Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: Social Footprint

Bottom of Page

1 to 68 of 68

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 1
    Okay, here's a concept I'm getting some leverage out of.

    An activity has what I'd call a "social footprint." I would define that (loosely) as being the minimum amount of time and effort that is required in order for the activity to be complete unto itself that fully justifies everything that went into it.

    A game of Jungle Speed has a very small social footprint: You deal the cards, you play the game, I win, you praise me. Okay, yeah, the whole praising thing could go on for a while, but I hope the main point is clear.

    Now, if you were in a best of 16 elimination-style Jungle Speed tournament ... that has a larger footprint. Even though each game, individually, is just Jungle Speed, if you got to the final round, against the final opponent, and then everyone just decided "Eh ... we're done here. Let's break out Puerto Rico," you would (I suspect) feel that the activity was not complete. You would have put in emotional energy (in the form of anticipation and excitement) that wasn't justified by the end result. A Jungle Speed tournament's social foot-print stretches all the way to the awarding of victory.

    Let's consider the D&D of my youth, shall we? I would argue that it had an infinite social footprint. The expectation was of campaign everlasting. If you played the game for twenty years, and then it finally stopped, some players would feel that they'd been let down ... that the true payoff of all of the campaign was going to happen next year, or in 2067, or something.

    There's the measure. Applications, elsewhere.
  2.  # 2
    That's a very good concept. I think when you consider a computer game like World of Warcraft, which, technically, has a very small social footprint (sit down, log on, play for half an hour, log off), you can see why it is gobbling up a lot of traditional roleplayers, as traditional rpgs have a very sizeable social footprint, especially if you're the GM.
  3.  # 3
    I like your thoughts, Tony. The concept of game "scope" has been on my mind a lot lately- part of that is understanding how long a period the game was designed to be played. Is it a single-evening game? 4 sessions? a year-long epic? Being part of a 17 year-and-counting D&D game (played maybe twice a year at this point) I agree completely with your assessment of the infinite footprint- it could go on until we all die...
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 4
    Andrew: Yeah. I think almost every other type of game has the advantage over traditional RPGs in terms of footprint, and it's telling. Why is the image of the hopelessly obsessed gamer so persistent? Because nobody (and I mean nobody) but someone completely dedicated to RPGs can muster the energy and commitment necessary to play in such a campaign.

    Steve: Scope is another cool and inter-related thing. Clearly the scope of a game cannot be any smaller than its social footprint. But it can be larger. An individual game of Jungle Speed is quick. Playing Jungle Speed consumes hours of my life at a gulp. But the difference between "Okay, let's play four hours of Jungle Speed" and "Okay, let's play a game of Jungle Speed ... and then, because it's so damned cool, let's play another, and another" is absolutely huge.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 5
    Thanks for this explanation, Tony. Good terminology, it implies not only that you're spending time and resources, but SOCIAL time and resources.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 6
    What is the smallest possible atomic piece of roleplaying? It's gotta be pretty big compared to a lot of games... but smaller than playing a sport, I think.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 7
    The smallest possible piece is hugely small. It's as fast as a thought. We do it all the time. We refer to a model of a person inside our own head, and simulate their reactions.

    You've seen those people with WWJD wristbands? They're roleplaying all the time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDanielSolis
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006 edited
     # 8
    Sports are slightly different since you have a nationally televised, heavily merchandised counterpart that reinforces the social acceptance of the activity. This macrocosm has a symbiotic relationship with the smaller, local groups like small-town obsession with football and urban ubiquity of basketball.

    Also, some sports have more footprint than others. Baseball's unpopularity may in part be caused by the specialization of required components. If you want to play with your friends, you need a very strict sort of play area, some special equipment and enough people to cover the bases. Meanwhile, you can go to a gym or park with a basketball and always find an open game. Even football can't really compare to basketball's microcosmic versatility.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006 edited
     # 9
    Posted By: TonyLBYou've seen those people with WWJD wristbands? They're roleplaying all the time.


    So, so disturbingly true.
  10.  # 10
    Out of curiosity, could the same be said of those who wore the "Go Play" icons on their convention badges at Gen Con?
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 11
    Daniel: Borderline. Who are they pretending to be? A different version of themselves? When does it cease being roleplay and become just living?
  12.  # 12
    Those observations are irrelevant, a tangent. Because the only important comparison is the social footprint of RPGs versus other lesiure time activities that have designated time set aside for them.

    Putting a positive spin on RPGs here, for once, it's a testament to how interesting they can be and to their nature that anyone ever considers an infinite footprint as acceptable.

    Also, I'm not sure if it's so much Infinite as Indefinite. Many times there's this notion that the game will probably wrap up a long time down the road somewhere, but that play should take some sort of "natural" rout to get there. Even if the play has no real means of getting there. So while it may look infinite, the committment is only indefinite.

    Also consider that an MMORPG is an indefinite or infinite committment. Not sure it's social, however....

    Mike
    • CommentAuthorTheCzech
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 13
    Posted By: TonyLBYou've seen those people with WWJD wristbands? They're roleplaying all the time.


    Mfth! (Sound of me not laughing uproariously and causing all my co-workers to look at me funny.)

    Fast role playing doesn't have to be internal either. The kid who grabs a towel and spends ten seconds pretending to fly like Superman is role playing too.

    I'm liking this analysis. It is very true that the traditional role playing game campaign is set up to have no natural ending. I've often said that most games don't end, they just fizzle. Those that end in a satisfying way tend to do so inspite of themselves. One of the things I admire about TSoY is the built in mechanic for saying "My character's story is over." It encourages you to push for that sastisfying ending. I'm definitely very interested in ideas which promote full story arc games complete with endings, and not just for "fast food" games.

    - Eric Sedlacek
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 14
    My Life with Master can do that, Eric. You just have to set up the parameters at the start to facilitate it.
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 15
    Tony,

    If your definition of "social footprint" requires completion, then of course open-ended games will have an "infinite" footprint. I think that the true social economy issue is whether the fun you get out justifies the time you put in, compared to other social activities.

    So, the open-ended D&D game is like a junk bond - it promises a very high return once the campaign matures, but there's a high chance your game will go under...
    but if you can make a "quick kill on the market" (with a low-investment game that delivers a lot of fun) then you're going to go for that instead.

    Only, this assumes that the fun you get from a traditional game is comparable to the fun you get from the quick game. Some people really want the traditional, long campaign sort of fun, and you won't be designing for these people.
  16.  # 16
    Posted By: TonyLBThesmallest possible pieceis hugely small. It's as fast as a thought. We do itall the time. We refer to a model of a person inside our own head, and simulate their reactions.


    I'd disagree. If that's so, then a single stone play is the atomic division of Go.

    I think you've got to useful concepts here that are in danger of being conflated. One is something like the devoted time. You devote an indefinite amount of time to an interminable D&D campaign (or to WoW). And let's face it, no one, not the most devoted gamer ever, is going to play a game that might have incredible rewards 10 years from now. But you can get a return from a single session. And a session footprint is more of the kill.

    Why can I get anyone to play Bang! (which is the Jungle Speed in my neck of the woods)? Because the session time is relatively short, and there's a decent reward almost guaranteed. D&D or Diplomacy is harder to sell, even though the returns are probably greater, because you need to dedicate much longer to a session.

    One of the factors in favor of good indie games, and in the favor of eurogames, that are drawing players out of traditional RPGs is that the session times are shorter, and the returns are higher. There's a lot of filler in a traditional RPG session, and no guarantee you'll get to any meat, even in a 6 hour session. Dogs I know I can sit down for 3 hours and have 3 hours of fun.
  17.  # 17
    Posted By: Doug RuffSome people really want the traditional, long campaign sort of fun, and you won't be designing for these people.


    Several linked short-run games could form an indefinite-run game.

    Serial gaming; we're already seeing parts of this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 18
    Hm.

    You know how there's a kind of cycle to long-running games? Mike's IRC Heroquest game has 'phases'...

    Well what if a game had EXPLICIT cycles? "At this point, the game is over. Feel free to start another game, however, and re-use characters from this game in your next one, as they are after some interval of time."
  19.  # 19
    It may also be useful to provide distinct segments of game-time, like episodes in PTA or towns in DitV. If you can say, "Let's run an episode real quick," then that's a readymade endpoint that people can anticipate and plan around.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 20
    Vax, FLFS does this. You set up a situation, you play the situation, you resolve the situation. You can stop there, or you can create another situation. But no situation will take more than two or three game sessions to play through.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 21
    Fred: Agreed.
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 22
    Levi: agreed about serial gaming, but there's something different I'm trying to say.

    How about this: you know the whole "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" problem? There's several ways of solving this problem.

    Low-investment gaming is all about "let's focus on the 20 good minutes, and turn that into an hour's good gaming" Serial short gaming is similar, except you're stringing those 20+ minute sessions together. In both approaches, there is a much faster pace to the game, and because there is so much more going on, the "hit rate" of good sessions is much higher.

    However, there's another approach to the problem, which is "let's improve the 3 hours and 40 minutes so that it is as fun as the 20 good minutes". The play is still as slow (in story pacing terms) as before, but it's quality slow gaming.

    (Minor diversion: I think this is part of the reason that "story" gaming and "immersive" gaming don't mix. Diversion ends.)

    Small social footprint gaming is the first sort of gaming: it's accelerated gaming, and as well as being great in its own right, it's more valuable to people who don't have much time to invest in the first place. For people who do want to make a sizable time investment in their campaign, both times of gaming are good and these people are not the core market for small social footprint games (in italics because it's the point I wanted to make first time around, not because you won't get it otherwise.)
  23.  # 23
    Posted By: Doug RuffSmall social footprint gaming is the first sort of gaming: it's accelerated gaming, and as well as being great in its own right, it's more valuable to people who don't have much time to invest in the first place. For people who do want to make a sizable time investment in their campaign, both times of gaming are goodand these people are not the core market for small social footprint games(in italics because it's the point I wanted to make first time around, not because you won't get it otherwise.)


    See, that assumes that people are divided up into those two types. I don't think that they are, exactly. I like games of many different types; I only want to have them *presented* according to what they are so that I can buy in properly. Which to me means that the idea can be approached by presenting the small and large footprint stuff in more than one way, to the same audience.

    Here, let me give you an example, something I'm actually preparing to *do.*

    The Cog Wars, my (and others) current project, is a basically open-ended game - large footprint. It runs mainly off of single - mission games; those are *theoretically* small-footprint games, but they aren't presented as such.

    However, I'm also working on the idea of "escalations"; mini-games that play independently, but use most of the same core mechanics as Cog Wars. Ones with win-or-lose conditions, self-contained, many of them not even RPGs by most definitions. These mini-games will all be potential plug-ins to the main game.

    So, if you download the "Cog Escape" minigame, it's a stand-alone game with a small footprint, and a promotion for the main game. Unless you already own the main game - In which case, you could choose to look at it as an optional expansion that can be used to model a specific kind of situation.

    There's plenty of ways to link small / large footprint games. And I think it's more about presentation than audience.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 24
    Posted By: VaxalonHm.

    You know how there's a kind of cycle to long-running games? Mike's IRC Heroquest game has 'phases'...

    Well what if a game had EXPLICIT cycles? "At this point, the game is over. Feel free to start another game, however, and re-use characters from this game in your next one, as they are after some interval of time."


    Heh. Do you mean like finishing a D&D Module?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 25
    Well, as DnD modules are usually played, there is the expectation that you will play the same character from one to the next.

    So no.

    Maybe more like DnD tournament modules, where there's a list of pregens available at the beginning, that may or may not have any connection to pregens from the module that came before? If you ever played the A1-2-3-4 series you'd know what I'm talking about.
    • CommentAuthorRoger
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 26
    I see a bit of confusion here and there, which is understandable with a newly-labelled concept like this.

    I think Tony is talking about the sum of time and effort (but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

    It's tempting to also consider what I'll call the footprint's quantum -- that is, the minimum chunk of time and effort that still has a sense of completeness and justification to it. It may be that every rpg has an infinitesimal quantum, but in a general way I think we can talk about activities that naturally support longer sessions, and others that support shorter sessions.

    And then there's also some other measure which might be intensity, which has something to do with the ratio of the footprint to everything non-footprint. I suspect a game could have a large footprint but a low intensity, and visa versa.


    Cheers,
    Roger
    •  
      CommentAuthorScottM
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 27
    An interesting article that's related to this same phenomenon: It's Not Just a Game, It's a Lifestyle by Andy Collins.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 28
    Someone should point Andy at boardgamegeek.com. Or the SCA. Or Hot Rod enthusiasts. Or Burning Man. Or, you know, soccer.

    Gamers are not unique freaking snowflakes. I am getting so bloody tired of this argument.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 29
    Sweet baby Jesus.

    That article is horrific.

    It's like he is so far gone that he doesn't even realize that what he's saying is a very bad thing. RPGs are a game that are only interesting to the tiny fraction of people so intensely committed that they'll restructure their entire life in order to game? GAH! That's a bad thing, Andy! A very bad thing.

    My God ... what other product could survive at all under that kind of pressure? Would beer be an industry if only hard-core alcoholics were able to drink it? The automobile industry took off precisely when production standards created a car that people could use without having to take up "automobilist" as a lifestyle. This whole "one of us" nonsense is absolutely toxic in every way shape and form ... I'm all for recognizing it, because without recognizing it I don't think anyone will be able to beat it, but there is no cause to be celebrating.

    Man, I'm still shuddering. That article was scary.
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 30
    Levi: Yes to your very good points. There's a wide spectrum of gamers and you can combine large- and small-footprint gaming in the same package.

    I think this leads to an interesting marketing dilemma: do you try and compete with the large games (D&D), the small games (Jungle Speed), or with the whole market?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMerten
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 31
    Posted By: Doug RuffHowever, there's another approach to the problem, which is "let's improve the 3 hours and 40 minutes so that it is as fun as the 20 good minutes". The play is still as slow (in story pacing terms) as before, but it's quality slow gaming.

    (Minor diversion: I think this is part of the reason that "story" gaming and "immersive" gaming don't mix. Diversion ends.)


    Doug, I agree a lot. For some reason I get this constant message (which might or might not be right) that there's is some kind of definition of "fun" and that it largely has to do with short-term return of investment; you take out a game, you play it for short time, and you enjoy it.

    It sounds a lot like the argument that the only good place to eat is McDonalds, because you get served fast, you know what you'll get, and you're out fast. If you like McHamburgers or you can learn to like them, it's an excellent choice. Does this mean that eating in fancy restaurant where you'll have to wait for the the main dish for, I dunno, an half an hour while sipping wine and eating the first course, is somehow an invalid option? Or, furthermore, that you invite your friends to the dinner, plan the menu, go shopping, prepare the food for hours, eat and socialize is somehow an invalid option? In the later two choices, it's the experience that matters, in the first one, it's the fact that you get your stomach filled and you can head out to do some other cool stuff like, maybe, go and taste what Burger King has to offer.

    Is there some reason why you can't do all this, in different times, or pick your poison and stick with that? Is there a difference between the amount of social capital you have invested or does it matter that people don't invest the same amount of social capital - as long as they feel that they get out roughly the same amount (and probably more) than they invested?

    If some part in the experience, wheter it's a long or a short one, sucks - that's a bad thing. But I don't understand what the scope and lenght of the experience has to do with it, as long as people know to what and how much they are investing.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 32
    Straight up, larger social foot-print means more of a barrier to entry. A higher barrier to entry means less people will enter. Less people willing/able to play a game with me means less gaming, and that sucks.

    Small social footprint isn't about making games better for the folks who are happy to commit to eight hour sessions every week until they die. It's about making games possible at all for the folks who won't commit to more than "Well, we're here right now, and we've got an hour to kill before I have to get to the metro."
    •  
      CommentAuthorMerten
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 33
    Posted By: TonyLBStraight up, larger social foot-print means more of a barrier to entry. A higher barrier to entry means less people will enter. Less people willing/able to play a game with me means less gaming, and thatsucks.


    Understood and understandable from a designer -point-of-view, if he wants to target the audience who have not roleplayed or have not roleplayed because of not being able to allocate time/not feeling like they enough payback/some other similar reason. I can't claim to share the viewpoint (then again, I'm not a game designer), but I'll take them to other thread.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 34
    Posted By: Doug RuffI think this leads to an interesting marketing dilemma: do you try and compete with the large games (D&D), the small games (Jungle Speed), or with the whole market?


    Why not re-define the market? Why not go for a different market? Why not win by changing the rules?

    That last one, changing the rules, that's the one that has lead to the big success stories in games.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 35
    Setting aside (for at least this post) the "market" question ... On a purely personal level, I get more mileage out of games that fit into a small footprint. They get played more.

    I made huge efforts to get together with people for a season of Primetime Adventures. We knocked ourselves out to do it. And it was worth it. It was some damn rockin' roleplay.

    I make very little effort to get together Jungle Speed. It just happens. People are sitting around and I say "Hey, how about a game of Jungle Speed." And it, too, is always worth it.

    Now if I said "I've played more games of Jungle Speed than I have of PTA" you'd say "Well of course! Jungle Speed takes ten minutes! You can play more games of Jungle Speed in an hour than you could possibly play of PTA in a month!"

    But I'm saying a few things beyond that. I have played more total hours of Jungle Speed than I have of PTA. I have played Jungle Speed with more different people in the past few months than I have roleplayed with (in all systems combined) in the past few years.

    Given the disparity in effort, that strikes me as a pretty startling situation.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 36
    There seems to be an unstated assumption in that post, Tony, and I'd like to confirm it before I go further.

    Is it better, for you, to play a short time with many different people than to play a long time with only a few? I suspect that it is, not just from your post but having met you in person. Am I right?
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006 edited
     # 37
    I don't think I have a preference between those two, and I'm struggling to see the relevance.

    My point is that I'm not playing Jungle Speed for a short period of time. I'm playing it for a very, very long period of time which happens to be broken up into manageable chunks.
  38.  # 38
    Fred,

    I don't want to speak for Tony, but for me, you're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is: "Is it better, for you, to play a short time with many different people and more frequently or to play a long time with only a few people and less often if at all?"

    Like Tony is saying, the total time played for the smaller footprint games (for him) is greater than the total time played for the larger footprint games. That's more gaming time in total. That matches up with my experience and I feel it's a valuable thing to pursue because I'm a selfish bastard and I want to game more.

    Regards,
    Daniel
    • CommentAuthorRoger
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 39
    Tony said: People are sitting around and I say "Hey, how about a game of Jungle Speed."

    If I may ask, what leads to you say "Jungle Speed" and not "PrimeTime Adventures"?


    Cheers,
    Roger
    • CommentAuthorBlue
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 40
    Posted By: RogerTony said:People are sitting around and I say "Hey, how about a game of Jungle Speed."

    If I may ask, what leads to you say "Jungle Speed" and not "PrimeTime Adventures"?


    I think that gets into a related concept I am tentatively referring to as "Entry Threshhold". How much knowledge of the game does it take for someone to play it? Some examples:
    - I hesitate to suggest Exalted to people unfamiliar with it - largely because I expect my players to know their own charms.
    - I hesitate to suggest anything that looks like an RPG if I don't know my audience is familiar with RPGS.
    - I might pull out something like Chrononauts - it plays like a card game - for people into history and gauge how much they get into 'their character'.

    I am unfamiliar with Jungle Speed, but it sounds like it has traditional card game play, giving it a lower 'entry threshhold' than most RPGs, including PTA (which has a darn low entry threshhold for anyone who is familiar with television, in my opinion).
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 41
    Posted By: RogerIf I may ask, what leads to you say "Jungle Speed" and not "PrimeTime Adventures"?

    Repeated experience that asking people to play Jungle Speed results in playing Jungle Speed, and asking people to play PTA results in people saying "Four hours, huh? I don't know ...."
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 42
    Tony: I would find this "footprint" idea a lot more useful if it describes the minimum amount of time or effort required to guarantee payoff - as in, you have a goal, it's enjoyable, when you achieve it you "win".

    If your payoff is to play your campaign forever then, yep, infinite footprint. If your payoff is to riff creatively with your friends or compete with them for kudos, then small footprint.

    Why the distinction? If your game doesn't deliver the goods in term of payoff, it doesn't matter how small the footprint is. The reason more people will join in a game of Jungle Speed is partly about footprint, but (I suspect) mainly because it's a rush. Some other time, they might want to get into character, but right now, thay want Jungle Speed and even a short role-playing game isn't an acceptable substitute.

    Now, what if that short roleplaying game was guaranteed to deliver the same "rush" as a game of Jungle Speed?

    For that manner, what if the 4-hour game was guaranteed to deliver the same rush in the first 10-15 minutes of gaming and kept on delivering?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 43
    Posted By: Doug RuffI would find this "footprint" idea a lot more useful if it describes the minimum amount of time or effort required to guaranteepayoff...

    I thought that was the idea?
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 44
    Then I'm happy!
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 45
    Posted By: Doug RuffIf your payoff is to riff creatively with your friends or compete with them for kudos, then small footprint.
    Not necessarily, no. No matter what your "payoff" is, if you join up with a Burning Wheel game that's planned to run eight sessions it's simply not cool for you to say "Okay, I got my fun in the first fifteen minutes. Let's do something else now!" Yes?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 46
    Oh come on, Tony. In the first fifteen minutes of a Burning Wheel game, you don't even have a character name yet. ;)

    Actually, this may be a different thread, but... if you get the payoff before the game is over, it sounds to me like the game's over but doesn't know it yet.
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 47
    Tony: Group dynamics may change what qualifies as payoff. In less well-adjusted groups, people have been known to do exactly that - or to switch off at the table once they've had their fun.

    But I'm far less interested in the semantic issues (and it's entirely my fault for bringing them up) than in how effective shortening the wait for something fun to happen in a longer game is, compared to just making the game short.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 48
    Effective at what? At having fun? Sure ... if you start having fun immediately then you're having fun.

    At lowering the barrier to people entering the game? Eh. You're still asking for a big commitment. Saying "It will be fun from the very first minute!" is fine, but you're still talking about whatever size commitment you're talking about.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 49
    Ridiculous Illustration: Doug, come play this game with me. It'll be SEVEN YEARS of solid happy-making fun! Every single moment from start to finish will be exhilerating!

    Or:

    Doug, come play this game! It's called Bang! and it takes a half hour and it's totally fun.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 50
    Doug, come play this game with me! We'll spend the afternoon, and if you like it, we'll play again next week!
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 51
    Counterpoint to Joshua's illustration: If we start to play the seven-year game, and we stop after half-an-hour, and we had more fun than we would have done playing Bang!, does it matter that we didn't complete the game?

    Yes, people may feel let down, and that may reducethe amount of "fun" that was had. But - if there was any way of measuring such a thing - the "net" fun was still higher from the abandoned game, then maybe starting that game wasn't such a bad thing after all.

    You know, people do this all the time - I'm sure that the vast majority of the posters here have played a game of D&D or Heroquest or PTA or something else and have stopped playing before the campaign is "over". That doesn't invalidate the time they put in or the fun they got out.

    So, I see the difference, but I reject the analysis that larger-footprint games don't have a payoff until the end of the "footprint" or that measuring the footprint is somehow more important than measuring the fun. It's still a useful concept though.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006 edited
     # 52
    Doug: I think you are rejecting an analysis that nobody has made. Nobody is saying that all of the fun in a seven year game happens in the last five minutes, and therefore if you don't get to that point you have nothing.

    But the social impact of how long a game is supposed to run is hard to overestimate. It's not merely that some people will feel let down. People feel obligated not to bail on a game mid-stream. People will keep playing a game that is boring them to the point of tears, because it hasn't reached its footprint yet.

    Now don't jump on that! Don't tell me that you're talking about games that are cool and fun. Don't go telling me how a person can stick up for themselves and say "Hey, even though this isn't done, it's dead boring." I know that, believe me. I'm the guy who kills such games. Bang! Dead! The problem I'm focussing on is at one remove from what happens once the game starts.

    The thing is that separating from the game that was is awkward and unpleasant. It's a break-up. Even when everyone is amicable about it, even when everyone understands and accepts the reasons, breaking up is very hard to do. And, before the game even starts, people reasonably factor that risk into their decision whether or not to commit.

    If (back in the day, pre-marriage) a girl I didn't know came up and asked me "Hey, do you want to grab a soda?" then the answer would be "Yeah, sure. Sounds great!" Worst case scenario, we don't hit it off, I drink my soda, we say good-bye, done. There is no way I will end up in the awkward position of breaking up with her, because I can just finish the foot-print and walk away, free and clear. That's Jungle Speed.

    If a girl I didn't know came up and asked me "Hey, you want to be my boyfriend forever?" then the answer would be "Uh ... no, and it's creepy of you to ask." If we don't hit it off then I'll have to break up with her, and I've got no way of knowing whether we'll hit it off or not. That's the seven-year campaign.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 53
    Tony, have you EVER known a seven-year campaign to spring up among people who weren't already friends?

    I haven't.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 54
    Of course not! Someone I meet at a game-store asks me to commit to seven years of playing with the same group, sight unseen? INSANITY! The very fact that they'd ask tells me that they're a crazy person I don't want to be associated with.

    No, the only time I'd commit to even seven weeks would be if I have great confidence that the activity is going to keep me engaged throughout. I can just about muster that confidence if I know what game we're playing, and know some of the people involved. Otherwise? No, thanks. I'd rather not make that commitment.

    Now think about how much harder it is for a non-gamer to muster that confidence. They not only don't have previous experience gaming with these people, they don't have previous experience gaming at all. If they commit to a seven hour one-shot, and they find out in the first hour that roleplaying isn't fun for them, they've got to choose between six more hours of boredom or a break-up. Yuck! Who wants to make a commitment like that? It'd take one hell of a sales pitch to drag me in to a comparable commitment in an activity outside gaming.

    "Come on down to our Quilting Circle! You only need to commit to seven hours, whether you like it or not. But you'll like it! It's great fun!"

    Quilting Circles are great fun, I have no doubt. My wife occasionally makes time to attend one, and she always comes back stoked. But I know that I will never, ever commit myself enough to try. If they could give me the self-contained Quilting Circle experience in half an hour, though, I'd be all over it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 55
    Socially, I think RPG's are more like sports than games.
  56.  # 56
    As a real-life example of what Tony's talking about:

    I've been involved in a space opera PBeM game which started about 5 years ago and hasn't been much fun for the past 4. It's essentially 20 minutes worth of fun in 12 months, rather than 4 hours.

    Though the social footprint isn't that wide--I estimate I spend less than 5 minutes a month on this thing--If I'd known it would last this long, I never would have joined up. Instead, it turns out that it would be more work to leave than to languish. My character has been behaving in increasingly suicidal ways, simply because that would offer an excuse to bow out. (Unfortunately, it takes a long time to die properly.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrand_Robins
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006 edited
     # 57
    Fred,

    I think that analogy may be true.

    But it still doesn't negate Tony's point(s).

    Because I played highschool football, and commited a fucking year of my life through pain and rain and training camp to my team. I've also played touch football with 4 guys I met at the park and knew I'd probably never see again in my life, for a total about about 45 minutes.

    The big thing about RPGs is that they're the kind of sport that has traditionally assumed that you have to do the first kind of game, and can't do the second. Doing the second, however, is very possible with most sports. M(aybe not racecar driving, but that isn't a sport anyway.) One of the reasons why sports are so popular is that it is equally possible to play basketball for 20 minutes and have a blast or play for 30 years in a Y league and also have a blast.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 58
    I may be missing some of the controversy on this one, so bear with me.

    I thought that what Tony was positing was a game that could be played in small, complete chunks, in under an hour.

    I never got the impression that he was suggesting players would _not_ return to the game, ever.

    Mentally, I'm comparing it to the days when I played CCGs. Part of the draw was that you could play a match, or best of three, in the same kind of time frame as the game Tony is suggesting. You could play with two players, or five, depending on who was around.

    Man, I played the hell out of those. Hours and hours and hours. I knew lots of rpgers who ended up picking up one or more ccgs for exactly those reasons, too.

    Is the controversy partly around the "fear" ( I use that term with trepidation) that players _can't_ return to the small footprint game with the same emotional attachment that they would with a more big footprint game?
  59.  # 59
    From where I'm sitting, social footprint is mostly about up-front commitment. Here are a couple of recent examples from non-RPG activities that I've run across.

    A buddy asks me if I wanna go catch a movie with him. We'd go see it today (Friday) and it runs for just over 2 hours. I think about all the other things I could be doing with two hours on a Friday, and I think about how badly I want to see this particular movie, and I decide that I just don't feel that it's worth it tonight. Some other night, maybe, but not tonight.

    I've been working my way through an anime series titled Monster. I really like it. A lot. I think many other people I know would also like it. A lot. However, I'm hesitant to pressure anyone into watching it because it's so dang long. As in, over 25 hours long. That's a big commitment. Sure I think most people could enjoy it in broken up chunks. I figure you could watch five or ten episodes and enjoy them all, and then decide if you want to watch more some other time. But, that's not what people are commiting to when they say they want to watch the series.

    The social footprint thing is, to me, about evaluating the activity before you actually start it. What time/effort is being asked of me to participate, and is it going to be worth it? Even for a one-shot RPG session, we're talking three or four hours. That's a lot of time. We could play four sessions of Settlers in that time, or watch two entire movies, or see six episodes of Firefly. Or we could be watching three episodes of Firefly, playing a game of Settlers, and playing an hour of Guitar Hero. Notice how I can't mix and match any of that with my session of roleplaying.

    Thomas
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 60
    I think things became clearer when I started thinking of footprint as a measure of commitment, not a unit of time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 61
    Thomas, in your distinction, is there any difference between the social footprint of a four-hour one-shot and an ongoing campaign that meets in four-hour sessions?
  62.  # 62
    Fred,

    Yes. Of course. Mike's got a good explanation over in the Social Footprint vs. Pacing* thread. I pretty much agree with that.

    EDIT: Mike's post is actually in the Fastfood Gaming thread. You've already seen it.

    Thomas
    •  
      CommentAuthoreruditus
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 63
    Posted By: TonyLBSmall social footprint isn't about making games better for the folks who are happy to commit to eight hour sessions every week until they die. It's about making games possible at all for the folks who won't commit to more than "Well, we're here right now, and we've got an hour to kill before I have to get to the metro."


    Okay, on one hand I can't really disagree with this perspective except on one level...

    Thus far gaming has had fringe status in the States. It's gotten a few leaps of popularity (ie. White Wolf brought in a different kind of gamer and made an aspect of gaming 'cool' for a short time, 3rd Ed D&D used fantasic marketing to draw in millions of new or returning gamers & some other media have made the nerd/geek/dork sub-culture take a little more positive social spin) but otherwise it's completely outside the public's frame of mind as a normal activity.

    If they were to be better incorporated into the social norm then the "social footprint" wouldn't be as big of a deal. The activity would be something parents would regularly drive their children to week in and week out, buy uniforms, and coach on the side. I suspect that in communities where gaming is introduced into schools as a positive, team-building, slightly competetive activity we would see gaming be more widely accepted.

    Now don't get me wrong, this is an over simplified analysis. I mean we'd also have to break the media mold of the asthetics of the athletics body and somehow convince families that a successful gamer could get scholarships into collages or even national exposure and million dollar endorements by Pepsi and Ray Ban. But I think schools, extracurricular organizations and church groups are a good start.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 64
    Posted By: eruditusThe activity would be something parents would regularly drive their children to week in and week out, buy uniforms, and coach on the side.
    On the one hand: "No sweetie, you can't play on the playground, we need to get to your Intensive Game-Prep class, and then I need to pick Toby up from violin lessons." >shudder<

    On the other hand: "Okay parents, we need GMs for this year's Little Adventurer's League." Awesome.

    On the gripping hand: What has this got to do, at all, with social footprint?
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 65
    Tony: I'm rejecting what I perceived to be an analysis made in the post that started this thread:

    "Let's consider the D&D of my youth, shall we? I would argue that it had an infinite social footprint. The expectation was of campaign everlasting. If you played the game for twenty years, and then it finally stopped, some players would feel that they'd been let down ... that the true payoff of all of the campaign was going to happen next year, or in 2067, or something."

    But also the implicit assumption (which may be a strawman: if so, I'm sorry) that a game designed for long campaigns also automatically has a large social footprint, or that it is automatically better to play a complete small-footprint game than an abortive large-footprint game.

    Example: I used to play regular "fantasy heartbreaker" RPG sessions with a group that I met by chance (at a Police identity parade, but that's another story.) We used to game regularly once or twice a week for hours at a time. The adventures were basically one or two session "modules" but soem of the characters had been going for years before I joined, and we played for several years afterwards. We even re-wrote and retconned the rules several times and did a near-complete campaign "reset" after one of our players died - we kept the setting, but ditched most of the player characters because we needed a bit of emotional distance from the older game events.

    Then the game slowly fell apart due to competing time commitments (we could never all show up at the same time, other issues.) Looking at it from a footprint
    perspective; that sucked big-time, the campaign ended early, and there was all this cool stuff we never got to do and stories were left untold.

    Payoff-wise: it was some the best fun I've had roleplaying (even though there were many sucky, long sessions) and am satisfies that I got my investment back.

    So far, this doesn't actually contradict anything you're saying, so please don't jump over it... what's more interesting is what happened next.

    We still get together for gaming - mainly those evil collectable card games, precisely becasue of the very social footprint thing Tony is talking about! - but we have also started at least three or four different campaigns (more fantasy heartbreaker, Spycraft, CoC) that we knew full and well that we would never complete a major "campaign length" story-arc for; sometimes we had more than one of these running simultaneously. However, we were still having fun playing (and socialising, and mucking about) and would still make long-term game decisions knowing that those decisions wouldn't come to fruition in play (for example, we're planning our feat choices for the Spycraft campaign several levels ahead, but we're very unlikely to be reaching that level in play. Or we are trying to build up a frontier community in our fantasy heartbreaker, knowing we will never see it turn into the major town that we want it to become.) Some of these games are definitely ended; some may get picked up again.

    From the outside, our sessions would have looked like "large-footprint" gaming, but I think they're not. We all would like to play more, but we are happy that our other commitments mean that we almost certainly won't. We all know the game is not complete, but any dissatisfaction from this is outweighed by the pleasure we got from the play.

    Or maybe it is better for to say that the "game footprint" was large, but the "social footprint" was smaller?

    And I am still very much up for some small-footprint gaming on top of all of this. No, I really want to play small foot-print roleplaying games. But with this group, I would want to trade it for the card gaming, not for the meandering and abortive campaign sessions.

    Regards,

    Doug
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 66
    Posted By: Doug RuffTony: I'm rejecting what I perceived to be an analysis made in the post that started this thread
    Okay. I'll reject it too. Not because it's a straw-man: I think it's an accurate assessment of what I was implying and thinking at the time. But you're quite right that it's incorrect, and I like where we are now better than where I was then.

    Does that mean we're cool, or does that sound like a lame cop-out?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 67
    My respect for you just doubled, Tony.

    And it was already a big huge pillar of respect.
    • CommentAuthorDoug Ruff
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     # 68
    Tony: we're very cool, and always have been. Now we're in the same place - together - I'd really like to move on to using some of this stuff. But right now, I'm pooped, so good night!

1 to 68 of 68

  1.