“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” I’ve been thinking about this quote in relation to RPGs and more specifically traditional vs story/narrative focused games.
Do traditional players just not know the options available out there? Or are they just resistant to change?
Just a slight, probably nonsensical, thought.
I’m not quite sure of the question you’re asking. Are you asking why do traditional style gamers exist, and positing that it is either because of ignorance that there are story/narrative focused alternatives, or that they do not engage because they dislike change?
If that’s correct, and that is your question, I would say that many of them still exist because they prefer that style of gaming.
My brother is my usual example in these cases. He says he “gets” the idea of games where players enjoy a share in the narrative control, but he inherently dislikes it and is very dismissive. If asked to contribute to world-building he’d use it as an excuse to insert pieces of lore that benefit his character. If given the Fate style choice of “spend a point to make something narratively true” he’d repeatedly sit at the table spending a point to utter things like “Here’s one point. My character is immortal. Here’s another Fate point, the main villain of this campaign instantly dies.”
Which is to say he is incapable/unwilling/disinterested in engaging in making “a good story”. Instead he wants mechanical problems set before him where he can use his “character” and abilities as a tool to overcome obstacles. He views rpgs as something of a zero sum game, where he must “win” and the GM must concede defeat, or at the very least he must rack up more kills, gold and treasure than the other party members. You can imagine the scenario when he GMs a game with such an approach.
Giving him narrative control is just an exercise in futility, so as a result he is a traditional gamer. He may or may not be typical, but an emphasis on rules and mechanics (crunch) and a thorough knowledge of how to use and exploit these rules for maximum effect are the areas that give him most satisfaction.
Hope that sheds some light.
I’m not quite sure of the question you’re asking. Are you asking why do traditional style gamers exist, and positing that it is either because of ignorance that there are story/narrative focused alternatives, or that they do not engage because they dislike change?
If that’s correct, and that is your question, I would say that many of them still exist because they prefer that style of gaming.
My brother is my usual example in these cases. He says he “gets” the idea of games where players enjoy a share in the narrative control, but he inherently dislikes it and is very dismissive. If asked to contribute to world-building he’d use it as an excuse to insert pieces of lore that benefit his character. If given the Fate style choice of “spend a point to make something narratively true” he’d repeatedly sit at the table spending a point to utter things like “Here’s one point. My character is immortal. Here’s another Fate point, the main villain of this campaign instantly dies.”
Which is to say he is incapable/unwilling/disinterested in engaging in making “a good story”. Instead he wants mechanical problems set before him where he can use his “character” and abilities as a tool to overcome obstacles. He views rpgs as something of a zero sum game, where he must “win” and the GM must concede defeat, or at the very least he must rack up more kills, gold and treasure than the other party members. You can imagine the scenario when he GMs a game with such an approach.
Giving him narrative control is just an exercise in futility, so as a result he is a traditional gamer. He may or may not be typical, but an emphasis on rules and mechanics (crunch) and a thorough knowledge of how to use and exploit these rules for maximum effect are the areas that give him most satisfaction.
Hope that sheds some light.
I have several groups with with a strong interest in long running “traditional” games. This is certainly not because they haven’t experienced “story-focused” games or that they haven’t had a good time with them. There are some things you get from a leisurely campaign story that you don’t get from faster burning narrative games.
I have several groups with with a strong interest in long running “traditional” games. This is certainly not because they haven’t experienced “story-focused” games or that they haven’t had a good time with them. There are some things you get from a leisurely campaign story that you don’t get from faster burning narrative games.
For some people, what you are saying is true. I personally think there are lots of people out there who play traditional style games because they don’t know about the alternative. I was one of those people. I sometimes jokingly refer to the “gospel of Dungeon World” that brought me out of my pathfinder ways. But DW was the game I had been wanting to play and thought I was playing in other D20 systems. Once I found it, I loved it and embraced it. Jason Cordova often refers to the look in a traditional gamer’s eyes the first time it clicks for them the implications of the narrative focus of story games, and I’m sure he saw that look in my eyes as I narrated my first character (a priest of the unknown god) in his DW adventure “the temple of the viridescent wyrm.” It was such a ground breaking experience that I remember those details!
That being said, there are players out there who genuinely prefer traditional D20 gaming. They like the simulation aspects of it, they like the book keeping, they like to have more concrete rules. They are willing to sacrifice the speed of play for the richer (mechanically at least) world around them. A world where they know exactly how difficult it is to break a wooden door that is 2 inches thick, or climb a cobbled stone incline. They like to have specific rules for every detail so they know how to handle it.
Some people prefer this, but I think many many more just have not heard the gospel of DW yet.
For some people, what you are saying is true. I personally think there are lots of people out there who play traditional style games because they don’t know about the alternative. I was one of those people. I sometimes jokingly refer to the “gospel of Dungeon World” that brought me out of my pathfinder ways. But DW was the game I had been wanting to play and thought I was playing in other D20 systems. Once I found it, I loved it and embraced it. Jason Cordova often refers to the look in a traditional gamer’s eyes the first time it clicks for them the implications of the narrative focus of story games, and I’m sure he saw that look in my eyes as I narrated my first character (a priest of the unknown god) in his DW adventure “the temple of the viridescent wyrm.” It was such a ground breaking experience that I remember those details!
That being said, there are players out there who genuinely prefer traditional D20 gaming. They like the simulation aspects of it, they like the book keeping, they like to have more concrete rules. They are willing to sacrifice the speed of play for the richer (mechanically at least) world around them. A world where they know exactly how difficult it is to break a wooden door that is 2 inches thick, or climb a cobbled stone incline. They like to have specific rules for every detail so they know how to handle it.
Some people prefer this, but I think many many more just have not heard the gospel of DW yet.
Paul Ooshun I’ve met people who play like that, and frankly I have no fun gaming with them any more. I try to be very selective about who I game with since my free time has dwindled away.
I’m always open to giving people a taste of narrative focused story games, to see if they like it. But die-hard munchkins and freeform story games don’t mix well. Everyone will leave the table frowning.
RPGs are not zero-sum, and narrative control should go to the people who want to make the game fun for everyone, not just themselves.
Paul Ooshun I’ve met people who play like that, and frankly I have no fun gaming with them any more. I try to be very selective about who I game with since my free time has dwindled away.
I’m always open to giving people a taste of narrative focused story games, to see if they like it. But die-hard munchkins and freeform story games don’t mix well. Everyone will leave the table frowning.
RPGs are not zero-sum, and narrative control should go to the people who want to make the game fun for everyone, not just themselves.
I think there are a fair number of players who want a game with apects of both traditional and story games. Although introducing the story based elements can be a tough climb for some.
I think there are a fair number of players who want a game with apects of both traditional and story games. Although introducing the story based elements can be a tough climb for some.
Paul Ooshun, I’d love to run Torchbearer for your brother. Sounds like a good fit.
Paul Ooshun, I’d love to run Torchbearer for your brother. Sounds like a good fit.
I was really getting at is it a problem of exposure or lack of liking story games? I remember playing my first story games and I never knew this type of game existed, till I was exposed. Granted my sample size is small, but people that I expose to these games never go back, so why is the market so small?
I was really getting at is it a problem of exposure or lack of liking story games? I remember playing my first story games and I never knew this type of game existed, till I was exposed. Granted my sample size is small, but people that I expose to these games never go back, so why is the market so small?
Small publishers, newer games. D&D has been around for ever and relative to indie studios is giant
Small publishers, newer games. D&D has been around for ever and relative to indie studios is giant
David LaFreniere has it right I suspect, but I’d also add that the hobby can have an expensive investment element which makes investing in new titles daunting. If you own $700 of D&D supplements (and really, that wouldn’t be too hard to accumulate by the time you add in a player book, monster manuals, etc.) then picking up Dungeon World for $10 might well look more like you’re going to have to shell out another $700 down the line for playbooks, supplements, modules, etc. (even though we know these don’t really exist/are unnecessary). Faced with that it’s often easier to just stick with whatever brand of RPG you first jumped on with (so in this case, I guess lack of exposure is the answer) .
David LaFreniere has it right I suspect, but I’d also add that the hobby can have an expensive investment element which makes investing in new titles daunting. If you own $700 of D&D supplements (and really, that wouldn’t be too hard to accumulate by the time you add in a player book, monster manuals, etc.) then picking up Dungeon World for $10 might well look more like you’re going to have to shell out another $700 down the line for playbooks, supplements, modules, etc. (even though we know these don’t really exist/are unnecessary). Faced with that it’s often easier to just stick with whatever brand of RPG you first jumped on with (so in this case, I guess lack of exposure is the answer) .