mainstream appeal: What, exactly, does it mean to roleplay?

[Fairie Princess]

"Role-playing" is also a psychological term.  Basically, two people act out a specific problem/scenario or their feelings in order to (hopefully) resolve a conflict.   This is actually a mainstream term.  Maybe a melding of the two usages of "role-play" is in order.  I've thought of that often of late.  Guess that Psych degree won't go to waste afterall!  he he

[jdagna]

Michael,

Thanks for looking up the numbers!  I was only specifically aware of WotC's estimate.  The number of golfers is about double what I'd expected (though one wonders exactly how they get that count - does my father, who plays about once every other year, count?).

In any event, it would be fair to say that there are at least 5 million role-players in one form or another.  Personally, I think stretching that to 10 million would be a safe underestimate: the two groups you specifically mention (Baldur's Gate purchasers and WotC's role-players) amount to 8 million but clearly will have a lot of overlap.  On the other hand, we know that one sale often results in more than one player - my brothers and I often shared the same game among ten people and video game rentals must add a sizable number.  Additionally, we'd have some CRPG players back from the days of SEGA and Nintendo who may not have bought the latest consoles or games.

I don't know how big "mainstream" is, but 5-10+ million is a very healthy number indeed.  But clearly print RPGs like we discuss on this site are the smallest portion of that market.  You have to define where you draw the lines on what constitutes role-playing, but in the broadest sense, it has a significant amount of acceptance.

[Paganini]

This thread seems to be getting kind of fragmented. Maybe this thought will help drag it back to Jack's original topic, that is, presenting RPGs to the mainstream.

Given that the basic layer of role-playing is Exploration (collective act of imagining), wouldn't it make sense to approach from that direction? The mainstream is already used to imagining things for entertainment - that's what novels and movies are.

Well, role-playing is just like that; the difference is that with a movie or a novel what you imagine is already decided before you begin. With role-playing, every participant has some degree of control over what happens. The amount of control that each participant has depends on the game that you choose to play.

To me, this not only seems obvious, but also seems like a practical application of theory. We've pretty much identified the layers that make up role-playing. Why not explain it in those terms by relating the layers to similar things that everyone is already familiar with?

[M. J. Young]

On the Numbers

In around 1997 there was a cable TV documentary on role playing games, including interviews with Gary Gygax and TSR execs, which estimated nine million role playing gamers worldwide, growing at a million per year. This, however, used a definition of role playing game broad enough that a lot of people who play one sort would not include others--a lot of CRPG players don't know that "RPG" doesn't mean what they play to those of us who predate that sort of game, and a lot of RPG players resent the idea of CRPGs being "the same thing". If you're willing to accept those definitions, I think it probable that the rate of growth has increased, since none of the major MMORPGs existed then, and specifically The Sims didn't exist, which has had significant draw from outside the hobby (most of the Baldur's Gate and Ultima Online and Evercrack--er, quest--players I know were already RPG or CRPG players before these games came online, but The Sims seems to have reached a lot of people who aren't even aware that what they're doing is the same sort of thing in a different context).

On Roleplaying

I don't have any trouble with teaching new people. With Multiverser it's particularly easy, since it's an I game. I tell them, "Imagine this is happening, and tell me what you're going to do." With most games, there's an extra layer involved: "Imagine that you're this other person, and this is happening, and tell me what you're going to do." I've never encountered anyone who has trouble with that.

--M. J. Young

[Comte]

don't have any trouble with teaching new people. With Multiverser it's particularly easy, since it's an I game. I tell them, "Imagine this is happening, and tell me what you're going to do." With most games, there's an extra layer involved: "Imagine that you're this other person, and this is happening, and tell me what you're going to do." I've never encountered anyone who has trouble with that.

The main thing that is holding roleplaying back from a mass market isn't players.  I can find players, heck I can even make my own players.  In fact 99% of the people I play with I've made myself.  The thing that holds Role playing back from an entirely mainstream audience is the need for a game master.

The game master has a lot of stuff he needs to take care of.  Basicly the players get to ride on the back of his hard work and effort.  Now I've seen some game masters just pick up a pad of paper and some dice and they can spin a story by the seat of thier pants.  These are the really good talented people that have a real but unrecognized skill.  I have also seen game masters who think they can sit down with a pad of paper and spin a good story.  These groups are usualy short lived.  I've seen a great many good roleplayers squashed by a domineering GM, I've seen a few great play groups disband because the GM sucked.  It is a sad thing to put so much weight on the poor guy, but he dose have a lot of responcibility.  It can be a lot of work trying to be a good GM.  It isn't so much work being a crappy GM but it comes at the expense of your players.  Players who have had to deal with crappy gms are less likely to play again.  As a result people are lost to the game.  

This is why CRPG's have a leg up on the thier pencil and paper counterparts.  Games like Daggerfall, Arcana, Fallout 2, Marrowind, are all revolutionizing the way people think about the computer roleplaying game.  All the games I've listed above have a story that is at the very least on par with something I could think up, it is executed without my occational stuttering, and the players can go about the game anyway they choose.  In all the games lissted above playing an evil charecter is just a viable as a good one giving the players and unpresidented choise.  Essentialy it has many of the perks of a tabletop with none of the setbacks.  Few people get an honest enjoyment out of GM'img most would just rather play.  When you get 9 people who all think this but they just nominate some poor shulp then there are problems.

[Dr. Velocity]

Well, it may not serve a particularly dead-on purpose of plumbing the deapth of the universe of RPG lore, but its nonetheless a good discussion with some good takes and ideas; I personally think its still a valid discussion.

But I admit I did focus more on "why isn't role-playing mainstream" and more or less agree with Bankuei and Comte among others here, who say the WHY is because of little or no ability to tutor and more than that, I think perhaps a capital E of a different sort: EXPECTATIONS. There is no way to know what to 'expect', from game rules. Actual packages modules are one thing, but still are vague and the whole point of role-playing, is avoiding the definite no-no of 'railroading'. Role-playing, while inarguably more popular and known and public than ever (Vin Diesel, etc), in pencil-and-paper rpgs, you STILL can't tell someone, 'at this point, you should be doing this' or 'now that you've done this' or 'when that happens, you should try to do this'.

Board games, computer games, even 3-d shooters, 'rpgs' or not, do NOT prepare someone for tabletop rpgs. There IS no crash course or 'orientation' for role-playing games. You cannot have a class and 'explain' to a group of potential gamers 'how' to play. Because 'play' in the normal sense of the word, with any sort of rule, IS linear (roll a 6, move 6 spaces, pick up the icon to get better ammo, etc.). You have an UNCHANGING objective (get all your little men into the circle, bankrupt the other players, reach the end of the level, etc), there are unlimited 'lives', you can save your game, etc. While some games are very open-ended, nothing is close to the dynamics of an rpg, AND I strongly disagree that keeping up with a favorite TV series somehow approaches the active mental and emotional effort required to play an RPG.

The only other 'play' we know, generally is free play, where you swing on the monkey bars, go out and drink, play basketball with the cat, whatever - its totally unmoderated - rpgs exist in that limbo between the two, where you have definite social interaction and also a definite 'box' (no matter how broad or faint the 'guidelines' of the game, there are STILL things you know you're just not supposed to do or try, even if its just that you know you need to stay in character). The phrase "you're free to do whatever you want... just try to do it within these guidelines... and of course, make SURE you DON'T do *these* things over here, which is 'out of bounds'..." is a good example of the oft-referenced Calvinball, as far as some non-gamers are concerned.

NO ONE can *know* how to play *without* playing - it is simply NOT a possibility, because we do ALL learn by experience, and other players. The fact that places like the Forge exists, where 'standard, accepted' rpg theories and classification exist, suggest that there is a body of 'for granted' de facto widely held beliefs and assumptions. We all came from different backgrounds and stories and 'how I got into rpgs' anecdotes, but somehow, there IS a 'general' method, when it all boils down, or else we couldn't know if someone is an Abused Player or some such - because as diverse and differing as our opinions are on different games and the way to play them, we recognize someone totally on the outside of the box when we see or even hear about them. The fact that STILL, thus far, we have been unable to employ that instinctual knowledge as some sort of basis for teaching NON-GAMERS indicates that experience is STILL the most vital and required component and otherwise, most of the errata and conversations will bore or scare most anyone else, like listening to a group of doctors sittting around talking about a new surgical procedure, or explaining to someone 'how to write a mytery book' - you can say this and that are important ingredients, but its STILL required that the newbie come up with their OWN recipe or formula for DOING that to truly 'play' - and that can only be done through experience, after watching others play and emulating them. RPGs are NOT things which apply specifically to a 'visual' nor 'physical' learner.

The only possibility I can see, of totally self-taught 'correct' rpg form, would be a lenthy, exhaustive treatise ON role-playing games, starting with a primer, going over a general glossary, giving history and background, common examples and suggestions and warning the reader away from certain things. This would be a very large, probably dry book, even with humor added in, and when its all done and said, would STILL be someone else imparting their own biases, experience and information gleaned from their OWN experiences, and what would happen? The reader would emulate this and try to apply all these things, and in game, would compare their own actions to those of others, and adjust accordingly when something clicks or doesnt click. Still experience via hands-on dabbling, and so again, no end in sight for rpgs being 'mainstream' anytime soon.

PS - I like the idea of 'making your own players' - thats such an amusingly punny comparison between gamers and vampires. =)

[ethan_greer]

Some context, then.

We are talking about introducing RPGs to the mainstream. How do you introduce the actual act of roleplaying to the uninitiated? In my experience, the phrase "just roleplay it" had been thrown out with little, if any, instruction on what it means to roleplay, what is does one actually do when one is roleplaying. This has a rather personal relavance since my game the Wheel had players "telling a story" with no guidance on how to do that.

In the context of the phrase "or just roleplay it," it seems that which happens that does not use the rules. Example, you could have your brawny warriar guy go up to the comely madien and check reaction roles, compare charisma scores, make seduction check, or just roleplay it.

I think I'm talking a bit out of both sides of my mouth here. I appologize. On the one hand we have this act of roleplaying that we're trying to introduce to non-roleplayers, and then there is the apparent gap between this act of roleplaying and pretty much everything else in an RPG, dice, stats, etc.

I think that when people say "or just roleplay it" they are referring to Actor Stance.  Stats, dice, all the rules simply enforce the "game" aspect of RPGs.  Really, Roleplaying (the entire hobby, not the Actor Stance subset that you're referring to above) is quite multifaceted, and not all games have the same facets.  This makes introducing roleplaying to the "mainstream" problematic.  Do you show a newbie player a game like Hero System or GURPS?  D&D?  FUDGE?  Nicotene Girls?  TROS?  Trollbabe?  Donjon?  Sorcerer?  Universalis?  In the end, I think Ron's approach is the best one I've heard:  Hang out with people you like, and introduce those people to roleplaying in an organic informal way.  Pick a game that is best suited to the people you plan to play it with, and do your best to make it a positive experience.  In this way, the player base will grow, and the number of roleplayers will rise.  And I feel that it's the only way the number will rise, and take role-playing gaming into the mainstream.  Advertising won't do it.  Booth babes won't do it.  The overall approach of the industry as a whole sucks ass.  They're catering to gamers, and trying to turn people into gamers, instead of catering to people, and trying make games for people.

Anyway, there's my perspective on your question, Jack.  Good luck!