Well, the gaming theory is quite well defined since early 1980's and current studies agree that we have 4 major player stereotypes.silva wrote:I think acknowledging there are clearly different gaming styles and mindsets is the first step. ?
What makes an RPG good?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: What makes an RPG good?
And what 4 major stereotypes would that be?
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Thats interesting, Nikita. But notice that even (roleplaying) gaming theory itself may change from crowd to crowd. Ie: whats your crowd preferred one ? Robin Laws stances (73% method-actor, 10% tactician, etc), rec.advocacy Threefold Model (Gamist, Dramatist, Simulationist), Ron Edwards Big Model, or something else entirely ?
Also, some crowds dont adhere to the mainstream market and behaviour, as seen in the old-school / retro-clones and indie / storygame crowds for example. Dont know if "stayin power" and "franchises" are as valid criteria and concept for quality with these demographics. It could be, though I tend to see these guys more attached to specific styles and flavours than specific games names, if that makes sense (that would explain the influx of so many new retro-clones instead of just, you know, using your old Mentzer edition, or the huge number of Fate and *World hacks instead of just using the base game. Or perhaps this has something to do with business models, where the mainstream tends to be more attached to franchises resulting in "GURPS this" and "GURPS that", while the indie scene if more lax in this regard, dont know).
While I think staying power may be an indicator of quality, I suspect it will not always be the case. Shadowrun is proof of that, since its considered a poor ruleset by a number of distinct crowds (arguably even its own target one) and is one of the greatest "staying powers" in the market. The same can be said to some editions of D&D.Laertes wrote:To me the real question is "How much staying power is the *World franchise going to have?" D&D, Shadowrun, Ars Magica and Paranoia are incredibly old brands by RPG standards.
Also, some crowds dont adhere to the mainstream market and behaviour, as seen in the old-school / retro-clones and indie / storygame crowds for example. Dont know if "stayin power" and "franchises" are as valid criteria and concept for quality with these demographics. It could be, though I tend to see these guys more attached to specific styles and flavours than specific games names, if that makes sense (that would explain the influx of so many new retro-clones instead of just, you know, using your old Mentzer edition, or the huge number of Fate and *World hacks instead of just using the base game. Or perhaps this has something to do with business models, where the mainstream tends to be more attached to franchises resulting in "GURPS this" and "GURPS that", while the indie scene if more lax in this regard, dont know).
Last edited by silva on Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
That's an attempt at parody right?
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
-
Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
silva wrote: While I think staying power may be an indicator of quality, I suspect it will not always be the case. Shadowrun is proof of that, since its considered a poor ruleset by a number of distinct crowds (arguably even its own target one) and is one of the greatest "staying powers" in the market. The same can be said to some editions of D&D.
Shadowrun isn't the complete failure you make it out to be though. The pitch, aesthetic and setting conceits are demonstrably capable of resonating with people for quite some time and that can and should be considered when deciding if a game is a net contributor to the hobby. Some people want more than just a tool set when they purchase a game, and that's something a lot of games don't even attempt to address.
bears fall, everyone dies
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3507
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
While I don't disagree with Laertes about 'staying power' as a potential way to evaluate established games, projecting 20 years into the future can't really apply to a discussion about what is good 'now'. The only way to find out if you're right is to wait 20 years and try to pick up the conversation then.
Ultimately, I think that 'the best games' have staying power because they're the best games - though luck has something to do with that, too. A theoretically 'better game' that has too little exposure may fall through the cracks. Because of the high barrier to entry for most RPGs (even an easy game still requires at least 5 minutes of explaining how it works - and that's too much for some people that already have a game they like), consumers don't have 'perfect information'.
The hobby also has rampant fanboyism where whatever game you happen to play is considered the best because you don't have anything to compare it to. People that have widely played multiple systems are something of an anomaly - most people play one or two systems that they're most comfortable with - or if exposed to other systems, it often tends to be a few games... Very few people play multiple multi-year campaigns with a half-dozen or more systems. One reason I was drawn to the den is that folks here can compare and contrast between different systems more than most boards.
In any case, 'best' ultimately is a subjective determination, and even if the 'game' they voted for is the one they fixed with extensive mind-caulking, they might be right for their particular needs. That doesn't make the game 'actually great' - and when people point out where the game fails mechanically, I think that's a good thing. Call it great, call it terrible - those are matters of opinion. But show where it fails and even if you think it's great, you'll learn something.
Ultimately, I think that 'the best games' have staying power because they're the best games - though luck has something to do with that, too. A theoretically 'better game' that has too little exposure may fall through the cracks. Because of the high barrier to entry for most RPGs (even an easy game still requires at least 5 minutes of explaining how it works - and that's too much for some people that already have a game they like), consumers don't have 'perfect information'.
The hobby also has rampant fanboyism where whatever game you happen to play is considered the best because you don't have anything to compare it to. People that have widely played multiple systems are something of an anomaly - most people play one or two systems that they're most comfortable with - or if exposed to other systems, it often tends to be a few games... Very few people play multiple multi-year campaigns with a half-dozen or more systems. One reason I was drawn to the den is that folks here can compare and contrast between different systems more than most boards.
In any case, 'best' ultimately is a subjective determination, and even if the 'game' they voted for is the one they fixed with extensive mind-caulking, they might be right for their particular needs. That doesn't make the game 'actually great' - and when people point out where the game fails mechanically, I think that's a good thing. Call it great, call it terrible - those are matters of opinion. But show where it fails and even if you think it's great, you'll learn something.
I would say that serious player type theory thinking is all based on Bartle and his work. It is the one I use in my teaching.silva wrote:Thats interesting, Nikita. But notice that even (roleplaying) gaming theory itself may change from crowd to crowd. Ie: whats your crowd preferred one ? Robin Laws stances (73% method-actor, 10% tactician, etc), rec.advocacy Threefold Model (Gamist, Dramatist, Simulationist), Ron Edwards Big Model, or something else entirely ?
-
TheNotoriousAMP
- Journeyman
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:59 am
- Location: St. Louis
Considering that most gaming groups tend to stray more on the magical tea party side of things, clunky games like Shadowrun and The World of series aren't as handicapped as a lot of people think. They have a fantastic atmosphere and set up a nice framework for people to do cool shit while ignoring stuff they don't like. Its when they encounter people who are a bit more serious about it that it all turns to shit.
LARIATOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
Yeah, I usually approach RPGs from the standpoint that even if I don't like it mechanically I can probably at least raid the setting info for ideas. It's why I tend to look askance at games that contain a scant few mechanics and then tell me to come up with everything else my own damn self. It's like hey, asshole, thanks for nothing.
bears fall, everyone dies
Well put.OgreBattle wrote:IDEALLY:
-Rules are as simple to grasp yet can resolve complex situations
-Character choices are meaningful without being cluttered
-The game sets out to accomplish what it states it's mission was
PRACTICALLY:
You played with a game master/DM that was charismatic and good at presenting the story. Your party members were people you can get along with. The chair you sat on was comfortable and the snacks were tasty.
There is a stark difference between those though: Shadowrun is louded despite its rules, while Apocalypse World and its hacks are louded because of it.TheNotoriousAMP wrote:Considering that most gaming groups tend to stray more on the magical tea party side of things, clunky games like Shadowrun and The World of series aren't as handicapped as a lot of people think. They have a fantastic atmosphere and set up a nice framework for people to do cool shit while ignoring stuff they don't like. Its when they encounter people who are a bit more serious about it that it all turns to shit.
Though I agree that setting, color and premise are important elements of (roleplaying) gaming, and for that I give Shadowrun all the credit (its the most "playable" premise of all games I know, and one of the more "converted to other rules systems" settings out there).
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
Interesting. Could you point me to some online source of info ? Ive found very little through google. Thanks.nikita wrote:I would say that serious player type theory thinking is all based on Bartle and his work. It is the one I use in my teaching.
Last edited by silva on Sun Jul 20, 2014 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
silva wrote:There is a stark difference between those though: Shadowrun is louded despite its rules, while Apocalypse World and its hacks are louded because of it.
What these rules you speak of kemosabe. BearWorld has no rules, just a series of prompts for the MC to Magic Tea Party at you. We've been over this before.
-
Ancient History
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 12708
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm
Totally agree wih Ancient here. The problem is that this is a totally subjective thing. What is exciting for you can be bland and boring for me and vice-versa. Thats why I think its more practical trying to identify what traits are more / less valued by the different existing crowds and styles - trying to define whats absolutely right or wrong will tell more about our own personal preferences than anything else.
Last edited by silva on Sun Jul 20, 2014 6:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
A good system, a good setting, a good hook, a good referee, and good friends.
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
You have not heard of Richard A. Bartle? I am VERY surprised. His book Designing Virtual Worlds is the basis of everything in this field. You can buy it from Amazon (I got mine from one game researcher eons ago when I started teaching game making and design).silva wrote:Interesting. Could you point me to some online source of info ? Ive found very little through google. Thanks.nikita wrote:I would say that serious player type theory thinking is all based on Bartle and his work. It is the one I use in my teaching.
The four player types are: Killer, Explorer, Achiever and Socializer. Surely they are known to everyone?
Don't think so. Write it up!
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
I have heard of the test. But I've never heard of anyone taking it seriously.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
-
...You Lost Me
- Duke
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am
That's also what I thought. "Achievers" can't even be a thing in a TTRPG.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
Sure they can. It maps almost perfectly to the Taylor-Hickman kill/talk/solve paradigm as "solve," and I've found that to be the most useful paradigm in thinking about how to design for specific players (though admittedly, it's as poorly defined as G/N/S). In fact, the only difference I see is that Taylor collapses explore and socialize into talking, but IMHO that's ontologically reasonable.
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
-
Cyberzombie
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:12 am
Shadowrun designed a great setting that people love and see potential in. Even if the rules are terrible, people will keep buying each new edition hoping that it can actually deliver on executing that setting in a fun fashion.Whipstitch wrote: Shadowrun isn't the complete failure you make it out to be though. The pitch, aesthetic and setting conceits are demonstrably capable of resonating with people for quite some time and that can and should be considered when deciding if a game is a net contributor to the hobby. Some people want more than just a tool set when they purchase a game, and that's something a lot of games don't even attempt to address.
As an RPG company, it's a lot better to get a good setting than good rules. People will keep buying edition after edition of garbage rules for a good setting, but once you publish a good set of rules, it's very difficult to top it and keep people getting the upgrades.