Are MMORPGs going the way of PnP?

I've been looking to replace the MMORPG I've been playing for the last four years or so. Typical reasons, the game is moving away from the play style it started with. The people in charge move on, new goals appear and core concepts change. It's the way of things, when it happens in Pen and Paper you just don't buy the new edition and keep playing. But that isn't possible with an MMORPG, so you find a new game.

MMORPG game design (and PnP too for that matter) has effectively been stagnant for years now. Modified D&D style combat with rare (and rather unsuccessful) exception. And that looks to continue. The online world never experienced the explosion of different approaches that was attempted in the 80s. And given the costs of development and marketing for even a small attempt- likely never will.

But while the core game play remains very familar, they are playing with stuff around the edges.

I've been watching three games in development with an eye towards one of them being my next waste of time: Star Wars: The Old Republic, Guild Wars 2, and The Secret World. All these talk about radical changes in game play- they lie. The new stuff from that point of view is little but minor changes or additions.

What is new is the focus on Story. The first two promise individual and personal storylines. Frankly, I think that's a lie too. It's really just a choice between whatever handful of character arcs *they* allow us. In the case of the Old Republic, it's even worst than that- as your storyline choices may not even be yours when in a group, but instead is owned by a random member of your party.

But still, this is quite new for the MMORPG scene. The Secret World doesn't promise an individual storyline, but does promise mysteries and investigation arcs into the storyline of the world and your place in it. Not individual, but still a major feature of the setting.

After more than a decade of playing D&D, it seems the MMORPG world is now ready to try World of Darkness. Let's hope they do a better job than White Wolf did.

The Second Issue of the International Journal of Roleplaying

Well, I almost thought I wouldn't see it, after all it's been over two years since the first issue. But here we have it. This is something of a theory blog, so of course this is of interest.

The International Journal of Roleplaying is... might be best just to reference their website. My understanding was that it is a place to collect RPG theory and thought with a bit of peer review and the like. Not as exclusive to academia as some journals, but more than just a blog like... oh... this place.

Besides, I was at one point invited to write something for this Journal. Heaven knows what, I'm just a hobbyist with a few thoughts about game design. Not an academic with a ton of letters after my name (well, there are letters there if I wanted to show them- but I don't consider them impressive or related to game design).

So I downloaded the 71 page PDF to see what they had. Here are the titles of the included articles:

• Defining Role-Playing Games as Language-Games
• Playing House in a World of Night: Discursive Trajectories of Masculinity in a Tabletop Role-Playing Game
• Immersion as a Prerequisite of the Didactical Potential of Role-Playing
• Stereotypes and Individual Differences in Role-playing Games
• Sadomasochist Role-Playing as Live-Action Role-Playing: A Trait-Descriptive Analysis

I don't quite know what to say.

On one hand, some of this (after stripping away the fancy language) is the type of stuff you see all the time online in RPG forums. Heck, they even note those same forums as references. It's just, well fancied up and made more colorful.

On the other, I don't recall ever trying to do a Trait-Descriptive Analysis of Sadomasochist Role-Playing: be it live or dead. Although now that someone has, I do wish a bit more for the release of death.

I'm sure those are all interesting subjects, to the authors and likely others. Eye opening to some even. So I'm really not calling their usefulness or relevance into question here. Nor even the IJoR itself, it is after all the sum of what articles were submitted. They have a rather open policy if anyone thinks they can do better- they are invited to try.

No, what I find interesting here is that these were the articles submitted and approved. And I wonder what it tells us of the hobby as a whole. Or maybe not the hobby really, but rather how the hobby is seen in the type of circle that would write for and  publish the journal.

I don't think I like the picture.

Visiting my FLGS because I needed to be depressed

The gaming stores in my area have fallen on hard times. Most have gone out of business. Unless you count the Game Workshop stores, only one remains open.That one was the crown jewel of the metroplex for over a decade. Large selection of in print and out of print items including some of the small press stuff now and then.

At one time I could walk in the door and pick up the full line of Deadlands, Shadowrun, or HERO offerings to say nothing of the tons of D&D stuff they had.

Now, many shelves are bare. The stock is looking old and worn. Much of the inventory looks to be in a "sell and don't replace state'. Except it doesn't seem to be selling. As to my favorite game, HERO? Some worn copies of 5th edition stuff (nothing core) is on the shelves. Nothing new.

They did have some of the latest Shadowrun stuff, and I picked up a hardback supplement of that with some minis to do my part in supporting them. They also had a good amount of WoD and D&D and of course what is now basically out print collector or treasure hunting items that is threatening to exceed the currently in print stocking.

It's easy to try and extend the local conditions to the whole world, and I'll avoid that. Also the reasons for things being what they are may be completely unrelated to the hobby itself (like the transfer of sales to online sources instead of hobby stores). I'd have to quiz the owner for details, and he's a rather nice upbeat guy. Asking why he's looking on the thin edge of going out of business wasn't something I wanted to beat him down with.

But whatever the cause, it's still a bummer.

Picking a New Campaign: Part V- Picking the System

As far as I'm concerned, selecting a system is easy because there are not many good ones. After wasting far too much time on various offerings, I've settle on just two: HERO System and my homegrown rules labeled Age of Heroes. HERO works for superheroes, sci-fi and basically everything using guns. Age of Heroes works best in pure fantasy settings where swords and spells settle things.

Normally picking between these two is easy. No so given the Claymore inspired setting for this new campaign.

On one hand, the abilities of the title characters reach superhero like levels as the series progresses (I'd describe one of the characters- Teresa as Captain America using a sword with the speed of Quicksilver). This plays to the strengths of HERO System.

On the other hand, the title of the show is Claymore. Sword fights are big deal in it. And Age of Heroes does sword fights much better.

One could focus on either, and by doing so push the other aspects into the background. A different choice indeed.

In the end we decided that the sword battles should have the focus. This will make the campaign less over the top and even more gritty. The special abilities will be on the order of human enhancement rather than superhero capabilities. This one choice means that it won't be the same as the anime, but that was in the one of the starting goals.

Currently I'm cleaning up the core rules (Age of Heroes as always been more a collection of notes than a finished work) and then will do the campaign supplement containing setting specific rules. We should be ready to start playing in a month or so.

Someone Nailed the Limits of Inclusion

I seldom do 'me too' posts, but an article by the Angry DM caught my eye.

He's basically saying He doesn't  give a flip about inclusion with respect to his gaming group. He picks his friends and you don't have a right to be among them.

I couldn't agree more. I can however take it perhaps further.

I think most victim groups are (if not originally self created) self maintained in today's world. Inclusion is a problem only because such people refuse to be individuals and insist on being a group instead. And without fail, those groups are ugly and selfish artificial creations. They are in effect not asking me to treat them as they deserve- they are demanding that I treat them according to the idealized state that they claim is owed to their group.

I will treat any individual acting as an individual with the amount of respect they earn. Self identified social victims need not apply. If you define yourself as something less than human, I (for reasons completely different than yours) will agree.