White Wolf discussion (split)

[Gaiaguerrilla]

Replying only to Sean's original post--

It is kind of a double-standard that it begins preaching an art form yet monopolizes, and works from a regular-joe office.

Maybe the rulebook should have used the sinister theme to admit their capitalism.

"We will exploit you, draw you in and corrupt your mind. The world of darkness is just beyond this bridge. Pay the toll and pray you can return." (evil cackling)

[Frank T]

It's a massive set up for drift. But more importantly, it's a massive set up for drift to exactly the kind of game the group drifts it to.

And that's probably the secret of it's success. (That and the goth stuff.) I've heard this whole criticism about incoherent game design over and over again, but here's a game that almost any gamer can enjoy playing, given the right group. On the other hand, given the wrong group, the most coherent game in the world isn't enough to make everybody have a good time.

I can see the point in coherent game design, but I still think it's a mistake to point out WoD as an example of how not to do it. My 2 cents.

[eyebeams]

Replying only to Sean's original post--

It is kind of a double-standard that it begins preaching an art form yet monopolizes, and works from a regular-joe office.

Maybe the rulebook should have used the sinister theme to admit their capitalism.

"We will exploit you, draw you in and corrupt your mind. The world of darkness is just beyond this bridge. Pay the toll and pray you can return." (evil cackling)

What exactly does the company "monopolize?"

[eyebeams]

It's a massive set up for drift. But more importantly, it's a massive set up for drift to exactly the kind of game the group drifts it to.

And that's probably the secret of it's success. (That and the goth stuff.) I've heard this whole criticism about incoherent game design over and over again, but here's a game that almost any gamer can enjoy playing, given the right group. On the other hand, given the wrong group, the most coherent game in the world isn't enough to make everybody have a good time.

I can see the point in coherent game design, but I still think it's a mistake to point out WoD as an example of how not to do it. My 2 cents.

That's basically my position. There's a reason why games that try to legislate rather than suggest a certain kind of play get played less.

[Gaiaguerrilla]

Sorry, Malcolm. Just my harsh mellodrama. If there's any non-fictional villainy in white wolf, there are much bigger fish to fry.

-I rebuke all attacks on White Wolf. Blessings, innocence. All happy. They're my favourite art.- (Fight Pentex!)

[Ron Edwards]

The above posts were split from World of Darkness 2.0.

After I have stated a thread is closed, it is closed. Do not post to it again. You are free to start new discussions in new threads.

This one, for instance, continues here, if there's an actual thread topic to be found in it. I don't see one yet.

Best,
Ron

[eyebeams]

Sorry, Malcolm. Just my harsh mellodrama. If there's any non-fictional villainy in white wolf, there are much bigger fish to fry.

-I rebuke all attacks on White Wolf. Blessings, innocence. All happy. They're my favourite art.- (Fight Pentex!)

Oh, there are reasons to object to the way the business end of the company affects the creative end. It's just that the way these things actually work is not exactly what people tend to claim.

Many of the things the company does are really very straightforward. For instance, I noted earlier that there are goals the ST chapter needs to meet that will, for the most part, never be a concern for folks who design games here. None of you need to assume you're dealing with people who have never played RPGs before, but White Wolf does.

The products the company puts out are much, much more driven by the creative end than most people assume. The default assumption here -- that creatives are just hand puppets for management and development -- is an interesting one considering the alleged value placed on creativity here. The diffference in development and management styles are also much, much more radical. Where one developer might do a line by line redline, another might leave two or three words. Sometimes the outline is king. Sometimes it's only a very loose suggestion.

But certainly, its operations are going to be different from vanity-press style operations. That doesn't change the fact that the company wants people to play the game. Play is sales. It's nice to pretend that people just read and shelve WW's books, but that prestense will, in most cases, be incorrect.

I don't regret working for them, but there are drawbacks, and I'm looking forward to doing my own work as well.

[Frank T]

Sorry Ron, I must have overread that "thread closed" part. My point was just that it need not be a bad thing to have mechanics support, even require drift. Despite all the criticism this approach has received, I believe it has great merits as well.

[Valamir]

needs to meet that will, for the most part, never be a concern for folks who design games here. None of you need to assume you're dealing with people who have never played RPGs before, but White Wolf does.

Are you serious?  White Wolf...as an entry level RPG for people who've never played before?  

WoD is more newbie friendly than My Life with Master? Then Universalis? Then Prime Time Adventures?

[Walt Freitag]

Guys, I suspect this impending argument won't be suitable Forge content unless you very quickly get into some specifics. Malcolm, why do you say that indie game designers (I assume that's the "you" you were addressing) don't need to assume they're dealing with people who have never played RPGs before? What specific aspects of the WoD design make the game more accessible to new players? Was there any special attention paid to newbie-accessibility for the new WoD edition, and if so, what effects did that effort have on the design? Ralph, what aspects of the designs of the games you cite help make them newbie-friendly? How important is newbie-accessibility, in general, to Indie game publishers?

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

Please consider the contents of A note on unguided Drift to be included in this thread.

Freaking moderating.

Best,
Ron

P.S. And yeah, what Walt said.

[Valamir]

Good point Walt.

I think the idea of making a traditional game accessible to folks who aren't gamers is pretty much a myth.  Its something either 1) game companies pay lip service to while really catering to the hard core gamer, or 2) understand so little about that even their honest efforts are unlikely to be useful.

The biggest obstacle to acceptance to new gamers is the fundamental structure of an RPG.  Any game where the players have different levels of authority and different roles to play is going to be alien to people who are used to playing Monopoly where the only difference between players is the shape of their token.  The whole "you can do anything" aspect to RPGs is also pretty alien to non gamers who are used to having rules that dictate exactly what you do on a turn.  When you couple the "do anything you want" aspect with "but then you have to know all of these rules subsystems and how all of these attributes and skills interact with the dice in order to determine if you actually do do what you said" you've pretty much lost all non gamer accessibility.  No amount of "how to roleplay" text is going to over come this.

Then when you get into the rules most RPGs have the written rules plus the unwritten rules...the assumed shared knowledge about gaming built into the rules.  Phrases like "make a roll to jump the chasm", or "the GM decides what the difficulty is" are easily understood by gamers.  To a non gamer its just gibberish.  Who makes a roll, when do they make the roll, what is the thought process a player must go through before they even realize a roll will be necessary, what is this sequence of interrupting play to make a roll supposed to look like...do you raise your hand like in school?  All of this stuff is glossed over at a pretty high level in most game texts (and I've seen nothing to suggest the latest version of WoD is any different in this regard).

And on top of this you have the collosal time committment required because the traditional structure assumes "on going campaign" which requires regularly scheduled play time and tons of time dedicated to prep.  Niether of which are very appealing to a non gamer who's likely only looking for a diversion for a few hours at a weekend gathering with friends.


The games I mentioned above have several advantages as non-gamer games.  First they use a pretty well understood hook.  Everybody watches TV, everyone can imagine how a TV script gets written, everyone knows what the end result of a TV series is supposed to look like (PTA).  In the case of MLwF anyone playing the game is likely to be a fan of the movies the game uses as inspiration.  They know what things are supposed to look like, they know the structure of those movies, and even if they don't they know what a dysfunctional family looks like.  With Universalis, the basic structure is pass the conch story telling which is still familiar to people even though its a dieing art form.  So there's an immediate connection and an immediate understanding of "what to do".

Mechanically the games are all very simple and straight forward.  Who rolls what when and why is laid out admirably and all of the excess chrome that may appeal to hard core gamers but just confuses new players has been stripped away.  

Plus all three games have a relatively minimal amount of prep, can be returned to for a handful of sessions but also work acceptably as a one shot format, and generally just require far less time sacrifice from the players.  

I think its almost a given that the more the game looks like a traditional RPG format, the less accessible its going to be, because the traditional RPG format evolved to serve the needs of the hard core gamer.

[eyebeams]

needs to meet that will, for the most part, never be a concern for folks who design games here. None of you need to assume you're dealing with people who have never played RPGs before, but White Wolf does.

Are you serious?  White Wolf...as an entry level RPG for people who've never played before?  

WoD is more newbie friendly than My Life with Master? Then Universalis? Then Prime Time Adventures?

The World of Darkness is more popular than all of those. It is one of a handful of games that people who are new to RPGs actually play.

The fact that some may consider this fact to be an unpleasant one does not change its essential truth -- and the fact that White Wolf writes to that audience, and in the vast majority of cases, "indie" designers do not. Calling it a "myth" that the need to write for new gamers exists directly contradicts my experience as a writer for the company and what I have observed gamers actually saying.

But if you'd prefer to think I'm lying and gamers are fooling themselves, that is naturally your perogative. The thing you must do, of course, is actually *prove* this, instead of stating that the company is paying cynical "lip service" is a given.

The hard truth of the matter is that mean 'ol profit-mongering White Wolf long ago realized that the best way to regularly feed children to the fiery belly of Mammon was to get them to *actually play* their games. Not just talk about them. Not just read them. Again, you may be tempted to rely on the Forge Mythos to claim that nobody ever really plays WW games anyway, but again, the substantiation for this claim is a marginal one. Play sells. I suppose that's sad but true from one point of view, but that ain't mine.

Anyway, the critique of the inaccessibility of the traditional RPG structure is an interesting one. I think that if computer games have taught us anything, it's that the assumption that non-gamers couldn't hack extended multi-session play is mistaken. Multi-session play is integrated itself into popular games culture years and years ago. It makes absolutely no sense to say that someone who has almost certainly played anything from Civ2-3 to Halo over more raw hours than most campaigns would find extended games alien and intimidating. As for rolling to succeed/fail. this is a also a part of mainstream parlour games.

The challenging level of abstraction is in the social dimension and the goals of play, but any advice about this needs to be variegated -- because like most successful games, WoD isn't about assuming that the players (ncluding the GM) are idiots who need authorial direction through the bog-standard indie design -- that is, one that acts as if players can't be trusted with anything that supports something other than the game author's preferred mode of play. That's why it can't be friendly to the dominant design ethos here: It's not about the game some author wants them to play. It's about the game they want to play.

Awful, but true, I'm sure.

[eyebeams]

Malcolm, why do you say that indie game designers (I assume that's the "you" you were addressing) don't need to assume they're dealing with people who have never played RPGs before? What specific aspects of the WoD design make the game more accessible to new players? Was there any special attention paid to newbie-accessibility for the new WoD edition, and if so, what effects did that effort have on the design?

- Walt

1) Why don't you need to do this? It's simple. For the most part, your ability to feed yourself and your loved ones bears no relationship whatsoever to how well you get new people gaming.

2) I can't answer direct questions about its design goals due to my contract. Suffice to say, though, that WoD does *not* aim for D20's system mastery design ethos at all. If you've been following game design outside of this enclave, you'll know what I mean by "system mastery."

3) You might note that virtually no part of the game requires anything beyond basic math and it doesn't need any sort of probabality estimates. These things are built into the engine. Actually, I miss some of the crunchier elements that were in early playtests (which, unfortunately, I can't disclose), but it was right for it to go.

[greyorm]

Malcolm,

You're relying upon the logical fallacy that "because more people play it, it must..." You're reportedly smart enough to know better.

As I've pointed out before when this argument has arisen, just because everyone eats apples does not mean that apples are the best fruit around.

Your claim is exactly equivalent to, "Hah! Everyone eats apples, the reason they all eat apples, and not kiwi, is because apples are better. Claiming they aren't means no one knows their own preferences, and so you're all basing your claim on egotistic, insular myths!"

Sorry, no. More people eat apples because they have a greater market and cultural presence than kiwi fruit.

More play White Wolf because...White Wolf has a higher exposure level in both gaming and non-gaming* circles (*by which I mean store-shelf and pop-culture presence).

What "more people play..." does not measure is whether or not more people actually prefer it to choice B.

Addendum: As well, how many individuals purchase a game is not a measure of whether they prefer it. Who avoids buying a game is a better measure of worth, as a purchase may be from habit, expectation, or peer influence (of various forms - from "oh, you gotta buy it" to "hrm, Tim bought this"), rather than based on actual preference between products.