Everyone's a Gamer: A Rant

[Ben O'Neal]

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

[Erick Wujcik]

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...

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?

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.

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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

[SlurpeeMoney]

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."

[Ben O'Neal]

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."

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.

As 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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).

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]

[Erick Wujcik]

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.

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 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, 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!

...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:

...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

[Rob Carriere]

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.

Only 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
--

[Erick Wujcik]

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

[Matt Machell]

Readers of this thread may be interested in the old (so no posting) mainstream - a revision 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

[TonyLB]

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. :-)

[Erick Wujcik]

I'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...

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. :-)

Thanks! That's a wonderful comparison!

Erick

[TonyLB]

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?

[DevP]

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.

[Tobias]

This thread's inspired me to go build something, tentatively called Ideal Holiday.

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.

[komradebob]

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

[ethan_greer]

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.