• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Why RPGs are Failing

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

Hmm, I at least followed the link expecting there to be something substantial waiting for me...

Really, MM, if the crux of your argument is summed up by your initiative example, and from there you conclude 'RPG's are failing'... what hope for everyone else is there of persuading you otherwise?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mythusmage said:
This invalidates my position how?

"Invalidate"... You keep on using that word...

If you don't get that combat can be a form of role-play as valid as any of the ones you seem to be hung up on, depending on the circumstances, then I guess you'll never understand why your argumen and its ill-defined distinction between "combat" and "role-playing" is pointless.

If you've been playing in games that taught you players need to be held by the hand and need built-in rules for how to role-play their characters, because their game always ends up being a PnP version of Diablo, then I feel sorry for you, but that's no reason to assume all the rest of us have the same problems.
 

<quote>

Ok, here is my take on Roles, Roleplaying, dice, and the failing health of the RPG system....

1.) Role-playing games aren't dead, they are evolving. The problem is some people are stuck in the mindset that change=bad (cough, cough, DRAGONSFOOT, cough). RPGs began as offshoots of military tabletop combat games, and have grown up in both complexity of rules (mimicing the rise of excellent videogame RPGs) and storylines.
2.) Fairness: Who said life is fair? Well, good sportsmanship did. The biggest complaint I hear about d20's codified-all-encompassing-rules-set comes from people who usually MADE the game unfair for PCs by using arbitary rulings and ad-hoc systems of rewards, which worked in some circles but in others ended up favoritism, railroading, and plain "I WIN!" DMing. The unified d20 system at least gives suggestions as to how to keep things on even footing. (Case in point, play a single classed fighter or thief at high (10+) level and see how well you do against the mage and cleric.)
3.) You CAN role-play and roll-play, min-maxing in inherent in all games with a system of rules written down on paper. Doesn't matter if its GURPS, Storyteller, Palladium, d6, d20 or Amber. It CAN be done, I've seen it.
4.) The rules are deliberately abstract to keep the game fun. QUESTION: Two guys stand 25 feet apart, one has a knife, the other has a gun. Who kills the other first?
Answer: The guy with the higher initative roll. Sorry, but to keep true chaos from breaking out, a system of turns is needed, be it in D&D or Candyland.
5.) RPGs are alive and doing well, thanks to d20 being available and easier to understand, its making a bigger impact than 2e did in the 90s. Lots of kids in my school where I sub have at least heard of it, if not played.

All in all, I still believe in my friends motto (which I think TSR used much later)

"Shut up and Play."
 

wedgeski said:
Really, MM, if the crux of your argument is summed up by your initiative example, and from there you conclude 'RPG's are failing'... what hope for everyone else is there of persuading you otherwise?
Who said anything about persuading? There's no question mark in the thread title.
mythusmage said:
Not everybody's interested in near constant battling and looting of corpses. Which is what D&D, for all intents and purposes, gives you. How about some guidelines for roleplaying, presentation, scene setting, scene dressing, scene timing?
Sounds to me like you should stop playing RPGs and take up acting.
 

Wombat said:
I think it is easy enough to state that rpgs are having a tough time at the moment. The number of shops carrying rpgs (of any manufacturer) in the Bay Area of California has been dropping for several years; my local FLGS is likely to drop them next year due to declining sales.

We, in the middle of good, healthy games see the hobby doing quite well, thankyouverymuch, but I'm not sure sales in general would bear this trend out. Video/ computer games are the big winners at the moment, beating out movies.

Now why this is happening is a different matter. I do not believe this is a roll- vs. role-playing matter, but a short attention span, hooked to special effects matter. RPGs require that you sit (comparatively) still, enter into a shared worlds, know the rules (to a greater or lesser extent), and have times when the action slows down. RPGs are not constantly shiny, moving on hyperspeed, with amazing graphics, 5.1 surround sound, and the like.

These are personal opinions only, of course, but I think they would be born out with a study.

Actually only video (console) gaming is the only one entertainment market (ie movies, music, books, etc) thats actually doing "OK" at the moment; computer (PC) gaming, however, has been most definitely in serious trouble for a long time now, with lots of evidence to back it up. RPGs are in a down period after the big boom of 2000 - 2003.

A little excerpt from none other than Kevin Siembieda (of Palladium Books fame) responding to critics on the RPG.net forums (yeah, THAT PLACE):

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?threadid=119629&perpage=10&pagenumber=9

"Fan base attrition. Bill keeps bringing up fan base attrition and things that I do or don’t do that must be contributing to it or that I’m upset about fan base attrition. Fact is the entire RPG industry has been hurting for the last few years. Fact is, Palladium Books remains one of the top five game manufacturers, overall. Fact is, most other entertainment markets are also losing viewers/consumers, and that includes network television, the music industry, book publishers and computer games (and no of them know why). Fact is, drops in markets are cyclical. Comic books have been declared dead at least three times that I know of. Fact is, Bill hasn’t been involved with Palladium for a couple of years and doesn’t know anything about our sales or what’s happening at Palladium. His knowledge of sales was limited to begin with. I happen to believe paper role-playing games will rebound and be as big or bigger than ever. Unfortunately, I fear a number of companies may go out of business before that happens. "
 

mythusmage said:
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.:p)

Is it really all that different now than it was back then when the hobby first started? I dunno, I recently started playing so this a rhetorical question......
 

I think that there are two questions being addressed here.

1) Are RPGs failing, and if so why? This includes numerous systems.
2) Is D&D still a role playing game, or is it just an exercise in rules manipulation.

Are RPGS failing, and if so why?

Are RPGS failing? I would say that it seems that with the current economy, RPGs are not doing as well sales wise. This is based off of my own observations, and I have no cold hard facts, but I have read in numerous places that the economy isn't doing as well right now. I've witnessed less products coming out, less variation in the number of new systems, and many RPG shops closing their doors. This doesn't mean that people aren't playing the game, it does mean that sales are down.

Why are RPGS failing? I think there are numerous reasons for this, and it's not just some simple answer. There are economic factors including how much expendable income people have to spend on RPGs, how much it costs to manufacture and produce the items, how well gaming stores are doing since they often push the product, how well online sales are going, and how well competing markets are doing. There are also social factors affecting the sale of RPGs. These include: the amount of free unstructured time people have to spend on gaming, how easy it is to get a gaming group together, how easy the rules are to learn, do people actually enjoy playing the game and continue the hobby, are new people being attracted to the hobby to replace those lost to attrition. Now, I can't address all of these issues, but I can point out some trends that I've noticed.

Paper and Pencil RPGs are losing to Console/Computer Games

Console games are hot. They can be played single player or in multiplayer mode. You can sit down any time of the day or night and play a game. With MMORPGs you can play when it's convenient for you. It's a higher intensity of action. There is less time spent learning the rules in order to start playing. It's instant rewards. You don't have to find a GM or a group to play in. If you add voice chat, it's kinda like doing and RPG. It's way easier than a paper and pencil role playing game in these areas.

The kids of today have less free time. Parents seem to structure the free time of their kids more. The kids seem to leave the house less, since there are so many "bad" things that can happen in the world. It's almost a culture of fear. Parents are happier to see that their kid is safe in their house, so playing a computer game becomes easier for the kid.

More rules != More Fun


3.X is a more rules intensive game than many of the console games. It is also a more rules intensive game than the way our groups played the previous versions of D&D. The more rules a system has, the higher the learning curve, and the fewer casual players you are likely to attract. The more rules, the more likely you will end up with a group of gamers that love to play games as an exercise in rules manipulation. Now, D&D isn't Squad Leader, so I'm not saying it's at the level of 10+ ranked Avalon Hill board games, but I never saw a casual gamers playing Squad Leader either.

Now, I've always felt that more rules doesn't always equate to more fun for a game. Spending hours learning rules instead of playing the game means less time that I actually get to play, and playing is where I have fun. I realize that many people view the rules manipulation in RPGS as fun in and of itself, but this isn't true for me. I suspect that there are other people that feel this way. While I'm quite happy to learn to manipulate the rules of a board game to compete with other players and to win the game, D&D isn't about winning. It isn't about manipulating the rules. It's about getting together with some people and socially having FUN! The more time that I spend staring at feats descriptions, spell write ups, skill write ups, and other esoteric details, the less time I spend doing what I find fun in RPGs.

For me gaming isn't about building an absurd character that under the right conditions can deal some massive amount of damage. It isn't about chosing the right feat chains to keep your chracter useful compared to everyone else. It isn't about player vs player. It isn't about players vs NPCs. It isn't about player vs GM. It's about having fun. Getting to play cooperatively with a bunch of friends. It's about telling a fun tale.
 
Last edited:

milotha said:
Paper and Pencil RPGs are losing to Console/Computer Games

Console games are hot. They can be played single player or in multiplayer mode. You can sit down any time of the day or night and play a game. With MMORPGs you can play when it's convenient for you. It's a higher intensity of action. There is less time spent learning the rules in order to start playing. It's instant rewards. You don't have to find a GM or a group to play in. If you add voice chat, it's kinda like doing and RPG. It's way easier than a paper and pencil role playing game in these areas.

Please see my posts above :\ . Geez, amazing how some people choose to ignore it.

Console games are doing "OK" (but even thats debatable). Computer games are most definitely ***NOT***. Most console games (including console rpgs) from what I gather are still primarily non-networked single-player games. Even the new multiplayer modes with X-Box Live and the PS2 haven't changed this (such as the dismal failure of the PS2 version of Everquest). MMORPGs are more convenient, yes: there also a LOT more expensive and require much more technical expertise to get setup and running. Even now, most new MMORPGs coming into the market are having trouble gaining new subscribers and are mostly gaining new players from existing MMORPGs.
 
Last edited:

scott-fs said:
Here are my thoughts, and I'd be interested in anyone's feedback.

In order to break up the "blow your load" style of action in combat, a combat round is divided into two separate sub-rounds.
[...]
In a Phase you can either 1) Move or 2) perform an action (such as make an attack, cast a spell, use a skill). You can only perform one action during a round and you decide which phase you wish to perform it in.
[...]
Thoughts ?

How do you do a full attack? How do you make multiple attacks in one round?
 

I could be cruel and quote Paul Simon, but I shall refrain.:)

The dominant theme I'm hearing here is, "That's how it's done." With a few exceptions I don't see anybody stepping back and asking, "How else could it be done?" From the examples given here one would have to conclude that the D&D® community is a conservative one, and very conservative on a number of subjects.

How many other ways can you think of to play D&D®? How would you implement them? How would you handle characterization, combat, interpersonal relations? How would you detail, describe character creation or conflict resolution? (Conflict in this case involving the question, "Does he succeed or fail at a task?" Conflict at its most basic form.)

D&D® doesn't appeal to enough people to replace those that leave the hobby for one reason or another. I submit that's its because D&D® as presently constituted has nothing to offer those people. It needs to be reinvented. Become more an exercise in imagination and less an exercise in gaming.

As currently devised D&D® doesn't appeal to the prospective player's imagination. Not as fully as it could. For D&D® to gain the larger base of prospective customers it must change.

Could this changes result in some leaving the hobby? Yes. Would this be a bad thing? No, for many who are holding the hobby back with their insistence that it must be done thus and so would be among those leaving.

How do I propose these changes be made? I have ideas. On which I shall say more later.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top