Ryan Dancey on Redefining the Hobby (Updated: time elements in a storytelling game)

[Alnag]

TV whomped film and sure the film industry survives...DVD sales for home TV viewing keep it afloat and is where the future profit growth is for the film industry.

One can sell system of tabletop game to PC RPG market. Or can license the setting. See Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic and so on. Try harder.

 

[Glyfair]

the analogy is awful. TV whomped film and sure the film industry survives...DVD sales for home TV viewing keep it afloat and is where the future profit growth is for the film industry.

Perhaps you should reread the middle blog entry of Ryan's. He's not really talking about today, he's talking about the 50's.

In the 50's movies were in trouble and less "relevant" because people could stay home and see it on TV. Movies had to reinvent themselves to remain viable. RPGs have reached a point where they are less "relevant" to many people because MMORPGs give them what they want with a better experience. So now tabletop RPGs have to reinvent themselves if they want to remain "relevant."

Of course, even Ryan admits that it's an imperfect analogy. The point remains, however.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

This sort of thinking always felt like a poor rationalization to me. It makes an excuse for an awkward product by inferring that a product that was understood and properly played might not have been fun and therefore well-enough should be left alone. It leads to a situation where the awkward product, which might not actually be any fun once properly learned, can actually drive away the players in the long term. I want players who understand what they are doing *and* having fun. If having fun is more important than other factors, then I counter that understanding *and* having fun is MOST important, and that settling for less is a doomed strategy.

Didja bother reading the rest of my post, because it was kinda supposed to be taken in context.

 

[JDJblatherings]

One can sell system of tabletop game to PC RPG market. Or can license the setting. See Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic and so on. Try harder.

oh the PC and video game market? The video game market has trumped the film market. A TV toy considered a fad initially has grown into an industry larger then film. Notice it's computer/video game companies buying the licenses and doign somehtign with them and not film companies?


It's their nature as games that will allow RPGs to survive not their capacity to challenge an industry that has already surpassed it many times over in sales.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Perhaps you should reread the middle blog entry of Ryan's. He's not really talking about today, he's talking about the 50's.

In the 50's movies were in trouble and less "relevant" because people could stay home and see it on TV. Movies had to reinvent themselves to remain viable. RPGs have reached a point where they are less "relevant" to many people because MMORPGs give them what they want with a better experience. So now tabletop RPGs have to reinvent themselves if they want to remain "relevant."

Of course, even Ryan admits that it's an imperfect analogy. The point remains, however.

Theater is still here. It didn't reinvent itself. TV and film long since suprassed that media in revenues and audience and yet it survives.

Making games folks will play will keep the RPG/tabletop gaming industry alive.

 

[Mark]

As a designer, I would focus on delivering that "alternate Power Gamer" experience-- rapid empowerment, meaningful decisions, strategic thinking-- with a "gritty" and consequential "game reality." That is why I maintain that D&D would be a better game if it focused on that portion of the game that most strongly delivers this kind of play: the Sweet Spot, roughly defined as levels 2-8. (1st level is that portion of play where the player becomes emotionally invested in the character, and so it falls outside the actual sweet spot of play.)

The best game prolongs or extends that sweet spot for the maximum real-time duration (measured in the number of game sessions moreso than in hours of play), because this delivers the longest social aspect of the game.

This is another one of those designer axioms that has long bothered me. While I do not disagree with the premise of a sweet spot, arguably of varying size and range depending on who is playing, I am not sure the heart of the problem is addressed if the goal is simply to stretch the sweet spot. It, like another I pointed out in this thread, is a doomed strategy that never adequately addresses sweetening, if you will, the point of entry or the viability of long term play.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years. That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.

Moderator/

Belen, lose the attitude, or you leave the thread. Don't be rude to other posters.

Thanks

 

[gizmo33]

He would modify your statement to "the story isn't done until after the action is over." However, he would consider those actions and random elements to be part of the story, while it's happening.

Well then, name something that's not a story by that criteria. Looking back on any interesting set of events will lead to the story. IMO the more meaningful definition of story-telling is when you set out to create a series of events A-B-C-D that you think will produce an interesting result. The problem is that engineering the result goes against the fundementals of the game - at least as it is currently defined (IMO there have been no substantial changes in this regard between ODnD and 3.5). There's not a single rule in any edition that I know of that references "story" as a component to deciding on the outcome of an event.

I think every single person who plays DnD wants to run a game where the events are interesting enough and meaningful enough to create a story worth telling.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WoW may well have 9 million subscriptions, but that is a worldwide figure (RD's sales data for RPG's and CCG's are USA-based).

True.

It also doesn't take into account how many people have played it for a little bit and given up

Explicitly not true. The figures Blizzard release are only current subscriptions, not all subscriptions ever.

That seems to be a common phenomenon from what I understand.

Not really. People like to grouse that, but in pretty much every example, the company only releases current subscribers, since that's all they care about internally, for the most part.

 

[Mark]

Didja bother reading the rest of my post, because it was kinda supposed to be taken in context.

Don't take it personally. I am addressing the example from the podcast in your post and not your post as a whole. The example from the podcast has a context of its own. Quoting you is merely incidental to your having cited the example of the podcast previously in this thread. As to your point, since you require my attention to it, I do not necessarily disagree but was not driven to comment on it. The example of what was mentioned in the podcast or, more accurately, your impression of what was mentioned in the podcast, took my attention and echoed a sentiment I had observed previously and felt compelled to address.

My apologies for the confusion.