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

[WayneLigon]

Or we've been meaningless participants in enough games that are essentially "drama queen's story hour". Or played through pretty much any 2nd edition module, where all you did was basically click "turn the page" and roll a die now and then.

Then you haven't played a storytelling game; you've played a bad imitation of one done by people who 'don't get it'. 2E modules were especially bad like that, but so were a lot of GM's.

They were like this one guy who used to be my boss. Everytime IBM farted, it was The Next Big Thing That Would Solve All Our Problems. So he'd buy up a ton of software, install it on everyone's machines and we'd be told we were now a 'XX shop'. Of course we didn't get any training on it, so he always wondered why the great and wonderful software never performed as advertised.

Storytelling was and is much like that. People were told it would Save Their Game, and then it was dumped on them with little explanation or training; not even essays in the book like Vampire had to tell you the intent and such behind the way the game was designed.

Is it any wonder that so many people did it so badly that it soured people on the very term sight unseen? It didn't matter that what they disliked had no relationship to actual storytelling gaming. Most of the dislike (ironically, much like the so-called Satanist accusations against D&D) is born from a combination of hearsay, rumor, and outright lies.

 

[RFisher]

Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players.

But isn't it really the case that--while this is true for some people--for other people the abstract method is less work while the reading & understanding lots of concrete options is more work for them?

I'm not convinced that one is better for everyone than the other. Neither am I convinced that one is better for significantly more people than the other.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players. It would simultaneously be flushing out the campaign flavor that draws people into the game in the first place.

I would never advocate such a system without including a suitable selection of premade spells for player convenience. Those would, ideally, fit onto cards which would either come in the game box or be in the back for photocopying, like character sheets often are.

With that said, what 'campaign flavor' is it that draws people to the game, again? The bestselling fantasy game of all time, Final Fantasy 7, used the naming convention 'Fire,' 'Fire 2' and 'Fire 3' in its English-language release. It had plenty of 'campaign flavor,' but it sure as heck didn't come from the names of the spells.

I assume you mean the 'campaign flavor' of 'Jack Vance's elaborate and quirky spell naming structure,' which is, I'm sure, even more eminently marketable and widely known today than it was when D&D first came out.

 

[Glyfair]

I find it kind of bizarre that both you and Glyfair are trying to basically make the argument that cons in general, and GenCon (the signature con of the hobby) in particular, are in no way representative of the hobby. If GenCon was only for die-hard gamers with, apparently, no ability to tell good from crap, why do so many publishers make such a big deal about it?

Yes, I am, stating that the GenCon is not representative of the hobby. It is representative of one section of the hobby (the die hard player). There are casual gamers there, bit they are the minority (mostly local players and those traveling there with die hard gamers).

I certainly am not saying die-hard gamers have "no ability to tell good from crap." What I am saying is that die-hard gamers have different tastes from the casual gamer. That indy games are attractive to die-hard gamers doesn't mean that indy games are attractive to casual gamers. Some might, some might not. There is also the complication that many (probably most) casual gamers aren't looking for another game.

Why do they make a big deal about it? Because the diehard games spend the most money on gaming.

And it's not that the indie folk are going to cons, it's that they're creating cons. These folk are really focused on getting people together and actually playing. I think that's awesome.

I agree. I even know non-indy gamers that are focused in "getting people together and actually playing."

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Making D&D get a whole dimension more abstract will make it even less interesting to new players.

My example was deliberately as abstract as possible (because Evocation has the most room for compression), but certainly more abstract than I would recommend.

But there's no reason that the game is better served by Detect Undead and Detect Animals than it would be by Detect Creature.

If the options are (a) making spells & monsters specific & visceral and easily pictured, vs. (b) making spells & monsters abstract templates that players have to translate into specific in-game uses, then yes, I'll happily bet that (a) draws in more players.

Those were not the options that were presented.

Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players.

No, it wouldn't, your inability to conceptualize notwithstanding. It would make it both simpler and more empowering.

It would simultaneously be flushing out the campaign flavor that draws people into the game in the first place.

You're suggesting that new players are drawn to D&D because of an expectation that they will find certain spells in the PHB? The amount of arcanum that players have to assimilate before they can even play one game is a GOOD thing?

I'll be as kind as possible and simply say I doubt that particular line of thinking is driving Wizards R&D.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Instead of evard's black tentacles you would have Area Entangle with Damage.

Sort of an anti-Hero System... instead of taking generic powers and building cool spells, you would be taking cool spells and turning them into generic powers.

They would be both. The rules name would be "area entangle". The game-world would call it "Evard's Black Tentacles". A player coud refer to it by either name, exactly like the Hero System.

 

[Glyfair]

Right. Ideally the flagship RPG would be a decent gateway into the hobby for as wide a group of potential gamers as possible.

But, it can't be a "designed by committee" "try to be all things to all people" kind of thing either. It has to have enough focus to remain compelling. A gateway that the widest number of potential gamers can most easily pass through, but once through they'll find other games that expand the experience in the way that fits them.

I think your ideal gateway RPG is largely mythical. I think we are distracted by the fact that historically RPGs have had a gateway RPG - D&D. That changed a bit during the 90s when Vampire started growing. I know that Vampire brought in a lot of roleplayers who would never have gotten in through D&D.

I think, in a more realistic world, that there would be several "gateway RPGs." Think about it, is there a gateway video game? No, there are many games. There might have been back when Space Invaders, Pong & Pac-Man ruled the roost, but today gamers get in through many, many different doors.

When Ryan pointed out that having a single RPG being dominant would help the industry, I disagreed. I think there is room for two or three RPGs being dominant, each addressing different things that might draw players into the hobby.

The problem with that is hobby gamers are pretty passionate with loves and hates. Look at all the D&D hate, the Eberron hate, the Vampire hate, the Games Workshop hate, etc. Go ask a handful of Privateer Press gamers about Games Workshop or WizKids, you'll often hear a lot of venom. That hate will be increased with multiple dominant systems, and that in itself is off-putting.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The rules name would be "area entangle". The game-world would call it "Evard's Black Tentacles". A player coud refer to it by either name, exactly like the Hero System.

Or give it his OWN name, which is even better.

And change it from black tentacles to the grasping ghosts of his ancestors. Again, cooler.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think, in a more realistic world, that there would be several "gateway RPGs." Think about it, is there a gateway video game? No, there are many games. There might have been back when Space Invaders, Pong & Pac-Man ruled the roost, but today gamers get in through many, many different doors.

Absolutely agreed.

I notice that many of the negative responses here focus on Ryan's idea changing D&D (with an implied 'threat' to 'their game'). I don't believe Ryan is talking about changing D&D - I believe he's talking about creating a new "gateway RPG" that is independent from it, and, I suspect, in large measure independent from the existing fanbase.

 

[pawsplay]

And rules are not.

So what? the rules for spells in D&D are pretty simple. Some particular spells are a headache, but that would be true in any system, and it's certainly not true of (energy type) (shape of effect) spells.