a profit sufficient to please the author.

By my lights, that makes it a success.

I think even by the intentionally limited definition of success I used in this thread, widespread play beyond the author's peer group, it's probably a success.

Part of the reason for that limited definition by the way, is that I think when designing an rpg one should think what will constitute success in that design.

All too often, people have dreams of widespread play which I think are simply unrealistic, the answer is either to have another definition of success in mind or to abandon the design.

Aiming low will never lead to excellence.

TV shows are for girls.

Really, look at it: No guys-TV anmore.

No:

Fall Guy
Airwolf
Riptide
Dukes of Hazzard
A-Team
Battlestar Galactica
etc.

Instead:

Greys Anatomy
ER
Desperate Housewifes
Telenovelas
"Battlestar Galactica"
Gilmore Girls
C.S.I.
Criminal Intent
ad nauseam

At least over here, the (majority of, statistically speaking) young males don´t watch TV anymore. The stations have lost them. They play computer games in order to explore guy-themes.

For guys:

The Sheild

24

The Wire

Third Watch

Doctor Who

My Life On Film

My Name Is Earl

Big Love

Guys over there should look up the TV listings more often.

Maybe for guys/girls :

Lost

Heroes

Weeds

Spooks

Hustle

etc

Regards,
David R

Only 24, Lost and Third Watch are on TV here.

And those are definitely not what a ten year old would like.

Is Hustle on in America anymore? My wife & I enjoyed it a lot but we haven't caught it on A&E in a long while.

Anyway, your claim that video games are sucking away part of the TV audience, and affecting what TV shows are made for the remaining audience, is an interesting hypothesis. Unfortunately I can't evaluate from personal experience because practically all I watch are cartoons and sitcoms. Plus Smallville.

Quote from: SettembriniOnly 24, Lost and Third Watch are on TV here.

And those are definitely not what a ten year old would like.

By young males you meant ten year olds...

Regards,
David R

QuoteBy young males you meant ten year olds...

...or twelve year olds.

It´s not a hypothesis of mine, though. It´s a study that fielded those results.

They did their own research and found out about TV stations recent shifts in programming. They found out, that TV stations found out, that women/girls are the ones who decide what is watched. TV stations reacted to that.
Another study showed that most young males (10-18) spend way more time playing electronic games than watching TV.

It really changes commercial placement strategies and thereby the program.

I say: TV is losing it´s mainstream appeal, because it ignores the next half of a generation.

Personal Note:
I cannot fathom any TV show that I´d like to replicate with PtA. TV shows are all railroaded, and the examples I´ve read so far about where mostly about drama.
Add to that, that any TV show I´d like to replicate

QuoteFall Guy
Airwolf
Riptide
Dukes of Hazzard
A-Team
Battlestar Galactica
etc.

is better replicated with an Adventure Game. A bit circular logic, but it´s a personal note after all.

EDIT: I like(d) the abovementioned shows, because cool shit happens in them. Cars jump, Cylons are blasted etc. But I do not like the meta-rules of those shows. So, I dig the action. But not the narrative structure.
I´d assume Gilmore Girls Fans also like the cool shit, and not the dramatic structure or meta-narrative-rules. The emote with the Gilmore Girls because of suspension of disbelief. They aren´t watching and going: " Wow, the author did ad some witty dialogue!"
They laugh, because at the time the watch it, it´s the Gilmore Girls that are being witty.

So PtA is never the answer for anything mainstream. It absolutely is a meta-view on TV shows.

And "nobody" wants that.

Happily the American broadcasting companies haen't figure that out yet (if it's true here). I still get my guy TV. :)

Quote from: Settembrini...or twelve year olds.

It´s not a hypothesis of mine, though. It´s a study that fielded those results.

They did their own research and found out about TV stations recent shifts in programming. They found out, that TV stations found out, that women/girls are the ones who decide what is watched. TV stations reacted to that.
Another study showed that most young males (10-18) spend way more time playing electronic games than watching TV.

It really changes commercial placement strategies and thereby the program.

I say: TV is losing it´s mainstream appeal, because it ignores the next half of a generation.

Well, then you should have said the viewing habits in Germany and the fact that TV stations don't cater to male kids in Germany. Also taste change, the old shows you mentioned are not popular with male kids today, at least in my country. There are plenty of shows that appeal to male kids....just that they are not shown in Germany....apparently.

QuoteAnd "nobody" wants that.

:shrug: I don't understand what you're going on about, so I'll refrain from commenting.

Regards,
David R

Let it put me differently:

Is PtA about recreating the experience of watching a TV show?

Quote from: SettembriniLet it put me differently:

Is PtA about recreating the experience of watching a TV show?

Yes and no. It's a system for making up stories and playing scenes, using the author's take on TV as a structuring device.

Objectively, the main features are the Scene Presence rules, the Fan Mail economy (including the GM's Budget), and the explicit Issues for characters.

Television serves as a conceptual guide to what you're trying to achieve, which is simply to create something original: "The greatest TV show that never was." It's a chance to yarn on about what you'd really like to see on TV, basically.

Quote from: droogYes and no. It's a system for making up stories and playing scenes, using the author's take on TV as a structuring device.

Objectively, the main features are the Scene Presence rules, the Fan Mail economy (including the GM's Budget), and the explicit Issues for characters.

Television serves as a conceptual guide to what you're trying to achieve, which is simply to create something original: "The greatest TV show that never was." It's a chance to yarn on about what you'd really like to see on TV, basically.

Quite, it's about structuring gameplay so that you get the experience of being a character in a good tv show.

But to be clear, each player has one character, that character is a character in the game world rather than an actor playing a character, so for example a character might be an asteroid miner working in the belt or a cop in Chicago.

Quote from: BalbinusQuite, it's about structuring gameplay so that you get the experience of being a character in a good tv show.

But to be clear, each player has one character, that character is a character in the game world rather than an actor playing a character, so for example a character might be an asteroid miner working in the belt or a cop in Chicago.

Damn, this sounds perfect for my Day Of Living Dangerously campaign. Oh well, Over the Edge is working out great too...:D

(But, it would have been cool to try this system out, since the campaign is based on the documentary Our Brand Is Crisis and the TV show 24 )

Regards,
David R

QuoteTelevision serves as a conceptual guide to what you're trying to achieve, which is simply to create something original: "The greatest TV show that never was." It's a chance to yarn on about what you'd really like to see on TV, basically.

This needs a certain degre of reflection upon the medium television, and a certain amount of critical distance, too.
Not what I would call mainstream.

Watching TV and discussing TV are very different. Don´t know about the exact mainstreamness of pop-cultural discourse in Anglophonia, though.

EDIT: Adventuring without the "meta" definitely is mainstream. Computer Games, LotR/WoW MMORPG etc.

Quote from: SettembriniThis needs a certain degre of reflection upon the medium television, and a certain amount of critical distance, too.
Not what I would call mainstream.

Well, I dunno.  People do tend to talk about their television.  Ya got your whole forum-community of Lost devotees, and all that, and Television Without Pity (http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/), and the constant water-cooler chatter about the latest developments in everyone's favorite reality-TV shows.  I think that thinking about television may be more common than you imagine.

I can say, from my own experience, that I have said "This is Primetime Adventures ... it helps you imagine your own television show ... what kind of TV show would you make?" to many people (probably well over a hundred now) and there has never been a single one who has not had an immediate answer ready.  Most people, in fact, have immensely intriguing answers right to hand, like they've already thought the matter over.

Quoteand the constant water-cooler chatter about the latest developments in everyone's favorite reality-TV shows. I think that thinking about television may be more common than you imagine.

For real?
People at work discussing TV shows?

I´m amazed.

I can attest to that--I remember some of my coworkers used to get pretty deep into it over NYPD Blue.

And (not work-related, but it does show similar interest) there are TV-related Usenet newsgroups devoted to single TV shows, as well as forums (like the TVWP forums) where people gossip over the characters, speculate on what will happen next, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watercooler_show

also see watercooler

I think, this is a north american phenomenon. Can´t imagine it happening here, except maybe for sports events.

Seinfeld was a big flop here, BTW.

Quote from: SettembriniI think, this is a north american phenomenon.

No, I think you were right the first time and it's an Anglo thing. It certainly happens here.

Quote from: droogNo, I think you were right the first time and it's an Anglo thing. It certainly happens here.

And in Britain, though to a lesser extent.

Quote from: BalbinusAnd in Britain, though to a lesser extent.

Very much the same here in Malaysia. This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but I'm glad that these TV conversations take place. One could make the argument that most of these shows are crap, but as a tool for bringing a whole lot of different ethnic types together (I'm talking about my country) it's invaluable. How constructive these conversations are remians to be seen, but I'm straying so far off topic, it ain't funny :D

Regards,
David R

I´ll believe all of you, but sat least here, reality is different.

I'm actually quite intrigued. A genuine cultural divide!

I definitely think so.

Maybe it´s a generation thing, TV has not been in every German home before the 70ies. Many people grew up without TV, and have different viewing habits.

Note to Matt Wilson: cancel German translation of PtA.

So what do Germans talk about at work? If you say politics and philosophy I'm going to cry.

QuoteNote to Matt Wilson: cancel German translation of PtA.

So what do Germans talk about at work? If you say politics and philosophy I'm going to cry.

I don´t know. PtA is really popular in the Thematic audience. As was InSpectres. The german market is starving for this stuff, I´m sure he can sell one or two thousand copies.
But he will not sell millions of copies to non gamers.

What do germans talk about at work?
Depends.
Mostly about work. A bit about private life, but that obviously depends. Sports. But most talk is about work and corporate decisions or politics. But actually, there is not much talking going on.

Quote from: BalbinusSo, 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.

Interesting hypothesis.

I basically agree -- but I see it as a percentage thing rather than an absolute: if your game's *not* about having adventures, take a -10 to your success roll. You might still get lucky, but odds are way against it.

A note about "success" -- I think there's probably a tier of commercial success below your initial criteria (thousands of groups regularly playing) but above the criteria you put forth later in the thread (a handful of groups beyond the author's).

While D&D and White Wolf are clearly the overwhelming winners in the RPG world, there are a second tier of success stories that are still *way* above most games that get considered "indie":

I'm thinking of Champions, GURPS (in its various mostly-adventure incarnations) and outliers that have already been mentioned like Call of Cthulhu.

In fact, I'd say Call of Cthulhu presents what I see as the most-interesting challenge to your hypothesis: unlike Vampire, which I think tended to get played as an adventure game, I'm familiar with a number of CoC games that ran "more like" horror stories than adventure stories.

I'm not claiming that the RPG-cliche of games always ending over-the-top violence isn't true (lots of Lovecraft stories end that way, or have elements of PC-like violence in them), but my experience and perception is that CoC offered a truly different model:

PC-as-investigator rather than PC-as-adventurer.

I think PC-as-agent has some legs too:

James Bond, various Cyberpunk games, and (honestly) a lot of D&D is more about carrying out a secret-agent-style infiltration mission or something like a hiest movie (usually with the witty, sophisticated plots you get in Ocean's X style movies, but still).

My take on *why* these kinds of stories work:

1) Everyone's on the same page: we're all "X", we're all a team, and we know what we're trying to accomplish

2) Conflict is built into the scenario but there's a huge amount of variety (I admit, however, that I get tired of raiding installations in agent-type games). This works for the serial-fiction nature of games, where you can play for a long time without the basic premise getting old

3) Within the basic structure (Adventurers / Investigators / Agents) there's a lot of flexibility to be different kinds of characters and ensemble fiction works pretty well

Looking back at this list, I can think of exceptions to these principles, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on *why* the adventure games framework resonnates so well with roleplayers.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Looking back at this list, I can think of exceptions to these principles, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on *why* the adventure games framework resonnates so well with roleplayers.

Cheers,
-E.

Escapism and power fantasy in part, that and it's accessible stuff.  The thrill of adventure, the rush of just succeeding, everyone can relate to that and after a shitty day at work that can be very cathartic.

Agent to me is not so different to adventurer, a subset IMO, investigator I'll come back to.

Your list is a good one, rpgs are a team sport, adventures tend to work well with teams whereas more intellectual stories work less well with six protagonists.  In an adventure, everyone can do something, everyone can contribute, there is conflict which creates instant drama and the conflict is likely to be something fun rather than say intramarital conflict which could just leave everyone depressed.

Fighting the good fight, defeating the bad guy, working with your team to get the treasure, these are relaxing things and they have the beauty of simplicity.  The real world is complex and muddy, it is little surprise the more successful games tend not to be.

Investigation, CoC is a good challenge, I think it is a bit different and I think you have a point.  I'll need to give that further thought, though I think CoC is probably the only really successful horror rpg which isn't basically an adventure game with fangs or claws.

Quote from: BalbinusAgent to me is not so different to adventurer, a subset IMO, investigator I'll come back to.

Investigation, CoC is a good challenge, I think it is a bit different and I think you have a point.  I'll need to give that further thought, though I think CoC is probably the only really successful horror rpg which isn't basically an adventure game with fangs or claws.

I was going to write a spirited defense of agent-as-top-level-domain... and it still feels different to me:

Playing D&D, Gamma World or even Champions, where I'm mostly self-directed and open-ended feels *very* different to me from playing James Bond, much Cyberpunk, and D&D-with-a-patron games where I'm given a mission to accomplish and the game is very objective-oriented...

Still, while these feel like significant differences, they might just be ideosyncracies.

A hypothesis about horror: I think being told a ghost story is a viable form of entertainment. In the typical CoC game, the players uncover the ghost-story as they investigate strange goings-on until everyone gets eaten.

This is, functionally, the same dynamic as telling stories around the campfire, with more interaction and (probably) less pacing... but still -- the basic appeal is being told a ghost story.

Seem reasonable?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RedFoxI've heard of groups upstate that have actually played the thing.

:eyepop:

[I guess I shouldn't be so surprised -- I get people to play my TCM-inspired Risus fantasy variant.]