Death or Glory?: the Future of RPGs

[Verdande]

AD&D is, perhaps, a relevant example of where it's still quite hard work to pull together a decent homebrew setting and scenarios quickly. If it worked like Sims (on some levels) you'd have a basic setting (Freeport-ish), then you'd drag major NPCs in, carrying with them a 'cluster' of underlings and organisations. Then drag/ overlay several events/ missions hooks . . .

Not to quibble, because I really like this discussion, but AD&D is pretty easy to throw together decent homebrew quickly. See, all you do is think of a place like Freeport, "borrow" some major NPCs in, who each have needs and organizations... It's even easier inside your head than on a computer screen!

One of the biggest strengths that tabletop games has is DMs who can think on their feet and make quick rulings about what happens in situations that nobody could have seen coming, such as what, exactly, happens when your players try and push over a throwaway altar you stuck in a dungeon for "flavor", or when they capture and try and befriend a bandit from a recent skirmish.

Until computer games feature that kind of flexibility and quick, on-your-feet thinking, DMs will have the advantage. That day may not be that far off, but I can't think of a single person who would rather follow the "adventure path" than decide that maybe the quickest way through this dungeon is through this wall, or that they'll side with the necromancers instead of the goody two-shoes Stock Kingdom X.

 

[Ariosto]

Not to quibble, because I really like this discussion, but AD&D is pretty easy to throw together decent homebrew quickly.

I agree. Some focus is a good point when starting, and the original D&D game set that up with the (growing) dungeon - base of operations - wilderness (to be explored gradually) arrangement.

Characters, including "some major NPCs... who each have needs and organizations", are in my experience tremendously powerful tools. Establish interesting relationships, and interesting things follow naturally.

It almost seems that the more the game allegedly gets concerned with "story", the more it tends toward stilted and straitened and ultimately hollow characterizations. It's as if all the attention goes into plot casings, and whatever scraps of offal may be lying about get forced in to stuff the "story" sausage. The more "organic" evolution of story from particulars of character and place is in my view much more satisfying than a mere run around to collect "plot tokens".

/rant

However,

One of the biggest strengths that tabletop games has is DMs who can think on their feet and make quick rulings about what happens in situations that nobody could have seen coming...

It is also one of the potential weaknesses that this is a skill. Developing a skill tends not to deliver maximal immediate gratification. It is much easier to play a CD than to learn how to play an instrument well enough to be a musician oneself. It is likewise easier to follow very clear-cut instructions, from a plotted scenario to comprehensive mechanics.

Until computer games feature that kind of flexibility and quick, on-your-feet thinking, DMs will have the advantage. That day may not be that far off...

I have often encountered the opinion that the effort put into making modern computer games like movies is at the expense of developing actual game-play elements. I can see how, even with desire to do more -- the lack of which is probably really key -- it might be easier to attain sophistication in some areas with more "primitive" demands in others. A picture really "worth a thousand words" can take a lot more words to code!

Today's 3-d graphics are, I think, as a rule much more advanced over the wire frame graphics of Mercenary (1985) than are options along the lines of how to play off the factions one against another. There's probably an "If cars were like computers" line in there somewhere...

 

[nedjer]

Interesting evening so far; managed to fall in a reservoir of troll urine earlier. Fortunately in-game.

Design gaming ain't fuzzy and it's already here. Key elements of design gaming include:

accessiblity
player choice
free choice of playing styles and playing media
variety of challenges beyond combat
playable across a wide variety of media
'springboarding'

Then take a look at:

Encounters
Essentials
Today's Cards
Slaying Stone

5e will further these aims with:

styling and autostyling of rule sets and media
rapid outlining of 'skeleton' settings and scenarios
'drag and drop', cascading setting and scenario design
more immersive missions and challenge 'focus'

Why is this of interest at Treasure Towers?:

This is familiar territory on Treasure's feature list
It is possible to have design gaming plus mortal combat
Lots of people like 'making up good stuff"
Supporting flexible, guideline based play is a sure route to more players
More RPG players has many benefits
A change at the D&D level encourages change in general
Treasure is a specialised form of design game with elements we'd like to see in other games
Having set off on this path the industry will be able to grow participation and production through crowdsource and creative technologies

. . .

which is all more fun than edition wars, minor rules clarifications and the Forge

 

[Stalker0]

As far as the core of traditional pen and paper games, no technology has been able to mimic the freedom of a human, and until that occurs, there will always be a place for them.


That said, we are seeing a large increase in the game play interlaces. Pen and paper is being augmented by virtual tabletops, virtual character builders and the like. Some are better than others.

I think the pregame tools are the best right now. They remove a lot of the tedious work that is done in traditional games, making encounters, making sessions, making characters. But they stay out of the main game where the imagination is still paramount.

Virtual tabletops have also come a long way to me, but they still don't allow enough customization in a short period of time. I have seen some beautiful landscapes and encounters built...but they take a while. I haven't seen a system that is seemless enough to allow the "encounter on the fly" type encounters that are ultimately needed traditional freedom.

 

[Ariosto]

Nedjer, your latest post makes considerably less sense to me. It's a jumble of buzz words.

 

[Ariosto]

I think the pregame tools are the best right now. They remove a lot of the tedious work that is done in traditional games, making encounters, making sessions, making characters.

There's the problem.

Arneson, Gygax, and company considered (as I and my friends consider) all that so-called "tedium" to be part of the fun.

If you don't then that's fine. It happens, however, to be part of what distinguishes now-"traditional" RPGs from some other things. It's key to what distinguishes them from what nedjer (in the blog post) calls "a largely shrink-wrapped experience".

 

[Sunseeker]

There's the problem.

Arneson, Gygax, and company considered (as I and my friends consider) all that so-called "tedium" to be part of the fun.

If you don't then that's fine. It happens, however, to be part of what distinguishes now-"traditional" RPGs from some other things. It's key to what distinguishes them from what nedjer (in the blog post) calls "a largely shrink-wrapped experience".

I agree, no offense to EnWorld, but when I found out that my current D&D group's campaign was running your own WotBS, I certainly lost a lot of interest in it. Although my last DM was a bit pompous, his was a world created entirely from scratch, which I loved immensely. Likewise, my Deadlands group is the same way, it's a story created from the ideas and suggestions given in the book, but made unique by the Marshal.

I love inventing my own worlds, creating my own landscapes, and even turning the tables on some of the more established concepts.

Not being able to do so in most games these days, makes me very sad.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I love inventing my own worlds, creating my own landscapes, and even turning the tables on some of the more established concepts.

Not being able to do so in most games these days, makes me very sad.

I STILL haven't played 4E but I can say without reservation that you need to be careful with that brush. A TTRPG is still what WE decide to make of it every bit as much, if not moreso, than what its authors had in mind for us. In the 1E DMG Gary was quite clear about the idea that he wasn't trying to foist a "shrink-wrapped experience" upon anyone. Although he was trying to provide a common set of rules for disparate players to work from he fully expected and ENCOURAGED its purchasers to make of the game what THEY would have it be.

If that essay has accusations to make about the failings of TTRPG's it won't stick to the earliest visions of D&D formed by its creator as opposed to those who re-wrote it over and over. Even then, no matter what the authors expect - it is STILL what you decide you want to do with it that matters. Computer games, on the other hand, are BY DEFINITION limited in the experience they can offer players. I would never make claims to being more than a merely competent DM but there isn't a computer on the friggin' planet that can provide EVEN REMOTELY the kind of gaming experience that I can as a living, thinking human - and I'm not worried about the forseeable future changing that a whit. What they CAN do is offer a more convenient, if more limited, gaming experience than I can. And one that any company can find more profit in than TTRPG.

 

[nedjer]

Nedjer, your latest post makes considerably less sense to me. It's a jumble of buzz words.

Encounters = addressing the 'choking points' of forming groups and 'making' GMs
Essentials = a more accessible, easier to learn, lower price point styling
Fortune Cards = one mechanism for enabling more player choice
Slaying Stone = a more 'free range' (rather than the full sandbox) model for scenarios
DDI utilities = freeing up prep time to allow GMs to focus on imaginative design

These steps aren't about 'requiring' players to make their own scenarios, 'forcing' players towards a particular style of play or 'throwing any babies out with the bathwater'. They're about responding to the challenges presented by competing pastimes, making it easier to access the 'juicy' parts of scenario design and gameplay, helping GMs to concentrate on gameplay over refereeing, and encouraging both veterans and newbies to play more often.

The rest of the buzzwords are a natural and inevitable progression in the same direction.

 

[Aus_Snow]

following the unveiling of Sims 3: Medieval, is it not time to accept that Tabletop RPGs 'days are numbered' unless the industry and its community make Tabletop RPGs more accessible and more focused on TRPGs' unique selling points?

If by "Tabletop RPGs" you mean "Dungeons & Dragons" in its most recent form, then possibly yes. But maybe not, even then. I'd go so far as to say probably not, even then.

And if by "Tabletop RPGs" you in fact mean no more but also no less than you say. . . that would be a most emphatic no. For reasons which are immediately obvious to those who have played TTRPGs.