Quote from: kobayashi;912110I see your point but I have, let's say, a more "charitable" view of his statement, being : what people say is important in rpgs when you read forums has nothing in common with what happens at the (or at least some) table(s).

But your point remains valid, a gaming vid cannot be a good basis for designing a game but rpg forums fare no better in my opinion. Like any community on the internet, the rpg forums are mostly a toxic cesspool (I just read the ENworld thread following Paizo annoucements about Starfinder : 90% of it is people basically whining).

I think forums are useful for finding tools and techniques for specific problems and being exposed to ideas that you can try. Designing for forums, I think, isn't a terribly good approach. In RPG discussions on forums, people tend to use best and worst case scenarios, and they often say things just to win an argument (so it isn't like their players are standing behind them to confirm or contradict what they just said). To me, 4E is an example of what can happen when you design around forums and around RPG theory.  

QuoteWhat interests me about all these gaming vids is not what happens at the table but how much people enjoy watching them. Because scripted or not, people seem to love watching gamers enjoying themselves and enjoying the game. That's less depressing than reading threads after threads of "If you play this your a poopiehead", "Designer X sucks balls", "Wotc raped my dog, really, I have pictures", "Only morons can play system X", "The ranger in D&D5 sucks, let me show you these charts I made".

Maybe. I have to admit I do not understand the attraction (just like I don't understand the attraction to unboxing videos).

I do agree though that optimism is more attractive than pessimism and a lot of the stuff that happens on online forums is more about what people don't like than they do (and I think that is because online you often have clashes over play style). But I would argue some of that might be due to the fact that too many games have been designed in response to forum discussions (so people people perceive the stakes of a debate over optimization in 3E as being very real and potentially influencing the ultimate design of 6E). Also, fights are fun. People like to debate and fight. It doesn't necessarily make them bad or toxic, it just make them fiesty. As much as I'd rather see more optimistic discussions online, I think people are way, way too sensitive to other peoples negative opinions about things they like.

But, I think youtube videos almost have the opposite problem of forums. If forums tend to focus on the negative, youtube is overly positive and artificial. One of my pet peeves is how much people edit youtube videos for flow. Unless it is done to give a video a certain rhythm, I'd rather watch someone who just leaves the camera rolling so I can see the mistakes. People project persona's and brand themselves on youtube. There are some you tubers out there I follow because they are either entertaining or seem genuine, but I think youtube and other online video formats are just as misleading as forums. Except the problem is people are projecting their 'best self' and 'best game' forward.

QuoteTake two people who haven't heard of rpgs : show the first one an Acquistion Incorporated game and let the second one only read threads on any rpg forum. Then, in all honesty, tell me which one will want to play rpgs.

I don't know. I've never met anyone who has come to RPGs through either. So I can't really weigh in on that.

QuoteSo, when Mr Mearls says "it shifts the design convo away from "How do we design for forum discussions?" to "How do we design for play?", all he means, in my opinion, is "stop designing games as a tiny fraction of the community wants us to make them".

I think what worries me is he seems to think these vids are giving him a bigger sense of the community than forums are, and I don't think that is the case. By all means design for the table, but that is something that you can do through play testing and running your own campaigns. Talking to gamers, checking out videos and going to forums can compliment that, but none of them should be the focus. And they should all be taken with a hefty dose of salt.

Admittedly I could be reading too much into it. He may have just been speaking casually and gamer are going to put what he says under a microscope (which is probably unfair). But he is in charge of D&D now and people are paying attention to what they are thinking.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;912114By all means design for the table, but that is something that you can do through play testing and running your own campaigns. Talking to gamers, checking out videos and going to forums can compliment that, but none of them should be the focus.

Amen to that.

And yes, people disagreeing and still trying to talk to each other is a good thing, thanks for reminding me of that. It reminds me of Testsubo's videos (as he doesn't edit them). I don't always agree with him but he makes clear statements and he doesn't force them down your throat. I like that.

Quote from: kobayashi;912117And yes, people disagreeing and still trying to talk to each other is a good thing, thanks for reminding me of that. It reminds me of Testsubo's videos (as he doesn't edit them). I don't always agree with him but he makes clear statements and he doesn't force them down your throat. I like that.

Tetsubo is who I had in mind actually (personally i am a fan of his stuff, and like you even when I don't agree I still find his statements engaging and not overly forceful).

This just confirms my opinion in some of my previous 5e threads that this edition of D&D was not designed for folks like me. No worries, it'll circle back to my neck of the woods at some point, in the meantime I got what I need.

Let's not mistake the fact that Mearls does have different design constraints that are impacted by a higher monetary requirement threshold than most other RPG companies, many of which require their creators to maintain "day jobs" and do it for the love of the game. Not that I'm saying that Mearls and co. don't love D&D, but they're certainly not designing the game for their own personal tastes over what will best sell and appease what they perceive as the largest ongoing segment of the playerbase that will continue to shill out the most bank.

TL/DR - they played it safe by using the methods cited, they appear to be doing relatively well. 5e is not made for me (but it's playable).

Play on, says I.

I think Mearls is missing the two major design goals hidden under his nose.

The irony is that Mearls is discovering what the people at SPI discovered 3 and a half decades ago. Anything substantially nerdy exists in two fundamentally different spheres, theorycrafting/armchair gaming/metagaming/solo play and actual on the table gaming, which receive roughly equal playing time. The major fun of metagaming is trying to imagine your largest possible impact on the on the table gaming, it's an expansion of the character creation minigame every RPG has. I think a major problem with a lot of RPG designs is that the people who make them have long standing, stable, gaming groups. For the most part, they are works of passion. However, this is quite distinct from the normal gaming experience, which centers around inconsistent gameplay, people dropping in and out, ect. During the height of wargaming, in the mid 1970's SPI realized that 90% of its wargames were being played solo. However, it took wargaming in general decades to really start making an effort to make solo play easier or viable. To return to RPG's, theorycrafting and forum work is so popular because you can do it solo. There's no designated slot for it, no 4 hours on a saturday. You can just open up the book and try to create the most broken character possible. It's a fun metagame. However, when it bleeds to heavily into the on the table gaming, it can often ruin the experience for non meta-gamers. It also creates pressure for people new to the game to conform to the tiers, especially by the Gaming Den crowd. In short, despite solo play probably seeing more time spent on it, games should be designed around on the tabletop, while integrating solo as much as possible

A possible lesson from this is to offer other paths for solo play. Procedurally generated rogue-likes, for example, fit in very well with dungeon crawlers like DnD. We already offer these tools to GM's, why not create either a 1- text based rogue like, using dice or 2- create a computer version of it, where the player can input the character he has created to test it out in combat. This bleeds back into the metagame strategies of making the strongest possible character. For more story based games, offer "choose your own adventure" paths so that players who couldn't come to a session are still playing out in the world, gaining XP and making character development choices. The player could then send some of the results to the GM, who could work it into his campaign. This way, you offer more than meta-gaming to the solo player.

A second aspect, and one that a lot of people have touched on here, is that streamed rpg sessions are fun in part because they are edited (and have people who are trying to make it as interesting as possible, instead of being fucking timmies or pink mohawks trying to derail the campaign by murder-hoboing everyone, but I digress). A major problem of TTRPGs is time to content (story/development/player choice making/fun) ratio. This is especially bad for the complex games of the 90's. Classic Deadlands took 1-1.5 hours to resolve even simple mook stomps. Meanwhile, a game like Shadowrun Returns can cram a yearlong campaign's worth of content into 15-20 hour experience because encounters go by quickly, and often are more tactical than PnP encounters. Minimizing the choice to result time span (I swing my sword at the orc.....the orc takes X damage) would be a crucial part of this. A possible solution is greater tablet or smartphone integration. Amazon is now selling Fires for sub 40$ on sales. This isn't that much more expensive than good sets of dice. If buying a copy of the rulebook also got you the game app you could use this to increase book sales. This isn't suggesting a move to virtual tabletops. Rather, you save your character into the system, and the DM saves his enemy. You tap "swing sword" and "the orc", the DM chooses to add bonuses or subtract things, based on what he sees on the tabletop, and the probability gets handled by the system. While you lose the tactile feel of dice, you greatly reduce the non-content part of gameplay.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;912135I think a major problem with a lot of RPG designs is that the people who make them have long standing, stable, gaming groups. For the most part, they are works of passion. However, this is quite distinct from the normal gaming experience, which centers around inconsistent gameplay, people dropping in and out, ect.

oh thank god.  I thought I was the only one on here that experienced role playing as soap bubbles.  Beautiful while they last but oh so fragile.

Quote from: Headless;912142oh thank god.  I thought I was the only one on here that experienced role playing as soap bubbles.  Beautiful while they last but oh so fragile.

Perfect image.

I think all my future campaigns will be designed in short episodic arcs in anticipation of collapse at any moment. Leaves the players with a sense of having completed something.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;912150Perfect image.

I think all my future campaigns will be designed in short episodic arcs in anticipation of collapse at any moment. Leaves the players with a sense of having completed something.

The Malifaux RPG game, into the breach (awesome system), does it really well by designing campaigns around the idea that they are going to end. It adds structure and really benefits episodic game styles, with each character getting the spotlight. The exact sort of innovation TTRPGs need to adapt to the realities of play.

Quote from: Mistwell;911908Click on that second link I posted, at the end of the post.  Tell me again how it's not spectator friendly.

A bunch of already-invested gamers watching what they invested in is NOT the same as me throwing on any fucking FIFA-compliant soccer match, even if I neither know nor care about the sides on the pitch. I know exactly what rules they're using, what is and is not allowed, and never needed to look up a fucking thing to learn it; just by watching I got fully engaged in the sport, learned how to play by observation, and and can talk about that game with anyone else who's seen (or is seeing) the footage. It's the same thing that makes it worthwhile to watch WOW streamers, or talk strats with other players: everyone's engaged in the same game. That is impossible for TRPGs; every table is different, every game is different, and every session is just different enough to cause cognitive friction--even dissonance--in casual observers (i.e. normies). Those folks are watching one specific thing, and they can't get the full effect because they're not at the table making those calls; no medium of virtual life experience allows for it.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;912135A possible lesson from this is to offer other paths for solo play.

Step 1: Buy a video game console.

Step 2: Buy a video game.

Step 3: Play the video game.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912035Two observations:

(1) Unless we're positing game designers with time machines, there are some weird assertions of cause-and-effect in there.

(2) The idea of designing games that play great on heavily edited Youtube video shows and Twitch streams makes my head hurt.

That would be like a board game designer saying, "I really want to focus on making sure this game plays great on Wil Wheaton's Tabletop." or a video game designer saying, "I'm less concerned about people having fun while playing this game than I am in making sure that it makes for entertaining Twitch streams."

There's nothing wrong with Critical Role or Tabletop. But designing games with that sort of play in mind is like arguing that all action figures should be designed around using them in animatronic films.

Critical Role is unscripted and unedited.  And even a single viewing of any random episode would reveal that immediately.  They show things like pausing to look up a rule, or a dude coming in late due to LA traffic, or a guy saying he's going to do X and then after a long while explaining it realizing he can't do that and nevermind. I mean they were playing for a year before they even got the idea to film it. They're just some voice actors who dig D&D.  Nobody gathered them for the purpose of filming something, they just started filming something they were already doing for just themselves - just playing D&D (or actually originally they were playing Pathfinder).

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;912207A bunch of already-invested gamers watching what they invested in is NOT the same as me throwing on any fucking FIFA-compliant soccer match, even if I neither know nor care about the sides on the pitch. I know exactly what rules they're using, what is and is not allowed, and never needed to look up a fucking thing to learn it; just by watching I got fully engaged in the sport, learned how to play by observation, and and can talk about that game with anyone else who's seen (or is seeing) the footage. It's the same thing that makes it worthwhile to watch WOW streamers, or talk strats with other players: everyone's engaged in the same game. That is impossible for TRPGs; every table is different, every game is different, and every session is just different enough to cause cognitive friction--even dissonance--in casual observers (i.e. normies). Those folks are watching one specific thing, and they can't get the full effect because they're not at the table making those calls; no medium of virtual life experience allows for it.

The FIFA football rules, a 210 page book with no pictures.

And yes, I believe people watch Critical Role even if they have no idea how to play D&D.  

I've watched professional basketball for about 15 years now, with several season ticket years in there.  I STILL find new rules I was unaware of about once a month.  And yet, I learned the broad strokes and basic most common rules of how basketball is played within the first month of watching basketball.

I think it's fair to say the same thing about D&D.  Watch a handful of Critical Role episodes and you will likely learn the broad strokes and basic most common rules of how D&D is played. Nobody is going to experience cognitive dissonance from watching Critical Role and then sitting down at a different table to try and play D&D.  The minor detail differences are just not as important as you make them out to be.

It would be like watching professional basketball and then playing a game of pickup street ball - there will be differences, but not so many that it will be a major issue.

And I don't think we need to stick to theory on this one.  I think people really are learning about D&D from Critical Role and a new sub-generation are then playing it and finding they love TRPGs. I mean, I think you're declaring something impossible that's already happening, and will continue to happen at an increasing rate from here on out.

For example:

QuoteI happened to stumble across Critical Role by accident while browsing Twitch on that first Thursday night. I had never played D&D or any other RPG before, but after watching this group of voice actors have so much fun, I knew I had to jump in. Now I'm DMing my own storyline for a group of other Critical Role fans. It's been crazy growing with this show, I've found a ton of new friends and it's just a whole new world that opened up to me because of Dungeons and Dragons. At the age of 21 I now have friends online who range from late teens to their 30s and 40s. It is the weirdest experience seeing a game such as this bring this many people closer together as one community.
permalinkembed

And there is more of that from others.  A lot more.  I mean read through that thread.  It's pretty eye opening.  For example you have this sort of stuff too:

QuoteOn May 8th of 2015 I had my first game. It was planned on May 1st and I was the DM. One week prep for my first game ever.
I bought the Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual and the Dungeon Master's Guide. I read the Player's Handbook twice over the span of a day. It made sense but it was also dry as bones.
So I looked into podcasts and YouTube videos of people playing. Through sheer luck I found Critical Role. And I watched two or three episodes a day. After a few days I re-read the books and they made a lot more sense.
I have modeled my DM style after Matthew Mercer. These days I run three groups: 1 every Thursday and 2 alternating on Tuesdays. My fiancée started playing too and uses Critical Role as a model to break out of the videogame ideas that there are rules to follow.
And I'm proud to say that these days, in the span of less than a year, people follow my Facebook page to see my viewpoints. To see my maps. To read about my storyline. To have a player randomly tank me for DMing a great game. It's awesome.
I only regret one thing: that's waited until I was 33 years old.
Matthew, and all the rest of the CR crew (in front or behind the cameras): thank you for the inspiration to do what I do.
Sincerely,
The Canadian GM!

Like all testing, you have to test for the right things, and the only issue that matters in RPG design is how player behavior is affected.

Whatever problems The Forge may have had, testing for the right variables was never one of them, and things have only gotten worse since. Sure there are designers like Cam Banks, Greg Stolze, and Vincent Baker who know what to test for, but they're the minority. Most of the it's someone who played nothing but D&D derivatives and is making the same rookie mistakes because they never bothered to research previous work.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;911782TRPGs are not spectator-friendly.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;911782Spectator-friendly entertainment exists for watchers (et. al.) and players alike; you need not actually do it to get full engagement from it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912035The idea of designing games that play great on heavily edited Youtube video shows and Twitch streams makes my head hurt.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912035There's nothing wrong with Critical Role or Tabletop. But designing games with that sort of play in mind is like arguing that all action figures should be designed around using them in animatronic films.

Quote from: cranebump;912060Just not a huge fan of watching other people play. Sooooo....I guess this wouldn't work for me on almost any level.

But not being engaged in what other players are doing at the table when it's not your turn has been a core problem in tabletop RPGs since forever, so damn right we should be designing/testing systems which increase inter-player engagement. And it just so happens that many of those systems also lead to more photogenic sessions.

Quote from: kobayashi;912105the way rpgs are played is not the way they are discussed in public forums, emphasis is not placed on the same things.

Exactly. And design should never be based on what people say but why they're saying it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;912114I think forums are useful for finding tools and techniques for specific problems and being exposed to ideas that you can try.

Forums are great for designers who know (or want to learn) how to spot real needs and put those into words. For everyone else... not so much, as those design discussions tend to be more about personal opinion than applicable science.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912208Step 1: Buy a video game console.

Step 2: Buy a video game.

Step 3: Play the video game.

This. Videogames do a lot of things better than tabletop RPGs. The future of the business of TRPGs focuses on what this medium does better than rival RPG media.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;912377This. Videogames do a lot of things better than tabletop RPGs. The future of the business of TRPGs focuses on what this medium does better than rival RPG media.

I'm not sure I buy this. I'd like to know what precisely you mean by saying Videogames do a lot of things better than TRPG's? If you mean - "give you a single-player experience better." Sure, because TRPG's are designed to do that. What else could you be implying? I'm genuinely curious.

The "Future Business of TRPG's" doesn't appear, to me, to have anything to do with videogames other than perhaps distribution or setting ideas. TRPG's are about people rolling dice and interacting. Whether that is happening over Roll20, or at a table doesn't change that fact. That's why I'm wondering what exactly are you referring to?