LINKEDIN RPG Group - Lowering The Learning Curve
May 20, 2012 6:18:08 GMT -8
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 20, 2012 6:18:08 GMT -8
There is an interesting topic, featuring a great many designers, on the Role Playing Game Designers LinkedIn group operated by William Bradford.
I like LinkedIn groups because of the diversity of people on them. They're a good place to have a forum because assholes tend to think twice before posting with their real name attached to their resume. That's not to say the topics are milquetoast consensus building. But consensus, sometimes quite ardently expressed, remains polite. (It's also a great way to network for a job by getting acquainted with fellow hobbyists in your extended network.)
The topic is: "Lowering The Learning Curve" (referring to attracting new gamers, a topic on here as well). If you are on LinkedIn, you can check it out here: www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=113530636&gid=94220&commentID=81344609&goback=%2Egmr_94220&trk=NUS_DIG_DISC_Q-ucg_mr#commentID_81344609
Below is a taste from the middle of this discussion written by Mikael, and I think the whole discussion is speaking to what's going on at WotC without naming names. There are allot of articulate, fierce but polite ideas going on at this Thread so I thought I would share it. It would be great to read some ideas from Happy Jacks listeners too - although maybe I have?
"• Please, someone give me a case study of a gamer who:
a) will only play, or at least very much gravitates to, only very complex systems
b) is very interested in playing in or running SEVERAL of those systems
c) (to emphasize point a) is definitely NOT interested in entertaining the notion of playing a less complex, more abstract system
d) (to emphasize point b) is NOT dead-set on ONLY playing their pet system
Until someone tells me about a friend of theirs who is exactly this, I refuse to believe such a creature exist, and the notion that anyone designs new games specifically for such a beast is ridiculous.
@robert, your paragraphs #2-3 appear exactly opposite my experience. How would making a character MORE defined (via a more complex system) allow you MORE room to explore a character concept? More definition = more constraints. More complexity = more required adherence to the premise behind those complex rules. As a case-in-point, here's Superman in very-rules-light Primetime Adventures:
Name: Clark Kent / Superman
Concept: Idealized superhero
Issue: The Weight of the World is On My Shoulders
Nemesis: Lex Luthor
Edges: Bag o' Superpowers, Secret Identity
Connections: Lois Lane
Personal Set: Skies of Metropolis
Done, 3 minutes. I could play this guy, exactly the same type of thematic elements as in the comic books or movies, for 20-30 sessions or more without it ever getting dull. I could make Batman, or hell, Perry White the exact same way. Or I could take concepts of these characters and make a new original character, borrowing bits as I please.
If I wanted to make Superman in GURPS or HERO, I'd have to get the GM to agree to give me a bucketload of points more than everyone else, and spend half a day building him. In play, I'd have to track Fatigue points and hit points and skill points. One of the game's primary goals would be to accumulate experience points so I could "improve" his already awesome powers, for some inexplicable reason. Character change (e.g. "buying off" an Enemy disadvantage) in any tangible form would come slowly, if at all. Eventually I'd run into some odd rules artifact that cause the outcome to be completely out-of-line with established fiction, like Superman rolling a critical failure and dropping Lois Lane out of the sky during a routine romantic night-time flight. And the poor sucker playing Batman will find himself with basically nothing to do, because I can do everything better than him anyway.
Of course, Primetime Adventures wouldn't be able to do blow-by-blow task resolution to see if Superman - with his super-intelligence - figures out how to disarm the booby trapped space station Lex Luthor rigged up in time or not. GURPS would handle that fantastically, but as a system would be incapable of determining the fallout between Clark and Lois when Superman goes to save the world instead of taking her on a date.
The systems are used for different reasons, different modes of play. I fail to see any correlation between a player who wants to "explore their creativity and fun concepts they've seen in movies or books" and someone who needs a complex system. "
I like LinkedIn groups because of the diversity of people on them. They're a good place to have a forum because assholes tend to think twice before posting with their real name attached to their resume. That's not to say the topics are milquetoast consensus building. But consensus, sometimes quite ardently expressed, remains polite. (It's also a great way to network for a job by getting acquainted with fellow hobbyists in your extended network.)
The topic is: "Lowering The Learning Curve" (referring to attracting new gamers, a topic on here as well). If you are on LinkedIn, you can check it out here: www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=113530636&gid=94220&commentID=81344609&goback=%2Egmr_94220&trk=NUS_DIG_DISC_Q-ucg_mr#commentID_81344609
Below is a taste from the middle of this discussion written by Mikael, and I think the whole discussion is speaking to what's going on at WotC without naming names. There are allot of articulate, fierce but polite ideas going on at this Thread so I thought I would share it. It would be great to read some ideas from Happy Jacks listeners too - although maybe I have?
"• Please, someone give me a case study of a gamer who:
a) will only play, or at least very much gravitates to, only very complex systems
b) is very interested in playing in or running SEVERAL of those systems
c) (to emphasize point a) is definitely NOT interested in entertaining the notion of playing a less complex, more abstract system
d) (to emphasize point b) is NOT dead-set on ONLY playing their pet system
Until someone tells me about a friend of theirs who is exactly this, I refuse to believe such a creature exist, and the notion that anyone designs new games specifically for such a beast is ridiculous.
@robert, your paragraphs #2-3 appear exactly opposite my experience. How would making a character MORE defined (via a more complex system) allow you MORE room to explore a character concept? More definition = more constraints. More complexity = more required adherence to the premise behind those complex rules. As a case-in-point, here's Superman in very-rules-light Primetime Adventures:
Name: Clark Kent / Superman
Concept: Idealized superhero
Issue: The Weight of the World is On My Shoulders
Nemesis: Lex Luthor
Edges: Bag o' Superpowers, Secret Identity
Connections: Lois Lane
Personal Set: Skies of Metropolis
Done, 3 minutes. I could play this guy, exactly the same type of thematic elements as in the comic books or movies, for 20-30 sessions or more without it ever getting dull. I could make Batman, or hell, Perry White the exact same way. Or I could take concepts of these characters and make a new original character, borrowing bits as I please.
If I wanted to make Superman in GURPS or HERO, I'd have to get the GM to agree to give me a bucketload of points more than everyone else, and spend half a day building him. In play, I'd have to track Fatigue points and hit points and skill points. One of the game's primary goals would be to accumulate experience points so I could "improve" his already awesome powers, for some inexplicable reason. Character change (e.g. "buying off" an Enemy disadvantage) in any tangible form would come slowly, if at all. Eventually I'd run into some odd rules artifact that cause the outcome to be completely out-of-line with established fiction, like Superman rolling a critical failure and dropping Lois Lane out of the sky during a routine romantic night-time flight. And the poor sucker playing Batman will find himself with basically nothing to do, because I can do everything better than him anyway.
Of course, Primetime Adventures wouldn't be able to do blow-by-blow task resolution to see if Superman - with his super-intelligence - figures out how to disarm the booby trapped space station Lex Luthor rigged up in time or not. GURPS would handle that fantastically, but as a system would be incapable of determining the fallout between Clark and Lois when Superman goes to save the world instead of taking her on a date.
The systems are used for different reasons, different modes of play. I fail to see any correlation between a player who wants to "explore their creativity and fun concepts they've seen in movies or books" and someone who needs a complex system. "