The Forge Archives

In a thread in the Scattershot forum entitled http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6504">Vive La Resistance or System Doesn't Matter, Fang Langford raises the question of why incoherent games sell. He suggests that it is in part because there is a gamer market that expects games to be incoherent, inviting them to tinker and so fix them.

In contrast, Reverend Daegmorgan has suggested it's almost entirely commercial, that people buy the incoherent games precisely because these are the only ones about which most people know anything. Obviously if you ask the typical individual whether they've ever thought of playing a role playing game they are much less likely to know what you mean than if you ask them whether they've ever thought of playing Dungeons & Dragons or even Vampire: the Masquerade. A game needs publicity to reach people, or people won't buy it.

But Fang reasonably asks why these games are successful anyway, given that they are incoherent. Why haven't players by and large recognized the incoherence and abandoned the games in favor of games that work? He returns to his suggestion that people tinker; that some of us automatically without thought fix the things we find that don't work and others do so as part of the enjoyment of play. He also implies that because of this, role playing games have a more limited audience, because we're writing either for these people (in which case we lose ordinary people who aren't interested in fixing a game that doesn't work "out of the box") or for everyone else (in which case we lose the core gamer audience, who all expect to be able to tinker a game into something that works).

I'd like to suggest that there's another possible explanation for the success of these games. It lies in the way complexity causes obfuscation.

If I buy a board game, I sit down and read the rules in about five to ten minutes, and then I tell everyone how to play.

If I buy my first role playing game, I read part of the rules, and then over several days I try to absorb the entirety of the package, and figure out what parts I have to understand to get started and which can wait until later, and then explain to my players what I think they need to know, and we start playing.

We could be playing for years before I realize that there's something in the game that doesn't work; and even then, it might not be incoherence.

I think that my first fix for OAD&D was the creation of a leadership system. We had somewhere picked up the idea (it may have been in BD&D1, with which we started) that the character with the highest Charisma was automatically the party leader; but we recognized that as we brought new players and new characters into the game, it was entirely likely that one of them would have a higher charisma--and at the same time extremely unlikely that the party would suddenly start following this new person. Thus I created a system to determine leadership which was built on a combination of charisma, ability, and experience. It stood me in good stead for many years. But it had nothing to do with GNS incoherence; it had to do with a very minor uncertainty in the rules--who is the party leader, and under what circumstances does that change?

If I ever created a rule that addressed GNS incoherence in OAD&D, I don't know it even now. I can see the tension between the gamist priorities of most of the system and the efforts to use Alignment to mitigate the hack-and-slash aspects of play, possibly even to create narrativist priorities. I never felt any need to address them. The system worked well enough, in my experience.

People continue to buy and play incoherent games because the incoherence is buried in the complexity. They are not aware that they aren't playing "by the book" because the book is so big they can't absorb all of it and apply it consistently during games. Very few people were ever as close to the books in OAD&D as I was, and incoherence was never a problem in our games--which suggests that somehow I was modifying the rules on the fly to make them work, or understanding them in a manner which was non-conflicting. For example, I never told a player prospectively that a certain action was something his character would not do; I did use the DMG grade system and on (only) one occasion docked experience points for alignment inconsistencies. It all worked the way I understood it; but somehow I think part of that was that there were gaps in my knowledge, aspects of the rules that "never came up" because it didn't occur to me that they applied in a particular situation.

All this is to say that incoherent games succeed because the people who play them don't see the incoherence. They aren't consciously fixing them; they might not even be unconsciously fixing them. They're just using them as well as they can and failing to see the problems.

If you told the average D&D or V:tM player of any edition that his game was incoherent, he'd ask what you mean; and when you explained that you meant that the text promoted incompatible modes of play through emphasis on conflicting goals, he'd probably laugh and tell you that he's never had any problem with the game. These games may be incoherent, but you really have to understand them a lot better than most of the long-term regular players do to see that.

Does that make sense?

--M. J. Young

Here, here, I quite concur.

One related issue; Dungeons & Dragons and Vampire: the Masquerade have both been way commercialized and probably aren't the best examples.  I worry more about the 'habit of Incoherence' that might be holding back less complicated games.  Sure they reach a certain clientele, but doesn't the 'needed fix' hold them back outside the 'gaming community?'

I realize the usual response is that 'games need to be focused,' but I was trying to strike at the larger issue of audience.  If 'games need to be focused' to 'go farther' doesn't that suggest that there are more than one audience to write to?  I don't know; I also don't know if 'writing for both' will strangle most designs.  That's what I desired to discuss.¹

Fang Langford

¹ That sounds off-topic here, but if your interested it is on-topic in the thread M. J. linked; you can take it up there.

I think incoherent games sell because they appeal, in part, to more people.  A strictly Narrativist game appeals only to Narrativists (if I can mis-use the terms to make my point).  A strictly Gamist game appeals only to Gamists.  But an incoherent Gamist-Narrativist jumble has at least some elements that appeal to both people.

Then, people selectively ignore, forget, misinterpret and/or change the rules in the book to fit what they really want out of the game - just like you talk about, Mike.  

I've seen it happen in my own game, where it's mostly Sim, but with some elements that I think lean towards Gamism.  Some groups latched right on to those parts... in fact, one just had fun using it as a sort of vehicle arena combat simulator and dropped all reference to role-playing.  

I'm still debating with myself on the topic of whether incoherence actually helps a game sell (as I brought up in a thread quite a few months ago).  Coherence may produce a better game, but does it produce a better product?

This isn't a new topic before, and seems to fall in the same old debate pattern, why is X popular when Y is better?  Before folks get all theoretical on this topic, I'd like to ask why we dismiss the historical answer?  Namely, that X has traditionally dominated the marketplace and the mindshare of consumers, that network effects keeps X and things like X first in the public eye, and that few consumers are even aware there are other options.  I don't see why we have to look to the qualities of the games themselves.  It seems unlikely that the randomly selected game customer consciously chooses between say D&D and Sorcerer, so why he buys the first need not be explained based on their contents.  If both games were equally live options to this customer, only then would such an explanation be called for.

I hate to play burden of proof tennis, but unless someone can explain why historical market position and network effects are not an adequate explanation, why look further?

Interesting post, M.J.

I wonder, though.  I may be very much in the minority here, but I don't know of anyone who was the first person her or she knew to pick up an RPG.  That is, you always heard about it from somebody else.  So my experience, at least, was that there was always this sense that somebody (usually the GM) knew all the rules, but you didn't, and that was OK because the GM would adjudicate everything.  By the time I was dealing with whole systems cohesively, I was not encountering basic RPG concepts for the first time.

If that's a common experience (though obviously it can't be universal), it's not until you start playing lots of games that you encounter an entire system as a unit, in which case the question of incoherence (as opposed to some other play problem, like group disharmony) only arises when you're already fairly experienced, and chances are have already made a stab at some rules tinkering and maybe even a limited Heartbreaker.

Doesn't this complicate matters?  Is this experience unusual?

Quote from: clehrich....I don't know of anyone who was the first person her or she knew to pick up an RPG.  That is, you always heard about it from somebody else.

I'll throw a spin on this. We played V&V for years, years! before I ever sat down and read the book and found out how different it was from what we were doing. It's sort of like the illiterate Bible scholar. No knowledge comes from the book but is told to them by other people. What they know could be anything including accurate to the written text.

I've been re-thinking my whole idea of "what sells" especially in light of the last time these ideas went around.  (Well, actually that picked up again, but still....)

There was a lot of text about 'what is success' or 'what sells.'  It bears mentioning, in light of the commentary about products 'being shoved in front of you,' what 'selling' means.  But that wasn't what I was getting at elsewhere.

Success is a hard concept to nail down when many people have different measures.  Certainly a monetary success model is pointless for a give-away pdf, isn't it?  Not only that but there's also the 'spike sales' technique, where the hype for a game (getting it 'shoved in people's faces') sells it through in the first three months.

What I was getting at was the 'take it down and play it' type of success.  I'd like to think this has more to do with 'repeat business' than meta-plots and fiction.  I'm convinced that a game needs something to get people to come back again and again.

The reason I took aim at Coherency was because you'd expect, over time, that people would 'get tired' of an Incoherent game (with all the hype around Coherency).  That might be happening (considering the financial ups and downs of companies like TSR and White Wolf).

A few issues complicate that.  Take for example Ron's statements regarding Incoherency types:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIncoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.

Add to this games that are more transparently Driftable and what is Incoherent and what isn't gets harder to parse.

Now M. J. and Greyorm seem to collectively pose the idea that the audience is stupid.  On one hand, that they won't notice Incoherency for a long time or that they just buy what's shoved in their face.  P. T. Barnum aside, I'm not inclined to believe this outright but for a few seemingly unusual reasons.

First of all, as something of an aside, I need to point out that for all that seems to the contrary, I'm not in favor of Incoherency as a selling point.  As a matter of fact, I'm trying to ask, 'that worked in the past, but will it work in the future?'  Y'see, I don't think it will.

The problem with the 'the audience is stupid' model is there are other consequences that aren't present.  I make no claim that I understand the underlying ideas of how 'stupid consumers' buy stuff, but I'm pretty sure that inertia is not the sole motivating force.  As a matter of fact, looking around at other markets, I'd say that 'the flavor of the week' is more what 'stupid consumers' are interested in.  Certainly, there is 'brand loyalty,' but if that were the only motivating factor why is the Swiffer so hot right now?  How did The Matrix happen or The Blair Witch Project.  I don't pretend to really have any idea what focuses these markets, but I do have a 'gut feeling' that 'sales momentum' isn't the reason that Dungeons & Dragons and White Wolf dominate the market.

I might be wrong, but perhaps 'the big sellers' have been at it enough that they've moved their products out of 'Incoherent as in broken' to Ron's number 2.  The problem with examining them is that none of us is capitalized enough to 'take them on' as competitors.  We have to look at the other end of the market.

I completely agree with M. J. on the subject of complicated games, but how many of those 'get legs' at the 'bottom' of the market?  We're talking small timers here, strictly shoe-string budgets.  I don't have any experience, but I'm not sure I need to get that specific.

The statement I want to make is that I think Coherency is important when you get below a certain complexity.  But I think there may be a more potent factor involved. And strangely I think it exists at the far end of the market too.  To me, gaming is about getting 'caught up in a feeling.'  (I abhor saying gaming is about 'having fun' is about as informing as saying I don't cut off my arm with a dull pocket knife because it hurts.)  A game that can consistency deliver certain feelings-sets will be returned to if those are 'what the consumer wants.'

At the far end of the market, we're talking about 'lowest common denominator' reception.  That means sex and power.  Well, I have to say that swords and sorcery is one of the most innocuous venues to put power fantasies in; maybe that's why the old Dungeons & Dragons seemed to fall into 'Monty Haul' so often - it was a repeatable power trip.  And let's not bother covering the vampires = sex & power discussion; 'nuff said.

But that might not work on our end of the market.  From what I've heard, Sorcerer is about dysfunctional relationships (it doesn't say it is, but it does a really great job at it from all accounts).  Who hasn't had a dysfunctional relationship?  Don't they make you wish you could just jump in, all gamemastery and...well, do whatever the heck you wanted?  Well, the structure of Sorcerer sounds ideal for doing that.  I'd say that is pretty good for delivering consistent feelings-sets.

Now Coherency is really great for that consistency part.  So is 'creative agenda' (something I'm starting to think ought to be 'Exploration agenda').  But so often I see designers taking a pragmatic, 'make it work' attitude to the overall design scheme, that you only get "consistent feelings-sets" by talent or by accident.  This is why I've been agitating for 'a higher level' of design criteria.  Why shouldn't a designer consider what 'human condition' they want to touch upon first, then get all 'Coherency-y.'

Maybe there are other factors at work that supercede Coherency and that Coherency is just a tool for game designers to improve (or replace) how they 'touch on human condition issues.'  Then such a tool would be important to make a game that is 'good in all respects' but isn't the top priority when it comes to long-term appeal.

That might go a long way to suggest why some Incoherent games sell and why some Coherent ones don't.  (And opens up a fascinating new discussion about 'other agenda' that might be more potent than simple functionality.)

Fang Langford

p. s. I hope I haven't taken the topic too far off with my personal agenda, but we seemed to be going down a familiar path.  Citations looked necessary.  (And I hate citation posts that are otherwise empty; so I included some additional speculation, not that I am that qualified to say this.)

clehrich:
I can say that I was the first person to pick up an RPG and start a group as GM.  I'd had two D&D experiences as a player a couple years prior but I was too young to understand iit and bored by dungeon crawling.  When I picked up WFRP, I had only the most vague notions about what to do.  Heck, it took me three months of looking at things in the bookstore to tell that BattleTech was a wargame (not what I was looking for) while WFRP was an RPG (what I wanted).

On "stupid" consumers
I wouldn't call the behavior of RPG consumers "stupid" but I think uneducated works well.  Most gamers can't sit down and describe what they really want in an RPG game.  They have to resort to anecdotes of what worked or just shrug their shoulders.  My wife, after five years of playing, is still in this boat.

And look at most big debates in the industry.  Why do people usually argue for Amber's diceless model?  Because it aviods dice, which they don't like.  That's the only argument I've heard from the non-Forge audience.  I can bet those people are latching onto other GNS or style features in Amber that have little do with dice (or lack thereof).

Again, I think this is why incoherent games sell.  Most people don't know what they want anyway, and the ones who do know are picking up on the aspects of the system they do like.  An incoherent game has at least a small appeal for a wider variety of play styles, even if produces dissatisfaction in the long run.  This dissatisfaction may even help sales as people go from one splat book, supplement and new edition to the next, hoping to improve the gaming experience.  (Naturally, not everyone, or even a mjority, fits this model, but I've seen enough evidence to think it's common).

I think you raise some excellent points Fang.

I'm not quite sure if i agree that continued play is a result of repeatable results in the realm of feeling/impression, but you may well be right.  I'll have to give it some more thought, but for now i think i can say that i agree with you.  Now if we accept that the reason we continue to play a given system is that it provides us with a certain feeling every time (or almost every time) that we play it, the question arises: Are we cognizant of this?  I know that, personally, i have not really looked at things in this manner, and so i couldn't really tell you what repeatable feeling i look for in games.  However, i think that looking at things, from a design standpoint, in terms of what feeling you want to be repeated during play may in fact increase coherency.

Let me elaborate.  One of the reasons i feel that games seem incoherent within the GNS continuum is that, as has been stated so many times, no one falls completely into any of the three categories.  This means that people can enjoy some gamism in character creation and then enjoy a story that is narrative and simulationist.  Of course, often players just ignore whatever parts of the rules don't do what they want, or avoid the parts of the game that cater to those rules.

I believe there is another reason, or perhaps an extension to a stated reason, that people play games that seem incoherent.  Each and every game element that a player chooses to use forwards his ability to achieve a given "feeling" during play.  As long as this "feeling" is achieved then the player is satisfied.  For me, one of the repeatable feelings that i strive for (which i never thought about before) is the creation of a single memorable scene.  The best example i can think of would be for me to recreate the opening scend from Xmen 2 with Nighcrawler.  This scene generation may be elaborate or simple.  It may involve the whole party or a single character.  For me, if i come away from a session with the "feeling" that i've created a memorable scene then i feel that i've succeeded.

An in game example: I was playing a few weeks ago with a combat focused character of mine, and decided i needed some training in unarmed combat.  So i seek out a dojo and observe.  After a while the master comes and asks what i want, i explain.  He has me demonstrate what skills i do have and then agrees to train me if i will do a task for him.  I ask what it is, he tells me all i have to do is open a door.  He takes me to the back of the dojo and points to a flimsy wooden door, he asks me to open it.  I move over and pull the handle, the door is locked.  I ask the GM how sturdy the door is, he says i could break it, no problem.  I then ask the master if he has the key to the door, he smiles and hands it to me.  As i unlock the door he informs me that he will train me.

Now, i don't know if anyone else finds this to be cool.  But that single three minute scene in a five hour play session, made the entire night worth it.  Now, the GNS continuum is unimportant in this case, all that matters is the creation of the scene.

Of course this raises the question of whether the ends justify the means, or if instead the path is part of the destination.  I'm not sure if i know the answer to that.  I think that it may be a case where the path is important.

Of course, i have again wandered from my intended point.  What i'm trying to get at is this:  Should games be designed from the standpoint of repeatable satisfaction?  Should the first step of game design be to decide what repeatable "feeling" you wish to develop?

It's possible that this opens up an entirely seperate continuum for analysis than the GNS currently prevalent.  Is there a dichotemy above GNS that leaves us with an entire branch unexplored?  Could it be said that players play for GNS play or for Repeatable Experience play?  In the second option there is an amorphus mix of GNS, as long as it furthers the Repeatable Experience then it is accepted.

I'm not quite sure if what i'm saying here is valid, or if it even makes sense.  I'm kind of writing as i think.  Does any of this seem valid?  Or am i just babbling incoherently again?

Thomas

I figured I could toss something in on this thread that might or might not make people rethink the "why do incoherent games sell?" issue. it sort of grows out of this quote:

Quote from: Le JoueurThe problem with the 'the audience is stupid' model is there are other consequences that aren't present.  I make no claim that I understand the underlying ideas of how 'stupid consumers' buy stuff, but I'm pretty sure that inertia is not the sole motivating force.  As a matter of fact, looking around at other markets, I'd say that 'the flavor of the week' is more what 'stupid consumers' are interested in.  Certainly, there is 'brand loyalty,' but if that were the only motivating factor why is the Swiffer so hot right now?  How did The Matrix happen or The Blair Witch Project.  I don't pretend to really have any idea what focuses these markets, but I do have a 'gut feeling' that 'sales momentum' isn't the reason that Dungeons & Dragons and White Wolf dominate the market.

now, I could say a few things about why I think The Matrix or The Blair Witch Project happened, although that's getting dangerously away from RPGs, so I'll try to refocus on games, with only a slight stopover at sitcoms and soap operas. but first, let me rephrase Fang's question in terms of RPGs: if people stick with the most popular game despite its flaws because people are stupid, why did Vampire: the Masquerade happen? why did Dungeons & Dragons happen in the first place?

I think it's a tension between the desire for familiarity and the desire for novelty.

people like the familiar. this is why soap operas exist; despite the lameness of some of the plots and acting, these are long-running fictional worlds that people become familiar with; soap fans get to know these fictional friends of theirs and enjoy coming back to the same old comfortable world five days a week to relax and enjoy the stories of someone else's lives.

you see something similar in sitcoms: there's a small number of well-known sitcom plots that keep getting re-used. why do people put up with that? because it's a kind of familiarity. sure, when you watch the latest sitcom character break someone's favorite keepsake and try to hide it, you realize that it's been done on Bewitched and The Brady Bunch and every other sitcom... but you haven't seen these characters react to the same old situation, or heard their comic commentary on it.

and before anyone accuses soap opera fans or  sitcom fans of being stupid, keep in mind that the same prinicipals of familiarity are at work in other shows... all the Star Trek spinoffs, Babylon 5, Buffy and Angel, use the soap opera continuing storyline technique now, instead of stand-alone episodes... and they re-use time-worn plots like "the evil twin", "the unknown child", "trapped with an enemy", and so on. and the idea of movie sequels plays off the familiarity concept as well. if the popularity of The Matrix invalidates the idea that people want more of the same, what does that make The Matrix Reloaded?

naturally, there is also a tendency to get bored after a while, which is where novelty comes in. people do want new experiences... while paradoxically not wanting to give up the old experiences. so what consumers usually do is remain loyal to one brand, but try a couple new flavors on the side, as an experiment. small groups of people will find each new flavor enjoyable enough that they will form a new fringe fanbase. if enough people join the fringe fanbase, it expands into a major brand. call it the punctuated equilibrium theory of market share.

this is what happened to Dungeons & Dragons and later to Vampire: the Masquerade. a certain group played wargames. some of those wargamers experimented with one-to-one scale fantasy gaming with nonwargame elements, which swelled to a large enough size that Dungeons & Dragons became an established brand in its own right. afterwards, some role-players experimented with other brands, even giving a brand or two its own minor following. Vampire: the Masquerade was another brand experimented that created a large following. it grew perhaps mainly because it was able to draw in people who weren't familiar with or emotionally invested in heroic fantasy, but who were very famliar with Anne Rice, Bram Stoker, and the whole "romanticization of horror" subculture.

so, why are incoherent games popular? because they are familiar. people are looking for new material, but they would prefer it to fit in with what they already know. it's less work that way. sure, some rules of the game they already know may be incompatible with other rules, but you can always ignore what you don't like.

Quote from: talysmanthis is what happened to Dungeons & Dragons and later to Vampire: the Masquerade. a certain group played wargames. some of those wargamers experimented with one-to-one scale fantasy gaming with nonwargame elements, which swelled to a large enough size that Dungeons & Dragons became an established brand in its own right. afterwards, some role-players experimented with other brands, even giving a brand or two its own minor following. Vampire: the Masquerade was another brand experimented that created a large following. it grew perhaps mainly because it was able to draw in people who weren't familiar with or emotionally invested in heroic fantasy, but who were very famliar with Anne Rice, Bram Stoker, and the whole "romanticization of horror" subculture.

so, why are incoherent games popular? because they are familiar. people are looking for new material, but they would prefer it to fit in with what they already know. it's less work that way. sure, some rules of the game they already know may be incompatible with other rules, but you can always ignore what you don't like.

This doesn't make sense to me.  The success of D&D and V:tM was that both were able to reach beyond the market of previous games.  i.e. People who were not previously gamers *became* gamers through D&D and V:tM.  It is not the case the D&D took over the existing wargamers.  Instead, it found a new audience.  To the new players, D&D was not familiar, at least in terms of mechanics.  Many were fans of Tolkien and other heroic fantasy, but they did not know wargaming.  (Note that I am talking about the original D&D explosion here.  I do think the D&D3 was designed to appeal mainly to existing and former D&D players.)  

Frankly, the tone to me here seems to be one of resentment.  Frankly, both of these were grassroots successes.  TSR and White Wolf only became big companies because of the success of their lines.  There was no big-business marketting which drove their breakout games.  If you are genuinely interested in what causes popularity, then you should look for what D&D and V:tM did right.    On the other hand, if you aren't interested in what the unwashed masses think, then don't worry about popularity.  Make the game that you feel is creatively the best.  

I think that D&D was successful because it was easy to play.  The dungeon map and key allowed a DM to run an adventure without a huge amount of work, without being a master storyteller, and without railroading the players.  Dungeons are a limited environment, but they are non-linear.

Vampire was successful in my opininon because it was social.  I was stunned by the first edition rules, where the combat rules were only a small fraction of the mechanics rules, and the sample adventure was a party.

Quote from: John KimThis doesn't make sense to me.  The success of D&D and V:tM was that both were able to reach beyond the market of previous games.  i.e. People who were not previously gamers *became* gamers through D&D and V:tM.  It is not the case the D&D took over the existing wargamers.  Instead, it found a new audience.  To the new players, D&D was not familiar, at least in terms of mechanics.  Many were fans of Tolkien and other heroic fantasy, but they did not know wargaming.  (Note that I am talking about the original D&D explosion here.  I do think the D&D3 was designed to appeal mainly to existing and former D&D players.)

I thought this was implied by what I wrote about D&D. it's certainly stated bluntly in terms of WoD. I said that V:tM

Quote
grew perhaps mainly because it was able to draw in people who weren't familiar with or emotionally invested in heroic fantasy, but who were very famliar with Anne Rice, Bram Stoker, and the whole "romanticization of horror" subculture.

in other words, it expanding the ranks of gamers by appealing to another area of familiarity. I imagine most other games of any significant size, like Traveller, likewise drew a few people into gaming who would otherwise not have gotten involved in D&D.

Quote from: John Kim
Frankly, the tone to me here seems to be one of resentment.  Frankly, both of these were grassroots successes.  TSR and White Wolf only became big companies because of the success of their lines.  There was no big-business marketting which drove their breakout games.  If you are genuinely interested in what causes popularity, then you should look for what D&D and V:tM did right.    On the other hand, if you aren't interested in what the unwashed masses think, then don't worry about popularity.  Make the game that you feel is creatively the best.  

whose resentment? hopefully you don't mean mine. my point was that people -- not the unwashed masses, unless you think I'm unwashed -- like familiarity and novelty. we make choices based on our tolerance and attraction for either.

I was hoping to put to rest any question of "stupid consumers" with my comments, not start a new round. consumers aren't stupid. they buy D&D because they like it. you agree with that, so I don't see why you disagree with my comment.

I'm pleased to see all the response.

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimI'd like to ask why we dismiss the historical answer? Namely, that X has traditionally dominated the marketplace and the mindshare of consumers, that network effects keeps X and things like X first in the public eye, and that few consumers are even aware there are other options.

There's an old story about peanut butter manufacturers. One day an executive of one of the leading companies called an executive of one of his competitors, and told him that he was making a mistake in his formula: he needed to remove the little nubs from the peanuts (or something like that) to prevent his butter from being bitter. The competitor thanked him, but asked why he was telling him this; the answer was that the typical consumer who buys his first jar of peanut butter decides whether or not he likes peanut butter by that first taste, and if he doesn't, he doesn't go back to try a different brand.

I think this applies somewhat here. Why haven't the majority of players of these supposedly incoherent games discovered that the games actually don't work, and either looked for games that do or abandoned the hobby altogether?

And maybe a large number have done one of those two things, and I just don't realize it.

Quote from: Chris LerichI don't know of anyone who was the first person her or she knew to pick up an RPG. That is, you always heard about it from somebody else.

I'm the exception.

My wife and I read about D&D in an article in Psychology today c.1980, and (being avid gamers already, including all board games, many card games, quite a few bookcase games, video games, pinball, miniature golf, and bowling) immediately began searching for it. I became the DM; other members of our gaming group expanded to become the referees of Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, and Traveler, before the group ended--but never did we learn anything from someone who played the game before. We bought the rules, read them, and played, like we would with any other game.

However, I agree that our experience seems to be the exception.

It is worth noting, perhaps, that this may be one of the bars to the indie game world. I personally know of maybe half a dozen people in the US who are running Multiverser games publicly; gamers who are waiting to play it with someone they know aren't going to be playing it any time soon.

Quote from: Fang 'Le Joueur' LangfordNow M. J. and Greyorm seem to collectively pose the idea that the audience is stupid. On one hand, that they won't notice Incoherency for a long time or that they just buy what's shoved in their face.

I apologize to anyone who took me that way. Of course, I probably do have a tendency to think that anyone who doesn't see the merits of Multiverser is--well, that's beside the point. I didn't really mean that people were stupid; I meant that games like D&D were so complex that even smart people sometimes were at them a very long time before they found the problems in them, and sometimes we never do find the problems. I know from discussions that OAD&D is incoherent; I still run the game, and the incoherence never seems to affect our play. I don't know whether that's because my gamers all drift with the game, or I drift the game with my players, or there is some implicit means of fixing the incoherence that I've used without being aware of it. What I do know is that the game is sufficiently complex that I didn't realize it was incoherent despite years of play.

Quote from: John Laviolette a.k.a. Talysman the Ur-Beatleso, why are incoherent games popular? because they are familiar.

Perhaps this is ultimately correct. We started playing D&D because we were fantasy fans and game players; we didn't go to V:tM, partly because vampires didn't appeal to us. (I think Stoker's work is a literary masterpiece, but for me it's all about the style rather than the content.) I know quite a few gamers who for one reason or another want to play fantasy--sci-fi doesn't terribly interest them at all. That's something I don't really grok, because I like playing in a lot of different genres (even very much enjoyed getting into a V:tM game, but as a hunter), but I do encounter it frequently.

So what do we have from this thread so far?

[*]Complexity does obscure incoherence.[*]Popularity and commercial success builds momentum for a game.[*]A game which manages to capture a major theme first can to some degree overcome subsequent competition.[/list:u]Anything else?

--M. J. Young

Well, that about covers it...

...for commercial and competitive successes.[/list:u]But what about 'smaller' Incoherencies?  Or more to the point, how do we put this to work for ourselves?

See, getting back to the 'feelings-sets' stuff, there's one I forgot to mention.  The social gathering.  If you get together with pals and have a nice evening, no matter how lousy the game was, you'll have a positive prediposition to the game (because you may attach it to the circumstances).  This has been the explanation I've seen most for the 'D&D group that still meets even though their play rarely approaches functional

any more;' they had great times, a long time ago, and are now living on memories alone.

Now, there are two issues with M. J.'s list.  First of all, does each of us agree that they want market/commercial/competitive success?  (I don't; I want people to keep playing the same game - mine - which means no further sales.)

The second issue is how to apply each item if we do seek that success.  Should we make a complex game to hide the Incoherence that affords more diverse play styles under one brand name?  Do we bank on 'branding' and do anything to establish a 'name' and momentum?  Can we find and claim 'unclaimed territory' and play 'king of the hill?'  Very interesting ideas, but I'll have to pull out; I'm not in it for the money....

Fang Langford

First of all, I'd like to apologize to John Laviolette.  I meant to say that many other posts on these several threads about popularity have a tone of resentment.  I may have misplaced some of that onto your article simply because yours was the last on the list that I replied to.  

Quote from: M. J. YoungWhy haven't the majority of players of these supposedly incoherent games discovered that the games actually don't work, and either looked for games that do or abandoned the hobby altogether?  
...
I know from discussions that OAD&D is incoherent; I still run the game, and the incoherence never seems to affect our play. I don't know whether that's because my gamers all drift with the game, or I drift the game with my players, or there is some implicit means of fixing the incoherence that I've used without being aware of it.

Well, I am skeptical of the claim that OAD&D is "doesn't work".  If people like you play it and have fun, then I would say it is (or was) doing something right.  The theory that it is incoherent may have some merit.  Nevertheless, if we are really interested in understanding popularity, I think we should look at what is good about AD&D, and especially what it provides that other games do not.  

Quote from: M. J. YoungSo what do we have from this thread so far?

[*]Complexity does obscure incoherence.[*]Popularity and commercial success builds momentum for a game.[*]A game which manages to capture a major theme first can to some degree overcome subsequent competition.[/list:u]

Hmm.  I accept these to some degree -- but I have important caveats.  For#2, most games' popularity and commercial success only come from having a game which people like.  "Lord of the Rings" clearly has a major marketting push and a big company (Decipher) behind it -- but it is the rare exception, and I also predict it will not have enduring popularity.  Most other games started as very small operations.  Conversely, many games had a major company behind them (like, say, _Everway_) without becoming commercial success.  

Re: the third point.  On the one hand, it is true that D&D overshadows other fantasy RPGs.  However, it also overshadows games of all other genres.  It seems to me that games seem to have just as much trouble being successful outside of fantasy, while you still see successes (like Exalted, say) within the theme of heroic fantasy.