Why are people not interested in RPG?

[ggroy]

Also, I'm not looking for the game I play to validate how smart I am.

(and if I was looking for that, I'd use chess, not D&D )

Even more hardcore would be the individuals who like playing the game of finding larger and larger prime numbers.

More generally, if I had wanted to validate how smart I am, I would have became a mathematician in an area like number theory.

 

[Mallus]

Its really sad that people consider every activity not completely dumbed down as an attempt to "validate how smart someone is" or other elitist insult.

Two things...

One: I don't consider simplified or streamlined the same thing is "dumbed down". There's nothing inherently "smart" about a complex and/or lengthy rule system.

If that were true, then Advanced Squad Leader would be a "smarter" pursuit than Chess or Go.

Two: I admit, I'm being a little cynical. I tend to view the phrase "dumbed down" the same way I do the charmingly stupid portmanteau "sheeple", ie badly. They're both a transparent proxy way of saying "I'm better than the other guy", without offering much in the way of constructive or insightful criticism.

Why is increased complexity better? Every designer needs to answer this question when it's raised. Just saying "simpler = dumber" dodges the question.

Why is a complex entertainment/aesthetic experience automatically better than simple one? Every critic needs to answer this question.

Is Proust always and inherently better than a Conan story? Is a five-course meal prepared using classic French technique always better than a great grilled hamburger?

Even more hardcore would be the individuals who like playing the game of finding larger and larger prime numbers.

My Jove, you're on to something !

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why is increased complexity better? Every designer needs to answer this question when it's raised. Just saying "simpler = dumber" dodges the question.

Why is a complex entertainment/aesthetic experience automatically better than simple one? Every critic needs to answer this question.

The answer is: complexity is not inherently better...nor is simplicity. Which is better depends on what you're aiming for.

I can enjoy both Carlos Santana and Yngwie Malmsteen, even though YJM's solos contain 128x the notes of Carlos', because they have different musical goals.

Likewise, I can enjoy The Fantasy Trip and HERO, despite vast differences in complexity.

When people complain about streamlining in D&D, I hear them complaining that there was something that existed in the game prior to that that design decision that they feel the new rules no longer model adequately.

 

[Derren]

When people complain about streamlining in D&D, I hear them complaining that there was something that existed in the game prior to that that design decision that they feel the new rules no longer model adequately.

Thanks, thats pretty much the point. If you can streamline without removing things (things can also include versimilitude/believability instead of just options) then go for it. But that will nearly never be the case and in the course of streamlining something will be sacrificed.

Likewise, making something more complex should only be done when this adds things to the game.

There are two general types of RPGs out there. Thematic RPGs which have one specific setting and rules to play in it (Middle Earth, Shadowrun, etc) and toolbox RPGs which have no (strong) setting but give you the tools to create your own worlds (Gurps, D&D).

To attract people to thematic RPGs you need to get them interested in the setting. Someone liking LotR is much more inclined to try out the corresponding RPG when given the chance than someone who is indifferent to it.

Toolbox RPGs on the other hand have no setting for advertisment. Instead they must be able to offer all the tools someone might need to create his perfect RPG world. Limiting the number of tools in the name on streamlining is counter productive.

One also has to keep in mind that computers are better and better at offering "simple" gameplay. And with the ever increasing use of social networks the "social" component of RPGs slowly loses its edge over computers either. So just simplifying won't cut it because when you have a simple but limited game (see first point) there is no real reason for people to play this game instead of playing Diablo 3 over Battlenet with their online friends.

 

[Psion]

Personally I've become smarter and wiser And in fact that includes like [MENTION=172]Psion[/MENTION] used to say, the realization that "the rules should serve the game and not viceversa". A more complicated ruleset to represent the same thing and achieve the same results is more stupid, not dumber.

(Not having visited the site for a bit and just read that I had a mention, this is a delayed reaction post...)

I find it a bit amusing that my words are being use to espouse simple games, because I personally don't like them, even though many of my fellow oldtimers tell me I should. I will say that I have developed a bit of a distaste for more complicated subsystems, especially if it involved additional tracking for little extra fun. Speaking in business terms, I often just don't see the return on investment (of my time).

But I love stuff like feats and class abilities and modifiers. I just played a new game (up for an ENnie!) called Hollowpoint. It exemplifies the sort of a "bit too simplified" game that lacks the sort of depth that I need to get the feel I want out of a roleplaying game, and for it's simplicity, suffers characters with odd disabilities and behaviors. As Einstein said, make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. Possible here meaning "can maintain my suspension of disbelief and interest in the game."

But whatever works for you man. What I am getting at with that old saying is about how you use the rules. If a rule is getting in the way of having fun in the game, change or ignore it.

 

[Virel]

I've been into gaming since 1975.

When the collectable card game appeared, it wasn't very appealling to me because about a quarter of the people into the games like Magic the Gathering needed to bath on a regular basis. I was in a hobby shop for another reason when an MtG event was taking place. The smell was horrible. I was convinced I never wanted anything to do with MtG.

Years later some of my friends that play D&D got me into playing MtG. My biggest issue with MtG was the gamers made a very very bad impression by stinking and not bathing.

The sad part is a lot of that very same problem with image applies to RPG's.

Regular bathing would do more for the hobby and it's image than anything else.

In short, clean cloths and bar of soap would go a long way toward getting more people into gaming.

 

[Aaron L]

RPGs are a niche hobby. Let's face it, our games attract people like us, brainy intellectual types who enjoy fantasy and sci-fi, who aren't quite happy with the way the world really is and like to imagine what it would be like if magic was real, or if we could be giant robot pilots, or we were super-heroes. We're also just obsessive enough that we want rules to make sure that things stay consistent.

Let's be honest, most of us are at least slightly eccentric, and we have an eccentric hobby. RPGs are never again going to reach the levels they did back in the early 80's, because back then it was a "new thing", a novelty that had a mysterious, forbidden aura to it, and as much as it hurt us in a lot of ways, every BADD panic attracted more curious people to the hobby.

But by now most people have realized that gamers aren't summoning demons with heavy metal music playing in the background, and RPGs are seen as just a weird hobby for brainy geeks.

Plus, there's a strong current of iconoclasty in RPG culture, and for a lot of people who've been seen as outsiders for most of their lives, they've eventually learned to take a sort of twisted sense of pride in being a bit of an outsider (it's either that or be ashamed of not fitting in.)

I don't see RPGs dying. We'll lose some gamers, but we'll also gain new gamers as more oddballs like us mature and join our ranks.

We're geeks, guys. We like geeky things. RPGs are geeky. We'll always be the smart, kinda odd, creative types who don't quite totally fit in. Just as poets and writers and artists have always been seen by the greater society as being kinda odd. That's us.

But we will always be here and there will always be room for us.

And I really don't have a problem with that.

 

[Lwaxy]

I've been into gaming since 1975.

When the collectable card game appeared, it wasn't very appealling to me because about a quarter of the people into the games like Magic the Gathering needed to bath on a regular basis. I was in a hobby shop for another reason when an MtG event was taking place. The smell was horrible. I was convinced I never wanted anything to do with MtG.

Weird enough, people coming dressed like they were due working their bank shift while overusing their cologne was what turned me off MTG for quite a while.