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

[Ry]

personalized entertainment based around your character, that's the key.

Don't forget the DM!

 

[JDJblatherings]

I have a problem with buyign any of his reasoning because of the TV and film metaphor he uses:

"Cinemas gave the audience something that TV could not: Spectacle. Gigantic panoramic images and thundering multidirectional sound. Scaling the TV experience up to the cinema experience took nearly 50 years (and still hasn’t fully succeeded). "


uh...pardon me...TV came AFTER the Cinema.

 

[der_kluge]

I have a problem with buyign any of his reasoning because of the TV and film metaphor he uses:

"Cinemas gave the audience something that TV could not: Spectacle. Gigantic panoramic images and thundering multidirectional sound. Scaling the TV experience up to the cinema experience took nearly 50 years (and still hasn’t fully succeeded). "


uh...pardon me...TV came AFTER the Cinema.

Initially, cinema filled the role of TV - perhaps you've seen some of those early "propaganda" reels about WWII during the 40s.

TV came along, and cinema had to redefine itself - and it has, as the big budget, spectacle of entertainment that we get today. TV can't afford the multi-million dollar budgets that a movie like Transformers gets. Also, it takes years to make a movie, so a TV audience wouldn't want to wait nearly that long for the next "show" to come along. Dancey's point is that TVs are just now catching up to the kind of big spectacle entertainment that movies provide - people are building their own home theater systems, wide screen, high definition TVs, etc. For some folks (who can afford to do so), watching a movie at home is almost every bit as a good as the theater. When you can recreate the experience, the value proposition becomes diluted, and the theater no longer has a viable business model. There's no longer any significant differentiation - that's the key.

The day MMORPGs allow people to modify the campaign world, and go where they want, and do what they want, and interact with the environment in a nearly infinite amount of ways, tabletop RPGs will die.

 

[Alnag]

uh...pardon me...TV came AFTER the Cinema.

So what? Do you think, Ryan Dancey doesn't know that? Why the hell did he wrote this than?

In the 1950s the cinema industry was confronted by their worst nightmare. Technology, in the form of the television, threatened to destroy the value proposition embodied in their theaters. If people could watch movies at home, why would anyone bother to go out to the movies?

The analogy is perfect. Computer games also came AFTER the tabletop RPGs. The fact is, the it has changed the situation. Do you go to the cinema to watch news? I doubt it. Yet it was common, when there was no TV. Instead cinemas improved the experience they offer... (sound, 3D etc. and make artifical "hype" for why it is good to go to cinema instead of sitting home watching TV). Got it?

 

[GreatLemur]

Well, I'm generally leery of all attemts to rename things for the sake of public relations (Is there a person alive who doesn't roll their eyes when they recognize they're being fed a euphemism?), but if we're gonna go an do that, I think "storytelling games" is even more unwieldy than "roleplaying games" (to say nothing of the obvious White Wolf connection, however unintentional). I'd prefer to just go with "story games".

 

[Woas]

The future of TRPGs:

1. Kill the story....

2. Bring on the game...

3. Play a role...

4. Creative endeavors...

What you have written reflect my sentiments as well. Especially about the chart and importance of sales. I consider myself an "active member" of the TRPG community. I stay up-to-date on news, products, events and going-ons. But to be honest I could go several YEARS without buying an RPG book! And I have. In 2007 (around April/May) I found out about Iron Heroes and purchased a bunch of IH books. But before that, my previous RPG book purchase was nearly three years ago in 2004!
Maybe people like me are in the minority... I have no way of knowing that. But my purchasing trends are reflected in my gaming group so I must not be the only one.
The thing is though that I get fringe/accessory items like its a drug. All those little do-dads and game-aid items over on Paizo and elsewhere. I can't get enough! And that is why you're message reflects my views.

 

[Kaodi]

Creative Empowerment-Roleplaying Spectrum Disorder Games

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

uh...pardon me...TV came AFTER the Cinema.

He's referring to how cinema had to change once TV came on the scene.

 

[Glyfair]

I think that depends on who you ask. As mentioned in prior posts on this thread, different people play RPGs for different reasons. Some like character builds, some are story or character-focused, some like world-building, and so on and so forth.

And Ryan touches on that.

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.

I do think he leaves out the tactical player. Perhaps it's because he feels that can be served by WoW better and TRPGs won't be able to compete at that level. Yes, there are a lot of tactical types playing D&D, but I'll be a large number of them like the other elements as well as the tactical element they enjoy.

A lot of discussion here seems to be hung up on Ryan's choice of "storytelling game." I think his main point isn't that it's an ideal name, but that we need a new name.

1) "Playing a role" isn't the primary entertainment value of RPGs.

2) "Roleplaying game" as a term has a lot of baggage. I will argue that "D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are even more closely associated with the same stigmas.

Don't like "storytelling games" as a term? Suggest another.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I think some folks have the idea - D&D needs to be multiple kinds of games if it is to succeed. Firstly, it HAS to be simpler. One should be able to open a box/book, roll characters, and be ready to play in about 30 minutes, tops. I'd really be interested in seeing a "group study" of teenagers who were not familiar with the game at all, handed dice, a PHB, and a DMG, and told "play a game. You have 4 hours." I think for WoTC, it would be a HORRIBLE wake-up call.

In fact, I might even be tempted to do such a thing myself. Just to illustrate the point.

On the latest version of the WOTC D&D Podcast Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan mention watching a group of kids during a test group. They mention that the kids got almost everything wrong ruleswise, but they got the general gist of it and waaaaaay more importantly THEY HAD FUN.

My point? Rules mastery or even rules comprehension doesn't come overnight. I've learned and run everything from the red box basic to champions to mekton to D&D 3.5. and at some point during each one of those learning processes I've gotten something wrong at least twice or thrice. AT LEAST. I know nerds and geeks love the idea of perfection, but I'm one of those nerds who live in the real world and in the real world? The map is NOT the territory.

D&D doesn't HAVE to be simpler. It can be, but I know of 11 -13 year olds who have winged the rules until they had a decent working comprehension of them and to me there's nothing wrong with that. In the real world it's how some of us actually learn. Not by memorizing material and playing back on command but through trial and error and learning RPG's is no different. Ive found that the ones who stick with it usually have a pretty good handle on the rules in the long run.