Re: Interactive storytelling and me; and a challenge

["Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@indiegamedesign.com>]

WFreitag@aol.com wrote:

> 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.
>  
Quite a conundrum.  Quality and popularity seemingly are at 
enviornmental odds with each other.  People achieve quality in the 
small, or popularity in the large, but not quality in the large.  That 
problem domain eludes people's thinking, because nobody manages to 
muster the resources to undertake it.

> 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.
>  
Nice to have reproducible results!  :-)

> 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.
>  
Well, that's an interesting claim.  Pity I'm devoid of time right now.  
Guess I'll get to it someday.

> 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?
>  
Pictionary comes to mind. 

> > 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...
>  
I usually bill myself as a Game Designer, but really I'm a Game 
Developer who puts on many hats.  If you want to make money, and get 
people to notice stuff, and keep your independence, you'll have to put 
on various hats.  I don't think one should eschew the hats.  Perhaps the 
generated stories just can't garner the attention by themselves.  
Analogously, people have been using audio to boost the perceived quality 
of their visuals for quite some time now.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
                         - anonymous entrepreneur