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

[Zoatebix]

I'm with you. I really really don't like Ron's writing. It's the big reason why I haven't picked up Sorcerer, even though I've liked every game I've ever bought that said it was influence by it.

 

[Bagpuss]

That's an interesting idea that the "power gamers" won't hang around on the tabletop too much longer. Not sure whether I agree or not. I think I agree in theory, but I'm not so sure in practice.

Again I agree in theory, if there was only one variable to power gamers reasons for playing an RPG, but it fails to take into account cost (although a PG that is too cheap to afford a $15 a month MMORPG subscription is perhaps not the sort of RPG customer they want?), another is the social side. Chatting with strangers or even friends over the internet is not the same as meeting up with mates on a Sunday night and having a chat over pizza before gaming.

Considering the Power Gamers generally have the least amount of time invested in RPGs "away from table" (IE: They level up their characters, but they aren't writing essays about their backstory), I don't see why they can't find the time for both MMORPG and table-top.

I don't think writing off 22% of your existing customer base is a good way to save the industry.

They could do with doing that survey again to see if RPGs are really looseing that part of the demographic, becuase according to Ryan the balance should be very different now.

 

[Alnag]

I must admit, that I am seriously surprised by Ryan Dancey's conclusion of his article series. I was seeing the course he is heading, but I didn't wanted to belive. I mean, his (Dancey's) research about 2 axis model and what players want etc. is usually used as counterargument to Ron Edwards GNS/Big Model.*

You simply can hold both grounds at once, either work one or the second. These are in contradiction. Yet Ryan Dancey somehow doesn't see this as a problem and goes directly from that resarch to indie gaming. I can say only WOW!

 

[RFisher]

[...] another is the social side. Chatting with strangers or even friends over the internet is not the same as meeting up with mates on a Sunday night and having a chat over pizza before gaming.

I feel the same way, but I've got some old friends who have really pushed me to get an XBox so that I could join in on some of the multiplayer games because that really is how they keep in touch with each other.

 

[apoptosis]

Well Ryan has suggested changing the second part. He's suggesting they be DMed by more than one human being at a time.

I personally think that won't work as an absolute goal. However, the general concept of moving some of the responsibility for the game from the DM to the players (or elsewhere) is a good one. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the DM. I'm suggesting moving some of the weight elsewhere.

Frankly games like Shadow of Yesteryear, Burning Wheel and Sorcerer (among others) have already created the basic engines for doing this. It is not removing or even alternating GMing so much as letting the players have dramatic, scene and story control.

A storytelling system is not one where the DM tells a story but where the players tell a story. These games are set up so that the story is based off the characters. XP, advancement bonuses to checks..most of the engine of the game is really based on what the players want from the story.

A good example of storytelling control by the player is from Burning Wheel's contact (or circles) rules. If the player wants there to be some sort of NPC in the city. If the roll is successful the player describes the NPC that they want to contact adn that contact has a benign disposition/goal to the character. A failed roll means that the NPC exists but has conflicting goals with the player.

In this case the player has brought in some storytelling control into the story.

I feel this is more what RyanD was saying; but i could be completely wrong.

 

[RyanD]

his (Dancey's) research about 2 axis model and what players want etc. is usually used as counterargument to Ron Edwards GNS/Big Model.*

The GNS model is a good model for the taxonomy of RPGs. It can be used fairly accurately to describe almost any RPG, and differentiate it (or identify it) with others. It is a very useful tool.

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.

Work still needs to be done to map GNS game taxonomy to WotC player psychographic preferences. In other words, we should study how the WotC player segments respond to different values on the GNS model to see if there are high-value peaks, and low value valleys. Those peaks and valleys could then become design objectives (and things to avoid in design). We would likely find assumptions challenged - there are probably peaks in unexpected places, and valleys where the conventional wisdom perceives high value.

I'm hopeful that at some point that work can be attempted.

Ryan

 

[Glyfair]

Updated with the final post. Nothing really new in it, but it is a nice summation of the previous posts. Oddly enough, a good place to point people so they can decide whether they want to read his ideas in detail.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

In D&D, the brilliance of a game session can go beyond the potential of the written rules to express the brilliance of the individuals who are playing. As a game of the imagination, it can go far beyond the letter of the written rule. This open-ended nature allows for imagination, creativity, vision, knowledge and even common sense to supplement the rules and create an infinitely more complex play experience.

The "human element" is what makes D&D great.

Yes, the problem is that, while a great GM can make for a great game, there's really not that many great GMs. In a sense, most people who play D&D (or even RPGs in general) are self-selected, to the extent that we all either are, have or have had a great GM in our play group. I would expect that posters on ENWorld are even more self-selected, with a large majority being comfortable GMing.

That's not the norm. Most people who play D&D do just that; they don't have the time, ability, skill or inclination to GM, and have been lucky enough to attach themselves to someone who can provide them with the play experience they want.

If a group of friends want to play a board game, a collectible card game, an online game, a video game or what not, they go out and purchase the game, might spend some time reading the rules, and then all sit down and play.

In D&D (and most RPGs), the most important part of the play experience can't be purchased in a box set. If no one in your group of friends has the time, ability and skill to be at least a marginally competent GM, you simply can't play, so you move on to some other recreational activity.

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 could easily be persuaded that removing the GM bottleneck is a necessity if RPGs ever want to be more than a dying niche market.

 

[apoptosis]

The GNS model is a good model for the taxonomy of RPGs. It can be used fairly accurately to describe almost any RPG, and differentiate it (or identify it) with others. It is a very useful tool.

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.

Work still needs to be done to map GNS game taxonomy to WotC player psychographic preferences. In other words, we should study how the WotC player segments respond to different values on the GNS model to see if there are high-value peaks, and low value valleys. Those peaks and valleys could then become design objectives (and things to avoid in design). We would likely find assumptions challenged - there are probably peaks in unexpected places, and valleys where the conventional wisdom perceives high value.

I'm hopeful that at some point that work can be attempted.

Ryan

This is very interesting, could you elaborate

 

[Bagpuss]

I could easily be persuaded that removing the GM bottleneck is a necessity if RPGs ever want to be more than a dying niche market.

I don't think you remove that bottleneck by making everyone need to GM to some extent, which is what a lot of these Story lead games seem to do.