Quote from: Abyssal MawThere's no value.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

You've essentially described a tabletop version of the MMORPG. I'd bet if I did some digging I'd find other incentives for players to stick with Living whatever games - such as prizes, magic items that may exist only in the approved adventures, etc. In fact, you've described a good reason for players not to stick through the entire event. They can cut out at any time, come back to a different event a few months later - possibly being run by different people - and just play for a couple hours. Beyond the individual character level and any tracking of previous events that may be incorporated in the new event there is no real continuity. It's a piss-poor example.

The value derived from play resides solely with the players, and no one else. Some people will derive less value from shorter campaigns with defined endpoints. Some people will derive less value from never ending campaigns. There's just no single universal constant or theory factor behind it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTell 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.

Whereas it would be foolish to deny that this phenomenon exists, it ignores the sizable segment of gamers- D&D fans and detractors alike -who are less into the "saved progress" of character empowerment and more into experiencing different genres, styles and systems. What those people have to "show for it" is enjoyment, plain and simple. It may not be identical to the fun derived from building the same character up over a period of months, but it's the still the same enjoyment of socialisation, creation and gamesmanship.

If I had a choice between trudging out my 10th level Fighter/Rogue for yet another dungeon slog and the opportunity to play a one-shot I'd heard good things about (say, The Mountain Witch for example) then I know which one I'd choose. Saved progress only has inherent value if the process that leads to it is enjoyable, and this is the subjective heart of the argument you seem to dressing up as some kind of objective truth. It really is a matter of preference, and no amount of statistical analysis will change that.

Quote from: DrewWhereas it would be foolish to deny that this phenomenon exists, it ignores the sizable segment of gamers- D&D fans and detractors alike -who are less into the "saved progress" of character empowerment and more into experiencing different genres, styles and systems.

It ignores them deliberately and gleefully! Those people do not matter.

Quote from: DrewWhat those people have to "show for it" is enjoyment, plain and simple. It may not be identical to the fun derived from building the same character up over a period of months, but it's the still the same enjoyment of socialisation, creation and gamesmanship.

Doesn't matter.

Quote from: DrewIf I had a choice between trudging out my 10th level Fighter/Rogue for yet another dungeon slog and the opportunity to play a one-shot I'd heard good things about (say, The Mountain Witch for example) then I know which one I'd choose. Saved progress only has inherent value if the process that leads to it is enjoyable, and this is the subjective heart of the argument you seem to dressing up as some kind of objective truth. It really is a matter of preference, and no amount of statistical analysis will change that.

Ah, the subtlety of loaded language. Is that how you win arguments? I'm telling you how it all fucking works, how they continue to win, and your'e still trying to defend your "tastes" as if your taste had anything to do with it.

(It's funny. The Mountain Witch is one of the games specifically named as being poorly designed by the forgies in this latest indignity. Although I have no doubt you've heard "good things about it". Thats all we hear, right?

Of course the trick is.. ...all those good things you heard were all total bullshit. But hey, you can thank the marketers.)

Quote from: WilI don't think that word means what you think it means.

You've essentially described a tabletop version of the MMORPG..

I'm describing the Living Greyhawk campaign that has utterly dominated every campaign it has been featured at in the last three years.

I didn't make this happen. I'm just offering an explanation.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm describing the Living Greyhawk campaign that has utterly dominated every campaign it has been featured at in the last three years.

I didn't make this happen. I'm just offering an explanation.

You've explained why a specialized form of play is dominating a specialized venue, trying to prop up an argument that games with finite lifespans are somehow inferior.  There are so many problems with your supporting points:

• The reasoning why Living Greyhawk allegedly dominates conventions has shit all to do with "short term gaming" lacking "value".
• Living Greyhawk looks to me to be the pinnacle of the "short term gaming" that you're saying sucks so bad.
• Conventions are so far out of mainstream gaming circles (the bulk of which don't even read forums like these, much less network with other gaming groups via conventions) that the scope of Living Greyhawk's success can only be judged inside the conventions.
• The fact that they get it to work repeatedly only speaks to similarities between convention goers, and not how a never ending campaign is somehow better.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that the experience between a finite roleplaying game and an infinite one isn't different. Your argument for how they are different, and why, is however fundamentally flawed.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt ignores them deliberately and gleefully! Those people do not matter.

Strange that you're trying to establish an objective scale of value whilst simulteaneously and deliberatley ignoring a significant aspect of many peoples gaming experience.

QuoteDoesn't matter.

See above.

QuoteAh, the subtlety of loaded language. Is that how you win arguments?

I'm not here to "win arguments." I've nothing like that kind of personal investment in this topic. This is simple disagreement, no one is keeping score, or at least I hope to God they aren't. I used loaded language to underscore how the things that you assert are responsible for D&D's enduring popularity could have very little appeal to some, or even many.  

QuoteI'm telling you how it all fucking works, how they continue to win, and your'e still trying to defend your "tastes" as if your taste had anything to do with it.

I enjoy lengthy campaigns. I enjoy D&D (or at least certain variations of it). My taste has fuck all to do with it. Taste and preference in general, however, does. Whilst I can't deny that your summation of certain styles of play is valid, where I find myself veering off is your continued assertion that this somehow translates into net value. The old popularity = quality argument died years ago, didn't it?

Quote(It's funny. The Mountain Witch is one of the games specifically named as being poorly designed by the forgies in this latest indignity. Although I have no doubt you've heard "good things about it". Thats all we hear, right?

I've no idea what the Forge thinks as I don't visit the site. Likewise I've no idea if The Mountain Witch is a shining gem of game design or an overrated turd. All I can say is that it's got a good a rep amongst people whom I've gamed enjoyably with before, and if the opportunity presented itself to play it at the expense of a session or two of a open-ended campaign then I'd jump at the chance. I'm not into gaming just to level up, and neither I suspect are a great many others.

QuoteOf course the trick is.. ...all those good things you heard were all total bullshit. But hey, you can thank the marketers.)

Word of mouth, mate. Word of mouth. From people who's taste has intersected with mine on a number of other things.

Quote from: WilYou've explained why a specialized form of play is dominating a specialized venue, trying to prop up an argument that games with finite lifespans are somehow inferior.

No, not a specialized venue. All available venues. Anywhere it is allowed in, pretty much. Like if you had an "indie con", it wouldn't dominate there. Nor would it dominate at a model train convention or a dog-show. For the exact same reasons, really. You won't find any gamers at any of those.

QuoteThere are so many problems with your supporting points:

• The reasoning why Living Greyhawk allegedly dominates conventions has shit all to do with "short term gaming" lacking "value".
• Living Greyhawk looks to me to be the pinnacle of the "short term gaming" that you're saying sucks so bad.
• Conventions are so far out of mainstream gaming circles (the bulk of which don't even read forums like these, much less network with other gaming groups via conventions) that the scope of Living Greyhawk's success can only be judged inside the conventions.
• The fact that they get it to work repeatedly only speaks to similarities between convention goers, and not how a never ending campaign is somehow better.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that the experience between a finite roleplaying game and an infinite one is different. Your argument for how they are different, and why, is however fundamentally flawed.

1) wrong. I thought I explained this. They're picking that because they know that their progress and effort is 'saved'. LG is not the same thing as a real long term campaign, obviously. But it is a unique and clever way to attach the long term structure onto a convention game format. And it looks like it worked.

2) Your'e just confused, surely. I've explained this like 4 times now. And I'm not talking about anything "sucking". I'm talking about a lack of value.

3)  But Living Greyhawk isn't only playable at conventions. See? Brilliant. You can play with your group at home, and then take your same character with you to the con and keep levelling him up. Someone had to have planned this. Someone smart. If there's an evil marketing conspiracy? It's this. This is how they win. And really, with people in the middle-tier so hidebound and unable to see how it works, how can they possibly lose?

4) The fact that they get it to work repeatedly takes us from hypothesis to thesis. It's the fucking proof in the pudding.

Quote from: DrewI enjoy lengthy campaigns. I enjoy D&D (or at least certain variations of it). My taste has fuck all to do with it. Taste and preference in general, however, does. Whilst I can't deny that your summation of certain styles of play is valid, where I find myself veering off is your continued assertion that this somehow translates into net value. The old popularity = quality argument died years ago, didn't it?

Nope. Popularity may not equal quality, but you can not even hope to achieve popularity without having quality. As far as I can see it-- there are plenty, plenty of playable, high quality games out there. But only a couple of them always win out. WHY?

Quote from: DrewI've no idea what the Forge thinks as I don't visit the site. Likewise I've no idea if The Mountain Witch is a shining gem of game design or an overrated turd.

(psst! MAGIC 8 BALL SAYS PICK NUMBER 2)

QuoteAll I can say is that it's got a good a rep amongst people whom I've gamed enjoyably with before, and if the opportunity presented itself to play it at the expense of a session or two of a open-ended campaign then I'd jump at the chance. I'm not into gaming just to level up, and neither I suspect are a great many others.

Ah. I see. A "rep".

Quote from: Abyssal MawNope. Popularity may not equal quality, but you can not even hope to achieve popularity without having quality. As far as I can see it-- there are plenty, plenty of playable, high quality games out there. But only a couple of them always win out. WHY?

To be honest I don't think anyone has satisfactorily answered that question yet. My gut feeling would be capitalising on initial zeitgeist-grabbing success with canny marketing, backed with the aforementioned robust system and setting variation. After a while momentum and ubiquity take over, at which point you have the juggernaut that is D&D. But I think you'll agree we're both ignorant on the real whys and wherefores, otherwise we'd be sitting on piles of cash, laughing as our cynically pitched homebrew systems crushed all opposition underfoot.

 

QuoteAh. I see. A "rep".

As in reputation. As in word of mouth. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Quote from: Abyssal MawNope. Popularity may not equal quality, but you can not even hope to achieve popularity without having quality. As far as I can see it-- there are plenty, plenty of playable, high quality games out there. But only a couple of them always win out. WHY?

I think you're some kind of fucking moron if you imagine the unique thing about D&D compared to the vast number of other RPGs is that it has long-term campaign play.  

95% of all published RPGs assume campaign play as the default model.  That's been true since D&D was released in the seventies.  Games built around short-term play (like Paranoia or Toon) are the rare exceptions.  So obviously, the reasons why D&D dominates the market have nothing to do with the long-term play.  

Yes, D&D is the most popular game on the market.  However, this doesn't mean that you can then generalize any given property of D&D and claim that it is intrinsically more valuable ("Polyhedral dice-using games are better than single-die games or diceless games" or even "Games with orcs are better than games without orcs!").

Quote from: DrewTo be honest I don't think anyone has satisfactorily answered that question yet. My gut feeling would be capitalising on initial zeitgeist-grabbing success with canny marketing, backed with the aforementioned robust system and setting variation. After a while momentum and ubiquity take over, at which point you have the juggernaut that is D&D.

Wrong.

QuoteBut I think you'll agree we're both ignorant on the real whys and wherefores, otherwise we'd be sitting on piles of cash, laughing as our cynically pitched homebrew systems crushed all opposition underfoot.

Also wrong. I don't agree at all. I think I'm right. And I'm not a game designer who is at all interested in developing a rules system for anyone. I'm a player, GM, and fan, and that keeps me 100% engaged.

But for those of you who might be listening in that do design games: I say this:

1) Develop a way for your game to default to long form, open ended  campaigns. Make games that GM's love to GM for, and players love to play.
 
2) Set up a method by which every game played at a convention can be tracked and credited to a person's persistent character if he or she chooses. That way you at least have a chance of getting the guy who shows up at your demo at convention #1 to show up again at convention #2 and pick some more ..XP or hero points or attribute points or whatever it is your system uses.

3) If possible, design this into your game from the ground up. You want to win? Here's your chance.

QuoteAs in reputation. As in word of mouth. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Because your'e frontin', not reppin!

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut for those of you who might be listening in that do design games: I say this:

1) Develop a way for your game to default to long form, open ended  campaigns. Make games that GM's love to GM for, and players love to play.
 
2) Set up a method by which every game played at a convention can be tracked and credited to a person's persistent character if he or she chooses. That way you at least have a chance of getting the guy who shows up at your demo at convention #1 to show up again at convention #2 and pick some more ..XP or hero points or attribute points or whatever it is your system uses.

3) If possible, design this into your game from the ground up. You want to win? Here's your chance.

Even if I accept that the reason for D&D's dominance is the long-term campaign, this is stupid.  

If you have any brains as a game designer, do not design your game by trying to make it exactly what most current RPG players want.  If you do  this, you will end up making a D&D clone and no one will buy it.  

If you design a new game, look for a new niche that is different from the current edition of D&D.  You're not going to replace D&D within the marketplace, so find something else to distinguish your game.  This may be either long-term or short-term.  

In case it isn't blindingly obvious, this is not an attack on D&D.  D&D is great.  But not every game has to be the same as it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWrong.

Nice rebuttal. If that's the level of discourse I can expect from hereon then it's really not worth my time.

QuoteAlso wrong. I don't agree at all. I think I'm right. And I'm not a game designer who is at all interested in developing a rules system for anyone. I'm a player, GM, and fan, and that keeps me 100% engaged.

Good for you.

QuoteBut for those of you who might be listening in that do design games: I say this:

1) Develop a way for your game to default to long form, open ended  campaigns. Make games that GM's love to GM for, and players love to play.

Most rpg's do this, and have been doing so since the 70's. It's pretty generic.

 

Quote2) Set up a method by which every game played at a convention can be tracked and credited to a person's persistent character if he or she chooses. That way you at least have a chance of getting the guy who shows up at your demo at convention #1 to show up again at convention #2 and pick some more ..XP or hero points or attribute points or whatever it is your system uses.

I can't deny that there's an excellent incentive for convention-goers here, but I don't think it really addresses the vast majority of gamers who never attend. The only alternative I can think of would be an attempt to co-op non-attendee GM's and players into the system, and there's no way I can see that happening. For a subsection of a niche it may work fine, but rpg's engage with a kind of non-passive creativity and expression that marks them as fundamentally different from MMORPG's and their ilk. Try sitting down at a table and telling a 'private' group to accept the Joe Living Greyhawk's character as part of their own campaign. You'll be picking d4's out of your skin for weeks.

Quote3) If possible, design this into your game from the ground up.

Sensible advice for any creative endeavour-- address your aims in the early design phase.

QuoteBecause your'e frontin', not reppin!

I've no idea what that means.

Quote from: jhkimI think you're some kind of fucking moron if you imagine the unique thing about D&D compared to the vast number of other RPGs is that it has long-term campaign play.  

95% of all published RPGs assume campaign play as the default model.  That's been true since D&D was released in the seventies.  Games built around short-term play (like Paranoia or Toon) are the rare exceptions.  So obviously, the reasons why D&D dominates the market have nothing to do with the long-term play.  

Yes, D&D is the most popular game on the market.  However, this doesn't mean that you can then generalize any given property of D&D and claim that it is intrinsically more valuable ("Polyhedral dice-using games are better than single-die games or diceless games" or even "Games with orcs are better than games without orcs!").

Describe to me what a campaign is in any other game system, John. "Assuming" that mode as a default doesn't do anything for us. The entire culture of the mid tier is centered around episodic short-term gaming.

You yourself have described your gaming on a number of occaisions as "mostly adventures and scenarios".. I think your'e way of doing things is fairly typical of the way that most non D&D players do things now, really. And in that, I see it as responsible for it's own diminishing appeal.

But the point is.. thats not a campaign.

Quote from: jhkimEven if I accept that the reason for D&D's dominance is the long-term campaign, this is stupid.  

If you have any brains as a game designer, do not design your game by trying to make it exactly what most current RPG players want.  If you do  this, you will end up making a D&D clone and no one will buy it.

Thats the common wisdom, right? Do the opposite of D&D at all costs! And then wonder why nobody wants to play it.

No. The answer is much simpler. It isn't to 'clone" D&D. It's to do what D&D does, but better.
 

QuoteIf you design a new game, look for a new niche that is different from the current edition of D&D.  

You know what a niche is? It's like a little place where a small creature crawls in to die. Hey, anyone played Spione lately?

QuoteYou're not going to replace D&D within the marketplace, so find something else to distinguish your game.  This may be either long-term or short-term.

Er.. I'm giving you the Exalted game-plan here.  Exalted has it's own problems, obviously, but I think they got it philosophically right.
And keep in mind that you aren't trying to be the same. The goal is trying to address the same people, and provide what they value.. and do it better.

QuoteIn case it isn't blindingly obvious, this is not an attack on D&D.  D&D is great.  But not every game has to be the same as it.

I didn't take it as an attack. I consider you an expert on most gaming, John. Possibly the greatest expert.  But on this your'e wrong. Plus, you don't seem to understand D&D at all.  You don't know why people play it. You don't understand it's fans. We're aliens to you.

Heck, if you don't like the words D&D, just say "World of Warcraft". Same thing.