Long-Term Trends in RPGs?

[Anders]

Originally Posted by PK

This sort of seems like a non sequitor, especially given your use of it as an example in the OP.

Only as an example of designing character, not as an example of a good system.

Ah, I shouldn't crap on systems anyway. Sorry.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As most gamers know, it's hard to find fellow gamers. However, it's even harder to find fellow gamers who enjoy a specific fictional setting. Thus, while games that adapt fiction are in theory capable of delivering richer gaming experiences, they're inferior in practice because you'll usually have to settle for the group you get, who may well not give a damn about the game's setting.

My experience must be really deviant. I have so many players that I can sort them out into multiple campaigns, each designed for one specific focus; typically I have an action-focused campaign, a socially focused campaign, and an experiment of some sort. And my players are fine with meeting monthly, so I can run three campaigns in parallel.

Most of my campaigns based on a particular fictional setting have had entirely players who were fans, who actively wanted to capture the feel of the setting, and who did a fair to excellent job of doing so. That was the case with campaigns set on the Discworld, in the Buffyverse, and in Middle-Earth, for example. I had worse luck with Zimiamvia (a Renaissance pagan fantasy world); only one of the five players actually managed to finish any of the books (but she read the entire series!)—so that campaign drifted a long way away from the source material, which seems to be the phenomenon you're describing.

Bill Stoddard

[Kromm]

Whereas with my current group . . . There's me – not a fan of fantasy or science-fiction novels, an occasional reader of military fiction, and mostly a fan of action and horror films – and then there are four regular players: a fellow cinemaphile who likes all the action stories I dislike, another cinemaphile who leans toward art films, and two readers, one of whom has a corrosive hate on for YA fiction and anything that hints at pre-1990s social values, the other of whom likes cheesecake fantasy of the sort that spills out of mail bikinis. I don't think that more than two of us have ever agreed on a film or a novel being "good." In fact, we spend an hour before each game session talking about recent reads and viewings, and mostly agreeing to disagree. Thus, I build common ground on our interests outside fiction, and I wouldn't dream of running a game that isn't in the "neutral zone" for everyone involved. My current campaign works because nobody has a strong opinion about spy stories and everybody has similar views of social justice.

Well, it also works because we're friends first. If I had a choice between "compromise subject matter, played with a group of friends" and "universally admired subject matter, played with a group of acquaintances," I'd choose the former 100% of the time. For me, gaming is a social activity first, everything else second. Thus, I favor generic systems that can be contorted to accommodate everybody's foibles over setting-specific ones that require everybody to become familiar with source material and agree to conventions.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Whereas with my current group . . . There's me – not a fan of fantasy or science-fiction novels, an occasional reader of military fiction, and mostly a fan of action and horror films – and then there are four regular players: a fellow cinemaphile who likes all the action stories I dislike, another cinemaphile who leans toward art films, and two readers, one of whom has a corrosive hate on for YA fiction and anything that hints at pre-1990s social values, the other of whom likes cheesecake fantasy of the sort that spills out of mail bikinis. I don't think that more than two of us has ever agreed on a film or a novel being "good." In fact, we spend an hour before each game session talking about recent reads and viewings, and mostly agreeing to disagree. Thus, I build common ground in our interests outside fiction, and I wouldn't dream of running a game that isn't in the "neutral zone" for everyone involved. My current campaign works because nobody has a strong opinion about spy stories and everybody has similar views of social justice.

My campaign situation is very nearly the opposite. My girlfriend and I are libertarians; all of the nine other players whom I know well enough to be sure of their political views are progressives to whom the alternative to voting Democratic is voting Green. On the other hand, virtually all of us are fans of Tolkien, Pratchett, Bujold, Whedon, and several other well-known fantasists (in the broad sense of "fantasy" that includes sf). We do have some disagreements on taste—two of my players are convinced that Dollhouse is so unspeakably evil that they won't even watch episodes—but what brings us together is that we're fans of the fantastic.

As a result, I minimize the use of real world political issues in my campaigns. I was willing to try to play a Green from Western Australia in a friend's modern supers campaign, but I like exploring alien mindsets; my players don't seem curious to get into political frames of mind they don't share—and I could lose them real fast if I thought I could preach to them.

Bill Stoddard

[Kromm]

I guess it ultimately depends on how your group was built: on common "geek" interests or on other ground. That, too, is a drift in RPG trends, by the way. In 1979, it was definitely the case that you had to have read the same books and seen the same films to fit into a gaming group. These days, most of the gaming groups that I know personally are centered on having other common interests, somebody in the clique being a gamer, and that person telling friends, "Hey, wanna try RPGs?" And I'd say that "similar politics" is in the top three "other common interests" for sure. Overlapping interests in other social activities – dance, dining, live music, parties, etc. – is also pretty high up. We've had newcomers over the years, and things like "How do you feel about burlesque?" and "Would you like a cocktail?" have carried more weight than "Do you watch Buffy?" or "How do you feel about LotR?"

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Well, it also works because we're friends first. If I had a choice between "compromise subject matter, played with a group of friends" and "universally admired subject matter, played with a group of acquaintances," I'd choose the former 100% of the time. For me, gaming is a social activity first, everything else second. Thus, I favor generic systems that can be contorted to accommodate everybody's foibles over setting-specific ones that require everybody to become familiar with source material and agree to conventions.

It is difficult for me that the majority of the people I see socially have political ideas that I don't merely disagree with but find weirdly alien. I wouldn't say I have to agree with someone's ideas to value them as a friend—but it's hard to be friends with someone to whom I can't speak my mind freely.

The other thing I'd say, though, is that I invite in some new players partly to explore whether they can become better friends. Sometimes this works.

Bill Stoddard

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by whswhs

My experience must be really deviant. I have so many players that I can sort them out into multiple campaigns, each designed for one specific focus; typically I have an action-focused campaign, a socially focused campaign, and an experiment of some sort. And my players are fine with meeting monthly, so I can run three campaigns in parallel.

once-a-month games are deviation from the norm, no matter how many you're running. From what I see, not as much as they used to be, but the norm is still the weekly game.

Tho' the norm for me used to be half-hour a day weekdays, back in high school, and lots of HS groups still do this. I know that there are still groups in my alma mater running on that same lunchtime schedule - a 45 minute lunch helps that immensely. Last time I was there, I saw 3 such groups at lunch.

I look at the trends, and see a lot more on-line games-
Voice - skype, teamspeak, ventrillo
Chat - skype, irc, icq, several dedicated VTT's.
PBF
PBEM

it's easy to find like-minded players for almost any setting - it's much harder to find them for FTF due to the need for proximity.

And I see major companies still pursing (and benefiting from) licenses...
MWP does just fine with almost exclusively licensed games, FFG isn't shy of licenses (Star Wars' system is pretty nice, and really good for the feel), Mongoose seems to love them... And BWHQ has done fine with 2 (albeit Mouse Guard was done as work for hire). Even SJG does well enough with them - the only GURPS book I've bought recently is a licensed property*.


* Vorkosigan Saga - and was generally just flat disappointed in it. Disappointed in it as a sourcebook - it's got almost nothing not in the Vorkosigan Companion - and as a standalone RPG (it's really unadapted GURPS mechanics). It did convince me that I shouldn't spend any more money on GURPS.

[DanHoward]

I might be imagining it, but I'm seeing more and more people writing their own RPGs and less and less people playing RPGs. What is the end scenario for this trend?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I might be imagining it, but I'm seeing more and more people writing their own RPGs and less and less people playing RPGs. What is the end scenario for this trend?

Modular VR world-building tools with adjustable genre and tone settings.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Modular VR world-building tools with adjustable genre and tone settings.

That's kind of how I view GURPS, FUDGE, and BESM, though the medium is not "VR" but "spoken narrative."

Bill Stoddard