Quote from: David RFair enough AM, but just because you value long term play does not mean that short term play has no value and certainly not for the reasons you cited. I do admire your candour (well at least in your last few posts) and will leave it at that.

Regards,
David R

It's not about me, David. Its not about you.

It's about intrinsic value. Replayability. Sustainability.

Quote from: Abyssal MawCampaigns - specifically the long term style- are intrinsically more valuable to players than short-term gaming.

I'm not seeing how any of this has to do with "short-term gaming" - specifically, because you have not defined what "short-term gaming" is.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's about intrinsic value. Replayability. Sustainability.

Which is something some (most ?) value and probably are the advantages of long term play, but this in no way diminishes short term play which has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: WilI'm not seeing how any of this has to do with "short-term gaming" - specifically, because you have not defined what "short-term gaming" is.

Thats kind of fuzzy, I admit. Gaming with a defined endpoint? I tend to think of many of the campaigns I've played as sort of having an endpoint "yeah, once we reach 20th level.. or once we finish off this one bad guy.."

But those endpoints aren't really defined. Theyre sort of "we'll get there when we get there." endpoints.

So thats not exact, but it's close.  

I would include all convention gaming as short term by default. The only thing that seems to transcend gaming is.. (surprise) the living campaigns. Why? Because the living campaigns don't have that defined ending. I can take my character from con to con, and still build on him, until he hits some high level point, at which point he may (or may not) be retired.

So.. whats the most popular roleplaying event at conventions..?

No, not your favorite one. The one everyone else plays.

Come on, you already know the answer.

Quote from: David RWhich is something some (most ?) value and probably are the advantages of long term play, but this in no way diminishes short term play which has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Regards,
David R

People can like it and love it all they want.

However, it will never be very popular, no matter what.

The reason is value.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's not about me, David. Its not about you.

It's about intrinsic value. Replayability. Sustainability.

Replayability? To me that implies lots of shorter games rather than a single long one. Board games are excellent examples of this, and have enjoyed continued success in the face of wargames, rpg's, ccg's, video games and probably whatever will come next.

Sustainability on the other hand doesn't necessarily demand extended campaign play. I can (and have) easily run a number of shorter sequential games using the same ruleset and setting (WFRP), but with different characters in different geographical regions. I'd say the robustness of a game has far more to do with a solid systemic foundation married to a setting that offers variety of experience. I think it's one of the reasons why games like Exalted and Rifts or settings like Eberron have proved to be enduring. There's breadth and scope for play that has little to do with the open-ended campaign structure.

I love lengthy campaigns, but I relly can't see where you're deriving this quasi-objective "value" from.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThats kind of fuzzy, I admit. Gaming with a defined endpoint? I tend to think of many of the campaigns I've played as sort of having an endpoint "yeah, once we reach 20th level.. or once we finish off this one bad guy.."

That's so fuzzy as to be useless. You seem to equate "one shot games" and playing only every two weeks and social issues of players not showing up regularly all as "short term gaming". They're all separate issues.

For example, I can run a campaign with a definite ending. That campaign may last only three months, or it might last 10 years. Either way, nothing prevents the NPCs from reappearing in another campaign - even if the players have different characters! Nothing prevents the characters from advancing in some fashion or another in either game. On the flip side, nothing prevents the 10 year long campaign from having no recurring NPCs at all; or even from having a revolving door of PCs and plots with no continuity.

Now, if you argue that one shots (defined as, "We play the game once, usually in the span of one session") or pick up games (defined as, "A game that started with little or no preparation, as in 'Hay guys, let's try this game out tonight!') are different than longer campaigns I won't argue with that at all. Given that disruptions in my home life have pretty much shattered my Exalted game, and we were lucky to play once every three weeks or so before that, I have no doubts that unplanned for disruptions can ruin a game. I have, however, seen no real compelling argument that intentionally playing shorter games (either number of sessions, length of sessions, scope of the campaign or anything else) is going to be somehow less "valuable" than longer term games.

QuoteSo.. whats the most popular roleplaying event at conventions..?

No, not your favorite one. The one everyone else plays.

Come on, you already know the answer.

Actually I don't. I haven't been to a con in at least 15 years. I only have a vague idea of what Living whatever really is. I do know that when I ran events, the events that were intentionally serial in nature (session 2 picked up where session 1 left off and session 3 was the finale) did not see very many continuing players between sessions.

Quote from: DrewReplayability? To me that implies lots of shorter games rather than a single long one. Board games are excellent examples of this, and have enjoyed continued success in the face of wargames, rpg's, ccg's, video games and probably whatever will come next.

Sustainability on the other hand doesn't necessarily demand extended campaign play. I can (and have) easily run a number of shorter sequential games using the same ruleset and setting (WFRP), but with different characters in different geographical regions. I'd say the robustness of a game has far more to do with a solid systemic foundation married to a setting that offers variety of experience. I think it's one of the reasons why games like Exalted and Rifts or settings like Eberron have proved to be enduring. There's breadth and scope for play that has little to do with the open-ended campaign structure.

I love lengthy campaigns, but I relly can't see where you're deriving this quasi-objective "value" from.

When you compare your map to the coastline, does it match?

See, we all have this idea in our heads about how things are supposed to be.

And sometimes we look at what actually goes on, and it doesn't match up.

 The truth is- there are tons of great games out there.. and only one or two are really catching on. The quality of the game does not seem to matter beyond a certain point.

Why is that?

 One (easily) discernable difference between the one or two games that are winning is how these games are played.

Now every previous idea has been "what people really want are short term games and stories".
Thats the map, right?

So imagine us all aboard the good ship TheRPGsite, lost at sea. We're in the fog. We have this chart about how things shoulda oughta be.

And then we sail out of the fog and we can see the gamers on shore are all playing  D&D and World of Warcraft. Theyre not playing short stories or story-arcs or miniseries. Theyre kinda just going from encounter to encounter... playing week after week.

You look down at the chart.

It doesn't match.

Which is wrong? The coastline? Or the chart?

Quote from: WilActually I don't. I haven't been to a con in at least 15 years. I only have a vague idea of what Living whatever really is. I do know that when I ran events, the events that were intentionally serial in nature (session 2 picked up where session 1 left off and session 3 was the finale) did not see very many continuing players between sessions.

Of course not. They end on session 3. Why invest the effort? THIS IS WHAT I AM SAYING.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhen you compare your map to the coastline, does it match?

See, we all have this idea in our heads about how things are supposed to be.

And sometimes we look at what actually goes on, and it doesn't match up.

 The truth is- there are tons of great games out there.. and only one or two are really catching on.

Why is that?

 One (easily) discernable difference between the one or two games that are winning is how these games are played.

Now every previous idea has been "what people really want are short term games and stories".
Thats the map, right?

So imagine us all aboard the good ship TheRPGsite, lost at sea. We're in the fog. We have this chart about how things shoulda oughta be.

And then we sail out of the fog and we can see the gamers on shore are all playing  D&D and World of Warcraft. Theyre not playing short stories or story-arcs or miniseries. Theyre kinda just going from encounter to encounter... playing week after week.

You look down at the chart.

It doesn't match.

Which is wrong? The coastline? Or the chart?

The metaphor.

You see the odd thing is that when I go out for a punt in my little rpg raft the vast majority of games I see played in the Greater London area follow the short arc model. Groups switch from system to system with an unprecedented frequency-- this isn't the early 80's when choice was restricted to a handful of games after all. There's breadth, variety and a genuine excitement for trying the new.

So in my part of the world at least the coastline appears to match the chart.

Quote from: Abyssal MawOf course not. They end on session 3. Why invest the effort? THIS IS WHAT I AM SAYING.

That has nothing to do with it though...convention events are intended to be one shots, and more than likely there was another event that they wanted to go to - which could have been a seminar, another one shot event, or maybe just a hole in their schedule so they could get some rest. Hell, they might have had their own events to run at a conflicting time. Also take into consideration that some people might only be at the con for one or two days, or even for certain periods during each day, and the whole thing falls a part. A con is a poor, poor example of why short games are somehow inferior.

You'd have to come up with hard, objective evidence that games with definite endings are somehow inferior to convince me - because I've been running finite games since high school and have had no problem getting players to show up to the games or even to return for new games. Nobody's complained about not getting a chance to know their characters, or that the NPCs weren't consistent, or even that the campaign was too short. When the story's done, it's done. There's no point in dragging it out any further than it needs to - look at the Stargate SG1 television series. It probably could have ended years ago and no one would have really felt unsatisfied.

Quote from: DrewThe metaphor.

You see the odd thing is that when I go out for a punt in my little rpg raft the vast majority of games I see played in the Greater London area follow the short arc model. Groups switch from system to system with an unprecedented frequency-- this isn't the early 80's when choice was restricted to a handful of games after all. There's breadth, variety and genuine excitement for trying the new.

So in my part of the world at least the coastline appears to match the chart.

Fair enough..!

It may not be universally applicable. Who knows what happens in the Greater London area?  Not me. But I feel pretty sure, that despite what you see, theres still a very clear majority.


...


You know, in 1998, the biggest thing in roleplaying games was Deadlands. There was one year there where it was so popular, they released 52 supplements. One for each week of the year.

Who knows what's going to happen? Not me.

Quote from: WilThere's no point in dragging it out any further than it needs to - look at the Stargate SG1 television series. It probably could have ended years ago and no one would have really felt unsatisfied.

Or The X-Files, limping on and on year after year, disappearing further and further up it's own arse. It's a good analogy of how open-ended play can become sheer torture for everyone involved. Infinite doesn't equate with quality, or lack thereof. It's a format, nothing more, and as with all things is more reliant on the skill of those who craft it rather than any inherent values it may possess.

cf. Soap Opera.

Quote from: WilThat has nothing to do with it though...convention events are intended to be one shots, and more than likely there was another event that they wanted to go to - which could have been a seminar, another one shot event, or maybe just a hole in their schedule so they could get some rest. Hell, they might have had their own events to run at a conflicting time. Also take into consideration that some people might only be at the con for one or two days, or even for certain periods during each day, and the whole thing falls a part. A con is a poor, poor example of why short games are somehow inferior.

You'd have to come up with hard, objective evidence that games with definite endings are somehow inferior to convince me - because I've been running finite games since high school and have had no problem getting players to show up to the games or even to return for new games. Nobody's complained about not getting a chance to know their characters, or that the NPCs weren't consistent, or even that the campaign was too short. When the story's done, it's done. There's no point in dragging it out any further than it needs to - look at the Stargate SG1 television series. It probably could have ended years ago and no one would have really felt unsatisfied.

Well, here's how the Living Campaigns dominate the cons:

You show up at the convention with your character, right. Let's say it's a 1st level guy.  And you take that character to all of the events you want. Every event you play builds up your guy.

Ok, so after the convention, let's say you play 10 events. Well, you get around 450-650XP per event, so you probably levelled up. Maybe twice.

Then you go home.

Then you go to the next convention. And you bring that same guy. And he's like level 4 now.

So you play some more. and you level up some more...

And then you go home. And then you play in a sanctioned home game. Using the same guy. He's 5th level now. He's using a bunch of magic gear he picked up at the first and second conventions.

He's been at a table alongside a differnt player group each time. He's networking with other fans (not just players, but fans.) He's part of the campaign. He's saving his progress. He's building his character.

Tell me why this guy is going to cut out of a Living Greyhawk session to attend some other guys demo? If he likes D&D at all, he's not. There's just no way he's going to go try out some other game (which may or may not be good). Because theres no saved progress. he has nothing to show for it.

There's no value.

This is what designers need to account for if they want to build a community of players.

Sometimes I want a TV series with no end in sight, sometimes I want a novel, sometimes I want a series of thick novels that I could bludgeon an idiot with, and other times I just want a short story to read before dinner.  There are rainy haiku days and campfire nights and Homeric epics and Bibles.

And I don't have to choose just one.

What a wonderful world we live in.