Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7717798" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I tried to quote [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] here as well, but somehow it appears to not be working. I actually tend to agree a bit with him about playing D&D closer to its classic style. I just don't think its core engine is well suited to much else. (I'm not even sure how well-suited it is to that purpose, but...). I should also note that I'll use "D&D" in this post to refer to all of its close kin and variants, including Pathfinder and the OSR, generally.I think there are several factors going on when it comes to the low adoption rates of story games by traditional rpgers, despite continued insistence on "story" being important to them. The most important/prominent, IME/O, is that D&D is already here, most potential players are familiar with it, and it works in a way that is relatively concrete and easy to grasp. Even though it functions poorly for almost every use it is put to....it still limps along and groups just wince and bear with it over the rough spots. The simple familiarity that so very many players have with D&D simply overwhelms all its shortcomings. It is the dominant game in this marketspace, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.In contrast to the OP, I actually believe that maintenance of this dominance has been the driving force in D&D's design decisions. Streamlining mechanics, simplifying modifiers and subsystems, all of it just cutting away the rough spots that make it difficult to adopt and stay with. Of course, there have been missteps here and there, but for the most part, that has been the trend AFAICT. I firmly believe that even 4e, IMO the biggest misstep, was simply a matter of poorly chosen presentation that too blatantly jerked away from traditional phrasings. Sales weren't the problem, as much as it is often cited in these arguments. The big problem with 4e was that it split the community. The edition war actually threatened to splinter that D&D Dominance. In the long run, that would spell doom for D&D in a way that slow sales never threaten to do.If I put out a sign at me FLGS advertising a startup group for any edition of D&D, I could be playing it next week. Establishing a group based on a different system is nearly impossible by comparison. I have tried many times, with many different systems. The store even sold out of Fate Accelerated, ordered Fate Core, sold out of that and stocks claims to regularly sell sets of Fate Dice...but whoever bought those things isn't responding to my ads. (Why? I dunno. Are they all just system-collectors like me?) Now, I suppose that may be different in different markets or at different stores. Presumably larger markets could support more fringe groups. However, I've noticed that there is a big difference between the online communities for the "fringe" games and the online communities for D&D. Namely, D&D communities tend to presume that most play is occurring in-person, while the tendency for the others is to presume either convention one-shot or online play. This seems to be reflected in the "looking for group" areas as well. I suspect that most Gumshoe, Fate, The Quiet Year, Apocalypse World, etc. players just have no other option, if they actually want to play the game. By contrast, I suspect most OSR play happens at table-top amongst players or groups that have been gaming for some time. (And note the distress caused by people claiming or questioning whether Dungeon World is and Old-School game.)I do think there are other factors. For example, I think many folks are either unwilling or unable to discern or admit what their own preferences are. I've observed people tell me one thing and then act at-table in manners totally contrary to their claim. So, some of those people telling Pemerton that they are in it for the story are lying/wrong about themselves. Quite likely, most folks don't examine their play or enjoyment enough to know. Of course, that task is made harder by a game that is often fudged at table, or played with a raft of houserules. Most story-centric games put players in a position of much greater authorship than they have in D&D, and that can leave a game running flat. Too much authorial power takes away the visceral experience of tension that is part of the entertainment process.Additionally, I think that the state of design for story-centric or narrative-centric games is not nearly so advanced as we might hope. I think its getting better, and lately folks have made solid strides, but I don't think its nearly as refined as commonly available war, skirmish, or board games are. For instance, early editions of D&D show much more of their its wargame roots, and they show through even today. Later rpgs don't show nearly so much wargame-derived content. Similarly, most story-centric games today cling fairly close to their D&D/rpg ancestors (one character per player except for one "GM" player, a heavy focus on action/adventure/combat, etc.) Many story games rely (perhaps overmuch on) extremely abstract mechanics, shifting resolution to the players at table. That puts players onto hazier ground an into less-sure positions than games with more concrete mechanics, and not all players are comfortable with that. I think what people are looking for in a story game is one that has a story emerging "naturally" as an artifact of play, but one that can still surprise them as play progresses. I could go on, but this is a long post already and its late here. As always, just my $.02.</blockquote>

Verification