Here's a thing you notice if you hang out in fan spaces--I'll use comics as an example because with games it'd be confusing.
A comics critic/pundit/gadfly starts talking: "Batman Batman Batman Spider-Man Iron Man Batman Superman X-Man X-Men Spider-Man Batman"
But then they're asked what their favorite comic of the year is--is it any of those superhero comics? No it is not. It is some indie comic they haven't mentioned all year.
They then go back to talking about Spider-Man and Batman.
--
I don't think they're being disingenuous or just trying to sound smart. I think that person genuinely does like the niche indie comic that they are trumpeting far more than the latest iteration of the fannish pop stuff they spend most of their free time in the fan-space talking about--even when they're not being paid to talk about that popular market-dominating thing.
Because the thing is, no matter how much you love any slice-of-life indie comic: it started, it ran for a few years or months, and then it ended.
Batman, on the other hand, not only has had thousands of stories, not only has been in print since 1939, not only is connected to Wonder Woman, Aquaman and every other character in his publisher's intellectual-property universe, not only has been translated into every medium imaginable where even more stories are being produced, but also: will have a dozen more stories out next month.
If you want to talk about only what is topical and what just happened--your favorite indie comic is over when it's over. Batman is still making moves. Stupid moves, maybe, but who doesn't want to talk about stupidity?
Even if (and perhaps especially if) all you have to say is how bad the new Batman material is compared to the stuff you like, there is always something to talk about. Whereas your favorite indie book is just sitting there, still being done and finished and not breaking news.
--
This isn't just about market share or popularity--it's about the content mill continuously putting the subject in the commentators' head. There's always something new going on with the X-Men, even if it's not new. You can't say that about Maus.
In the world of RPGs the equivalent isn't just a product with a content mill (like D&D or Pathfinder) it's a campaign.
Lots of you have off-label favorite games. Maybe you even get to play them once in a while. But what do you talk about, spread the word about, kibitz about? Your favorite game over and over? No: you talk about the campaign you're in.
You talk about what's going on--even if you like Barbarians of Lemuria better you're still talking about the breaking news: what happened in your D&D campaign.
--
I especially think about this in terms of the games from the indie RPG boom that are mainly good for one-shots: they have limited popularity not just because they're one-shots (there are, for example, indie-crazy groups happy to try a different indie game every month) but because you just don't want to keep talking about a single session that happened 4 months ago.
Despite indie rhetoric that games designed for one-shots and mini-campaigns should be more popular with busy adults than the time-consuming, scheduling-nightmare, lore-heavy, years-before-you-even-get-to-cast-Fireball-gorilla in the game store that is Dungeons & Dragons, the fact is that life-devouring games just make you talk more about them, which means people hear about them more, which means they get popular.
I also wonder this: do one-shot-friendly games have a popularity ceiling? Like: a point of popularity past which they just can't grow?
I don't know. Anyway I guess we'll eventually find out.
--
14 comments:
@Ωmega
I think there's a mistake in that theory:
if you "put them away" then they aren't "better designed". Well-designed means you play it.
Part of the thing of D&D (and RIFTS and Shadowrun and a lot of other games like them) is they are more ambitious in terms of content than a typical indie game:
They take on more different situations and try to enable more different kinds of play so they have more scope to fuck up.
If your game has no special psionics rules it can't fuck up the psionics rules.
Those other games just take on less. It's not a fair fight judging which is "better designed" in that context.
@Ωmega
I would say it's less that D&D people -like- to argue about the rules and more that the D&D rules are trying to do more things.
In more elegant systems, you just go "Oh you can't do that" or "Ok the rules don't know the difference between those two things but sure".
D&D wants to enable pretty much any action you could ever take and when the difference matters, notice it. That's always going to be hard.
@Ωmega
I said the reason for what we're talking about this is this thing I said before:
"I would say it's less that D&D people -like- to argue about the rules and more that the D&D rules are trying to do more things."
Either you think that's true or you don't.
Which?
@ Ωmega
So your evidence that these arguments are more about
-"People like arguments"
rather than (basically)
-"Its an amibtious game so there's lots to argue about"
Is that
"There were arguments early and often"
But this isn't conclusive:
there are LOTS of human endeavors full of arguments, it doesn't mean that the only reason for them is because the people involved like to argue. Arguments can happen because an endeavor puts disparate people together, because the stakes are high, because it benefits someone involved for their to be an argument etc.
Do you have any better evidence for your claim than
"There were arguments early and often"
?
@Omega
"the discussion about whether descending or ascending AC is better? That’s not a discussion about D&D trying to do more than an Indy RPG of some different genre or type."
Incorrect claim:
Descending AC is a result of D&D doing something Indies did not do: it came out first.
Because it came out first, D&D had an eccentric practice: a lot of different inconsistent scales for rating things, including armor. This was later abandoned or became less popular.
Descending AC, ability scores 3-18, skills on percentage dice--these are all artifacts of D&D's trying to cover all these different situations and cover them very early in the history of the hobby.
If D&D had been The Pool and had a unified mechanic for task resolution (so more universal but less detailed about which factors affect what) this would not have been there.
If the only way to win a fight is roll your own PC's unmodifiable stat which doesnt change based on enemy armor or wind conditions or who goes first, or how many times the target's been hit already, or any of the million other things that can affect trying to hit someone in D&D, then there's less mechanics to discuss.
@Ωmega
I am going to have to repeat myself because both of these answers appear to go around the clearer claim.
1. My claim:
D&D has lots of arguments because it was ambitious so had detailed rules.
Your claim:
D&D has lots of arguments because the people who play liked arguing.
------
2. Your evidence that these arguments are more about
-"People like arguments"
rather than (basically)
-"Its an amibtious game so there's lots to argue about"
Is that
"There were arguments early and often"
(IT IS NOT CONTESTED THAT THERE WERE ARGUMENTS EARLY AND OFTEN)
But this isn't conclusive:
there are LOTS of human endeavors full of arguments, it doesn't mean that the only reason for them is because the people involved like to argue. Arguments can happen because an endeavor puts disparate people together, because the stakes are high, because it benefits someone involved for their to be an argument etc.
Do you have any better evidence for your claim than
"There were arguments early and often"
?
3. You then posted an example of an argument that _wasn't_ about D&D trying to do something indie games weren't but I then posted proof you were wrong.
D&D was trying to do something the indies weren't doing: being first and inventing the genre. Therefore they were taking on a burden the indies weren't.
-
Please address at least #3 above.
Please address (in short sentences, if possible) any mistakes I made summarizing your claims.
Please do -not- repeat your thesis or any other claims you've already made.
Please do -not- attempt to prove uncontested claims (like the claim that there were arguments early and often).
@Ωmega
ok, so:
-In SHORT sentences
and
-WITHout repeating any uncontested claims.
and
-WITHout introducing new claims.
Please say
-The difference between my summary and your argument.
-Then state, in clear english, how you would like to phrase the claim you made which I apparently misinterpreted based on your comment "...Because D&D people *like* to argue about the game." above at September 14, 2023 at 12:52 PM.
-Your restated claim (if I understand it) will be the one I address in my next comment
The simpler you can say that, with as fw digressions as possible, the easier it will be to have, learn from, and finish the conversaton.
@Ωmega
I still don't know which of those things your thesis sentence is.
For clarity's sake, to make the discussion more efficient:
Can you please just
Write out your thesis sentence, like "I believe x is because of y".
?
Just please do that so that this discussion can move forward.
@Ωmega
You didn't answer the question you were asked. You're banned and your comments are deleted.
Please stop abusing people on the internet and seek therapy for your problem.
If you believe you received this message in error, email: zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm.
What's your definition of a one-shot-friendly game?
@Simon
its vague-- but one where play does not change significantly as characters return session after session. Or one where play changes less significantly than it does in other games.
Great post as always Zak. Really made me think. Which is of course the point. I will post a brief side note, campaigns are always on my mind. Well world building is, it's what keeps my mind occupied when I'm going thru shit. Even if it doesn't see the light of day. The title of the post reminded me of this. I agree about having a busy life and one shots being fun, they do have a ceiling. Recently a bunch of buddies have decided to run one game a month, DMS choice, all one shots and it's been quite fun trying out new systems. My next actual campaign is going to be old school fighting fantasy. I'm excited.
Hi Zak. I'm new to your stuff. I began reading A Red and Pleasant Land & Vornheim for the first time this week and I'm impressed. I'm back to the game after a 30 year stop. I'm introducing the game to my 8 and 11 years old. Your content is perfect for the style of play I want. It's extremely inspiring.
Thank you.
Eric
Montreal
@Eric
Thanks Eric!
Post a Comment