Reinventing Roleplaying Games

[mythusmage]

You are correct that role playing games can be much more than games. They can stretch a great distance over into live-action role playing...

Not what I'm looking for. The problem I see with RPGs is how they are viewed, and used in the RPH as a whole. No need to expand into live-action roleplaying at all. RPGs could gain a wider audience if they did would they do best better, instead of trying to emulate entirely different forms of entertainment. And that includes games as games.

It comes down to how designers etc. view the hobby, and how they present their contributions thereto.

Technically, the definition of "hobby" fits. However, it has altogether the wrong connotations. As others have pointed out, it has connotations of extreme amounts of time, effort, and money placed into the activity. Furthermore, I expect that the activities that most people think of when they hear the word "hobby" are not particularly dynamic. They think of coin collecting, railroad models, birdwatching, and suchlike. If you're trying to attract people to the dynamic role-play, adventure and story-telling aspects, you've really picked the wrong word.

That all depends on how you introduce people to the hobby. You don't have to go into great depth when somebody asks what the hobby is all about, all you need do is inform him of the basics. Namely, you play a part in an imaginary world. You seek adventure, solve mysteries, explore new lands. And you only have to get as involved as you feel comfortable with. It's a casual hobby. At the bare minimum all you really need is a character to play, a sheet of paper to record his description on, and a basic knowledge of the mechanics.

Remember, there are two types of fishermen, those who treat it as hobby, and those who fish.

Most folks who don't play RPGs don't really know what "role playing" is.

Doesn't mean they can't learn.

Everybody has at least a vague notion of what a "game" is. It is an activity you undertake. It has some rules. There will be choices to make as they play. They may be fooled that it also has victory conditions, but you can disabuse them of that notion soon enough. All in all, that's not a bad starting point.

Why give people the wrong impression? Why use the wrong word? People have an idea of what a game is. The typical RPG does not fit that idea. Why limit a player's options—and calling it a game does limit their options in many ways, when a better term can open up the choices available?

I'm speaking here of possibilities. Calling it a game limits possibilities. People see games in a certain way, and that colors their thinking. By calling RPGs 'games' you are shaping how they see them, and not for the better.

If you call it a "hobby" though, what are you telling them about the activity? Exactly zero. "Hobby" covers everything from sailing and hiking to reading to stamp collecting.

You call it a game what are you telling people? Exactly the wrong thing to help them get the most out of their experience then they otherwise would.

What do you do in an RPG?

So, "role-playing gmae" tells the person a lot more than "role playing hobby", even if for most practitioners, the latter is more accurate.

But it tells them the wrong thing. It says you compete. It says you win or lose. It says a lot, and not a dang bit of it is what RPGs are all about.

The mechanics, the rules if you must, are not there to make things equal or fair or anything gamelike at all. The mechanics of an RPG are there as descriptors, describing the following:

1. Conflict resolution. Where the conflict involves the question, does an action succeed or fail?

2. Characters and character creation.

3. Setting.

4. Integration of characters and setting.

So, no, 'game' does not work.

And, to be honest, RPGs are different enough from most activities that I'm of the opinion that you should not introduce folks to them by tossing them into the deep end of the pool.

What deep end? Who said anything about tossing them in the deep end? Help them create a character, show them the basics, and go off on adventure. This is deep?

So, leave it a "role playing game". Those who don't know about them will find that easier to grasp. Those who do know about them are not really limited by the term.

How do you know this? Words shape how we see things. Much as we may wish to deny this, it's true. Words have meaning. Names have meaning. Change what you call something and you change how that something is viewed. Change what you call something and you change how that something is used, how it is understood, how it is treated.

Compare 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' sometime. They describe totally different things, even when applied to the same subject.

It's been a long time since I read that little book on semantics (10th grade), but one thing I remember from it, it matters what you call things. Ask any minority.

 

[mythusmage]

By some definitions, yes, by others, no.

Let us look at the Dictionary.com definition of game. It includes:

.An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.
2a. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.
6a. Informal. An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules: “the way the system operates, the access game, the turf game, the image game” (Hedrick Smith).
8. Mathematics. A model of a competitive situation that identifies interested parties and stipulates rules governing all aspects of the competition, used in game theory to determine the optimal course of action for an interested party.

RPGs certainly fit definition 1 and 6a. Qualifying as a game under definition 2a and 8 may seem a bit more difficult, until one realizes that the players are frequently a team competing against the challenges set by the GM (who is, in this sense, also playing the game).

Did you spot the unspoken assumptions in those definitions? That games are competitive activities. RPGs don't need to be competitive. Nor does one have to adhere to rules, as rules. In the case of an RPG the rules need not be seen as ordering play, but as describing the world and the characters who adventure in it. Among other things, see my post above for the particulars.

Now, does it have to be the players against the DM? What about the players' characters in competition with the DM's characters? Still two parties trying to beat each other, but it's no longer player vs. player.

I submit, good sir, that while RPGs are a formalized activity, they are not formalized in the same manner games are. And all games, no matter of what kind, have a formal structure. Some may be casual in a sense, but even those have a formality you won't find in any other activity. RPGs are also a formal activity. But it is a formality different from that of games, as well as from other types of recreation.

What do you do in an RPG?

 

[Remathilis]

"Since when did D&D start becoming collaborative novel writing and stop being a game[?]" - Kamikaze Midget
The signal to noise ratio of this thread is starting to disturb me.

Ok, aside from naming this thing a "hobby" (which moves the comparison from activities like baseball and Monopoly to activities like needlepoint and street-racing) what have we accomplished with this renaming?

1.) Games have rules. All games have a finite set of rules. They can be rigid (like the playbook for football) or fluid (like the rules for dodgeball in an elementary school playground). A hobby doesn't require such strict rules (when was the last time someone stopped you from crocheting a certain way because it wasn't "by the book"?)
a.) To change the game to a hobby implies rules, at least formal rules, are a non-necessity
b.) "Guidebooks" would mostly become nothing more than starting guides and pattern books, enough to teach the skills and necessities, but not all encompassing Bibles.

2.) Hobby implies a level of maturity. Everyone has a hobby, be it computers, cars, sewing, or dancing. "Games" implies a sort-of immaturity associated with the sneering phrase "Oh, you STILL play games? Isn't that what CHILDREN do?" Such a renaming would remove this stigma.
a.) A RPH could be moved to include a larger audience of potential Role-playing hobbiests, including LARP, Recreationists, MMOPRGers, and impromptu amateur theater.
b.) It would leave our beloved "gamer" friends behind, including those who play (amateur or tournament) CCG, Monopoly, Videogames, and Chess.

3.) If we are going with a reinvention, I suggest we also lose the term "Role-playing." Sacralige? Unfortunately, Role-playing has a second, sexually implied connotation that brings to mind images of halloween costumes and whips. In recent times, WotC began to label RPG games "Adventure games" and the RPH, despite losing the gaming monicker, would contain the same pseudo-sexual connotation that make eyebrows raise when you are talking to co-workers by the water cooler.
a.) That IS, of course, we are ready to welcome such members into our collective as "role-players" akin to LARPs and others mentioned in 2a. Judging by the reaction to the Book of Erotic Fantasy, this seems unlikely.

4.) Such a move denies the games roots completely. As an offshoot of Tabletop Combat Simulation games, (which in and of itself can be considered a hobby do to the time/money investment, but I digress), RPGs have always viewed themselves as a game, and treated its subject matter as such.
a.) This worked as a great defense mechanism against conservative attacks in the 80s and 90s. Read the disclaimers in front of any 80's plus RPG (esp Palladium and 2nd Ed D&D) for proof of the "this is JUST a game" phenomenon.

5.) Ultimately, what would this change start? I highly doubt it would draw much more fresh blood to the game/hobby, because those who WOULD be interested in it usually have found a way into it (or into its close cousins, CCGs and MMORPGS). It wouldn't change/banish current players who view the game as a competitive endevaor (assuming the Type A pesonalties that must be the best at anything, from love to social promotion). It MIGHT create a line in the sand between "real role-players" and "roll-players", but that line exists already without the universe as a whole erring to one side or the other. Ultimately, such a sweeping universal change would do little to avoid the threads/ games/ events that happen currently in the community.
a.) That is to say, role- playing IS universally better than roll- playing. There is still a jury out on that, and I'm afraid its deadlocked.
b.) It also assumes everyone, from WotC to White-Wolf, to Privateer Press, Goodman Games, Kenzer Co, Palladium, Steve Jackson Games, West End games and Fafsa/Wiz Kids would all be willing to go in this radical new direction.
c.) It lastly assumes that these kinds of games/changes can't happen under the current infrastructure. Lots of people have made successful games for years under the cobbled-together universe of RPGs, and will continue to do so.

IN CONCLUSION: Sorry, but any image redesign is the same goat in new clothes. If you want to improve the community, find a group of young, eager students, teach them to read, think creatively, and do basic math, and then introduce them into RPGs. You'll be doing a great service to the industry of RPGs and the world as a whole.

 

[mythusmage]

Because there's a finite number of possible players, and each player has a finite amount of leisure time available, and a finite amount of money to spend on that leisure.

In this sense, all entertainments are in competition with each other. The time I spend reading a novel is time I won't spend in a movie theatre. Time I spend playing a video game is time I won't spend playing RPGs. Same goes for my hard earned cash.

You are correct, in that there's little point competing for devotees of other entertainments when there's little or no indication that there'd be strong interest among them - RPGs aren't going to gain much if they set to trying to draw new people away from numismatics or bird watching.

However, if my memory serves, market research shows a reasonably strong correllation between certain passtimes. Folks who like RPGs also tend to like science fiction and fantasy literature and media. They also tend to like video games.

If you are looking to increase your sales, you market to people who you expect will like your product - in this case, video game players would not be a bad choice. But now you're trying to get the $$ and time they spend on video games for yourself, and you are in competition...

But not all like video games. I like science fiction and fantasy and (some) media, but I can't abide video games. Such a skewed view of the world they give. (Oops, channeling a past life there.)

Let's face it, video games do what they do well. Why compete against their strengths? RPGs have things they could do well, if they weren't constrained by our view of how they must be. I say we use our strengths and find an audience that way.

Which need not be limited to one part. Not even to science fiction, fantasy, and or media fans. (Which, BTW, are larger than most people think.) While RPGs may never be a mainstream passion (but you never know), they could still garner respectable attention if given a chance.

And that comes down to presentation. How you present, how you introduce, show, display, dress-up, market, submit your RPG for their consideration. Sir, as long as RPGs are seen as those silly little games nerds play in secret locations, of course we're not going to expand the hobby. But if we can get people to see RPGs as this fun activity where you go and have adventures without having to go far away yourself, then the prospects widen greatly.

And if it takes a drastic reconceptualization of the hobby; then damn the torpedoes, full reconceptualization ahead!

 

[Umbran]

Did you spot the unspoken assumptions in those definitions? That games are competitive activities. RPGs don't need to be competitive.

In order to have dramatic tension, there must be conflict. The opposing sides in that conflict are in a form of competition with each other.

Nor does one have to adhere to rules, as rules. In the case of an RPG the rules need not be seen as ordering play, but as describing the world and the characters who adventure in it.

Whether the rules order play, or describe the world, there are still rules.

And, btw, if the rules govern conflict and/or task resolution, they must order play at least in terms of the conflicts and tasks.

Now, does it have to be the players against the DM? What about the players' characters in competition with the DM's characters? Still two parties trying to beat each other, but it's no longer player vs. player.

It is still then implicitly between the people controlling the characters, then. Unless you move to a system in which control of a single character's will and actions no longer lie in a single person's hands, there is competition between those who play.

Rather than lie, and claim it doesn't exist, simply teach people that it is a "friendly" game, rather than a "serious" game. Akin to a bunch of friends who go down to the schoolyard to play basketball. There is a conflict, technically a competition exists, but nobody takes the winning and losing seriously. The actions of playing the game can be more important than the conflict, even more popularly accepted games.

In short, the issue here isn't in the competition, but in the sportsmanship.

 

[Remathilis]

In short, the issue here isn't in the competition, but in the sportsmanship.

Amen brother.

Without some manner of "competition", we are all playing a version of medieval house. (maybe house is the truist form of role-playing after all.)

What is being bandied about is nothing short of amatuer impromptu theatre.

 

[mythusmage]

"Since when did D&D start becoming collaborative novel writing and stop being a game[?]" - Kamikaze Midget

When was D&D® ever a game?

Ok, aside from naming this thing a "hobby" (which moves the comparison from activities like baseball and Monopoly to activities like needlepoint and street-racing) what have we accomplished with this renaming?

1.) Games have rules. All games have a finite set of rules. They can be rigid (like the playbook for football) or fluid (like the rules for dodgeball in an elementary school playground). A hobby doesn't require such strict rules (when was the last time someone stopped you from crocheting a certain way because it wasn't "by the book"?)

You don't know crocheting. It has rules. There are ways of doing things in crocheting. There are right ways and there are wrong ways, and the right ways are the right ways because they work.

a.) To change the game to a hobby implies rules, at least formal rules, are a non-necessity
b.) "Guidebooks" would mostly become nothing more than starting guides and pattern books, enough to teach the skills and necessities, but not all encompassing Bibles.

a.) Change what to a hobby? I propose calling what we are involved in the roleplaying hobby, because that's what it is. The games (as we currently call them) are an entirely different matter.

b.) How so? And what's so hot about all-encompassing Bibles anyway? When you consider the nature of the beast I rather doubt all-inclusive rule books are possible anyway. So why bother putting together a book that will end up being a source of contradiction and controversy when a guidebook might do the job just as well, if not better?

2.) Hobby implies a level of maturity. Everyone has a hobby, be it computers, cars, sewing, or dancing. "Games" implies a sort-of immaturity associated with the sneering phrase "Oh, you STILL play games? Isn't that what CHILDREN do?" Such a renaming would remove this stigma.
a.) A RPH could be moved to include a larger audience of potential Role-playing hobbiests, including LARP, Recreationists, MMOPRGers, and impromptu amateur theater.
b.) It would leave our beloved "gamer" friends behind, including those who play (amateur or tournament) CCG, Monopoly, Videogames, and Chess.

You don't know the game community that well, do you. Or was this an attempt at sarcasm?

3.) If we are going with a reinvention, I suggest we also lose the term "Role-playing." Sacralige? Unfortunately, Role-playing has a second, sexually implied connotation that brings to mind images of halloween costumes and whips. In recent times, WotC began to label RPG games "Adventure games" and the RPH, despite losing the gaming monicker, would contain the same pseudo-sexual connotation that make eyebrows raise when you are talking to co-workers by the water cooler.
a.) That IS, of course, we are ready to welcome such members into our collective as "role-players" akin to LARPs and others mentioned in 2a. Judging by the reaction to the Book of Erotic Fantasy, this seems unlikely.

Son, I've seen snark. I've seen snark as done by masters. This barely qualifies as snot.

4.) Such a move denies the games roots completely. As an offshoot of Tabletop Combat Simulation games, (which in and of itself can be considered a hobby do to the time/money investment, but I digress), RPGs have always viewed themselves as a game, and treated its subject matter as such.
a.) This worked as a great defense mechanism against conservative attacks in the 80s and 90s. Read the disclaimers in front of any 80's plus RPG (esp Palladium and 2nd Ed D&D) for proof of the "this is JUST a game" phenomenon.

And we have reptilian roots. Don't make us reptiles. Or would you have us call ourselves great globs of organized archaic bacteria because we're descended from archaic bacteria?

We used to think the greater panda of China as a type of raccoon, doesn't mean they ever were.

Besides which, many people have driven nails home using pliers and wrenches, don't make them hammers.

5.) Ultimately, what would this change start? I highly doubt it would draw much more fresh blood to the game/hobby, because those who WOULD be interested in it usually have found a way into it (or into its close cousins, CCGs and MMORPGS). It wouldn't change/banish current players who view the game as a competitive endevaor (assuming the Type A pesonalties that must be the best at anything, from love to social promotion). It MIGHT create a line in the sand between "real role-players" and "roll-players", but that line exists already without the universe as a whole erring to one side or the other. Ultimately, such a sweeping universal change would do little to avoid the threads/ games/ events that happen currently in the community.
a.) That is to say, role- playing IS universally better than roll- playing. There is still a jury out on that, and I'm afraid its deadlocked.
b.) It also assumes everyone, from WotC to White-Wolf, to Privateer Press, Goodman Games, Kenzer Co, Palladium, Steve Jackson Games, West End games and Fafsa/Wiz Kids would all be willing to go in this radical new direction.
c.) It lastly assumes that these kinds of games/changes can't happen under the current infrastructure. Lots of people have made successful games for years under the cobbled-together universe of RPGs, and will continue to do so.

How do you know this? How do you know it wouldn't draw new people in? How do you know nobody currently publishing wouldn't give it a try, to see how it goes? How do you know these changes can occur under the current paradigm?

How we see things colors how we use them. In World War Two a British officer serving in North Africa at the time is reported to have said, "If we were supposed to use them [anti-aircraft guns] as anti-tank guns we would call them anti-tank guns." We see RPGs as games, we use them as games. And in the usage we limit what they could be used for. I contend that it is this limitation that limits the audience the hobby could reach.

IN CONCLUSION: Sorry, but any image redesign is the same goat in new clothes. If you want to improve the community, find a group of young, eager students, teach them to read, think creatively, and do basic math, and then introduce them into RPGs. You'll be doing a great service to the industry of RPGs and the world as a whole.

It is not my purpose to create my own little RPG world (not that sort of RPG world), it is my purpose to re-create the one that already exists. To open it up to a larger audience. To bring in more players and so keep the hobby vibrant and growing. So the RPH industry can keep making more cool stuff and make a decent living while they do it. So the RPH industry can pay more taxes and provide me with larger disability checks (there, you happy?)

But seriously, I want to see this hobby grow. The way things look now the hobby is not going to grow. Indeed, it may well fade away. I don't want that. I want a growing hobby. At the least a healthy one that can hold its own. If it takes a radical recreation to achieve this, then recreate away.

 

[Umbran]

Not what I'm looking for. The problem I see with RPGs is how they are viewed, and used in the RPH as a whole. No need to expand into live-action roleplaying at all. RPGs could gain a wider audience if they did would they do best better, instead of trying to emulate entirely different forms of entertainment. And that includes games as games.

Yes, well, the problem here is that you've yet to tell us what you are looking for. You wave your hands and say, that RPGs can be much more, but you've not told us in what way. Please pardon us if we then have to guess, and we guess incorrectly. We are rather limited by your vague approach.

For example - right here you say that RPGs could gain a wider audience if they did what they do best better. But you don't tell us what you think they do best. Until you put down a list, in clear and unambiguous language, we will find it difficult to discuss the point with you cogently.

That all depends on how you introduce people to the hobby.

As you already seem to note - the very first introduction is with the name.

You argue against using the term "game" because (in you opinion) it gives the wrong idea even before they ever see the actual activity. I've already pointed out that the word "hobby" does the same exact thing - it gives the wrong idea before they ever see the activity.

So, what we are then faced with is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Pardon if we differ in opinion on which is the lesser.

Doesn't mean they can't learn.

Of course they can learn. The point, however, is that before they learn, the term has little information for them. They will then turn to the other terms for their information. "Hobby" tells them little to nothing about the contents of the activity. And what it does say they may not like. So, it does nothing to draw them to it. "Game" does tell them something, and it's something that's generally viewed positively by the audience, rather than neutrally or negatively. As a marketing point, "game" is a better advertisement than "hobby".

Why give people the wrong impression? Why use the wrong word?

Because, despite your protestations, it is not the wrong word. With the small problem of emphasis of the win condition, which they can unlearn easily enough, the term fits rather nicely. You focus very much on the connotations you feel are negative. You seem to disregard the negative or innacurate connotations of "hobby". You say calling it a game limits possibilities. You seem to miss the fact that calling it a hobby similarly limits possibilities.

What do you do in an RPG?

Given that you've been so vague about what it is about RPGs you want emphasized, perhaps you should go first in answering that question.

The mechanics, the rules if you must, are not there to make things equal or fair or anything gamelike at all. The mechanics of an RPG are there as descriptors, describing the following:

Interesting. Because, if you ask the designers of D&D, the rules are also there to make things equal and fair - that's what "game balance" is about. It has been seen that without it, many people are put off by the activity.

In any event, what the rules are there to do is not the issue. All that's required to be a game are rules that control, focus and/or mediate what happens in play. And RPG rules do exactly that.

What deep end? Who said anything about tossing them in the deep end? Help them create a character, show them the basics, and go off on adventure. This is deep?

Yes, it is, actually. To you, who do it a great deal, it seems simple. But modern folk are used to their fiction as passive entertainment, or very tightly scripted as it is in some video games. They stop playing games of role-assumption pretty early in life. What you suggest is pretty strange stuff as a leisure activity.

 

[mythusmage]

In order to have dramatic tension, there must be conflict. The opposing sides in that conflict are in a form of competition with each other.

Dramatic conflict, not game conflict. Different critters altogether.

It is true that those in conflict are in competition with each other, but in an RPG that need not be the players.

Whether the rules order play, or describe the world, there are still rules.

And, btw, if the rules govern conflict and/or task resolution, they must order play at least in terms of the conflicts and tasks.

You do have a point there. But, the rules in an RPG don't order play exclusively. That is to say, they do have another function. BTW, conflict resolution is also task resolution in my scheme of things, since task resolution really comes down to answering the question of whether an action succeeds or fails. Conflict in the basic sense.

It is still then implicitly between the people controlling the characters, then. Unless you move to a system in which control of a single character's will and actions no longer lie in a single person's hands, there is competition between those who play.

But now at a remove. It's no longer Joe versus Bob, but Throng vs. Garas the Black. Though it does help if people keep in mind the necessary distinction.

Rather than lie, and claim it doesn't exist, simply teach people that it is a "friendly" game, rather than a "serious" game. Akin to a bunch of friends who go down to the schoolyard to play basketball. There is a conflict, technically a competition exists, but nobody takes the winning and losing seriously. The actions of playing the game can be more important than the conflict, even more popularly accepted games.

How about a friendly activity? The players assume roles in an imaginary world, the GM presents that world to them. Sometimes the GM assumes roles that oppose the players' characters, or competes with them. Sometimes he may take on a role that assists the characters. But competition is not the reason for playing.

The reason for playing is the adventure. For dramatic purposes there may be conflict, though not necessarily the type of conflict most think of when they hear the word. Competition in a form may even arise (as in two rogues competing to see who can garner tho most 'cool stuff' in a night's work). But competition as occurs in games need not arise.

In short, the issue here isn't in the competition, but in the sportsmanship.

That I'll agree with. Honesty on the part of all participants can make the experience a lot better for all concerned. Not having to worry about the 'other side's' honesty would certainly help there. Removing the need to see roleplaying as competitive would make it a lot easier on all concerned.

 

[Remathilis]

When was D&D® ever a game?

"Dungeons and Dragons: Rules for Fantasitc Medieval WarGAMEs Campaign PLAYABLE with with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures" - 1978 White box by Gygax and Anderson

You don't know crocheting. It has rules. There are ways of doing things in crocheting. There are right ways and there are wrong ways, and the right ways are the right ways because they work.

While there are "correct" and "incorrect" ways of doing something, I have yet to see a comprehensive rulebook on crocheting. Most of them teach you the basics and send you on your way. In the end, the afghan you've created is the final test of whats right and wrong.

a.) Change what to a hobby? I propose calling what we are involved in the roleplaying hobby, because that's what it is. The games (as we currently call them) are an entirely different matter.

Calling the "game" a "hobby" is a matter of shorthand writing convience. Game is short for "whatever we've been doing for the past 30 years"

b.) How so? And what's so hot about all-encompassing Bibles anyway? When you consider the nature of the beast I rather doubt all-inclusive rule books are possible anyway. So why bother putting together a book that will end up being a source of contradiction and controversy when a guidebook might do the job just as well, if not better?

Gotta start somewhere. You need some level of rules to keep things together, especially in anything involving large groups of people. Go (re)read "Lord of the Flies" by William Goldring.

You don't know the game community that well, do you. Or was this an attempt at sarcasm?

I know lots of people who sneer at RPGs as a game played by pimply-faced teenagers. Game implies childish. Most people don't usually care.

Son, I've seen snark. I've seen snark as done by masters. This barely qualifies as snot.

Serious consideration, IMHO. if your going to institute radical change, get rid of the only problem I have with describing my "hobby"

Son, I've seen a flame. I've seen a flame done by masters. This barely qualifies as cigarette lighter.

And we have reptilian roots. Don't make us reptiles. Or would you have us call ourselves great globs of organized archaic bacteria because we're descended from archaic bacteria?

We used to think the greater panda of China as a type of raccoon, doesn't mean they ever were.

Besides which, many people have driven nails home using pliers and wrenches, don't make them hammers.

There is something to be said of remembering your roots. It keeps humbled and connected to others in the community.

How do you know this? How do you know it wouldn't draw new people in? How do you know nobody currently publishing wouldn't give it a try, to see how it goes? How do you know these changes can occur under the current paradigm?

How do YOU know it will?

How we see things colors how we use them. In World War Two a British officer serving in North Africa at the time is reported to have said, "If we were supposed to use them [anti-aircraft guns] as anti-tank guns we would call them anti-tank guns." We see RPGs as games, we use them as games. And in the usage we limit what they could be used for. I contend that it is this limitation that limits the audience the hobby could reach.

Such as?

It is not my purpose to create my own little RPG world (not that sort of RPG world), it is my purpose to re-create the one that already exists. To open it up to a larger audience. To bring in more players and so keep the hobby vibrant and growing. So the RPH industry can keep making more cool stuff and make a decent living while they do it. So the RPH industry can pay more taxes and provide me with larger disability checks (there, you happy?)

But seriously, I want to see this hobby grow. The way things look now the hobby is not going to grow. Indeed, it may well fade away. I don't want that. I want a growing hobby. At the least a healthy one that can hold its own. If it takes a radical recreation to achieve this, then recreate away.

What proof do you have that the RPG industry is dying a horrible death anyway? More people play RPGs now than 10 years ago, and hundreds of companies exist thanks to OGL. RPGs are carried in large chains like Wal-Mart, and the video game/online system explosion has brought RPG style games to the mainstream in new and different ways. While we still lack a descent D&D cartoon (or movie, for that matter) we have more growth now than in the height of the 80s.

I don't think the sky is falling. We've endured the 97 crash of TSR, the death of FAFSA, the collapse of West End, and CCG craze. We'll endure still with organic growth and word of mouth support, as we always have.