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

[RyanD]

This is very interesting, could you elaborate

Assume a scale from 1 to 10. That gives us a matrix of 1,000 potential points in the GNS spectrum. We don't have to design 1,000 games, but we could probably design 100 games that would be statistically representative of the whole matrix. "Games" in this case meaning "enough game to be played and graded by test groups"; not necessarily a complete game designed to be played over a number of sessions, or even pushed really hard mechanically.

Now, induce a large number of independent game groups to test these games, and rate them. Before they "qualify" to partake in the test, you do another test on those individuals to segment them psychographically.

Now you compare ratings on the games to the psychographic profiles of the players. You're looking for surprises - combinations of G, N & S that trigger high ratings, or low ratings. Finding one or two of the segments like a particular combination will not be rare. Finding a place where all 4 + the Basic Gamers respond strongly will be rare. But once found, you would have the blueprint for a game system that would likely be very competitive in the market.

Likewise, if you find things where everyone expresses dislike, you can learn a lot from that too. Studying the failures may teach you a lot about things to be sure you avoid in development -- and you may find things that are not conventional wisdom; i.e. new knowledge that we haven't had before which can be fed back into the R&D cycle to generate overall improvements, even in existing games.

That's the kind of research I'd do if I had a million dollar pure RPG R&D budget at my disposal.

Ryan

 

[Alnag]

Where the difference of opinion is that I have hard data (that I trust) that shows that player psychographics don't map to the GNS model. In other words, the GNS model describes the games, but the WotC model describes the players.

Well Ryan... the problem as I see it, there are two problems, as I see them. First, in you research you speak about some generall preferences common for all gamers. Which is fine with me. Though GNS somehow doesn't present all these preferences in games produced with this philosophy... especially in the gamist segment. So this is first think, that doesn't fit well.

The second one is... that GNS-based game are usually very narrowly focused on one thing which does not corellate with statistical chance to have a group of players with this one preference at one table. That is second problem.

Finally, there is serious "NO evil Dancey has make this research up" from GNS guys I hear every other day, because they also somehow feel this two things does not fit together. It might still fit with some of the games, but I can't see how it does fit with the philosophy behind them.

Of course I respect your opinion, though I do not agree with you on this one.

 

[RFisher]

The overwhelming majority of the nature of the play experience is based on the GM. It's possible to have a lousy game even with an excellent GM, but very difficult to have an excellent game with a lousy GM.

I don't think that's really true.

The more I think over my experience, the more I think most of us are mediocre GMs, but that we still tend to have good games most of the time. I haven't known that many excellent GMs, but I've been a part of lots of excellent sessions. I think most bad GMs very quickly either stop, lose their players, or become better through experience & maturity.

Bad GMs just aren't an epidemic (but, rather, are self-correcting), & people are having lots of fun with mediocre GMs every day.

& I don't think this is attributable to the power of good rules to make a mediocre GM great, because many of those excellent sessions I've been a part of were using rules that would probably lose a "which is the best system" poll around here.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

The more I think over my experience, the more I think most of us are mediocre GMs, but that we still tend to have good games most of the time. I haven't known that many excellent GMs, but I've been a part of lots of excellent sessions.

I suppose how important you consider the GM depends in part on what you consider his role to be. I generally include the preparation stage of adventure and encounter design as part of a GM's responsibility. I would think it's difficult to overestimate how important those foundational aspects are to the success of a game session. I would also contend that people with the ability, time and energy to prepare adventures successfully and consistently are a distinct minority among the total population of potential gamers.

Even leaving that aside, I would argue that the GM's actual role at the table is the single largest factor in determining how much fun the group is going to have for the evening. I think RPGA play is instructive--even with everyone playing the same adventure with the same rules and restrictions, there is an overwhelming difference in level of enjoyment based on the quality of the GM.

Sure, I've had fun in games with a good group of friends and a bad GM, as well as with a bad group of players and a good GM.

The difference is that, in the former case, my enjoyment was more because of the people I was spending time with than what we were doing. A group of friends who have a great time getting together just to hang out can certainly have a great time getting together to hang out while a D&D game goes on in the background, but that really doesn't tell us anything about the ability of the game itself to create an enjoyable experience. In the latter case, the enjoyment, while decreased from what it could have been, sprang from the game itself and the skillful running thereof.

Bad GMs just aren't an epidemic (but, rather, are self-correcting), & people are having lots of fun with mediocre GMs every day.

Sure, but it's self-correcting in the sense that players who can't find a good GM might instead find another hobby. That does not strike me as a good thing.

 

[MerricB]

What about something like Arkham Horror? I've been meaning to pick it up for a while, and I'd love to hear your opinion of it.

I love Arkham Horror as a solo game, but as multiplayer, it has *way* too much player downtime and takes too long. It's got a great feel, but ultimately you feel like you're playing a game, and don't have enough input into creating a story.

Not to say that you can't create stories about your experiences (see here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/167433 ).

My review of the solo game of Arkham Horror is here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1325784#1325784

Cheers!

 

[Zoatebix]

I guess I'll look over at boardgamegeek rather than bug you here about Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10547).

Thank you so much!
-George

 

[Glyfair]

Ryan has an interesting example of what a game might look like in his vision here. It's not the intent (the intent is to answer another question), it basically shows how Star Wars might have worked if run as a game.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not “play a role”. The goal of the hobby community is “tell a great story”. Roleplaying is a tactic, not a strategy. Some participants want to play roles, and that’s fine. Others want to provide narrative structure. Still others want to create systems for interaction and adjudication. And another group wants to generate environments. All of these people need to be made co-equal for the hobby to succeed long term.

Therefore, I think we need to engage in metamorphosis from “roleplaying games” to “storytelling games”. And in that change lies the seeds of our success.

I definately agree to this, but the other part of role-playing games that I really enjoy which they have not mentioned (in this quote anyway) is the "building up" aspect. Attaining that new level, the new feats, spells, abilities, etc. For me, this is just as much fun and just as important as a good story and playing out believeable characters. I think this is the aspect of MMORPGs they are trying to capture, and I don't see why that aspect is such a bad thing since it does not affect story telling or roleplaying.

 

[Glyfair]

Ryan has posted a new entry which essentially shows how the classic Dragon's Lair game would be run as a storytelling game.

 

[jasin]

All the #1 envelopes are opened at the start of the session. The #2 envelopes are opened when the dragon has lost 1/3rd of its health, and the #3 envelopes will be opened when it has lost 2/3rds of its health.

I found it funny how much this reminded me of the dragon fight on WotC's site, where the dragon breathes after the fighter takes him down below half hp.