The Dumbing Down of RPGs

[Celebrim]

EDIT: I suspect that if we DID know how, that would be the holy grail of real honest-to-god AI.

I suspect that intelligence isn't a single algorithm. The holy grail of real honest to god AI will be a collection of techniques available to the computer, that collective produce functional behavior.

There is no such thing as general intelligence. Humans aren't generally intelligent - we just fake it pretty well.

 

[Derren]

Yes, I do think that RPGs, video games and P&P, are dumbed down, just like with most other forms of entertainment.

The OP already made a good list on what is happening to video games and the rest of the post also provided several good additions.
In the P&P genre, much of the same is done. The rules get "videogameified", you have "fail forward" to mimic the "you can't fail" in video games and tracking things like money, ammunition or rations is vanishing. And the focus of the games switches more and more towards combat because it is flashy and because it is simple. And of course the opposition only rarely poses a serious threat and instead can be mowed down by the hundreds to fulfill any power fantasies the players have.
There are of course niche games out there who cater to a difference audience, but the higher the market share a game has, the more it usually follows this pattern.

 

[Siberys]

The point I was making that it used to be that most games were made to provide an appropriate challenge for people like me who had a lot of play experience already. That's not the case anymore - there's a lot more very easy games made now than hard ones.

That could very possibly be observational bias - older games seemed harder to you because, when you first ran into them, you were less skilled than you are now. And if it's not that, it could be because of the growth in popularity of games of that type - you see more dumber games just because there's more games.

Most of the problems described in the OP seem to me to be things that, in TTRPGs, would be under the control of the GM. I mean, if the GM is taking cues from games that make these decisions, that may be bad, but as has been noted previously, those decisions weren't made in a vacuum. If running a game that way delivers the experience the GM is aiming, go for it. As a matter of fact, it's imperative, IMO, that a GM learn this lesson - ignore the stuff that doesn't result in the feel you're going for! If you're not going for a gritty, resource-management-is-king feel, don't track ammo. If you're playing a game with a lighter tone, take death off of the table as a possibility. At that point, all you're really saying "this won't be fun in this context, so let's make sure it doesn't happen."

I've gotten to the point, as a hobbyist programmer and a hobbyist gamer, that large rulesets seem dumber to me than smaller ones. This is because large rulesets feel like programming languages to me, and I'm very familiar with the limitations of programming languages. Why waste all of my mental capacity resolving stuff with this system, when another just takes my existing expectations and runs with 'em? In the same way that you can't go outside the bounds of a computer game's plot, it's more difficult to go outside the bounds of a published game the heavier it is. Now, that's fine if you're aiming at a particular experience, but the games that aim for evoking specific outcomes are usually (though admittedly not always) also lighter.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can dumb down (or "simplify," if you prefer) mechanics without dumbing down the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I just watched a FoolTube video, pretty well done, about how the Elder Scrolls games are being "dumbed down" to meet the lowest common denominator. To make more money. And I had to ask myself:

Are TRPGs doing this too?

Now, obviously, the video's arguments don't apply directly to TRPGs. But for your reading pleasure, here they are (with my additions in parenthesis):

1) You can't fail (except to die and reload in the same place).
2) No consequences for faction membership (or, the Imperials don't care if you're a Rebel).
3) You make little impact in the world.
4) The quest and journal system (does little more than make you walk toward arrows).
5) NPC conversations are heavily reduced (and bear little significance).
6) Massively oversimplified puzzles (usually, with the solutions in plain sight).
7) The value of (special) items has been reduced (and supply has been greatly increased).

This would probably be easiest to view through the lens of multiple D&D editions, on which I'm no expert. But most big companies are out for your dirty dollar - are they making compromises as well?

If those are your criteria then I'd say emphatically not. RPGs are smartening up and have been for a long time

First, we no longer have the shovelware of the past. We no longer have the oWoD/TORG metaplot - which explicitly took away the ability of the players to impact the world. On this point the nadir of RPGs was in the 90s.

Few games other than D&D have save points - or as we like to call them by another name, resurrection spells. The nadir here was 3.5 (although 4e Essentials came pretty close) - although PF Adventure Paths might be even worse. But if you think that save points are the sign of a dumbed down game then stop playing just about the only RPG I'm aware of that has them.

The Quest and Journal system of makework was at its strongest when you forced people to map rather than to solve situations. That said, this one might be on the rise with Paizo's adventure paths (although even here, the utter nadir was in the 80s with Dragonlance and the Obscure Death Rule).

Modern indy games including the OSR are by historical standards, whip-sharp, focussed on what they want to do, hard as written when they choose to be, and focus on making what you do matter. The nadir for all this was, as I say, in the 90s with metaplot.

The only case where you have a point is that puzzles to challenge the player rather than the character are badly out of fashion. And even there the OSR makes good things.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In the P&P genre, much of the same is done. The rules get "videogameified", you have "fail forward" to mimic the "you can't fail" in video games

This is simply wrong. What fail forward means is that failure always has a consequence. You don't play on easy mode where if at first you fail to succeed you remain at the save point and nothing important happens until you pass this hurdle. Failing a hurdle always matters. Games are smartening up.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a HUGE problem. I've been running a biweekly game for going on four years now. It has been a huge repeated problem that even though I'm obeying the 'three clue rule' and even when players are given the clues, if they don't immediately recognize the importance of the clue, by the time two weeks roll around they have completely forgotten about it. And since they've completely forgotten about it, the significance of any clue they find that points back at the original clue is also lost on them. It often leads to a situation where NPCs have to take the lead and be quest givers who explicitly tell the players what to do, because the players are generally lost without a clearly stated goal to perform. That's annoying on several fronts. First, it means that I'm having to deprotagonize the PCs to keep them protagonized, and secondly it means that often lately there is a small army of NPCs they've gotten involved in the problem who I have to keep track of.

It's probably only in the last year or so that the players have finally figured out, "All these stuff the DM keeps telling us. Maybe we should write some of it down?" Prior to that it was like pouring water into a sieve. It didn't matter how many clues I gave them, it just went in one ear and out the other.

So to sum up you were running a completely different type of game from that which the players were playing? This went on for three years before they adapted their play style to match yours? And you think the problem is with the ​players?

 

[Celebrim]

So to sum up you were running a completely different type of game from that which the players were playing? This went on for three years before they adapted their play style to match yours? And you think the problem is with the ​players?

No, to sum up, I have had 9 players (3 of which moved out of state). Of them, only 2 have had significant prior RPG experience - and both have told me this is the best game they've ever been in. I'm running the game that the players indicated that they wanted to play based on the results of their pre-game questionnaire. The game is an adventure path sort of thing. It mixes dungeon crawling with role playing, investigation, mass combat, etc. Adventure paths works better IMO when the PC's are the movers and shakers who take the lead within the story line, rather than leaning on NPs to provide leadership and tell them what to do.

I've been encouraging to them to take that role so that the railroad/adventure path they indicated that they wanted doesn't shade off into a fully linear DM driven stage for showcasing my plot with NPCs getting all the glory. In other words, this problem - huge though it is - is a necessary problem to have because otherwise, my game would be as badly designed as a 2nd edition FR module.

Of the nine players I've had, only 1 was a hack-n-slash beer and pretzels sort who really would have been happier with nothing but kick the door down, kill and loot. He moved to Washington. My current group leans thespian/clown. If there is any real clash of style between me and the players, it has nothing to do with the story per se. The biggest clash is that I want them to play paragon, and right now they are leaning heavily comic and renegade but aren't yet willing to switch teams. But, I have a story branch ready for that if they ever do.

When you've run a successful 4 year long game for 6 adult players and you've had to turn away players because you don't think can't handle a bigger table, and you actually know something about my current situation, you can maybe start discussing with me about how maybe I don't know how to run a game and how I could improve it. In the mean time, you are just pulling things out of your nether parts.

 

[Celebrim]

This is simply wrong. What fail forward means is that failure always has a consequence.

Keep telling yourself that. Failure has consequences inherently. That's why it is failure. If that was what it meant, we wouldn't need a special term for it.

What 'fail forward' means is that failure always has some mitigating consequences. And in particular, it means that for the majority of players with the typical set of aesthetic motivations, what you call 'failure' never really impacts their goals of play in a negative way. And in that sense, for probably 80% of players, it means failure never does have consequences. That isn't necessarily a 'wrong' way to play, but at least understand what it is.

Usually illusionism involves doing something to make the players think they are playing a different game than they actually are. Fail forward is illusionism to convince the GM he's playing a different game than he actually is.

Fail forward just means ensuring the players never have less than a minor victory, but calling it a defeat. It's the "Every crash is going to be a good one..." rule, "...because you'll walk away." It's the, "You can't take this train off the tracks, because beneath every set of tracks is... more tracks", rule. The observation that not every victory needs to be total, and that not every defeat need mean death is a good one. But turned into a rule, it just becomes silly.

And applied generally, it is often self-defeating. It only makes sense in one very particular sort of game with only a single dominate aesthetic of play. And even then, I'm not entirely sure that it should be a rule. So, while I don't necessarily think that 'fail foward' is indicative of the 'dumbing down of rpg's', and while I do think it's a valuable technique to know about, I'm not sure that you aren't the one that is "just simply wrong".

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

It could be argued by some that RPGs these days are designed with high-end graphics at the forefront and somewhat of a story or game world plot as a secondary vehicle that is used to show off the fancy graphics. I think for the new gamers this is a great, and opens the idea of RPGs to a new audience. However, for us old timers – Neverwinter Nights was all about story and the sense of playing on-line back when Quantum Link was around.

In addition, it can be argued by some old-timers like myself – that some of the best games were the old DOS RPGs such as Dark Lands and any of the number early AD&D by SSI. To this day – Dark Lands has to be one of my favorite RPGs. Believe me – 8Bit graphics stink; however, RPGs are about the rich would that is created, and the story aka quests that are brought to the game’s style and environment.

It might be true – that RPGs lack replay ability and are only a money maker; however, some can argue that game companies are focused more on graphics and not enough on stories. I know one thing that bugs me – is my point is seen when new games require greater hardware to run.

Due to the latter – is the RPG game industry looking at making a rich world by story alone? Or is the industry switching to rich worlds only created by graphics?

I do not speak for all the old timers, but I wish online games would go back to their roots, and develop something that resembled RPGs at their pinnacle. A game that provided just enough graphics to get the job done, but that has a rich world and a kicking story or setting.

Perhaps game makers should start to focus on story and setting oppose to graphics. Spend more time with the system, and mechanics and create a rich sandbox world.

I believe the last game I played online was Ever Quest 1999 or Star Wars a Galaxy Divided and I stopped supporting D&D once Wizards purchased them in the late 90s. However, I have never given up on “Elder Scrolls Arena” and “Dark Lands”.

 

[Gamgee]

I don't play rpg games for the challenge. I have Monster Hunter for Dark Souls combat that's even harder. Other games focus on skill and I regularly climb to the top.

I play an RPG for the story, and a difficult one is optional but appreciated. Nothing will challenge me as much as a player so don't waste your time if it's taking away from the core RPG experience. I notice a lot of "old school" players can't walk the talk these days either and yet never seem to stop complaining...

I'm not the best, not invincible, but better than a vast majority.

I don't feel the industry is dumbing down anything, but players themselves are getting softer. You could run a deadly game in a lot of games barring the few systems designed not to have it. Probably why we like the 40k RPG line so much here.