Regarding MMOs: This is why I have always thought D&D should have a really well-made totally random dungeon generator mechanic/set of cool tables as an indispensible part of its DMG. The fact that the one they have is very poorly done and incomplete is very unfortunate.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawI also think the opposite is true about MMOs: MMOs aren't drawing people away from RPGs, theyre creating a new audience of fantasy adventuring fans. I believe this new audience will probably eventually feed the populace of D&D players. It has become totally acceptable to talk about levelling up your Tauren Hunter in polite office society. Speaking as a guy who plays WoW: it's a very static world, for all of its popularity. You generally have to do the exact same quests for every new character. WoW is undeniably fun, but a D&D campaign can deliver this same fun and make it more dynamic and personal.

This is a very good point. If the success of WoW proves anything, it proves that there is a huge pool of people who are interested in some kind of fantasy adventuring game. The key for the tabletop RPG set is to stress its own advantages. I see them as: Direct social contact with other people, which is not the same as a ventrilo chat, and the fact that the grind of adventure has a near infinitely greater variation from a capable GM.

Quote from: jhkimUm?  This isn't a hypothetical.  D&D has gone online multiple times along with several others games

That's going in the opposite direction of what I'm talking about.

Quoteand there are a number of computer games which have been adapted into tabletop RPGs -- like Rune, EverQuest, and World of Warcraft.  Eden's next big game is going to be City of Heroes.  

I wasn't really talking about just setting conversions backwards. But yes, that's pretty close.

Quote from: RPGPunditOne really has to be wondering if you'd be singing the same tune were your side on top.  Considering that your side was on top and no one on your side was saying then what you're saying now, as they were too busy purging traditional gamers, I would suspect not.

Um, do you have any fucking clue what you're talking about?!?  

For years, Marco Chacon and I were the most prominent "traditional gamers" on the Forge, and constantly dealt with the same shit in reverse as you're spilling.  You can go read the Forge archives if you don't believe me -- just look up my posting history there.  My first post was in this.  Here's me a few days into the Forge:

Quote from: John KimI think Ron's essays do point out that there is a category of independent fantasy RPGs which all have a fair number of similarities with each other and with D&D.  Because of his opinions, Ron considers them "heartbreakers".  This is because he wants to encourage independent publishing and innovations -- but he also wants to encourage questioning of basic role-playing concepts from D&D.  However, I don't think there is anything objectively bad about these "heartbreakers" or the D&D style of play in general.  

I think there is an elitist overtone that the more Narrative games typical of The Forge are somehow objectively better than Darkurthe: Legends.  However, this simply isn't true.  These aren't rockets which can be objectively measured in how far they shoot -- they are games, and the purpose of them (usually) is to have fun.

This continued to the end of the theory forums.  Shortly before the GNS forum closed, I mocked Ron's overblown parable "[A GNS STORY] The Liberals" with my own "The Stroll".  

I would mock your tales of "war" and "purges" equally.  Indie RPGs were never "on top" in previous years -- they've always been a fringe at best.  The only possible way you could get that impression is that you decided now to play in your own pond where there are more people like you.  

As for me: My two ongoing campaigns right now are a Call of Cthulhu campaign which I'm GMing, and an Amber Diceless campaign that I'm playing in.  I'm about to leave for AmberCon NorthWest this coming weekend.  On the other hand, I've also played Primetime Adventures and Inspectres recently as one-offs.

Quote from: jhkimUm, do you have any fucking clue what you're talking about?!?

No, he usually doesn't.  You have the Mark of The Forge upon you and that puts you in the THEM bin. Hell as far as he's concerned -I- have the Mark of The Forge upon me and I've never posted there. :rolleyes:

You're right, I went temporarily nuts and overlapped you with a White Wolf swine.  Let's chalk that one up to the fact that I wrote that entry first thing in the morning after waking up way too early with far too little sleep and just before going to a doctor's appointment to find out if I had cancer.

What I really should have said is: When the WW crowd was on top, they certainly were singing a different tune than any of THEM are now. There was no "mercy for the defeated" when it looked like the only thing we'd ever see was story-based games filled with metaplot till the end of time.

But likewise, I can say now that I seriously doubt that if somehow, in the extremely unlikely event happened that Forge-style games were "on top" (something that could really only happen if every major gaming company, including WW, were to go under), your side would be any more generous with your treatment of traditional play and traditional players.  If Marc Rein·Hagen's crowd is the fucking Comintern, you guys are Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
The triumphalism and the purges would make the late 90s look like a paradise for trad gamers.

RPGPundit

PS: I appear to be cancer-free. Which, considering my history and lifestyle, is proof enough that the Great Magnet is on my side.

I think saying you are playing an RPG is like saying your are playing a board game.
 
A boardgame assumes a few things. There will be a board, playing pieces, dice, and competition.
 
What does roleplaying game assume? It means player characters, character sheets, an adversarial referee, dice, unreal settings (Fantasy, Horror etc.) and character advancement.
 
Board games have entirely different markets. Do you think the same type of people that are interested in playing Mousetrap are going to buy Max Imperialis? Probably not.
 
The people who make Max Imperialis, a dirivitive of many a tactical board game, are not trying to make board game fans. They are trying to make Max Imperialis fans. Same industry, different market. If you apply Tactical Boardgame. I don't think people in the Risk club want to play Max imperialis either.
 
That's the advantage Dungeons and Dragons has had over it's competition. Dungeons and Dragons could try to to appeal to RPG fans. It had to try to make D&D fans and succeeded. Vampire: the Masquerade did not try to appeal to RPG fans, it tried to create Vampire fans and succeeded. Same industry, different market.
 
I read someone above writing about the RPG market. D&D originally marketed and was apealing to Wargamers and Tolkein fans. Vampire was marketed and appealed to gamers and dramatists, goth kids and teenagers that liked pictures of half naked goth chicks.
 
That's why D&D and White-Wolf have succeeded. D&D and the World of Darkness are not for gamers. D&D and WoD is for making D&D and WoD fans.

Quote from: KrakaJakWhat does roleplaying game assume? It means player characters, character sheets, an adversarial referee, dice, unreal settings (Fantasy, Horror etc.) and character advancement.

LOL, whoa that's a a lot assumptions. The "adversarial referee" is quite a leap. A big fucking leap. And "unreal" setting? :confused: And suddenly Amber doesn't count as an RPG?

Quote from: RPGPunditBut likewise, I can say now that I seriously doubt that if somehow, in the extremely unlikely event happened that Forge-style games were "on top" (something that could really only happen if every major gaming company, including WW, were to go under), your side would be any more generous with your treatment of traditional play and traditional players.

Dude, you've still got John pegged wrong. But I assume he'll be back to straighten you out if he hasn't lost his patience. (If John has a fault, it's an excess of patience.)

QuotePS: I appear to be cancer-free. Which, considering my history and lifestyle, is proof enough that the Great Magnet is on my side.

Good luck with that. Seriously.

Quote from: KrakaJakWhat does roleplaying game assume? It means player characters, character sheets, an adversarial referee, dice, unreal settings (Fantasy, Horror etc.) and character advancement.

On that one niggling point, I disagree.

For me, the GM is not "adversarial," he's more of an arbitrator.  He defines and interprets the way the story plays out, given the impetus of characters actions and the roll of the dice.  

I really hate it when GMs set themselves up as "adversarial."

GM: "It's me against them!  And it's my world!  Mu-ha-ha-ha!"

Frankly, I don't play with jerks like that.

Quote from: RPGpunditI appear to be cancer-free.

Appearances can be deceiving.  See a doctor.  Regularly.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI think your'e totally wrong about this:

D&D players don't really want premade adventures. They want the books with the stuff (feats, monsters, prestige classes, items, spells)  in them so that they can make their own adventures. When GM's buy adventures, at least half the time, they buy them to plunder a few encounters out of, or "for ideas" rather than play them through.

The reason is that most D&D is traditionally played in campaign format. Players get together on a regular (often weekly) basis with no particular pre-written adventure in mind. Most campaign GMing that Ive seen is done with a campaign notebook and possibly a few generated encounters and a map or two. "This week we'll go search some of those islands for our arch enemy". That sort of game.

This seems to be a commonly accepted assumption.  I think it's dead wrong, and blind to the reality of the situation.  If this were the case, then why are so many players abandoning their D&D games in favor of WoW?  I've heard countless players tell me the same thing:  They started playing WoW because it was much easier to just get online and run Scholo than it was to try and set up a tabletop game and get everyone together.

And if RPGs want to stop losing players to these MMOs, they need to compete with that ease.  

I think you are making the same mistake here, that the video game market had been making a lot until recent years:  Assuming that all players were the same "hardcore" gamer types.  I think there are a lot of more casual players out there, who just want to get together, roll some dice with their friends, and kill things and take their stuff, without spending hours and hours of prep time, either because they don't have the patience, or the talent, or simply the time.

And it is that more "casual" market that is leaving to play MMOs because it's simply much easier.  And that you could get a lot of that back by doing one's best to make tabletop just as easy.  

Big thick books of more and more feats and powers do not serve that purpose.  If anything they make it worse.

We need adventure and campaign books.  Well thought out, with decent stories, plenty of stuff to kill, lots of playtime, and reasonably affordable, since they're going to be a bit more expendable that a sourcebook.

QuoteI also think the opposite is true about MMOs: MMOs aren't drawing people away from RPGs, theyre creating a new audience of fantasy adventuring fans. I believe this new audience will probably eventually feed the populace of D&D players. It has become totally acceptable to talk about levelling up your Tauren Hunter in polite office society. Speaking as a guy who plays WoW: it's a very static world, for all of its popularity. You generally have to do the exact same quests for every new character. WoW is undeniably fun, but a D&D campaign can deliver this same fun and make it more dynamic and personal.

If this is the case, then why did the EQ and WoW tabletop games do so badly?  I can't say as I've ever even heard of any players who got into TT after starting in an MMO.  I do know of a few that got into it after playing a fair amount of DMed NWN, but that's the closest I've seen.  And that's primarily because DMed NWN is a far better representation of what TT play is really like, especially in terms of the time investment, than any MMO.

You're also assuming that any of this massive new WoW audience is at all interested in roleplaying, when in my experience, hardly any of them are, unless they were already tabletop gamers to begin with.  The other players are there just to kill things and take their stuff.

I find the discussion of WoW much more interesting than another one of Pundits "OMG SWINE" fits, so I'm going there.

I play WoW, and I'm a story-craving drama-whore.  It occurs to me that these things may not be unrelated.  I don't have much interest anymore in building up levels, exploration, or hack and slash in tabletop RPGs, though I used to rather enjoy them.  I think its one that my tastes have changed, while at the same time I get those things from WoW.  I mean seriously, if I want to explore a fantasy world, see a character start weak and grow powerful, play with friends, and have some good ol' mindless violence what exactly is a tabletop game going to offer me that Warcraft doesn't?  The scent of unwashed gamer?  The inconvienence of only playing when everyone else has time?  The lack of 3D graphics?

On the other hand there some things Warcraft (or any computer game) doesn't do.  It doesn't do epic, where the PCs are changing the face of the game world.  It doesn't matter how high a level I get, I can never turn the King of Stormwind into my thrall, or burn Ogrimar to the ground, or restore the Night Elves' immortality.  It doesn't really let me explore a character too deeply - even with emotes and teamspeak roleplaying is strained at best.  And it doesn't do much to create a story.  Maybe that's why I chase after them so hard at the tabletop - I don't get them on the computer.

I'm not one for making judgements about the gaming industry.  No one really knows.  All I know is what I like, so it makes sense for me that in the future the most successful RPGs will be the ones that offer something you can't get on WoW.

Quote from: VellorianAppearances can be deceiving.  See a doctor.  Regularly.

...and make sure they at least buy you a rose for the prostate check.

Quote from: VellorianOn that one niggling point, I disagree.
 
For me, the GM is not "adversarial," he's more of an arbitrator. He defines and interprets the way the story plays out, given the impetus of characters actions and the roll of the dice.
 
I really hate it when GMs set themselves up as "adversarial."
 
GM: "It's me against them! And it's my world! Mu-ha-ha-ha!"
 
Frankly, I don't play with jerks like that.
 
 
 

By adversarial, I mean, a referee (an impartial judge of a game) who is the other players "adversary".
 

Quote from: blakkieLOL, whoa that's a a lot assumptions. The "adversarial referee" is quite a leap. A big fucking leap. And "unreal" setting? And suddenly Amber doesn't count as an RPG?

Remember, those are ASSUMPTIONS. Just as there are Board games (like Scrabble, or Quija) that break the assumptions of board games, they are not any less board games. There are plenty of RPG's that break the assumptions of RPG's. Amber certainly doesn't break all the assumptions though.
 
Again, I say adversarial referee, because, he is usually the representitive of the "other side". Doesn't mean he's not your friend orthat he doesn't play fair.
[/SIZE]

Quote from: KrakaJakRemember, those are ASSUMPTIONS. Just as there are Board games (like Scrabble, or Quija) that break the assumptions of board games, they are not any less board games. There are plenty of RPG's that break the assumptions of RPG's. Amber certainly doesn't break all the assumptions though.

That is NOT the way that post was presented. You should look into the 'and' conjunction.