What is Main Stream gaming? Another look.

[Mike Holmes]

That's really the question, isn't it, Bob? Might it be that the need for player control of character is really an artifact of RPG tradition?

That's a tough question, but a good one to look at. Indeed, when playing Clue, players do not worry about the fact that they can't have their characters go outside, or, indeed, even know if they are the killer. I mean people play the game all the time.

But would you call Clue an RPG?

There's a sort of Chicken and Egg problem that we're running into here. Is it a RPG, and appeals to people who like RPGs? Or is it something else, and appeals to others? There are some who would say that a really participationism based RPG isn't an RPG at all, since it doesn't allow the players to explore any creative agenda.

Mike

[komradebob]

from Mike Holmes:

There's a sort of Chicken and Egg problem that we're running into here. Is it a RPG, and appeals to people who like RPGs? Or is it something else, and appeals to others?

A lot of times I suspect design runs headlong in to marketing/economics issues, and that is part of the crux of the problem.

Here's the thing. RPG design, especially those designs staying very close to the mainstream of RPG evolution, basically assume a high level of familiarity with those sorts of designs. To person without experience with RPGs they are nearly indecipherable. OTOH, some of the designs we see coming out of places like here at the Forge would very likely be better "bridges" between boardgame/card game mainstream experience and RPGs, but in order to encounter the Forge, you sort of need to be extremely interested in RPGs to the extent of wanting to make your own.

In general, I think that more mainstream designs can pick up parts of the rpg experience and introduce them successfully without needing to go whole hog towards being a full blown RPG. Concepts like storyline, the position of GM+Players, Character identification, Chargen, and so forth are all parts of rpgs that could be translated ( hopefully not all at once) to mainstream design.

Similarly, I think RPG design could benefit from recognizing what the expectations of mainstream game design and player experience are and playing to them. Short term play-time, goals/victory-conditions/termination conditions, short,concise rules ( four pages tops!)and repeat play value could all be introduced to make rpgs more accessible.

Right now, rpg design seems to be stuck in a cycle of designing to a pre-existing rpg audience ( which makes a certain amount of very valid economic sense!). It doesn't do a lot, though, for broadening the audience.

Further, I've noticed a decided trend towards rpg orthodoxy- the heated post review "discussion" of Capes at rpgnet being a prime example.

There are some who would say that a really participationism based RPG isn't an RPG at all, since it doesn't allow the players to explore any creative agenda.

Which is something that I think is a relatively recent devlopment, and something of an attitude that I would associate with long term gamers rather than those newly encountering RPGs. Illusionism, participationism, railroading, linear plotlines and so forth are all things that tend to stick in the craw of long-time gamers, because they've had enough experience to realize there are other options available. I actually think that those things can be very good training wheels for newer players, however, the same way that I think gamist design can be very good for new gamers.

Sorry to ramble, back to work,
Robert

[Mike Holmes]

A lot of good points there.

Again, I think the proof is in the pudding, however. I guess I'm waiting for that breakthrough "semi-rpg," that really does appeal to all.

The opposing viewpoint is, I guess, that you already have RPGs and non-RPGs. Are "bridging" games really going to be synergistic, or are they going to simply be a bad compromise. I suspect that the answer is that it all depends on how well designed they are individually. But all things being equal?

Hard to say. Again, I'm willing to be convinced. I've given good ratings to many such games that have come out of the Iron Game Chef competition, so...

Mike

[komradebob]

Again, I think the proof is in the pudding, however. I guess I'm waiting for that breakthrough "semi-rpg," that really does appeal to all.

Me, too. Although "appeal to all" is a really big order.

At a lower level of expectation, I think it would be possible to have a boardgame or activity game that has perhaps a single aspect that we tend to associate mentally with being important in rpg design.

Are "bridging" games really going to be synergistic, or are they going to simply be a bad compromise. I suspect that the answer is that it all depends on how well designed they are individually. But all things being equal?

More often than not, "bad compromise" is probably the more likely outcome. OTOH, sometimes being johnny-on-the-spot counts for a lot in terms of commercial success. I mean, really, who'dathunk D&D would be a success? Or Magic:the Gathering? I met people, gamers, that were convinced neither would go much of anywhere.

[gsoylent]

First post here, I hope I am not just stating the obvious...

But actually a lot of traditional roleplaying games do involve conducting investigations and solving crimes. Who killed the Prince of Chicago? Who stole the Eye of Cat diamond from Gotham City museum (no prizes to guess that one!). Why are the hobbits in the village of Sheffrington losing their ability to speak?

The difference being these rarely occur in a mundane setting. There is almost invariably a supernatural or super-science twist to it. Pretty much all commercial roleplaying games feature either vampries, space aliens or dragons if not all three - the rest have never rarely done well.

I think because at some level, one of the big attraction of roleplaying games is the power fantasy. The characters normally all have super-human ablities in one shape or other, or the outcome of the overall campaign itself has some sort of world-shattering significance.

If you take your basic crime or mystery story, dress it with cyperpunk trappings or add masked vigilantes, you'll soon be back into safe, mainstream roleplaying territory.

[Mike Holmes]

Welcome to the Forge, Soylent. Are you made of people? Sorry, had to ask. Got a real name?

A couple of things:
1) When we say "mainstream" in this thread, we're mostly refering to the non-gamer public. People who like shows like "Law & Order" and, no, are not looking to have a character with a lightning bolt spell.

2) As mentioned, even when other games do mysteries, they do them exceeding badly. Call of Cthulhu can be read as being entirely mysteries, but it doesn't work well from that POV. Yes they are mysteries, but the player rarely has a real role in solving the mystery. More often they are lead by the nose from clue to clue.

Again, the problem with playing an investigator, doctor or lawyer successfully in a simulation is that we're not investigators, doctors or lawyers - well, MJ is a lawyer, but you get the point.

Mike

[gsoylent]

I am neither a scientist, a space pilot an archeologist or a sailor but somehow or other if the interest is there, the system will find a way to simulate it with varying levels of abstraction.

And while roleplaying mysteries stories may not be all that good, most roleplaying stories are pretty awful. It's enjoyable at the time you play it, but it's hardly Shakespreare.

In mainstream entertainment, science fiction and fantasy are still a minority interest. Everyday settings for soaps, comedy, cops, legal or medical shows are still the norm.

In roleplaying it is the other way round. Even the Western of the ganster genre have not done well. It's not that mainstream roleplaying games have not been produced, they just were not very successful. The Western only had it's big break through with Deadlands by introducing all the trappings of fantasy games.

If in over 30 years there has not been one successful rpg which is not based on vampires, space aliens or dragons, you have to start thinking that those factors matter a lot to players. In which case it's not so much we don;t know enough about the subject to play a doctor in "ER the RPG", but rather "ER the RPG" is not appealling enough a concept to roleplayers in general to make it work. And I'd venture to guess the reason for that is becasue it does not fullfill the power-fantasy element which most other rpgs address.

[cerbie]

newb refuting newb: the world shall tremble (and then find something else to do, having succumb to boredom :)). It's also a bit long because I (mistakenly? :)) decided to read the whole thread.

Mainstream entertainment, based on shelf space of novels, and what's on prime time TV, is not a creative endeavor (from the PoV of the viewer/reader). RPGs are. That is the core of them. That we are social and historical creatures, that build what we have based on what we know of previous and present times and places (and people). This is part of what is done with RPGs, and by that, is fundamentally different from the reading or watching experience.

The difference in the types of experiences are reflected by the split of mainstream entertainment, and then role-playing games. Most simply, there are few fantasy books and few crime RPGs because playing a RPG is not reading a book.

Law & Order isn't dealing with that. Prime time stuff is based on dramatic storytelling elements made to draw you in and tug your strings. To pull you along, and get you feeling for a thing you have no participation in, and keep you there for ads :).

In an RPG, you are not escaping into another's vision. You are escaping into your own. Make no mistake: it is escapism. It's because what we do otherwise in our lives does not offer us enough use of our creative faculties to saturate them. One way to deal with this is RPGs.

So, what I'm basically saying is that I don't think it is as much about power as simply putting creative faculties to good use in a social setting. That is done by participating in an imaginary shared...thing, that happened to grow out of miniatures games. Power may be an issue in playing for some, or at some time, but that glimer of the fantastic is what really makes it fun.

Here are some games (or rather, examples of types of play):
a. The Western: you play a sheriff, fighting against outlaws.
b. The Mystery: you're a detective with a rep for putting folks away for good.
c. The Court: you play with the supreme law of the land, putting it to your uses.
d. The Adventrue: the world is full of ruins of the past, and they still hold secrets, for thos brave enough to look.

C is really the most powerful, but like the ER example, it is exactly how fantastic? How enigmatic? How much is it just shimmering with glamour?
B can be seen similarly, but not as mundane. With some flavor added, it could work.
A has that glamour, but just isn't fantastic enough to get people together to really make something of it.
D has it. Risk, unearthly things, and the unknown. The bolded parts being those most important to the reason why Creative Agendas are called Creative Agendas. You are exercising your mind when dealing with unknowns. Dungeon crawling isn't quite pondering the myseries of the ancients, but hey, you do what you can, right? The main thing about D, here, is that unlike A, and especially B, it requires little extra flavor from the GM and group, and thus, can "just be used," as the flavor parts are not the key to its fun play (though are still key to exceptionally fun play).

Part of working on escapism, and heightening its enjoyment, especially in a creative sense, is the breaking of expectation. It can be totally unexpected, or just a subtle change or two, like making a nasty monster in the D example look at first like a beagle.

That last bit is a major challenge (and regardless of the system, is largely predicated on the players/GM group relationship). Have enough common elements that a player is not alienated by the game being run, but also have it different enough that there is that "OK, what now?" always there. In small games, this is often accomplished by making many twists to known concepts, so that they work in a game. Making those things that we normally see, hear, and feel into things which we imagine participating with. This is another major switch from the reading/watching experience. You need to be able to directly relate when reading or watching. However, such direct ability to relate to what you are seeing or reading gets in the way of the experience of dealing with something that is not mundane.

I know what a dragon is, but I've never seen one.
I know what a wizard is, but I've never seen one.
I know what a vampire is, but I've never seen one.
I know what an ET is, but I've never seen one.
I know what a fairy is, but I've never seen one.
etc.
But to all those things, you can add "However, I've read, seen, and heard many stories about them through my whole life. They can exist in my mind's eye, and I won't be dealing with them at the store tomorrow."

On a side note of all this, some games do lend themselves to those who want to play for imagined power. Several WW games fit this, as does the ST system in general, and texts (with the main exception of the best game to get shackled by the ST system, C:tD...IMHO, of course...). Part of this, though, is just perpetuated business stuff. Get new players, players get used to it, and you have an audience you want. Get new players, and get the old players from that audience. Repeat. That could be a whole other subtopic just to itself.

Cliff's:
- It can be power, but that's not really it. Being and doing  something not remotely like daily life is what is really it.
- What really is it is working out the need for us, as historical beings, to be creative: building upon that which others build, and doing so in a structured, social manner.
- By the first point, the mainstream, through history, has never been very creative. Whether by chance, design, collective will, or some diabolical alien conspiracy with aristocracies through our species' time, those in minority have pretty much always been the creative ones, unable to cope without 'something more'. Some turn to traditional arts, some to crafts, and so on, to the most recently available outlet: structured social storytelling via RPGs.
- I'm this || close to diagramming this post. Maybe even Venn a diagram.

[Valamir]

"ER the RPG" is not appealling enough a concept to roleplayers in general to make it work. And I'd venture to guess the reason for that is becasue it does not fullfill the power-fantasy element which most other rpgs address.

I think you're missing the point still g.

When we talk about mainstream here...we don't give a fig for what "roleplayers in general" want.

As you rightly point out...what roleplayers in general want is vampires and dragons.  What mainstream SOCIETY wants is not vampires and dragons...witness the sparcity of vampires and dragons relative to other genre topics in all mainstream entertainment media from novels to movies to prime time TV.

So, trying to make roleplaying as a hobby more appealing to mainstream society means generally not giving a rip want roleplayers want or how the hobby has been done for the last 30 years.

How the hobby has been done for the last 30 years has accomplished nothing but creating a tiny niche market with little penetration and little appreciation outside of its own insular community.

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, welcome you two. Do you have names? Soylent, you made of people (sorry, it had to be done)?

What Ralph said.

If your point is that the mainstream doesn't want to play RPGs, well, that's a different point, and my be true. The problem is that it's largely untested. Given that we've never seen these games presented to the mainstream for potential consumption, it's very hard to say (does the one time Dallas RPG count?). But even if you snagged a small percentage of the mainstream, you might be able to have an audience as large as that for D&D.

Cerbi, from what I can tell, your concept of what makes for good play is largely a statement of preference. There are whole styles of play that do not require the sort of sense of discovery of the sort you say is neccessary. In point of fact, I've seen non-fantastic play that worked not just well, but very well. In fact, I think that I could make a good argument that people avoid playing stuff that's close to home because of the potential intensity which it can have. That is, yes, it's largely escapist as a played form. But it doesn't have to be.

Mike

[cerbie]

Hey, welcome you two. Do you have names? Soylent, you made of people (sorry, it had to be done)?

What Ralph said.

If your point is that the mainstream doesn't want to play RPGs, well, that's a different point, and my be true. The problem is that it's largely untested. Given that we've never seen these games presented to the mainstream for potential consumption, it's very hard to say (does the one time Dallas RPG count?). But even if you snagged a small percentage of the mainstream, you might be able to have an audience as large as that for D&D.

Possibly. That was one point. I will definitely agree with Valamir, that the situation things are in now, and how they have been (with D&D/D20 and ST perpetuating their hold, and so, the concept of what RPGs are), is not really helping find out if it is indeed true, partly true (true, but some other cause), or just false.

Cerbi, from what I can tell, your concept of what makes for good play is largely a statement of preference. There are whole styles of play that do not require the sort of sense of discovery of the sort you say is neccessary. In point of fact, I've seen non-fantastic play that worked not just well, but very well. In fact, I think that I could make a good argument that people avoid playing stuff that's close to home because of the potential intensity which it can have.

And like the difference in people, how would this one be proven or disproven? I can definitely see it as a possibility.

That is, yes, it's largely escapist as a played form. But it doesn't have to be.

Mike

What are some types of play that work well while not being escapist (really, I can't think of nor find any)? Even with less of a degree of escapism, are there any examples of play in which a lack of color will still be able to offer good play? I can definitely see lesser degrees of escapism, as my examples were more to make a point than exclude other possibilities entirely. But in play, there is a need to captivate one's imagination, and keep interest.

[Mike Holmes]

What are some types of play that work well while not being escapist (really, I can't think of nor find any)? Even with less of a degree of escapism, are there any examples of play in which a lack of color will still be able to offer good play? I can definitely see lesser degrees of escapism, as my examples were more to make a point than exclude other possibilities entirely. But in play, there is a need to captivate one's imagination, and keep interest.

Well, every game has color. Even if it's not fantastic. Imagine a game about playing mafiosi - that'd have all sorts of color, probably embedded in the language a lot. There have been a couple of those. Now, that said, the Maffia has been largely romanticized, so playing a game like that could be considered escapism, too, and would be in some cases.

So I'll move on to the best example that I can think of for a game that's not even remotely escapist, Nicotine Girls.

It's free, so check it out.

The mode of play in that comes to mind is narrativism. Basically instead of prioritizing exploration, narrativism prioritizes creating themes. As such, a game like Nicotine Girls gives players a forum for making statements about certain issues (especially, in this case, those of girls from low-income backgrounds).

The game PTA also supports this, largely, by allowing play of things just like ER, and cop dramas. A lot of play is about more escapist shows, actually, but then it's being selected by gamers like myself, so... I commented when I played that the show I was making was one that I'd love to see, but which would bomb with mainstream audiences. :-)

This might be the best example of such a game, in fact. Because the players are exhorted to shove setting into something like a TV show backdrop, and focus solely on the character's issues. Even when we did the Cthulhu show that I wanted, like Buffy:TVS, the show wasn't about exploring the color, but about the character issues.  

Anyhow, these games are starting to probe the realm of the mainstream, without charging in dramatically.

BTW, we're threatening to get way off topic here. The point of the thread was to consider why mysteries per se aren't done in play. You say that they are done, just in less conventional settings. Well, even if these mysteries are done well enough (and I don't think they are), you then have the problem that in the games you describe, the mysteries get overshadowed by the color. Play isn't about the mystery, but the exploration of the color as you point out.

Which might be fun. But it's very much not the genre we're discussing here. Again, what I think might appeal to the mainstream is a mystery game about, well, solving mysteries.

Ever watch the Ellery Queen? Was pretty popular when it was on. What made it fun was that when the show was nearing the end, Jim Hutton playing Ellery, would turn to the screen and ask you if you'd figured it out. Then there was a commercial break before the reveal. Meaning that you and the family had time to make predictions. In our household there was a high amount of gamism involved in watching this TV show.

Well, that's what I think people would like to see. A RPG like this, but where you were the investigator. Note that the show lasted only a season, dying, I'm guessing, when the source material ran out. Again, it's not easy to make a good mystery.

Mike

[cerbie]

What are some types of play that work well while not being escapist (really, I can't think of nor find any)? Even with less of a degree of escapism, are there any examples of play in which a lack of color will still be able to offer good play? I can definitely see lesser degrees of escapism, as my examples were more to make a point than exclude other possibilities entirely. But in play, there is a need to captivate one's imagination, and keep interest.

Well, every game has color. Even if it's not fantastic. Imagine a game about playing mafiosi - that'd have all sorts of color, probably embedded in the language a lot. There have been a couple of those. Now, that said, the Maffia has been largely romanticized, so playing a game like that could be considered escapism, too, and would be in some cases.

So I'll move on to the best example that I can think of for a game that's not even remotely escapist, Nicotine Girls.

It's free, so check it out.

The mode of play in that comes to mind is narrativism. Basically instead of prioritizing exploration, narrativism prioritizes creating themes. As such, a game like Nicotine Girls gives players a forum for making statements about certain issues (especially, in this case, those of girls from low-income backgrounds).

OK; narrativism as an end for itself, rather than just a means. I must also say, that is the strangest game I have ever seen. It makes two of my points (social creativity and shared escapism) almost contradictory. Based on many games, they are not, but I'm sure how to reconcile the boundaries I made. I'll be pondering this one, and hopefully come up with something.

The game PTA also supports this, largely, by allowing play of things just like ER, and cop dramas. A lot of play is about more escapist shows, actually, but then it's being selected by gamers like myself, so... I commented when I played that the show I was making was one that I'd love to see, but which would bomb with mainstream audiences. :-)

This might be the best example of such a game, in fact. Because the players are exhorted to shove setting into something like a TV show backdrop, and focus solely on the character's issues. Even when we did the Cthulhu show that I wanted, like Buffy:TVS, the show wasn't about exploring the color, but about the character issues.

Well, one thing to note is that exploring the Color is not all that the color is there for. Color, in such cases, can become more of a canvas to work with than what the game actually is. This definitely works. One reason I'm soaking up this forum is trying to find both the kind of game and how it should be played that I want to run. That I have noticed going to character-based narrative themed games tend to end up enjoyable for everyone, with both non-negotiation resolution mechanics and game color as building blocks and guides more than the focus of the game. The focus then shifts from internal (self) imagination to shared (social) imagination, and on around to each other's at the table.

Anyhow, these games are starting to probe the realm of the mainstream, without charging in dramatically.

Mike

Before I go farther, I think I need to get more pointed in exactly 'how' and 'to what' my previous points work (and do not). I still think they are mostly right, but not as I worked with them in my first post. There are clearly overlaps and exclusions. I was close to diagramming before. Now I'm at a point where it is practically required.

One issue about mainstreaming, though, is that even without fantastical escapism, you must get that 'it' of a creative connection. The more fantastical you deal with, while not alienating (an Aztec fantasy game, FI, would be alienating to most) those who might look at buying it, the easier it will be to get someone interested.

Even with a good game, with good presentation, an elf will be easier to sell than a CSI character ripoff. This alone helps out those that have managed to establish themselves, and makes for an even more uphill battle for others, as some excellent games won't even be on shelves when one goes to their closest shop and decides to browse.

So, with marketting, the situation is not good, unless alternate avenues are used (offering cheap PDFs being a major one that has really caught on), for new ideas to come into use. Ah, the evil status quo, and its self-sustaining cycles! :)

[Mike Holmes]

OK; narrativism as an end for itself, rather than just a means.

Well with modes we tend not to speak of them in terms of goals, just as behaviors. That is some people seem to enjoy playing using narrativism. If you had to point to a goal, theme would probably be it. But with RPGs it's a creative act, so it's not so much the output that's valued, but the process itself.  

I must also say, that is the strangest game I have ever seen.

http://evilbobdayjob.tripod.com/ml4u/

Now Nictotine Girls is the second strangest game you've ever seen. There are lots of games stranger than Nicotine Girls. What's going on here is that your experiences are representative of traditional gaming. So you've got a limited view of what RPGs can be for. It's a self-perpetuating problem in the "industry," with few people trying to break the mold. Which is why the mainstream audience has never really been successfully tested.

Actually, maybe oddly, I've always been of the opinion that the mainstream wouldn't buy in because they're just not the sorts that would "get" RPGs. But I'm game to see if this is correct or not.

The game PTA also supports this, largely, by allowing play of things just like ER, and cop dramas. A lot of play is about more escapist shows, actually, but then it's being selected by gamers like myself, so... I commented when I played that the show I was making was one that I'd love to see, but which would bomb with mainstream audiences. :-)

Color, in such cases, can become more of a canvas to work with than what the game actually is. This definitely works. One reason I'm soaking up this forum is trying to find both the kind of game and how it should be played that I want to run.

You may find that in the local dialectic that what you said doesn't make any sense to most people here. That is, to us there is only "how to play" with no "game" external to that. Have you read the essays?

That I have noticed going to character-based narrative themed games tend to end up enjoyable for everyone, with both non-negotiation resolution mechanics and game color as building blocks and guides more than the focus of the game. The focus then shifts from internal (self) imagination to shared (social) imagination, and on around to each other's at the table.

Narrativism, not narrative. Very distinct and different meanings. But, yes, I think you're getting what happens in such games as I think you're describing.

One issue about mainstreaming, though, is that even without fantastical escapism, you must get that 'it' of a creative connection. The more fantastical you deal with, while not alienating (an Aztec fantasy game, FI, would be alienating to most) those who might look at buying it, the easier it will be to get someone interested.

I don't see why that's true. Again, it would seem that the mainstream currently buys more "Host a Murder Mystery" games than they do traditional RPGs. And those games are pretty mundane, often the only fantasy part about them being that they are set in a different period. If that. And people seem to "get" this just fine. Well, the ones that particpate, that is.

I think as long as you get to play somebody other than yourself, this is enough to spark an interest in playing. Probably the same thing with people in plays. Note how with plays how few elves are involved, and how many real people. When people do improv theater, you don't see elves (that I've ever heard of), just normal people for the most part. I totally disagree with your conclusion here. Sounds like a personal preference to me.

Mike

[cerbie]

OK; narrativism as an end for itself, rather than just a means.

Well with modes we tend not to speak of them in terms of goals, just as behaviors. That is some people seem to enjoy playing using narrativism. If you had to point to a goal, theme would probably be it. But with RPGs it's a creative act, so it's not so much the output that's valued, but the process itself.

OK, agreed.

I must also say, that is the strangest game I have ever seen.

http://evilbobdayjob.tripod.com/ml4u/

Now Nictotine Girls is the second strangest game you've ever seen.

I don't know if it's quite as strange, but yes, very strange.

There are lots of games stranger than Nicotine Girls. What's going on here is that your experiences are representative of traditional gaming.

Definitely a possibility, and a portion of why I'm here.

So you've got a limited view of what RPGs can be for. It's a self-perpetuating problem in the "industry," with few people trying to break the mold. Which is why the mainstream audience has never really been successfully tested.

Actually, maybe oddly, I've always been of the opinion that the mainstream wouldn't buy in because they're just not the sorts that would "get" RPGs. But I'm game to see if this is correct or not./

That is a better distillation of what I was trying to say with most people just not wanting to be that creative on a regular basis.

The game PTA also supports this, largely, by allowing play of things just like ER, and cop dramas. A lot of play is about more escapist shows, actually, but then it's being selected by gamers like myself, so... I commented when I played that the show I was making was one that I'd love to see, but which would bomb with mainstream audiences. :-)

Color, in such cases, can become more of a canvas to work with than what the game actually is. This definitely works. One reason I'm soaking up this forum is trying to find both the kind of game and how it should be played that I want to run.

You may find that in the local dialectic that what you said doesn't make any sense to most people here. That is, to us there is only "how to play" with no "game" external to that. Have you read the essays?

Every one. There is, however, a limit to what may be fully learned without [somewhat blundering] participation. Thus, my finally jumping in.

That I have noticed going to character-based narrative themed games tend to end up enjoyable for everyone, with both non-negotiation resolution mechanics and game color as building blocks and guides more than the focus of the game. The focus then shifts from internal (self) imagination to shared (social) imagination, and on around to each other's at the table.

Narrativism, not narrative. Very distinct and different meanings.

Got it.

But, yes, I think you're getting what happens in such games as I think you're describing.

One issue about mainstreaming, though, is that even without fantastical escapism, you must get that 'it' of a creative connection. The more fantastical you deal with, while not alienating (an Aztec fantasy game, FI, would be alienating to most) those who might look at buying it, the easier it will be to get someone interested.

I don't see why that's true. Again, it would seem that the mainstream currently buys more "Host a Murder Mystery" games than they do traditional RPGs. And those games are pretty mundane, often the only fantasy part about them being that they are set in a different period. If that. And people seem to "get" this just fine. Well, the ones that particpate, that is.

I think as long as you get to play somebody other than yourself, this is enough to spark an interest in playing. Probably the same thing with people in plays. Note how with plays how few elves are involved, and how many real people. When people do improv theater, you don't see elves (that I've ever heard of), just normal people for the most part. I totally disagree with your conclusion here. Sounds like a personal preference to me.

OK, possibly. I can think of very few plays off-hand that have what would resemble real people (mostly heavily romanticized and exaggerated visions of 'real' people); but maybe some confirmation bias in there.

Mike