Why RPGs are Failing

[WayneLigon]

They've stopped being RPGs. The meme seems to be, RPGs are a game, and must be played as a game.

Not a fault of the game, just a fault of DM's who don't 'get it'. I find the rest of the thing at the blog curious; if you're concerned with actual realism in an RPG, that tends to make an RPG vastly more rules-heavy than D&D is currently. Or are you saying that you basically want combat more free-form, so the GM has final say over whether or not a combat trick will work?

 

[Hand of Evil]

I see the problem being the competer to RPGs, which is computer and online gaming, you hear the same arguments about shopping and dating, the other two fields being effected the same way.

 

[Crothian]

I would have figured that since they are called Role Playing Games, and have been called that for like forever, that them being games would not be anything new.

RPGs are not failing. You might be failing in finding an RPG that fits your style, or a DM or a group that does. But that's another issue.

 

[trancejeremy]

I'm getting exceedingly tired of having to remind people to be polite. Whether or not you agree with someone, being rude to them here is not permitted. Please remember this.

Well, one could say that it's rude to start a thread, post a paragraph or so, then say "Visit my site for the rest". But in any event, it definitely is pimping.

Though at least he's not making fun of poor people, which is an improvement over many of his other posts.

 

[Angcuru]

The only real point that I somewhat agree on is that Initiative is a bit screwy. It makes no sense to me that a character with lightning-fast reflexes and super-speed gets just as many turns as the character with no legs, slug-like reflexes, and one eye. I'd prefer a sort of alottment of action points added to the current turn system, wherein the initiative roll determines who reacted in what order, but that points can be spent to be bumped up the order, and spread out instead of being used all at once, also, volunteering to bump yourself down increases your action points, so you can do more later as opposed to 'this much' right now.

Sort of like how it works in the Fallout PC games. But then if we did this, we'd have to design a new set of rules or mod an exisiting system so that "it isn't really D&D any more". Or the like.

Otherwise, RPGs aren't failing just because someone has a grudge.

 

[mythusmage]

Boy, did I stir up a nest. Must be that time of the year

Anyway...

On the other hand I keep losing players because my campaign leans heavily to the roleplay side, and doesn't really allow room for players who can't think, scheme and build something of their own from a generous pool of resources.

What about presentation? How do you present the game? I've been in campaigns where it was all combat, and it was tiresome. Do you show or tell?

 

[mythusmage]

I think you are exaggerating just a tad, and what you see as failure in RPGs can also be easily associated to a simple matter of group playstyle.

I do, however, know that I'm too tired to really pursue this right now. Maybe tomorrow/later, if it hasn't turned into a 5 page arguement

'Tis the games that bring me to my conclusion. The evident desire to cover everything within the rules, and the need by many players and GMs to follow the rules over everything else.

But, it isn't really a game, as game, that we are playing, but an imaginary life in an imaginary world with rules to keep things from getting out of hand.

BTW, it was only 2 pages when I started replying, so things haven't gotten totally out of hand, yet.

 

[mythusmage]

And making RPGs more realistic would solve this .. whatever problem you had with them to begin with?

More realistic in behavioral terms.

You know the scene; the party is walking along a forest path heading to the Great Temple of Doloreous Glamor when they run into a band of goblins. Combat ensues.

As opposed to; party is walking along the same path, meets the same goblins, people prepare for combat... And bluff, bluster, and bragging ensue, to be followed by successful or unsuccessful negotiations.

All depending on how the situation is presented. Gamed it'll end up in fighting. Roleplayed it may still end up in fighting, but at least the players will have the option. Furthermore, think seriously about non-combat options should they have a firm grasp on the consequences of their actions.

"Oh, we can take 'em. That's not the problem. The problem is, even after a quick fight we'll be holed up here for the next day fixing up our injured, and regaining spells. Not to mention the equipment that'll get used up. And the bad guys'll be a day closer to getting that ritual done. Don't know 'bout you fellas, but I'd rather catch 'em in the middle of casting instead of when they're about done.

"So what say we give the gobbos their truce and everybody goes on with their lives?"

 

[tetsujin28]

They've stopped being RPGs. The meme seems to be, RPGs are a game, and must be played as a game. One must adhere strictly to the rules, and if the rules do not allow for an action, or an action by a particular playing piece, then that action cannot be performed. (continued at: Mythusmage on Roleplaying Games, Why RPGs are Failing)

(Yes, I am an attention junkie.)

Um...no. And minus points for using 'meme', which is dreadfully overused and must be removed from the language.

 

[mythusmage]

I'm dropping this in over here (from your linked site...if it weren't late and I didn't have a term paper due before tomorrow morning I'd poke around and check it out), but I think you're off the mark a bit here. I'm not sure I can see any way to fix this part of the game, nor do I think it's a bug or anyone is claiming that D&D combat is realistic. If we wanted a realistic initiative system for the game, everyone would go at once and the people with the best reflexes would get to act first. I'm being silly, but I'm not sure where you're going with this, as you don't offer an alternative to what the game uses now. The current initiative system is really just a way of ordering a really chaotic thing (combat) into something that is fun and fair (in that everyone gets a turn) for the players. For me, at least, this is a good thing.

Best,
Nick

I've understood intiative in D&D® to be a case of, spotting an opportunity to act in a round, and then acting. Sometimes it comes early, sometimes it comes late. But, you don't take all your actions right at that instant. You could start to take an action, but then somebody could try to stop you, or get in your way.

The bad thing about combat (besides the grievious injuries possible) is that it is a horribly chaotic thing in which people often don't get a chance. Deucedly unfair old bean. And I say it's a good thing it's deucedly unfair else people would grow to love it too much.

I'm all for combat turns, but I think those turns should be less 'structured' than they are now.