What does it take for an RPG to die?


log in or register to remove this ad


I think there's just fundamentally different dimensions to the concept of dead, but I think the biggest one is more or less which direction the factors are pointed in, in terms of it's community. It's possible for a game that doesn't get new product to be building on a healthy community, but it's one of the things that attracts people, so that's a factor against the game being 'alive.'

In another sense, dead can also mean it's no longer a living thing, it's not changing-- inert in other words, 4e is like this for me because it's meta is calcified to more or less what we had in 2012 or so-- whenever the last 4e products released, we're not really talking about new classes or developments in 4e, or speculating about how new powers could finally make a class good or something.

But something like Pathfinder 1e 'continued' the life of 3.5, and I think the OSR basically cast resurrection... or at least made a wonderful undead monstrosity out of ye olde TSR DND.

The community around it is itself another factor, if there's a bunch of people playing it that's a point in favor of it not being dead, and if they're talking a lot about it meaning there's a real conversation about it, that's another point in it's favor.

Another thing for me is actually the game's ability to offer things in the context of whatever the current market is, part of why I considered my once-beloved 4e dead, was because as frustrated as I was with 5e-- I still didn't want to necessarily return to pre-streamline era, and it wasn't until PF2e that I had a game that gave me what 4e did alongside streamlining, and I recently had a friend confirm when I mentioned how I genuinely regretted switching to 5e they were adamant that they much preferred 5e to 4e, and 4e was their first RPG, so back then it wouldn't have gone very well to go back.

But then, with all of these factors... it's also interesting that for me 'dying' is a lot more useful than 'dead' because there's always going to be a small contingent of diehards for these big names, so I'm more interested in what happened to the rest of the playerbase, the hype, etc.
 

If the game is based on a fad or something that drastically drops in popularity.
I would be surprised if there are people playing the Dallas RPG.
Now Indiana Jones would be different as it has a nostalgic appeal for people.
 


In another sense, dead can also mean it's no longer a living thing, it's not changing-- inert in other words, 4e is like this for me because it's meta is calcified to more or less what we had in 2012 or so-- whenever the last 4e products released, we're not really talking about new classes or developments in 4e, or speculating about how new powers could finally make a class good or something.
That is largely true (I know I certainly don't keep up with what's left of the 4e community any more) but I think in that particular case it's partly because a lot of folks drifted over to 13th Age, which is jokingly referred to as D&D 4.5 around these parts - and with 2nd edition due soon, definitely not dead. There's also the fan-made Orcus to consider, although I haven't dug into that as deeply as a I probably should, and in terms of obvious design influence Massif's games (both Lancer and the unfinished Icon) are obvious descendants of 4e. There's at least one other whose name is eluding me, so 4e has legitimately spawned a few offspring even if the family tree may be a bit indirect. The edition basically started the idea of drilling down hard on making combat engaging as a sub-game unto itself while letting then non-combat stuff run on lighter side systems and narrative play, and other people (or the same, in the case of 13th Age) are running with exploring that.

There's also an in-the-works supers RPG called Indominant that seems to share some design philosophy, with elements I recognize from PF2, 4e, and Sentinel Comics. Not sure what that's going to end up looking like in the end.

So is a game dead or dying if its core design concept has gone on to be used as the foundation of many other games?
I would be surprised if there are people playing the Dallas RPG.
Me too, but I admit it's vaguely surprising that to this day we've never seen another soap opera RPG, at least not one that managed to get on my radar. Soaps themselves are much-faded at this point, but we also didn't see (say) a game emulating reality TV franchises, some of which (eg Survivor) seem like they could have made (unusual) RPG fodder. Probably not worth licensing, but a knockoff with the name filed off could have worked - but i don't recall even an attempt at it.

Might have just missed some examples, but it feels like an odd gap in a hobby full of esoteric games. Surely that one half-forgotten SPI flop can't have tainted the concept of "pop fad TV RPG" so badly it's untouchable?
 



I for one did try to run Cyborg Commando back in the day for the gaming group and it wasn't my finest moment.
Cyborg Commando will never die. It is so bad it is attractive. Kinda like "bad‑movie nights", some of us like bad-game nights. Add to that the fact that it is a Gygax game, it is a collectible.

One of my gaming life regrets is not buying the game when I did a learn to play session for it run by Gary Gygax at Gen Con. I have a copy of Polyhedron #1 signed by him, but a signed copy of Cyborg Commando would be much better.
 

It’s possible that “dead” is just plain a wrong word, because games aren’t organisms. They’re communities. Extinction can happen, but it’s rare. What happens more often is isolation, where the existing population of fans seldom if ever interacts with anyone else and almost nobody stumbles into the communities from outside.
Cryptid gamers. Legends are told about a small, isolated group still playing Phantasm Adventures on a small, isolated Japanese island.
 

Remove ads

Top