Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7717487" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is going to be a quick (possibly incoherent) ramble, so fair warning.There are a lot of familiar refrains in the lead article, but here are two I honed in on (in trying to tease out precisely what the premise was and what the lamentation resembled):While I don't agree that &quot;the world (of games) is headed&quot; here, I certainly understand the lament.&nbsp; When once the market was significantly dominated by this perspective, there is now a deep diversity in the CRPG market, the MMORPG market, the TTRPG market, the boardgaming market, and the physical activity market.&nbsp; Various zeitgeists pop up now and again and gather some short-term steam (from revolutionary to retro), but the market-space doesn't seem to be contracting in such a way to preclude &quot;challenge/consequence-based&quot; games (if anything, I would say that the boardgame market and several CRPGs have become more difficult, more punitive).&nbsp; Its just that overall expansion and progress (of ideas, of clarity, of delivery upon formula, of nuance, of paradigm) necessitates that each individual market niche has more competition for attention (and maybe prospective casual buyers).&nbsp; Whether the marketplace can handle that, I'll leave for someone else to decide (I know there is an opinion that the marketplace isn't robust enough to handle dilution/competition...maybe that is where Kickstarter saves the day).&nbsp; I was mainly just focusing on the psychology of what might animate someone to lament lack of conflict/consequence in their gaming (which seemed to harken to the two competing psychologies that underwrite the &quot;casuals vs hardcores&quot; refrain).One last (unrelated) thing.I definitely don't agree that the modern (non OSR) TTRPG market lacks conflict and consequence.&nbsp; That tells me that the author doesn't have the exposure necessary to take up a position.&nbsp; 1)&nbsp; The PBtA games mostly have default of hard-mode.&nbsp; 1a)&nbsp; Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark are &quot;hard games&quot;.&nbsp; They very, very rarely end well for PCs and the game is not a &quot;happy one&quot;.1b)&nbsp; Dungeon World is trivially drifted from Big Damn Heroes to murderhobos fumbling in the dark.&nbsp; It can be done with the default game or by using a &quot;Darkest Dungeon&quot; hack out there which is very solid and well-integrated into the PBtA engine.2)&nbsp; Torchbearer is most definitely ultra-gritty hard-mode.&nbsp; It is WAY more difficult than Moldvay Basic and considerably more than the Expert/Companion set that follows as the game advances.&nbsp;3)&nbsp; 4e and Strike! are both so well-engineered that if a group sits down and wants to drift either to brutally difficult setting, they can do so just by changing default expectations and turning a few knobs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7717487, member: 6696971"] This is going to be a quick (possibly incoherent) ramble, so fair warning. There are a lot of familiar refrains in the lead article, but here are two I honed in on (in trying to tease out precisely what the premise was and what the lamentation resembled): While I don't agree that "the world (of games) is headed" here, I certainly understand the lament. When once the market was significantly dominated by this perspective, there is now a deep diversity in the CRPG market, the MMORPG market, the TTRPG market, the boardgaming market, and the physical activity market. Various zeitgeists pop up now and again and gather some short-term steam (from revolutionary to retro), but the market-space doesn't seem to be contracting in such a way to preclude "challenge/consequence-based" games (if anything, I would say that the boardgame market and several CRPGs have become [B][I]more [/I][/B]difficult, [B][I]more [/I][/B]punitive). Its just that overall expansion and progress (of ideas, of clarity, of delivery upon formula, of nuance, of paradigm) necessitates that each individual market niche has more competition for attention (and maybe prospective casual buyers). Whether the marketplace can handle that, I'll leave for someone else to decide (I know there is an opinion that the marketplace isn't robust enough to handle dilution/competition...maybe that is where Kickstarter saves the day). I was mainly just focusing on the psychology of what might animate someone to lament lack of conflict/consequence in their gaming (which seemed to harken to the two competing psychologies that underwrite the "casuals vs hardcores" refrain). One last (unrelated) thing. I definitely don't agree that the modern (non OSR) TTRPG market lacks conflict and consequence. That tells me that the author doesn't have the exposure necessary to take up a position. 1) The PBtA games mostly have default of hard-mode. 1a) Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark are "hard games". They very, very rarely end well for PCs and the game is not a "happy one". 1b) Dungeon World is trivially drifted from Big Damn Heroes to murderhobos fumbling in the dark. It can be done with the default game or by using a "Darkest Dungeon" hack out there which is very solid and well-integrated into the PBtA engine. 2) Torchbearer is most definitely ultra-gritty hard-mode. It is WAY more difficult than Moldvay Basic and considerably more than the Expert/Companion set that follows as the game advances. 3) 4e and Strike! are both so well-engineered that if a group sits down and wants to drift either to brutally difficult setting, they can do so just by changing default expectations and turning a few knobs. [/QUOTE]

Verification