Re: Interactive storytelling and me; and a challenge

[WFreitag@aol.com]

vanevery@indiegamedesign.com wrote:

> Well, it seems like a problem of business model.  I'd be surprised if 
> anyone gets rich for $8.95..$13.95 for a rarefied product offering.  
> Rather, you'd really have to love pencil-and-paper RPG to make a 
> business of it.  A human being is still required to make it work, so 
> it's hard to see how one is going to make the money.  Heck, I came up 
> with all kinds of rules "of thumb" for freeform PBEM RPG when I was 
> running the various Games Of Immortals and Games Of Mallor.  But part of 
> my reason for running those games, was to see the limit of Gamemastering 
> vs. automation.  I took on as many players as I could handle, and after 
> 5 full-time games lasting about 6 weeks apiece I found that number was 
> *small* if I wanted to ensure quality.  No more than 5 players, 
> including myself.  No more than 3 independent units of action.  And, 
> typically, no less.  This became known as "The Rule Of Three."  So, if 
> things need "5 humans" to run, it's really hard to see the business 
> model.  Other than the extant pencil-and-paper RPG market.  It seems 
> that market has come along just fine, to the degree that it can.
 
Two separate issues: the business model of the game in its current form, and 
the business model for metastory-generating games that might eventually be 
developed using some of its techniques as a small fraction of its technology.

The business model for the current actual game is an aspect of the concept 
and philosophy of indie role playing games, as discussed and promoted at sites 
like The Forge, 1KM1KT, Gamespot and others (much of which was apparently 
inspired by Reinventing Comics by Scott McCloud). While every "scene" has its 
wide-eyed clueless newbies, most of the people creating good indie role playing 
games have reasonable expectations regarding sales volumes and profit margins 
(which are low and high respectively, for self-published games that avoid the 
three-tier distribution system and whose publishers practice cost control 
discipline, such as by using open source software tools and by licensing artwork 
instead of buying it). The games aren't going to disappear next month due to the 
creators suddenly realizing "hey, I'm not getting rich here." Some have been on 
the market and making modest steady profits for years. No indie role playing 
publisher expects to make (or does make) a living at it. But profits are 
important nonetheless. Profits pay for the next print run, website hosting fees, 
new artwork, and promotional trips to game conventions. They do not, generally 
speaking, pay for the game desginer's time in developing (designing, writing, 
and play-testing) the games. Typically, the self-publishing is a profit-making 
business; the development is a hobby. Perhaps the lack of greater fame and 
fortune is preventing some really really good designers, or even all the very 
best designers, from participating in the craft. That means nothing. The ones 
that do choose to design and publish games on these terms are producing games 
that are better than the full-time pros have turned out for decades, and they're 
producing more good games than I'll ever have time to play.

The interactive metastory side of the issue is too hypothetical to speculate 
about business models. Since the goal is to replace all players (including 
GMs) except the solo player with automation, the "humans needed to run" factor 
ceases to be an issue, if the overall effort is successful. Not that that 
necessarily implies profitability; just removes one barrier to same.

BTW, I too explored feasible ratios of "pro" GMs to paying players, in my 
case in face to face LARP games. I played cases up to 200 simultaneous players 
and 20 gamemasters. My conclusions are very similar to yours about the lowest 
acceptable ratios, and the resulting lack of profitable business models.

But the whole idea is to change that. The ratio of pro performers to paying 
audience members for music performance was once much higher than it is today. 
(Which went hand in hand, as it does today in tabletop role playing, with 
amateur performance being the norm and professionals being a rare exception.) 
Technology changed it. (Two different technologies, in fact, changed it in two 
different ways: recording, and electronic amplification in concert venues. If 
technologies like Erasmatron are more like attempts at "recorded" gamemastering, 
then what might "amplified" gamemastering look like -- implemented, perhaps, in 
a MMORPG environment?)

As for whether, and how, rules systems like My Life With Master are different 
from your rules of thumb for freeform role playing (or, say, the detailed 
chapter by chapter style guides for writing brand-name romance novels), you'll 
have to decide that for yourself. I do urge you, if you haven't already, to look 
at the game, or at least the example account of play I linked to, before 
coming to any conclusions. Your previous observation that freeform role playing 
produces outcomes that are uninteresting for non-participants to read about 
after the fact (which I agree with, btw) suggests that there is an important 
difference, because MLWM accounts are usually gripping.

> Perhaps one could dumb it down and sell it to the "Trivial Pursuit / 
> Pictionary" crowd.  Then one could make some money.

Working on that. In fact, if I create a publishable product other than a 
tabletop RPG in the next two years, it's likely to be a boxed (card and/or board) 
game of some type, with accessibility paramount. Storytelling-oriented, but 
not requiring the players to do any difficult creative authoring. (More, 
therefore, like Noah Falstein's board game Tales of the Arabian Nights, preferably 
without the intricate procedural mechanics, than like the Once Upon A Time card 
game.)

I like working on these projects because they force me to focus on what can 
be done with, and learned from, dumb text and simple rules. Kind of like 
Benja's recent (and commendable) foray into branching text. Counteracts the tendency 
to see every problem as technological.

Making money? Maybe, but reasonable expectations are key... even assuming I 
come up with a game that's every bit as accessible and appealing I hope it 
could be. How long ago did Trivial Pursuit come out? How long since Magic: The 
Gathering? How many other boxed games during that time span have made an 
impression outside the dedicated hobbyist market, or yielded riches for their 
inventors?

>>But perhaps it's a problem that AI techniques can now begin to chip away 
at, 
>>describable by a series of necessary abilities that collectively are 
>>guaranteed to add up to interactive metastory generation when all are in 
>>place and plugged into the overarching MLWM-like rule structure.

> I think I'd rather have my AIs generate art assets, ala procedural 
> modeling.  If an AI could do it decently, then the results are "known to 
> be saleable."  Seems like visual art generation would be a lot easier 
> than story generation.  Crap just has to look interesting.

Sure, sounds like a fine idea. But a bit off-topic. "Do you think lead 
miniatures are useful in tabletop role playing games?" "I'd rather use lead to make 
shotgun pellets to hunt rabbits with." Uhm, okay...

> If you want to pursue that line of thinking, I suggest looking at King 
> Of Dragon Pass from www.a-sharp.com .  It has the best story elements of 
> any game I've played.

Indeed. King of Chicago too. Everyone contemplating IS should be aware of 
these.

(Odd connection: Dragon Pass is part of the Glorantha setting, which was 
associated with the Runequest tabletop RPG back when King of Dragon Pass was 
developed. One of the best and most popular indie role playing games, Hero Wars 
[recently renamed Hero Quest], still uses the Glorantha setting. And most 
scenarios still focus on Dragon Pass. Hero Wars is much closer to a traditional 
tabletop RPG than games like The Mountain Witch or My Life With Master, but it's 
got some great features that help GMs and players focus on the meanings of the 
player-characters' decisions. Since the player-characters are heroes, their 
actions literally create culture. Cool stuff, with powerful story mojo.)

joe@andrieu.net wrote:

> I'll have to look at the other recent examples posted here, although it
> seems like they are still predominantly relying on a human in the RPG to
> make the artistic manifestation of the narrative turn of events.  But
> perhaps there is some insight into how they are managing narrative
> structure.

Thanks for delurking!

I agree, assuming you're talking about the examples (My Life With Master, and 
the other tabletop role playing games I mentioned along the way) I was 
writing about. Exactly the point I wanted to make.

b.waite@mac.com wrote:

> I hadn't heard about My Life With Master, or any of the other games  
> that you mentioned. Very, very interesting.  I have a lot that I want  
> to say, but it will take weeks for me to sort out my thoughts--you've  
> given me quite a bit to think about!

Thanks, looking forward to hearing your well-sorted thoughts. :-)

Best,

Walt