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

[Alnag]

Anything that is not D&D or WW is a marginal part of the overall RPG business.

Well... I think games, that hold per cent or more of the market are not marginal. So let's not limit us to D&D and World of Darkness. If I would also use the numbers from C&GRM show us that d20 Modern, GURPS, Shadowrun, Warhammer FRP, Serenity, Castles & Crusades, Hero System and BESM still create noticeable part of the market.

What I'm trying to point out is that a) they're doing what Dancey is talking about and 2) they have been growing rapidly as a community/grassroots movement. In a time when Dancey and others are talking about how to keep D&D from dying, the indie scene is flourishing.

Yeah, I understand. But there is still a problem with scale. The question is whether this approach is able to hold in larger market, if it will still grow and flourish. That is something, you or I can not say. When a game with several millions of players is dying (and I doubt it is acutally dying) you would need a rise in tens of thousands of per cents (from those few thousands gamers of indie RPGs).

Ask yourself this question... How quickly has D&D grow from the state of 1974 to 1983 and compare it with the grow of indie movement (Sorcerer is if I am not mistaken a game from 1998) till now... 2007. If the grow is adequate it is alright. Otherwise I have my doubt about this strategy will save the hobby.

IIRC, the IPR/Forge booth was the biggest RPG-only booth at GenCon last year; Mearls said that it was their stuff WotC folk were grooving on after the con. This year, there's going to be a whole diaspora of booths spun off from IPR/Forge.

Yes. But we are talking here about common gamer, not a game designers neither "semi-profesional gamers" who know what all this indie hype is about. The booth on GenCon is one thing. The true impact on the market is something completely different.

This is where the exciting stuff is happening. These are the games that can't be easily emulated by MMORPGs.

Yeah. I agree on that. It would be hard to emulate those.

Whether they are a formula for industry success, I dunno. That doesn't seem to be their focus. Their focus seems to be taking RPGs in new directions, and getting people excited about playing them.

I know. And I agree. But the problem here is, that we are talking (as far as I know) about industry success. Because, to put it more simple, if there would be no industry there would be less of those cons and less booth and less gamers which might go the indie way. So they would also not grow and flourish. They would die too!

That said, I want the indie and I want my D&D. I hope both prosper as the hobby moves forward.

Sure. I am just pointing to the fact, that as a natural experiment of some Ryan's ideas this doesn't go very well in question of industry success and saving the hobby. I am not questioning other aspects of indies.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Actually the only "necessary rules" are those presented in the PHB.
The other tons of rules were never meant to be necessary, so they can't really be called "unecessary", they were meant to be optional, and more options is a good thing not a bad thing.

I would argue that the PHB has reams of unnecessary rules. Ironically, those reams (mostly found in the Spells chapter) are some of the few that are rarely proposed for the cutting-room floor by "rules light" afficiandos whose definitions of "rules light" always seems to resemble "the version of D&D that captured my imagination when I was 12."

 

[bento]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there are too many unnecessary rules. The game would be just as fun without "spell turning" or reserve feats, or the complexities of the warlock class, or any of the host of other secondary miscellaneous stuff.

I'll take a Planescape boxed set or the Al-Qadim setting book over Bo9S or Races of Stone any day of the week.

True and I've been thinking about this. We're past the point of bloat, and now we have so many options to character building and alternate rules that its difficult to get everyone at the table to agree on what to play. Players want more build options to create cool characters, while DMs want fewer as it's more stuff to keep track of. As a GM I prefer running settings that have fewer, but stronger, elements.

What if we could simplify player choices while making the story elements stronger? More evocative settings with a wider variety of encounter-types.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”.

I don't think that's true. Cool stories have come out of my gaming, but "telling a story" was never the goal.

 

[Ry]

I'd rather have a rule for everything and then cut out what I don't like rather than have a lack of rules and then have to make them up on the spot as I go.

While I think modifiers for a thousand situations are more than I want, I'd like to have a core mechanic that was consistent across the board and guidelines for universally applying it. D&D sort of has that, but sort of not.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think Ryan makes some very good points (and he should, given his access to data and history in the industry). I agree with his general trends … and I think the TRPG industry is destined for change, and needs to change. I don’t think what we see as “traditional” TRPGs necessarily need to go away, but I do think they need new outlets, new ways to plug in, and new ways to overcome barriers to entry.

I don’t necessarily agree with the idea of recapturing RPGs as “storytelling games.” True, that’s one way to describe them, but lots of people play D&D in a manner where the storytelling aspect is but a small part of the game. In my own case I prefer a balance of storytelling, tactical combat, exploration, and problem solving. Computer games can tell a story, but they aren’t the same thing and don’t deliver the same experience.

What’s unique I think to TRPGs is the social aspect of the game, and the cooperative nature. In fact, were I to reinvent the “brand” that is TRPGs, I’d call them cooperative experience games (CX for short, since CEX sound sleazy). CX games are marked by group shared experience and pursuit of a goal where cooperation is a necessary part of the game model. This is in contrast to competitive experience games, whether CCGs, tabletop wargames, video games, or most traditional boardgames or card games where competitive play results in winners and losers.

Note that that definition is broader than just tabletop RPGs, and can include certain board/card games as well as some MMORPG models – which I don’t think is a bad thing. If you take the cooperative experience model, you have the opportunity to expand a traditional RPG with other ways to play and connect. This can include tabletop play with miniatures, or card-based games, or online play (whether in MMO mode or in “virtual tabletop” mode).

The holy grail in my opinion would be to enable these various modes of cooperative play to interact – so that the virtual tabletop player can play the same game along side a face-to-face tabletop group, for example, or a player with an MMO interface can connect to a virtual tabletop group.

The technology is coming though it still needs maturation. But I think TRPGs as CXG’s will need to tap into the modes of communication that are now prevalent under Web 2.0. We live in an increasingly networked, connected, yet distributed society, and the extent to which future CX models can leverage that will indicate their success or failure (perhaps WOTC’s DI is a step in that direction, perhaps not). I can imagine a variant of D&D played via cell phone and laptop, where some players are physically resident around a table with map and miniatures, and some are physically distributed but sharing the same experience. Or perhaps they are all distributed, but via cell phone/PDA interface, SMS, and voice are all participating in the same game … and then bring the PDA that contains their character sheet and game system to the table when they meet face-to-face and it becomes just another tabletop tool, like taking your PHB to the game.

 

[Dragonblade]

I'll tell you exactly what the problem is with RPGs. I speak as a "power gamer" that does not play WoW or MMORPGs.

In fact I think the "trend" of power gamers leaving tabletop for WoW is overrated. Most of my tabletop group used to play WoW a lot! Hours every night. Now, most of them have cancelled their WoW accounts and show no inclination of going back. Why? Because they have been there. Done that. They have done every quest. Hit max level with multiple character classes. There is just nothing there for them anymore. Now they are all playing LotR online, and when they get tired of that they will quit that and move on. However, our multiple D&D games involving these players are going strong. We have to turn players away in fact.

What keeps them interested in D&D? Its simple, its the fact that there is no computer imposed limit on their character or the things they can do. There is no "grinding" for levels, no raids that become little more than an excersize in resource management.

In my experience D&D is fun because you get to hang out with your friends in person. No MMORPG can match this. Ever.

D&D is also fun because you have a personal investment in a character that is often an integral part of a campaign. If your character is part of killing a big bad, then he stays dead. It is not instanced ad infinitum for a thousand other players. This ability to make unique and persistent changes to the campaign is one advantage of TRPGs that MMORPGs by their very nature cannot match.

Likewise, I can make any character I want. I can do anything I want. No computer arbiter can ever match face time with a human DM. Just not going to happen.

So in a nutshell, I see the following pros to tabletop:

1) Freedom of action
2) Unique and persistent world experience
3) Face time with your friends

I see the following cons to tabletop:

1) Bad DMs can create an inconsistent play experience or impose artificial rules restrictions
2) complex calculations or resource management can take extra time when done manually
3) lack of graphical appeal

For MMORPG's I see the following pros:

1) neutral computer arbiter ensures a consistent experience and speeds up play
2) graphical appeal
3) can play any time and stop any time

I see the following cons:

1) You can't really play with your friends, unless everyone gets their computers together in the same room and on the same LAN
2) Your experience is neither unique nor persistent. No matter what quests you have done, what items your character has, or what class abilities you choose as you level up. Guaranteed that 100 other players out there have the same abilities and stats as you, and guaranteed that thousands of other players have all done the same quests and garnered the same items.
3) You can't really do whatever you want, you are confined to the limits of game engine.

In a nutshell, I think the cons of tabletop play can be mitigated or reduced, whereas the cons of MMORPG's cannot be due to their very nature. Likewise, many of the advantages of MMORPGs can be incorporated into the table top experience. The threads on using projectors and the NWN engine to make a graphically beautiful dungeon effectively eliminates the graphical appeal problem. Likewise, the dungeon tiles provided by WotC and Paizo also help in that regard.

DM consistency is a tough issue to tackle but a lot of it can be mitigated by making the DMs job easier. Reworking high level play so that power gamers feel that they have gotten more powerful, but also providing more tools to the GM, like quick and easy NPC generators to allow them to come up with equal challenges in seconds or minutes instead of hours.

Likewise, I think treatises on high level adventure design and how to work with instead of nerfing high level PC abilities is much needed. One big problem with high level play is the burden placed on the DM. Most DMs avoid it altogether because it is such a burden. This leads only to player frustration and is a major reason why so-called "power gamers" migrate to MMORPGs in the first place!!

 

[HeinorNY]

I would argue that the PHB has reams of unnecessary rules. Ironically, those reams (mostly found in the Spells chapter) are some of the few that are rarely proposed for the cutting-room floor by "rules light" afficiandos whose definitions of "rules light" always seems to resemble "the version of D&D that captured my imagination when I was 12."

I totally agree.
That's why I said earlier that they should make the basic set of rules (the rules you really need to start playing the game and start having fun) even simpler and lighter. Everything else is optional for us "rules-heavy" afficiados. Everybody is happy, no one feels obligated to learn lots of rules to play it if they don't have fun with them.
It should be like this already... but oh well... :\

 

[Korgoth]

The future of TRPGs:

1. Kill the story.
Stories are the realm of books and movies. In a game, stories are told after the fact. In an RPG, the purpose is to GAME the setting, not to tell stories in it. Things like plot, theme, and character development can be used as analogies, but really RPGs are about setting, events, experience, and decision making. RPGs are not "storytelling games."

2. Bring on the game.
No one complains about a game of chess "killing the story." An hour long fight against monsters is exactly the point of many RPG sessions. The central issue is to make it a fun game, not a boring one. Talking is fun, and so exploring and creating an imagined environment, but roleplaying is about experience and decision-making. True "storytelling games" are just play-by-post affairs. An hour long fight is not a half-assed recreation of a MMORPG battle, it's something quite different. Options are more numerous, reactions less predictable, tactics less reliable.

3. Play a role.
People play RPGs to play a role, period. Whether they identify with a character or simply empathize with one, that is why they play. Indeed, in my view, even the GM plays a character; the GM's personality and beliefs shape the reality of the world, such that is has a morality, a mood, a consistency of nature, a personality.

4. Creative endeavors.
RyanD's chart is flawed in one important way. It shows sales. People continue to play games for years and years and years, often out of proportion to the number of rulebooks owned. His chart doesn't show RPGs are doomed; it shows his "sell corebooks to the masses" business model was flawed. One thing drives the RPG industry; new products that people want. Not "customer service." Not "brand." Both of those things are important, but I don't buy music CDs based primarily on customer service or brand. I don't want a "music service." I buy a CD because I value the creativity that produced it. Monster manuals may be geared toward GMs, but players buy them, too... not for nefarious purposes, I think, but simply because they enjoy reading about monsters. That's why the "encounter format" versions of monsters and the dearth of world-specific information and ecological stuff has made monster manuals less popular now than they ever have been. People enjoy the FR setting and Eberron and such because it puts that information back... in a sense, the Monster Manuals are mainly reference cards for the published settings.

RPGs are readable in a way MMORPGs are not. Above all else, they are books about games, and should cleave to the fact that they are books.

Trying to sell an RPG "service," whether in the form of a subscription to game supplements, pay for play, even magazine subscriptions, has never been a source of great profit.

5. It's the product, stupid.
Look at how the poker industry makes money. You sell cards. You sell books about poker. You sell poker chips. You have poker conventions. The same goes for baseball: You have ticket sales. You have TV. You have actual baseballs. You have little league.

So to make money, the RPG industry should produce a lot of products catering to both the enthusiast and the enthusiastic novice. I don't know what kind of profit they turned, but D&D for Dummies was a fanstastic idea for a product.

Game books, supplements, dice, minis, T-shirts, events, novels, how-to guides.

Selling "customer service" is the same as selling air. How is the RPG industry going to service a customer better than the GM?

QFT.

Kill the Story. And take its stuff.

When I play in a really fun session, I sometimes tell a story about the session. Just like I can do with a board game: last night playing Memoir '44 I killed 4 of my friend's damaged units with a single Air Strike. I went from zero VP's to having won the scenario in one shot. There: I just told a story about a game of Memoir '44. But Mem44 is not a "storytelling game", and if it was I suspect we wouldn't be playing it.

 

[Creeping Death]

I find this very telling, and I think it supports Ryan's assertion that the game is about the story - not about the rules.

I think in this regard, 3rd edition has gotten it wrong - too many rules; not enough story.

Whose story? Mine? Yours? Get the rules out that define certain interaction and then let the story be told around that. Isn't that why we have so many different systems? Some stories just can't be told within a certain rule set.

The story elements I remember from past editions that I never liked and always removed was demi-human level limits. What I like about the current system that I never saw in previous editions are monster advancement with class levels. Templates are a great way to reinvent old creatures. These are rules that actually inspire stories and fuel thought. Trip mechanic, wealth guide lines, and level charts are for consistency and defining how certain things interact.

I still don't understand the 'too many rules' point of view. What is too many?