Why RPGs are Failing

[mythusmage]

There's a reason for that: the conservative approach is what guarantees that a gamer shall actually get to play the game, game it for a long time and actually get to make full use of what the game offers. It's been that way from the get-go, and 30 years of proven results is hard to ignore. All other takes are gambles, gambles that don't pay off nearly as well as one might imagine.

Have you tried those other 'takes'?

I do agree that being a bit too 'inventive' can be bad, but so can being too conservative.

I can think of many. Very few are worth bothering with, however, because the average gamer is there to play a game and nothing more. He's there for the dungeon crawling, the tactical gaming and the leveling up. WotC knows this which is why they went with their "Back to the Dungeon!" approach in 2000- an approach that met with great success and continues to be the most successful approach in the business.

That's the problem. Dungeons & Dragons® appeals to a small segment of the population, when it could appeal to a larger. My beef is with those who insist that D&D® can only be a game in the traditional sense, instead of taking a good, hard look at the hobby to see if they can find ways to make it more than what it is now.

If that means change, then things change. The best traditions are those that serve the community, rather than the other way around.

This is a lie. D&D works best when it focuses upon gameplay and avoids all hints of amateur thespianism. The core competancies of D&D is team-based gameplay in an open-ended milieu where the user--the players and their GM--can do what they want within the rules of the game. The further away you go from that core, the more you run into business and community problems.

This reminds me of the vew in Old Media regarding The Internet; that it's only another way to talk to people, instead of with them. You are selling the hobby short here.

The videogame manufacturers are aware of this fact, which is why there are so many developers out there now seeking to emulate features such as the open-ended gameplay of the last two Grand Theft Auto games and the super-powergaming gameplay that's par for the course in Square Enix' CRPG franchises (such as the world-famous Final Fantasy franchise) and is so prominent in MMORPGs such as Everquest or PC RPGs like Diablo. While there's a lot of talk about dramatic elements and storytelling, all of the relevant experts on the business agree that it's gameplay--not drama--that makes for overall success and creates the iconic games of the industry.

This isn't even wrong. RPGs are very different things, or could be if people opened up to the possibilities. By limiting D&D® et al. to the game paradigm we are limiting the hobby.

The most successful tabletop RPG publishers also know this, which is why all of them deliver the gameplay that the majority of tabletop RPG gamers want- and why D&D has always been on top of the hobby throughout its 30 years in existence. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying.

And by doing so most successful RPG publishers are missing a golden opportunity. The opportunity to expand sales and keep more customers in the long run.

Here I see a very conservative approach. "This is how we compose tribal lays, and our way is the right one." I will not agree. There are many ways to tell of the one that got away, and some may even tell the truth.

 

[takyris]

Wow, dude. And you can't find a game? Sucks etre vous.

Of course, my game looks pretty much nothing like what you've described, so most of your arguments boil down to "I had a bad game." And you seem to have magically extrapolated that the entire industry is going to heck in a handbasket because of your bad experiences. Plus, you're being a teensy bit condescending, and you don't seem to accept the notion that because you started the argument, you actually will have to provide some form of factual information to back up your statement. If you don't want to provide that information, that's fine, but putting the burden on us to go get the information to corroborate your statements is, um, a) Not going to happen, b) Not accepted as a valid debate tactic, and c) Somewhat lazy.

I hope you can find a better game. As it is right now, it sounds like you're all hung up on the rules and never got around to providing good roleplaying or flavor-text. As I said, sucks etre vous.

 

[mythusmage]

A pig farmer eating a Jewish holy man would surely violate some sort of ironic anti-Kosher, wouldn't it?

I doubt we were human at the time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This isn't even wrong. RPGs are very different things, or could be if people opened up to the possibilities. By limiting D&D® et al. to the game paradigm we are limiting the hobby.

Look up some of the numbers for Amber Diceless or Harnworld, then compare them to some of the numbers from D&D.

My prediction is that you find that those two systems, even combined, have a very small fraction of the audience that D&D has. So your stipulation that they are failing would be innaccurate, and your 'cure' of becoming more like Amber Diceless or Harnworld to solve that problem would be misplaced even if there was a problem, because when D&D does become more like these systems, it'll alienate those who already play it. By turning D&D into something more like Amber or Harn, you'll be switching D&D sales into Amber and/or Harn sales. And that ain't a good thing, from a business standpoint.

 

[mythusmage]

I think the main things keeping D&D from being accepted by everyone is that, fundamentally, it requires people to sit in a room with little motion for 4+ hours, at least once a week. This is a time dedication, and a lot of inaction, simply for imagining yourself as Billy Badass in someone else's story. Something like Scrabble doesn't do that, and so it's more popular -- it's more approachable. Those who want more dramatics in their D&D aren't a big section of the market, or the designers of 3e would've followed in their footsteps, rather than designing it as a *game.*

The fact the game can be as boring as hell has nothing to do with it, right?

Maybe if we made play more exciting. But that would involve changing D&D®, possibly in ways unacceptable to parts of the hobby. Such a puzzle.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Because D&D's following could be better. For all my disagreement with how the game is currently, I still like it and I would like to see it have a larger presence. You see, I'm not convinced we need to keep D&D to ourselves, only letting others in if they pass the test. This could be a more open hobby, and I intend to help open it up.

I just went back to reread the postings on this thread and I have yet to hear a single constructive idea from you as to what can be done that will undoubtedly lead to the "rescue" of D&D.

So far what you seem to say is:
1) D&D is "failing" - this based upon some sales data and somehow knowing how many people have stopped playing D&D versus how many have started and why.
2) D&D's concrete rules are the reason behind this failing. That if the rules were more flexible, and the books were written to emphasize ROLEplaying to greater degree, somehow a huge number of people will suddenly realize this is the game they want to play.
3) You seem to imply (and perhaps I'm wrong here) through phrases used like "excesses of gaming", that the new players to the game are playing it as a tabletop strategy game - and yet are seeking a ROLEplaying game, therefore leave the game behind when they realize their disappointment because they do not understand how to alter the game to suit their needs unless it is written into the rules.

I am interested in seeing what you think can actually be done - concrete ideas - and why those ideas will make the game better for so many more than it might drive away. Like I said, Lead the way rather than gripe that it is not good enough.

I most want to see your ideas for a more "chaotic" combat system than the combat round method that currently is in use, how that syste will be simpler and "rules light", and how that will make the game more fun and interesting in the social, team environment that D&D is all about.

 

[mythusmage]

Look up some of the numbers for Amber Diceless or Harnworld, then compare them to some of the numbers from D&D.

My prediction is that you find that those two systems, even combined, have a very small fraction of the audience that D&D has. So your stipulation that they are failing would be innaccurate, and your 'cure' of becoming more like Amber Diceless or Harnworld to solve that problem would be misplaced even if there was a problem, because when D&D does become more like these systems, it'll alienate those who already play it. By turning D&D into something more like Amber or Harn, you'll be switching D&D sales into Amber and/or Harn sales. And that ain't a good thing, from a business standpoint.

Huh? Who said anything about becoming more like Amber or Harn? Both of whom are just as 'gamy' (if not worse) as D&D®. I'm encouraging a new look at the hobby, one that may just lead to a healthier pastime than what we have now.

BTW, what's wrong with alienating some of the people who play? Would you let in anybody who wished to participate? Didn't think so. There are some types any hobby is better off without.

 

[takyris]

Mythus, has anyone ever mentioned that making vague claims and then telling anyone who disagrees with you that they've misunderstood you is not really a winner as far as debate tactics go? I mean, just as a general rule. You go with whatever works for you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The fact the game can be as boring as hell has nothing to do with it, right?

Maybe if we made play more exciting. But that would involve changing D&D®, possibly in ways unacceptable to parts of the hobby. Such a puzzle.

You know you can't force excitement. Some folks love roller coasters, others hate them with a passion. Some adore Monopoly, I find it dull as all get out. Some people get really excited being an imaginary Billy Badass once a week. I'm one of 'em. But you can't make people get exicted about that, no matter what kind of system you use.

BTW, what's wrong with alienating some of the people who play? Would you let in anybody who wished to participate? Didn't think so. There are some types any hobby is better off without.

No, I do let in anyone who wishes to participate, and it'd be business suicide for D&D to do otherwise. Anyone who wants to play D&D is free to do it, from me to my half-asian sorority munchkin powergamer to the captain of the football squad and his bimbo girlfriend that got me into it to the nerdy hacker kid, the left-wing lunatic, and the goodie two-shoes Catholic school boy we played with. Heck, even people I don't play with are free to -- those who like a bit more dramatics in their game, like Bendris Noulg, those who manufacture their own world just using D&D rules as a base, like Barsoomcore, those whose adventures may win pulitzers, like Piratecat, or those who slaughter so many mooks they use the swarm rules for mobs, like Hong.

It's a game that anyone who wishes to play (and who can stand to be in a room for 4+ hours imagining themselves to be a froofy little elf boy. ) should be able to play. Admittedly, not every group is for every person, but that showcases the versatility and flexibility of the D&D ruleset -- people like me and Bendris and Piratecat and Hong are all playing the same game, though we'd probably go mad in each others' campaigns.

 

[Tom Cashel]

So far what you seem to say is:
1) D&D is "failing".

Actually, the thread title maintains (rather alarmingly) that "RPGs" are failing. All of them! (This is news to me, seeing as my Cthulhu game is going strong.)

But reference is made to only one RPG, D&D (and always with a snarky Registered Trademark symbol attached to it). Seems to me that someone has conflated D&D with the entire hobby.

Judging from the fact that my little brother and his friends recently started playing D&D, that's four new converts. (More than enough to make up for Alan not being able to find a game.)

"To make D&D more popular, it should be less like D&D and more like [something] that will appeal to a wider range of people." Well, what is that exactly? No matter what it is, it remains a logical fallacy. It's as if you're saying, "Not enough people like mayonnaise! The mayonnaise industry is failing! We need to make mayonnaise tastier to more people!"

It's likely, however, that the majority of those people aren't at all interested in ersatz mayonnaise. They just like MUSTARD, all right? But if mayonnaise doesn't taste like mayonnaise any more, you've lost all those original mayonnaise eaters too.

Some people enjoy mayonnaise, some enjoy mustard.

Some people enjoy D&D (and other RPGs, with all of the behaviors, habits, and requirements attached to them), while others would rather read a book or watch a movie. Will making D&D more like a book attract them? Unlikely.

Want to help the hobby? Run demo games. Introduce more people to the hobby. Get proactive in your community, y'know? Then you'd have the satisfaction of saving a "failing" hobby, and you'd also have a game to play.

Anyway, my point is: exposing more possible participants to RPGs is a better way to increase their popularity than by altering the product (In this case, D&D) to somehow make it appeal to everyone.

BTW, what's wrong with alienating some of the people who play? Would you let in anybody who wished to participate? Didn't think so. There are some types any hobby is better off without.

Now I grok you...the hobby should simultaneously become more exclusive and more inclusive. In other words, it should suck and blow at the same time.