Are Kids interested in Pen & Paper RPGs?

[MoogleEmpMog]

Not to be all doom-and-gloomy, I'd say no, or at least not really. I'm of the opinion that tabletop RPGs are dying a slow death, that there are less and less serious/hardcore gamers being created. The good news is that the existing base is strong and it is a habit that many do not give up, so as long as "we" (the 25-45ish base) don't stop playing RPGs, the hobby will survive, if not thrive.

I hate to say it, folks, but in 20-30 years TRPGers might be perceived somewhat similarly to stamp collectors or model railroaders now (q: does anyone under the age of 50 collect stamps? If so the number is very, very small; someone might be asking the same question about TRPGs in twenty years).

I can't speak for stamp collecting - OH WAIT, yes I can. The US postal service produces collectible stamps in quantities that D&D never began to approach at the height of its boom in the '80s. Considering that the USPS is one of only a handful of government programs in the world that TURNS A PROFIT, there is a not inconsiderable possibility that they know what they're doing.

Model railroading is a very large hobby and a solid industry. National chains like Hobby Lobby don't carry aisles full of flock, foam mountains and miniature trees because they cater primarily to miniatures wargamers. How many chain bookstores do you know with entire aisles dedicated to RPGs today? How many in their presumable height in the '80s?

Will tabletop RPGs be as healthy a hobby in 20-30 years? I don't know - but I HOPE SO.

I will posit a hypothesis: If a child is exposed to video games at an early age and plays them a lot, they'll be less inclined to enjoy tabletop RPGs later on. Why? Because their imagination becomes dependent upon external imagery. More and more children are playing video games (not to mention watching television) pretty much as soon as they are ex utero. This is a travesty, imo.

Fortunately for this industry (and the world?), you're incredibly, unbelievably, atrociously WRONG in just about every way it's possible to be.

If you think video games REDUCE creativity relative to what the generation that pushed D&D to its height of popularity consumed (hint: TV, in greater quantities due to fewer alternatives), I have a significant number of water-crossings to exchange for cash.

If you think video games reduce creativity, visit fanfiction.net or deviantart.com and see how much art and writing, from the awful to the amazing, is produced by their fans. Visit the thousands of freeform RPG chat rooms based on video game characters and settings. Visit the immense modding community for PC games, requiring technical skill vastly in excess of even the most ludicrously overcomplicated tabletop game yet still attracting innumerable adherents. Visit the RPG Maker community where entire electronic games are produced by fans who script, sprite and code them.

 

[Mercurius]

A bit more on the blog entry. Overall I enjoyed it, but I think the author is missing something when he basically conflates all forms of geekery as of one essence. In one sense computer games and RPGs are almost diametrically opposed: the former rely upon simulation, the latter imagination; the former are externally derived or stimulated, the latter internally generated(that is, through one's own creative capacity).

I don't pretend not to be rather anti-computer games as I see very little, if any, redeeming value beyond the development of certain motor skills and mental processing speed. But at what cost? We really don't know yet, but I can say that every single hardcore computer game player that I've known has been rather unhealthy and unbalanced in a social/lifestyle sense. There are other qualities that I've observed, but won't go into them here.

CGs and RPGs are not interchangeable. Yes, they are both within the broad category of geekdom, but so too are crack and chocolate in the broad category of narcotics. But the two stimulate very different aspects of human consciousness. The danger I see is that the more they are seen as part of one continuum, the more RPG designers try to reach out to CGers through use of computer gimmickry, and the more computer games "infect" RPGs. Think of stuff like virtual game tables, or what Wizards talked about designing as part of D&DI but still hasn't emerged (was it the game table? I forget). At some point the two begin to merge, but in so doing that which makes RPGs truly vital is in danger of being lost: the play of human imagination.

There's a great Gary Gygax quote in which he mentions kids being asked whether they preferred radio or TV better in terms of stories. One kid said radio, "because the pictures are better." I would agree with this wholeheartedly, that the "pictures" (of human imagination) are better than those of computer simulation, but they are more elusive, they aren't as easy. They aren't a quick fix. The human imagination requires nourishment and development. If you feed it, it will grow. If you starve it, it will die. Filling it with pre-made imagery is akin to starving it (or, perhaps more accurately, it is akin to overloading it and smothering it, even eventually burning it out).

The imagery of computer games, on first glance, are amazing, vivid, even occasionally beautiful. But they are skin deep, soul-less. The images of human imagination are subtle, elusive, and vaporous. But they exist within an infinite context, that of the soul itself. So we're talking about something that is soul-less versus something that is the very medium of the soul. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[LFK]

I don't pretend not to be rather anti-computer games

Which is good, because in a lot of ways you're very, very wrong in your evaluation of things.

Tabletop and Computer generated games stimulate both the "simulation" and "imagination" centers of the brain (left and right hemispheres, really). The difference between the success of CGs versus RPGs has more to do with raw accessibility and the logistics of play than it does anything else: you can play a video game by yourself. It's the same reason why Sudoku is played by more people per day than card games which are played by more people than board games. All are very popular game forms, but they range from simple solo games which can be engaged and disengaged in seconds to requiring multiple people and special tools and distinct time investments.

It's the same reason why video games like sudoku, tetris, and bejewelled (all being very abstract logic games with little to no simulation involved) are far and away more popular than even the best selling JRPG or FPS: you can start playing in seconds and walk away just as easily.

 

[Mercurius]

Yet every single study denies this. I mean, the same thing has been said of TV for my entire lifetime. TV is the death of reading. Yet, currently, Young adult fiction sales are up 25 per cent. Every single major publisher now sports a young adult fiction line. The idea that video games are hurting imagination just isn't supported by the studies.

I don't see how the two equate. In my mind at least, young adult fiction sales rising does not equal video games not having a deleterious effect on imagination. They might have some relation but it is not a direct correspondence, at least no more than, say, something like this: "They say obesity is on the rise but people are eating 25% more carrots, so how can obesity be on the rise?"

The whole problem with this thought is that it's a zero sum game. "If people play video games, then they can't be reading" is the thought. To some degree, I suppose its true. There are, after all, only so many hours in the day. But, time after time this gets brought up and shot down. Video games are not destroying the brains of the youth.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying, that people playing video games means they aren't reading. I work at a small private high school and the "king of the nerds" (his friends' term, not mine) last year was a voracious reader, who could down a 600-page fantasy novel in a night or two. Of course the problem with him at least is that he didn't retain anything, or at least anything of depth. And that's partly my point. He might be able to tell me what the general plot of the story was, but he could definitely not tell me about anything of depth or meaning.

And, really, I'm 36, I turn 37 next week. I grew up with video games. I had an Atari 2600 back in the very early 80's. I spent a bajillion hours playing that bloody thing. Yet, somehow, I still read lots and game frequently.

Atari 2600 was a very different beast than World of Warcraft is. But my guess is that Atari 2600 didn't satisfy your "imaginative urge," thus your interest in RPGs.

We already have an entire generation that has grown up on video games - most of us. Certainly anyone under the age of 40 grew up with video games in the house. While I do realize there are a number of gamers over 40, I'm still thinking most gamers are younger than that.

I'm about your age and I didn't grow up with video games in the house, although I did occasionally go to the arcade (remember those?!). I also never got into video games, except for a few bouts with baseball simulators (although I always preferred the kind in which you managed a team). I'm probably in the minority, though.

I dunno, maybe I'm just going by my own experiences and can't see a broader picture. But, like I said, I've gone through about 100 players in the past six years using VTT's like OpenRPG and now Maptools. Easily half of those have been 21 or younger.

That's good to hear. And it may be that more young gamers are emerging than I thought. I certainly hope so! Last year at my very artsy school of about 100 high school students, there was a group of about five boys that were super into computer games/MMOs (others came in and played every once in awhile, but there were 4-5 hardcore gamers). There was another group of 3 or 4 who were playing a very intense D&D campaign. Surprisingly there was very little crossover. Some among the computer gamers tried to get a D&D game going but it soon fizzled and died. The D&D players went all year (and stole some of my dice, but that is another topic!).

I know, this is pretty anecdotal. But it was interesting watching the different trajectories, as well as how their respective games impacted them. The D&D players were always very inspired about it, they would regale me with stories about the campaign and their characters (for better or worse). They also all tended to be healthy and basically socially active. The computer game players never really talked about their games, except with each other. The only time they would do anything other than gaming was when they would watch Anime. I eventually convinced them to come out into the lounge and play Magic: the Gathering. They also all tended towards the unhealthy side.

Again, this could be seen as one small instance. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. I've observed other instances and there are some remarkably consistent trends along the lines of what I just described.

I don't want to give the impression that I think video games are "The Devil" and that they should be completely disavowed. I just think they can be extremely addictive and should be played in moderation (if at all).

I can't speak for stamp collecting - OH WAIT, yes I can. The US postal service produces collectible stamps in quantities that D&D never began to approach at the height of its boom in the '80s. Considering that the USPS is one of only a handful of government programs in the world that TURNS A PROFIT, there is a not inconsiderable possibility that they know what they're doing.

So you're saying that stamp collecting is still a big hobby? That thousands upon thousands of teenage boys have albums at home where they insert their new and prized stamp? I have a hard time believe that. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but that it is a greying hobby (like RPGs--just a bit greyer!), and that whoever is buying collectible stamps is either using them to mail things with or has been buying stamps for eons.

Model railroading is a very large hobby and a solid industry. National chains like Hobby Lobby don't carry aisles full of flock, foam mountains and miniature trees because they cater primarily to miniatures wargamers. How many chain bookstores do you know with entire aisles dedicated to RPGs today? How many in their presumable height in the '80s?

Again, that's not my point. My point is that if there was a bell curve of the age of model railroaders (or stamp collectors), the "bulge" would be a much older age group than RPGs, which would be older than video gamers. These "bulges" tend to age. I don't know what the median age for any of these groups is, but I'd guess it is over 50 for model railroading and stamp collecting, and over 30 for RPGs.

I think RPGs saw three main "baby booms," one in the late 70s/early 80s with AD&D (the 35+ crowd), one in the early 90s with Vampire and Mage (the 25-35ish crowd), and one in the early 00s with 3E (the 15-25ish crowd). Is there another boom occuring with 4E? I don't know. Only time will tell.

Will tabletop RPGs be as healthy a hobby in 20-30 years? I don't know - but I HOPE SO.

I hope so, too. But I'm wondering if there will be any young players.

Fortunately for this industry (and the world?), you're incredibly, unbelievably, atrociously WRONG in just about every way it's possible to be.

If you think video games REDUCE creativity relative to what the generation that pushed D&D to its height of popularity consumed (hint: TV, in greater quantities due to fewer alternatives), I have a significant number of water-crossings to exchange for cash.

If you think video games reduce creativity, visit fanfiction.net or deviantart.com and see how much art and writing, from the awful to the amazing, is produced by their fans. Visit the thousands of freeform RPG chat rooms based on video game characters and settings. Visit the immense modding community for PC games, requiring technical skill vastly in excess of even the most ludicrously overcomplicated tabletop game yet still attracting innumerable adherents. Visit the RPG Maker community where entire electronic games are produced by fans who script, sprite and code them.

All of which doesn't go against my viewpoint, partially because just about everything you mention tends towards the derivative and simulative. On one hand I hear your point: video games have inspired an enormous amount of fan art, fan fiction, and other "creative" activities. But again, how deep does it go? A computer generated picture of one's computer game character...is that art? I suppose on some level. And I do appreciate that technology has allowed anyone who wants to produce art of various kinds (I am not a luddite by any means of the imagination). I am just wondering what sort of dumbing down effect this might be having. It might be as harmless as what happened with the OGL when the RPG market was flooded with lousy products. And to that I would say, so what? More power to someone if they want to create something, no matter how good or bad it is.

On the other hand, I am wondering if this capacity for everything to create some kind of art easily is in any way prohibiting greater creativity and depth. Quantity vs. quality. Sure, MMOs allow people to play in a fantasy landscape, but one that is simulative, and one that is basically soul-less. To put it another way, if someone creates fan art around a video game, are they also capable of creating art of their own making? And that is not derivative of their MMO of choice? In other words, are MMOs "filling up" peoples' imaginations so that they aren't able to create anything of their own? That might be a bit extreme but I think in extreme cases that is what happens, and that the general trend is in that direction. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Excellent find Merric.

I think it's certainly true that kids still have the capacity to enjoy RPGs and would definitely do so if they were exposed to the hobby. With so many timesink options currently available though, how are kids ever going to gain decent exposure to get hooked? It's a shame but perhaps P&P RPGs will be the model railways and stamp collections of the future: viable to their generation, but of token interest to everyone else.

Still, may our geeky hobby burn brightly for many years to come.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Simon Atavax]

The whole problem with this thought is that it's a zero sum game. "If people play video games, then they can't be reading" is the thought. To some degree, I suppose its true. There are, after all, only so many hours in the day. But, time after time this gets brought up and shot down. Video games are not destroying the brains of the youth.

I'm 38 years old, and I've been teaching high school for 15 years now. I can honestly say that the die-hard video gamers amongst my students tend to be the biggest morons: shortest attention spans, least amount of creative ability, weakest critical thinking. And they are simply atrocious readers and writers.

I say this as a lifelong video gamer and RPGer. (Shrug). Don't ask me to explain it. But trust me, based on my own limited experience, if you see a brilliant, thoughtful, creative high school student, you can bet your rear end that he or she isn't playing WoW for four hours a day.

Addendum: My daughter is almost seven, and my wife and I don't let her anywhere near video games. She also watches almost no television save the odd movie on DVD. She reads constantly, and loves writing and drawing. I'm delighted that most of the kids she will be competing with in the years ahead are destroying their cognitive abilities with video games and television (not to mention a steady diet of internet porn for the boys). Because in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

 

[Mercurius]

Which is good, because in a lot of ways you're very, very wrong in your evaluation of things.

Tabletop and Computer generated games stimulate both the "simulation" and "imagination" centers of the brain (left and right hemispheres, really). The difference between the success of CGs versus RPGs has more to do with raw accessibility and the logistics of play than it does anything else: you can play a video game by yourself. It's the same reason why Sudoku is played by more people per day than card games which are played by more people than board games. All are very popular game forms, but they range from simple solo games which can be engaged and disengaged in seconds to requiring multiple people and special tools and distinct time investments.

It's the same reason why video games like sudoku, tetris, and bejewelled (all being very abstract logic games with little to no simulation involved) are far and away more popular than even the best selling JRPG or FPS: you can start playing in seconds and walk away just as easily.

I totally agree, although I don't see how this makes my evaluation "very, very wrong." I have no doubt the video games are more popular because they are more accessible and basically easier. Actually, I touched on that above, and this is part of what I see as the problem. People go for the instant gratification, which offers a quick fix, but is essentially junk food.

And yes, both CGs and RPGs stimulate simulation and imagination, but to what degree? Let's not just jumble everything together.

And of course, at least with RPGs, it depends upon the individual because, in my experience at least, I've witnessed gamers who exhibit very little imagination during play, and are instead focused almost entirely on stats, tactics, dice-rolling, and the other analytic and left-brained aspects of the game.

My contention is that CGs barely stimulate imagination and in fact prohibit it by simulating imagery for you. They "fill your head," whereas RPGs provide the opportunity for you to generate imagery from within (I would add that imagination isn't only imagery, but can also include pure ideas and feelings).

 

[LFK]

Imagination is narrative. If we were to talk about "things that inspire the imagination" we would end up covering RPGs, books, paintings, movies, television, video games, theatre: basically the entire breadth of storytelling media. CGs are no less capable of inspiring the imagination than RPGs; as was already said take a look at fanfiction.net or DeviantArt for hundreds of examples of how CGs have inspired imagination. What you're leveling is the judgement that "that kind of imagination" is less worthy than whatever kind of imagination you feel is worthy, like the further adventures of the three Musketeers that <you> dreamt of as a kid after reading the books is somehow more valid an expression of imagination than the further adventures of Cloud and Tifa.

The reality of imagination is that it actually takes a lot of work to improve your imagination, so much so that most people are born with as much as they'll ever have the capacity for. To this point it boils down to a binary: does it access imagination - yes/no.

The only reason why it feels right to rag on CGs for not inspiring the imagination is because the narrative of most CGs is bad, they do a poor job at accessing imagination. The stories are terrible, the characterization is flimsy to non-existent, and the structure of the experience does little to promote ownership. The same, however, can be said for most books, movies, television shows, and, yes, RPG games with the sole exception of the ownership aspect. Objectively most RPG stories are bad: a poorly paced, ill conceived pastiche that has a singular redeeming quality in the sense of ownership it fosters in the participants. That's why <you> love your own campaigns but get bored to tears when the dude behind you in line at the convention starts talking about his favoritest elf cleric: you can see just how banal the story is if you weren't there.

This isn't to say that CGs (or books or movies or television) can't foster ownership, they can and do (see: Twilight), but since there's millions of people around the world working daily to produce additional materials for the screen, page, and console, but there's only you and any other GMs you play with producing RPG material you will directly experience, the exposure equations are heavily skewed. That's, at most, maybe 5 people in your life at any given time, assuming you're an extremely heavy RPG player, so of course the vast majority of RPG you experience is going to feel that much better than everything else: that ownership is a powerful thing, even if it didn't actually access or grow your imagination any more than a good episode of CSI.


Though now that I've said it out loud (metaphorically) I'm wondering if that aspect wouldn't be a better selling point than "imagination."


edit: afterthought - the reason why "classic books" seem to do a better job at accessing imagination is because of the filter of time. Good stuff generally survives while tripe is discarded, thus a collection of classics is a collection of a couple hundred years worth of "good stuff" without wading through the filler that was produced in between. To wit today: there are 24 episodes of House per year, roughly 1 every 2 weeks, but there are 5 episodes of Maury per week, so for every episode of House there are 10 episodes of "he's not your baby's daddy's momma".

 

[Mallus]

A don't pretend not to be rather anti-computer games as I see very little, if any, redeeming value beyond the development of certain motor skills and mental processing speed. But at what cost?

Just as a data point, I'm 40 and virtually every person I've played role-playing games with has had at least some interest in computer/video games. They also tend to be avid readers and lack acute interpersonal problems ie they engage in successful relationships/friendships.

Besides, video/computer gaming developed right alongside role-playing games, with a strong overlap in their audiences. Their relationship is symbiotic, if anything.

OT: My limited experience gaming with kids (well, teens) is that their situation is identical to mine at the same age. Either their parents, or the parents of some friend got them into gaming.

 

[UniversalMonster]

Kids are generally interested in any fun, social (group) activity.

Does that mean they are interested in RPGs? No. Because RPGs are just a concept.

I think adults get caught up in the idea of RPGs and at that point it's all about some kind of combination of talking about the "industry" or talking about the history of gaming, the personalities involved, or talking about the different kinds of rules or whatever. One game has "hit location rules" and one has "randomly generated attributes" and everyone is mad at this one company, and a new game is coming out from this other company.. no they couldn't care less.

Nor do they care much about the fiction. "This is about an adventure that takes place in the year of dragons 1346, when the gorilla overlords launch their final assault against the elven lands.."

Swoosh. It goes right over their heads. Frankly, they've got better entertainments readily available.

BUT

They do like playing, because playing is fun, and there's a ton of people there and you can manage your character and everyone is laughing and yelling and someone sets the bad-guy on fire right and pushes him off a bridge, and he falls on the goblins outhouse below, and we all laugh about that. In my experience, kids love that, because it's fun.