So, here's the basic premise: Everyone enjoys role-playing. Everyone. There are no exceptions. Every child pretends. Every culture has traditions of storytelling. Everyone enjoys role-playing, period.
If that's true (and it is), the obvious question is, why is the RPG gaming industry such a tiny portion of the entertainment industry? Why is role-playing a niche market in a niche market?
Reason #1, AKA "Tell me something I don't know.": Our culture regards the activities of storytelling and pretending as childish. So it's okay to play chess or go to a movie, but it's not okay to sit around with your friends making up stories because that's "kid stuff." Reason #1 is a given, and not what I want to talk about.
Reason #2, AKA "Ouch.": The gaming industry is, in and of itself, a barrier to entry into the hobby.
Arcane rule sets are a barrier. The world's most popular role-playing game is 1000 pages long. Most of the products with high visibility are 8 1/2 x 11 inch books with hundreds of pages of densely printed text. The rules for Monopoly fit on a single sheet of paper. Which one is a casual consumer more likely to explore?
RPG culture is a barrier. I had a whole list of reasons for this, but I'm not going to share it because it would distract from the overall point of this post. Bottom line: A whole lot of people think "those gamers are weird."
The games themselves are a barrier. Do you need games to role-play? Obviously not. That being the case, RPGs should go out of their way to bend over backwards to make sure they're as accessible as possible to the reader. But I don't see that. I see insufferable "What is Role-playing?" texts that ooze pretention and holier-than-thouism for paragraph after paragraph. I see voluminous tomes that present acronyms and totally bizarre concepts with the assumption that the reader will understand them. I see games that unapologetically proclaim, "this product is for gamers. If you don't understand it, go do something else." Indeed, I've written games that commit all of these sins, and I'll bet a lot of you have done the same.
What can be done? Personally, I'm beginning to think we need to chuck the whole damn thing in the bin and start over. Here's what I'm thinking of doing with my own work to bring this about. These are all suggestions; I haven't made up my mind on any of these yet, but I'm presenting them as a sort of manifesto because it's easier and faster to think up and write down that way.
1. I will stop calling them RPGs. I don't write RPGs; I write story games.
2. I will not sell in the normal "gaming" channels. I will not sell my for-download products at RPGNow. I will sell them at Lulu.com or some similar general-interest venue. I will not sell my for-print products (if I ever have any) through standard gaming distribution channels. I will sell them through Borders and Amazon.com.
3. In my texts, I will not explain what role-playing is. I will limit myself to explaining how to play the game in question.
4. In my texts, I will make no assumptions about the reader. Everything gets explained at least once.
5. I will not adhere to the conventions of the hobby. (i.e. you won't see NPC, PC, XP, GM, RPG, XdY, or the like anywhere in my games.) I will create conventions for the individual game as appropriate when necessary (which will be rarely, I suspect).
What will this accomplish? It'll probably mean my sales will suck more ass than a Beverly Hills liposuction clinic, and I'll never make it into Borders and Amazon. But I'm okay with that. This isn't my day job, and I feel pretty strongly that the RPG hobby as a whole has pretty much totally fucked up a no-brainer concept. Everyone role-plays. But the industry has marginalized itself. What's worse, it consistently prides itself on that marginalization. I won't be a part of it.
Thoughts?
I'm with you!
I really don't know what it is you do want to talk about in this thread though. I have some ideas on how to sell "story games" but I think that should go into Publishing.
So what do you want to discuss?
Mainly I want to discuss that numbered list manifesto thing at the end. Will the things I list have any positive effect other than making me feel a little better?
For example, is a game written "from scratch" with no assumptions about the reader, and that doesn't make use of conventions and abbreviations common to the hobby at large, going to be any better a game for it?
And what does the sales venue tell people about a product? If they see it in a game store will they assume it to be "one of those gamer things" and disregard it even if they see it at Borders? If they see it in Borders and upon examination see that it says "role-playing game" on the cover, will they have the same reaction, i.e. "I don't want to be like those gamer people?" and put it back down? Or could I theoretically sell my products both at Lulu and more traditionally gaming-geared venues?
Should I eschew posting information about my publications at gaming oriented websites like RPGNet and GamingReport.com?
Boiling all that down, I guess the question is this: Are my proposals genuinely purposeful? Do they address the issues and problems I have raised, or are they simply reactionary?
Input on that topic would be greatly appreciated.
(And if you've got something to say over in Publishing, I'd like to read it.)
Quote from: ethan_greer1. I will stop calling them RPGs. I don't write RPGs; I write story games.
2. I will not sell in the normal "gaming" channels. I will not sell my for-download products at RPGNow. I will sell them at Lulu.com or some similar general-interest venue. I will not sell my for-print products (if I ever have any) through standard gaming distribution channels. I will sell them through Borders and Amazon.com.
3. In my texts, I will not explain what role-playing is. I will limit myself to explaining how to play the game in question.
4. In my texts, I will make no assumptions about the reader. Everything gets explained at least once.
5. I will not adhere to the conventions of the hobby. (i.e. you won't see NPC, PC, XP, GM, RPG, XdY, or the like anywhere in my games.) I will create conventions for the individual game as appropriate when necessary (which will be rarely, I suspect).
My thoughts:
#1 is a good thing to distance yourself from the current perception of RPGs.
#2 isn't going to make much of a difference since the two markets have litle overlap.
#3 is a smart idea no matter what game you're writing.
#4 -- ditto #3
#5 is smart if you're saying what I think you're saying -- don't use pre-established jargon unless it's necessary (which should be quite rare).
So I agree with everything you said except for how to market it and that topic should definitely go to Publishing. I'm going to be away from a computer for the next five days (and then I still have to get the editing for the IGCP project done!) but after that, I'd love to discuss marketing "story games" (as opposed to RPGs) in the Publishing forum.
Jonathan, yes, you read #5 correctly.
Now, when you say #2 won't make much of a difference, are you saying that I should or should not sell through the gaming-geared channels, or that it doesn't matter either way?
Or are you saying that little game maker guy poo-pooing the standard sales channels is pointless because it won't make any difference in the hobby at large?
Choosing NOT to sell to established gamers through established venues might be shooting yourself in the foot. I chose to sell Fastlane both through rpgnow AND lulu, thus trying to straddle both worlds and, in theory, appeal to both sides of the coin - the rpg culture, and the rest of the potential roleplaying world.
Of course, Fastlane hasn't sold very well regardless, but I think that's due to the oddity of its subject matter (and more specifically, its insistence if not reliance on a roulette wheel).
Believe it or not, Ethan, I disagree with you.
Back in the 90's, a whole bunch of roleplaying games dropped the term "roleplaying game." We had storytelling games, role games, interactive entertainments, I forget how many others, all trying to distance themselves from the label. The prob was, they were still RPGs. They did things the way they always had and they presented all the same barriers to new players. Their changed labels didn't make them innovative.
If you don't want to call your games RPGs, groovy, but their design is what matters.
And then, why don't you want gamers to have your games?
Don't gamers deserve good games too? Don't we, in fact, desperately need good games?
Even if everybody likes to pretend and tell stories, there are real skills involved in good roleplaying. They take time and practice to get. Enjoying good roleplaying comes naturally, but doing good roleplaying is something you learn. Same as with any hobby.
There need to be good entry-level games. Right now there are very, very few of them. But what you're talking about is limiting yourself to writing only entry-level games. Maybe you'll be satisfied with that, but I wouldn't. In fact, I think you'll find that you just can't write every game for an inexperienced audience - kind of like how you can't write every book about chess for an inexperienced audience. You'll have a vision for a game and it'll be plain too complicated for a virgin audience to grasp.
To borrow Jere Genest's example, there are patterns for beginning knitters, and patterns for experienced knitters. How else could it be?
As things stand now, writing a game for experienced roleplayers is problematic, yes, because experienced roleplayers are broken (I include myself; no offense to anyone). We don't take to new ways to play. We identify too strongly with our dogmas and ideals. You have to cajole, seduce and bully us. But you gotta do it - we have skills nobody else has.
So create a new breed of unbroken experienced roleplayers, absolutely, I'm there with you. But also cajole, seduce and bully us. We're up to it.
-Vincent
Damn. I was just about to post a long response when Vincent said just about everything I wanted to say.
To re-emphasize, in a different way:
1. If you sell only on lulu.com, I would never know your game existed. It would be lost in a world where I would never find it.
2. There are plenty of gamers out there who are struggling to find the right game for them, who are just as disgusted with mainstream roleplaying culture are you are, who are just about ready to give roleplaying up and never look back, and need something to grab hold of. Your game could do that for them. At various points in my gaming career, In Nomine, Ergo, Fudge, Continuum, Nobilis, Universalis, The Forge, and the works of Shreyas Sampat and Vincent Baker were those games for me. To quote Samwise in the movie, alienated gamers need something to remind us "that there's some good in the [roleplaying] world, Mr. Frodo, and that good's worth fighting for!"
3. I love the Pokemon roleplaying game. Never actually played it yet, but I love the concept and design. Even oldschoolers can enjoy entry-level games.
4. Entry level games are an opportunity to teach us old dogs new tricks from the beginning. Follow through with your manifesto, if you like, but teach your new tricks to old and new dogs alike. Sometimes us old dogs need to forget everything we know and approach a "story game" from a fresh perspective. I'll tell you, get some old school roleplayers together for some Once Upon a Time and whole worlds open up.
Just to play devil's advocate (and quite possibly get shouted down or ignored, but that's cool): What if everyone doesn't play roleplaying games? What if some people know what RPGs are, and aren't interested?
Everyone pretends, yes. Everyone creates their own imagined spaces. But I don't think everyone shares them, and I know for a fact that not everyone lets other people come in and tinker around in them cooperatively. Many self-identified roleplayers won't go that far: for example, they'll tell you all about their hard-as-nails hero who doesn't care about anyone, but heaven help the player or GM who proposes that something happen to change that paragon of testosterone in any way.
Everybody pretends, but not everybody enjoys, or is goot at, pretending in the many ways specific to roleplaying.
Quote from: ethan_greerNow, when you say #2 won't make much of a difference, are you saying that I should or should not sell through the gaming-geared channels, or that it doesn't matter either way?
I was actually trying to say that selling in the game market doesn't alter the perception of non-gamers because non-gamers won't even know that it's being sold in the game market.
Quote from: TonyLBWhat if everyone doesn't play roleplaying games? What if some people know what RPGs are, and aren't interested?
You are right, of course. Everyone enjoys roleplaying but everyone may not enjoy roleplaying games.
*shrug*
Make good games first. Market them after.
If you have struggle hard just not to be something, you will never get it right.
yrs--
--Ben
I'm hearing you all about the sales thing, and you're all making a lot of sense. Consider #2 scratched off the list.
Tony,
It's a fair point you make. But I would compare it to walking. Everyone walks (assuming they're not hindered by any disabilities). So the market for shoes is pretty big, right? Well, right, but not everyone needs shoes. Tribal cultures living in the Amazon basin aren't a particularly good market for shoes. Likewise, not everyone needs ultra-advanced high-tech running shoes. But in the middle ground, there's a whole crapload of regular old shoes being bought and used. So if pretending is as universal as walking (and I believe that it is), why aren't a whole lot more role-playing games getting bought and played?
Quote from: ethan_greer
1. I will stop calling them RPGs. I don't write RPGs; I write story games.
2. I will not sell in the normal "gaming" channels. I will not sell my for-download products at RPGNow. I will sell them at Lulu.com or some similar general-interest venue. I will not sell my for-print products (if I ever have any) through standard gaming distribution channels. I will sell them through Borders and Amazon.com.
3. In my texts, I will not explain what role-playing is. I will limit myself to explaining how to play the game in question.
4. In my texts, I will make no assumptions about the reader. Everything gets explained at least once.
5. I will not adhere to the conventions of the hobby. (i.e. you won't see NPC, PC, XP, GM, RPG, XdY, or the like anywhere in my games.) I will create conventions for the individual game as appropriate when necessary (which will be rarely, I suspect).
Thoughts?
I'm not sure exactly where to go with this observation but I've seen this before, in an entirely different arena.
For several years in the nineties I was involved with the Libertarian party. Every so often someone would come along and make a proclamation similar to the above. The assumption being that
everyone's a libertarian. Everyone values freedom, right?
They'd go on from there, pointing to the various barriers preventing the masses from 'seeing the light' and joining forces with the party faithful.
Now I don't know how analagous the situation truly is, but I think they had a similar problem with oversimplifying the premise. Sure everyone values freedom, but it falls in different places in their priority lists. They might value freedom, but value security more. Or they might just be people who don't look at politics ideologically.
I'm wondering if you haven't done the same thing here.
Everyone roleplays is self evident enough, the way you've defined it. But not everyone enjoys games. Not everyone enjoys sharing their roleplaying with casual acquaintances. I'm not saying you don't have some good suggestions, I just think that the marginal popularity of roleplaying is more than a problem of packaging and presentation.
To Ethan (crossposted with seargent_x):
Because RPG behaviors are a very small, discrete subset of all imagination. They are, to use your shoe metaphor, tap-shoes, or high end trail-running shoes.
I'm not saying that the industry is reaching everyone who would enjoy it. Oh hell no. I keep recruiting people, and mostly they thank me when they give gaming a try.
But everyone? No, I don't think everyone would like RPGs.
Quote from: quozlQuote from: TonyLBWhat if everyone doesn't play roleplaying games? What if some people know what RPGs are, and aren't interested?
You are right, of course. Everyone enjoys roleplaying but everyone may not enjoy roleplaying games.
Well I think maybe we can take that argument a bit deeper. Fundamentally not everyone likes to pretend. Yes I know these people and they hate having to use their imagination. Put them in front of a video game and they play it, either alone or in a group but never once does suspension of disbelief ever come into play. Yet many of these non-pretenders like to play role playing games. Go figure cause I sure have not figured out why yet. The best I can come up with is a social justification because it is what their friends are doing or its considered edgy (geeky? lol) and non-mainstream.
Ethan you threw down a wide range of things in my opinion and then convieniently said you don't want to talk about them. Frankly, I get the impression that Issue #1 & Issue #2 are completely irrelevant to your initial rant. That is to say there is something deeper going on here.
Quote
So, here's the basic premise: Everyone enjoys role-playing. Everyone. There are no exceptions. Every child pretends. Every culture has traditions of storytelling. Everyone enjoys role-playing, period.
If that's true (and it is), the obvious question is, why is the RPG gaming industry such a tiny portion of the entertainment industry? Why is role-playing a niche market in a niche market?
Ok first as noted I am not sure that this IS true. Everyone does not role play or enjoys role playing, even if they play role playing games. I suppose thats debatable but lets just say I am not sure everyone likes to pretend in the way you suggest.
So the real question is why does the Hobby not have a much larger market share? Simple answer is it's sexy but not SEXY. It involves thought and time, both of which are in short supply these days. That we are even here having this discussion is pretty amazing considering the popularity of Halo and MMORPG's and the video/visual game Industry. Also we lack a beach head in some of the niche markets, like Africa for instance where they still do read books :) Now I know there are a great many more issues with why RPG's may not be selling hard in Africa but I would think they could if a way could be found to break down language and cultural barriers.
Ok sorry for the digression.
So in simple terms I answered the question as best I can and none of the answers are rage worthy. So I ask, why the rage? Hey I feel it myself some days but it seems you have some more.... much more to say about the Hobby / Industry.
So what is it you are really trying to get at here? I for one am definitely interested in hearing it.
Thanks
Sean
Another problem is that Christian Fundamentalists (AKA, "Fundies", as irreverent people like me call them) have raised a giant fuss over anyone playing any kind of RPGs. They have convinced a lot of people that all "gamers" are satanists, nasty, or just wierd, and probably all child molesters as well, this has created a giant stigma that makes people who want to play them shy away from them, and overbearing Fundy parents have made it so that their children, who actually may NOT have had the creativity beaten out of them by their parents allready, can not get their hands on gaming materials.
To commemorate their, ahem, "Contribution" to the closed-mindedness to RPGs, I suggest making an irreverent game about them.
A title I had in mind is
"Damn Fundies: Beat those Beady-Eyed Bible-Beating Bastards Bloody"
AKA "DF:BBEBBBB"
Tony, I think we're agreeing. I see high-level roleplaying games like tap shoes, or balerina slippers or whatever. I see Monopoly or chess being your average sneaker. Somewhere in the middle is where I'd like to see role-playing games eventually positioning themselves. I suppose progress is being made towards that end, but it seems painfully slow and often hampered by the people who would most benefit from that end being reached.
Sarge, I think you're also basically agreeing with me and Tony on the issue, am I correct? That basically the role-playing hobby isn't as popular as it seems like it should be?
I 100% agree that playing role-playing games is not a universal thing. But role-playing is a universal thing, so shouldn't marketing games and pushing them into the mainstream be easier than it has been thus far? I think so, and I blame the factors I listed in my first post.
Sean,
Gah, I do this a lot. I get all puffed up about something, and go off like a balloon being let go. Then I get talked back down to a calmer sort of discourse in the ensueing thread. Ah well. I did say it was a rant at the very beginning.
So, to speak to your point: I think that everyone enjoys pretending. All children pretend. Some are better at it than others, but they all do it. I think it's very likely that at some level, much of that pretending could be considered role-playing. Now, I'm assuming the people you're talking about who don't like pretending are older people, no longer children, and have followed the cultural currents that deemphasize imagination and pretending among adults. I don't know for sure, but that's my guess. When these people you mention were two and three-year-olds, I imagine they spent a lot of time pretending, and quite likely some of it was role-playing.
As to what I'm really trying to get at, I think my second post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=125223#125223) in this thread is me getting off the soapbox and initiating the discussion. (Thanks to Jonathan for the prodding!) I don't know that I have a lot of rage about the hobby and industry, but some of the trends in role-playing do get to me sometimes, and that's what a large part of my first post was about.
Hi Jack,
It's true that groups of people get worked up about things that other groups do.
But, for the sake of this thread, let's please, please, PLEASE not go there.
Another good use for bible pages: Sopping up the blood of dead Fundies.
Okay, there we go, my anti-"Christian" rant has ended.
I just get sick of people who claim they are such good "patriots", and then trash the very freedoms that our founding fathers fought for *COUGH*republicans*COUGH*((Okay, now the rant is REALLY over.))
Quote from: ethan_greer
As to what I'm really trying to get at, I think my second post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=125223#125223) in this thread is me getting off the soapbox and initiating the discussion. (Thanks to Jonathan for the prodding!) I don't know that I have a lot of rage about the hobby and industry, but some of the trends in role-playing do get to me sometimes, and that's what a large part of my first post was about.
Ethan
Ok cool to comment on the seoncd post, I think they are "reactionary" but that doesn't mean they do not have merit. My impression is fundamentally your list is attempting to take some of the Hobby, even if that "some" is yourself and take the art in a new direction. A bit of revolution or evolution is a good thing.
You have to be true to your Art and I believe that to be true for all of us. Generic Advice but I hope it was worth the electronic space. :)
Sean
Ethan: cool! I agree with you absolutely that roleplaying games could reach a wider and more mainstream audience, if they were designed to be less, y'know, sucky. (Although I'm not a "wider audience" guy myself - I want more non-sucky games so
I can play them, not so that some audience somewhere can.)
QuoteI suppose progress is being made towards that end, but it seems painfully slow...
I've been meaning to post for a while about our impatience here at the Forge vs. the actual pace of innovation in roleplaying. Which is, in fact, slow, because innovations depend on actual play, which is a months-and-years thing, not a weeks-and-months thing.
-Vincent
I love, love, love this!
Great job, Ethan!
A couple of comments before I get to my main points:
1.
Quote from: ethan_greerSo, here's the basic premise: Everyone enjoys role-playing.
I'm not totally sold on this point.
While 'everyone' may enjoy role-playing, there are subsets of the population who (1) are a bit too literal or concrete to participate in a role-playing game, (2) while just as imaginative as anyone else in their own heads, lack the social skills or tools to participate in group role-playing, (3) for whom the step-by-step, procedural, conventions of role-playing are boring, or (4) have other quirks that will keep them from being functional group role-players.
At least that's been my experience.
2.
Quote from: ethan_greer...why is the RPG gaming industry such a tiny portion of the entertainment industry? Why is role-playing a niche market in a niche market?
Consider that reading itself is a 'niche,' and you've got part of the answer.
Even a mega-blockbuster like "Harry Potter" only sells to a fraction of the total population (not a bad fraction, over 5 million initially in the U.S. for #4, but out of a population of nearly 300 million).
Most telling are the annual recountings of Science Fiction book sales in Gardner Dozois'
Year's Best Science Fiction, where the market just keeps dropping and dropping.
Take the general population, sort out (1) those who read, (2) those who read fiction, (3) those who read non-realistic, fantastic fiction, and then (4) those with the patience for procedural rules and the social skills for group role-playing. In sum, role-playing is "a niche market in a niche market."
Now, back to Ethan's Manifesto:
Quote from: ethan_greer
1. I will stop calling them RPGs. I don't write RPGs; I write story games.
2. I will not sell in the normal "gaming" channels. I will not sell my for-download products at RPGNow. I will sell them at Lulu.com or some similar general-interest venue. I will not sell my for-print products (if I ever have any) through standard gaming distribution channels. I will sell them through Borders and Amazon.com.
3. In my texts, I will not explain what role-playing is. I will limit myself to explaining how to play the game in question.
4. In my texts, I will make no assumptions about the reader. Everything gets explained at least once.
5. I will not adhere to the conventions of the hobby. (i.e. you won't see NPC, PC, XP, GM, RPG, XdY, or the like anywhere in my games.) I will create conventions for the individual game as appropriate when necessary (which will be rarely, I suspect).
I really, really like this list!
Let me take a stab at a re-write, probably a bit too wordy, and posting my rationale for changes below:
QuoteEthan Greer's Manifesto, Version 2.0[/b]
1. I will stop marketing what I do under the label of RPG, Role-Playing Game, or anything commonly found in our genre market. Heck, let me see if I can even stop calling what I do games or gaming. Instead I'll be creative, descriptive and flat-out entertaining.
2. I will sell my product at every available general-interest venue, through Amazon.com, and wherever I can. In fact, I'll set up shop anywhere and everywhere, on the web and in person, conduct entertaining demonstrations to whoever comes my way, and 'sell' what I do without setting preconditions on my audience.
3. In my texts, I will not explain what role-playing is. I will limit myself to explaining how to play the game in question.
4. I will not adhere to the conventions of the hobby. You won't see the alphabet soup of NPC, PC, XP, GM, RPG, XdY, or the like anywhere in my texts. Nor will I use any such concepts as 'character,' 'Game Master,' 'wandering monster,' 'treasure' or 'trap,' unless the design of the product absolutely requires it; and even then I will customize such things so they fit invisibly into the overall tone and writing of the texts. I will create or include conventions for the individual game as appropriate, and only when necessary.
4a. I will eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, any mechanisms associated with the genre, including the use of dice and mechanical resolution methods. Indeed, I will attempt to eliminate anything physical or mechanical that serves as a barrier to casual play.
4b. I will attempt to eliminate look-up or reference tables; statistics or attributes; percentiles, ratios or odds; character sheets, tokens or counters; indeed, any accepted genre conventions.
5. In my texts, I will make no assumptions about the reader. I will explain everything clearly, at least once, so there are no preconditions or prerequisites.
5a. I will attempt to provide an opportunity for people to exercise their creativity and imagination, their sense of humor and their story-telling ability, to the most novel and personally fulfilling extent possible, I will encourage my readers and consumers to make maximum use of their own ideas and concepts.
5b. I will trust that my reader is my equal, fully capable of recognizing a fun activity, and fully capable of organizing groups of people to share in it, and fully capable of spreading and perpetuating what I have created.
Notes:
#1: it seems better to leave 'game' out of the assumptions.
#2: From the previous postings, it's clear that #2 needed to be ammended so there was no prohibition against selling through conventional RPG channels. I personally think that the 'demo process' is critical (I've had a couple of game concepts 'go national' after just a handful of playtests; the first Gencon "Amber Diceless" mini-campaign, for example, spawned at least a couple of dozen groups all over the U.S.), so I added that in. I thought "lulu," and even "Borders," were too specific, especially if this Manifesto becomes widely distributed... but "Amazon" is a worldwide.
#3: Perfect as is.
#4 (Previous): This seems out of sequence to me. So I shifted it down to #5.
#4 (formerly #5): I love this, but I want to go beyond simply deleting the acronyms, and try to dump all the other baggage.
#4a: This is based on my own experience with Amber, since I've found that eliminating dice has brought many new people into the fold. This especially applies to women, many of whom have told me that they were uncomfortable with the mechanisms of role-playing (and the domineering attitude of male gamers telling them "roll this," "look up that," and "let me explain the rules"). Also, it seems pretty obvious that the fewer physical requirements to the product, the wider the possible applications (in the car, in the dark, etc.).
#4b: Again, a lot of this stuff is a turn-off to people who are, at some level or other, repulsed by wargames, or even parlor games. There are math-phobics who hate numbers, even to the extent of having to substract or multiply single digits. And lots and lots of people are turned off from games in general because of bad experiences with chess or Monopoly (as an arrogant child, I probably soured hundreds on gaming in my quest to crush any opponents in a wide range of games).
#5: I very much liked what was formerly #4 ("I will make no assumptions about the reader. Everything gets explained at least once"). Of all the elements of Ethan's Manifesto, this is the strongest and most compelling. I'm just trying to make it more specific when I refer to "preconditions or prerequisites."
#5a: Maybe this isn't necessary, but it's one of my main goals.
#5b: My opinion, but I believe it needs to be stated that the reader must be respected as a partner and participant.
Please, folks, feel free to steal, modify, and put up your own versions of Ethan's Manifesto. I like where this is going!
Erick
Damn.
I'm just going to have to print out a copy of the Greer/Wujcik Manifesto and paste it on the wall of my room. It's almost an exact description of what I, as both player and designer, want from "second wave," "post-Forge" indie RPGs.
Nice job, both of you.
Woah... It's "Dogme '04".
(to be less cryptic -- it sounds in spirit similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95 applied to "what it is we do here.")
Golly! Thanks for the kudos, fellas!
Erick, you make some good points about the size of the market. The examples and numbers you cite kinda puts it in a better perspective.
And hey, you also mention Harry Potter. Harry Potter is cool. You know what I think sucks? I think it sucks that out of that 5 million who buy the books, when and if a role-playing game is licensed (which seems inevitable), only a small portion will buy the game. And of those who do buy it, only a handful will actually play it. Why? Because they'll look at the rules, with its three hundred pages of weird numbers, when to roll this die for that statistic but only on Tuesdays when it's raining, all fluffed up with material they already know from reading the books. And then they'll say, "WTF is this supposed to be?" and go do something fun.
If you're not sold on "Everyone enjoys role-playing," as several of you have stated, how about, "Everyone enjoys pretending at some point in their lives?"
Altering the basic premise changes the question a little bit. Instead of asking why RPGs aren't totally mainstream, one might ask why RPGs are such a hard sell to most people.
* * *
Anyway, regarding Erick's stab at the manifesto:
1: Dunno about eliminating "game." Depending on the product, it could probably go either way. But I agree that "gaming" as a label for what we do could stand to go.
2: I really, really like this spin on my original #2. Excellent!
3: Yep.
4 and 5: I agree with the change in order.
4: Cool. The only complaint I have here is a very vague one - it seems like the wording could be softened a bit, but I'm not sure how. I'm totally on board with the general idea (obviously), but as written it comes across as a bit extreme. However, I've been trying for ten minutes, and I can't come up with a way to soften it to my liking. Somebody wanna hook me up?
4a: While I agree that a lot of games take the amount of required paraphernalia too far, this clause is worded a bit too extremely for my tastes. I also think that 4b should be folded into 4a.
My proposed ammendments:
Quote4a: I will not thoughtlessly embrace the use of extraneous paraphernalia, such as dice, minature figurines, maps, charts, reference tables, character sheets, and the like. I will include such elements only when they are absolutely vital in creating the play experiences I want the product to promote.
5: Beautiful. Rounds out the concept I was going for perfectly.
* * *
I'm with Erick: Copy, modify, augment, whatever. But do share!
I've been thinking about this for some time, basically from when I first entered the hobby some fifteen years ago. How do you make "interactive social entertainments" more accessable to the general public while keeping them available and enjoyable for long-time participants?
I've had a few thoughts of my own, that I will add into the base that Messirs Greer and Wujcik have built. Justifications will be found below.
(On a side note, I hate writing names I cannot pronounce in my head; how exactly does one pronounce Wujcik?)QuoteGreer/Wujcik Manifesto, Version 2.1
1. I will stop marketing what I do under the label of RPG, Role-Playing Game, or anything commonly found in our genre market. Heck, let me see if I can even stop calling what I do games or gaming. Instead I will market my product as an entertainment medium, and bring no attention whatever to the fact that it is, indeed, an interactive story-telling medium.
2. I will sell my product at every available general-interest venue, through Amazon.com, and wherever I can. In fact, I'll set up shop anywhere and everywhere, on the web and in person, conduct entertaining demonstrations to whoever comes my way, and 'sell' what I do without setting preconditions on my audience.
2b. I will utilize the tried-and-true techniques of other entertainment venues to sell my products. My books will be the same size as other books, fitting nicely on the same shelf as "American Gods" and "Of Mice and Men." Should I have an appropriate budget, I will advertize in general-interest arenas: television, magazines, the internet and, most importantly, I will do everything in my power to ensure word-of-mouth consideration.
3. In my texts, I will not explain what role-playing is. I will not explain that it is, in fact, a game. I will limit myself to describing how to use the medium to best effect, while maintaining that there is no one way to go about it. It can be as silly as a stick figure, or as passionate as a Van Gough; the only thing that matters is that it is entertaining, however the participants choose to interpret enteratainment.
4. I will encourage the participants to use or create conventions of paticipation as neccessary, as it is impossible for me, as merely the designer of a particular medium, to know what would be required for any given group's entertainment. I may provide suggestions ("Others have done it this way,") but will not suggest that any part of the medium is concrete.
4a. I will discourage, to a degree I feel appropriate for the specific medium, any mechanisms associated with games, including the use of dice and mechanical resolution methods. Indeed, I will attempt to discourage anything physical or mechanical that serves as a barrier to casual play.
4b. I will attempt to eliminate look-up or reference tables; statistics or attributes; percentiles, ratios or odds; character sheets, tokens or counters; indeed, any accepted genre conventions.
5. In my texts, I will make no assumptions about the reader. I will explain everything clearly, at least once, so there are no preconditions or prerequisites.
5a. I will attempt to provide an opportunity for people to exercise their creativity and imagination, their sense of humor and their story-telling ability, to the most novel and personally fulfilling extent possible, I will encourage my readers and consumers to make maximum use of their own ideas and concepts.
5b. I will trust that my reader is my equal, fully capable of recognizing a fun activity, and fully capable of organizing groups of people to share in it, and fully capable of spreading and perpetuating what I have created. I will not hinder, in any way, their creation of matierals related to my media, as such materials are as valid and as imporatant as my own contributions.
The Justifying Bits
1. It seems important, to me, that we simply stop seperating ourselves, in the minds of potential gamers, from the rest of the entertainment forms out there. I mean, the only other entertainment we seem to have anything in common with right now is comic books, and that doesn't really sit well with the majority of casual readers.
2. No need for change on this point, but it doesn't seem quite done.
2b. Part of the reason gaming is such a "hard sell" as Ethan pointed out, is that few people have heard anything good about it. I mean, sure, the books are on the shelf, but what is it? Is it cool? "Is it like Dungeons and Dragons?" We need to get the word out; word of mouth only travels so far. Also, our books look funny. They're big, they're blocky and they look like class text-books. Not exactly a "sell-me" image.
3. If we're not calling them games anymore, we can't really tell people "how to play the game." I mean, if we're looking for something more "entertainment media" chic, we need to start presenting this as a medium, or an entertainment, or something "other" than a game. And we need to describe how it works without alluding to the fact that yes, it is indeed one of those geeky role-playing things.
4. Taking the conventions out of your text doesn't change the fact that the conventions are there, and they are there for good reason. It is an easy way for experienced gamers to understand what is going on; everyone here knows what an NPC is, and I'm pretty sure we could all pick up 5D6 without thinking about it, roll to save and do a million other things that we take for granted every time we game. While new gamers may not have these conventions, they should at least be able to make up some new ones, or be given suggestions on conventions that have worked in the past.
4a. Again, while it might be nice to get rid of the War Gamer paraphernalia, not everyone wants to play that way, and if we're making this open to everyone, we should at least include suggestions on how to impliment such "barriers to casual play." Don't encourage, simply facilitate.
4b. Fine just the way it is. Keep it fast, keep it dirty, and who cares if a Flamberge gets a +4 to strike when the wind is at your back, your standing on a hill, and your best girl is by your side? Just resolve the action and go.
5. Fine just the way it is. Again, one of the key points of this manifesto.
5a. Also, good the way it is. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the wording, but I couldn't come up with anything better, so far be it from me to unduly criticize.
5b. I felt it important to include the fact that, as our equals, gamers have as much right to share their ideas about the game world as anyone else. I think it comes down to fair use: as long as you're not making money off of someone else's intellectual property, share what you think, share your ideas, contribute and pay your debts forward.
So there you go. That's my contribution to the world of interactive story entertainment media. ^__^
Kris Hansen
"Once upon a time, there was a guy who liked pocky. He died. It had nothing to do with the pocky... He just died... The end."
Everybody pretends.
Everybody breathes.
But you can't sell air.
You can't sell people what they already get for free.
However, you can sell a particular variety of something people get for free. For example, bottled water. It's supposed to come from some mysterious source.
Some people will see this as something they already get for free. Others see it as something they don't already have and will purchase it. The 'mysterious source' makes a difference. Right now the mysterious source employed in the RPG industry (whatever you might like to speculate it is) only seems to create a small industry. Then again, if everyone associated bottled water with cat piss man, it might not be where it is today (regardless of your mysterious source). Jeez, now I'm rambling!
I think we can rather equate this with the freeform movement that has been gaining some steady speed in the industry over the last few years, though. We need to start looking at gaming as less and less of a hobby and more like a powerful medium of communication. Games can help us get ideas from one place to another, and the more "artistic" the game, the more powerful that communication can be.
Magister Ludi gave us a goal. We can have a game as encompassing and as powerful as the Glass Bead Game, without having to deal with glyphs and strategic placements. We can make a game as powerful a tool, without bending to its weaknesses. In many ways, role-playing has illustrated a great many of Hesse's ideas in games-as-art (not just role-playing games, but any game), and we are getting closer to it with each new generation of gamers.
Do we get it for free? Damn right we get it for free. Should we then stop attempting to structure it? Should that deter us from trying to make something from our art? Does the fact that water comes from the tap make the Bottled Water Industry any less lucrative? I don't think so.
Messirs Greer and Wucjik have a great thing going here. And bottled water has been selling better and better for years.
Kris
I am not sure that things that are currently subclauses don't deserve their own line items in the manifesto. (i.e. #2b could easily stand on its own as #3). Or you could abandon the manifesto format and simply call it the Ten (or whatever number) Commandments.
"Dude! You just violated the Seventh Commandment."
And they say that the Forge is a cult!
Ethan, you have just hit on the reason why we as Role Players are pushed into the crevices of this society.
They 'did it geeky' from the start [albeit subconciously, I'd imagine] to set themselves apart from society and make RPGs et al a closed 'cult of games'.
A bad move in my opinion [and in Ethan's too it seems] we have to go outside that thinking and approach game design completely anew so that cliched or false negative attachments [for example: all gamers and Role-Play types have no chance with women/smell/have no external lives etc] can play no part in someones decision to pick up a game and play it.
What we are talking about is relaunching the hobby.
Call an Ad company and get it a makeover, somebody.
I'll save my next round of feedback for another time, in a day or two, but here are a couple of comments...
Quote from: SlurpeeMoney(On a side note, I hate writing names I cannot pronounce in my head; how exactly does one pronounce Wujcik?)
Exactly why it should be the "Greer Manifesto."
A "Greer/Wujcik" manifesto is doomed from a pronounciation point of view.
I suggest the following format rules:
1. Whatever you change should be marked in bold, or in a color (I'm short on time, so I only 'colored' two of the latest chages, the red for a replacement, and the blue for an addition... you get the idea).
2. If you change things within the clauses, just increment the righthand portion of the Version # (2.2 --> 2.3), but if you add one or more clauses, increment the lefthand digit (2.2 --> 3.0).
3. Keep the main title as "Greer Manifesto," but put your name at the end, as in the following example:
QuoteGreer Manifesto, Version 2.1
1. I will stop marketing what I do under the label of RPG, Role-Playing Game, or anything commonly found in our genre market. Heck, let me see if I can even stop calling what I do games or gaming. Instead I will market my product as an entertainment medium, and bring no attention whatever to the fact that it is, indeed, an interactive story-telling medium.
2. I will sell my product at every available general-interest venue, through Amazon.com, and wherever I can. In fact, I'll set up shop anywhere and everywhere, on the web and in person, conduct entertaining demonstrations to whoever comes my way, and 'sell' what I do without setting preconditions on my audience.
2b. I will utilize the tried-and-true techniques of other entertainment venues to sell my products. My books will be the same size as other books, fitting nicely on the same shelf as "American Gods" and "Of Mice and Men." Should I have an appropriate budget, I will advertize in general-interest arenas: television, magazines, the internet and, most importantly, I will do everything in my power to ensure word-of-mouth consideration.
3. In my texts, I will not explain what role-playing is. I will not explain that it is, in fact, a game. I will limit myself to describing how to use the medium to best effect, while maintaining that there is no one way to go about it. It can be as silly as a stick figure, or as passionate as a Van Gough; the only thing that matters is that it is entertaining, however the participants choose to interpret enteratainment.
4. I will encourage the participants to use or create conventions of paticipation as neccessary, as it is impossible for me, as merely the designer of a particular medium, to know what would be required for any given group's entertainment. I may provide suggestions ("Others have done it this way,") but will not suggest that any part of the medium is concrete.
4a. I will discourage, to a degree I feel appropriate for the specific medium, any mechanisms associated with games, including the use of dice and mechanical resolution methods. Indeed, I will attempt to discourage anything physical or mechanical that serves as a barrier to casual play.
4b. I will attempt to eliminate look-up or reference tables; statistics or attributes; percentiles, ratios or odds; character sheets, tokens or counters; indeed, any accepted genre conventions.
5. In my texts, I will make no assumptions about the reader. I will explain everything clearly, at least once, so there are no preconditions or prerequisites.
5a. I will attempt to provide an opportunity for people to exercise their creativity and imagination, their sense of humor and their story-telling ability, to the most novel and personally fulfilling extent possible, I will encourage my readers and consumers to make maximum use of their own ideas and concepts.
5b. I will trust that my reader is my equal, fully capable of recognizing a fun activity, and fully capable of organizing groups of people to share in it, and fully capable of spreading and perpetuating what I have created. I will not hinder, in any way, their creation of materials related to my media, as such materials are as valid and as important as my own contributions.
Version 1.0: Greer
Version 2.0: Wujcik
Version 2.1: Hansen
I nominate Greer as the guy who will clean things up, and come up with a final version... in a couple of weeks.
Erick
Quote from: ethan_greer...Dunno about eliminating "game..."
Consider this.
These days, when you say 'game' to most people, they instantly think 'computer game.'
After all, we're now talking about a multi-billion dollar industry (that, three years ago, exceeded the revenues from the film industry), ubiquitous and in all our lives, with expanding influence. It's not just the PlayStations and the X-Boxes, but also the EverQuests and the little 'games' we play on our cellphones.
If there is a dichotomy in the definition of 'game' it is between
New and
Old, where New makes beeping sounds, and Old is the smelly old boardgame in the closet.
Frankly, I don't want either image for where I'd like to go with role-playing.
And I'd like to push against and away from the "New" games. I want to appeal to exactly the kind of people who are, to one degree or another, repulsed by electronic games. I want to give those people another option.
Make sense?
Erick
You're making sense, Erick. However, I not sure I agree that using the term "game" automatically lumps us in with computer gamers and board gamers. And even if it does, I'm not convinced that's a problem.
One problem that arises for me is what to call them instead. "Thingies?" Obviously not. Kris's (SlurpeeMonkey's) "Interactive Story-telling Medium" sounds too much like something out of a Dilbert comic for my tastes. But hey, if "Interactive Story-telling Medium" or even "Thingies" works for you, I'm 100% behind you. I'm just saying that it's not for me. I think I'll stick with "story games" for now.
And that's a part of the problem with me organizing the Greer Manifesto (catchy title, but then of course I would think so :) ) as a living breathing thing - I'm not a committee guy. I'm all about doing things my way.
So here it is: Folks, if you want to adapt, mutate, and discuss this thing we're creating, go for it. I'll have my version, and you can have yours, and she can have hers, and that guy over there can have his. Hell, call it whatever you want, too. All this organization stuff makes me a little itchy. Let's not get hung up on versioning, and crediting this and such person for this and such clause modification. Instead, let's everyone take what they want from this thread and the various incarnations of the manifesto, and put together their own guidelines for how they want to focus their goals.
Now, if you've got a specific plan in mind that calls for all of this organization and versioning and stuff, I'd like to hear it, Erick. But I must decline to act as clean-up man and send the nomination back your way. The structured list/universal manifesto thing was your idea, so you should take the ownership role. (With my blessing if you insist on using my name on it! :) )
That definitely isn't to say I won't be paying attention and making further contributions to this thread. And I do plan on creating my own version of the manifesto and posting a version on SimplePhrase (my website) after this thread has played out.
Quote from: ethan_greerYou're making sense, Erick. However, I not sure I agree that using the term "game" automatically lumps us in with computer gamers and board gamers. And even if it does, I'm not convinced that's a problem.
You started this thread with the following two principles (correct me if I'm boiling this down incorrectly):
1.
Quote from: Ethan GreerEveryone enjoys role-playing.
As I've stated before, I don't agree with the 'everyone' part, but I certainly think there are great numbers of potential role-players who would love to discover what we have to offer.
2.
Quote from: Ethan GreerThe gaming industry is, in and of itself, a barrier to entry into the hobby... (Reason #1) Arcane rule sets are a barrier... (Reason #2) RPG culture is a barrier... (Reason #3) The games themselves are a barrier...
Where you say,
"RPG culture is a barrier...," I would say the situation is even worse, and that
Game culture is a barrier.I base this on my own personal experience, which I'll boil down to one particular case.
Some years ago an old gaming buddy, Jon, brought his new girlfriend, Karen, along to Gencon.
My impression of Karen was of a highly intelligent, stunningly attractive woman. We we first met, in chatting, I found out that she had never particularly cared for games, and as the mother of teenage boys she was happy that Jon and her kids had something in common, but that neither the noisy electronic games, nor any of the range of tabletop games, was something she found enjoyable. In other words, we boys should just go ahead and play, and she would amuse herself.
Me being the pushy guy that I am, coerced her into playing. For example, I told her that I wouldn't be letting Jon play unless she played too (and was convincing enough that Jon was visibly upset!). Then I told her it wasn't a game at all, that it was something else altogether. And then I started role-playing with her.
She's been role-playing ever since.
The reason I bring this up is because Karen's reluctance was based on her long-time experience with games, not role-playing (about which she knew relatively little). It's my belief that there are many like Karen who think of role-playing as something other than a "game." (There was a serious debate in the Amber Diceless Role-Playing community about this subject, and in 1992 Don Woodward wrote a column in Amberzine entitled "It's Not a Game!")
Quote from: ethan_greerOne problem that arises for me is what to call them instead. "Thingies?" Obviously not. Kris's (SlurpeeMonkey's) "Interactive Story-telling Medium" sounds too much like something out of a Dilbert comic for my tastes. But hey, if "Interactive Story-telling Medium" or even "Thingies" works for you, I'm 100% behind you. I'm just saying that it's not for me. I think I'll stick with "story games" for now.
Perhaps we, as adherents to the Greer Manifesto, simply need to find the appropriate label by trial and error, fumbling around until the right one finds the right chord, with the right audience.
Quote from: ethan_greer...I do plan on creating my own version of the manifesto and posting a version on SimplePhrase (my website) after this thread has played out.
That will be the version I'll regard as official.
It will be the final text of the Greer Manifesto, hopefully enshrined in its own page on the Greer website...
Erick
Erick, thanks for the clarifications on your issues with "game" as a label for what we do. (Your boiling down looks about right to me, BTW.) Now that I understand exactly where you're coming from, I'm more inclined to agree with what you're saying. I must ponder this.
Edit: Oh, and I wouldn't mind seeing that article you mention. Where can I see it?
I dunno, I have my doubts. For a few reasons.
First, I can't read that thing without thinking "freeform". Now, freeform might be all well and good, but I doubt the economic viability of it. In fact, that manifesto seems to be telling me to create "Eye-Spy", and then try to sell it.
Secondly, there are very valid reasons why roleplaying is not a bigger market than it is. Some of these are the same reasons that improv theatre isn't a huge market, and LARPs for that matter too, such as inhibitions, stigmas, phobias, and cost. Someone already pointed out the fantastically tiny percentage of people who actually read anything which might indicate a preference for the genres that RPGs cover. If people won't read gripping novels, we can hardly expect them to create their own with rules. TV and movies, IMHO, breed disposable consumers who want their entertainment pre-packaged and microwave safe, just add water, then press play. RPGs may be comparatively cheap to some other forms of entertainment, but they nearly always have a much higher "buy-in" in terms of time and effort.
Thirdly, by any other name, what we make are games. Call a horse a quadrapedal transport medium, and it's still a horse. Paint it yellow, braid it's hair, cut off it's tail, and dress it in silk, and all you have is a pretty horse. But worse, this manifesto isn't adding things to RPGs, it's taking them away. Instead of a structured viable product with clear rules, we now have freeform "let's get together and tell a story". People don't need to pay for that. It isn't like bottled and tap water, it's like... well it's like nothing I can think of, because no-one actually needs "story-telling mediums" (they do need water though). This is why RPGs are a hobby, and like all hobbies, they appeal to a niche market. You can lead a horse to water...
Finally, as per Erick's story about Karen, I don't believe that that anecdote really supports defining RPGs as non-games. It seems far more likely that Karen merely had a limited understanding of what "game" actually encompasses. This is understandable, and expectable, because I've never seen a single RPG advertisement on TV. I don't even know how you could pull one off. Can you imagine an ad trying to sell something that people can't see? Just a group of people sitting around a table looking like they are having fun, and some voice-over telling us about something called an "entertainment medium", which apparently has a little book and nothing else. And as far as you can tell, the people don't even need the damn book that the ad is trying to sell. Yeah, that'd be an advertisers nightmare methinks.
I know I come off as a bit pessimistic, but I'm not seeing the logistics of this manifesto thing. Actually, calling them the "Ten Commandments" seems pretty apt, cos they'd be just about as relevant to reality, but maybe a bit harder to adhere to.
-Ben
QuoteInstead I will market my product as an entertainment medium, and [color="red"]bring no attention whatever to the fact that it is, indeed, an interactive story-telling medium.[/color]
Is this really a good idea? If you don't let people know what it is, why should they buy it? If they do fall for it once, won't they be wary of purchasing future products? More to the point, bringing attention to it or no, you are not going to bamboozle people into roleplaying.
Ben-
I think your comments on the term "game" and the Karen storywere correct. I think that for many people, "Game" inherently implies competition and a method of winning ( defined goals and method of achieving them). "Play" seems to imply more of an enjoyable, non- inherently competetive activity. Interestingly, "Roleplaying Game", as a term, is made up of both terms (plus "role", which leads to other interesting questions...).
My mind also turned to freeform gaming after reading these posts. I find myself disagreeing with your assessment of the saleablity, however. I think that the idea that "Color+setting+situation+character" material, without system is unsaleable is may be nothing but an issue of tradition and mindset within the gaming community.
I would point out that such materials, in a sense, do in fact exist and are regularly sold. They just aren't sold directly to a gamer market, nor do they tend to inherently contain the suggestion to their purchasers that their use should be as background for roleplaying activity. What I'm thinking of are the many "coffetable" type books you find in the sf section of most decent bookstores, you know the ones with titles like " The Big Illustrated Encyclopedia of Middle Earth". Most gamers I know own something along those lines at some point. From what I can tell, the only big difference between these products and game products are:
a) they don't contain game mechanics scattered throughout the text.
b) They don't have a section of "what if" materials and story nuggets.
Part of this thread seems to point to the common urge of gamers to expand out of the niche hobby mentaliy, to introduce non-rpgers to the activity. I'd definitely fall in with those folks who would like to see that happen. I think a move in the direction of creating and distributing interesting, creative and engaging settings and situations as a greater priority than mechanics would be the best way to do so.
Apologies for tyhe lengthy post,
Robert
Quote from: RavienI dunno, I have my doubts. For a few reasons.
First, I can't read that thing without thinking "freeform". Now, freeform might be all well and good, but I doubt the economic viability of it.
Personally, I'm not all that interested in the economic viability.
From my perspective, if the Greer Manifesto either (1) generates interesting new variations on role-playing, or (2) finds new users, then I'm satisfied.
On the flip side, if 100 different offerings are produced based on the Greer Manifesto, and if one of them takes off big time, however unlikely that may be, there is the potential for an economic viability outside the current RPG ghetto.
Quote from: RavienSecondly, there are very valid reasons why roleplaying is not a bigger market than it is.
Correct on all counts, especially in terms of the time for 'buy-in.'
On the other hand, you could have made the same arguments for why snow boarding would never take off. Skiing was the market, but snow boarding brought, to some degree, an entirely different set of people to the slopes...
Quote from: RavienThirdly, by any other name, what we make are games.
And snow boarding, by any other name, is still skiing.
Yet there are people who snow board who would never ski, and vice versa.
To you, and perhaps to me (after being in this argument for nearly 20 years, I'm still not sure where I stand), role-playing will always be 'gaming.'
However, I know sizable minority in the Amber Diceless community who argue that they do not game, are not gamers, and that what they are doing is not gaming.
The validity of their argument is not at issue. The fact that they prefer spending their time with something they regard as a non-game, yet remains role-playing, is interesting, and, maybe, relevant.
Quote from: RavienInstead of a structured viable product with clear rules, we now have freeform "let's get together and tell a story". People don't need to pay for that.
This is a familiar argument. I heard it a lot back when I was trying to sell Amber Diceless to various publishers.
I'd counter with the following:
1. Even though something following the Greer Manifesto 'could' (not 'must') approach complete freeform, and 'might' (not 'will') lack structure or clear rules, there would still be a written set of guidelines, which is still a product.
After all, there are cookbooks with strict recipes, but there are also more 'theoretical' books on cooking that teach one how to cook more intuitively. And I would say the cook with an appreciation for the variables of available ingredients, a sense of proportion, and good kitchen skills; the cook who can improvise; probably has more fun than one who simply follows a set of recipes -- Look at 'Iron Chef.'
2. Even if all the directions could be discarded (wouldn't that be lovely?), one could still sell 'books' (paper or otherwise) that contain stories, situations, characters, settings, and devices.
For example, I've been running something called "Zelaforms" for many years; a pretty pure piece of role-playing 'Make Believe,' which contains almost none of the conventional RPG mechanics. Players just make up characters; conflict resolution is non-existant (combat is not possible), no 'skills' or 'abilities' are remotely relevant, and it would be futile to run it under any published system, because no system is necessary. On the other hand, I'm planning on publishing Zelaforms, because knowing the background history and characters of the alien 'Zela,' and 'Zelaform Units' is required for role-playing the scenario.
Quote from: RavienThis is why RPGs are a hobby, and like all hobbies, they appeal to a niche market.
Correct.
That doesn't mean it isn't possible to create a new niche.
Quote from: RavienFinally, as per Erick's story about Karen, I don't believe that that anecdote really supports defining RPGs as non-games.
Whether or not it supports 'defining' RPGs as non-games, it would seem to support 'marketing' varient role-playing as non-games.
Quote from: RavienIt seems far more likely that Karen merely had a limited understanding of what "game" actually encompasses.
This is actually a very important point! Thank you for bringing it up!
Until I played WarCraft, my first RTS (Real-Time Strategy) I had "a limited understanding" of games myself.
There are games, and varients on games, that don't yet exist. Look at computer games from the perspective of 25 years ago, before the creation of 'Myst,' 'Doom,' or any of a dozen different electronic game genres. It's interesting that many of the 'genre-busters' of that period became huge hits, in contrast to the vast number of 'follow on' titles that went nowhere (one of the huge financial successes for the Sony PS2 was a snow boarding game -- unimaginable in two ways 20 years ago!).
"Limited understanding," from another perspective, exactly describes "new markets."
Specialized 'shower cleaning sprays,' for example, aren't exactly based on a breakthrough in chemistry. No, they capitalized on the "limited understanding" of the consumer as to the nature of bathroom cleaning products... and made obscene amounts of money.
"Limited understanding" is exactly what I like most about the Greer Manifesto; that it (1) offers guidelines for we designers and writers to create genre-busting products, and (2) defines how to appeal to those outside of our genre... by appealing to the "limited understanding" of a greater audience.
Quote from: RavienThis is understandable, and expectable, because I've never seen a single RPG advertisement on TV. I don't even know how you could pull one off.
Believe it or not, there were national television advertisements from TSR for the D&D role-playing game, back in the late 1970s.
Also, I seem to recall that White Wolf put together some TV commercials... but I don't know if they ever aired...
I tried a google search but couldn't find anything about either the TSR or WW TV ads... Anyone else here know anything about them?
Erick
I would argue that the manifesto isn't taking anything away - other than assumptions.
Games use dice because "that's how it's done." Games have a GM because "that's how it's done." Games have combat systems because "that's how it's done." Games include a character sheet, permission granted to photocopy, because "that's how it's done."
The manifesto urges getting rid of none of these elements. If you want six kinds of dice, three hundred pages of rules, look-up charts, a character sheet, and a GM-as-author, I say go for it. The manifesto just requires questioning whether or not any or all of these elements need to be used in a given product. If you're going to include those elements, there has to be a better reason than "that's how it's done," and those reasons must be evaluated outside of any reference to other games that have come before.
Erick:
Thank you for mentioning your Zelaforms example. It sounds very similar to what I was thinking of when I mentioned gaming products that lack mechanics. I wish you luck with selling it. I hope it encourages other people to follow your example.
I think the non-mechanics parts of games often have a greater appeal as a selling point than mechanics designers give credit for. I recently tracked down a copy of Jorune. I'd wanted it for a long time, due primarily to the artwork I'd seen from it, and comments about the setting. Having now read it, I'm still really enchanted by those aspects. OTOH, the mechanics make me realize why some folks have held it up as a prime example of a Fantasy Heartbreaker. In fact, don't all Heartbreakers, of whatever type, primarily become heartbreakers as a result of mechanical issues? I mean, isn't the primary issue of heartbreakers that they have mechanics/system which fail to support the other four areas of exploration ( color, character, setting and situation)?
Robert
KomradeBob, I'm totally with you about the non-system books. And don't forget the coffee-table books about ancient weapons, firearms, cars and planes. What are these if not system-neutral equipment manuals? And how many non-gamers who purchase those types of books think about what it might be like to be there, or hold that sword, or drive that car? I'll bet lots. And we could help them do just that. It's an exciting prospect.
Oh, and Ben, I can also see the need to soften the wording a bit so that fewer people have the "sounds like freeform" reaction that you and Robert describe. Turning all games into freeform games is decidedly not the point here.
That Coffee-Table Book thing has got me thinking...What if you sold a "game" as a big book, or a set of smaller books. Maybe one could have Color, Setting, and Situations, and the other could be equipment & technology guide to the Setting? Then have the book subtly suggest characters to the reader as they casually read these books, and eventually, use the Settings & Situation book as a backdrop to whatever characters the reader creates?
Ethan:
One example that I can immediately think of comes from the Osprey books Campaign series. Lots of historical wargamers are familiar with these. Basically, these books take an individual battle or operation, give background on the situation and participants, include lots of artwork in terms of color plates and photos where possible, and generally include some wargaming suggestions in an appendix at the end of the book. The interesting part about the wargaming appendix is that the suggestions are generally broad and not system specific.
( Side note: "Wargaming" actually an umbrella term that includes many sorts of activities beyond the toysoldier battle games that Forge regulars sometimes point to when discussing the roots of rpgs.)
Anyway, the point is that these books, while supervaluable to historical wargamers, also have appeal to a broader audience that includes re-inactment buffs, armchair military historians, modellers, etc. Yes, these folks do share related interests, but they aren't all gamers. The ones who are wargamers may well have different favorite systems and scales of play. Yet all of the above purchase and enjoy these books. I think there may be something to consider in this marketing method.
Robert
PS- I think that Ben seems to have a vaguely negative view of "freeform", while I have a vaguely positive one. Interesting, though, that both of us started thinking in that direction, hehehe.
QuoteI think that Ben seems to have a vaguely negative view of "freeform", while I have a vaguely positive one. Interesting, though, that both of us started thinking in that direction, hehehe.
Only insofar as it doesn't lend itself well to my favourite CAs: Sim and Gam. Sure it
can be done, but it wouldn't be the most efficient or practical (especially for Gam).
But regarding selling "flavour text", which is little more than color, setting, character, and situation, sure, it can work, and the examples given are quite valid, but I have two replies: One, the people who buy such material are a niche within a niche within a niche, so they probably aren't gonna be the best people to market towards. And they certianly won't do much to "open up" RPGs to a wider audience, which I thought was the whole purpose of this thing. And two, so I buy one of these books.... now what? Do I just sit here and daydream about it? Do I make my friends read it so we can talk about it? Where does this "entertainment" part that I paid for come in? As I think has been mentioned in GNS, you need all 5 of these element things, and any that aren't given must be created by the group. So now we are asking our "players" to generate system. We already know the sorts of people who are willing to do this, and they are members of this forum. You guys are basically talking about how I joined the hobby: I read Feist's 'Magician' series, and loved them; I then read Jordan's WoT series, and loved the story and world (NOT his writing style); then I was introduced by a friend into RPGs, and jumped on the chance to play in these worlds which I loved; then I was dissapointed in the execution; then I decided to make my own system. And here I am. You wouldn't be selling entertainment at all, you'd be selling wonder, which might then turn into frustration, from which might spring inspiration.
"But hold on" you might say, "we would also provide rules for how to turn all this into a fun game." And then I'd say "Great! What sort of rules?" And from here we can choose a few paths: simple, clear-cut rules in plain english which tell players how to explore all this provided material together as a group (freeform); rules which require mathematical derivations and a method of interacting with those mathematical representations of all this material (most current games); or rules which tell players that they have to actually take on another persona, and act out that character as if they
were that character (LARPs). Now maybe I am blinded by current conventions, but I can't think of any other way to implement rules for interacting in an imagined setting. In fact, I'd say RPGs have the broadest range of rules-variations of all game-types ever created. If you can think of a new way to implement system, more power to you! I'd love to hear it. But without providing system, you are requiring players to make up their own, and if they aren't RPers, well, fat chance of that resulting in anything short of 5 minutes of incoherence.
Now don't get me wrong, from the moment I arrived here I've been questioning my assumptions (pushed along by Mike), so I agree that all assumptions should be questioned. But I also agree that some things are the way they are because they work. Ron has identified alot of these things, and I question how many games can work without any of: color, setting, situation, system, and character as Ron has defined them. Sometimes building on assumptions saves time and helps us press forward, rather than rebuilding everything from the ground up each time.
QuoteOn the other hand, you could have made the same arguments for why snow boarding would never take off. Skiing was the market, but snow boarding brought, to some degree, an entirely different set of people to the slopes...
Great point, but there's a key difference here. Snowboarding is basic as hell (yes I know it requires practise and skill, so does riding a bike, and I would call that basic too) and requires equipment that can be a focus for identification. I think snowboarding, and instantly I see a snowboard, puffy suits, goggles, and snow. If we were to take this manifesto's ideal of a game, what would you associate with it? Fun? You can get that in hundreds of ways, you need more than just "fun". Do you think of imaginary adventures? Great! What about them? In snowboarding I put on my suit and goggles, ride the lift to the top of a hill, stand in my board, and slide down the hill. These are rules, or "system". The reason a whole new bunch of people went to the slopes was because of the popularity of skateboards, and the associated "cool factor". What fad would this greer manifesto be tapping into, that isn't already tapped into?
QuoteEven though something following the Greer Manifesto 'could' (not 'must') approach complete freeform, and 'might' (not 'will') lack structure or clear rules, there would still be a written set of guidelines, which is still a product.
And how many variations are possible on a theme of "guidelines for group interaction within a SIS"? Not very many. It'd be d20 all over again, except d20 has more detail which allows for more subtle variations to compound into greater overall variations. If we all had the money of Coca Cola or Pepsi, then sure, we could wage a marketing war to make two incredibly similar products appear as two completely different products, each with their own market, but without those funds, it'd be a case of "oh, it's just like Xgame, only they worded it a little different, I can just use the guidelines I already have for Xgame to run this scenario".
Which brings me to another point: if all that is being sold is guidelines and wonder, then we would only need one set of guidelines, and a few copies of different wonders. How do you make guidelines genre specific?
Regarding Zelaform, sounds good, and sounds like it works for you. Awesome. But it must have something resembling a system, even if it isn't instantly recognizeable as such. Can I declare another player's character dies of cancer? No? That's part of system. Can I declare my character is God Almighty? No? System again. It sounds like Zelaforms is defined by setting and character, and this is all well and good, but now you are competing against other games which are defined by setting and character. The first person to make a LotR game based on this idea will thwart all competition, because they have free marketing. You would also potentially be competing against an Aliens based scenario, or Predator, or all those other movies which already have a following.
Whenever a person first posts their game ideas here on the Forge, one of the first questions I ever see asked is "Why would anyone want to play your game, as opposed to the myriad of other games that do a similar thing?" In order for any venture to be truly successful, it must either offer something which cannot be obtained elsewhere, or market the shit out of the product (both is optimal). As it stands, I personally think that the main reason mechanics are so highly sought after as the goal to a good game (System Does Matter?), is because they are the only real area where games can be compared, and where truly unique play ideas can emerge. I also think that mechanics are a fundamental way of ensuring that players accept that they can't just get their way all the time, which is fun for about 5 minutes.
OK, this post has been huge, and very very rantlike. My apologies, I just woke up.
-Ben
Quote from: RavienQuoteOn the other hand, you could have made the same arguments for why snow boarding would never take off. Skiing was the market, but snow boarding brought, to some degree, an entirely different set of people to the slopes...
Great point, but there's a key difference here. Snowboarding is basic as hell (yes I know it requires practise and skill, so does riding a bike, and I would call that basic too) and requires equipment that can be a focus for identification. I think snowboarding, and instantly I see a snowboard, puffy suits, goggles, and snow. If we were to take this manifesto's ideal of a game, what would you associate with it? Fun? You can get that in hundreds of ways, you need more than just "fun". Do you think of imaginary adventures? Great! What about them? In snowboarding I put on my suit and goggles, ride the lift to the top of a hill, stand in my board, and slide down the hill. These are rules, or "system". The reason a whole new bunch of people went to the slopes was because of the popularity of skateboards, and the associated "cool factor". What fad would this greer manifesto be tapping into, that isn't already tapped into?
Again, and I hope I'm not beating the point to death, I would be comparing all the things you just said about snow boarding to the pre-existing sport, skiing.
Then, I would try to solve the equation, as skiing is to snow boarding, so role-playing games are to "Whatever is spawned by the Greer Manifesto." or Skiing modified by "Change X" = Snow Boarding; Role-Playing modified by "Change X" = Whatever.
When you ask, "What fad would this greer manifesto be tapping into, that isn't already tapped into?" I believe you are asking exactly the right question.
Personally, I don't think we can fully answer the question by analysis or debate. We can only answer the question by trial and error, by producing potential genre-busting products.
Which brings us back to the questions of "Greer Manisfesto:"
1. Is the "Greer Manifesto" suitable for creating those potential genre-busting products?
2. How should the "Greer Manifesto" be modified or expanded to better serve that objective?
Quote from: RavienQuoteEven though something following the Greer Manifesto 'could' (not 'must') approach complete freeform, and 'might' (not 'will') lack structure or clear rules, there would still be a written set of guidelines, which is still a product.
And how many variations are possible on a theme of "guidelines for group interaction within a SIS"? Not very many. It'd be d20 all over again, except d20 has more detail which allows for more subtle variations to compound into greater overall variations.
Oh, man! Do I ever disagree with this!
When I first wrote "Amber Diceless" I was told, countless times, that all role-playing games
must be variations on TSR's "Dungeons & Dragons," and that for innumerable reasons a diceless game was 'impossible.'
Then I sold 20,000 copies of "Amber Diceless," and saw the massive spread of the system (not simply geographically, but also in terms of applications and variations on the system, many of which departed even farther from 'conventional' role-playing), and the the spawning of many other radically different published systems (some moving along the vector of "Amber Diceless," but others in wonderful new directions).
Now, more than a decade later, I'm hearing that, (beg pardon if I paraphrase incorrectly; I'm trying for accuracy here), only a few variations on role-playing are possible, and that they'll be "be d20 all over again."
To my mind there are still limitless alternate systems. When I was on the airplane back from my latest China trip, I put together a list of my various 'test' systems (all play-tested widely at conventions). As I look at that list now, I see the following systems, none of which have anything in common with d20. Here is a partial list, with an estimated date of first play-test:
47rpg (1998), Aliens Among Us (1979), Avatars (1999), Black Math (2000), Breakthrough (2001), Game Master Egomaniacal (2002), Hard Science (1983, including GeneTech, NanoTech, NeralTech and other scenarios), Pax America (1987, multi-GM system), Quantum Time (2000), Red Hearts & White Roses (1996, an adversarial RPG), Seeds of Self-Destruction (1993, designed originally for driving to/from Gencon), and Zelaforms (1986).
Of these 12, I might be able to shape up to half to fit the "Greer Manifesto..."
Quote from: RavienRegarding Zelaform, sounds good, and sounds like it works for you. Awesome. But it must have something resembling a system, even if it isn't instantly recognizeable as such. Can I declare another player's character dies of cancer? No? That's part of system. Can I declare my character is God Almighty? No? System again. It sounds like Zelaforms is defined by setting and character, and this is all well and good, but now you are competing against other games which are defined by setting and character.
Yes, Zelaforms does have a system. It is not "defined by setting and character," but rather just by the setting. As it happens, in Zelaforms, players in different play-test have already managed to inflict "another player's character dies of cancer" and mold their character into "God Almighty" (they can't 'declare' these things, but they can 'pay' for them, in character, in game).
As for "competing against other games which are defined by setting and character," what's wrong with that?
There are plenty of systems competing with one another, including those created by the founders and participants of the Forge. Which I rather think is a good thing.
Still, the point of the "Greer Manifesto" is to reach outside of the RPG market niche and, at least among that extra-genre audience, avoid the pre-existing competition.
Quote from: RavienThe first person to make a LotR game based on this idea will thwart all competition, because they have free marketing. You would also potentially be competing against an Aliens based scenario, or Predator, or all those other movies which already have a following.
I'll point out that all the products you mention sell multiple licenses, so in the electronic game biz, each can sell separately to (1) Windows, (2) each of the three main consoles (PS2, X-Box, GameCube), (3) MMO rights, (4) GameBoy, (5) Mobile/Cellphone, etc... Even early in our own industry the there were two "Star Trek" licenses; one for role-playing, and another for miniatures.
So, if the "Greer Manifesto" is successful in creaing a new market, it's possible that there could be different licenses for existing RPGs (say, d20), as well as for the new product/system.
Also, and I point this out so everyone is clear, most licenses do not provide "free marketing." Far from it. The cost of the license itself, and the usual parameters of the licensing contract, make the marketing quite, quite expensive.
Erick
Some points:
1) Ben has the most intriguing ability to make me feel confrontational, so this may sound a bit "snippy." I appologize in advance.
2) We are not really looking at Simulationist play or Gamist play. We are looking rather specifically at the Narrative, as it is the most easilly adapted into the regular fold of people. Not everyone likes to simulate reality. Not everyone likes to play games. EVERYONE tells stories, in one form or another, and everyone enjoys stories in general (maybe not particular stories). And if everyone likes stories, and everyone tells them, why not provide a structured medium in which they can tell stories together? Hell, one third of our hobby as it stands is based upon that premise...
3) We are not selling flavor text. We are selling vessels through which people can tell stories that are derived entire from role-playing games. They will, of course, have guidelines established for the particular vessel; horror stories entail an entirely different set of rules than traditional fantasies, and those narrative needs should be addressed in the texts of the vessels.
4) "So I've bought this book. Now what? Oh look. On page four it tells me all about how to use this book, because the author of course had the forsight to inform me." Of course these products will tell people how to use them. We'd have to be rather daft to think that we could create a world and wholesale it to the public without at least a brief description of how other people can use it. Not only could they be possible as game settings, we could also suggest Shared World writing; anyone can write and publish a story set in the worlds we have created. Or not.
5)Since when did simple, clear-cut rules have to imply freeform? One can make rules with mathematical quantifications of reality simply and without much fuss. Look, for instance, at the original rules for D&D; simple, explained in plain English, but still involving attributes and character creation. And even if they are freeform, who is to say that there isn't a market for freeform material? I don't think there's been a concentrated effort that way, as yet, barring only Erick's Amber Diceless, and I wouldn't even give that the "Freeform" moniker. Free-er, maybe, but not entirely freeform.
6) If you build a world, and you sell it to people, and you tell them "Do with it what you will," you can be sure someone is going to slap it silly with D20 rules. And you know what I say to that? "Kewl! Thanks! You've saved me the trouble. And while you're making a killing in the Role-playing Venues, I'm going to try selling it to those folks over there, those folks that don't game, get them into it, and hopefully broaden everyone's horizons while I'm at it."
7) You make guidelines genre specific by giving them Genre Guidelines. As I've said, horror and traditional fantasy are completely different monsters. And both are different from the rules applied to Mainstream Literature. Which is different from the Mystery genre. By exemplifying the genre, rather than the guidelines for play, we can make everything fit nice and neat. If you try genrify guidelines for play, you'll just end up with the same guidelines, different tone of voice...
8) I posted my idea for Obsidian Children up here, and I saw no such post. In fact, I saw nothing but encouragement, and that makes me quite happy. In fact, I'm thinking of making Obsidian Children my first Manifesto Project (either that or my Monster Renaissance idea, which I will tell you all about later).
9) We ARE offering something which cannot be obtained elsewhere: the world's easiest introduction to the hobby. And if we can find the funds, or the connections to do so, we'll market this idea until it feels like it's had its ass kicked.
10) We are not comparing this to games. We are comparing this to snowboarding. We are comparing skiing to games, and if you'd like to make some system comparissons, I'd love to hear 'em. Seriously, though, mechanics and rules are a GOOD way to ensure players don't always get what they want, but so are strong in-book suggestions, participant-experience, peer pressure, and story-skills. If you can emphasize those in a narrative-structure game, you don't get Super-Munchkin-Kill-Kill Syndrome. It's all in how you present the information.
You are forgiven your rant-like post, so long as you are willing to forgive mine; I'm just going to bed.
Kris
"Sleepy-byes good."
QuoteNow, more than a decade later, I'm hearing that, (beg pardon if I paraphrase incorrectly; I'm trying for accuracy here), only a few variations on role-playing are possible, and that they'll be "be d20 all over again."
Sorry, I should have been clearer, but I was still waking up. What I meant was "guidelines,
as a system", not systems as guidelines. I agree completely that d20 is far from the only way of roleplaying, and I'm sorry if I came across as promoting that idea. I know that there are billions of variations and ways to approach RPG design, but I think that nearly all of them must fall into one of the three categories: freeform, mechanical, or LARP. The manifesto really sounds like it's poo-pooing mechanical designs. And my point is that these categories already exist, so making any design within them necissitates that they must "break-free" of the confines of that category, as opposed to "creating a new one for a new market". My question is how this manifesto would actually help any game break free from the categories themselves? We aren't talking about making a flying car here, we're talking about making new cars look nice enough that everyone will want them. But we're trying to do this in a society that largely looks down on cars, or at least is ignorant of their existance.
QuoteAs for "competing against other games which are defined by setting and character," what's wrong with that?
Inherently, nothing, but realistically, setting and character are a dime a dozen. Look at d20, same mechanics, hundreds of different settings and characters. Then on the flip-side we have "high-fantasy", which has been done to death, not because every high-fantasy setting and character is the same, but because they are all so damn similar yet have been twisted and pushed by tiny increments so many times that there is almost no room left for innovation. But how many games out there have really good enjoyable systems? Far fewer than the number with really good and enjoyable settings and character I'd bet. So in effect, setting and character are already flooded markets, and subsequently have little percieved value. In 5 minutes I could give you a great and exciting setting, want mechanics to play it with? erm.. I'll get back to you.
QuoteThere are plenty of systems competing with one another, including those created by the founders and participants of the Forge. Which I rather think is a good thing.
Of course, competition is awesome. But in a flooded market, it results in loads and loads of crap, and few real gems. Conversely, in a dry market it simply dies, and you get one or two monopolys.
QuoteAlso, and I point this out so everyone is clear, most licenses do not provide "free marketing." Far from it. The cost of the license itself, and the usual parameters of the licensing contract, make the marketing quite, quite expensive.
Sorry, I meant in terms of effort and promotion, not in terms of money. I rarely think in terms of money, cos I rarely have any worth thinking about!
QuoteAs it happens, in Zelaforms, players in different play-test have already managed to inflict "another player's character dies of cancer" and mold their character into "God Almighty" (they can't 'declare' these things, but they can 'pay' for them, in character, in game).
I'm probably not qualified to really say this, because I haven't played your game, but if my character could be killed by another player without me standing a chance to defend myself, then I'd be pissed. But that aside, it sounds like you indeed have a mechanical system, which will appeal to people who like mechanical systems, but don't like dice (or want to try a diceless game). Great. But you are still only appealing to RPGers, becaues only RPGers give a shit about mechanics and dice. I don't see how getting rid of them will help non-gamers, cos non-gamers don't have a basis of comparison. They can't say "oh this game doesn't need dice, it sounds like fun!", because they don't even know if a game with dice could be fun. The problem, I think, has nothing at all to do with the content of RPGs. They are fine, they work, that's why we love them, and have explored them for decades. The problem is purely marketing to people who don't know about them, and the content of RPGs won't mean squat here, only the experience delivered, the one we all get from many different RPGs, the one called fun. We have to advertise that here (with RPGs) is a great source of fun for groups of players. Jargon will come with the game, like with uno and scrabble and every other game in the world. Rules will be read and adhered to (often modifed) and materials wil be used. But this is all stuff that gamers already do.
Does anyone remember how sony brought their playstation into the mainstream? They ran advertisements that didn't show what the playstation actually was, like people playing football in a city street, or piling up on top of each other in a collosal heap, or various other strange things. They ran these ads in prime time, next to ads for beer and cars. They ran them at the cinemas, they paid for product placement in movies and tv series, and they sold the world that playstations were cool, and more, that they were essential in order for you to be cool. Now they have a bigger niche, but it is still a niche. Compared to that sort of marketing might, this manifesto doesn't stand a damn chance of achieving it's loftier goals.
But here are my suggestions anyway:
Get a number of people together to create a company, preferably people with loads of experience in markting and business practise. Get them to develop an advertising strategy, and to approach vendors for finance to run the advertising campaign. Run advertisements in every major arena. Pay to have RPGs shown as enjoyable passtimes in movies and tv series. Perhaps some funding could come from having particular games shown, like Coca Cola does with product placement.
Then your manifesto could be reduced to one rule only: I will seal my games in plastic in a box with every piece of material needed to play in one package, including rulebooks, magic, equipment lists, setting, example scenarios, dice, pencils, character sheets, counters, markers, miniatures, GM screens, and discount vouchers for snack foods and drinks at selected vendors.
IMHO, that is the only way that the manifesto will ever make a difference. In order to sell to the mainstream, one must have a mainstream product, or bucketloads of gold to advertise it.
-Ben
Edit: I apologise if I seem confrontational, alot of people get that from me, but it is never my intention. It's just my way of exploring ideas. First I test them to see if they fall with a small push, then a bigger push, then a concentrated kick etc. If I can't find any weakness in an idea, I take it on board. It's just how I work. [/quote]
Quote from: RavienWe aren't talking about making a flying car here, we're talking about making new cars look nice enough that everyone will want them. But we're trying to do this in a society that largely looks down on cars, or at least is ignorant of their existance.
It's so interesting that you brought up cars! For years, as it happens, I was a contractor for the Detroit Historical Museum (producing educational stuff, including curriculum guides, website stuff and posters: see Early Motor City Poster (http://www.detroithistorical.org/learningcenter/posterseries1/con07.htm) for a relevant sample).
It is particularly interesting to compare early commercially available automobiles with the current state of commercially available RPGs!
First, the cars...
One of the huge barriers with early automobiles is that they were really 'hobby' devices. To own one you either needed to (1) be a mechanical engineer, or (2) be rich enough to employ a mechanical engineer (the profession of chauffer started early; and the first requirements were mechanical aptitude). Early sales of autos were very limited, not because people didn't want them, but because it was well known that they required a lot of fiddling, a lot of downtime, and there was a steep learning curve.
One of the early 'alternative' competitors, created by Dr. Charles Proteus Steinmetz, (http://www.detroithistorical.org/learningcenter/posterseries1/con07_04.htm) was the electric car. Having personally had the chance to examine the 'Detroit Electric' in the museum's storage garage, I can tell you one of the strangest features is that each of these electric cars was equipped with crystal... wait for it... flower holders! You see, the electric was specifically marketed for women! For people who, it was assumed at the time, had
no mechanical aptitude. Unlike vehicles with the standard internal combustion engine, electrics were known for extreme reliability (although relatively short range and speed, given the batteries and electric motors of the time), and didn't require a clutch (and remember, automatic transmissions weren't standard equipment until the 1950s). Had there been more women of means at the time, because it was very popular with the women who could afford it... well, it's an interesting conjecture.
When Ford's Model T came around, the first car 'for the masses,' sales exploded. It wasn't just because of price (although that helped). No, it was because the Model T was designed to be quite easy to maintain and fix. Word of mouth, spread by Ford's agents, was that, 'you'll never need to hire a mechanic!' It wasn't as dirt simple as they said, but parts were easily removable, and everything was resistant to mud, dust, grime and even a reasonable number of dents and deformaties (demonstrated and advertised widely). Plus, the whole shebang was cross-compatible with a line of familiar Ford Tractors.
From the Model T on, market penetration for cars pretty much paralled the improvements in use, to the point were these days there are cars that can go 25,000 miles without as much as a change of oil.
Now, for the comparison with games.
Here we are, nearly 30 years into the development of role-playing, and we're still producing, largely, a 'hobby' product. Like the early cars, most RPGs require a substantial investment in time, are best used by those with particular skills and abilities (especially Game Masters, our hobby's 'mechanics'), and have countless flaws and quirks. Sure, there have been a few improvements (d20, while not perfect, is a step up from AD&D), but a gamer from 1977 wouldn't have a whole lot of problems stepping into a campaign in 2004.
Meanwhile, our blindingly fast, shockingly dumb competitors... and I'm speaking about electronic role-playing games here... are eating our lunch. With a miniscule learning curve, attractive bells and whistles, and a totally forgiving interface (died? press 'enter' enter and live again), our computer cousins have seized a vast marketplace.
Grand Theft Auto 3, for example, which based its popularity on exactly what we do best ('go anywhere in the city, anytime, and do something cool; no limits!'), sold a friggin'
ten million copies in one year!!!Still, I for one am not ready to give up the fight!
I've run Zelaforms for groups of total novices, and they've had a blast. I even ran it once on a train with total strangers, from Paris to Rome, even though it required two simultaneous translations (to the two 30-something Italian guys, and to the 70ish Spanish Grandmother); it wasn't the best session I've ever had, but, by god, they role-played!
Bottom line, I don't know what the thing will look like, that catches fire with a new niche market... but I honestly believe that the "Greer Manifesto" might just get us there!
Quote from: Ravien...it sounds like you indeed have a mechanical system, which will appeal to people who like mechanical systems, but don't like dice (or want to try a diceless game). Great. But you are still only appealing to RPGers, because only RPGers give a shit about mechanics and dice. I don't see how getting rid of them will help non-gamers, cos non-gamers don't have a basis of comparison. They can't say "oh this game doesn't need dice, it sounds like fun!", because they don't even know if a game with dice could be fun.
Let me link this up with one of your later statements:
Quote from: Ravien...Then your manifesto could be reduced to one rule only: I will seal my games in plastic in a box with every piece of material needed to play in one package, including rulebooks, magic, equipment lists, setting, example scenarios, dice, pencils, character sheets, counters, markers, miniatures, GM screens, and discount vouchers for snack foods and drinks at selected vendors...
By eliminating dice, and all that other paraphanalia, I can, as you put it, "seal my games... with every piece of material needed to play in one package..."
See, if all I need to do is publish a book, and if that book contains
everything you need to role-play, well... You've got it right. Now it might be possible to market to that new niche.
Erick
Fair warning: I'm going to curse in the cathedral...
I have to disagree with no 5 in the revised manifesto (No Assumptions). I believe you should make lots of assumptions about your audience.
One of the problems, as anybody who's ever attempted to explain the RPG concept to a stranger knows, is that RPG as a category is very broad, very abstract and provides no mental hooks for the poor listener to latch on to. The result is an almost inevitable `oh well, never mind'. Look at stories of improbable converts, like the one about Karen in this thread, and you will notice that almost all these stories involve an audience that, for one reason or another, were under social pressure to listen out not just the first, but also the second stage explanation. You're not going to get that kind of opportunity very often.
Now, instead, imagine a game that's aimed at people who enjoyed the Kill Bill movies (as a random example, of course :). When I'm peddling that particular game, I don't need to go into vague generalities, I can use the common ground of the familiar Kill Bill movies, and so on. This could be made to work.
So I think that you need a quite specific target audience, you need rules that are phrased in terms they are familiar with--which might be very obscure to other people--and you need your sales talk to be phrased in terms of what that particular game would do for them. In other words, I'm seeing a dozen niches, not a single silver bullet.
Quote from: RavienOnly insofar as [freeform or very simple rules] doesn't lend itself well to my favourite CAs: Sim and Gam. Sure it can be done, but it wouldn't be the most efficient or practical (especially for Gam).
Can I offer Scarlet Wake as a counterexample?
SR
--
Greer Manifesto Links
1. For ease of use, I've posted Versions 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1, here:
http://www.diceless.com/greer/g1.html
I'll try to keep it updated. Feel free to use the link in other threads and such.
2. A "[Ideal Holiday] Rant/Greer Manifesto Inspired Design" thread popped up over on Indie Game Design:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11786
Erick
Readers of this thread may be interested in the old (so no posting) mainstream - a revision (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4223) discussion, since it has a similar angle.
I think the manifesto as written raises some good points. I shall ponder some more before making any suggestions.
Oh, and Ravien, Gamist freeforms are pretty common. They tend to focus on Politics.
EDIT: Also, people might want to consider the "How to host a murder" games, that are sold in mainstream channels, and how they follow the manifesto pretty much exactly.
-Matt
I'm seeing people describe computer RPGs as competitors to person-to-person RPGs. Are we sure that's actually the case?
Computer RPGs are fundamentally an isolated exercise. The number of people who get a group of friends together in the same room to play these things while enjoying company and sharing food... well, it's small.
Person-to-person RPGs are a social exercise. In the current state of the industry that means that they're mostly a team sport, where people organize together out of a common desire to enjoy the activity and the friends.
I think some of what is being proposed here is that we attempt to make them accessible enough to become parlor games, like bridge or charades. So that people could sit around and say "It's so good having you over... we must have a game of some sort. I'm so tired of Trivial Pursuit... how about a rousing round of Universalis?"
I love Erick's example of playing on the Paris-Rome rail line. It reminds me strongly of Phileas Fogg tallying up rubbers of whist on every train and steamer around the world. :-)
Quote from: TonyLBI'm seeing people describe computer RPGs as competitors to person-to-person RPGs. Are we sure that's actually the case?
When it comes to the 12 to 16 year-olds, our traditional 'gateway' market of the 1970s and 1980s?
Yes. Absolutely.
The only reason electronic games haven't completely consumed us, is because there are still some kids out on the edge of the bell curve who are still experimenting...
Quote from: TonyLBI love Erick's example of playing on the Paris-Rome rail line. It reminds me strongly of Phileas Fogg tallying up rubbers of whist on every train and steamer around the world. :-)
Thanks! That's a wonderful comparison!
Erick
Yeah, I see what you mean. If kids are doing one, and not the other, it's competition for the scarce resource of their time. But are computer games in competition with RPGs the way basketball competes with soccer, or the way television competes with soccer?
In other words, if these kids are choosing to embrace a wholly different mode of entertainment, might that be about something more than simply how good the RPGs and computer games are at providing fun in their respective contexts?
As was mentioned, there are the "Host a Murder" things.
Also, Mafia. That's a big thing that I heard was popular in mainstream circles for a while, too. (And a really widespread college meme to boot.)
At the point of Mafia we're moving away from what can be defined as "RPG", but if it helps us design gateway-products and new-fun-things, it's worth it. Now that I think of it, introducing a certain kind of RPG like saying "it's Mafia, except _____" might be a good pitch.
This thread's inspired me to go build something, tentatively called Ideal Holiday (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11786).
The link takes you to the thread, if you're interested. It's about 1-shot group exploration of multiple story threads centered around 1 theme.
Quick thoughts:
1) At some level, I'm really just suggesting that the rpg hobby might be able to sell setting+color+character+situation material, and give away the mechanical system. "Sell" in this context may be starting to be a red herring, as not everyone is interested in actual sales per se.
2) I'll give Ben credit for pointing out that sytem, as opposed to merely the mechanics aspect, is vitally important for actual play to occur. I think my own overlap of understanding of these two terms and my tendency to use them interchangeably may have also led to misunderstanding.
3) Personally, I find actual for sale products that contain huge amounts of mechanics and little of the other goodies to be annoying. Note, I said personally. In my last trip to the local hobby shop, I noted a number of Core Book products that I considered buying, then skipped, simply because of the emphasis on mechanics over background/world feel and story. I do think that Setting/situation/color ( not to mention artwork and visual appeal) are very important "interest hooks" for potential buyers/ potential users, perhaps more important than mechanics ( of whatever flavor).
4) I think a game world can be tied together very well by seting, genre, color, etc. without a single overarching set of mechanics. In fact, overarching mechanics might stand in the way of enjoying a setting.
5) I personally see both Nar and Sim CAs being able to be more easily supported by vaguer systems. I do think that Gam CA benefits most from very precise mechanical systems.
For a quick example of someone selling adventure/setting products while giving away the core system, do a search for Chris Engle's Matrix Game ( I think it is now Hamster Press. I'll edit this later to add a link). The core rules of his Matrix game are really so short that they'd fit on a page or two. I suspect this may have beeen part of his reasoning in making the rules free. OTOH, he is selling booklets, actual physical ones, that utilise his rules.
Thanks,
Robert
I think this thread is getting unwieldy. I'm not even exactly sure what we're talking about anymore.
I think this would be good time to close this thread, if there are no firm objections, and move the subtopics to new threads that can provide a better focus for what's being discussed.