Everyone's a Gamer: A Rant

[Cephalopod]

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.

[Erick Wujcik]

I'll save my next round of feedback for another time, in a day or two, but here are a couple of comments...

(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:

Greer 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

[Erick Wujcik]

...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

[ethan_greer]

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.

[Erick Wujcik]

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.

You started this thread with the following two principles (correct me if I'm boiling this down incorrectly):

1.

Everyone 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.

The 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!")

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.

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.

...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

[ethan_greer]

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?

[Ben O'Neal]

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

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Instead 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.

[komradebob]

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

[Erick Wujcik]

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.

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.

Secondly, 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...

Thirdly, 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.

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.

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.

This 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.

Finally, 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.

It 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.

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.

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

[ethan_greer]

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.

[komradebob]

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

[ethan_greer]

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.

[JackBauer]

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?

[komradebob]

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.