One of the most intriguing ideas in the "Infamous Five" threads was the look at how D+D fantasy and superhero genres are not mainstream - instead things like horror, sex, and intrigue are.

I was at a Half Price books on Monday and looked at the proportions of shelf space per genre was. 3/4ths of the shelves were filled with non-fiction books (no surprise there - 9 out of 10 books sold are non-fiction).

I see business, education, military planning, and therapy games as the game corrolary to this trend. There is tons more money in those games than in hobby games. But since we are in hobby games that is irrelivant.

Military history had two bays of books - this could corrolate with wargames, German board games, and the like.

There are 3 shelves to a bay. The rest of the genres had fewer than a bay so I'll describe them in terms of shelves.

Humor 1 shelf
True Crime 1 shelf
Murder Mystery 2 shelves
Romance 2 shelves
Fantasy 1 shelf hardback 1 shelf paper back
Action/Spy 1 shelf
Horror 2 shelves


While the classics got a whole bay - but that covers thousands of years worth of literature.

So that roughly works out to...

Crime/Murder mystery 30%
Horror 20%
Romance 20% (Note - I'm not saying sex - this was not that kind of store)
Fantasy 15%
Action/Spy 8%
Humor 7%

I figure that action spy books tie into history books so this number underrepresents this area of people's interest. Humor was also small but this could be because it is narrowly defined for book markets (I bought a Matt Gronig Life is Hell book). Actual game books did not get a whole shelf.

What does all this mean, I'm not certain. There are plenty of good horror games on the market, not so much murder mystery.

Anyway I thought I'd throw this topic open for discussion again because it was such a neat idea.

I should have some specific question so here it is.

Since murder mystery/true crime had the most shelf space, what are your thoughts on how to make games that give people the same experience playing that they get reading?

Another thing you could do is look at the best sellers lists. Usually there's a Dean Koontz or something for fiction, and for non-fiction, something about religion or maybe pop-science.

But it seems tenuous to draw too many parallels. Role-playing is a whole different medium, and will attract a different kind audience than does reading, with different tastes. For instance, I'm sure the above % break-down doesn't apply equally to the kinds of plays that people see. For historical reasons and because of the medium itself, plays have their own tendencies. As does every medium.

What would be compelling, though, is doing a good survey among gamers to find out what they read, or among readers in the general public, and find out if they game.

Er, um, Host Your Own Murder Mystery.

Somehow these are not seen as Murder Mystery RPGs. But that's precisely what they are (assuming you let LARP into the classification). Why aren't there more TTRPGs with murder mysteries? Well, they're darn difficult to come up with. No, really that's the only reason. Each HYOMM is meant to be played once and only once. Most TTRPGs have an expectation of being played many times with evolving plot each time. Even if you play an episodic game, that still means that you have to have a new plot each evening. It's easy to make one up that's simply a series of challenges, or scenes. But coming up with a whodunnit that isn't instantly identified as one of the ones that everyone knows from movies or books is hard, hard, hard.

Yeah, COC play puts itself off as mystery stuff. But it's rarely really any good as such. There's no mystery to put together, just a series of clues set out for the players to find. Really not at all the same thing. In an RPG, once you have the clues, you have the solution. Because they're not indirect, the information is direct. Because if you don't, then you risk the plot not getting exposed.

In a HYOMM, since it's a one-shot, it's OK if only one player figures it out, and all the rest fail (yeah, usually they're pretty gamism based, really). But they can be pretty carefully designed for just the right combination of clues and lack of info to make it somewhat like a murder mystery.

That said, even HYOMMs are different from the murder mystery book. Because the protagonists of those sorts of books are brilliant since they have the author to guide them. In point of fact, many Sherlock Holmes mysteries are insoluble by the reader, since some of the information is not presented until Holmes sums up. Doyle actually fails to give the reader some of the clues that Holmes has. Making it impossible for the reader to figure it out. And even when they do give the clues, often the situation is so torturous that you'd never guess in a hundred years who dunnit. Or the information that they imply is simply not available. A particular color of dirt that says to Holmes that the culprit has been on Haightenberry Lane within the past fortnight, is simply not something that we can know unless Doyle deigns to give it to us.

A HYOMM has to be easy enough to solve that the real humans involved can actually solve it. So they're not precisely the same as the literature, either.

This is a similar problem to the observation about the "big three" TV shows types. You just don't see many RPGs (OK, none) about Lawyers, Doctors or Cops. They dominate TV. But the fact is that, since the players don't have the technical knowledge that the writers do (yes, Crichton is an MD), it becomes hard to simulate the color of the situations in question. So people don't even attempt it.

Which is not to say that it absolutely can't be done. Just that nobody has ever had a complete enough vision of what play would be like to even start designing such a game to my knowledge. We had a long thread about the subject, but little was accomplished, IIRC.

Mike

This is a similar problem to the observation about the "big three" TV shows types. You just don't see many RPGs (OK, none) about Lawyers, Doctors or Cops.

Thread link: the big three you never see

Law, Medicine, Politics

Paul

MatrixGamer wrote: I should have some specific question so here it is.

Since murder mystery/true crime had the most shelf space, what are your thoughts on how to make games that give people the same experience playing that they get reading?

Back in college I ran a series of RPG murder mysteries. "Hard to write" is an understatement! I basically ran a series of interrogation interviews with some physical evidence gathering thrown in for good measure. I could only handle a couple of players and it was basically me feeding them information. In the end not satisfying and with no replay value.

These games lead me to the synical conclusion that the crime had to be blantantly simple and the clues like clubs on the player's heads or they wouldn't figure it out.

RPGs have not come up with a good way to do mystery, yet.

There are board games but aren't they just like clue? Not fun if you're older than 12.

I run Murder Mysteries with Matrix Games that work quite well - but they work by abandoning most of the conventions of RPGs.

Players pick a character (one needs to be the detective but the other can be other colorful characters). They play by making an argument each turn for what they want to have happen next. In mystery games this usually means making up clues. Players need to find clues that show who had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. They then argue to arrest that person (a conflict situation) and then hold a trial. It takes 2 to 3 hours to play. The system works fine to do this - I've run these kinds of games for 11 years.

Players have to move beyond playing their characters to telling the whole story.
They have to imagine who they think did it and look for clues to prove that.
They have to narrow their arguments to a specific story so that it is solved - which means letting go of tangents.
The game is replayable because the players never repeat making up the same clues. It is different every time.

Each game includes education sections about how the criminal justice system works. I've got a degree police administration and social work so I'm intimately familiar with "social control." This should clue new players in to what might happen without telling what should happen.

I'm certain their is Big Model explanations of this. Director stance or whatnot.

Right now I've got a Sherlock Holmes book (with another on the way), a Medieval mystery with Roger Bacon as the detective (with another on the way) and a Law and Order like game (with another on the way). They haven't proven themselves with sales but I have hopes.

I frequently think that games like Matrix Games and Universalis are really not RPGs at all. Maybe that is what it will take to make a compelling game in this genre.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

MatrixGamer wrote: There are board games but aren't they just like clue? Not fun if you're older than 12.

Hey Chris,

Since murder mystery/true crime had the most shelf space, what are your thoughts on how to make games that give people the same experience playing that they get reading?

Mark Bernstein's article, no mystery, is a good starting point. A quote:

"First-person detective puzzles that promise the chance to let you solve the mystery can be entertaining, but they aren't mysteries."

Paul

My favorite thread on running mysteries from the past year or so is this one

http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13089

particularly the post by Chris Lehrich about how a game centered on it would work.

best

Trevis

I don't know if most people notice, but reading a mystery novel or watching a mystery on TV, is a game. And you have been playing.

Are you going to tell me you haven't figured out certain parts of the plot, as you watched? And when they were revealed, you had the smug satisfaction of having figured it out for yourself to begin with?

These shows/books are games, but they don't suffer from simulationisms damn need for cause and effect. For roleplay, we just fall back into old habits in much the same way as adding a combat system. So we think "The players have to work this out, before we go on".

Taking a direct line from the shows, your PC could work things out for themselves over time. Answers are written on paper and tucked away, and at certain mechanically controlled times, a PC 'deduces' these. So what does the player do here? You just have some mechanism by which the player can try and figure out things in advance, and write them down and perhaps put the deduction in a box. At the end of the game, everything he figured out in advance of it being revealed, gives him a point. Pure gamism.

So now they can figure out stuff, but if they fail to, the story still goes on. Just like when you watch a crime show or read a mystery novel.

The biggest problem with murder mystery games is that the games are usually designed with the players taking on the role of the investigator(s), but the most interesting people in these shows are the suspects.

If I were to create a mystery game I'd have the gm run the investigators while the players ran the suspects, play it out as flash backs during interrogations. That way the players are actively creating the game rather than just discovering what the gm has prepared.

Caldis wrote: The biggest problem with murder mystery games is that the games are usually designed with the players taking on the role of the investigator(s), but the most interesting people in these shows are the suspects.

If I were to create a mystery game I'd have the gm run the investigators while the players ran the suspects, play it out as flash backs during interrogations. That way the players are actively creating the game rather than just discovering what the gm has prepared.

I agree, brilliant. This would allow a game to retain RPG methods while telling a mystery story. I can see players vying with one another to be the killer since that role might give maore game time.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

The problem with ideas like Caldis', Chris', and even Callan's is that there's a strong incentive to want to play the investigators, and have the plot proceed directly as a result of the player's ingenuity.

Yes, it's fraught with potential problems, including that the players may "lose," not be able to figure it out, and miss out on lots of the plot in play. But it's the action that the genre demands. In an action fantasy genre, the players' ability to win out in combat with monsters is what's demanded. In supers, the ability to stomp the bad guys is what's demanded. In mysteries, it calls for the players to be the ones to solve the mystery.

I'm not saying you can't do these other ideas. Just that they avoid the actual problem rather than facing it head on. That said, I'm not sure that there is a solution to the problem of the mystery genre. But avoiding the problem is not addressing the lack of such games. The same person who gets a smug satisfaction at predicting the outcome of L&O, will not be satisfied unless they are the investigator - and if the investigation does not proceed as the result of their investigator's deductions, then it doesn't satisfy the standard role-playing angle for the genre. What advantage does playing Callan's version have to just watching L&O and making predictions? For it to make sense in the RPG form, the player success has to affect the action.

All of which is to, again, point out why such RPGs don't exist. We all know what we want from the genre. But nobody has figured out how to get it.

Mike

Paul Czege wrote:
Mark Bernstein's article, no mystery, is a good starting point.

If I were to create a mystery game I'd have the gm run the investigators while the players ran the suspects, play it out as flash backs...

Excellent. Have you seen The Valedictorian's Death? (I imagine some of the How to Host a Murder Mystery games are like this as well, but I don't know for sure.)

Paul

Paul Czege wrote:
Excellent. Have you seen The Valedictorian's Death? (I imagine some of the How to Host a Murder Mystery games are like this as well, but I don't know for sure.)

Paul

Mike Holmes wrote: What advantage does playing Callan's version have to just watching L&O and making predictions? For it to make sense in the RPG form, the player success has to affect the action.

Concerning designing a courtroom drama/lawyer role playing game, when we were discussing this a couple years back I undertook to put together some core concepts for how to do it in an RPGnet article, I'm Not a Lawyer, but I Play One in a Game. It incidentally inspired a similar effort by Graeme Comyn to create the framework for playing an engineer, at Gaming Outpost, but I don't have the link for that. It's not so tough, really.

I'm going to buck the trend here. I've got a mystery scenario in the works for Multiverser's Third Book of Worlds. It's role playing centered, provides clues for the player character(s) to discover and crack, and is reusable.

Making it reusable was the toughest part. In essence, it was necessary to have multiple suspects who could have done it, and to create a scenario in which subtle differences in what happened would eliminate particular individuals. The crime in question was theft of an artifact from a museum, and it is established that apart from the player character (who presumably knows he didn't do it) there are only six people who might have been able to steal it. Tracking the confirmed movements of the people and the events surrounding the disappearance of the artifact ultimately leads to a single solution. It's been playtested with several different perpetrators. Players usually solve it, but they have to work at it.

So I think it can be done.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: Making it reusable was the toughest part. In essence, it was necessary to have multiple suspects who could have done it, and to create a scenario in which subtle differences in what happened would eliminate particular individuals. The crime in question was theft of an artifact from a museum, and it is established that apart from the player character (who presumably knows he didn't do it) there are only six people who might have been able to steal it. Tracking the confirmed movements of the people and the events surrounding the disappearance of the artifact ultimately leads to a single solution. It's been playtested with several different perpetrators. Players usually solve it, but they have to work at it.

Making it reusable was the toughest part. In essence, it was necessary to have multiple suspects who could have done it, and to create a scenario in which subtle differences in what happened would eliminate particular individuals.

Mike Holmes wrote: Nobody who has the notion that they want to play Lenny from L&O is going to buy that they aren't acting as Lenny, but instead playing a game of Clue of somesuch.

Mike

Hey, I'm not saying don't make these other games. Make them. And sell them, and then we'll see. I'm just sticking out my neck here and saying that they won't have superior sales based on some notion that they're mainstream.

Go ahead, prove me wrong by making the games suggested and selling millions. That'll be the best way to shut me up.

Mike

I have one tip for murder mysteries. I don't know whether it is contributional, but I'm posting it anyway.

Here goes:
It felt to me that all situations written here use a group of investigators as main focus. I suggest: split them. Why? A simple experience story from a Technical Business Administration student: With other perspectives, problems and tensions arise. By creating different point of entries, it is possible to get different types of information:

1. Generally known info: This info is known by all the characters.
2. Obscure knowledge: Few people have knowledge about this subject.
3. pretty common knowledge: a lot of people know, although not everyone realises it or sees it as valuable.
4. Black spot: unknown knowledge.

The trick about detectives is all about the combining of information. Make sure that the information is available, but not all players are aware that not all information is present at that time. Write backgrounds so that some persons see it as common information, although it isn't.

Just my thought, shoot it when not agreeing :P.

Chris--the player characters are suspects from the police perspective, but because Multiverser is a campaign system they can't have actually done it unless they decided to do it. (That's not an impossible choice--there is certainly some reason why a player character might choose to steal the object--but it's not been done by any test player to date.)

Mike--Actually, because of the unlimited worlds concept, players do sometimes find themselves in a world and situation familiar from someone else's game. Thus it is reusable with the same player group. (It's usually run as a solo world simultaneous with other solo worlds for the other players. As such, there's no reason why Bill couldn't find himself in the same situation in which Bob was several month real time before. This being a parallel universe to that one, no one here ever knew Bob, and the events surrounding the crime in Bob's experience are completely unknown to everyone but Bill. This adds the new wrinkle that Bill might be assuming it's the same culprit, and so be surprised when the evidence doesn't point that way.)

Rolls are not required for collecting the clues; asking questions is required. The police are involved, and if the player persuades them that he is not the culprit and chooses to work with them, he'll get many of the clues without too much effort. Solving the mystery is in some ways about asking the right questions--who was where and when--which requires thinking through what is important. Even with Christie, small group mysteries are frequently solved by process of elimination.

--M. J. Young

Sure it works for the Multiverser background. But I think that Multiverser is not what most people think of when they're thinking "Murder Mystery RPG." You're making Multiverser into the "universal" RPG again. You can do anything, so it's good for everything. Sorry, still not convinced. :-)

Put another way, how are those mainstream Multiverser sales going?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Creating something else, Callan, can be done, but you aren't, then, capturing that market. Nobody who has the notion that they want to play Lenny from L&O is going to buy that they aren't acting as Lenny, but instead playing a game of Clue of somesuch.

Mike

Well, no. I'm talking about the "mainstream" market. Much as this is undefined, I think it's very much not the current gamer market (though there probably is a market for gamers who want more "mainstream" sorts of material to play through, however). I'm also talking about non-canalized folks as well, who don't have the gamer pre-conceptions.

RPGs grab people's attention based on the "You are the character" paradigm. Most new people are attracted to RPGs, when they are over other forms of entertainment, based on this idea. It's a highly attractive form of escapism.

Put another way, for those mainstream folks who want a mystery game - clue already exists. As well as a plethora of similar games. So I still think that the theoretically open market to be grabbed (but which nobody has been able to design for) is that one where the players play the investigator and their actions result in solving or not solving the case. I think this is what would sell to mainstream folks, if, in fact, somebody could do it well.

As has been pointed out, the Host Your Own Murder Mystery series does, in fact, fill this slot to some extent. And even created badly, and sometimes like clue as John points out, they still sell somewhat to that mainstream market. I'd hazard a guess that of all of the RPGish stuff in a game store, those games sell more to non-gamers than any other thing in the store. If they were done better, I think it might become a phenomenon. But, as I've said, I think doing it better is far more easily said than done.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: RPGs grab people's attention based on the "You are the character" paradigm. Most new people are attracted to RPGs, when they are over other forms of entertainment, based on this idea. It's a highly attractive form of escapism.

callan:

In relation to that I also wonder about the number of illusionist games around...a clearly participationist game might frighten long term illusionism players, since it removes the black curtain and they don't even want to think a curtain could exist. So such a product would be very 'yucky' to them.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

gsoylent wrote: "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.

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote:

cerbie wrote: 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.

Mike

cerbie wrote: 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.

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

Mike Holmes wrote:

cerbie wrote: 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?

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

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.

I would say that a mainstream ( non-rper) audience actually might consist of people with several different characteristics. Not all mainstreamers would have the same characteristics, or all of the characteristics, so there are actually several approaches that might be taken by would be designers.

1) Subject matter
This is the issue folks have mostly talked about in this thread. These are the people for whom the traditional subject matters of rpgs ( fantastical characters and settings) do not appeal. The assumption here seems to be that these people might enjoy rpgs if they were based on nonfantasy/non-sf material.

2) Mechanics
This group of people may well be interested in the subject matter of trad rpgs, but the general sort of mechanics one has seen over the years turns them off to rpgs, primarily because it falls so far outside of their experience/comfort zone. For me personally, I find this group a more interesting and viable target audience, although you might find yourself fighting an uphill battle against other existing game forms. I can think of several broad groups of gamers who play games that share some characteristics with rpgs(Table top style rpgs, specifically), that could be potentially enticed to play rpgs, should they encounter systems that act as "bridges" between the style they're familiar with and more full blown ttrpgs.

I think that last point is also important, in another fashion. RPers generally have very strong opinions on what constitutes a proper rpg vs. a game which has characteristics in common with rppgs but which isn't an rpg. I question whether that particular distinction in the minds of rpg designers doesn't also act as a barrier to the creation of these "bridging" games. It does sort of lead to the existence of "orphaned platypus" designs...

Robert