Why RPGs are Failing

[rogueattorney]

mythusmage;

I think you're taking a pretty short view of things. RPG's have been around for 30 years. This is hardly the first time someone's declared the hobby dead. From David Hargrave's lament on the professionalization of the industry in 1977, to the numerous times in the 80's when it was declared that arcade/computer games had finally killed the hobbey, to the explosion of CCG's and mini- games through various parts of the 90's.

I'm a old-time hack n' slash, rules-lite RPG'er. I find the deep immersion style of gaming dull and pretentious. Truth be told, I'd rather chew on tin-foil while rubbing my head with a cheese grater than play in that type of campaign. I'm also not into heavy rule, multi-hardback book, supplement filled, realism obsessed style games. If there's more than 100 or so pages of rules, that's probably too much game for me.

Thus, at the dawn of the 90's, I was in your shoes, wondering what the heck was happening to the games I loved. 2e was turning into a dross-heavy, railroad riding monstrosity. RC D&D was being dropped. Star Frontiers and other cool rules-lite games went bye-bye. And everyone (who hadn't already moved over to M:TG or Warhammer) was play-acting in those aweful angst-filled vampire melodramas that had 18 rule books. I was ready to call the industry dead, and yet... here we are.

In many ways, the rules D&D 3e was a reaction to the events of the 90's. Just as the events of the 90's was a reaction to the narrativism movement of the mid-80's, which was a reaction to the simulation obsession of the early 80's... There is afoot, right now, a reaction to the 3e rules (hopefully back to a more rules-lite approach).

Change (and the D&D brand name, apparently) is the constant in this hobby. Styles may shift from my style of play, to your style of play, to another style of play, or back to my style of play. But I'm not willing to call the hobby dead because of the change. And just because my style of game play hasn't really been supported for 10-15 years doesn't mean I can't still play the way I want to and have fun.

R.A.

 

[Sargon the Kassadian]

Smell those winds of change

I think, despite believing most of his arguments are wrong, that MM is doing us a service. I think every now and then the RPG world needs to be shaken up a bit, and also that 3.X (for some at least) needs to smell the fresh winds of change. I'm not talking about some sort of amazing metamorphosis (sp?), just a new batch of players and designers with views from the outside. Some sort of creation (book, PDF, etc.) thats really innovative, a break from the D&D tradition (it's passed on by the old timers). I like 3.X and D&D as they are, but I also think a radical book (not a change to the core rules, e.g. a supplement or handbook) would be good.

P.S. Someone (preferably a "real" celebrity, not a D&D one) should also write a book (Britney Spears Guide to D&D on how to game, why it is good, etc.

 

[MerricB]

Which means that you presume your prescription is what the larger audience wants.

I can't claim to have polled all players everywhere, but as for me and my group, your prescription is not what we want.

I'd say that D&D recently has been changing to fit a larger audience... by emphasizing the board game elements of it. Those pesky miniature things, you know.

What's the result? Outrage from the "pure" roleplayers.

Cheers!

 

[alsih2o]

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

All games CAN be boring as hell. It seems what you keep approaching is somehting along the lines of the creation fo a DMs college, and I don't see that working.

That or you designing a better RPG, and I don't see that happening either.

Edit: In case the second paragraph reads as snarky- Tarchon, from these boards, is one of the smartest S.O.B.s I have ever met. EVER. And I don't see him doing it. I love P-kitty to death, and I don't see him doing it.

 

[Zappo]

Maybe it's just late and I'm tired, but I just don't get what the problem is or what people are saying. Really, this has got to be the most nebulous thread I've seen in quite a while. Where's the beef?

Well, since I'm here, I guess I'll add to the general mayhem by saying that I've converted to 3.0 immediately after it was released - and I've never looked back (except to point and laugh). Immediately after switching, the roleplaying in my group went up an order of magnitude. I didn't change my style, so the game did good.

What else? Oh yeah - I've gamed with a bunch of people who call themselves pure roleplayers and they (those I've gamed with, not the entire crowd) weren't even good enough to roleplay well under any system, a feat which anyone in my group gives for granted. When faced with [system they don't like], they would say you can't roleplay there, and start playing beer'n'pretzels-style. Subconsciously, without even trying. Like, brain shutdown or something. Go figure.
I wonder how many more problems only exist in people's heads.

I'll conclude by noting that rules-light systems don't sell nearly as well as rules-heavy ones, so simply going rules-light won't help D&D becoming more popular. And I wonder why I even need to say it. If there's a plan for D&D popularity that goes through rules-lightness, I'd like to hear the rest of it, because for now it isn't going to work.

 

[FireLance]

OK, for the sake of argument:

Let's say that D&D and RPGs in general are losing appeal, and that there is a need to attract more gamers. For a start, let's see who they already attract so that we can focus on what's left:

1. The strategists and tacticians who enjoy playing with the rules and the other intellectual challenge of the game.
2. The actors who enjoy playing the role of PCs and NPCs.
3. The creative types who enjoy making worlds and characters.
4. The storytellers who enjoy evolving and advancing the plot of the game.

So who's left? My guess is, the biggest group remaining are those who spend most of their time watching movies and TV, who are dissatisfied with their lives but would rather be spoonfed a vicarious existance rather than do something in the real world or the world of their imagination.

RPGs will have a tough time trying to break into this market. We will need props and soundtrack CDs that will be able to match the audio-visual stimulation provided by movies and TV. We also need a massive re-think of setting and rules. The PCs cannot be poor, ineffective, low-level grunts. They have to be the movers and shakers and the rich and famous of the setting. The rules must also be set up so that the PCs win all the time since nobody wants to play a loser. Finally, we need DMs that are able to function with minimal PC input since the players will just want to sit there and have wonderful things happen to them.

Please, somebody, tell me how wrong I am. Please?

 

[the Jester]

Was it through your encouragement, or the game's?

Hmm... this one line actually quite provoked my thinking, and in the end, I have to say a lil of both.

I try to leave lots of opportunities for the pcs to use social approaches to adventures- a recent low-level adventure climaxed when a pc shot an npc and wounded him, so the pcs fled (since the social repercussions were heavy), f'rinstance. Also, the npc bad guys often have hidden flaws- the half-orc bandit resents his leader for stealing his woman, and he's ripe for the pcs to recruit.

On the other hand, the pcs once encountered a ghost. The pc with the highest initiative, on the first round, before the ghost (who was intended as strictly a combat encounter) got to act, made a speech about trying to lay him to rest and right the wrongs that kept the ghost from going to his eternal reward. Diplomacy roll = somewhere around a 30.

Well, okay, mr. ghost went away peacefully and the pcs earned full xp. But it wasn't set up for a 'social' victory- my players chose that route without my encouragement.

So, I guess a dm's style helps... the rules help... and most of all, the style the players prefer helps.

Maybe you have the wrong group?

 

[teitan]

I am going to lay it out flat as to why the industry is going back into a slump... D&D3 was/is a sort of fad, more like D20 is a fad among pop culture. I am not saying it is bad because not all fads are bad. But, and this is a big but, like most fads prices started gouging the players...

See, we KNOW that you get more entertainment value out of an RPG than a movie or video game, but when you look at the prices of RPGs there has been a rapid escalation of prices. I don't care about the arguements about entertainment value etc, RPGs are WAY over-priced and are going to reach a comic book level of niche market. Comparing an RPG to a movie or DVD is like comparing apples and oranges because they are very different things and are not the same sort of market. When a person could buy a DVD for 20 or an RPG book for FORTY FRICKIN' DOLLARS, 90% at least are going with the DVD. Sure you get more entertainment value from the RPG but they are different types of entertainment. RPGs require more of a commitment on the part of the participants than watching a movie. Playing a video game provides a more visual experience than RPGs and you can turn it off when you get bored. I have sat through 6 hour sessions in campaigns that were otherwise fine, but been bored out of my mind for the whole session and want to leave, but can't because my turn could come up soon. Video game, power button.

Video game prices are ridiculous. When I look at the prices on the Spycraft line I feel ill, they are B&W for God's sake. I feel ill at the price of Dragonlance books. To think I have to buy another product in order to play these products!!!! That is almost a 150 dollar investment!

See the thing is, most other RPG lines are comfy, even D&D is comfy. It isn't the industry as a whole, but D20 is thinning out now and the bubble has popped. No doom and gloom, just too much product and grossly inflated prices.

Jason

 

[Corinth]

Heard this line before. Still isn't true.

 

[mmadsen]

For a start, let's see who they already attract so that we can focus on what's left:

1. The strategists and tacticians who enjoy playing with the rules and the other intellectual challenge of the game.
2. The actors who enjoy playing the role of PCs and NPCs.
3. The creative types who enjoy making worlds and characters.
4. The storytellers who enjoy evolving and advancing the plot of the game.

So who's left?

I suggest that RPGs don't attract people who are strategists or actors or creative types or storytellers so much as they attract people who are strategists and actors and creative types and storytellers -- not the union of those four types, but their intersection.

If you're creative but don't like stat-accounting, you lose interest in RPGs.