Ryan Dancey interview on Fear the Boot

[Mark CMG]

I think one relevant point that was hinted at in the interview was the idea of providing what CRPGs can't. And, as both Dancey says and Bruce Baugh has said, typical D&D play (and similar games) provide a default experience that CRPGs can at least approximate. I.e., if you want to kill things and take their stuff, WoW can do that pretty much just as good, if not better (in some ways) than a TRPG. Ditto if you want to be a passive observer of a detailed game world and/or plotline. Add in the comment about Moore's law, and CRPGs are only going to keep on approximating the experience better and better.

However --and I don't mean to sound like an indie fanboy, 'cause it's D&D that I play most often-- there are newer games that provide an experience that simply cannot (yet) be duplicated with a CRPG. The non-tactical, premise-focused, heavy-player-input games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, Prime Time Adventures, and Sorcerer simply can't be done other than via a group of people sitting around a table (or at least communicating via some method, e.g., Skype). This is exactly what the FtB host was trying to get at.

These kinds of games may not be able to counteract the "long tail," but they're a better argument for the tabletop than D&D*, unfortunately.


* Typical D&D, at least. There are certainly groups out there who de-emphasize the tactical aspect and play up the "human element," as it were. And again, we're talking about "good enough" play experience, not an identical one.

The x-factor I enjoy about tabletop RPGs (D&D or otherwise) that could never be duplicated by online CRPGs is simply sitting around a table with a group of people to engage in a face-to-face activity. I suppose this might someday be approximated with a series of interlinked holodecks and that approximation might be good enough. Somehow, though, I think I would still prefer actually getting together with the actual people rather than their approximations.

 

[Steel_Wind]

The problem with MMOs and new players is the same problem D&D faced when M:TG was in its heyday: a problem with churn.

Gamers in their teens get older and stop playing. Not all - but many. Some continue to be lifestyle gamers as they grow older and they are fans for life. Ryan knows this - he's one of them, after all.

But as people depart - you need new blood to enter. And if those potential players perceive they get enough of *whatever it is that motivates a new player to try D&D* from WoW instead (or whatever other game that is the "champeen" of the moment) ...

then they don't start playing D&D and the churn model breaks down. There aren't enough new gamers buying new stuff to fund the industry in the style it has grown accustomed to. Those are the numbers Ryan's looking at and he's pessimistic.

I'm not sure about half full or half-empty glasses. What I am sure about is that I happen to have a glass in front of me, and it says "gamer" on it. After nearly 30 years, I must confess, it's not ever going to go away.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Of course, Mark, that's an element discussed in the interview.

 

[Mark CMG]

Of course, Mark, that's an element discussed in the interview.

Naw. Maybe it is a subtle difference between an experience and an activity but the way in which language is being used to lump the x-factor (an experience) in with one style of gaming (an activity) while ignoring that it is just as much a part of all styles of gaming is being swept under the carpet, IMO. I don't see online CRPGs as being able to approximate an experience so much as only being able to simulate an activity. From my perspective, the experience of sitting around with friends and sharing an activity is not going to be duplicated in any form whatsoever by an online CRPG, though the activity of playing a hack and slash game is currently being approximated and the activity of playing a more in-depth storytelling game might someday be approximated as well. An online platform that networks PCs might even currently be able to allow gamers to loosely approximate the activity of a more in-depth storytelling game. But, again, it's the actual "being there with others" that I enjoy as much as the rest. That's the underlying experience of a tabletop RPG.

 

[Bagpuss]

Actually that was discussed in the interview.

 

[Wormwood]

I believe Dancey hit the nail on the head with his MMO comment, namely, that for the average player, the current MMO experience is good enough that they'll take it over pen and paper play - GMs, however, are out in the cold.

That's *precisely* what happened with my group.

We've been gaming together for over ten years, attended each others weddings (and a funeral), and played dozens of RPGs and CCGs, as well as some of the new miniatures games and expensive boutique boardgames. Everything.

And last year the consensus was, "We'd rather play WoW. With Teamspeak we have the social interaction we get at the tabletop, plus we have dozens of people to play with whenever we wish. No more scheduling conflicts, no more commuting, no more boredom."

We still hang out, see movies, etc. But our gaming has migrated online, and that is where it is going to stay. Six avid game consumers who used to shell out hundreds a month in books and miniatures---gone.

ps. Predictably, the two of us who chose not to join an MMO are both primarily GMs.

 

[buzz]

But as people depart - you need new blood to enter.

As mentioned in the interview, college is one of the primary periods in people's lives when they are either introduced to gaming or get back into gaming after the lapse that happens when they get a car (and thus are more mobile, and have more activities that compete for their time). One thing WotC is diong is the "Expand Your Role" incentive aimed at college gaming groups. As Dancey points out in the interview, whether the implementation of this plan is good or not, WotC is certainly targeting the right audience in order to grow the fanbase.

 

[buzz]

I don't see online CRPGs as being able to approximate an experience so much as only being able to simulate an activity.

I would agree. However, both Ryan's (in the interview) and Baugh's (elsewhere) observations are that this seems to be good enough for a huge swath of people.

 

[Shadowslayer]

<snip> The fact that they said they didn't include +35 year olds was interesting, since according to them these were not the people who buy the majority of the games.

I'm sure that will invoke some discussions among gamers here as to whether people believe tha to be true or not.

So, do ya?

I'd say yes, I believe that. But not so much because older gamers are "set in their ways" I thinks it's more like changed priorities in spending. Not to mention a realization that the D&D experience is pretty much the same whether you use just the core 3 or add a gazillion splatbooks to the mix. This makes rules expansions feel less important to the whole thing and makes it a little less likely that you'll feel a need for them.

As far as being "set in their ways", I don't buy it. I'm 37 and still open to changes to the D&D experience. I'm actually all for minis and battlemats and all kinds of visuals, where I never had been before, (and I've been gaming without them for almost 20 years.)

Most of the money I spend anymore is on minis (D&D and Reaper), paints, Fantastic Locations maps, dungeon tiles and modules. SO I'm happy to hand my money over to WOTC, but I'm not at an age anymore where I'm going to buy every book that comes out just because its new. Heck, I've still got a crate of 2e complete books to remind me why I don't do that anymore. (And I liked the 2e books)

 

[glass_snake]

If you guys are interested, a lot of these topics are also being discussed over on FtB's forums, and Ryan himself wades into the debate. I'm not posting this to detract from the conversation here, because some really cool stuff is getting brought up. Just thought you guys might be interested to see how the participants themselves are kicking it around.

http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2597