Reinventing Roleplaying Games

[darklight]

Originally Posted by mythusmage
A roleplaying game is a pastime where the participants assume the role of characters in an imaginary setting; with a set of mechanics that perform the following functons:

1. Describe characters and the creation thereof.

2. Describe the setting the characters live in.

3. Describe how characters and setting interact.

4. Describe conflict resolution. Where conflict can be described as any situation where an action can fail.

This suggests to me, that what you want is a simulation in which people get to live part of their lives as different characters. Is this correct?

On another note, if I understand correctly, you say that conflict between pc's and npc's does not constitute a competition, because pc's and npc's are 'removed' from the players/DM. Would you also say that when Chess Champion Kasparov played "Deep Thought" it wasn't a competition, because Deep Thought, being the work of a team of programmers was 'removed' from the programmers themselves? Or, if I make an autonomous killer robot and makes it fight against a robot made by someone else, it's not a competition, because it's 'removed'?

While I agree with you, that rpg's are generally not a direct competition between players and the DM (since the DM can throw in any number of monsters he wishes, it wouldn't really work) I think your reasoning is a lot less than solid.

And, as many others have noted, you still haven't put forth any concrete suggestions as to exactly how you want to change the way we describe our beloved game!

darklight

 

[Maggan]

The meme I'm hearing is, game=hobby. Not so, game?hobby. Each game is part of the hobby, the hobby is made up of many games. Each game can become a hobby, but it is not the hobby.

You can have an D&D® hobby, an All Flesh Must Be Eaten hobby, A Revenge of the Humans hobby. All a part of the roleplaying hobby itself.

Roleplaying hobby is used in place of roleplaying games. Note the plural, "games", not "game".

So those who play a roleplaying game are participating to some degree in the roleplaying hobby.

Any questions?

The game is not the hobby for me. It's all the stuff that's connected to the game that makes it a hobby. I play monpoly, but it's not my hobby to play monopoly. I don't want to enter the Monopoly hobby.

For me the hobby is talking about the game, writing stuff for the game, collecting books I like, learning stuff so that I can prepare a better game, and so on so forth.

For me that's what makes it a hobby, and not just a game I play. And I don't, as previously stated, think that renaming "rpgs" to "rphs" will solve anything.

I've seen you valiantly use "rph" in other threads. Made me go "huh" until I remebered this thread. I wonder what those that haven't read this thread are thinking.

"Rph? Is that some kind of roleplaying game I haven't heard of?"

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Sarmaga]

How about just "roleplaying"?

It's a hobby, a game, a way of life... but that's the common thread.

 

[Aaron L]

So those who play a roleplaying game are participating to some degree in the roleplaying hobby.

Any questions?

Ya see, right there, you are wrong.

Roleplaying is a psychiatric tool.

The hobby is roleplaying GAMES.

I play a GAME in which I ROLEPLAY. I want to have fun portraying a character who is attempting something with a chance of failure. There IS a competitive aspect, and the competetion is against either myself, or the odds. Without that competetive aspect, it would be little more than sitting around a room telling stories to your friends. If that's what you want then more power too you, go for it. I don't want it at all, and I doubt very that many people do.

So for you have proposed several things:

RPGs are failing (I have never seen any evidence of this, either personally or through statistics)

The competitive aspect of RPGs drives potential players away (I have never seen evidence of this, and I heavily doubt such is the case. This culture thrives on competition)

Renaming and "reinventing" RPGs as the "roleplaying hobby" would attract hordes of new players. (I rather doubt that it would attract a 10th of the current players it drove away as their hobby attempted to change itself into some sort of amateur scriptless drama guide. I am talking buying players here, not people who play what they have. Those will always continue to exist)

You have stated a desire for a more realistic combat system with no initiative system or distinct "combat rounds" as they make the chaos of combat into something managable. You have also said that you desire a system which is less rules oriented, less "gamish"

Well my friend, good luck reconcilling those two diametrically opposed goals.
In fact, any system in which cimbat takes place MUST have combat made into something managable, unless you render it into a simple win/lose variable and describe how it went.


The big problem seems to be the fact that you think most people want what you want. I disagree, and I propose that the vehemence with witch your views are disputed on this lone message board offer a small amount of proof to that fact.

 

[ngenius]

Games are hobbies not professions (and hobbies are not exclusive)

Changing the name changes nothing, it would still be the same game (not hobby). The public would just think it was even more nerdy/exclusive (hobbies are generally not for the general public). Not to mention that RPH and roleplaying hobby just don't sound very good.

This is to Sargon, the Kassadian. First of all, I quoted your reply because hobbies are not exclusive or nerdy. They are simply what any particular segment of the popluation likes to participate in during spare time, as such they but are actually amateur activities. Hobbies also include sporting activities, which when they get serious and become jobs are no longer hobbies but professions, hence we have professional athletes.

But what I really wanted to do was quote your signature line. The definitions of the word castrate apply aptly to what mythusmage wants to do to Role Playing Games.

 

[ngenius]

Changing RPGs to hobbies will not improve their popularity

The game is not the hobby for me. It's all the stuff that's connected to the game that makes it a hobby. I play monpoly, but it's not my hobby to play monopoly. I don't want to enter the Monopoly hobby.

For me the hobby is talking about the game, writing stuff for the game, collecting books I like, learning stuff so that I can prepare a better game, and so on so forth.

For me that's what makes it a hobby, and not just a game I play. And I don't, as previously stated, think that renaming "rpgs" to "rphs" will solve anything.
...
Maggan

I wanted to reply mythusmage directly, but felt the above quote is a better option.

Firstly, games are supposed to be short and fun, hence they are called games. Making Role Playing Games into Role Playing Hobbies makes them far too complex to attract new gamers or hobbyists as you would want to call them. Besides there is a difference between games and competitions. Games can be fun and do not need to be competitions. And even RPGs have goals or objectives towards which players must strive, hence we have rule systems. If we simply wanted stories, we can write fiction or act in drama groups.

There are many hobbies in the world, and I personally have several hobbies, including collecting fantasy art and playing online computer games.

Therefore to call Role Playing Games by your preferred name of Role Playing Hobbies simply makes new players get more confused and consider Role Playing Hobbies as something of a drama group. For that, you can opt for Live-Action Roleplaying, but for the rest of us who do not take this hobby as seriously as you do, Role Playing Games is a more user-friendly term, associated with the very popular fun term called "games" to which even small children can relate positively.

Since naming RPGs is so important to mythusmage, may I suggest that RPGs as I see them today, are more of Role Playing Fictional Life Simulations, since they are based on fictional worlds and are fundamental simulations of life, as played out or translated by the participants taking part in these fictional world environments.

 

[Remathilis]

Since naming RPGs is so important to mythusmage, may I suggest that RPGs as I see them today, are more of Role Playing Fictional Life Simulations, since they are based on fictional worlds and are fundamental simulations of life, as played out or translated by the participants taking part in these fictional world environments.

If we're going to get technical, I prefer Fictional Life Role Assumption Simlutation, or FLRAS (Fill-La-RAZ) but thats me.

RPG works for me too...

 

[Korgan26]

I stopped reading the posts around the bottom of page 4 so forgive me if this has been pointed out.
My impression of MythusMage is like that councilor in high school who saw something in you and gave you the "you're not living up to your potential" speech.
"Now Billy, you're very bright. You could be an astronaut or a doctor, but the way you're heading you are going to be picking up trash on the side of the highway in an orange jumpsuit.”
I get the feeling that MythusMage’s whole problem is that, He (Had to pick a pronoun, and I figured that “It” wouldn’t come across very well. If you are not a “He” please take no offense.) doesn’t think that players are getting everything that they can out gaming and he wants to change that. To him, his characters are flesh and blood with a history and a direction for their “lives”. But to others it just paper and that bothers him.

On a side note, Mythus. What brought this on? You come across to strongly for it to have just popped into your head. (Although you do write like it did, you’re lacking a definite coherence of thought, or even a linear, well explained, idea.) It seems to me that you got in to an argument about…whether or not your character is real. (Did the character die and you cry, as if loosing a friend.) Your characters are as real as you think they are. The great thing about reality is that it is personal and malleable by your perception of the world.

This is not an attack on you by any means. If it comes across that way it’s because I’m and ass, and I lack anything that resembles tact.


Z

 

[SSquirrel]

That is what I'm aiming for. That is my goal. A "...pastime where the participants assume the role of characters in an imaginary setting..." It is my position that by seeing RPGs as games we are limiting what can be done with and in them. By changing how we see them we open up the possibilities

As has been said a billion times, this is exactly what we do ALREADY!

An even better selling point is the name of the 'game'. Dungeons & Dragons® has weight in this business.

"What is this?"

"Vampire: The Requiem."

"What do you do?"

"You play a character in a world where vampires exist, and the very nature of reality is a sham."

"How do you do that?"

"I can show you if you have a few minutes."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Funny I posted an example nearly identical to this a day or 2 ago as what I and most other gamers I know ALREADY do. Huh. Didn't take any change in the semantics of what the game is called or what kind of resolution is used to achieve. Fascinating.

I say it is the wrong word because it is the wrong word. It's not a game, it's an entirely different beast. See my self-quote above.

Key addition to this statement is the phrase "IMO" right after "because it is the wrong word". No one on these boards is the uber-authority of gaming whom all will bow low to and change their way of thinking based on their words. So far you're about the only one who thinks game is the wrong word. The people know what they want and it's games not hobbies.

What do I want to see emphasized? The adventure. The lands and the people. The getting up at ohgodit'stoodamnearlytogetupandwhoputthearrowinmyhorse o'clock. The Cool Stuff™. But, for the love of God, not the "game".

Uhm...the only person who seems to be emphasizing the "game" is YOU. The rest of us might refer to it as a game, but the people we're talking with understand or soon understand what comes with that meaning. Perfectly good word. Maybe we should make up a completely new word so there are no preconceived notions behind it. Rastucala. That's what RPGs will be forever known as now. RAHS-too-cahla. Just ROLLS off the tongue. No more worrying about hobby or game conjuring up wrong images.

So then judicial procedures are a game? They do, after all, have rules that control, focus, and/or mediate what occurs during a court session.

Don't be stupid.

Let's face it, you present RPGs as games of course people are going to want game balance. The image of games as being competitive activities after all. Present them as chances to adventure and explore in strange worlds in the comfort of your own home, with mechanics to keep events from being arbitrary occurences, and you may get totally different attitudes. In a roleplaying world things need not be fair, all one should be able to ask for is the chance.

Well if we're going to be adventuring in a world where there is no balance, chances are high that we're just going to get screwed left and right and have NO fun. Sorry, no way in HELL am I playing in something like that. Go take your amateur theater HOBBY group and have fun by yourself. The other millions of GAMERS and I will be too busy playing our GAME and having a blast. I'm playing my favorite GAME, D&D, all FREAKIN day tomorrow from 11 to 10 and I'm gonna love every minute of it and think how MM would really enjoy teh game as there's LOTS of RPing and just a really fun group. But we all refer to it as a game so he'd probably shove knives in his ears or something.

Hagen

 

[Umbran]

Does that mean they become the same thing? I submit that Throng is not Bob, Throng is Bob's character.

In a way, yes, they are they same thing. Throng may not be Bob, but Bob can see that in pitting Throng against an orc, his is now engaged in a battle of wits and luck with Joe, who is the GM. Having called the thing a hobby beforehand isn't going to change that.

This allows for a certain degree of distancing between Bob and Throng, and so what happens to Throng becomes of less importance than if it were Bob himself engaged in the conflict.

And somehow the word "hobby" allows that distancing while "game" explicitly disallows it? That's just not so. We already allow the distance.

This is, of course, a bit off the path. The subject of player-character relations really deserves it's own thread.

Player-character relations do deserve their own thread, yes. But that doesn't render it off the path now. So far, your contention that "hobby" will de-emphasize competition between players is your strongest argument for your proposed name change. As such, whether or not the word "hobby" would have such an effect is right smack dab in the middle of the path.

What implied competition?

See above. Throng is in armed conflict with an orc, or in a battle of wits with the King's Vizier, or what have you. Presumably the player wants to come out on top in this conflict. If the activity is to be interesting, it must be set up so that Bob has to exert some wits and find some luck. In effect, he's in a small competition with his GM, where Throng and the orc are the playing pieces.

What of those who might enter the hobby were it not for those who treat it as a game?

There are some people who are turned off by the word "game", yes. In order to for this all to mean growth for the activity, these folks would have to represent a larger market than those who like it as a game. So far, you have effectively asserted that would be the case. However, you've yet to provide a shred of actual evidence.

Honestly, I think you are dead wrong. Games are a very big business in the US. While there are some folks who specifically don't like games, it seems to me that marketing to the game-players will get more sales.

Very rarely is revolution a good tactic when money is involved. I suggest you try for evolution instead. Rather than make a great big push to turn teh whole thing on it's ear, try instead to lobby for products that cater to the sorts of activity you prefer.

Lobbying for a global change here is... a bit of a waste of energy. We here on the boards don't represent a large enough proportion of players to implement it. A small number fo folks trying to insist on such would likely be deemed pretentious. Lobbying for more products that emphasize the role-play and adventure and such would be far more effective, IMHO.