After an extended hiatus, i was drawn back to the Forge by this discussion on redundant characters. Other than the fact that i saw, at least to some degree, a reflection of myself i was really interested by the self-analysis of some posters. Specifically people who discussed where they once were, and where they are now in terms of character preferences and variety. This got me thinking:

1. Do people's preferences for gaming evolve over time? I would say that they clearly do, as evidenced by changes in character and system preference.

2. If gamers' preferences evolve over time, then what influences this evolution? The group(s) you game with? The systems you are exposed to? If you play with the same group using the same system, rarely if ever branching out, do preferences evolve more slowly? More quickly? What about the same group with many systems? Many groups, but with the same system?

3. Does the starting point effect the direction and/or rate of evolution? Are my preferences going to follow a different trend if my first game is Sorcerer than if my first game is D&D? Or, instead, is this evolution (especially the direction it takes) inherent to my psychology? Inherent to my culture? Inherent to gaming itself?

4. Is there a specific direction this evolution tends toward? Is there a trend toward story generation? Do people tend toward realism? Is there no observable pattern, everyone has different preferences?

I feel like i'm not being very clear, and i don't really have enough data for definative answers. I have played with the same small group for years, so i can't really authoratively discuss this. However, this is, i believe, a fascinating series of questions. Furthermore, if it does turn out that preferences tend to evolve in a certain direction, what does that indicate?

I will make a follow-up point to express my own personal experiences so that my own position may be more clear.

Thomas

I got serious about gaming about two years ago. I had previously been involved in some 3rd Edition AD&D campaigns and had developed a strong affinity for "munchkin-ism." I then got involved with a group that was using their own horribly confusing and inefficient system that came about from some misunderstandings of 2nd Edition AD&D, they didn't really care since they rarely used the numbers anyway, they just wanted a good story. For the next fourteen months or so i was obsessed with the numbers, i was involved in the effort to rewrite the system to make it more realistic. When i played i tended to create characters who could use the system, but i also tended to create a system that the characters i wanted (superlative combat skills, and general butt-kicking) could thrive in.

In recent months i've seen changes in myself, and the other primary Systems designer in terms of preferences. We are trying more and more to eliminate numbers from consideration. We want story, and we want shared control of said story. We don't care about numbers, and are beginning to find them restricting to our character design preferences.

Now, we do have very similar personalities, so i don't know if this change is part of a broader evolutionary trend. However, i hypothisize that most players tend toward evolution of preference, and they tend to evolve in a certain direction. This direction is unaffected by where they start, "All roads lead to Rome," as it were, but the variety of people and systems you play with may effect the rate at which this evolution occurs. The rate can in fact be so slow that there is no measureable change in years.

I don't know if i'm way off base or not, these are just some observations of myself. Perhaps they are universal, perhaps i am merely projecting. I welcome your experiences and views on the subject as well as any questions or requests for clarification (assuming you find this at all interesting). Thank you for your time.

Thomas

I know my preferences have evolved over time. I started out playing 1st ed. AD&D at age 12 and quickly took over the DM spot. When I asked for my own books, my mom bought me the red box. Then I made her buy me the green box. Then I figured out that what I really wanted were the hardbounds. Then I picked up Star Frontiers and Gamma World. Even before then, I quickly started changing . . . everything. My own spells, my own magic items, my own stories. After a year of playing, I couldn't even imagine not writing my own adventure with its own game world slice.

After my family moved, I took up with a new group. They had people there that had actually read the manuals. That had never occured to me. With that group, we actually rotated DM's, scheduled to run published modules, etc. Which was wierd for me, not running everything myself and not getting to make everything up. Eventually, I got kicked out for constantly authoring plot elements and instituting whatever crazy idea I had that week as a game rule for them to follow.

After that, I pretty much formed a group from my brother and sister and their friends. All we played was my stuff. They've played for at least 10 years off and on, and they don't even know what a D&D book looks like. One of the coolest things we used to do was create secret missions for our characters. That was crazy popular. (Sorcerer players would call those Kickers.)

In terms of trends, we moved towards a story focus, certainly. It was particularly interesting when 2 people wanted the same thing.

I never stopped tinkering with combat. I've made 3 versions, now, of a D&D rehash. Each time, reacting more to ideas I'm exposed to from other types of games (e.g. M:TG, Starfarers of Catan, Risk, Chess, Starcraft, Streetfighter II, etc.) rather than RPG's, of which, up 'til recently, I've been largely unaware.

This idea of shared story-making is . . . like the Grail. It sounds too good to be true. Makes me kind of nervous. But I look forward to looking into it. I think I got a taste without realizing it when I ran a bastardized Hubris Story Engine 3-session event.

That's another thing I wanted to mention! The group with my brother and sister trended towards elaborate setups. The last game I ran, I dressed up like a Necromancer: bald cap and angel's breath hair, full makeup, glowy eye cosmetic lenses, a nifty robe with cobweb shroud and knotted rope belt, a staff and a live crow. I rented a fog machine, bought candles, spray-painted a DM screen I constructed and (with the help of my mom) developed a technique to efficiently mask her entire living room from all light and modern references. It was truly stunning. I sent them e-mail prep once a week for 3 weeks. With each message, I sank deeper and deeper into character. I told them that if they didn't dress up, they might feel embarassed and out of place. (Hee, hee.)

As far as game mechanics go, I've become more Karmic, more compact. Philosophically, I try to focus more on shared experience rather than adhering to or even necessarily understanding the rules. The shortcoming of this position is if no one's read the rules, it sucks.

Another trend: from one group to the next (I'm with another group now; essentially based around the brother of a member from my high school group and his friends,) folks tend to like open scenes (as Hubris Story Engine would say.) Or call it "freeform." They more multi-thread, the better. I'm amazed how players will wake up, lean forward, laugh and excitedly work in what their character does or has to say about what's going on.

LordSmerf wrote:
4. Is there a specific direction this evolution tends toward? Is there a trend toward story generation? Do people tend toward realism? Is there no observable pattern, everyone has different preferences?

Ben Lehman wrote:

LordSmerf wrote:
4. Is there a specific direction this evolution tends toward? Is there a trend toward story generation? Do people tend toward realism? Is there no observable pattern, everyone has different preferences?

BL> I think that the word "evolution" is screwing up your viewpoint here -- it seems to me that you have an idea that story-generating play is a higher evolved state.

People's gaming preferences change over time. This is true.

I don't think that you can say anything more without regarding one form of gaming as "better" than another, which it isn't.

yrs--
--Ben

I am not sure if my own tastes changed, evolved or developed over time or time or not. I think that peoples taste change over time. Somewhere I posted something about Eric Clapton. Do a search. I think I was stuggling more trying to find my preferance. I wasted a lot of time with stuff I thought I wanted. I blew time and money on Warhammer, GURPS, D&D, and tons of other games. Spent more energy buying than playing or even reading, looking for that magic game that will finally be the game i was looking for.

LordSmerf wrote: I'm using the term "evolution" because i am in fact asking if there is a trend in a given direction. I know that, for me personally, it has been a trend towards story driven "narrative" play. What i'm trying to figure out is: Is there a more universal trend? And is that trend toward story driven play? I'm not sure, and that's why i'm asking. It may be that play preferences evolve towards realism (Sim) or numbers (Gam) or some sublime amalgamation of the three.

I think "evolve" is probably exactly the right term, but not for the reasons that people are objecting to: evolution (and I'm waiting for Ron especially to correct me here) is change to better suit the environment.

Now, my personal preferences tend towards the narrativist, but I can evolve or adapt that (sometimes slowly, over time, with a lot of evolutoinary dead ends) to suit the group that's available. Well, I'd like to think that, anyway.

I tended to play very Sim early on, tried desparately to get nar out of a gam stone for a while, Gam abused storyteller for a while, am wllaoing in nar/sim at the mo, and love the occasional bout of Gam when I can get it.

The real advancement for me has been to realise that I can have fun in any mode, and that my favourite mode isn't better, more advanced or a higher form of life than the others. They're all great tastes, but great tastes don't always taste great together.

Well, I've been asked ...

... and I hate to tell you guys, but the word "evolution" has been terribly mangled in this thread so far. It means: change over time. That's right, and that's all - no direction, no goal, no purpose, and no theme. All such inferences are projected by readers onto the term.

Since evolutionary changes are (in living things and other things too) quite often observed to fall into identifiable patterns, that leads us to look for common causes or generalized explanations. Most people mix up "evolution" and "selection" which is one such explanation which works awfully well for a certain set of evolutionary patterns.

And then, most people ascribe "purpose," "progress," or "matching to environment" to selection, which itself is mistaken. Certain of the patterns I'm talking about can look like that, but the process is not goal-driven.

So from my perspective, the question at hand is, what trends in changing role-playing preferences are identifiable? That's a great big task right there. If we can ascertain patterns or repeated sets of phenomena in the instances of change, then and only then should we start looking for causes and processes. The risk in asking the question is that we are working with vastly complex variables, so all we'll get is a bunch of anecdotes that fail to add up.

Best,
Ron

First, thanks for the correction Ron. For the purposes of this discussion i will make the following assertion:

When i use the word "evolution" in this thread i specifically mean change over time in a specific direction. This may or may not apply to gaming. The purpose of this thread is to determine (as best we can) whether it does or not.

One of the best way to track trends is through statistics. I'm hereby soliciting personal experience for the purpose of analysis. As Ron said, this might not add up, but i think it will at least indicate a direction to begin looking.

Thanks.

Thomas

Punctuated equilibrium probably best describes the story of many here.
If your goal is to use this data to help in creating or marketing a game you are polling the least representative sample possible. For my gaming preferences, the only constant is chage. I guess I am a neophile/early adopter. Even if I found the "perfect" game I would probably drop it soon thereafter looking for a different experience. Finding games is hard as the hobby is chock full of dinosaurs who haven't changed rule sets or gaming styles since 1978. I love trying old games I haven't seen, just don't count on me to stick with it.

As to the "evolution", I fear that the apparent direction of this evolution may just accord with your own experience of ageing and maturing. I would expect a change in gaming style over time, as more adult experience is accumulated, to be uncontroversial and unremarkable.

I appreciate all the feedback. 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...

Thomas

I started gaming back in college, though I had been exposed to D&D and Traveller when I watched my brother play. The group I was in had started out with the basic rules of AD&D and bashed them into something that could tell a story more efficiently.

Then I went to a different group. They had gone past that stage and were now in the stage of "make up your own system". They had created this really mixed-up, confusing thing that only two of the guys could run, because no one else could ever remember the modifiers. Gee, were they "remembering" them anyway? :)

People came and went from that group, and whenever we'd add new blood, we'd try a different system. We played Star Wars, Rifts, and Cyberpunk mostly. During that time, we were experimenting with putting different elements of different games together to see what would happen and created a few simple systems of our own.

When we moved out of state, we picked up with some folks who had been gaming with the previous group, so continued working with the same systems, especially CP2020 and tried picking up Shadowrun, though that went over like a ton of bricks.

With our next group, I discovered that the above trend seems to hold for experienced gamers who started with some form of D&D. They use the elements of the system, but bend it to do what they need it to do. Then they start checking out other systems and throwing elements together to create something that works for the group. Then they go one of two ways - they find a different system that has the majority of elements they want or they create one of their own and play with it (no matter what genre) until the group breaks up or members change.

The addition or subtraction of members of the group makes a great deal of difference when it comes to gamer evolution. In my experience, when a group finds a system they like to play with, they don't really switch until someone else comes in with a new system to try. Then experimentation begins. It doesn't often happen that a group will switch systems if they don't have new blood. As I said, this is my experience and YMV.

Mark Johnson wrote: Punctuated equilibrium probably best describes the story of many here.
If your goal is to use this data to help in creating or marketing a game you are polling the least representative sample possible. For my gaming preferences, the only constant is chage. I guess I am a neophile/early adopter. Even if I found the "perfect" game I would probably drop it soon thereafter looking for a different experience. Finding games is hard as the hobby is chock full of dinosaurs who haven't changed rule sets or gaming styles since 1978. I love trying old games I haven't seen, just don't count on me to stick with it.

b_bankhead wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:
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

b_bankhead wrote: 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....

Lord Thomas Smerf wrote: 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...

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

Lord Thomas Smerf wrote: How much does the group we play with influence our preferences and play styles?

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