Do we want one dominant game, and why?

[Nifft]

It may be true for players who are being introduced to the game as part of an experienced group. But if you're talking about a game that's being sold to entirely new players, then the ideal quality for an introductory game is one which can always provide a solid answer to the question, "What am I supposed to be doing?" And it should be able to answer that question for both the GM and the player.

And for that to be true, you need lots of detailed crunch. New players want the rules to tell them a 20-foot jump is a DC 20 check.

Good points here.

IMHO the perfect game will allow itself to scale in complexity, from a rigid, limited "intro" game to a full-featured tool for creative tinkerers to work within.

Cheers, -- N

 

[knightofround]

I voted yes.

The PHB is not a "normal" product like oranges, iPads, and novels. The PHB is ultimately an access key to a social network. And like all social networks, the larger the population, the more valuable the product becomes.

Think how useless the current Facebook would be if only had 1k people on it. It doesn't matter how nifty its features are...if there's no one else there, what's the point.

It's the same way with RPGs. Who cares if you found your perfect RPG, if you can't find anyone to play it with you? Or worse...to find the perfect system, only to later find out the product line is no longer supported. Thats the main reason I keep coming back to WotC's D&D line...the 3PP and other systems simply do not generate enough content, and do not have the playerbase.

Here, you have to put out what -- at least 2000 units to break even? Plus, RPGs tend to be self-fracturing as well...D&D, the biggest player, only puts out 2-3 genuine supplements per month...and not only is that material fractured by being system-specific, a big chunk of that is further fractured by being world-specific.

In my dreamworld, there would only be one unifying core system that everybody used. Such a system would need to be flexible enough to consolidate all forms of tabletop gaming, and yet strong enough to maintain a very high level of support in order to prevent gamers from scattering to the nine winds.

Such core system, the "core rulebooks" so to speak, would be published on the web utterly free of charge, to keep player barriers to entry low. Then, the products that would actually be marketed would be world-specific, thematic-specific, fluff-heavy, crunch-heavy, whatever the market demands.

The OGL was a good idea. Its just that 3E was not built to be a universal gaming system; it was built to franchise out D&D.

The brand name, player base, and product support of D&D, the universality of GURPS, the unification of the entire industry behind a single system, and a mystical core ruleset that would make tabletop gamers of all stripes happy...ahh, now there's a dream.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This here is a mighty comfy fence I'm sittin' on. Wide enough to stretch out 'n' take me a nap.

*Stretches out, pulls hat over his eyes, and takes himself a nap.*

The Auld Grump

 

[Starfox]

I do not believe any single game can satisfy every player and all genres. Part of the reason we have so many different games is because some games do one thing better than others. By having a number of choices available, it allows us to find the game that best suits what we need.

You are not alone in this view, just the most recent one here. I'd like to argue that there is no contradiction between a dominant game and a wide variety of games. Lets say the dominant game has 50% of the market - that still leaves a lot of room for others to compete in. And since the dominant game pays the lion's share of the cost to recruit new people to the hobby, those other games can still survive on their much smaller market share.

 

[Starfox]

I think it's very common for experienced gamers to think that "rules light" is a good idea for an introductory RPG.

I also think it's very, very wrong.

[...]

The other quality an introductory game should have is a default scenario structure that, similarly, guides the players and GM in obvious ways. The D&D dungeon crawl is ideal for this: The PCs are in a room. They can either do something in that room or they can take one of (several) obvious exits and go to the next room.

For the players, the dungeon crawl never leaves them wondering, "What should I do next?" And the structure of the dungeon crawl makes it very difficult for a player-proposed action to leave the DM wondering, "What should my response be?" (You look at the map and describe the next room.)

IMO, you have already left 90% of the potential market behind by tying the idea of a role-playing game to a tactical game. Yes, this is where RPGs are today, and since recruitment is mostly mouth-to-mouth they are likely to stay in this niche, but I also think this is why RPGs have such a geek label. To truly reach their potential, RPGs would need to break out of this mould.

Vampire almost managed to do this. It was touted as a "storytelling game" and not an RPG, and beneath all the hype it actually sold to a new audience because of its different focus. Sadly, it did not really live up to its potential; then rules were not fluid or well-written enough to really tell stories in. It was more of a poor tactical RPG if you analyzed the rules (all IMO, of course). Still, by having fluff that essentially said that all this tactical rules-wrangling really was not important, they managed to break into new areas.

The sad part is that the market is developing a resistance to RPGs based on what they are now, not what they could be. Both retailers and potential consumers know that RPG is something neerdy that has to do with a lot of violence. In order to break into new markets, I think an icebreaker system needs to NOT call itself a role-playing game. To appeal to the romantic fantasy crowd, the hobby needs an entirely new name. To appeal to the My Little Pony (and successor) crowd, it needs to break completely with its wargaming roots. Such a game would probably not appeal to many of today's RPGers, but that's ok, its would not be targeted at us. But, most difficult of all, it would need to get into a marketplace that is increasingly hard to penetrate.

 

[Starfox]

And the reason why BRP struggled (apart from the name) wouldn't have anything to do with new players being constantly refered to "a strong label" by existing players. Not, perhaps, a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Yes, of course it was. And so it will be in the future as well. This is a part of the market we're working in and a big part of the reason why its hard to overtake the leader.

It does in now way change my basic argument.

 

[nedjer]

I voted yes.

The PHB is not a "normal" product like oranges, iPads, and novels. The PHB is ultimately an access key to a social network. And like all social networks, the larger the population, the more valuable the product becomes.

Think how useless the current Facebook would be if only had 1k people on it. It doesn't matter how nifty its features are...if there's no one else there, what's the point.

It's the same way with RPGs. Who cares if you found your perfect RPG, if you can't find anyone to play it with you? Or worse...to find the perfect system, only to later find out the product line is no longer supported. Thats the main reason I keep coming back to WotC's D&D line...the 3PP and other systems simply do not generate enough content, and do not have the playerbase.

Here, you have to put out what -- at least 2000 units to break even? Plus, RPGs tend to be self-fracturing as well...D&D, the biggest player, only puts out 2-3 genuine supplements per month...and not only is that material fractured by being system-specific, a big chunk of that is further fractured by being world-specific.

In my dreamworld, there would only be one unifying core system that everybody used. Such a system would need to be flexible enough to consolidate all forms of tabletop gaming, and yet strong enough to maintain a very high level of support in order to prevent gamers from scattering to the nine winds.

Such core system, the "core rulebooks" so to speak, would be published on the web utterly free of charge, to keep player barriers to entry low. Then, the products that would actually be marketed would be world-specific, thematic-specific, fluff-heavy, crunch-heavy, whatever the market demands.

The OGL was a good idea. Its just that 3E was not built to be a universal gaming system; it was built to franchise out D&D.

The brand name, player base, and product support of D&D, the universality of GURPS, the unification of the entire industry behind a single system, and a mystical core ruleset that would make tabletop gamers of all stripes happy...ahh, now there's a dream.

A dream of one-size fits all, uniformity and compliance? Interesting Stalinist take on the 'advantages' of "One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

 

[nedjer]

IMO, you have already left 90% of the potential market behind by tying the idea of a role-playing game to a tactical game. Yes, this is where RPGs are today, and since recruitment is mostly mouth-to-mouth they are likely to stay in this niche, but I also think this is why RPGs have such a geek label. To truly reach their potential, RPGs would need to break out of this mould.

Vampire almost managed to do this. It was touted as a "storytelling game" and not an RPG, and beneath all the hype it actually sold to a new audience because of its different focus. Sadly, it did not really live up to its potential; then rules were not fluid or well-written enough to really tell stories in. It was more of a poor tactical RPG if you analyzed the rules (all IMO, of course). Still, by having fluff that essentially said that all this tactical rules-wrangling really was not important, they managed to break into new areas.

The sad part is that the market is developing a resistance to RPGs based on what they are now, not what they could be. Both retailers and potential consumers know that RPG is something neerdy that has to do with a lot of violence. In order to break into new markets, I think an icebreaker system needs to NOT call itself a role-playing game. To appeal to the romantic fantasy crowd, the hobby needs an entirely new name. To appeal to the My Little Pony (and successor) crowd, it needs to break completely with its wargaming roots. Such a game would probably not appeal to many of today's RPGers, but that's ok, its would not be targeted at us. But, most difficult of all, it would need to get into a marketplace that is increasingly hard to penetrate.

TRPGs been painted into a nerdy corner and the best bet is to go along with this and dismiss those who haven't seen 'the (subscription model) light' as the My Little Pony crowd - even though you find this sad?

Clearly, having moved on from uber-arithmetical, niche systems, I need to have a rethink about my move into My Little Pony drama gaming - but, wait a minute, didn't I fight and defeat more monsters in three hours last night than six hours of the three combats last time I played uber-arithmetical?

What am I doing wrong - perhaps if I wearing more pink, maybe scatter glitter over my PC sheet, and then slay my enemies?

 

[nedjer]

Yes, of course it was. And so it will be in the future as well. This is a part of the market we're working in and a big part of the reason why its hard to overtake the leader.

It does in now way change my basic argument.

OK, kind of over this after blogging on it. However, if I'm reading correctly, the basic view is that a kid interested in becoming an F1 driver shouldn't progress through go-karting or trying out rally driving. Instead, they must either jump straight into an F1 car on day one, (and somehow get that right round Monaco), or braid their hair and take up pony trekking instead.

The inevitable result would seem to be either a burnt-out gearbox or a seriously exhausted pony?

 

[Wombat]

I want the game to fit the setting, not the other way around.

I have zero problem learning new systems, having done so about two dozen times in my life already and willing to learn many more.

I hate shoe-horning a really great setting into a mediocre/incompatible system...