Okay, so see if this sounds familiar to you:
You go to your Favorite Local Game Store. The clerk there shows you a new book that just came out. You look at the bulletin board and see that somebody's trying to get a game together, or alternately you decide to get your friends together to play. You buy the book and take it home. You call or otherwise contact the other players, do the big long dance of finding a timeslot that everybody can get free on a regular basis and decide who is going to be the Game Master. The Game Master then goes through the book and somehow finds a few hours of her free time to be spent "designing the adventure" to be played. On the day, everybody shows up, creates characters to play, and you begin roleplaying. The GM quietly observes everybody's cues to figure out what they like and what they don't, because sometime between now and the next timeslot, she's got to find more time to spend in further "designing" and she wants to make sure it appeals. The GM is a good GM and everybody appreciates all her hard work. You spend six to eight hours playing (padding out the experience with food runs and socializing, it's probably half the day) and go home. Players occasionally visit their FLGS and pick up game supplements to broaden their understanding of the game world and introduce and inspire new content. The next time you get together, hopefully everybody's there, and you basically to the same stuff, enjoying yourselves as you guide the same characters session after session through new and interesting worlds doing new and interesting things. Eventually there's no more new or interesting things in the game, or it seems like there are more new and interesting things in another gamebook that somebody just picked up, and the game ends. Maybe things are brought to a narrative close, maybe things just sort of fizzle. Repeat.
As far as I can tell, this is the basic cycle, the basic structure, of what most people will recognize as roleplaying culture. This is what we, as people, do to engage in the hobby and call ourselves gamers. This involves a boatload of assumptions (which isn't a bad thing) which are direct results of a number of external factors in terms of our broader social environment and the gamebooks that we play out of. It is also the foundation upon which (I use the term with great trepidation) an industry operates.
Here's the thing: those external factors? The social environment and the gamebooks? They're changing. We're changing them. These changes to the base conditions alter the way in which the entire culture operates. I'd like to talk about some of these changes and their effects, and I'd like to hear what some of the wise voices of the Forge have to say about them. Cause here's my thesis: we are fundamentally changing what roleplaying games are and how we play them.
The GM The Game Master is the "most important" player in the typical playgroup, because the Game Master invests more time and effort into the process and play cannot proceed without the Game Master's presence. Many a potential game has been stalled, postponed, and forgotten because a Game Master could not be found and no one would volunteer. Taking on that burden
is a burden, and a large time commitment, so both the importance we attribute to the GM and the hesitation to be the GM are totally understandable. And then Ralph and Mike and Tony come along and offer games that don't have a GM in the first place. The result? Greatly reduced prep time and greatly increased ease at getting a game going. No authority figure to which to enshrine, consult, and villify. A profound change to the power relationships within the playgroup.
The GM and Game Prep The typical GM has to spend tons and tons of time prepping the adventure, statting up NPCs, providing contingency plans, and trying to second-guess the players. She needs all or most of the gamebooks in order to correlate information. The great and marvelous structure that she creates has little to no relationship to the actual characters who will play the adventure, because the adventure is designed before the characters are created. In fact, the players usually involve their characters, not because there is a compelling in-game reason for the characters to become involved, but because there is a compelling out-of-game reason to become involved -- not doing so is boring. In any case, the GM usually designs the adventure
start to finish, outlining a branching path of possibilities or planning to railroad the players through the one path she's created. This is a whole lot of work. And then Vincent tosses out Town Creation rules, a nice specific procedure tailored to the game to produce the
situation to present rather than the entire story to run the characters through. Result: again, drastically reduced prep time. Dramatically improved precision in having something for the characters to make meaningful decisions about. Toss in the proto-NPC templates and assigning NPC stats on the fly, and prep time goes from being measured in hours to being ten or twenty minutes.
The GM, Cues, and Mindreading It is often assumed that the GM can create an entire adventure applicable to her gamegroup without any player direction at all (one reason for this is the Supplement Mill; see below). Further, the GM can continue to provide this without any feedback on what she delivers. She does this by reading player cues, or simply by reading the players' minds. Forge Games propose the revolutionary idea of having the players actually discuss what they want to play before anything is prepared (some one toss me an example of a game that does this and has a GM? PTA has the Pitch, but there's no GM). Result: greatly improved precision in hitting player expectations, increase of player enjoyment of the game, decrease of filler material or time spent trying to figure out what the players will respond to favorably. Prep time is also again reduced.
The Campaign A good game is a game that has "long-term use" -- or so it is assumed in countless game reviews that I've read. Gamers won't shell out twenty bucks for a game unless they're sure they'll be able to play the thing for months. Experience Points are drastically important, because since you are
of course going to play the game forever, you
of course need to advance the characters. After all, since we're trying to recreate the Lord of the Rings, we need to let Pippin learn to use that sword of his. But this is, like so much else, an assumption that is not necessarily true. Emily's Breaking the Ice is played not just in one session, but can be played while waiting for the rest of the game group to show up to play some other game entirely. Other games which aren't coming to mind right now are also designed for or amenable to one-shot play or simply three or four sessions instead of dozens. Result? A lesser time commitment required in order to even consider playing the game. A shorter, quicker reward cycle means more players will actually complete the cycle before giving up, which increases player enjoyment.
The Endgame Another Campaign assumption, we'll just keep playing this game until we get bored with it. This totally ignores a potent axiom of show business: always leave them wanting more. This strategy infalliably results in boring play, since you play until the play is boring. It also results in the directionless spiral of power to no discernable purpose. Not so in My Life with Master and the Mountain Witch -- the game gives structure, purpose, and ends things, leaving the players both satisfied and wanting more. Really, in terms of crass marketing, this may be the best individual technique to come out of the Forge entirely. Result: increased player engagement, decreased time commitment. A parallel result: games end, allowing new games to start, whether they be another game of MLwM or tMW or a different game entirely. More books are bought!
The Timeslot We've all done this dance before. When can we play? This was lots easier when I was fourteen. Now I have a job to go to, a commute to drive, classes to attend, a wife to spend time with, a home and a car to upkeep... and my fellow players do, too (well, my wife actually has a husband, but you get the picture). Finding not only time to play but a time
slot that we can reliably play during for the foreseeable future is increasingly difficult. Some of you have children. I have no idea how you ever played. But now we're introducing games where not everybody needs to be there reliably -- an ongoing Capes series can play no matter who shows up. Assuming a one-town-one-session guideline, the same goes for Dogs. Result? More flexible scheduling, less time commitment required,
more roleplaying getting done.
(Tangent: How to Host a Murder assumes the players will be coming as couples (me and my wife, her sister and her husband), which is a good assumption given their target market. This sounds like it'd be a sound principle for
some RPGs, as well. I suspect Polaris will be played like this. Alternately, for those with-kids folks, can a game be designed to incorporate the kids
and the parents, somehow?)
The Half-Day Session Roleplaying goes on for hours and hours. We've got to spend a full hour at the beginning of every session allowing the players, one-by-one, to go shopping and sharpen their swords in town. Stock up on the sodas and chips, cause we're going to play and play and play until something interesting happens. Not so with Primetime Adventures, where every scene is intrinsically tied to something that a character cares about and is defined as such -- the game systemically produces engaging situations, rather than playing hit-or-miss until you get to something juicy. Result: more time-efficient sessions, which result in shorter sessions (less time commitment, greater ease of setting up a game) or more content in each session (more points of engagement, greater player enjoyment). Either way, discarding the chaff results in greater player enjoyment more of the time.
The Favorite Local Game Store & the Distributor We love our game stores; we gild them with memories, we feel safe there, we feel one with a larger community. It was there where we found fellow gamers, it was there where we heard news of the industry. It was the hub of our gamer culture. And we're not going there half as much as we used to. We have the Forge and RPGnet and a dozen other sites that let us feel one with a larger community. We have direct access to game publishers, indie and mainstream, through their websites and press releases. We can buy direct instead of going across town to the FLGS, cutting out the distributor entirely. We can find other local gamers through FindPlay or Meetup.com. No specific game is responsible for this; this is a sea-change that is affecting more than just RPGs (remember when you used to see hobby stores full of models and stuff?). Result? Greater, broader communication among our much larger communities. Arguably, a higher bar for entering those communities. Less or no reliance on distributors, which decreases cost of publication, which increases the number of games out there (which isn't necessarily a good thing).
The Supplement Mill In the Mindreading entry, I pointed out the assumption that the GM can create an entire adventure for her players without any feedback. This utterly moronic statement is backed up by a sound economic principle: that's exactly what the authors of gamebooks are doing, and that's the product you're buying. Trust me, I wrote these supplements. Additionally, and a bit more recently, we've started to see "crippleware" titles that cannot be played with a single book, but require the core book and the setting book and the splatbook and and and. In many ways this is a simple market response to provide (not necessarily exploit) a fetishized demand for more content. Portions of the RPG market have become a collectible market. But nearly any Forge game comes in one package, and we have very few supplements among us. Primarily this is because Forge games tap player imaginations and have players provide content rather than providing another textual authority to reference. Result? Increased player ownership of play. Decreased prep time. Decreased time commitment to "learn the setting," resulting in more games more often. Oh, and bonus: fewer cross-book rules exploits.
Net EffectI've already gone on way too long, but to summarize, I see us doing the following:
- We are streamlining roleplaying to require less time commitment on everyone's parts, increasing the frequency of -- gasp -- actual play.
- We are decentralizing roleplaying to an individualized and personalized experience, authorizing player investment in idiosyncratic and meaningful ways.
- We are expanding roleplaying to embrace global communities, diversifying roleplaying experiences.
In short, we are making roleplaying simpler, bigger, and more significant. I like to think we're trying to pare down that big long description at the top of this post to something closer to this:
Some people get together and share an enjoyable experience.
Here's an article I wrote on my approach to traditional games:
http://www.jagsrpg.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=7
It does the decentralizing (players have input before the real prep-work begins). The streamlining is up to the participants (the participants have an expectation about what the game will involve so if they want to spend their time shopping that's their own look-out). It doesn't expand anything, I guess.
-Marco
Player of big brand games like D&D often invest $100s in books and supplements. That investment is a barrier to entry for little indie games. How can indie games combat this? I think they mostly create small, self-contained core rule sets with no or only a couple supplements. Think Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard. GMs and gamers might spend $20 on an impulse buy of an indie game, if they are assured "batteries are included" and they don't need to buy extra stuff later. Unfortunately, this strategy might also limit each individual indie games' potential market size..?
Okay, maybe I wasn't very clear.
I'm not talking about how we should design our games; I'm not talking about how we market our games. I'm interested in the effect that our current designs and marketing have on the gamer culture that uses them.
Excellent article, Joshua.
Nothing more to add than that.
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. Except that PTA does, in fact, have a GM-figure. The Producer is pretty GM like.
Hiya,
Joshua, apologies in advance if you've seen these, but if not, check out the Infamous Five threads sticky'd in Site Discussion. They all go together, but I think you'll be most interested in the Actual Play one and the Publishing one, including the daughter threads they spawned.
Otherwise, not much to say except for total agreement.
Best,
Ron
I agree with the theory of decentralizing game control, I'd certainly like to see a quick-start GM-less game, but I have a few worries... and some bad experiences... and very reluctant players... to contend with first.
Primarily, the games that I have so far encountered which encourage GMless play, also encourage doing away with Avatar-oriented aspect of the hobby (the role you take on is the role you own, so to speak). That's VERY unattractive to both myself and most of the stage-shy people I enjoy playing with (we're very pretty or charismatic.)
On the other hand, I would very much like to see an avatar-intensive, GMless LARP. I really Dread the idea of a GM in a LARP. The only ideas I've seen in THAT category have been to do with making the GM-ship of LARPs more competitive, sort of splitting up the class of players into GM-level and player-level. It'd be great if such a system could be balanced so that the GMs powers are dependant on player choices or something where the player-class characters can counter balance or otherwise reign in GM authority - but I suppose you'd have to apply economic theory to the basic dynamics of your system and that'd get ugly.
I'm wondering how long term campaign play can be integrated into this sort of quick-start approach. I like the comment on how Forge games using this more streamlined method become more efficient (as in, more good play per game session) but what I want to know is, how often do campaigns come out of these games? Personally, I want more out of each session than I get out of traditional play, but character and story attachment makes me want to play THIS game more, not a new game. I don't want to split the thread, but I'd be very interested to see how this pans out in Actual Play - Campaign Forge Games. If anyone can recall any actual play threads I'd be interested to read them.
It seems to me though that Forge games work better in the short term (not saying they don't in the long term, but most of the AP posts I read seem to be one shots or short sessions). Is it a function of a short reward cycle that character and story resolution happens faster and as such, the narrative importance of a character becomes boring after a certain pivotal resolution? In traditional play, the campaign mode makes every session like a chapter in a Robert Jordan fantasy book, slow slow slow character progression and reward cycles. In Forge games, each session is the book itself. The latter is vastly preferable to me, but do you often see whole series of novels (to strain the metaphor) being produced, or as good artists, do you end the games once the character inputs are resolved?
'Cause there's nothing worse than ANOTHER sequel to a sci-fi/fantasy book (wish someone had told Asimov, Jordan et. al. that point)....
Justin
Quote from: Arpie on November 23, 2005, 11:41:46 PMOn the other hand, I would very much like to see an avatar-intensive, GMless LARP. I really Dread the idea of a GM in a LARP.
Do you mean a LARP with no GM power during the actual play or eliminating the GM/larpwright/writer influence from LARP preparations (character backgrounds, relationship maps, plots - all the content that's been prepared by someone other than player before the actual LARP begins)? I'd have some experience on the first choice, less in the second, if you're intrested (in a new thread, I presume).
Justin Said:
QuoteI'm wondering how long term campaign play can be integrated into this sort of quick-start approach. I like the comment on how Forge games using this more streamlined method become more efficient (as in, more good play per game session) but what I want to know is, how often do campaigns come out of these games?
There are very nice Forge games which are designed for longer play. PtA for example is run along a full session of a TV series: 7 or 9 play sessions if I remember correctly. Another example is Polaris, which is designed for a long term campaign where the characters get experience at the same time they are lead to a tragic ending. In Dogs in the Vineyard the characters may visit town after town (session after session) solving problems, as far as they want.
I don't know. Perhaps many AP examples are one-shot tries of people playing a games for first time.
Anyway, I think this is somehow out-of-topic here. If you are interested in discussing it perhaps it would be better to open a new thread.
Cheers,
Arturo
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on November 23, 2005, 04:12:06 PM
The GM The Game Master is the "most important" player in the typical playgroup, because the Game Master invests more time and effort into the process and play cannot proceed without the Game Master's presence. Many a potential game has been stalled, postponed, and forgotten because a Game Master could not be found and no one would volunteer. Taking on that burden is a burden, and a large time commitment, so both the importance we attribute to the GM and the hesitation to be the GM are totally understandable. And then Ralph and Mike and Tony come along and offer games that don't have a GM in the first place. The result? Greatly reduced prep time and greatly increased ease at getting a game going. No authority figure to which to enshrine, consult, and villify. A profound change to the power relationships within the playgroup.
Again and again we say,
do not confuse preferences with universals. The fact that
some people have found this mode of play satisfying does not remotely imply that
all people will find such satisfying. There is, therefore, no prospect at all, IMO, than GM-less play will supplant GM-lead play.
QuoteThe GM and Game Prep
And unfortunately,m in this regard, the fact that SOME progress has been made has been taken as the cue to prevent any further work!
QuoteThe Campaign
Agreed, as long as you don't think the micro-games are going to replace the campaign. They aren't.
QuoteThe Endgame
Agreed
QuoteThe Timeslot
Agreed, but like the point above, I would like to see more discussion of the
structures these games employ, and to see those broadened to other games.
QuoteThe Half-Day Session
Agreed
QuoteThe Favorite Local Game Store & the Distributor We love our game stores; we gild them with memories, we feel safe there, we feel one with a larger community. It was there where we found fellow gamers, it was there where we heard news of the industry. It was the hub of our gamer culture. And we're not going there half as much as we used to.
Sort of agreed, but I suspect this was mostly a US phenomenon anyway. The game store does not seem to have had such a significant presence elsewhere. Most of my early stuff was bought in model shops, for example.
QuoteThe Supplement Mill
Many of the points here are valid but I do not feel the conclusion is valid. The appropriate response to the "demand for content" which you recognise is to produce content, not to fail to do so. This is precisely why I find many of the Forge designs uninteresting; they have effectively just palmed the production of content off onto me, but that is exactly the thing I am most willing to pay for, and exactly the same problem that existed previously. The fact that existing supplement model is not very useful does not imply that the production of content should be abandoned en bloc; what should be happening is a search for a way to produce such content that does not ehibit the problems we already know and loathe.
Quote
In short, we are making roleplaying simpler, bigger, and more significant. I like to think we're trying to pare down that big long description at the top of this post to something closer to this:
Well I would like to think this is the case, but I fear that the assumptions in this article indicate why its not going to happen: it assumes a particular mode of play that is simply not very widespread, IMO, and chooses to ignore some forms of gaming that are very popular, such as the campaign. Worse, the hostility to the "supplement treadmill" seems the threaten the production of content as content at all! That would be an outright disaster, IMO.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on November 23, 2005, 04:12:06 PM
Here's the thing: those external factors? The social environment and the gamebooks? They're changing. We're changing them. These changes to the base conditions alter the way in which the entire culture operates. I'd like to talk about some of these changes and their effects, and I'd like to hear what some of the wise voices of the Forge have to say about them. Cause here's my thesis: we are fundamentally changing what roleplaying games are and how we play them.
I wish I could agree with you, Joshua.
Sadly, I cannot. The numbers just don't support your thesis.
In 1998, there were 1.5 million people playing D&D every month in the US. (http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=38)
By 2002, WotC had sold five hundred thousand copies of the Player's Handbook. (http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=38)
As much as I'd like to believe that we're effecting a change to gamer culture, I just don't think we have enough penetration or influence to warrant that conclusion.
Cheers,
Roger
Hello,
Roger, I direct you as well to the Infamous Five threads and their spawn, sticky'd in the Site Discussion forum.
It's actually not about shaping gamer culture. It's about finding people who realize they are, after all, unhappy in gamer culture (which would describe nearly everyone who's posted here at the Forge) and also the people who aren't in gamer culture at all, and would never want to be, but who love role-playing without knowing it.
It's exactly the same as distinguishing between comics, and their vast potential, and "comics fandom" which is hyped about superheroes. A lot of long-time Forge participants are very much about the former and consider the latter to be grossly irrelevant.
People who want to get the mainstream interested in comics by showing "them" how cool superheroes are, are mistaken. People who want to convince fandom how much non-superhero potential comics have are also mistaken. Same goes for gaming.
Best,
Ron
Roger, Gareth? I'm not saying we're the borg, and resistence is futile. I'm saying we're making changes to games, and games inform gamer culture, and therefore we are making changes to the culture. The Forge publishers are not autocrats over the gamer world and dictate changes that are applied unilaterally and without exception, but we are also not without input or without effect. I'd like to talk about those effects, not how we're taking over the world.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 24, 2005, 12:33:46 PM
It's actually not about shaping gamer culture.
Ron, I think it is, and I think the text of this thread -- not the least of which, the Subject -- will bear this out. I'll happily concur that the Infamous Five threads were not, in the main, about that subject, which may well imply that this thread is not a close relative.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on November 24, 2005, 12:36:52 PM
I'm not saying we're the borg, and resistence is futile. [...] The Forge publishers are not autocrats over the gamer world and dictate changes that are applied unilaterally and without exception
If I have characterised your position as such, Joshua, I sincerely apologize. I understand that this is not your position.
Indeed, you state your position well and clearly in both posts:
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on November 23, 2005, 04:12:06 PM
Here's the thing: those external factors? The social environment and the gamebooks? They're changing. We're changing them.
[...]
Cause here's my thesis: we are fundamentally changing what roleplaying games are and how we play them.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on November 24, 2005, 12:36:52 PM
I'm saying we're making changes to games, and games inform gamer culture, and therefore we are making changes to the culture. The Forge publishers [...] are also not without input or without effect. I'd like to talk about those effects, not how we're taking over the world.
My position is that you are incorrect. I believe we are not shaping gaming culture in any significant or non-negligible way.
I realize that you are eager to discuss the various effects and changes. I think the danger in doing so without carefully examining your thesis is that we may fall into the trap of post hoc ergo proctor hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc) -- incorrectly ascribing the causes of those effects; in this case, to ourselves.
I agree with you that, in the general case, any publisher of any game has some effect on that great mass we call gamer culture.
Of course, some publishers and some games have a greater effect than others. I hope you would agree that if, for example, there were a game that was purchased by only two people, and played only once, that the effect of that game on gamer culture would likely be very small, to the point of being negligible.
The Forge publishers, as a group, have sold games to many more than just two people, and they have been played, and continue to be played, a great many times.
However, it is my assertion that their effect is still negligible when one considers that over a million people play D&D every month, and the core rulebooks for the system have sold half a million copies. Even if these numbers are off by a factor of one thousand percent, I think my conclusion is still reasonable.
I don't necessarily disagree that roleplaying games, and how they are played, are undergoing important changes. But I cannot conclude, based on a preponderance of this evidence, that we are the cause.
However, I am willing, even eager, to be proven wrong. I'd like to know the reasons which lead you to the conclusion that we are responsible for inducing the changes to gamer culture. I may well be swayed by them.
Cheers,
Roger
Hi Roger,
I think you're missing a key point to this discussion. Joshua's initial post lists serious and fundamental differences between this type of gaming and traditional rpgs- there isn't "competition" between these styles- they're two different activities altogether. People play both wargames and boardgames, but you don't see Advanced Squad Leader gamers measuring their hobby by how many people they get to stop playing Monopoly...
D&D changed the gaming, CCGs changed gaming, videogames changed gaming, MMORPGs changed gaming, and all of these did so because they were vastly different activities that all happened to be under the umbrella of gaming. Here, too, is something that is doing it's own thing, and not to be measured by the standards of another.
Chris
Quote from: Merten on November 24, 2005, 03:30:23 AM
Quote from: Arpie on November 23, 2005, 11:41:46 PMOn the other hand, I would very much like to see an avatar-intensive, GMless LARP. I really Dread the idea of a GM in a LARP.
Do you mean a LARP with no GM power during the actual play or eliminating the GM/larpwright/writer influence from LARP preparations (character backgrounds, relationship maps, plots - all the content that's been prepared by someone other than player before the actual LARP begins)? I'd have some experience on the first choice, less in the second, if you're intrested (in a new thread, I presume).
As there doesn't seem to be another thread, I'll post here. Our work on N-E-X-U-S (http://forums.n-e-x-u-s.org) includes aspects of both those categories, and yet we still have to put hundreds, even thousands, of hours of prep over the course of the year.
We have almost no control of the game during play - we mainly "run" the gameworld, and deal with the admin hassles of generating new characters....etc. It's a bit of a black box, to be honest - we rely on players to tell us what's happening out there. Last event, we thought all the players had come on site, and then gone straight back to bed - the site seemed empty, and it wasn't until hours later that we were told everyone was inside the buildings, doing lots of negotiation.
We don't run plot, although we do write some NPCs for each event. Because of the style of larp, however, these NPCs are effectively normal characters that we get to create, and they are outnumbered by PCs. They do receive fairly complex objectives, but those aren't designed to push our agenda as organisers, and there is no relationship-mapping or suchlike.
So, while we do have some influence, it's minimal enough that we have almost no influence on what happens during the event.
But we still do lots of work. Not sure if that's suggestive...
Of course, larp, certainly in Britain, tends to be designed specifically for each campaign, rather than using an off-the-shelf product (of which there are few, and none seem satisfactory), and so writing the game (and expanding it, as we've found out that our's didn't have the depth it needs) takes up a considerable amount of time.
In a tabletop game, perhaps there is a low enough attendance to run without any form of planning, but I doubt that's the case with larp - stick 100 people in a field, and they'll do
something - I just doubt that they'd all be playing the same game.
There are few other larps that take as much of a hands-off approach as we do, and yet the work is still there to be done.
As was said in the post that started this thread, someone has got to ring round finding out which night everyone want's to play on (gm or not), and with larp, this becomes much more involving, as sites must be booked and paid for, and crew obtained....etc.
Quote from: Bankuei on November 24, 2005, 03:14:40 PM
Hi Roger,
I think you're missing a key point to this discussion. Joshua's initial post lists serious and fundamental differences between this type of gaming and traditional rpgs- there isn't "competition" between these styles- they're two different activities altogether. People play both wargames and boardgames, but you don't see Advanced Squad Leader gamers measuring their hobby by how many people they get to stop playing Monopoly...
D&D changed the gaming, CCGs changed gaming, videogames changed gaming, MMORPGs changed gaming, and all of these did so because they were vastly different activities that all happened to be under the umbrella of gaming. Here, too, is something that is doing it's own thing, and not to be measured by the standards of another.
Well, Roger's point is that CCG's changed gaming culture not because of their mere existance, but because millions of people played them. Indie RPGs currently aren't anywhere near those numbers, though they are expanding. The top numbers for indie RPG sales are still in the hundreds (i.e. 500-something for Dogs in the Vineyard, say). We are still just a drop in the bucket.
Now, that said, I think that indie games do have an indirect effect because writers and other professionals within the mainstream are aware of them. For example, when I was at ConQuest recently, I know that the game which Ken Hite most recommended to me was Bacchanal. I know we have also had an explicit (though probably minor) effect on other games like the Conan RPG and Paranoia XP.
Arpie, you might look at Legends of Alyria (http://alyria.blogspot.com/). The referee's role is optional and ultimately can be made unnecessary, but the players all handle their own characters once play begins.
Justin, I'm going to suggest Multiverser (http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/) to you, because it is a campaign system, yet is constantly in flux as players have to adapt to the shifts in the rules. Also, using the On the Fly Character Creation System, you can have your character up and running inside five minutes, and fill in the details during play.
Incidentally, one of the factors Joshua mentioned as "new" is the design of games in which player attendance or absence does not impact the game. That was one of the touted features of Multiverser in 1997, that you can play with whoever shows up without any problem, even in an ongoing campaign.
--M. J. Young
Quote from: Merten on November 24, 2005, 03:30:23 AM
Quote from: Arpie on November 23, 2005, 11:41:46 PMOn the other hand, I would very much like to see an avatar-intensive, GMless LARP. I really Dread the idea of a GM in a LARP.
Do you mean a LARP with no GM power during the actual play or eliminating the GM/larpwright/writer influence from LARP preparations (character backgrounds, relationship maps, plots - all the content that's been prepared by someone other than player before the actual LARP begins)? I'd have some experience on the first choice, less in the second, if you're intrested (in a new thread, I presume).
Oops. Hey, thanks for responding.
I would very much like to discuss this in a new thread, but I'm a little new to this forum stuff.
What I was talking about was eliminating the GM from the play process itself. I think that the many distinct duties (referee, prop approval, story goad/foil, clue wrangler, etc.) of the GM could and should get split up and distributed to the players in a LARP environment.
The role of prep (backstory, character relationships, etc.) can be simulated, I hope, in a variety of ways...
Of course, some GMs are artists in the prep field and even make their livings putting LARPs together, but I'm dreaming of a quick-start environment, where a lot of basic background stuff can be pre-prepared in the game rules. Sort of a package "treatment" for each player and their avatar.
Roger:
I'd like to know more details about what source Dancey was using to claim "1.5 million people a month playing D&D". My guess is that he was rolling up computer players into that number, although I guess I could concieve of that being a real number if we're discussing worldwide play of the D20 sysetm.
EIther way I think that the D20 crowd is primarily an "owned audience". If and when the kind of RPGs that the Forge is developing are going to grow beyond the borders of this site it will not happen by it's influence on the gamers who are already involved in D20 gaming. There's a lot of reasons for that, including the sheer power of Hasbro's marketing dollars, but the primary one that I can think of is that the D20 audience is well-fed. They're not looking for an alternate experience. D&D (and the derivatives) is an activity they like. They are obviously very happy to shell out their money to deepen and extend that activity. So D20 players aren't the market because they're not RPG players.
But I think that "Forge Style RPGs" will have a tremendous influence over the next few years. Why? Because many of these new methods bring simplicity to what has always been a comparatively complicated method of play. It also unleashes what I believe has been the (unrealized) underlying promise of RPG gaming; a set of rules that encourages and enables dramatic game playing among ordinary people. If the methods being developed here can be communicated to a mainstream audience in a clear and simple way, it will ultimately bring a whole new audience to role-playing.
Quote from: DrVital on November 26, 2005, 02:31:46 PM
I'd like to know more details about what source Dancey was using to claim "1.5 million people a month playing D&D". My guess is that he was rolling up computer players into that number, although I guess I could concieve of that being a real number if we're discussing worldwide play of the D20 sysetm.
Wizards of the Coast commissioned a major survey in 1998, which is the best demographic data. I report some of the trends and have a link to it in my article,
Who are Role-players? (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/whatis/demographics.html). You can compare the numbers to retail market data, such as
Comics & Games Retailer magazine report -- cf. Ken Hite's
State of the Industry 2004 (http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=133) market. The market numbers seem smaller. Ken Hite's market estimates are $25 to $100 million in the Americas. The survey implies roughly $300 million -- based on the D&D player average of spending $10 to $14 per month and 2.25 million monthly players. Then again, all of these are rough estimates. The survey is from 1998 versus Hite's numbers from 2004. Spending patterns and number of players may have changed. The method of self-reporting of retailers is more suspect in principles than the survey, but it's hard to say.
Quote from: DrVital on November 26, 2005, 02:31:46 PM
EIther way I think that the D20 crowd is primarily an "owned audience". If and when the kind of RPGs that the Forge is developing are going to grow beyond the borders of this site it will not happen by it's influence on the gamers who are already involved in D20 gaming. There's a lot of reasons for that, including the sheer power of Hasbro's marketing dollars, but the primary one that I can think of is that the D20 audience is well-fed. They're not looking for an alternate experience. D&D (and the derivatives) is an activity they like. They are obviously very happy to shell out their money to deepen and extend that activity. So D20 players aren't the market because they're not RPG players.
OK, here I would tend to disagree. I may be biased because I'm not much of a D&D fan, but I think that they can definitely be lured to other systems. D&D is a hard-to-approach market leader, but I think there are still major weaknesses to it even within its niche. I've heard that Steve Jackson Games suggested that most GURPS players started on D&D, and moved to GURPS as a more advanced and flexible system.
Quote from: DrVital on November 26, 2005, 02:31:46 PM
But I think that "Forge Style RPGs" will have a tremendous influence over the next few years. Why? Because many of these new methods bring simplicity to what has always been a comparatively complicated method of play. It also unleashes what I believe has been the (unrealized) underlying promise of RPG gaming; a set of rules that encourages and enables dramatic game playing among ordinary people. If the methods being developed here can be communicated to a mainstream audience in a clear and simple way, it will ultimately bring a whole new audience to role-playing.
It is a perenial topic about what will popularize tabletop play with "ordinary people". I don't think any of the current generation of Forge games really does that. I think there's hope for the future, though. As for simplicity, ideas about simplifying RPGs have been around for a long time, driving past game designs like
Ghostbusters,
Amber Diceless,
Theatrix,
Everway, Hogshead's "New Style" series, and many others. The key difference about Forge games isn't about simplicity (which has been tried many times) but rather just breaking out of the design rut that tabletop has settled into since the nineties.
Everyone,
I think there's some good discussion here, but I'd like to hear from Joshua again.
(This isn't my attempt to backdoor-moderate this thread -- I'm just expressing my personal desire to see what the thread's originator has to say about where it has ended up.)
Cheers,
Roger
Hm? Oh. This thread hasn't been about what I wanted to talk about from the start, so I haven't been paying much attention.
I said something to the effect of "Look at the effects on the social structure of gamers that our game designs create," to which the response came, "Indie games don't change anything cause they don't sell enough." Which I found kind of funny, considering how many people have posted repeatedly on this very board how indie games have totally changed their gaming experience. Strictly speaking, I don't care about the diehard 30-year-old DnD gamers who have been playing the same way since they were fourteen. They're doing what they're doing for their own reasons, most of which has more to do with doing things like they were fourteen rather than generating an intriguing play experience. I'm interested in the roleplayers, and how the game designs change how they approach their hobby.
If somebody would like to start up a split thread about that, I'd be interested in contributing to it, but my use for this thread is pretty much over.
QuoteNet Effect
I've already gone on way too long, but to summarize, I see us doing the following:
We are streamlining roleplaying to require less time commitment on everyone's parts, increasing the frequency of -- gasp -- actual play.
We are decentralizing roleplaying to an individualized and personalized experience, authorizing player investment in idiosyncratic and meaningful ways.
We are expanding roleplaying to embrace global communities, diversifying roleplaying experiences.
In short, we are making roleplaying simpler, bigger, and more significant. I like to think we're trying to pare down that big long description at the top of this post to something closer to this:
Some people get together and share an enjoyable experience.
Are you perhaps positing that these games are bringing rpgs more into line with more common types of games like boardgames or cards games?
I don't mean that as a slam. I actually think that might be a fine outcome. I do tink there is something of a contingent within the game community that would very much like for rpgs to
not become more accessible.I have some suspicions about why this is so, although I can't think of any way to give it a nice, polite spin, so...
I'm not necessarily sure that the games you mentioned are
leading a change, so much as
confirming a change that has been developing for a very long time. Many of the elements that you mentioned in your initial post are elements that have entered into gamer culture informally, usually tucked into the "soft rules" suggestions found in gamemaster advice or online/magazine articles. Those designs you use as examples take that "soft rules" methodology/advice and formalize it into "hard rules" procedures.
Ideas can take a long time to cross pollinate. I think you will see more cross-pollination in the future, but economics also plays a part, so don't hold your breath
Leading or confirming, Forge games are at the very least participating in the changes, which is why I find it worth talking about here.
Accessibility is a very large part of it, and yes, in those terms RPGs are becoming something closer to boardgames and card games. However, the personal investment and engagement is just as much a part of it, and that sort of emotional weight attached to "just a game" is most certainly not like boardgames and card games.
There certainly is a large portion of the gaming community that does not want their game experiences "dumbed down" to board games, and I think they're afraid of losing the latter -- the emotion engagement, the identification process, the social credibility they gain among their peers -- in favor of the former. I also don't think there's any danger of that ever happening.