{"id":22461,"date":"2018-11-06T00:01:08","date_gmt":"2018-11-05T13:01:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/?p=22461"},"modified":"2018-11-05T23:57:48","modified_gmt":"2018-11-05T12:57:48","slug":"a-measure-of-success","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/a-measure-of-success\/","title":{"rendered":"A Measure Of Success: GM’s ways of ‘winning’ in an RPG"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"stocked

Image provided by pixabay.com\/Wokandapix, cropped by Mike<\/p><\/div>\n

This article has been in preparation for a very long time – since May 2017, in fact. I hope it proves to have been worth the wait…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While there is no such thing as “winning” in an RPG, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t success, and that not all success is created equal. Some success may not be desired, some may not be desirable, some may be hard-earned, while some may come naturally. This article will seek to understand success in its myriad forms and then apply that knowledge to the RPG concept to see what can be made of it.<\/p>\n

Because it’s a field that I know quite well, have thought about extensively, and that a lot of people can relate to, I am going to undertake my initial analysis through the prism of popular music. Bear with me, I don’t have a road-map…!<\/p>\n

Popular Success<\/h3>\n

The foundations of this article were laid when I remembered some interviews from 70s, 80s, and 90s TV in which various performers rubbished the notion of seeking popular success. The phrase most commonly used was “selling out”, and it’s one that always irks me. It implies that it’s easy to be commercially successful, and that it requires less artistry and\/or depth and is more formulaic.<\/p>\n

There are 52 weeks in the year. Pop charts have been maintained, in one form or another, for more than 50 years, and are typically refreshed on a weekly basis. That means that at most<\/em> over that time period there have been 2600 number one singles on the top-40 charts (or their equivalents).<\/p>\n

In fact, turnover tends to be a lot slower than that; while a few tracks make it to number one only to be dethroned the following week, many remain ascendant for two, three, four, or more, weeks. If we set the real average at a conservative 2 weeks. Because the estimate is<\/em> conservative, the number will almost certainly be crowding the lower end of the scale. It’s not unreasonable to use a nice, round, 1000 number ones for the time period.<\/p>\n

For every number one hit, there are at least 40 more (and more likely, 400 or 4,000) acts who would like to have had that measure of success with a song released at around the same time. The intensity of that desire may vary, as would the price of achieving it, but the desire is nevertheless there.<\/p>\n

At best, then, any given single has a one in forty (or four hundred, or four thousand – how many songs hit the global market in any given week?) chance of making it, of being the most popular single of a given week. That, to me, doesn’t make it sound particularly easy.<\/p>\n

On top of that, every #1 artist has had “sure fire” hits that crashed and burned, while some successes have come right out of left field. While formula may make you a successful artist, with regular top-40 appearances for a while, it’s rare to ride one all the way to the top of the charts. That generally requires something extra, something more than mere formula.<\/p>\n

Commercial success is never anything to be ashamed of, either for the artist or the purchaser. It’s hard to achieve, and harder to achieve consistently, and harder still to achieve better than anyone else in a given time period. Having a number 1 – in anything – means that more people liked your product than anything else in that particular time period.<\/p>\n