Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Well to be fair, it actually isn't false advertising. It is a tabletop roleplaying game, there is really nothing to indicate otherwise.

It just has more storygame dials than it does mainstream rpg or old school rpg elements. That's why it feels different to the classic rpgs that you listed.

I guess there seems to be three broad groupings in the tabletop rpg spectrum - mainstream, old school revival, and storygame. Mainstream sits in the middle, and the lines blur on either side with the other groups.

I don't think many game companies advertise outright which group their systems fall into, considering these things are so vague, although they often promote certain play styles. I think OSR seems to be much better than the others for clearly identifying on their books which category their products fall under.
 
Last edited:
robertsconley said:
It is when it advertises itself as a traditional roleplaying game and..
There's no "traditional" anywhere in that cover. So it seems it's your fault for creating a wrong expectation.

Though your experiences are not far from my own. Blades really feels like a mix of RPG, boardgame and improv-storytelling. Only those are features to me, not problems.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a 'traditional rpg' in the context it is being used here. False dichotomy.
 
Will be interesting to see if PbtA is alive and healthy in five to ten years time.
I like fresh ideas, and willing to try lots of new things in regards to gaming. However sometimes I feel if a system has too many 'novelty' mechanics, then it itself runs the risk of being a novelty.
I guess we'll see...
 
Last edited:
Will be interesting to see if PbtA is alive and healthy in five to ten years time.
I like fresh ideas, and willing to try lots of new things in regards to gaming. However sometimes I feel if a system has too many 'novelty' mechanics, then it itself runs the risk of being a novelty. Gaming is no different.
I guess we'll see...
Well it's here since 2010 and already influenced the hobby in some ways (Star Wars' success with complications, Cypher's GM don't rolls dice, Mutant Year Zero and Beyond the Wall playbooks and loaded relationships, the new Kult, etc) so there's that.
 
I guess I can't use any type of shorthand without someone wagging their finger at me going tut..tut.

To be crystal clear, my point is that Blades in the Dark doesn't play the same as games where players interact with a setting as their character where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.

That this is a result of the structure imposed by a set of mechanics for planning and resolving criminal operations. The result is that feels like playing a boardgame like Shadowrun Crossfire.

That this was a source of frustration because the setting, character creations, and the scenario for the session as laid out by the referee were interesting and fun to explore as our respective characters. That the switch between playing as our character and playing the boardgame to resolve what we wanted to do was jarring and unwelcomed. Especially as the resolution mechanics was boring as a game in of itself.

I have no doubt this game resonates with people, and have first hand experience via the accounts of my friend who refereed and those who I talk to from his regular group.

My opinion is that Evil Hat gains nothing by advertising this as a tabletop RPG with all it concoctions for hobbyists. That Blades in the Dark lies within the family of games represented by Shadowrun Crossbow, Arkham Horror, etc.

A family of games that successfully merges some of the concepts of games where players interact with a setting as their character with are referee adjudicating their action (i.e. traditional RPGs) with games where the goal is to play by the mechanics to achieve a victory conditions (i.e. boardgames).
 
Well it's here since 2010 and already influenced the hobby in some ways (Star Wars' success with complications, Cypher's GM don't rolls dice, Mutant Year Zero and Beyond the Wall playbooks and loaded relationships, the new Kult, etc) so there's that.
All those ideas were used and in play by the early 80s. For example Chaosium King Arthur's Pendragon.

What changed was because of the advent of Euro Games after 2000 the diversity of mechanics increased especially those that look simple but turn out have a lot of depth when used in play.
 
To be crystal clear, my point is that Blades in the Dark doesn't play the same as games where players interact with a setting as their character where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.
We got it. Blades plays as an hybrid of RPG (during the scores and freeplay) + boardgame (during downtime) + improv-storytelling (during flashbacks) elements and you don't like that. Fine.

The problem is that you're attempting to disqualify it's "RPG" part because it's not of your favorite flavour, or because it comes with the other elements by it's side. And that's nonsense. Chocolate on a Neapolitan ice cream is still chocolate, and will taste like chocolate if you strip the strawberry and cream. :hmmm:

All those ideas were used and in play by the early 80s. For example Chaosium King Arthur's Pendragon.
First, AFAIK Pendragon do not have success at a cost/playbooks/GM never rolls/etc. So please, elaborate this point. Second, even if Pendragon did have any of those, it didn't influence any other game in adopting those features, something AW did.
 
Last edited:
We got it. Blades plays as an hybrid of RPG (during the scores and freeplay) + boardgame (during downtime) + improv-storytelling (during flashbacks) elements and you don't like that. Fine.

The problem is that you're attempting to disqualify it's "RPG" part because it's not of your favorite flavour, or because it comes with the other elements by it's side. And that's nonsense. Chocolate on a Neapolitan ice cream is still chocolate, and will taste like chocolate if you strip the strawberry and cream. :hmmm:

Excellent analogy! If you ordered chocolate and I handed a dish with equal helping of vanilla, chocolate and strawberry, you would be understand upset with me and ask for what you ordered.

The problem here is we call everything that involves playing as a character ice cream. Anybody who try is to call something chocolate or define what chocolate is runs into irrational opposition. Despite acknowledging there are a larger category of ice cream.

Instead of acknowledging that yes, there are some games where players interact with a setting as a character that are related enough to form a category called chocolate. We get a standard litany of complaints, like "You are being exclusionary", "why we can't just call everything ice cream and play?", and so forth and so on.

I am sure at this point somebody, not necessarily you, will excerpt something from the above and totally ignore what I say next. But here it goes.

Games that focus on players interacting with a setting as their characters where their actions are adjudicated by a human referee are by their very nature hybrids. Dave Arneson's Blackmoor Blackmoor campaign was a hybrid of several different things.

Hybridization in gaming is a good thing. It how we get new and interesting things to play. However to be good at making new games, one needs to understand how existing games works, what elements they share, what makes them different and why.

When one studies games it one finds that there are categories of games. Games that stems from a common set of elements. Also finds that there numerous hybrids as well. That the existence of hybrids doesn't negate the existence of categories of games. That using different kinds of mechanic have a consequence in how the game is played. What is easy to focus on and what not. What take longer to resolve and what easy to resolve.

Discussion devolve because of the widespread hybridization. People start in one place, boardgame, wargame, RPG, and add in the elements they find interesting. Sometime the result remains in the original category sometime it now something different. However it is highly likely the author still feel it part of whatever original category he started with. Along with being offended if an opinion is stated that their game is no longer part of that category or gasp, more accurately a hybrid. Because of this debates devolve into being how one feels rather than the merits.

This is not unique to our present situation. It happen in the 70s with wargames and games where people interact with a setting as their characters where their actions are adjudicated by a human referee.

First, AFAIK Pendragon do not have success at a cost/playbooks/GM never rolls/etc. So please, elaborate this point. Second, even if Pendragon did have any of those, it didn't influence any other game in adopting those features, something AW did.

Amber, GM Never rolls
Pendragon, Mechanics detailing a character's personality along with personal interconnections.
Traveller, generating a characters back story, and supported self contained scenarios like Patron Encounters, that operate simiiarly to playbooks.
Marvel Superheroes i.e. FASERIP had many degrees of success.
James Bond RPG had narrative mechanics to make a campaign flow like a James Bond Movie.

What distinguishes story games from the above (except for James Bond) is a focus on creating a narrative as form of collaborative storytelling.
 
I don't see that as coming out the rule set just how that GM approaches it, nothing you describe seems tied to what I've read in the book which like AW is very much "here what I do, roll when needed." The only unusual mechanic is the clock and the flashbacks.

... I honestly have no idea what that person was running, but it sounds nothing like how I run Blades.

Same with the "replacing roleplaying with rolls" comments (If you aren't describing how you are doing what you are doing, I don't know how the GM would even decide the position and effect level of the roll). Or the idea that no one can be creative and that there are no challenges (coming up with good flashbacks on its own to get around the current situation can get pretty creative and challenging, not to mention that you can't flashback everything anyway or you will stress yourself right out of the heist).

I mean, the core mechanic of Blades is "Tell the GM what you want to do, and how you want to do it, then the GM sets the Position (difficulty) and effect (what you would accomplish if you succeeded) based on what you described, or decides you don't need to roll at all". Which is... pretty much how 90% of RPGs work.

The only criticism I do agree with is that it is a pretty laser focused system. But if that small focus is what you want, then even that can be a positive.
 
I mean, the core mechanic of Blades is "Tell the GM what you want to do, and how you want to do it, then the GM sets the Position (difficulty) and effect (what you would accomplish if you succeeded) based on what you described, or decides you don't need to roll at all". Which is... pretty much how 90% of RPGs work.

I disagree that is the core mechanic from how it was explained, played, and from reading the book. A lot more emphasis is placed on the interplay of the different phases as shown on the graphic I posted earlier.

As for how you used it, sure I see can how that can be 90% of what you focused on in your campaign/session. The sections on character creations, resolving actions, work as a RPG. It just when everything else included it would feeling more like playing Shadowrun Crossfire than playing D&D.
 
Last edited:
If we use the ice cream analogy and say vanilla represents old school, chocolate represents narrative, and strawberry represents story games, they are all still ice cream. So these games are all RPGs. There’s too many games that have a little bit of chocolate mixed in with their vanilla and they don’t fit into one box. There’s no real reason to label them on the box.
 
Also, my least favorite criticism of games people don't like the style of is "IT ISN'T EVEN AN RPG". Because 99% of the time its fucking bullshit.
I explained why if doesn't feel like Shadowrun Crossfire to you then so be it.
 
I explained why if doesn't feel like Shadowrun Crossfire to you then so be it.

You realize nothing about the structure of play stops anyone from roleplaying at any time right? That every single one of the things that can happen at every single step can be roleplayed out?

It has a certain explicit structure for flow, but absolutely none of that stops roleplaying at all.

And as someone who is very very experienced with board games, yeah, no it really doesn't feel like a board game. Because at every single step you can turn to the GM and go "I want to do X" and the GM can adjudicate how to do that.
 
If we use the ice cream analogy and say vanilla represents old school, chocolate represents narrative, and strawberry represents story games, they are all still ice cream.

I would like to see you to try to get my youngest to eat anything with chocolate ice cream in it.

So these games are all RPGs. There’s too many games that have a little bit of chocolate mixed in with their vanilla and they don’t fit into one box. There’s no real reason to label them on the box.
So I should tell my youngest that he should each chocolate ice cream because ice cream and that he is silly for disliking it so much.

Why it important that Blades in the Dark and D&D be placed on the same shelf under the same category name?

Especially in light of your acknowledgment that yes there while there are games called ice cream (i..e roleplaying games) there are different flavors like vanilla (old school), chocolate (narrative), etc.

Wouldn't it be useful to know what flavor a game is? Or whether it is a mix like Neapolitan (which some absolutely can't enough of like one of my cousins).
 
You realize nothing about the structure of play stops anyone from roleplaying at any time right? That every single one of the things that can happen at every single step can be roleplayed out?

It has a certain explicit structure for flow, but absolutely none of that stops roleplaying at all.

My dislike is about how the game flows as outlined in the diagram I posted. From what I read and experienced with the mechanics in Chapter 4: The Score. How it interplays with the faction mechanics and the downtime mechanics feel like manipulating a boardgame to me. Yeah there are moment where I roleplay in characters but the other mechanics are an unwelcome distraction.

For a different example in Champions, superpower are precisely defined by a system of base effects, advantages, and limitations. The system is quite flexible, but it a lot of looking up things on lists and doing math. Plus it can be argued that it doesn't reflect how powers are represented in the genre.

The result is that there are people who like the superhero genre for RPGs but will not play Champions. Feels that all the math and build manipulation gets in the way of roleplaying a superhero and forces them what is in their view a wargame. For many RPGs like FASERIP or ICONs is a better fit.

And as someone who is very very experienced with board games, yeah, no it really doesn't feel like a board game.
Sure I can see that.

Because at every single step you can turn to the GM and go "I want to do X" and the GM can adjudicate how to do that.
Sure that may be true but for me having to keep in mine that I am trying to modify the faction mechanics and the whole Engagement sequence makes it feel like a boardgame similar to Shadowrun Crossfire.
 
Why is it important to you that Blades in the Dark not be called an RPG?

How about answering the question?

As for your question it because it what I observed and read from primary sources i.e. the rulebook sold by Evil Hat. And when questioned I defended my opinion. When I defended people go either it bullshit, like you, or ,"Why does this all matter it all ice cream."

Either flavors of ice cream exist or they don't. If they do then it can be a topic of discussion including whether somebody's product is particular flavor of ice cream.
 
You realize nothing about the structure of play stops anyone from roleplaying at any time right? That every single one of the things that can happen at every single step can be roleplayed out?

It has a certain explicit structure for flow, but absolutely none of that stops roleplaying at all.

A negative definition does not work as it becomes so vague as to be useless.
Example: in Risk, nothing stops you from roleplaying a crazy dictator bent on world domination. There is absolutely no rule against that in the game. This, however, does not make Risk a roleplaying game.

I understand the source of your irritation but I also understand Robert's viewpoint. I have been there and done that in this neverending fight about definining the language.

Robert is right in the fact that we need a more precise language. Saying "Blades is an RPG just like D&D" might be all well and good but if I'm looking for a "traditional" RPG that doesn't really convey me the information I need to make a valid purchase.
OTOH, I can also easily see why you'd find the sentence "Blades is not an RPG" as an attempt to demean the game.

I don't think it's what's happening here. But I do know that as soon as you try to restrict the semantic field associated with the term "RPG", holy wars will inevitably erupt.

I believe the only solution at this point in the evolution of RPG theory (or rather, lack thereof, not in small part due to these "semantic wars") is just to accept a field as large as possible for the "RPG" term (as regretful as this might be, since the larger the field, the less information it gives) and just start creating subcategories with the "RPG" word in it. E.g. traditional RPGs, storygame RPGs, OSR RPGs, etc.

No idea how you would call an hybrid like Blades though. "Hybrid board-RPG"? In any case, a name is needed, not to signify it is something "less", but simply to properly identify specific characteristics in a quick and easily identifiable way.
 
It isn't a board game. I know. And I have no negative opinions of board games. If it was a board game I'd be fine with that to, but it isn't. I own 300+ board games. I know what a board game is and I quite like them.

Blades in the Dark is not a board game any more than D&D is a board game because it has rules for playing on a grid.

Blades in the Dark is about ROLEPLAYING CHARACTERS IN AN IMAGINARY WORLD. The mechanics are all focused around creating interesting situations for them to roleplay in. The downtime mechanics are no different than downtime mechanics for a lot of games, it is just "how much can I accomplish between scores", and they explicitly discuss roleplaying during downtime. Heat and vices and troubles after scores are all designed to give you situations to roleplay off of. The mechanics for turf are designed to give you motive and reason to confront NPC power structures in order to... you got it, roleplay the situations. Every single mechanic in Blades in the Dark is designed to provide situations to roleplay in.

Yes, you can roleplay in Risk, but the games mechanics do not exist in order to provide situations to roleplay in.
 
Also, the Downtime/Free Play/Score structure is probably more concrete than the assumed play structure of most RPGs, but I guarantee that a lot of RPGs have assumed play structures, they just aren't explicitly called out.

Also, I think the problem comes from the idea that a "Score" is always a heist. You can play almost any situation as a score as long as there is an interplay of power if you want to give it the full mechanical gravitas. Just like not every "Dungeon" in D&D is literally a dungeon.
 
I believe the only solution at this point in the evolution of RPG theory (or rather, lack thereof, not in small part due to these "semantic wars") is just to accept a field as large as possible for the "RPG" term (as regretful as this might be, since the larger the field, the less information it gives) and just start creating subcategories with the "RPG" word in it. E.g. traditional RPGs, storygame RPGs, OSR RPGs, etc.

No idea how you would call an hybrid like Blades though. "Hybrid board-RPG"?
Nice. The same way there are romantic movies, action movies, horror movies, thete may also be traditional RPGs, narrative RPGs, PvP RPGs, boardgamish RPGs, etc.

Are we settled? :grin:
 
I still think a more precise language is needed. Not to mention, modern evolved dungeon crawler boardgames (Gloomhaven, Sword and Sorcery) are veering closer and closer to RPG territory. Seeing the two as categorically split is becoming more and more dubious, IMO.
 
Why it important that Blades in the Dark and D&D be placed on the same shelf under the same category name?
Because it is far more similar to D&D (In many people's opinions) than it is to a board game. Why is it so important that Blades in the Dark and Shadowrun Crossfire be placed on the same shelf under the same category name?

You can avoid all the roleplaying and just stick to the mechanics, of course, but...
* Why would you do that, RPG mechanics tend to be really boring in and of themselves
* The same is true for pretty much any other RPG out there
* That was what people used to do in Ye Olde RPGe Dayes, and given people stopped doing it at some point, maybe they stopped for a reason

The core point of this argument, and a lot of other arguments, is that different people want different things from their RPG's, and that is why there are so many of them; the ice cream analogy fails because not only does everybody like different flavours, nobody can even agree on which flavour is which.
 
I still think a more precise language is needed. Not to mention, modern evolved dungeon crawler boardgames (Gloomhaven, Sword and Sorcery) are veering closer and closer to RPG territory. Seeing the two as categorically split is becoming more and more dubious, IMO.

As a huge fan of Gloomhaven, what it is attempting to do isn't even close to what Blades in the Dark is attempting to do.

In Gloomhaven you can roleplay, but the mechanics aren't interested in that at all. The mechanics are designed around building a challenge.

In Blades in the Dark, the entire point of all the mechanics is to provide situations to roleplay in.
 
Amber, GM Never rolls
Lol you're writing this with a straight face? Because I don't believe it. Really. The "GM never rolls" in Amber has nothing to do with the "GM never rolls" in Apocalypse World for the simple fact the former is DICELESS while the second is not. So no, Amber didnt precede AW with this feature.

Pendragon,
Mechanics detailing a character's personality along with personal interconnections.
Again, the interconnections in Pendragon has nothing to do with Hx in AW, nor serve the same design goals. Paranoia would be a better precursor to the concept of frenemies that AW's relationships systematizing is supposed to promote. But the game that really created the concept was The Mountain Witch.

Traveller
, generating a characters back story, and supported self contained scenarios like Patron Encounters, that operate simiiarly to playbooks.
Here I can see similarities, but the way playbooks are used, again, are completely distinct from Travellers lifepath in application and goals.

Marvel Superheroes
i.e. FASERIP had many degrees of success.
Bro, degrees of success have nothing to do with success with complications, nor, again, they address the same design goals.

Really, give up. Apocalypse World is far from perfect and far from being some revolutionary shit, but denying it had it's share of novel ideas and influence over the hobby in the last years is nuts. Which, again, begs the question: Why this need to discredit non-traditional roleplaying games ?
 
Last edited:
As a huge fan of Gloomhaven, what it is attempting to do isn't even close to what Blades in the Dark is attempting to do.

In Gloomhaven you can roleplay, but the mechanics aren't interested in that at all. The mechanics are designed around building a challenge.

In Blades in the Dark, the entire point of all the mechanics is to provide situations to roleplay in.
Negotiation games like Junta or Republic of Rome would be better examples of grey areas.

They're board games, but the mechanics there are designed around negotiating in a role.
 
Negotiation games like Junta or Republic of Rome would be better examples of grey areas.

They're board games, but the mechanics there are designed around negotiating in a role.

They would be better arguments but even there, the goal of the negotiations in those games are not to play a role, but to accomplish the mechanical goals of the game.

There is a major difference between board games and RPGs in that board games have defined goals for winning, and all of the mechanics are built around making that competitive/a challenge, where as in RPGs the players generally set the goals of their characters themselves, and the mechanics are generally built to facilitate them striving for those goals, simulating the world/genre, or generating roleplaying situations/complications.

Also, if anyone tried to go on a board game forum and claim that Blades in the Dark was closer to a board game than an RPG, they would be laughed off the fucking board. It is a ludicrous statement.
 
Last edited:
4. What do we gain by calling it "not an RPG" rather than "A boring RPG for boring people related to a large number other similarly boring RPGs for similarly boring people" ?

I would propose you gain nothing from either.

I've never understood why people care to shit talk the games that others enjoy, to such a point as to insult the people playing them.

If people enjoy a game I don't, good for them. At least they are having fun.
 
If the only people who ever claim to have enjoyed a given game are people with a track record of being jerks then that's relevant to the analysis.

Like if someone has fun with (insert name of your idea of an offensive game here) but literally everyone who likes it belongs to (insert name of ideologically offensive group that WOULD like such a game) then you can go "Ok, they like it but that is also a bad game". I mean "torturing cats" can be a game.

My god, I can't eyeroll hard enough at this bullshit. Dude, torturing cats, in and of itself, makes you a shitty person.

Playing games I don't like doesn't make someone a worse person. Of course if the game itself is morally objectionable, if they are playing RaHoWa or FATAL or some shit like that, but within the normal spectrum of roleplaying games, no, sorry.

And the truth is, you will call people jerks for the slightest thing, so I wouldn't trust your ability to judge people anyway.

I mean, it is already clear that you think very little of anyone here, as you have stated repeatedly that you don't socialize here because you have much better people to socialize with. So who is the jerk here? The one who is suggesting to let people enjoy the things they enjoy, or the person who has explicitly stated they look down their nose at this entire forum.
 
1. Do you think so many people shared your reaction the game's sales were hurt?
I would say yes but not as much as its presentation.

What it is clear looking at the ToC and presentation that it has specific kind of campaign in mind (criminal operations) in a dark fantasy setting. So as much I am debating how it feel during play it not why it remains a niche of niche game.

2. Do you care? Like if Evil Hat is making terrible marketing mistakes why should anyone care?
I like talking about all things in the RPG hobby so I am interested. I know that the not the same as caring. But I also like to debate and explore points fully so I come off more passionate about the specifics than I am really am.

I do get annoyed over the heat that talking about categories of RPGs generates. So that is a form of caring. You and I have different styles when it comes to the OSR however I think it great that your stuff it out there and better yet doing well. The more people doing different things the better off we are in the long run.

3. Do you think if it was sold mainly to boardgame fans and only discussed by RPG fans to the degree we talk about, say, Munchkin or Small World, it would do better?

Yes in a way. I think a class of games that do what Shadowrun Crossfire and Gloomhaven does with less overhead (for example number of playing pieces) would be beneficial. That Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark taken to the next step with their own path of development would do well going that route.

4. What do we gain by calling it "not an RPG" rather than "A boring RPG for boring people related to a large number other similarly boring RPGs for similarly boring people" ?

In recent years there been a class of games emerging that merges boardgame mechanics with roleplaying mechanics. They are not as flexible as a traditional roleplaying game, but they are evocative with well designed mechanics that support the setting they depict. It worked well enough that this class of games has become a thing. For example Elder Sign and Shadowrun Crossfire. One way this is achieve is through a narrow focus on a specific subgenre like Cthulu Horror for Elder Sign.

But the downside is they are rather high in price, come with a bunch of fiddly "bits". Like multiple decks of cards for Shadowrun Crossfire. But with games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Blades in the Dark the use of RPG mechanics coupled with other types of mechanics make for a tight package depicting a complex situation that can be straightforward to setup and run compared to the above boardgames or a traditional D&D style RPG.

But if you attempt to play these games like a traditional RPG, there are issues like the ones I ran into with Blades in the Dark. Not as bad if I tried to use Elder sign to run a Cthulu campaign but still there are problems.

The root of much of this is the success of Euro-games illustrating how you can deep play and strategy out of a set of simple mechanics.

I hoped I answered the question fully. Some of it still stuff I am mulling over so it isn't a clear I would like it to be.
 
I remember once that I jokingly called you an asshole in a thread (at the same time I was also referring to myself as an asshole), and you insisted vehemently that you weren't an asshole.

Yet you are going to call anyone who plays Blades in the Dark is a boring person.

I'm seriously failing to see the part where you aren't an asshole.
 
robertsconley robertsconley I do not get where you are getting the idea that Elder Sign and Shadowrun: Crossfire are taking anything from RPGs. They are just games with theme. Thematic games have existed for years and years and years. Elder Sign is just a themed yahtzee mechanic style coop game, and Shadowrun: Crossfire is a coop deckbuilder with some progression mechanics (the only part that can be considered vaguely rpgish, but progression mechanics exist in a hell of a lot of things that aren't tabletop rpgs).

Both of them just take mechanics from other existing board games. Theme in board games isn't new at all.

You really sound like someone who doesn't know the board game design field.
 
No, I am asking what Rob gains by saying it's "not an rpg" rather than simply saying that.

We're talking about Rob's subjective opinion and how he expresses it, not mine. I don't know anyone well who likes PTA games so I couldn't render that judgment.

Ah, I misunderstood you in this case. Though I would say you are mischaracterizing what he is saying. He doesn't seem to be calling people who play it boring.
 
Addenum: My day job is head programmer for a company making metal cutting machines including some that function as complex assembly lines. One of the things I do is troubleshoot along with think of novel new features for us to implement in our software. To this well I become adept at spotting patterns in how people use our software and what they do with our machine. Then distilling that in specifics that we can implement in our software and machine. But in a way that consistent with how things currently work. It not always an easy thing to do.

In the past two decades, I notices several distinct new "patterns" emerging among the games being published for the tabletop RPG hobby. One of which are games that focus on creating collaborative storytelling to create a shared narrative. The other games that use RPG mechanics but which a much narrower focus and makes heavy use of metagame mechanics. Mechanics that you use as a player not a character.

That with boardgame a separate but similar thread is also occurring. Where boardgames borrow RPG elements, create a rich setting, and design the boardgame mechanics to evoke feelingsin a way consistent with the setting.
 
robertsconley robertsconley I do not get where you are getting the idea that Elder Sign and Shadowrun: Crossfire are taking anything from RPGs. They are just games with theme. Thematic games have existed for years and years and years. Elder Sign is just a themed yahtzee mechanic style coop game, and Shadowrun: Crossfire is a coop deckbuilder with some progression mechanics (the only part that can be considered vaguely rpgish, but progression mechanics exist in a hell of a lot of things that aren't tabletop rpgs).
On a not unrelated note, I think there's the potential for an RPG system lurking somewhere in Elder Sign and it's mechanics; I know that FFG are going to use Genesys for next year's Arkham Files book, but I'd like to have seen it expanded and iterated on.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top