The Evolution of Gaming Preference

[Marco]

  The RPG field is as neophobic as ever.  The triumph of D20 has shown it's possible to make EVERTHING just like a set of midieval wargaming rules if you have a high enough page count.  And last year AD&D (okay Hackmaster....) was voted game of the year. Clearly things arent going to get any better in that regard.  The Forge has shown me just how stuck in the mud I was myself, and shown the way toward completely different ideas of what an rpg can be.  Too bad I dont have anybody to actaully PLAY them with....

I don't think this is necessiarily true. At least no more so than that GURPS is all just like a mideval war-game. Or that Hero proves that everything is just like a super-hero game.

I think the present common model has a lot of good things about it (in other news, the wheel is still round too)--but it's certain that there's room for yet deeper thought and exploration.
-
Consider, for a moment, RPGnet--the posters there are *aware* of less popular games--certainly know they can get them online--and the board as a while has a good deal of respect for a number of indie games and designs. And yet the play a *lot* of standard stuff too.

The model is not "broke" (Hackmaster can be a lot of fun)--what it doesn't do is serve everyone evenly. That's why there are niche-markets within RPG-dom in general.

A strong chain of thought here says that it'll be one of those "niche markets" that bring RPG's to the real mainstream--and that may be--but presently the idea that it's simple, pure neo-phobia is, I think, unfounded.

-Marco

[John Kim]

  The RPG field is as neophobic as ever.  The triumph of D20 has shown it's possible to make EVERTHING just like a set of midieval wargaming rules if you have a high enough page count.  And last year AD&D (okay Hackmaster....) was voted game of the year. Clearly things arent going to get any better in that regard.  The Forge has shown me just how stuck in the mud I was myself, and shown the way toward completely different ideas of what an rpg can be.  Too bad I dont have anybody to actaully PLAY them with....  

Well, I don't have any clear insight on the RPG field as a whole.  I do know that just as many new RPG designs are being published as in the 80's and 90's, if not more.  

It may be that people are ignorant of new designs or irrationally biased against them.  On the other hand, it may also be that people genuinely enjoy the old RPGs.  For example, Ron is apparently having a blast with Tunnels and Trolls, which dates back to 1975.  A lot of my favorite RPG designs are from the 80's, like the Hero System, James Bond 007, Call of Cthulhu, and Ars Magica.

[M. J. Young]

I now put forward the following question: What are your personal observations of gaming preference trends in yourself and those you play with?  I'm curious to see if anyone has an experience even remotely close to my own...

Sorry, Thomas--my anecdotal evidence is completely off of yours.

We started with OAD&D, and quickly added MetAlpha, GammaWorld, and StarFrontiers. From the beginning, we drifted between Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist play; we just didn't realize it. To us, it was a lot like real life--sometimes you face challenges, and when you do you use everything you've got to beat them; sometimes you wrestle with issues, and when you do you seek answers; sometimes you find interesting aspects, and then you explore them.

I'm still that way, playing different modes at different times, often in the same games, sometimes in the same sessions.

However, being at the Forge (and at Gaming Outpost) has helped me understand a great deal, and has impacted me as a player and referee in many ways.

[*]I understand the use of illusionism, and although I almost certainly always used it, I now use it specifically in very focused and effective ways.[*]I recognize narrativism as something players often do, and so build front-loaded settings to stimulate it.[*]I see a lot of value in director stance; although I don't use it much, I'm examining it and working on game interfaces that will bring this into play.[/list:u]In short, I'm learning a lot more about technique, but I'm still quite the same in terms of goals.

As to my players, some who were gamist a decade ago are simulationist now, and some who were simulationist are now gamist; some who were gamist then are even more gamist now, and some simulationists are more so. Many of my players have only recently been exposed to narrativism, and were very skeptical of it (and particularly in the aggressive director-stance model Legends of Alyria encourages), but are finding it an interesting change of pace (the jury is still out on it though).

I'd say that there's no pattern to it; it's very individual, as people do a couple of things:

[*]Discover their preferences by trying different things;[*]Tire of doing the same old thing and so try something different.[/list:u]I think those are the major drivers, but I could have missed something.

--M. J. Young

[LordSmerf]

Thanks M.J., and don't apologize, this is exactly what i'm looking for.  Now if i can just get a little more input i will feel more confident in my current assumptions, but it seems that the idea of "evolution" (with a specific implication of a common outcome) doesn't really stand up.  And there's nothing wrong with that, i guess i was just curious as to whether ideas tended to grow in a specific direction.  I realize now, after some thought and everyone's discussion and input (again, thank you all) that the concept is a pretty silly one.  It assumes that all people ultimately have the same desires in entertainment, which is clearly not the case in any other form of entertainment, so i don't know why i thought it might be the case here.

This has, however, raised a new question in my mind, which may or may not warrant future discussion, possibly in another thread.  It is rather recent, but i will present it for your consideration, it may even have been discussed previously:

How much does the group we play with influence our preferences and play styles?

My initial answer would be that it is not only the primary influence but probably at least 80%.  I'll have to give it more thought before i really go any further.

Again, thanks for participating in this discussion, i feel that i have learned something...  If anyone wishes to pursue this, or post more anecdotal evidence for consideration, please feel free.  Barring more personal experience from other people, i consider myself done here.

Thomas

[M. J. Young]

How much does the group we play with influence our preferences and play styles?

I think you might be on to something here, Thomas.

Particularly in relation to gamism, I find this trend in myself in microcosm:

If my initial experiences playing a particular game were generally one of being used to wipe the board repeatedly, I don't want to play that again. Canasta veritably leaps to mind--I have never won a game of Canasta, and consequently I really dislike it. I feel I'm on the ropes from the first cut of the cards, and never get off them.

If my initial experiences with a particular game were generally that I couldn't lose, I stopped playing it. Pong had this effect eventually; you could sit there for hours playing against the simple computers that ran this game, and you would only miss the shot when either the system was inadequately responsive or you were too bored to react. Tic Tac Toe is like this for most people, as there's no challenge to the game.

I had to solve a ton of logic problems on the LSAT. I hate logic problems. They feel like homework to me, and I ignored more homework than I ever did. The problem with them is that I know if I put the time into it I'll solve them, and so there's no real challenge--it's just busywork. No one likes busywork.

Thus I think for anyone to become interested in gamist play, they have to feel like they're playing in a situation in which the challenge is adequately but not excessively challenging. If your experiences are either that there's nothing to it or that Bob always creams everyone at the table, you will rapidly lose interest in gamism.

I suspect there are similar processes at work in narrativism and simulationism. The boil down to 1) is this interesting overall, in the sense that it is working and 2) am I able to participate in it in a meaningful way. If both of those questions are affirmatively answered, you're more likely to tend to enjoy that sort of game. If either is answered negatively, you're going to be bored and blame the game as being boring.

--M. J. Young

[LordSmerf]

I have decided to open a new thread to discuss the way the group we play with effects the way we play.  If this subject interests you, or if you have any comments please come on over to Who we play with.  Hopefully this will prove productive.

Regards,

Thomas