The Forge Archives

This is a response to a post directed at me in the thread "What is a beginner-friendly game?"  I was moved to respond there, but I feel the topic diverges from the matter of that thread.

Let me preface this by saying I had a two-hour root canal and after having the dentist come at me with that hot poker (I kid you not, it melts the root-fillers), I don't feel inclined to spare the venom.  Spare me the indictment.  For just a moment, before you read this, understand that I am not really arguing with Mike, but with the 'myth' that Ron expressed.  I may be using Mike's words (I own that I am destroying some of his meaning by tearing them apart), but I am not arguing against him.  (He names me in his soapbox rant; I return the favor.)

Quote from: Mike HolmesSo Fang, you agree that most people today who get introduced to RPGs get into RPGs via other gamers. Right?

Yep, that's the status quo.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe sudden burst of popularity of such games can only be attributed by them being spread by word of mouth

On what do you base this?  Do you include media attention (including things like Pat Robertson's once yearly Halloween crusades against Dungeons & Dragons)?  Since I don't think you could substantiate this any more than I could support a contrary argument, let's leave demographic attribution out of our discussion.  I'm going to talk about a fundamental change in thinking.  You cannot predict how that will work on historical data or actions of the status quo.

And arguing that a paradigm shift is impossible would be countered with every clichéd description of the forces opposing innovation.

Quote from: Mike HolmesHow many people are, today, actually unaware of the existence of RPGs.

Now I'm gonna have to call you on 'the present is everything' fallacy.  Of Americans? Certainly the bulk of adults have heard of them.

It's all fine and good to state the status quo, 'everybody has heard of D&D.'  That has no affect on the future.  As a matter of fact, I'd argue that if that's the state of things, it cannot do anything but change.

The real question is down or up?

Will public interest in gaming grow or wane?  That's the real question.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe point is that this ten minute discussion makes that half page "What are RPGs" obsolete.

You are creating an argument that is not at issue in my post.  I really don't care about that half page.  It takes a lot more than a half page description to make a game 'entry level.'

Nothing in my post spoke to the 'what is gaming' description, so trying to make that argument with me is pointless.  I was calling to task the 'myth' Ron describes as "that anyone encounters the activity as a consumer first and a practitioner second."  Not only is that not a myth, I suggest that designing games only for practitioners will kill the industry.

If you make all games only for practitioners, then let's assume they are the only ones who will play them.  Where do new practitioners come from?  Word of mouth, indoctrination, and evangelizing (did I miss any?).  Will these practitioners stay for life?  Probably not.  Advertising won't work because all you could advertise is 'go find a group to teach you.'  I can't prove it, but I think this is pretty much the state of things right now; this is the status quo.

How do you make the audience grow in this model?  Increase the growth and decrease the loss.  Well, I don't really see the utility in creating games that induce aggressive indoctrination or evangelizing.  Viral marketing has possibilities for word of mouth, but I can't really say how that would work (or if it has).  And 'keeping' them?  I haven't a clue.

What I think is we need to leave behind this idea that 'games should only be written for practitioners.'  It bankrupted TSR and almost White Wolf; FASA is no longer preaching to the choir.  Wizards of the Coast made a lot of green 'finding new markets.'  I argue that just because it hasn't been done before does not prove it can't be.

Quote from: Mike HolmesSo what you're left with is those people who wander into a book store, and see a copy of D&D, buy it, and try to teach themselves what it's about. This is a truly small group.

There you go with the status quo again.  I think we can all agree that it won't do any better than it has and I'm not saying that it will.  What I am saying is that we need to 'think outside the box' here.

Do I have the answers?  Hardly.  But I can say categorically that if we stick to the status quo, we'll go the way of the dinosaur.

Quote from: Mike HolmesBecause, do any of you have a problem with people getting into RPGs through other gamers?

Not at all.  Do you have a problem with a market of more than one kind of game?  Maybe three kinds of games?  One for practitioners (who ever said we had to abandon them?), one for entry-level gamers (so what if they heard about it, let's 'thin the membrane' keeping them out), and one for both.

Besides, you're creating a false dichotomy here.  Is it really impossible to keep getting new gamers through initiation and from outside the box?  Does one replace the other?  No, they both must exist if the industry is to grow.

Has it been done?  Not that I've seen.  Can it be done?  You can't prove it won't work, especially if you base all your arguments on the status quo.

Quote from: Mike HolmesAnd Fang, how is making a game "more accessible" actually going to get people to get into RPGs more?

You certainly can't expect me to defend someone else's desire for "more accessible games."  (Accessibility is good, not just for new customers, but for practitioners as well; gaming in general could do with a good dose of accessibility.)  Making games "more accessible" is suffering from 'more of the same' syndrome; if you're going to 'think outside the box,' you've got to get past the idea that games 'are nearly perfect.'  Perfection cannot be a goal, it can't even be thought of as static.

You want to get more people into gaming?  Get them onto new shelves.  Get them into new forms and shapes.  Innovate!  Stop twiddling with die mechanics and social contracts around the table; do something completely different.  I was stunned when live-action role-playing games didn't simply explode onto the scene.  When I looked into it, I realized that (outside of the 'host a murder' stuff) the potential was strangled by its legacy in tabletop games (that's in the American market, of course).  I am still surprised that a portal product hasn't been created for collectible card players.  I mean, get the focus more personal (on you playing a character) Wizards of the Coast; where's the Dungeons & Dragons collectible card game?  HeroClix is only a step away from marrying action figures with role-playing games, if only it shed the table.

(I mean think about it.  Role-playing games sold at party supply stores?  How about a card game like The Riddle of Steel that happens to have role-playing rules in the back?  What if a kid, buying the cool new Spawn figure discovered that a 'clicking indicator' on the back let him have imaginary battles and there was a pamphlet of role-playing game rules in the bubble pack?  Completely new markets, virgin territory, new exposure; these would require something completely different than just 'reheated D&D rules.'  Think outside the box.)

Quote from: Mike HolmesPenetration of the products has gone about as far as it can. Just how large, do you estimate, is the crowd of people who really want to play RPGs but just don't know it yet?

If you follow the status quo, you're overlooking a completely untapped market.  What about the kids, Mike?  Every time I take my son to school, I see dozens of people who haven't even heard of Dungeons & Dragons.  Yu-gi-oh is making good book man, where are the role-playing games?  Are you expecting the thirtysomethings to break in all the first-graders?

Quote from: Mike HolmesIsn't it better to virally market to new gamers by making the rules accessible such that they can be taught easily? If you want new gamers, shouldn't that be your #1 priority?

No, Mike, that would be status quo.  Don't get me wrong, we should definitely support the practitioners; without a doubt they are our core market.  But if we could reach people who will never be interested in tabletop games, but will still like role-playing than we will reach farther than ever before.  Why should we be happy with what we already have in hand; let's get more!

It's really simple.  If we keep with the same old, we'll probably achieve similar results.  What if we do all that and go for these new markets?  Will the combined approach automatically lead to a smaller audience overall?  That is 'head in the sand thinking.'  Let's get our head out of the sand and out of the box.  Ron is waging a one man war to change the current industry (good job that), but I really don't think his 'myth' is all that mythical.

Fang Langford

The first two RPGs my group bought were WHFRP and Mechwarrior (I was young and more foolish than I am now).  But we bought them because we liked the wargames Warhammer and Btech (young and foolish).  I was part of the standard group that moved from table-top to RPGs.  Such a leap is common because the step from tabletop to RPG is small, especially traditional RPG.

RP is about being a character, RPGs at present are about being a character, obtuse character creation and combat mechanics.  This is because character play was added on to traditional tabletop games, a small jump to the current situation.

I would think that a lot of kid's first exposure to RPGs these days is from computer games, basically BG engine games.  This must lead to D&D sales to new players.  I don't know the sales figures but I would guess TV and movie RPG tie-ins, LotRings, Buffy, Star Wars etc, represent most of the rest of newbie sales.

More coming...

The jump from a computer game or TV show to a pure RPG is a big jump, much bigger than from a wargame.  As such, the total number of Star Wars fans going from movie to RPG would be a small percentage of the total movie viewing public.  Maybe RPGs should be focussed on product with very little jumps.  A narrativist version of Buffy would be a much smaller jump than the version that's out there, I think it would sell and play better.

Perhaps there could be a variant on the How to Host... with a dice mechanic, perhaps a system where a player must divulge information as long as he fails to beat a tgt number (his conscious or something).  The game would appear largely the same, dress up and clue solving, but you have a small jump to RP elements.

At present the thinking appears to be, how do we take standard RPGs and make them feel like Star Wars?  To design games coming from movies, or whatever, I think the best way to look at it is how do we take the current product and add character play onto that?

Jeremy

Quote from: nipfipgip...dipThe jump from a computer game or TV show to a pure RPG is a big jump, much bigger than from a wargame.

I don't know about some computer games.  I remember Final Fantasy IX, it had hit points, a rigid separate combat system, experience points and so on, very traditional role-playing game.  The real difference would be to put the player into the position of any character and give the setting in a non-linear fashion; use the imagination not the Playstation.

I think the only reason it seems like a big jump from television to role-playing game is because it hasn't been done yet (much).  A game like SOAP really goes a lot farther towards capturing the 'feel' of a soap opera, and that's still 'thinking in the box.'

Quote from: nipfipgip...dipAs such, the total number of Star Wars fans going from movie to RPG would be a small percentage of the total movie viewing public.  Maybe RPGs should be focused on product with very little jumps.

"A small percentage?"  If only "a small percentage" of Star Wars fans would like role-playing games, do realize how many people "a small percentage" of Star Wars fans would be?

All that aside, I think the "very little jumps" idea suffers from exactly the 'in the box' thinking I was ranting about.  It sounds like it implies that if tabletop role-playing games were 'just a little better' they'd sell like hot cakes.  Well, we've been trying that for years; it doesn't seem to make a difference.

I mean, just wild speculation, but what if we created a toy light sabre that kept track of hit points and so on, like a digital player-character assistant.  Heck that isn't even that far out of the box.  What if you could come up with a role-playing game that wasn't based on tabletop role-playing games, one that wasn't aimed at practitioners but at Star Wars fans, and got it into the toy stores.  It'd almost have to be designed for consumers.  That would be 'mythical' according to Ron, but I really feel like it's about time we gave it a try instead of insisting it won't work.

Quote from: nipfipgip...dipPerhaps there could be a variant on the How to Host... with a dice mechanic

Whoa!  That's way 'in the box.'  Lose the dice; they're probably the biggest tabletop dinosaur.  The card idea might be useful; I think Cheapass Games is really busting their humps to create role-playing games that 'break the mold' and can appeal to currently-non-gamers.  Button Men is a tiny step in that direction.

I myself am highly mired 'in the box,' but by the sound of it I have a window seat because I seem to see some of the outside from here.

Quote from: nipfipgip...dipAt present the thinking appears to be, how do we take standard RPGs and make them feel like Star Wars?  To design games coming from movies, or whatever, I think the best way to look at it is how do we take the current product [the movies] and add character play onto that?

Now that is thinking outside the box!

Fang Langford

Have you looked at WOTC's discontinued Pokemon Adventure game?  It is designed to 6-8 year olds introduced to roleplaying.  (According to insiders, it wasn't discontinued because of a lack of sales.   It sold really well.  It was discontinued because of politics in the Hasbro/WOTC empire.)

Also, Jared mentioned Clue over on rpg.net.  I haven't played the D&D Clue but it seems to me something like Clue could easily be an introductory rpg.  

The Transformers action figures have had statistics for each figure for over a decade.  It's a real shame they never put any simple rpg rules in there (at least as far as I know).

And what about the bags of plastic figures you can buy at the store for a $1?  You know, army men, dinosaurs, cowboys and indians, etc.  Put a page of simple rpg rules in every bag and how many roleplayers would we bring in to the fold?

Trying to think outside the box,
---Jon

Jon,

Take a look at Microwar, my very own attempt at this.  The game is a great success with kids, by the way.

Clay

Quote from: Le Joueur
I think the "very little jumps" idea suffers from exactly the 'in the box' thinking I was ranting about.  It sounds like it implies that if tabletop role-playing games were 'just a little better' they'd sell like hot cakes.  Well, we've been trying that for years; it doesn't seem to make a difference.

First up, the jumps I'm talking about aren't in game design, its the jump the player has to make to move from a mainstream entertainment product to an RPG.  The idea is that there currently exists a big space between a mainstream product and a roleplay product aiming for the same demographic, precisely because its all still 'tabletop'.

Quote
I remember Final Fantasy IX, it had hit points, a rigid separate combat system, experience points and so on, very traditional role-playing game.  The real difference would be to put the player into the position of any character and give the setting in a non-linear fashion; use the imagination not the Playstation.

I have been told by FF players, and players of Interplay games that they 'don't get' table top games.  Here the big jump computer RPGers have to make is to GM-Player interplay, and description and versatility over set graphics.  I think Vampire the comp game had an interesting idea, the multiplayer game had a GM, who built levels for his players to hack through, and the GM could listen to player's requests and react in game.  I have no idea if it worked, was fun or even released to the public.

Quote
I think the only reason it seems like a big jump from television to role-playing game is because it hasn't been done yet (much).  A game like SOAP really goes a lot farther towards capturing the 'feel' of a soap opera, and that's still 'thinking in the box.'

I don't mean a big jump to making RPG that simulates TV, I mean the big jump Buffy watchers have to make to play Buffy RPG.  Here, a small jump would mean layering character interplay over Buffy style scripts or something.

Quote
"If only "a small percentage" of Star Wars fans would like role-playing games, do realize how many people "a small percentage" of Star Wars fans would be?

There is a small percentage.  That percentage has a decimal point and a lot of zeroes before a one, but it is percentage.  If the jump from movie to RPG was smaller, or even Star Wars computer games to RPG, that percentage might even be substantial.  The lightsaber is in the right direction, but you're still defining RPGs as having hitpoints.  IF the Lightsaber game was about being Luke, or telling Luke's story, then its RP.

Quote from: quozl
And what about the bags of plastic figures you can buy at the store for a $1? You know, army men, dinosaurs, cowboys and indians, etc. Put a page of simple rpg rules in every bag and how many roleplayers would we bring in to the fold?

It would still be a wargame, though, not a RP.  Why not put in character descriptions, ethics and loyalties for the figurines.  Kids could play the combat freeform, but they would know have characters on the field, and might think about the cause of all that carnage and melting plastic.  In this sense I guess my GI Joe games were roleplay.

Jeremy

Quote from: nipfipgip...dip

Quote from: Le JoueurI think the only reason it seems like a big jump from television to role-playing game is because it hasn't been done yet (much).  A game like SOAP really goes a lot farther towards capturing the 'feel' of a soap opera, and that's still 'thinking in the box.'

I don't mean a big jump to making RPG that simulates TV, I mean the big jump Buffy watchers have to make to play Buffy RPG.  Here, a small jump would mean layering character interplay over Buffy style scripts or something.

I see we are both strongly mired 'in the box,' but we're working on it.  Just like my light sabre reference, I think you're implying a heavy 'tabletopesque' type of game here.  I can't really say that arguing Buffy will say very much on my initial point.  (Although it could be an interesting discourse.)

My 'internal model' of what makes a role-playing game or not is anything that satisfies the "well, if it were me..." urge people have.  How does that translate 'outside of the box?'  I haven't got that answer.

I don't need it.

I'm not going to single-handedly reincarnate the role-playing game publishing industry; I couldn't even if I wanted to.  I'm just one man and I might be wrong.  I am confident, however, that declaring myth the idea that we could write successfully for people who are "consumers first...practitioners second" is a mistake.  One that will cut us off from the larger portion of the population, people who aren't gaming.

If I wind up creating an ultimately divisive point resulting in factionalism, then I'm sorry.  But I do think that to assume the future lay only in marketing role-playing games to people who're initiated by the existing market is a sure way to aim for an ever-shrinking audience.  I don't think we need to fight here.

How about this?  Anyone who subscribes to Ron's idea that practitioners are the only worthwhile audience should consider themselves gaming's biggest supporters.  What they shouldn't do is tell anyone that any other way is mythical; let's agree to disagree.  You guys sell to existing market and anyone they recruit; we'll aim for new markets, new audiences, and new vistas.  Really, there is room for both (especially for companies bound to create products that do both).

Fang Langford

Hi Fang,

You're mis-paraphrasing me quite badly, as well as extending my point regarding a very specific question well beyond any reasonable bounds that I'd apply it to.

"... Ron's idea [is] that practitioners are the only worthwhile audience ... "

... is not at all what I said. Nor does it reflect anything that I'd agree with.

I have not, at any point, stated what I think the worthwhile audience for RPG marketing is. I do think it's deducible, given my essays in the Sorcerer books about creating and developing a socially-functional role-playing group, which Fang hasn't read. I also think it's deducible given my emphasis on active, societally-honest play (i.e. not keeping RPGing in the closet).

I'd be happy to describe my outlook in this matter in a nutshell, but no one has asked me. I haven't done so spontaneously because I really, really dislike being assigned an outlook which is then refuted by the same person - it forces me to disclose "what I think" as a form of self-defense, which is a very bad position to be in and to be heard. I am especially disinclined to comb the thread of origin and demonstrate, line by line, just where my comments have been mis-read and misinterpreted.

Please feel free to continue the discussion and address the myth that Fang is rightly trying to explode. Please don't ascribe its origins and support to me.

Best,
Ron

I guess I want to toss a couple thoughts into this discussion -

1)  I agree with Fang that it would be *very* interesting (and perhaps - PERHAPS - have a big impact on expanding the RPG user-base) to investigate completely new and different ways to sell/market/expose/whatever the RPG activity to the population.  I've thrown a few such things into my posts here - try and leverage the computer entertainment distrubution channel rather than the standard "RPG industry".  Or move into the "family game" world (Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit).  Or an out-there innovation - get Starbucks (e.g.) to carry your game.

2)  These are all high-risk, high-expense (of money, time and/or expertise) ventures.  The "help each individual gamer expand their own play groups" may not have as big a "splash", but it costs a lot lesss, with a  (probably) more reliable, if smaller-scale, result.

I guess that's it.  Oh, and a question -  the "Murder Mystery dinner party" games (by, primarily,  Decipher?) were mentioned either here or over in the other thread - does anyone know how widespread play of these games is?  Bigger than RPGs?  Smaller?  That might tell as a little about marketing alternate-"RPGs" into alternate-audiences.

Gordon

Yeah, what Ron said. I understand why you wrote what you did (you did put caveats in), but my only point was adressing the idea of the "intro paragraph" and I was rebutting you only as it pertained to that point (hell, I said that I was only proffering my anecdotal evidence to counter the anecdotal evidence of others; bad form to go after something like that). You could have just started from the basics without responding to my post to sound off.

In point of fact, I have nothing against trying to break out of the status quo. Given Universalis, I'd say that while still traditional in most ways, that I have little regard for the "box" as such. Yes, lets get out there and reach the new gamer. All I've said is that little paragraphs on "What is Role-playing" won't cut it. In fact, I'd say you pretty much made my point for me, Fang, thanks.

This all said, now, I must say that you're doing a great job of leading this charge from the rear. 'I think we can do it maybe, but it won't be me that does it!' Nice warcry. To quote Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has." This goes doubly so for so small a thing as RPGs. Lots of room to grow.

Now, I admit that I haven't a clue as to how to do this either (but then I'm not the one rattling his saber). In previous threads people have suggested various things. This actually led me to sign up to be a member of a group that was supposed to be dedicated to demoing games (remember on GO). Never got off the ground. But doesn't mean that it couldn't work.

Others have suggested that we make RPGs more mainstream somehow. Well, that's a tall order. How do you do that? The best suggestion I've seen is someone who said that they were going to try to make a movie that was about RPG gamers that showed them in a positive light. Who knows, might work.

The problem with getting outside-the-box is that, once there, will we like what gaming has become? I mean, if gaming does become mainstream, am I still going to want to play? Will it look anything like an activity that I find interesting? I'm not sure that staying away from that isn't all bad. In any case, I prefer trying the harder road of getting the mainstream to become like us, rather than changing gaming to become the mainstream. (Cards, Fang? That's your big idea for getting out-of-the-box?)

Anyhow, I think the first step is to refrain from telling people how not-outside-the-box their ideas are. The first step in moving to a new paradigm is to brainstorm. And that means no judgements.

Anybody else have an idea on how to get more gamers into the fold?

Mike

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisOh, and a question -  the "Murder Mystery dinner party" games (by, primarily,  Decipher?) were mentioned either here or over in the other thread - does anyone know how widespread play of these games is?  Bigger than RPGs?  Smaller?  That might tell as a little about marketing alternate-"RPGs" into alternate-audiences.

Yeah, good question. Why is it that gamers see these activities as more mainstream? Are they? Or are they just prepackaged LARPS that only gamers play, and infrequently? Any hard data on this? I've played in LARPS, and I know that a lot of Bed and Breakfasts devise their own little murder mysteries, etc, but I've never participated in a store bought Murder Mystery. Never heard of anyone who has, for that matter.

Mike

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsYou're mis-paraphrasing me quite badly...

Please don't ascribe its origins and support to me.

For what it's worth, I think you might have been myth-tifying out of context, but that doesn't really matter, consider it dropped.  It was a poor way to point out that I was neither defending the "half page, 'what is gaming'" text, nor suggesting "accessibility."

Hey Gordon,

Quote from: Gordon C. Landis1)  I agree with Fang that it would be *very* interesting (and perhaps - PERHAPS - have a big impact on expanding the RPG user-base) to investigate completely new and different ways to sell/market/expose/whatever the RPG activity to the population....

2)  These are all high-risk, high-expense (of money, time and/or expertise) ventures....

Outside of the Box:

1)  First we need to simplify 'what is role-playing gaming' (and I don't mean for print on a "half page"), in a fashion similar to Scott McCloud does in both

Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics.  His model realizes the potential for taking comics on-line and into many new media.  That would be 'out of the box enough for me.

2)  I'd argue the true risk is not trying and losing our audience is the biggest expense.[/list:u]

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisOh, and a question -  the "Murder Mystery dinner party" games (by, primarily,  Decipher?) were mentioned either here or over in the other thread - does anyone know how widespread play of these games is?  Bigger than RPGs?  Smaller?  That might tell as a little about marketing alternate-"RPGs" into alternate-audiences.

Sales must be worthwhile, I haven't been to a Games by James or Wizards of the Coast store that didn't still stock these games and their direct descendants.

Hey Mike,

Quote from: Mike HolmesI understand why you wrote what you did (you did put caveats in), but my only point was adressing the idea of the "intro paragraph"

This was the main reason I 'split off' (been doin' a little too much of that lately) from the previous thread.  My writing is never as clear as I wish.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThis all said, now, I must say that you're doing a great job of leading this charge from the rear. 'I think we can do it maybe, but it won't be me that does it!' Nice warcry. To quote Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has." This goes doubly so for so small a thing as RPGs. Lots of room to grow....

Make that "...but it won't be me that does it alone!" and you'll get what I was edging towards.  I have no messiah complex; I won't fool myself thinking that I 'know what must be done.'  Make no mistake, I have every intention of 'pushing the envelope;' if I'm lucky, it will turn out to be me.  Or not; that won't stop me from advocating growth.

I'd be clam-happy to be part of that "small group," I'm just not going to commandeer that label.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe problem with getting outside-the-box is that, once there, will we like what gaming has become? I mean, if gaming does become mainstream, am I still going to want to play? Will it look anything like an activity that I find interesting? I'm not sure that staying away from that isn't all bad. In any case, I prefer trying the harder road of getting the mainstream to become like us, rather than changing gaming to become the mainstream. (Cards, Fang? That's your big idea for getting out-of-the-box?)

Good questions, all.  That might be one place to start brainstorming.  What is the single point that has to exist in everything that will be called role-playing gaming?  (Don't answer that; start a new thread¹.  This is the 'call to arms' thread.)

Personally, I think either of your interactions with the mainstream are beyond my courage level.  (Change them?  Not me.  Become like them?  I'm not sure I know what that is.)  What I am talking about is not doing anything in regards to the mainstream, as a stream.  I want to make role-playing games totally ubiquitous.  I want people to find it impossible to go into any store and not see some role-playing game related product.  (Hey, I can dream big, can't I?)  We won't be catering to the 'stream' of mainstream, it'll have assimilated us.

(No, Mike, 'cards' is not my "big idea for getting out-of-the-box."  Not by a long shot.  It was an example of my confusion of why no one tried it.  It just seems so obvious to me; just a short stepwise move at least to the side of the box from what we have.)

Quote from: Mike HolmesAnyhow, I think the first step is to refrain from telling people how not-outside-the-box their ideas are. The first step in moving to a new paradigm is to brainstorm. And that means no judgements.

Are you sure?  I think a sound round of everyone pointing out how 'in the box' we all are (including me) is the best way to start brainstorming.  Without those kinds of judgements, I can't see any such brainstorming as much more than blowing smoke.  One of the best ways to 'think outside the box' I've encountered is to start by exercising to become aware of the box in all of its pervasive glory.  (Warning, I do everything in a deliberate way; it is important for others to do it differently or we can't get to everything.)

But is it worth it?  Does anyone think we should stick to the tabletop?

Fang Langford

¹ Or let me.

Re the Who Wants to Host, as Fang said the sales must be reasonable, and in my opinion the mark-up looks like it might be very healthy.

Anyhow, the idea I was trying to get at is that most RPers come from tabletop games, and that is a small initial market.  For any other potential roleplayers, the move from the initial product is huge, to RP as it currently sits.  There is no reason why roleplay (and here I'm thinking of just character and story) can't be added to other existing products.

Maybe if Star Wars Roleplay was more like the movies and less like a wargame it might be taken in by more Star Wars people.

Jeremy

Quote from: FangFirst we need to simplify 'what is role-playing gaming' (and I don't mean for print on a "half page"), in a fashion similar to Scott McCloud does in both Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics.

Would it be worth taking a page from McCloud's book and writing an RPG that expresses an answer to the question "what is RP gaming"? Would that even be meaningful?