Why aren't RPGs poplular

[TwinBahamut]

Video games are not role-playing games.

Someone beat me to this, but...

Video games are not pen-and-paper/tabletop role-playing games. Those are indeed different things. That said, "role-playing game" has been an established genre of videogaming for decades, to the point where it would probably be pretty easy to find someone who knew the videogame genre definition but didn't know anything about the tabletop game definition (I was one such person when I was a kid). There is also enough similarity between the two that they are worth comparing (though I personally think many videogame RPGs would be a lot better off if they were less like tabletop RPGs).

Anyways, I think the simple point that tabletop RPGs are too time-intensive is far and away they biggest issue. In fact, I will say that in most cases tabletop RPGs are far more time-intensive than many other forms of entertainment but have few advantages to make up for that fault. The only thing I can think of is the extreme flexibility of a tabletop RPG's story, but that isn't a guaranteed part of the tabletop RPG experience and pulling that kind of thing off requires a lot of DM effort. A DM needs to put in an excessive amount of effort, far more than is required to just play the game, for a D&D game's story to be more flexible than a good videogame's story and still stay just as involving and fun.

Honestly, even ridiculously complicated boardgames like Twilight Imperium have a lot of advantages over tabletop RPGs in this regard, simply because it is easier to jump straight into playing one and it doesn't require a DM to spend hours of prep work on.

 

[cattoy]

Video games are not role-playing games.

Often, so-called RPGs aren't, either.

You can go through a session of 4e without a shred of role playing. It's perfectly suited to be a small-unit tactical combat boardgame, if you want it to be. Been there, done that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So the Ultima's, Wizardry's, Temples of Apshai --I'm really showing my age with that one-- Bard's Tales, Might and Magics, SSI Gold Box games, not to mention the Final Fantasy's, Dragon Quests, Star Oceans, Suikoden's, and veritable horde of Pokemons are something other than role-playing games?

Despite being labeled, sold, purchased, played, enjoyed, and widely recognized and discussed as such? For the past 30+ years.

Really?

(don't mind me, I just have a thing against prescriptivism)

I've played many of those myself on my Macs or even Apple IIe- why yes, I'm at least that old- and I'd have to agree that most of those aren't RPGs. IMHO, they're fantasy-themed combat/strategy/puzzle games. They're no more RPGs than Doom, except that you get to choose the name of your "character(s)."

Now, when you start getting into the online MMORPGs, though, its quite arguable that those are genuine RPGs...and I think the key is interaction with other human beings rather than solely with AIs.

 

[Hussar]

That's another point. Early editions of D&D were very heavily influenced by Tolkien, Moorcock, Lieber, Vance, Lovecraft and others, to the extent that there were various lawsuits threatened and served. (Halflings were originally Hobbits, Treants were originally Ents, and the very first "Deities & Demigods" included the Cthulhu mythos!)

I suspect that one could construct a really kick-ass game and/or setting by taking elements from Pokemon, Harry Potter, Eragon, and the like, filing off the serial numbers, putting them into a blender, and spicing the result. And so, perhaps we would have a game where the characters are lords of elemental familiars, dragon-riders, and lapsed students at the great academy Grimcrest, out on their adventures for fun and profit. Put that together (have the lawyers take a very good look at it), and market it heavily towards young adults, and you might well have a monster hit on your hands.

There's a bit of a nugget in there to remember as well. In the mid 70's, when TSR was ripping off the IP of any number of people and jamming it into the game, the lawsuits were pretty few and far between.

Imagine, for a second, the power that J. K. Rowling and co could bring to bear if they caught a whiff of IP violation from an RPG company. I've read around that Rowling absolutely refuses to consider making an RPG for the HP brand because she doesn't want people doing slasher fanfic with her characters. ((I'm paraphrasing of course))

I'm thinking that, right there, is probably the biggest reason RPG companies are a lot more leery of "borrowing" ideas than they once were. FASA being hammered for its IP violations with mechs makes a perfect example of what can happen to you if you get a bit careless with what you include in your game.

 

[delericho]

Imagine, for a second, the power that J. K. Rowling and co could bring to bear if they caught a whiff of IP violation from an RPG company. I've read around that Rowling absolutely refuses to consider making an RPG for the HP brand because she doesn't want people doing slasher fanfic with her characters. ((I'm paraphrasing of course))

There's a lot of truth to that.

At the same time, there is absolutely nothing original in Harry Potter beyond the specific characters (and situations) themselves - we have wizards, giants, centaurs, flying brooms, dark lords, prophecies, school, bullies, teachers, friends, evil step-parents... (Okay, there's Quiddich.)

Even things like the house system is lifted directly from UK schools (my own school had a house system, although we completely ignored it), the "Ministry of Magic" is just a logical extrapolation from our government's other ministries, and so forth.

Indeed, part of the success of the stories is probably because it all feels so immediately familiar. But this means that it really wouldn't take much to file off the serial numbers.

Similarly, with the dragon riders I suggested borrowing from Eragon, well, that's not exactly an original idea, is it? Heck, WotC can even show prior art - dragon riding has been a big part of Dragonlance for decades.

However, the "elemental familiars" borrowed from Pokemon are considerably more questionable.

 

[Jhaelen]

I've played many of those myself on my Macs or even Apple IIe- why yes, I'm at least that old- and I'd have to agree that most of those aren't RPGs. IMHO, they're fantasy-themed combat/strategy/puzzle games. They're no more RPGs than Doom, except that you get to choose the name of your "character(s)."

Now, when you start getting into the online MMORPGs, though, its quite arguable that those are genuine RPGs...and I think the key is interaction with other human beings rather than solely with AIs.

I agree with your first point - most of these games didn't really have any roleplaying elements (imho, Ultima being the exception (among the games I recognize)).

Regarding your second point:
While MMORPGs provide an interface that would allow roleplaying, it's rare to meet players who actually do it (though I might have played on the wrong servers). Back when I was still playing in MUDs, there were several that expected everyone to roleplay and offered a separate 'Out-Of-Character' channel for anything else.
That's the kind of setup required to call a MMORPG a 'roleplaying game' in the original sense.

Regarding the complexity question of WoW vs. pen & paper rpgs:
Oni already provided an excellent counter-argument. The exceptional success of WoW over other MMRPGs was a direct cause of it's accessibility. All MMORPGs that came before were fiendishly difficult to get started with by comparison. I remember, it took me over half an hour just to figure out how to move my avatar in the first MMORPG I tried.
In WoW it's super-easy to just start playing and you can easily reach two-digit levels without understanding much about the game.

Consequently, what pen & paper rpgs obviously need to become popular is dead-simple introductiory material that allows a group of friends to start playing right away. Once they're hooked, they'll be willing to invest more time to get and read the complete rules.

Imho, the D&D 4e starter box does a pretty good job in that regard.

 

[mattcolville]

Video games are not role-playing games.

Seems a silly thing to say. In both you create a character and make decisions about what he's going to do, and as you play he grows and changes. What else is there?

Without having read the whole thread, I've never felt like RPGs should be popular, or that my life would somehow be better if it were. RPGs seem extremely weird and nichey to me compared to most things people do, so the fact that they'r obscure is probably for the best.

Now, that being said, I think that something happened in the late 80's, early 90's. Before then, my perception was that if people saw you playing D&D and asked "What's that?" the reaction would be "get this guy a character and some dice."

After that period, the reaction would be "nothing, go away." Or, worse, "it's like cops and robbers with rules!"

I swear no one is worse at describing why RPGs are fun than people who think RPGs are fun.

So that shift in our own attitudes toward our hobby, from the "get this guy playing" attitude to the "I'm embarrassed by this" attitude is certainly a reaction to something, but I don't think the stimulus is to blame, we're to blame by reacting by being embarrassed.

But, at the end of the day, I have no reason to want RPGs to be more popular, I can't imagine them ever really being mainstream in the pen-and-pencil version, and I have no problem with this.

 

[Gentlegamer]

So the Ultima's, Wizardry's, Temples of Apshai --I'm really showing my age with that one-- Bard's Tales, Might and Magics, SSI Gold Box games, not to mention the Final Fantasy's, Dragon Quests, Star Oceans, Suikoden's, and veritable horde of Pokemons are something other than role-playing games?

Despite being labeled, sold, purchased, played, enjoyed, and widely recognized and discussed as such? For the past 30+ years.

Really?

Yes. There has been a genre of video game called "RPG" for many years, but such games aren't really RPGs any more than video game sports games are really the sports themselves. Other video game genres include Action, Adventure, Puzzle, etc (and combinations).

In the video game world, a game meets the criteria of being "RPG" by the character(s) advancing through "experience points" and "character levels," concepts borrowed from D&D, but insufficient to make them actual role-playing games.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A DM needs to put in an excessive amount of effort, far more than is required to just play the game, for a D&D game's story to be more flexible than a good videogame's story and still stay just as involving and fun.

A role-playing game's "story" is what the participants make at the game table, and is infinite in possibilities. A video game's "story" is confined to the "adventure path" (often a linear "railroad") in which the player is really just a spectator to a predefined "script" of events set up by the programmer. There's really no comparison nor should there be confusion about which is really a role-playing game.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Often, so-called RPGs aren't, either.

You can go through a session of 4e without a shred of role playing. It's perfectly suited to be a small-unit tactical combat boardgame, if you want it to be. Been there, done that.

I've never played 4e, but if the players can still take actions using "descriptive action" (including parleying, bribing, etc) that fall outside of quantified menu of action choices given by the RAW, even if the whole session is combat, they are still playing a role-playing game. In an actual role-playing game, the entire activity, including combat, is role-playing.