Reinventing Roleplaying Games

[d4]

Can we turn role-playing into a spectator sport? Why not? Imagine a theater where the "actors" play their characters and the director is the DM. There would be no set script, but the characters would evolve night after night, week after week. It would be like watching a live action soap opera.

that sounds like improv theatre, and i think most of us would agree that it is not a role-playing game.

and as far as i can tell, that hobby is even smaller and more niche than RPGs.

if we want to broaden the audience of RPGs, that is definitely not the way to go.

 

[Beale Knight]

What do I want to see? The recognition that we are not engaged in what most see as a game. That is, a competitive pastime. While it can be considered a game according to a number of definitions of the word, that is not how people at large see games, and so calling it a game—when it is not, according to the popular understanding—ends up confusing people.

I think it's going to be far easier to get people at large to expand their idea of what a "game" is than it would be to draw their interest into something called a hobby. Model trains and airplanes are what come to my mind when I hear hobby, so does collecting stuff. It's much more of a stretch to go from that to role-playing.

Many computer games aren't conventional games in that there's a final end or victory. Sim City made a point to say it was less a game than a toy. Of toy, hobby, or game, I think game strikes closer to home and is the best term to go with.

I've more thoughts on this, but being at work I have to let go the computer.

 

[FireLance]

that sounds like improv theatre, and i think most of us would agree that it is not a role-playing game.

and as far as i can tell, that hobby is even smaller and more niche than RPGs.

if we want to broaden the audience of RPGs, that is definitely not the way to go.

Well, from my experience of improv theatre, the actors play different parts, often in the same session, and there is no link between one show and the next.

In "RP theatre", each actor plays one character consistently and every session builds on previous the previous ones. So, there's an ongoing storyline and the audience gets to establish a connection with the characters (much as they do with characters in any ongoing TV series).

Anyway, the point was more the illustrate the difference between a hobby and a game than to suggest how role-playing can take off in a big way (though it just might work ).

 

[mythusmage]

Sorry to sound crass, but that's treating the symptom, not the disease.

Not that I think there's anything wrong with the games being called roleplaying games.

Let's look at a nongamer. He is slightly interester in checking this D&D thing out, since he heard it to be fun.

What is he most likely to pick up?

A roleplaying hobby?

Or a roleplaying game?

What about a roleplaying guide?

"Within these pages you will find guidelines for running an imaginary world as designed by you or another, or for playing a part in that world. These mechanics serving to keep things from getting all mucked up."
---Dungeons & Dragons® Nth edition

Is he more likely to pick up something that implies that his whole life will revolve around it, and that it will become his new hobby, with all that entails?

Or is he more likely to pick up a game for fun, try it out, and maybe become so interested that he invests time into it, thus aquiring a new hobby?

You put it that way, he might. But the chance declines. But if you answer his, "What is this all about?" with, "It's about going off on adventures, visiting strange lands and meeting new people, and robbing them blind." You might get more people interested. In this case it comes down to how you present what you do.

If you rename "roleplaying game" to "roleplaying hobby" you have suddenly in one fell blow raised the barrier to entry manyfold.

Most often people grow into hobbies, they don't suddenly decide to aquire one. And for someone to get into a hobby they must identify with the activities that goes on within the hobby, as well as the people that partake in said hobby.

As far as I can tell, most people see us as nerds and geeks. And therefore would shun being pulled into the "roleplaying hobby", whereas they might want to try a "roleplaying game" to see what the heck we're up to.

So I don't see your solution doing anything to change that situation.

Cheers!

Maggan

Clarification: It is my purpose to get roleplaying games seen as the roleplaying hobby. Games, plural. Each 'game' in the hobby then becoming a roleplaying guide. Each fitting a particular niche in the market. Each a guide to participating as a character in a setting or a group of settings designed with the guide in mind.

A prospect would not be taking up a hobby. At least, not at first. He would instead be joining a group involved in a particular world. Any involvement beyond that would be up to him.

It is true that the map is not the terrain, but people tend to see it that way. Since that is so, I propose to change the map to better fit the terrain. Since the map in this case is composed of the vocabulary we use to limn what we do, then we change the vocabulary. Words shape how we see the world, and parts thereof. If one set of words unnecessarily limits how you see something, then it's time to try a new set.

 

[d4]

i had a thought while i was in the shower...

here's why i think RPGs are not interesting to most folks.

1) RPGs take a long time. generally, an RPG session is 4-6 hours long. most people don't like concentrating on one thing for that long. (for example, in the board game world, a game that takes 4-6 hours to play is usually considered a poor design.) most people prefer things "lighter" than that; that require less of a commitment and effort. also, because of this amount of time, RPGs aren't really something you can "pick up and play" -- they require scheduling, which most people don't want to consider when it comes to entertainment.

2) RPGs are mainly a mental exercise and not physical. i'm an American, and this observation may not hold true in other countries, but it seems that here there is a general disdain for mental acuity as opposed to physical qualities. so something that requires only mental acumen is going to be seen as less interesting than some kind of physical endeavor.

3) RPGs are not a visual medium. it's all in your head. it seems most people (again, i really mean most Americans, since i have little experience with other cultures) prefer seeing something to imagining something. that's why i think computer and video games are more popular than role-playing games -- the visuals are provided for you. this ties in with #2, that more mental effort is required to enjoy RPGs than other forms of entertainment. it also explains why most Americans watch a lot of TV but don't read a lot of books.

4) RPGs are active, not passive. most people want to be entertained -- by others -- and not have to work for it. that's why movies and TV are so enormously popular; you can just sit there and not do anything and be entertained. RPGs require one to actually get involved in order to produce the entertainment, and most people don't want to have to make the effort.

i really don't see much of any way of addressing these issues and still have an RPG, in any sense of the term.

 

[mythusmage]

that's a good point, Maggan. calling it a "hobby" does make it sound like it requires a lot more effort on the part of the person involved than calling it a "game."

and i would imagine that level of involvement would scare off a lot of people who might otherwise be interested.

Instead of plunging the lobster into boiling water, you put the lobster into room temperature water, and slowly turn the heat up. It takes longer, but the lobster still gets cooked without all that stress.

Now, go do the dishes. (Yes, I do have an ulterior motive. )

 

[jgbrowning]

Now, while 'hobby' may not be better than 'game' as a word, it is my contention that is a better term to describe this 'pastime' we're involved in.

I have to disagree if for no other reason that we've been using the word game for 30 years now.

In addition, 'game' to most carries connotations and implications that 'hobby' does not.

And as others have pointed out, vice versa.

"Last night we had a session without stats or dice." What images does that wording raise?

Session to me invokes therapy.


I think you're just trying to use language that feels better to you than really doing any shift in the gaming habits. Although you can argue, and I think you have, that a change in language usage can lead to a change in thought, that arguement is just as valid when viewed the other way.

Instead of trying to change how all of we gamers reference ourselves (as gamers) into hobbiests, I'd reccomend trying to continue the 30 years of meaning shift that's already occurred in the words "Role-Playing Game." Just as Fish Sticks aren't really sticks, yet everyone seems able to handle more than one meaning of the word stick, so can the words "Role-Playing Game" come to signify a cooperative story telling experience with guidelines. All that's needed is continual exposure to an alternate meaning for that alternate meaning to gain acceptance.

And, well, to tell the truth, game already has the meaning you want it to have. You just don't want it to have the other meanings. Trying to change the words people use to better fit your ideas of how others should use those words really is, in the end, a pointless endevour.

joe b.

 

[mythusmage]

Hate to tell you this, but I'm gonna have to take a break. With one or two exceptions this has been a constructive (and mostly on topic) conversation. I probably won't be able to reply to everyone who posts when I get back, but I will do my best to address your points.

And please be patient with my thesis, it hasn't even graduated to the status of fetus yet.

 

[Belen]

Pray for guidance, my children

falls to his knees

Oh great prophet, show me the way to glory!

Seriously, though, I have read both threads now and I am still confused. I feel like I am at church being taught about my sinful ways.

While a kernal or truth may exist in your argument, I think you're going about it the wrong way. The hobby does not need a new name, rather, the rules books need to be written so that they do not sound like a textbook. Then we need some serious marketing. DnD commercials would be great! Ads in big magazines and a new DnD cartoon would do far more for getting people to enter the hobby, than a new title.

All you have to do is get Hasbro to spend some money...oh...wait...that's not going to happen.

Before WOTC was purchased by Hasbro, they had a chance to really market DnD; however, as long as Hasbro owns it, then there is no chance. Big Daddy will not care about a brand that only pulls in a few mil.

However, an EnWorld society could help here....

 

[Zappo]

Dunno. When it comes to real world examples, I can only see smaller markets in the directions you're pointing to. Story-oriented games are smaller than D&D, improv theater is smaller than D&D, and it's a lot more difficult to get someone to try a hobby than to try a game, because a hobby implies a much greater effort. I don't think this is going to work.