Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[CSgeekHero]

That's a gross oversimplification of the video game market. Actually, it's just plain wildly inaccurate.

The Economist article isn't talking about the strength of PC or console RPGs (more on the latter below), it's talking about ALL video games.

There's certainly a D&D-derived core to games like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate, and even those further afield, like Zelda or Devil May Cry, that basically revolve around 'killing things and taking their stuff.' Except that Zelda and Final Fantasy don't revolve around killing things and taking their stuff. Final Fantasy 8 essentially did away with treasure, and the past five installments of the main series have been, at least from their designers' perspectives, more about exploring themes and telling stories than about hacking and slashing. Zelda and its derivatives are and always have been primarily about solving puzzles rather than fighting.

Lacking those games, video game players who don't already *might* play D&D. They might also be turned off by the complexity of the rules (certainly not an issue in any of those games except the D&D licensed Baldur's Gate), the lack of a strong GM-led storyline, the discomfort 'let's pretend' causes in some adults, or even, ironically, the emphasis on killing things and taking their stuff.

Most fighting games have no 'leveling up' element whatsoever. They have almost no D&D derivation, except perhaps in their often fantastic settings - but D&D is hardly the original wellspring of fantasy.

Sports games sometimes include a 'leveling up' element, but this traces its ancestry to fantasy sports, not roleplaying games.

Platform games, first person shooters, (older, pre-WC3) real-time strategy games, most turn-based strategy games, free-roaming thug sims, flight simulators, rail shooters, dance games, espionage actioners, puzzle games, party games - these may have some D&D roots, but most of them are much more closely related to some other type of non-electronic game.

Some of these markets probably can't be tapped by non-electronic games, some of them never will be because the electronic form covers their needs, some are already covered by games like Axis & Allies, Monopoly, Risk, Clue, or, indeed, Dungeons & Dragons.

But to claim that if electronic games were to go away, their players would ALL (or even mostly) play D&D seems specious at best.

It is not a gross oversimplification, nor is it wildly inaccurate.

I was playing Final Fantasy X a few days ago and I did receive cp, money, and potions when I killed some nasty creatures. You do have to go and collect up those mirrors. Last time I checked, when you came across better armor or weapons in Half-Life 2 you needed them to gear up for a big fight. This is all sidebar to the main mistake you made from my post...
I'm not assuming that this refers to rpg video games. I refer to the video game market as a whole. The preponderance of video games(i.e. rpgs, fps, rts) are built around ideas like capture-the-flag, hack-n-slash, solve-puzzle-to-get-treasure and so on which come from wargames(rts, sbc) and rpgs of varying styles(rpg, fps, tps).

These markets can be tapped into and WotC is attempting, I'd say successfully, to gain access into this market. I used to rpg, switched to video games, but now play rpgs as a diversion. Of course, all of that depends on when real life lets me do any of it. If rpgs can crack 10% of that market, that's 1 billion dollars.

Remember what the focus of this thread has become rules heavy versus rules light. Everyone accepts d20 as rules heavy and yet the system has more appeal to video gamers than any rules light approach. So, if your designing a game and considering an inhouse system or the d20/OGL license you must be mindful that to expand your market you need to address what style of play that the majority of gamers want to play.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

It is not a gross oversimplification, nor is it wildly inaccurate.

I was playing Final Fantasy X a few days ago and I did receive cp, money, and potions when I killed some nasty creatures. You do have to go and collect up those mirrors. Last time I checked, when you came across better armor or weapons in Half-Life 2 you needed them to gear up for a big fight. This is all sidebar to the main mistake you made from my post...
I'm not assuming that this refers to rpg video games. I refer to the video game market as a whole. The preponderance of video games(i.e. rpgs, fps, rts) are built around ideas like capture-the-flag, hack-n-slash, solve-puzzle-to-get-treasure and so on which come from wargames(rts, sbc) and rpgs of varying styles(rpg, fps, tps).

I'd say that the preponderance of games you play revolved around those ideas.

I suppose the huge (in the US, the largest, last I checked) sports game market is somehow excepted, as are the fighting, puzzle and sim genres, along with all the other games to which this does not apply. Those constitute, if not a majority, only a very small minority.

For that matter, I strongly question whether those elements come from RPGs or wargames in any form. Perhaps the original platform jumpers and rail shooters took the concept of 'powerups' from RPGs; I'm not sure. Other pre-electronic games (such as, say, chess?) allow you to improve your 'playing piece' by completing a certain objective. Regardless of its antediluvian ancestry, the concept of powerups came to the video game market by way of platformers and shooters and became nigh ubiquitous on the strength of their influence. I'd say Half-Life 2 derives far more from Mario than from D&D in this respect.

Capture the flag predates RPGs and presumably even formal wargames.

Hack-n-slash in a game does indeed come from RPGs and wargames, I suppose.

Solve-the-puzzle comes from, y'know, puzzle based games. Like crossword puzzles, mazes, that sort of thing? Predates RPGs. We've already covered powerups.

These markets can be tapped into and WotC is attempting, I'd say successfully, to gain access into this market. I used to rpg, switched to video games, but now play rpgs as a diversion. Of course, all of that depends on when real life lets me do any of it. If rpgs can crack 10% of that market, that's 1 billion dollars.

I'm not sure how much success WotC is having at this, but I certainly wish them the best. Sales are down from the phenomenal heights of the 3.0 core books, to be sure, but we'll see how things shake out.

I agree it's a valid goal. It does, however, seem to me that WotC is making more of an attempt to recruit from the ranks of miniatures wargamers and CCG players, and that, too is a valid goal - perhaps a more obtainable one.

Remember what the focus of this thread has become rules heavy versus rules light. Everyone accepts d20 as rules heavy and yet the system has more appeal to video gamers than any rules light approach. So, if your designing a game and considering an inhouse system or the d20/OGL license you must be mindful that to expand your market you need to address what style of play that the majority of gamers want to play.

I accept D&D as rules-heavy. d20, stripped of D&Disms, is really only rules-medium.

Anyway, I agree with your general point, even though your assessment of electronic gaming remains wildly off-base.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Remember what the focus of this thread has become rules heavy versus rules light. Everyone accepts d20 as rules heavy and yet the system has more appeal to video gamers than any rules light approach. So, if your designing a game and considering an inhouse system or the d20/OGL license you must be mindful that to expand your market you need to address what style of play that the majority of gamers want to play.

I know that there's lots of people responding to lots of other people here, so I'll restate where I'm coming from. 'Cause I don't disagree with you.

I grant that the majority of gamers like D&D, because it's what they buy. I even grant, after thinking about it, that if you play a rules-light game the same way you play D&D, with high detail, it might not be faster in play than D&D is.

What I won't budge on, like Gandalf yelling "NONE SHALL PASS!" to the Balrog, is that there are other styles of play. Styles that work better with other systems, by which I mean with a very different focus than D&D, and much less complexity.

And, call me crazy, I think it's possible that there are people out there who wouldn't enjoy D&D, but would find enjoyment in a game, involving roleplaying, played in one of those other styles. I think that's true because I run some of those games, for people who weren't interested in D&D at all, and they have fun.

(Quick example from the "not a game" game we're playing now. My fiancee's PC is a thirtysomething bartender whose kids died and husband disappeared on the same night. She's been dealing with being haunted by those children, figuring out what happened to her husband, and trying to get by. There's other things going on, but that's the focus of her PC's life. We're coming up on our final session, and she might get involved in combat for the first time since she ducked to avoid a pissed-off customer with a gun in the first session. Yes, your average D&D player would have hated this. We've had a blast.)

 

[Meadred]

Seems I haven't kept as up to date with former and current employees of WotC as I should have before posting in this thread. Therefore I have withdrawn my earlier post. If I have hurt anyone's feelings, I apologize.

 

[Maggan]

Economical necessity?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that mr Dancey's comment most probably stems from his affiliation with WotC and the D&D product brand. Thus his comment should be viewed in the light of commercial necessity ("grain of salt the size of Jupiter", I believe an earlier poster said). On a personal note, I have to confess I seriously doubt his altruistic views on my enjoyment of D&D.

Whereas I agree on the premise that we should examine each and every comment from mr. Dancey in relation to possible motives (indeed all comments, not only those by Mearls and Dancey, should be examined in relation to possible motives for making them), I don't believe that his comments are based on an "economical necessity".

It was a long time ago (as Internet time goes) that Dancey was a part of WotC, and he has no royalties as far as the use of OGL and d20STL by other companies, so to say that he is speaking out of an interest of making more money, is unfair.

Other interests may of course apply, such as wanting to prove that he was right, or loyalty to a brand and system he helped create, and so on. I just don't see Dancey propagating his viewpoint for financial gain.

/M

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I have to say that this thread is on the verge of becoming ludicrous! People sniping at each other over whether "rules-lite/complexity lite" is better than "rules heavy/complexity heavy". I thought roleplaying was about having fun - not proving the superiority of your personal opinion and experience!

Of course, the people that have personal connections to WotC and d20/OGL are going to say that "rules-lite/complexity lite" games aren't as good or provide as much fun as their rules system! It would be really stupid of them to say otherwise. All commercial firms want to make a profit - preferably a large and steady profit. The best way of doing this is by providing your customers with a "good enough" (in the sense that most of your customers will return and purchase more products from you) product and with continous upgrades, updates, additions, etc. that your customers feel that they must have.

So, in the commercial sense, the only reason WotC wants d20 to be fun for us players is so that we will remain customers. Currently D&D most probably have reached what is known as "cash-cow" status (from the Boston Consulting Group's four-field product maturity matrix); it's is a product that can be "milked" (hence the term cash-cow) for profit. Of course, WotC wants D&D to remain a cash-cow for as long as possible. Therefore, it is necessary for WotC to debunk any other rules system that seems to be gaining support. If they didn't, it would jeopardize their profits. Debunking other rules systems also serves another purpose, namely to enhance the group spirit of the d20/OGL user community by asserting their superiority to other roleplayers. It's all simple commercial logic and marketing!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that mr Dancey's comment most probably stems from his affiliation with WotC and the D&D product brand. Thus his comment should be viewed in the light of commercial necessity ("grain of salt the size of Jupiter", I believe an earlier poster said). On a personal note, I have to confess I seriously doubt his altruistic views on my enjoyment of D&D.

Furthermore, I definitely believe that the kind of gaming experience one desires differs from person to person according to personal taste and experience. So, I refuse to believe that there is one rules system that is better than all the others. Depending on what kind of game you play (sci-fi, modern, fantasy) and the gaming group (new acquintances, old friends, long-term, gamers' personal preferences, etc.) a certain rules system might suit you better than the others, but it doesn't make it the best rules system.

Aarrgh,
Meadred

This makes sense! I mean, just look at the evidence!

1. Dancey doesn't work for Wizards of the Coast anymore, and Mearls didn't until very recently. Thus, the former at least has nothing to gain financially from his statements and the latter has hardly been shy about endorsing a certain rules level before his present employ.
2. Dancey's study was conducted before the release of 3e, not recently, and guided the course of D&D as WotC's product rather than being in response to it. Thus, WotC could have shaped D&D into whatever form it liked, and said study drove many of its developments.
3. Mearls posted Dancey's comments on his blog as part of a discussion on game design. It was simply picked up on here.

Nonetheless, I'm sure the only possible explanation for results that don't conform to your anecdotal evidence (which probably comes from an entirely different edition) is the fell grasp of some cyclopean corporate titan.

:\

I think I'll hang on to my grain of salt. Or, rather, apply it elsewhere.

 

[Akrasia]

... You're combining one thing that Mr. Dancey *does* have proof of with a later statement in which he details his conclusions *from* the empirical evidence.

The proof is about observable speed, not about preference.

'Proof'? Oh please...

Mr. Dancy's (now out of date) study has to do with players who do not regularly play with each other. Thus his 'proof' (a silly word for an empirical study, btw -- the study in question is not a mathematical or logical 'proof') is inapplicable to most groups' experiences.

(On a completely different note, I am amazed that this thread is still alive. It is a mad gibbering horror at this point -- and one that I gladly feed.)

 

[fanboy2000]

(On a completely different note, I am amazed that this thread is still alive. It is a mad gibbering horror at this point -- and one that I gladly feed.)

Now that the thread's size has been mentioned, I give it three pages. Most of the posts on those three pages will probably consist of people commenting on how big the thread is.

 

[Zudrak]

Now that the thread's size has been mentioned, I give it three pages. Most of the posts on those three pages will probably consist of people commenting on how big the thread is.

Wow. What a big thread.

To perhaps add much Good Humor to this thread, I think we should now argue chocolate versus vanilla. Here's a vote for vanilla-chocolate swirl.

 

[Turanil]

This thread could probably go on forever. I don't need to read any of the last 876 posts, and the ones before, I almost forgot what they were about.

So, IN ALL EVIDENCE, those who critique the fact that they don't have to prove anything that wasn't said prior to their former statement, while obviously this hasn't been debunked, as whether one would consider true or false is now irrelevant, so the proponent of the former opinion are misled but totally unaware that what they pretend shouldn't and cannot be held as proof whenever the real subject is not about the content but the form, so rule-lite or rule-heavy rules (uber alles).

This had to be said.

Just for the sake of elevating the discussion.