Nisarg said:
Wow.. now this really is absurd.. are you seriously falling for this idea that before WW no one roleplayed about anything but killing? It was ALL hack and slash before vampire?
Were you even roleplaying back then? Because i was and I assure you that Vampire added exactly NOTHING to the roleplaying world, other than a game about vampires.. and pretentiousness.
They certainly were not the first to introduce the idea of Role playing. Or even of serious issues in roleplaying. If you really think that, you are seriously mistaken.
Amber, which is a far more sophisticated game, was around since 1986. Call of Cthulhu was around from the very early days, as was Traveller, and neither of those were what you could call Hack n'Slash games. Space 1889, many of the GURPS settings, all these and more were around and doing intelligent roleplay LONG before Vampire.
Even D&D; I was playing and running serious, non-combat oriented campaigns long before Vampire. So were many people, I assume.
That's what gets me about Vampire.. they created and continue to create this lie that there was no good roleplaying going on before VtM. And that other systems are somehow inferior at doing good roleplay. And that story-based is the best way to roleplay. And that WoD continues to be the best way to roleplay, or indeed ever was.
Yep, I've been gaming since 1982, so I've played and run a ton of games, many of which most people I mention them to don't even recognize. And no, I don't for a moment pretend that WW invented deeper roleplaying for RPGs, but they are the first ones that really popularized it due to a successful game line. CoC could have intensive RP moments with the right group, but it mostly consisted of one-shots or very short campaigns (for obvious reasons). Amber is another good example of a heavy RP game, but also a very fringe one few people play. And probably the best RP heavy game, Ars Magica, has been around since 1986. Look at the modules published for those relatively obscure games, and then compare to the D&D modules at the same time. The D&D modules were much more focused on looting, killing, and treasure acquisition. And since most people at that time equated roleplaying with D&D, they never really branched out from the typical dungeon delve.
Nisarg said:
Yes indeed, CCGs were bad for roleplaying. No debate there.
And indeed, TSR was being mismanaged, again no argument with you there.
However, the reason CCGs had as much drain from RPGs as they did was because RPGs (due to TSRs mismanagement and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of WW's success) had become something that was less than fun.
You hit the nail right on the head about younger players: they could quickly put to gether a game of magic, but couldn't quickly put together an RPG game.. why? because RPGs went from being easy and fun to being these complex monstrosities where the emphasis was ALWAYS on having to play serious campaign-level stuff, the systems got more complex, and the books became unpalatable to younger readers.
In the 70s and 80s, you COULD make up a character in a few mins and start playing right away. By the 90s, because of story-based gaming theory, you couldn't do that anymore. You also had to buy far more books than before, and you had to suffer through pages of bad game-fiction to get to the rules.
CCG's were just an opportunistic infection. RPGs failed in the 90s because of a massive failure of vision and leadership. Everyone got on the WW story-based bandwagon to nowhere.
Well, while RPGs might have become less fun for you in that time period, that isn't a blanket statement you can make objectively. Unless I remember incorrectly, the core mechanics of AD&D between 1st and 2nd edition didn't change much (with the exception of the optional splatbooks), and most game systems that had been through several editions at that point in time had almost identical rulesets to the previous editions. That indicates the game itself was not what was no longer fun, but the way in which is was played by the group. I used to buy almost all of the AD&D Greyhawk, Birthright, and generic adventures, although I rarely ran them as they were packaged. Instead, I modified them, and adapted them to my campaign. However, I did run a few of the newer "story-driven" modules as-is, and my group enjoyed them as much as the older D&D dungeon hack modules. For the most part though, I made up my own adventures (and still do), which are much more RP and story focused rather than "location-based" (to use 3E terminology). I think the reason some people disliked the more plot-driven adventures is because the problem couldn't be solved by simply killing the enemy- it required a different sort of problem-solving mindset. The WW games are definitely not the "kill it and the problem goes away" kind of game. They are designed by their nature to be about character development, internal character conflicts, politics, relationships, and horror, in addition to butt-whoopin'. D&D is designed to be primarily be about butt-whoopin', with almost no consideration given to character development (past ability increases), internal character conflict, relationships, and politics in the core books. While you can play D&D with these elements easily, and WW games with only butt-whoopin', most people don't simply because the books don't present it as a viable play style for that game.
Splatbook proliferation has been with us since 2E with the "Complete Guide to ...". WW continued that trend, and D&D 3E has mastered the splatbook proliferation. As systems develop, character creation becomes more complicated, regardless of the seriousness or "story-driveness" of the game- just look at 3E. Character creation in 3E can easily take at least 30-60 min, even for an experienced player, due to skills, feats, equipment, etc. The WW games can also take a while, but generally aren't as tedious as 3E for character creation. The king of horrendous character creation is HERO- to the point of the system being basically unplayable. Basically, the more options and customizibility people want in a game, the more complex the character creation becomes. I will agree though, most game fiction I've read goes from mediocre at best to hideously painful at worst (with the WW stuff being mostly hideously painful, with a few really good pieces of fiction).
Nisarg said:
I never implied that WW intentionally WANTED to set out to kill gaming. It was unintentional. You might find on RPG.net when this same debate fired up I even admitted that their strategy worked perfectly well FOR THEM.
The real fault was in the other companies trying to follow their design theory, which didn't work because it wasn't aimed at the majority of exissting roleplayers, it was aimed at an outside group (goths and vampire fans). But the majority of the members of these other groups weren't going to go for D&D, or GURPS, or any other "orthodox" rpg, no matter how hard they tried. And in switching to this story-based format, these orthodox companies lost their fan base.
And I also saw a few people switch over to WW, the minority.. the majority left roleplaying altogether. Virtually none of the people I gamed with back then are gaming today, on the whole, story-based gaming devastated the fan base.
Nisarg
Ok, I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth when I thought you said WW wanted to kill gaming. In my experience, most people who became disaffected with D&D moved to other systems, namely GURPS, HERO, or WW games (sometimes Palladium, but we won't go there). VERY few people I knew who played WW games were goths, most were the same guys who had been playing D&D, but wanted to try something fresh. And apparently the WW idea of a story-driven game with heavy metaplot DOES work in D&D- just look at the Scarred Lands, which is one of the most popular 3E settings. Heck, even the Realms has heavy metaplot (and always has as far back as the late 80s), and it is probably the best selling campaign world of all time. The people I knew who left roleplaying entirely were "weekend gamers"- people who played because their friends did, but who didn't have a great deal of interest in the game itself. I think you are far overestimating the importance and impact WW had on the gaming community, and laying blame for a problem that really didn't exist to most people.
I still don't see the causal connection between more story-oriented gaming products and the shrinkage of the RPG industry in the mid 90s. To me, I saw the CCG craze hit, and people who had played in high school and college leave the game due to real-life responsibilities, not due to a perceived problem with the game or its support. In fact, from having two close friends who run/used to run gaming stores, they can tell you that where kids used to come in and buy D&D or gaming books, they would during those years (and even today) come in and buy CCGs because the RPGs "were too complex and boring." I think that has to do more with today's immediate gratification culture than with story oriented RPGs. Heck, 3E capitalized on the immediate gratification need by making D&D more about powerups and cool powers at each level than previous editions. And yes, it worked- more kids are getting involved in D&D now than they were previously, but it has also meant a simplification in the scope of D&D- the "back to the dungeon" design philosophy. While I don't agree with balancing the classes for only dungeoncrawls instead of in a wide array of adventuring environments, I can see why it was done, and I can tweak the game in such a way that it suits my playstyle.
