"Network Externalities", my ass.

[Levi Kornelsen]

For those of you that aren't complete RPG freaks and just stumbled into this thread (run!  flee for your life!), "Network Externalities" is a buzzword wandering around.  Among RPG discussion goons (such as myself), It packs the following meaning:

Lots and lots of existing players = A game feature, because those players can all teach each other stuff and get each other enthused.

So, open game licensing is good and right and D&D is king of gaming and everyone should write and print it, to take advantage of end expand on all those Network Externalities!  Let me break out the obvious, true parts to this.

1) Active communities have momentum.  They grow their activity in a way that less active communities do not.

2) D&D is the market's "king of gaming".  Just, y'know, deal with it.

Okay?  But there's an underlying scent of bullshit here, that needs adressing.  Because it also carries this attached little bit of meaning, whether intended or not...

It's okay if your product is totally unfriendly to new players.  Because there are all those network externalities to take care of that, teaching each other that expert stuff.  Offer our existing network something to keep the buzz rolling, to keep excitement high, and they'll buy it; don't worry about growing your own community of play - in fact, don't you worry about growth at all.  The community will take care of the growth.

...And that, my friends, is actively nasty crap.  It fucks up the utility of the concept.  

Which is something that happens with buzzwords a lot, innit?

[C.W.Richeson]

I think there is some truth here for small press developers in that people aren't learning how to play RPGs generally through small press games.  They break their teeth on d20 or d6 or something else and later stumble onto indie games OR someone already competent is teaching them.  The goal should be to teach how to play this specific game, and not necessarily how to play generally.

I do, however, agree that relying on those already familiar to teach the games to others makes little sense.  In order to get people to play your product it needs to be as user friendly as possible, and I often see people online give up on a book half way through because they couldn't quite figure it out.  Assuming the game is fun and that most folk will enjoy it if they play it the goal is to turn a purchaser into a player by keeping any barrier to play as low as possible.

In my own case, I have sold more than a few people on small press games by running the games for them.  I have, however, only run games I could understand after one reading and which didn't have a high barrier to getting started.  Thus, to me, the most important goal for many developers is clearly communicating the game.  Doing that will grow the community while also resulting in a higher quality product.

[Seanchai]

It's okay if your product is totally unfriendly to new players.  Because there are all those network externalities to take care of that, teaching each other that expert stuff.

Other than the key component of your argument being a strawman, you've got the right idea. Which is to say, no, not really.

Seanchai

[Levi Kornelsen]

Other than the key component of your argument being a strawman, you've got the right idea. Which is to say, no, not really.

You don't think that a large number of OGL publishers are relying on that?

[Drew]

It's okay if your product is totally unfriendly to new players.  Because there are all those network externalities to take care of that, teaching each other that expert stuff.  Offer our existing network something to keep the buzz rolling, to keep excitement high, and they'll buy it; don't worry about growing your own community of play - in fact, don't you worry about growth at all.  The community will take care of the growth.

...And that, my friends, is actively nasty crap.  It fucks up the utility of the concept.  

I'm put in mind of those gamers whom see the trusty 'What is Roleplaying' page as an explicit insult against their manhood.... er... I mean gaming skillz. When taken to a design level it can only foster the notion of rpg's being an arcane exercise practised by the self-selected few. Any enterprise that relies on its fan community to teach and reinforce needs to wake up to the painful truth that without new user accessibility you're essentially fucked in the long term, unless you have the benefit of large academic institutions to take up the slack.

Funnily enough it seems as though the entry-level approach was more actively pushed when gaming was at the height of it's popularity-- well supported Basic Sets, introductory modules and the like. Nowadays the industry (such that it is) seems to have given up the idea in favour of a narrowing, ageing consumer population that spends most of it's time feeding on itself. One would have thought it would have been the other way around.

[Seanchai]

You don't think that a large number of OGL publishers are relying on that?

I haven't seen WotC or other publishers state that the draw of network externalities is that they can make their product unfriendly to new players, no. If you have, I'd be interested in seeing it.

My understanding of the main benefit of network externalities is that if you purchase a product that can make use of them, you have a better chance of finding someone to play with.

From what I can tell, publishers generally don't cater to new players period, network externalities or no.

Seanchai

[Levi Kornelsen]

From what I can tell, publishers generally don't cater to new players period, network externalities or no.

Urg.

Okay, fair point there.

[David R]

I posted this on clash's thread :

Which is why I'm convinced that the best thing for Small Press publishers is new blood in the hobby. Half my current group does not know anything about the rpg scene so a game is a game, Small Press or otherwise. The other half wants to try new things, so it works out well.

Forget Network Externalities, try to get new folks into the hobby.

Damn it, this is the Pundit's forum...fuck I thought it was the general rpg section.

Regards,
David R

[Pierce Inverarity]

Funny, Levi, when I read your post I thought you were commenting on the recent indie games quality control discussions on other sites.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Funny, Levi, when I read your post I thought you were commenting on the recent indie games quality control discussions on other sites.

Nope.  I was reacting to todays rant on the PunditBlog.

[Abyssal Maw]

This is foolishness.

First off: "network externalities" was a 'buzzword' around 7 years ago.

Second: I don't see OGL publishers as intentionally making anything difficult, for new players or otherwise.

I don't get this quote: Who said this? Who even thinks this?

"It's okay if your product is totally unfriendly to new players. Because there are all those network externalities to take care of that, teaching each other that expert stuff. Offer our existing network something to keep the buzz rolling, to keep excitement high, and they'll buy it; don't worry about growing your own community of play - in fact, don't you worry about growth at all. The community will take care of the growth."

[RPGPundit]

I think that its bloody obvious that most RPG companies don't give a fuck about new players.  

I also think that has fuck all to do with network externalities.  That's something that's been around since the 90s, before anyone figured network externalities out.  Its not a fucking movement, its a natural phenomenon, that's all.

Could someone theoretically make an idiotic claim that NEs mean they don't need to appeal to new gamers?
Sure, but they'd be wrong, there is no such connection.

In fact, the reality of NEs means that both the guys on top (Wizards) but ESPECIALLY the guys who are behind should desperately want to bring in new people.

RPGPundit

[Alnag]

Hi,

I am new here, but not new to the discussions like this:

It's okay if your product is totally unfriendly to new players.  Because there are all those network externalities to take care of that, teaching each other that expert stuff.  Offer our existing network something to keep the buzz rolling, to keep excitement high, and they'll buy it; don't worry about growing your own community of play - in fact, don't you worry about growth at all.  The community will take care of the growth.

I think, you are missing a point on this one. Network externalities and new-player friendliness of the game (on some level) are deeply tied together. D&D is the "king" because it has great network of players AND because it has good entry-level stuff as well. If you wonder what the entry-level stuff is, just give a look to D&D basic set and the products with paperback PHB and paperback DMG.

Even the World of Darkness (oh, please don't torture me for using it as an example) have great network externalities connected with stuff like itruductory adventures and demos and such.

True problem of so called "indie games" and such stuff is, that they are simply scavenging on the successful ones. Their players have entered the hobby via D&D or WoD or whatever. Because as far as I can say give newbie players some of these and you can have funny hour watching them desperately trying to find out what to do. I have seen like 20 of these indie games and with few miraculous exceptions they are pretty poor choice for a newbie. They must by administer by proficient gamer. That reveal a lot about their true nature.

Today I usually read GM section of the game first. It it is weak, whole game will be probably weak as well. (Ok, with the exception of GM-less games )

[Levi Kornelsen]

D&D is the "king" because it has great network of players AND because it has good entry-level stuff as well.

Great network of players, check.

Good entry-level stuff?

Bullshit.

[Sosthenes]

Good entry-level stuff?

Bullshit.

"Entry-level stuff" doesn't neccesarily mean dumbed-down games or pre-fab introductory adventures. For someone foreign to role-playing games, the dungeon crawl is very easy to create and play in. Most people would probably have an easier time making the next "Dungeon of Hot Elf Chicks" then e.g. a Vampire "chronicle".