TheRPGSite

Campaigns - specifically the long term style- are intrinsically more valuable to players than short-term gaming.

There are a variety of reasons why I believe this is true:

1) All effort put into a campaign style roleplaying session is "saved". This is true of both players and GMs. If players run across an NPC in adventure session #1, and they decide they want to talk to him again in session #43, they can do that. Even if they never decide to go back, simply knowing that person exists adds value. Likewise every location visited, every single plot that takesp lace.. is saved.

2) In short term games, nothing is ever saved. You have to resestablish continuity with each game session. An unkind way of saying this is that extra effort is wasted. NPCs and plot elements become essentially disposable. Disposability leads to flimsy stories.

3) Characters in campaigns build over time. Even if you aren't using a system that allows for the characters to physically build themselves up with abilities and gear- your'e still building the character constantly. Every bit of history, every NPC they encounter.. is a form of building.
With a short term game, everything becomes disposable. See above what happens when it doesn't matter what happens.

4)  When it comes to actually getting people to show up, the system doesn't actually matter as much as the campaign itself. People don't get together to play Hoyle-rules Poker, they get together to play cards with their friends. Likewise, people don't show up at my house to play "D&D", we get together to play our own characters in our shared campaign. The story of the campaign belongs to all of us.

"Roleplaying" in the general sense is just play-acting, especially if you don't own your character, or you are just using a disposable character for one night. But playing your own character on a regular basis over time advances an idea of ownership and building.

Eric Wujcik wrote a wonderful essay on this, entitled "Love your Character" (or something similar to that).

I've got some more reasons for this.

I consider 4-8 session games (3-5 hour play-periods) to be "short games." Especially if there's only one real "adventure" involved. However, that's still 12-40 hours of play (around a full season of a TV show--maybe two) and I'm not sure how that factors into your analysis: are those "short games"? They're not "campaigns" (with multiple adventures)--but characters do develop (possibly going through a "complete arc") and information does get "saved" from session to session.

I've played 3 to 4-day game sessions where the GM was in town Thursday night and we played literally from then straight through Sunday night with about 6 hr sleep breaks (hey, we're all old and broken down)--those have been some of my most intense roleplaying experiences ever--and they produce darn good "stories" in my experience (and I mean this in terms of a very tight sequence of events with a lot of focus on some specific crisis and its resolution).

However, that's still a good 30 hours of play or something. I mean--that's not exactly "short."

So are you making a distinction between games that more or less comprise a more or less unified "goal" (i.e. the way most movies do--the characters address and resolve a single problem) vs. games that present multiple "main" arcs? Or are you talking about years-long games vs. weeks-long? Or single session vs. multiple session (which I would agree with--single session seems very, very short to me).

-Marco

Ab, I largely agree, so how about some tips for making it happen for those of us who've forgotten how to?

Balbinus: My first suggestion is "three-hour sessions, arranged weekly, same time, same place".

Weekly is important. Anything longer than that and you will lose continuity. I got this idea from watching one of the "sister" campaigns to mine- a player in my weekly group is also running a biweekly rotating game between Champions and Star Wars, and there was reported difficulty keeping up with continuity in both games as a result.

Well, actually I have a bunch of suggestions. Some of which are fairly D&D specific (Allow for levelling to occur whenever and wherever it happens, even if the characters are in the middle of an adventure) but many can be ported over to any game system ("dole out XP at the end of every session-- even if theyre in the middle of an adventure"). This keeps people invested and they keep coming back because they are invested in the building process.

One of my other suggestions is to be permissive whenever possible. I see people talking about how they hate supplements and theyre going to "limit their players" all the time (whether it's from using certain powers, or taking whatever prestige classes, or whatever else). I saw a guy saying he would NEVER allow a player to multiclass into the barbarian class, because it 'didn't make sense".

 Don't do that, unless you absolutly have to. If it's an advanatge-taker than obviously you have to moderate, but in general, if it doesn't hurt, just allow it. Let the players own the characters.

I'll put together something about it. I have no idea how useful it will be, but it's served me well.

Marcus: I suspect we're still talking about the same the campaign model, even if yours is arranged different. Yours is short sessions, compressed over a short period of time. Mine is short sessions, longer period of time. My sessions are more like 3 hours long (seriously- 7:30-10:30 PM on Thursday nights).

By the time we get to 24 hours of gameplay, it might be a "long weekend" for you, but for us it would be playing for 8 weeks. Whether I'm a GM or a player-- I like to come up with new ideas between each sessions, so I like my structure better.  I would have 8 opportunities for the story (or my character) to make a significant change, rather than just 3-4 times, condensed.  

By the way, if anyone has ever wondered why convention games normally aren't that great, and yet Living Greyhawk seems to rule any convention it appears at, it's this right here. People feel like they can build up their LG characters, even if the DM for any given session is flat out bad. There's always the next session, and nothing you achieve with your LG character is ever lost.

How do you think character progression affects your observation?  That is, do systems in which characters don't increase in power over time mechanically require campaigning to be successful?  Are they incapable of driving campaigning?  Or is progression irrelevant?

QuoteHow do you think character progression affects your observation? That is, do systems in which characters don't increase in power over time mechanically require campaigning to be successful? Are they incapable of driving campaigning? Or is progression irrelevant?

I think progression is an important feature for what I'm suggesting. Lacking that feature might be more realistic or more aesthetically pleasing for a lot of gamers (A lot of people hate levelling systems). However, levelling keeps people involved.

Don't just look at D&D as evidence. Look at every popular MMORPG ever created: City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars...

These games are created with replayability and player-investment in mind. Having levels is a concrete way of realizing progress.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDon't just look at D&D as evidence. Look at every popular MMORPG ever created: City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars...

These games are created with replayability and player-investment in mind. Having levels is a concrete way of realizing progress.

I tend to see MMORPGS as the ultimate refinement of the progression system.  When you distill out the idea that reward is best expressed by progression then you can simplify every other aspect of the game to the extent that a computer can GM it.  In other words, I don't see the fact that progression is well adopted by video games as evidence that it's a good idea for face to face games at all.  If anything it seems to dominate and maybe trivialise other more valuable aspects of role-playing games.

Look again at the video games: people are prepared to fight the same world-threatening big bad guy several times a week, defeating him and taking his stuff, over and over and over again without once having their suspension of disbelief remotely threatened in order to achieve progression.  Is that really a direction we want to head in?

I've got a different take. I'll just riff off the points you made with some observations of my own.

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

There are a variety of reasons why I believe this is true:

1) All effort put into a campaign style roleplaying session is "saved". This is true of both players and GMs. If players run across an NPC in adventure session #1, and they decide they want to talk to him again in session #43, they can do that. Even if they never decide to go back, simply knowing that person exists adds value. Likewise every location visited, every single plot that takesp lace.. is saved.

This may be an advantage to long term campaigns but it really is not valuable in and of itself. A fully realized and engaging NPC whether in a short or long term campaign is what makes the "adventure" valuable to players, IME, locations etc although memorable are secondary to the events that players find themselves part of. Again it really does not matter if it's a long or short term game.

Quote2) In short term games, nothing is ever saved. You have to resestablish continuity with each game session. An unkind way of saying this is that extra effort is wasted. NPCs and plot elements become essentially disposable. Disposability leads to flimsy stories.

IMO players who are not invested in the game/characters leads to filmsy stories. Granted what's filmsy depends on taste, but I don't think the duration of a campaign directly contributes to filmsy stories...what contributes to it is player/GM apathy.

Quote3) Characters in campaigns build over time. Even if you aren't using a system that allows for the characters to physically build themselves up with abilities and gear- your'e still building the character constantly. Every bit of history, every NPC they encounter.. is a form of building.

Well here I think that players need a couple of sessions to "get" into character. I don't think that it's necessary for characters to development over time.

What I do think is needed is that the campaign has a beginning and end. The character starts out one way and may change by the end of the campaign.

QuoteWith a short term game, everything becomes disposable. See above what happens when it doesn't matter what happens.

As long as players "care" about what's going on , nothing is ever disposable. it's the "quality" of the play experience not how long you are playing

Quote4)  When it comes to actually getting people to show up, the system doesn't actually matter as much as the campaign itself. People don't get together to play Hoyle-rules Poker, they get together to play cards with their friends. Likewise, people don't show up at my house to play "D&D", we get together to play our own characters in our shared campaign. The story of the campaign belongs to all of us.

*shrug* I remember having this discusiioon with you before. My views have not really changed :D

Quote"Roleplaying" in the general sense is just play-acting, especially if you don't own your character, or you are just using a disposable character for one night. But playing your own character on a regular basis over time advances an idea of ownership and building.

Again my experience is different. My approach to roleplaying is that it happens when players are confronted with conflicts and they react in a way they think their characters would do. So it really does not matter if it's short or long term.

Long term campaigns have the advanatge of creating interesting arcs for their charcters or it could be that the players lose interest in their characters...it just so depends.

Regards,
David R

I don't have the time or energy for weekly play.  I find running every other week to be quite adequate, as long as the sessions themselves are fairly episodic in format.

I agree with David R (surprise).

Both long term and short term games have a variety of advantages and disadvantages.  Two things make me gravitate more towards short term games.

1. People are always getting new jobs, moving, having kids, and otherwise undergoing change such that it's tough to keep a group of five or so people together through a lengthy campaign.  Shorter games eliminate this problem.

2. Shorter games mean I get to play a greater variety of games.  This is very valuable to me and I love learning a new game and sharing it with my friends.

Quote from: jrientsI don't have the time or energy for weekly play.  I find running every other week to be quite adequate, as long as the sessions themselves are fairly episodic in format.

I'm not sure I would have the time for weekly play also...Jeff, since you play biweekly?, how long do you play for?

A question to genpop (watching too much Prison Break):

Is  one 3 hour session/week = one 6hr bi-weekly session?

Quote from: HalfjackI tend to see MMORPGS as the ultimate refinement of the progression system.  When you distill out the idea that reward is best expressed by progression then you can simplify every other aspect of the game to the extent that a computer can GM it.  In other words, I don't see the fact that progression is well adopted by video games as evidence that it's a good idea for face to face games at all.  If anything it seems to dominate and maybe trivialise other more valuable aspects of role-playing games.

Look again at the video games: people are prepared to fight the same world-threatening big bad guy several times a week, defeating him and taking his stuff, over and over and over again without once having their suspension of disbelief remotely threatened in order to achieve progression.  Is that really a direction we want to head in?

I say this doesn't apply -- thats another topic entirely, and in any case, isn't true. From my experience with many MMOrpgs, there isn't a lot of quest-replay. (You can do a quest once usually). Even in more competitive systems such as Guild Wars, you only get credit for something once. You can re-run a quest for loot, (or more likely, to help your friends or guildmates).. but thats it.

The fact that quests and missions in an MMO are static is one of the downfalls of MMOs, and should be treated as an opportunity. It's a huge advantage for tabletop gaming.

I've got my long-term games, which I love (and I try to schedule weekly for continuity and involvement), and I quite prefer long-term campaigns in which to develop storylines with my players.  
 
That said, I do have favorite games for one-shots.  Risus Traveller (hell, Risus anything), Paranoia, Squirrel Attack!, and FATE all work pretty well for me to do one-shots and beer n' pretzels-style games.  Engle Matrix games by Hamster Press are a good quick "pre-game" game, and are plugged as such (I really need to finish those reviews I'm working on, btw).  They're a fun mix between an RPG and a murder mystery game, is how I'd put it.

Quote from: David RThis may be an advantage to long term campaigns but it really is not valuable in and of itself. A fully realized and engaging NPC whether in a short or long term campaign is what makes the "adventure" valuable to players, IME, locations etc although memorable are secondary to the events that players find themselves part of. Again it really does not matter if it's a long or short term game.

WRONG! Players are not playing to witness anyones portrayal of "fully realized and engaging NPCs." The value is in having met that NPC person at all. Whether the guy is fully realized or engaging or just bland doesn't make much of a difference-- gaming is not fine wine. Players need to know NPCs as resources first.

QuoteIMO players who are not invested in the game/characters leads to filmsy stories. Granted what's filmsy depends on taste, but I don't think the duration of a campaign directly contributes to filmsy stories...what contributes to it is player/GM apathy.

Ok, I don't normally correct spelling, but in this case, I feel I should because we may be talking about two different things. "Flimsy" not "filmsy". Flimsy as in "disposable". Not "filmsy" as in.. "like a .. film?" Hopefully we were actually talking about the same thing.

In any case... I'm not talking about duration of a campaign in the past tense here. I'm talking about duration in the present tense. If you know a campaign will still be going on every week for the next year, players will have their characters act differently than if they know it's over with at the end of the evening. The difference is investment.

And the whole thing about apathy is the reason for this exact post.

 I have never had my campaign suffer from player apathy. I am not unique, either. Most long-term campaign GMs are like me. Our campaigns run for months and years. Our players show up on time or early, character sheets in hand. When we start a new campaign, we often have to turn away people.  There's a lady near me who had a several-years-long Fudge Deryni campaign that was so overcrowded, you could only join it if you played an existing NPC.

I dunno whether my group is unusual in this regard, but we (almost without exception) play long campaigns and limit one shots to our annual 48 hour rpg extravaganza. We have fun bar-room brawls, one shot adventures and try out new systems then. If we like a system, then we may start a campaign further down the line with it, time willing.

Thing is, we don't take one shots seriously. If it's a one shot (or rarely 2 or 3 sessions), we know our actions will have limited repercussions - short term ones. If it's a one shot, we don't play like we would in a longer campaign, knowing that it's 'superficial'. I use that word reluctantly, because i don't want to piss off people who like short campaigns or one shots - so, a qualifier there is that we see it as superficial. What if Smallville had been 3 episodes long? Heroes? Dr.Who? You could have a satisfying story told, but characterisation and the reasons for that characterisation would be more superficial than those running through, for example, a 22 (or 13) episode run.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWRONG! Players are not playing to witness anyones portrayal of "fully realized and engaging NPCs." The value is in having met that NPC person at all. Whether the guy is fully realized or engaging or just bland doesn't make much of a difference-- gaming is not fine wine. Players need to know NPCs as resources first.

I don't think so AM. "Engaging NPCs" and "NPCs as resources" are not mutually exclusive. In your own actual play thread you wrote about an encounter between a lich who was a prisoner and a showdown with a fallen angel - npcs who I assume your players found engaging and were also resources. The fact is part of what makes a memorable campaign or setting, are the npcs players encounter. The evil villain, the priest who helps the party at great personal cost...the list is endless.  

QuoteOk, I don't normally correct spelling, but in this case, I feel I should because we may be talking about two different things. "Flimsy" not "filmsy". Flimsy as in "disposable". Not "filmsy" as in.. "like a .. film?" Hopefully we were actually talking about the same thing

.

We are talking about the same thing. It was a spelling mistake on my part.

QuoteIn any case... I'm not talking about duration of a campaign in the past tense here. I'm talking about duration in the present tense. If you know a campaign will still be going on every week for the next year, players will have their characters act differently than if they know it's over with at the end of the evening. The difference is investment

I suppose this is your experience. My players act the way how they think their charcters would act...or react as is the case.  

QuoteAnd the whole thing about apathy is the reason for this exact post.

I don't know...you seem to think that short term play means apathy, it doesn't.
 

QuoteI have never had my campaign suffer from player apathy. I am not unique, either. Most long-term campaign GMs are like me. Our campaigns run for months and years. Our players show up on time or early, character sheets in hand. When we start a new campaign, we often have to turn away people.  There's a lady near me who had a several-years-long Fudge Deryni campaign that was so overcrowded, you could only join it if you played an existing NPC.

So you like long term campaigns. There are advantages to long term play just as there are advantages to short term play. I don't think apathy is one of them. If you are making disposable stories, charcaters etc you are doing something wrong, because to me disposable means the experience was disposable and believe me, long term campaigns can be disposable. Like I said earlier, the experience not the possible duration is what is valuable to players, or at least to my players.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: rcsampleI'm not sure I would have the time for weekly play also...Jeff, since you play biweekly?, how long do you play for?

Two and half to three hours or so.  It depends on when everyone shows up, but I make it a point to end at 10pm.  I run in the middle of the week and my group all have dayjobs, except for the guy on the night shift who gets Wednesday's off.

For my latest campaign I have taken to sending out a group email on the Wednesdays we don't meet.  The contents of the emails have varied widely so far, but the basic point is to keep the campaign and its ongoing issues fresh in the minds of the players.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBalbinus: My first suggestion is "three-hour sessions, arranged weekly, same time, same place".

Weekly is important. Anything longer than that and you will lose continuity.

I totally agree, and I regret it's no longer possible for me to do that. I'm reduced to monthly.

Re. campaign structure, I'd go even further and say that the ideal campaign is open-ended. No "story arc," where that term means pre-planned beginning, middle and end. An open-ended model can also accommodate changes in group personnel more easily. If one player drops out, fine, replace him--his PC wasn't the keystone to anything to begin with. The road goes ever on.

jrients= AHAH!, I just take that as more evidence that 1 week is the sweet spot for continuity. :)

DavidR= I never said "mutually exclusive". I said "as resources first." The engaging stuff is important, but it should be a secondary concern. NPCs are only important in so much as they directly relate to the players at the table. You can have a completely bland NPC that sells swords or tends the Inn, and as long as the PCs are interested in buying swords or getting clues at the Inn-- theyre going to keep going back to that guy again and again. That NPC will naturally develop and become engaging and interesting. But you don't need to run the guys astrological chart and choose his favorite color before play begins.

Maybe thats a good point for another post.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI totally agree, and I regret it's no longer possible for me to do that. I'm reduced to monthly.

Re. campaign structure, I'd go even further and say that the ideal campaign is open-ended. No "story arc," where that term means pre-planned beginning, middle and end. An open-ended model can also accommodate changes in group personnel more easily. If one player drops out, fine, replace him--his PC wasn't the keystone to anything to begin with. The road goes ever on.

Pierce: ABSOLUTELY open ended. I didn't know there was any other way to do it, really.

Quote from: Abyssal Mawjrients= AHAH!, I just take that as more evidence that 1 week is the sweet spot for continuity. :)

For continuity, yes.  For the mental health and marital peace of this DM, no.

Quote from: Abyssal MawEric Wujcik wrote a wonderful essay on this, entitled "Love your Character" (or something similar to that).

Hey, I wonder if you could dig that up. I've been thinking about writing an argument for the opposite, "Hate your character". Seriously.

Anyway, I broadly appreciate the points in favor of long-term play but I'm not ready to dismiss short-term either.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDavidR= I never said "mutually exclusive". I said "as resources first." The engaging stuff is important, but it should be a secondary concern. NPCs are only important in so much as they directly relate to the players at the table. You can have a completely bland NPC that sells swords or tends the Inn, and as long as the PCs are interested in buying swords or getting clues at the Inn-- theyre going to keep going back to that guy again and again. That NPC will naturally develop and become engaging and interesting. But you don't need to run the guys astrological chart and choose his favorite color before play begins.

Of course but this is not dependent on long term or short term play. As a GM you put in as much detail into the NPC in question depending on his/her role in the campaign. Some are more detailed than others, right?

QuoteMaybe thats a good point for another post.

Another rpg thread is always a good thing.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Abyssal MawPierce: ABSOLUTELY open ended. I didn't know there was any other way to do it, really.

Oh but there is, there is. Even Pundy does the story arc thing, IIRC.

An extreme case: Our 2300AD game, in which I'm a player not the GM, is scheduled to last three sessions, period. It's very interesting to me because for 25 years I used to be the open-ended type.

I'd call it the Mountain Witch paradigm. Everyone knows exactly how long the game will last, and that transforms the play experience. Pacing becomes self-conscious and highly structured as opposed to free-wheeling. You wouldn't *dream* of wandering off the map. Not because it's verboten but because it's inappropriate.

It's not railroading, strictly speaking. Railroading happens when there's a vast countryside left and right which you somehow can't reach because the GM doesn't permit it. But here, as in the Mountain Witch, the rail is all there is.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHey, I wonder if you could dig that up. I've been thinking about writing an argument for the opposite, "Hate your character". Seriously.

Anyway, I broadly appreciate the points in favor of long-term play but I'm not ready to dismiss short-term either.

I seem to recall it being in the Amber book. But hey, we have Eric Wujcik right here at ye olde RPGsite. Maybe he'll repost it.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonBoth long term and short term games have a variety of advantages and disadvantages.  Two things make me gravitate more towards short term games.

1. People are always getting new jobs, moving, having kids, and otherwise undergoing change such that it's tough to keep a group of five or so people together through a lengthy campaign.  Shorter games eliminate this problem.

2. Shorter games mean I get to play a greater variety of games.  This is very valuable to me and I love learning a new game and sharing it with my friends.

I'd agree with these.  I tend to play bi-weekly games with roughly 5-hour sessions, but we pretty commonly have periods when we do one-shots or short adventures.  I'd add two more for me:

3.  There is more room for a wider variety of characters since you don't have to assemble a group of PCs who will work together for years and years.  They don't have to be a "party".  So you can have a mystery scenario where one of the PCs is the murderer and one of the PCs is the victim's widow, for example.  One of my Buffy con scenarios had a Slayer split into two halves of her personality -- it wouldn't work as an ongoing episode because one player would clearly be the real half -- but as a con scenario it worked great.  

4. One-shots are good for meeting new people, rather than having the same faces all the time.  It can be really difficult to bring new people into an established campaign.  I've met a lot of new gamers through various one-shot games in my area, including some who joined my local group.  

I would agree that the characters and settings and plot are not as deeply developed as in a campaign game.  However, deeply-developed stuff isn't the sole criteria of role-playing.

Quote from: jhkimI would agree that the characters and settings and plot are not as deeply developed as in a campaign game.  However, deeply-developed stuff isn't the sole criteria of role-playing.

Like I said, roleplaying isn't fine wine. But i do think that the viability of roleplaying as a hobby is directly tied to regular play.

People (here and elsewhere) constantly seem to struggle against the question why D&D rules in an unchallenged way. They chalk it up to evil marketing theories and conspiracies.
 
You can argue against this long form campaign idea if you like, or argue for your favored form if you like...

but I'm suggesting this right here is one of the reasons D&D dominates as it does.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI seem to recall it being in the Amber book. But hey, we have Eric Wujcik right here at ye olde RPGsite. Maybe he'll repost it.

Thanks, I have Amber, but haven't looked at it closely yet. I'll look for it there.

My schedule says to me, it says, "You can game riiiiiiiiiight...NOW!  GO!  FAST!  C'MON C'MON C'MON GO GO GO G- oh, you're done."

So I place more value on complete, one- or two-session bursts, because I can actually finish them.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!My schedule says to me, it says, "You can game riiiiiiiiiight...NOW!  GO!  FAST!  C'MON C'MON C'MON GO GO GO G- oh, you're done."

So I place more value on complete, one- or two-session bursts, because I can actually finish them.

Same here but our preference is both cake and eating: we have continuity of setting and characters (both PC and NPC) but currently play in an episodic fashion that gets a story out of the way in one evening.

I find myself much more in agreement with David R than with Abysmal Maw.  While I do love a long-running campaign, and some of my fondest memories are from a four-year 7th Sea campaign because my character had a chance to grow and have epic adventures, on the other hand I've absolutely stellar RPG experiences in one-offs and mini-series, with a regular group and with ad-hoc groups at conventions, etc.  It all depends on the specific game, theme, mood, group, etc.

For the last eight years or so, my husband and I have had to schedule most of our campaigns (e.g., long-running, open-ended) and mini-series (e.g., 4-10 games, closed end-points) biweekly or semi-monthly.  It has worked fine for us with various groups.  We did not lose the continuity.  Right now, we're also involved in several very interesting mini-series that get scheduled in alternance on Monday nights; there too, we have kept the continuity and momentum without trouble, and the games have been very intense and satisfying.  The key is how dedicated and engaged the players and GM are.

Moreover, I know several gamers who do not like open-ended campaigns based on continuity; they prefer mini-series or episodic campaigns.  Some have trouble scheduling a regular gaming day on an on-going basis; others don't like to tangle with rambling, long-running plots, preferring self-contained adventures or short, TV-like story arcs.

I really dislike the idea of declaring one mode or style of play "more valuable."

Quote from: AnemoneI really dislike the idea of declaring one mode or style of play "more valuable."

As do I. It's like claiming open-ended TV serials are somehow better than self-contained dramas. Each has their value, and requires different expectations and input for enjoyment. The best gaming experiences I've had have occured across this spectrum, from the incredible one-shot horror scenario I played at a con' to the 5-year WFRP campaign I ran in my early twenties.

To be honest I've never really seen the divide as anything other than artificial when it comes to identifying fulfilling play. People have their preferences to be sure, but I'm the kind of person who enjoys the whole smorgasboard rather than limiting himself to one or two specific nibbles.

By 'more valuable' I am saying "what people actually want".

There is no accounting for taste. You can say what you like and prefer, and of course I can't deny that you actually prefer or like those things. Some people can obviously be just dandy with a gaming lifestyle that includes gaming based on convention experiences only.

But there's a phenomenon out there right now where 70% of the gaming population only cares about one game, and most of the remainder only buy games to collect and read.. Why is that?

That one game-- the one people actually play on a wide scale-- is not especially unique. I mean really.. D20 as a set of rules isn't actually that much different than Gurps or Hero or Savage Worlds, when you look at the mechanics. It's actually quite similar to Ars Magica.

Some people put forth these chucklesome geek conspiracy theories, but that's just idiocy. It's just sour grapes. There has to be an explanation, right?

So what it is that is at all different about D&D?

Well in terms of how most people actually play week in and week out.. it is kinda unique, really. "episodic"? "minseries"? Who has time for that? That stuff requires planning. You don't actually do much planning with an open ended campaign. The idea that there's a mound of prep is also a myth. With an open ended campaign, all prep is incremental and additive.

I say open ended campaigns is one of the things that people actually value and keep going back for. It's what makes people choose one game over another, system regardless.

The majority out there have regular gaming groups established that sort of go on week after week.. for months and sometimes years. I'm saying that leads to sustainability.

Sustainability is one factor that people value.

White Wolf games work on much the same level as D&D, for that matter. Might account for a strong #2 status.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo what it is that is at all different about D&D?

A very valuable trademark and collection of recognizable IP combined with the sort of marketing that only two or three companies could even hope to achieve.

If by "sustainability" you mean "it's easy to find a D&D game to play" then sure.  That's really just the end product of 30 years of marketing and exposure to the public consciousness though.

Thanatos- Absolutely.

I'm thinking especially of the Mage campaigns I played in for 2 years during the 90s. There wasn't a storyline or anything. It was just our group, wandering around, getting in trouble, sometimes battling stuff.  

We did it for weeks.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonA very valuable trademark and collection of recognizable IP combined with the sort of marketing that only two or three companies could even hope to achieve.

If by "sustainability" you mean "it's easy to find a D&D game to play" then sure.  That's really just the end product of 30 years of marketing and exposure to the public consciousness though.

I don't buy it. Where is this marketing? Where are the billboards and television commercials? Where are the banner ads?

I mean, theyve had those in the past, but not recently.

I've been saturated with ads and promotions right here on this message board and elsewhere. And there is no lack of marketers for the other games that aren't doing so well. When I was talking to Malcolm Craig he mentioned he had 8 years of experience in marketing and advertising.

Marketing will only get you so far. It gets the word out. But people have to choose. Why do they choose as they do, time after time?

Consider the following two offers:

A) Come play a 4 session mini-arc of (whatever game)! It's about people discovering X and fighting against Y!

B) Come join our D&D campaign! We play on Thursday nights.


One of those has a much easier buy in.

So this thread isn't really about the advantages of long term play but rather about how D&D is the best game around or that most people play it. Gee, why didn't you just say so in your first post. I mean really there are advantages to long term play just as there are advantages to short term play. Most folks I suspect like long term play but some do both.

Really AM you should have posted this on the Pundit's forum. There diversity in gaming is frowned upon and you wouldn't have had to be subtle in your approach. "D&D rules and short term play suxxors" would have been a perfectly acceptable title...but then again it is a perfectly acceptable title on this forum too, it's just that I would have known where you were coming from ...or at least would have known better then to try to engage you in  conversation.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSo this thread isn't really about the advantages of long term play but rather about how D&D is the best game around or that most people play it. Gee, why didn't you just say so in your first post. I mean really there are advantages to long term play just as there are advantages to short term play. Most folks I suspect like long term play but some do both.

Really AM you should have posted this on the Pundit's forum. There diversity in gaming is frowned upon and you wouldn't have had to be subtle in your approach. "D&D rules and short term play suxxors" would have been a perfectly acceptable title...but then again it is a perfectly acceptable title on this forum too, it's just that I would have known where you were coming from ...or at least would have known better then to try to engage you in  conversation.

Regards,
David R

Doesn't have to be D&D. I'm saying this is an exportable structure that will add value to any game.

Your'e fairly fucking obtuse sometimes, David.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYour'e fairly fucking obtuse sometimes, David.

Nah, you are really obvious.

Regards,
David R

Once upon a time, D&D was advertised in comics, on TV, it had its very own cartoon show, it appeared in all good book stores and toy shops... back in the 1980s (although I remember seeing ads for D&D products in comic books up until the early 1990s). Which, true, was a long time ago - but that's the most market exposure that any RPG has ever had, ever. Ask a member of the general public about "roleplaying games" and they'll probably talk about CRPGs. But if you ask them about "Dungeons & Dragons" they know what you are talking about.

Even if, outside of the gaming world, D&D's marketing has been reduced to word-of-mouth, it gets far more word-of-mouth promotion than any other game does. It has such a great advantage over its competitors that it will require something pretty fucking amazing to change that. Moreover, this is an advantage which has been maintained despite some completely nonsensical decisions on the parts of its various owners from time to time.

If there is a magic factor which gives D&D this glorious advantage, that has to have been around in the 1970s and 1980s too, and pretty much all of the games I possess from those time periods assume long-term campaign play will be the norm (Paranoia being a notable exception).

Quote from: David RNah, you are really obvious.

Regards,
David R

Well, you don't have to agree with me. I'm describing an actual phenomenon here.

PS: I think I'm also talking about World of Warcraft here as well. Let's just say it's WoW.

Same point stands.

Here, let me rephrase:

It's not what people play that makes a difference. It's how.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's not what people play that makes a difference. It's how.

Agreed.

Now will you agree that "how" people play is not a question of value but of taste and each style of play has it's own advantages/disadvantages.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAgreed.

Now will you agree that "how" people play is not a question of value but of taste and each style of play has it's own advantages/disadvantages.

Regards,
David R

I'm sorry, David. This really isn't about making people feel good about what they like or dislike. It doesn't matter. People are going to like and dislike the things they do regardless, and they have every right to.

I'm talking about value, not taste.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm talking about value, not taste.

Fair 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

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.

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.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNo, 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.

A convention is a specialized venue. It is not playing a game in a public library, or at a game day, or in someone's house. The scope of a gaming convention is pretty much defined by the slots that people allocate to participating in events. The expectation going into a game convention is much, much different than getting together with your friends.

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.

It worked for conventions.

Quote2) 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.

You have yet to explain how a finite campaign limits the opportunity for continuity. Because, in the end, it's all a matter of scope. See, I can use the same arguments that roleplaying adventures or scenarios with a set beginning and end lack value over ones that don't; or that game sessions that end lack value over ones that don't.

Quote4) The fact that they get it to work repeatedly takes us from hypothesis to thesis. It's the fucking proof in the pudding.

The only thing it proves is that Living Greyhawk's model works...for them. It absolutely does not prove that model is superior. To prove it, you'd need hard numbers of Living Greyhawk participants vs. non Living Greyhawk participants inside and outside of cons.

Oh, and a hypothesis becomes a theory. A thesis is a statement of an idea being researched.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPeople can like it and love it all they want.

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

The reason is value.

What are you talking about D&D or games built for long term campaign play or long term campaigns or people who play the same way as you? It's clear you are confusing popularity with value. So what you are sayin' is that folks who like short term play are in fact creating disposable stories. Folks here who like different games...check that...who may play the same games as you but play it differently are creating disposable stories. You are of course wrong and adopting a pretty Swine-ish/Forge -ish attitude.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat are you talking about D&D or games built for long term campaign play or long term campaigns or people who play the same way as you? It's clear you are confusing popularity with value. So what you are sayin' is that folks who like short term play are in fact creating disposable stories. Folks here who like different games...check that...who may play the same games as you but play it differently are creating disposable stories. You are of course wrong and adopting a pretty Swine-ish/Forge -ish attitude.

Regards,
David R

Doesn't have to be D&D. It could be Rifts. Or, like I said, World of Warcraft. (I love how D&D still pisses people off!).

And I'm not confusing popularity with value, I'm saying popularity comes from value. You can't be popular without delivering what the people want. You got a better idea what the people want? Deliver that thing, and gain an audience.

The flimsy disposable story thing is an aside, really.

I'll say this:

I can remember the names of every single PC in every campaign I've ever DM'd. I  can tell you all their stories. Although I like to think the campaign was exciting and gripping and all of that? The real reason I remember this is because we played every week for campaigns that lasted for months.. sometimes over a year. And I've been on this schedule since 2000. Thats's 1/week minimum for 7 years. I'm pretty happy, all things considered!

So of course my campaign stories are more detailed than anyones short run thing. How could it be otherwise?

And finally the squeaking about "Thats a swinish attitude" just made me chuckle. :)

Quote from: Abyssal MawDoesn't have to be D&D. It could be Rifts. Or, like I said, World of Warcraft. (I love how D&D still pisses people off!).

And I'm not confusing popularity with value, I'm saying popularity comes from value. You can't be popular without delivering what the people want. You got a better idea what the people want? Deliver that thing, and gain an audience.

I think a more useful criteria for attaching "value" on a campaign regardless of system is the play experience and by experience I mean the whole package, the other players, the GM, how you as a player contribute to the game, interactions between players etc

The great strenght of D&D is it's versatility and by this I mean it accomadates various playstyles. To attach "value" to one style over the other is seriously missing the point...and I'd go so far as to include all the other games you mentioned.

QuoteI'll say this:

I can remember the names of every single PC in every campaign I've ever DM'd. I  can tell you all their stories. Although I like to think the campaign was exciting and gripping and all of that? The real reason I remember this is because we played every week for campaigns that lasted for months.. sometimes over a year. And I've been on this schedule since 2000. Thats's 1/week minimum for 7 years. I'm pretty happy, all things considered!

So of course my campaign stories are more detailed than anyones short run thing. How could it be otherwise?

Okay but you do realize that others feel the same way about short term play, right ? it just didn't take them so long to get attached to their characters. That's why I say, concentrate on the "experience" and not the playstyle.

QuoteAnd finally the squeaking about "Thats a swinish attitude" just made me chuckle. :)

We should really start flinging insults at each other. Our conversation is confusing the lurkers. After all we are supposed to be the land where moderation died....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI think a more useful criteria for attaching "value" on a campaign regardless of system is the play experience and by experience I mean the whole package, the other players, the GM, how you as a player contribute to the game, interactions between players etc

HOW is that more useful? The entire middle tier of roleplaying is disappearing at an astonishing rate.

It might feel good to extend this concept of value to everyone, but it doesn't explain anything. I kinda feel like I'm on to something here. I don't actually mind people disagreeing with me, either. I think it'll be true whether you beleive it or not.

Quote from: DavidROkay but you do realize that others feel the same way about short term play, right ? it just didn't take them so long to get attached to their characters. That's why I say, concentrate on the "experience" and not the playstyle.

I totally realize that the people who like doing it that way, like doing it that way. They see it as the absolute best way. I'm positive they 100% beleive there way is the best value. However, I also see them as irrelevant. They aren't the mass audience I am talking about.

Quote from: DavidRWe should really start flinging insults at each other. Our conversation is confusing the lurkers. After all we are supposed to be the land where moderation died....

Regards,
David R

I hope you realize I have no intent on flinging insults! I mean, I'm rude, sure. But this isn't about us. Plus, a little rudeness is good. If we were all too polite to truly disagree, we'd never accomplish anything but groupthink.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHOW is that more useful? The entire middle tier of roleplaying is disappearing at an astonishing rate.

What has this got to do with anything? We are talking about our gaming experience not the state of the industry.

QuoteIt might feel good to extend this concept of value to everyone, but it doesn't explain anything.

Actually it does. It could explain why people like various games. It could explain why people like specific games.  

QuoteI totally realize that the people who like doing it that way, like doing it that way. They see it as the absolute best way. I'm positive they 100% beleive there way is the best value. However, I also see them as irrelevant. They aren't the mass audience I am talking about.

I don't really know what you're talking about. You started off by saying that long term play has "value" and illustrated this with pretty dodgy examples, then decided you wanted to talk about how D&D does this very well and assuming everyone plays D&D the same way and now you're talking about the industry.

I get that you think the way how some gamers play is irrelevent. I get that you believe that the games they play are irrelevent, but you should have just said that in your OP.

Folks like D&D for a variety of reasons. Long term play is probably one of them. It's not the only reason. I don't think it's useful to think that games which are designed for long term play is the only way to go. Like I said there are many reasons for D&D's popularity, to concentrate on one and assume that it is it's major or core "value" is a mistake.

QuoteI hope you realize I have no intent on flinging insults! I mean, I'm rude, sure. But this isn't about us. Plus, a little rudeness is good. If we were all too polite to truly disagree, we'd never accomplish anything but groupthink.

AM I was trying to be humorous. I was commenting on the fact that our discussion so far has been relatively civil.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat has this got to do with anything? We are talking about our gaming experience not the state of the industry.

Maybe thats why youv'e been so confused. I'm talking about what the majority of people actually care about. And everyone else not mattering.

Quote from: David RActually it does. It could explain why people like various games. It could explain why people like specific games.

This is a foolish thing to worry about. People as individuals like different things. There's no science to it, and there's no point to trying to predict what people want on an individual basis. I'm talking about large audiences.

Quote from: David RI don't really know what you're talking about. You started off by saying that long term play has "value" and illustrated this with pretty dodgy examples, then decided you wanted to talk about how D&D does this very well and assuming everyone plays D&D the same way and now you're talking about the industry.

Well, right now, D&D is the industry. If it's not D&D, chances are.. it's not the industry. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Quote from: Abyssal MawMaybe thats why youv'e been so confused. I'm talking about what the majority of people actually care about. And everyone else not mattering.

*shrug* You didn't frame the conversation this way at least not in your original post. It sort of drifted into this territory. As for everyone else not mattering well some designers have had so some success catering to those whose taste don't fall into the mainstream. I guess it depends on what your goals are and how much money you want to make.

QuoteThis is a foolish thing to worry about. People as individuals like different things. There's no science to it, and there's no point to trying to predict what people want on an individual basis. I'm talking about large audiences.

And I'm not convinved that long term campaigns or games that cater for it is the only way to go. I'm not a designer or know anything about the industry for that matter, but it seems to me that the appeal of popular games goes far beyond it's design feature of long term play. I think folks like these popular games for various reasons which are almost impossible to predict. Is long term campaign play a popular trend in all these popular games...perhaps...but I'm sure there's something more to it than just that.

QuoteWell, right now, D&D is the industry. If it's not D&D, chances are.. it's not the industry. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Yes it does.Because here's the thing. Folks like D&D for so many reasons. Even if they play other games I'm sure they play mainly D&D. Why is this? I have no idea. Maybe it's the genre. Maybe it's the system. Maybe it's NE. To try and design a game with the appeal of D&D is a foolish eneavour IMO. D&D has years of play and loyalty ahead of it's competitors. It's like someone trying to compete with WW for the goth games market. To me the best thing to do is find an area where gamers needs have yet to be satisfied and mine it for all it's worth. Who knows, you may find mainstream success this way then by trying to take on D&D :D

Last thing AM, this conversation has moved into industry talk, a lot of which I'm unfamiliar with. So, my participation ends here.

Regards,
David R