Do you think this applies to us? Why RPGs Suck

[Age of Fable]

This article strikes me as someone denouncing other people's lack of creativity rather than being creative.

[Chris Johnstone]

(This is cross-posted to the blog entry)

I think that I agree broadly with the comments and criticisms here, but perhaps I'm less vehement about whether or not it's a vast and insurmountable problem.

Just to explain where I'm coming from, I write SFF and have been paid pro-rates for my work, which I suppose sort of makes me a semi-pro fiction writer, but I write RPGs strictly as a hobby and give them away as pdfs. I don't advertise, and I don't promote my RPG stuff, and I've never had much acclaim. This suits me. I don't want my hobby to turn into a job.

Now, having said all of that, if I think honestly, I put vastly more creative effort into fiction than into RPGs. I sweat blood to turn out a good story (and sometimes the stories *still* suck). I sing-song my way through writing a game. The couple games I have floating around out there (with the possible exception of Mythos of the Maori--I'll come back to that one) are all pretty much stuff that anyone could write, given time and determination. They're nothing special.

And, if I look around at the RPG landscape, free, commercial and everything in-between, there's some truth to thinking that most of the material is also nothing special. There are variations on themes, self-referential works and rehashes. I differ, in that I think there are some wonderfully original and interesting free RPGs if you go out digging for them*, though (to flip back again) I agree that they tend to be truncated, presumably due to lack of time and money.

(*For example, I like Paul Elliott's Totem, which was designed with education in mind. It's doing a different sort of thing, with a different purpose, coming from a different place. And it's a neat little game.)

However, is this actually a problem? All art forms go through periods of rebirth followed by fallow eras of increasingly self-referential rubbish. There is always some incremental change going on--consumers of art and entertainment tend to feel that they want 'the same but different' most of the time. This means that a lot of work that is produced will be a variation on a theme, and it will potentially even be popular and much loved.

Occasionally, some genius or some like-minded geniuses come along and either the whole of a field or part of a field is revitalized. Splitting into sub-categories will often occur at these sorts of points. Think of the transition caused by the impressionists or the surrealists. Think of the transition period sparked by The Beetles or Miles Davis.

Ask some folks in 1975 whether they wanted to go see a space opera sort of film with guys waving glowing swords and some awkward robots and stuff, and a lot of public (except perhaps teenage boys) would likely have told you that the film sounds a bit dumb. People don't know that they want the next big thing, because they have no idea what it is, what makes it cool or interesting or wonderful.

This is the inherent problem with product testing. All it can tell you is that people sort of like the stuff they sort of like already.

Here, I suppose is where the crux of the argument lies. Is the current RPG hobby geared in such a way that the next big revolutionary thing cannot possibly break through (or perhaps even be created)? I'm unsure. My gut reaction is that free RPGs are where it's likely to happen, because they are low risk and can afford to be experimental. But, most players don't take free RPGs seriously. I suspect that a huge proportion of regular players have probably never even heard of Fudge.

If the big companies are too afraid of financial failure to try risky new things (and I guess they probably are, I don't know because I have no contact with the big companies), then I suppose that where innovation will occur must be either in free or small press publications. Small for the love of it start-ups still pepper the industry, and sure, most of them churn out trite rehash...

But, truth be told, I can't see any inherent reasons why a small start up with a great idea and a great team and real drive couldn't storm the industry over the course of a year or two or three. I don't know the industry well enough to be sure, but I can't see any obvious barriers. The thing is, geniuses don't come along every day. It can be decades between rebirths.

I guess I'm saying that I do think there's still an twilight zone between big pros and freebee games where creativity can thrive in a commercial setting and could even do well.

And, yes, it sucks to be stuck in a period of rehash and slow or non-existent change. But extrapolating periods of creative bankruptcy forever isn't valid either. Times will change. They always do. Someone smarter, clever and more creative than you or me will do it, and then we'll all be delighted for a while, then the creative rot will set in. Hell, the truth is that fantasy literature is *still* getting out of Tolkien's shadow.

Chris

Ah, and I meant to come back to Mythos of the Maori. I just wanted to mention it, because it was a game where I tried to rethink a number of game elements and work them into a fantasy setting that was different from Fantasy Europe. I sort of succeeded and sort of didn't (some elements are pretty pedestrian, others I think worked well). But you know what? I get about a hundred times more interest in Wayfarer's Song and Danse Macabre than I've ever had in Mythos. All we ever did with Wayfarer and Danse was try to make something fun. Mythos is a well researched game (I spent many many long hours in rare books collections reading original folktales) with a slightly unusual layout (for example 'monsters' aren't described, instead there's a short folk story about each one) with some original mechanics (I needed to work in mechanics to cover abstract concepts like Tapu and Noa that don't exist in English) in a setting most people don't know very well. My feeling is that it's actually all *too* different to grab most players, yet the game is not enough of a genius-level work to actually force people to want to play it *despite* the differences. Therein is the rub. There's a big gap between a thing being merely different/original/creative and a thing being *good*. It's a common error that new fiction writers make. They obsess over originality and don't realize that the word is not synonymous with 'good'.

Anyway, my two cents.

P.S. I want to reinforce that I'm not claiming that anything I've done personally is particularly wonderful--I'd rather not get into some sort of to and fro attack. I've just thrown some games about as examples and (naturally) they're examples that are close to my own experience.

[kumakami]

the more I think about it, then to read his post. The more he sounds like one of those people who couldn't even make friends with the geeks in school....

My 1.5 cents: There are two forms of creation. Art and Industry. Most people bitch about art for being too inaccessible. Most people bitch about industry for being unoriginal.

The RPG industry must compete with video, computer, console, and even phone based entertainment. MMORPG have pulled many fair weather gamers away. because of this they tend to borrow from each other and repeat the same old things (that in the end sell). while I do not think it is void of creativity, it is conservative with it!

The RPG arts are...well what we do here on 1km1kt.net. and if you ask the standard game if they heard of the site or most free RPG's....they sadly would be ignorant. Add to that is the fact many free rpgs are...*thinking of his own game*....weird in comparison.


I have in my own collection many original Printed and payed for games. Most are from now dead companies. The writer of the article in question sounds like he wants to start a fight.....just saying

[madunkieg]

I have to disagree with the sentiments put forth by the article. Familiarity breeds popularity. It requires a formula, repeated over and over. D&D, and its ilk, succeed not despite being that formula, but precisely because of it. Hack, slash, gather loot, repeat. I haven't played Amber, but I know a great many systems that go against the grain. They fail for precisely that reason. Yet all it takes is one game to hit the mark, and you've got a revolution.

Perhapse its time for a new formula to emerge. There is certainly the potential for a growing a new audience. For example, look at comic books. The industry spent a lot of time and money on superheroes. Of course, their sales were miniscule compared to Archie comics, and they're more recently being cut into by manga (that promote thier own formulas). So it will likely be with RPGs. That doesn't mean the death of the old RPG formulas. They'll continue on too, just as they will in comics, movies, video games, books, etc. Unless, of course, RPGs fade away. I can see it happening eventually, but creators are just looking too lively for it to happen anytime soon.

So, the practice of free RPGs and creator owned RPGs is pretty much a spray and pray tactic. I can't help but wonder, though, if something else will catch hold instead. Technology, maybe? Perhaps a combination of genre and technology? Something else? There's a whole different thread in that debate.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[Runjikol]

RPG's as games and products are hitting middle-age. They're no older than I am; born in 1972, or thereabouts. I see the industry and the hobby having a mid-life crisis. The OSR movement embodies this very well to my mind. The author of the original article strikes me as bitter that he can't have fun with games (any games?) any more. He "feels" that RPGs suck. That's a valid fact. It's just as valid as anyone else on the planet feeling that they're awesome. The short version is it's his feeling.

Since RPG's are almost exclusively the domain of the geek & nerds they are generally adopters of technology. That means the RPG as product is well-entrenched in internet. What we may be on the potential of seeing is the explosion of random games - like the sudden surge to fame of Raggi and his Lamentations of the Flame Princess. It's nothing particularly new or creative but it went viral in the OSR and related niches of the market. Looking at RPGnow.com and the amount they've been able to donate, such as close to $50K for Haiti, I have to extrapolate that a great deal of eBook sales is taking place. It's kind of hush-hush but there's a decent amount of cash flowing through that market.

His feelings that RPG's suck and are tired and need innovation, are fine. Couch it carefully as just his emotions. Don't take it to heart. That's my input.

[cjoki]

I have to agree with Onix on this issue. He is a guy that has been in the industry for a long time...so why is it he has no ideas on how to fix the issue he presents? I find that troubling and it makes me think that "maybe" he has lost his creative edge. Of course he may also be trolling for market data in an indirect manor. At any rate I spent more time reading his article and the comments than I really cared to.

So my offical response is ...

meh

[bigpappyj]

For as much as he complains about the failings of the industry, a lot of people still buy this stuff. I think the major industry companies are all about broad brush, entry level, mass market appeal. And if that's all you stick to then you're probably going to get bored and think this is the end of the RPG world as we know it.

Innovation exists, but you're not going to find it on the bookshelf at Barnes & Nobel. Maybe your local gameshop will have something, sure. But most innovation is going to be in places like this and other areas on the web where you can find people forming house rules or using familiar concepts in new ways or applied to assorted genres beyond what you'd typically find.

The industry continues to deliver a product that sells. It has no real reason to change that. Why gamble on some sort of new system and innovation when what works still WORKS? All that's going to do is set you up for failure, especially when the diehards and the tried and true folks who buy everything you churn out revolt because you changed what they were used to.

I think Malcolm needs to branch out some more. Or change his standards a wee bit.

[BubbaBrown]

I think the general issue is that major companies are just "stuck" by choice or circumstance. The bigger companies are stuck to do what they've been doing, since they haven't got a lot of reason to change. If it works, why fix it? On the other hand, the communities don't seem to be wanting anything different. Supply is going to meet demand.

There's a particular trap I've noticed in the video game industry as of this last decade that's applicable to the tabletop gaming industry.

Area of Effort = Audience Breadth x Creative Length.
You have limited Effort. If you increase the Breadth of your Audience, you will ether sacrifice your Length of Creativity or have to put forth significantly more effort.

The trap occurs with when a company realizes the greater the Audience Breadth, the more opportunity for revenue.
But, Effort costs money. And they get locked into a bad mindset.

Profit = Audience Breath - Area of Effort

The math doesn't look pretty after this. With some work of the algebra you get this equation:

Profit = Audience Breadth - (Audience Breadth x Creative Length)
In this situation, Audience Breadth is the important factor to generate revenue. Unfortunately, it also ties in with the effort required to make the game. The real loser is Creative Length. To a company's flaw thought process, Creative Length becomes a negative aspect and hurts the bottom line. So, by gaming the system, they'll get away with as little Creative Length as possible to keep people buying. This reduction of Creative Length, then gives them more freedom to increase their Audience Breadth to generate more Profit.

After a few iterations, things get ugly fast.

This is flawed thinking, but to marketing and management... it makes PERFECT sense. And since, in American industry, the marketing, management, and financial guys give the company direction, this little formula is the basis of most tactics. It actually applies to a number of entertainment venues.

The only way for companies to break out of this is to just take risks again. But, the flawed idea of "always a profit no matter what" has locked companies to play it ultra conservative to the point of over farming established venues. Real business is about taking guided risks with the real possibility of failure.

A large company could easily escape this by funding a division, under a different branding, to pick up and fund smaller projects. They find interesting projects, give them money to develop it, provide access to better resources, and give it an honest shot. The company gets publishing exclusivity for a few years and access to a cut of the revenue to recoup costs in hopes of turning a profit, while the author still keeps their ownership of the product. If it doesn't go well, oh well and move on. If it goes great, develop it further and step up the deals to the author.

It'd drive management and financial guys insane with the riskiness, but they'd be the first to stop complaining when the next big thing emerges.

Can't harp on the companies too much... Since the consumer isn't really demanding much different. I can't decide on whether it's an issue of lack of knowledge of the things out there or the consumer has found what they love. Does one eat hamburger because they do not know of steak OR because they just love hamburger. I don't know of a good way to deal with this problem. I believe a company or a division of a company giving attention to smaller projects would help on awareness, but it could just be the masses have what they want.

It's like first person shooters on consoles... Maybe the great masses don't want anything more apart from easy entry and simplistic gameplay.

I don't know really. I just know if I win the big lottery I plan to open a company that uses interest on principle to form budgets and fund projects just to see if they work.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]