Are we missing what RPGs are about?

[Onix]

I was thinking the other day (I really gotta stop doing that) about how weird it is that the RPG as we know it arrived fully formed. Sure there have been tweaks down the line. Sure it sprung from wargaming. But most people are still playing the same RPG since the term was invented. I am of course talking about D&D.

It would be like some guy on a secluded forum today talking about how his new game Halo is going to revolutionize the video game industry and most people are sitting there and saying "I don't know if I can get the time, I mean, I'd have to stop playing Pong v4 to try it out. And the learning curve!"

Obviously video games haven't stagnated like that, they've exploded. Is it because there is no end to an RPGs (most anyway)? Is it maybe because we've missed what gets people to play an RPG? I don't have an answer to that, it just makes me wonder what if the video game industry could only think to make the pong ball go slower or faster. Make the paddle wider. I could see people still playing pong (kinda like playing super mario bros still).

Just an odd thought.

[John Stryker]

I think it's because, at their root, RPGs are about story and character, and technology - in this case mechanics - are extremely secondary. Look at literature or film, they may have undergone trends but largely they're unchanged at their core. Videogames change because they are technologically determined, and you still don't have the freedom that you do as the author of a more narrative form. When playing a videogame gives you the same power of authorship that writing a story or playing an RPG does I imagine we'll see them slow down too.

Not to say that D&D is perfect mind you, it takes it's eyes off character and narrative far too often for my liking, but in form if not function it's hard to beat pure imagination by introducing mechanical constraints. It's not perfect, but nor is it limited.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

Interesting idea, Onix, but I don't think that is really the case.

For one, D&D did see a lot of evolution in its early variants. I'm pretty sure even the much enshrines/hated alignment system was not there at first. Non-Weapon proficiencies didn't appear for a while either, and I'm pretty sure that there were once only three classes.

What we're looking at is more like the progression of cars. Even before the Model-T we had accepted four wheels on the ground, an internal combustion engine, and a steering wheel. Why is that still the standard? We are capable of building , , even . Ok, its mostly for reasons of safety and practicality.

We have seen different styles - action games with hero point mechanics, collaborative narration, more than one character per player - and varying themes. But mostly, its about getting your friends together and playing a game of many possibilities confined by agreed upon constraints.

[trodgers]

What are RPGs about?

I started playing AD&D (1st edition) in 1989. I would never, ever, ever want to play anything after 2nd edition. And I haven't played AD&D in more than a decade. I just don't care for the game.

I've played Vampire since then, but it's not exactly my cup of tea. I'd rather play my own games.

Okay, so what are RPGs about? Fun. It just so happens that video games are far more accessible than RPGs. There's a lower demand for RPGs...so fewer people play them and there is less pressure for innovation. How does that sound?

[J.K.Mosher]

I don't think we are missing anything about RPGs in general.

I feel (if we continue the video game comparison) we are just facing
human nature. We are a visceral species. We react to what we see, hear and feel.
Video games give us that instantly. You press a button and you see your character shooting,
or swinging a sword. If you timed it right you see the impacts and damage. Instant gratification.

RPGs (like D&D and what we here are designing) on the other hand require more internal
visualization. It takes a creative and active imagination to picture what happens when a
Wizard blasts a dragon with a fireball.

Basically its not an even playing field.

Both video games and RPGs continue to evolve it's just that with video games this evolution
happens quicker, and in a visual medium(animation), while RPGs have to use a less visual medium(text),
and let's face it . . . it takes longer to explain something with text, then it does with graphics or animation.

[Onix]

[trodgers]

[J.K.Mosher]

When looking at D&D; the issue becomes basically exposure.
When you say D&D you bring up more then just a role playing game . . . there is also:

Movies, Animated TV Series, Books, Miniatures, Toys, Card Games, Video Games and Board Games,
plus like 5 variations or the rules? (D&D, AD&D, D&D3.0, D&D3.5, D&D4e), so it's more
an all encompassing entity then just a RPG.

It has a cultural history which makes it something that I doubt will ever allow it to be "unseated".

[Onix]

[J.K.Mosher]

Though both Star Wars and D&D have huge marketing engines behind them,
D&D has one advantage over Star Wars.
When D&D was created it used links to common Legends, Myths, and Lore.
(Hyrda, Chimera, Griffin, Goblin, Troll, Dragons, to name a few . . .)
Fairy Tales, and most fantasy stories all use similar names, creations so
of from the start D&D had a common element to collective culture.

Star Wars while iconic didn't start with that link to past culture/knowledge.
Say we could go back in time . . . right when both D&D and the Star Wars movies came out . . .

If you asked someone what a Dragon is and to what a Wookie is. . .
you'd get a fairly close description of what a D&D dragon is without the person having to
have played the game. Most wouldn't be able to tell you what a Wookie was before seeing the movie.

D&D built upon current knowledge and culture, while Star Wars had to create it's own.

When I look and think back D&D seemed to come out just when there was a chance for a perfect storm
of interest, which allowed it to gain and then hold that ground with little effort.