So, Ken Hite interviews Mike Mearls in his latest Out of the Box column, in which Mike waxes thoughtful about the state of the industry. Here's the meat of what I want to talk about:

OOTB: Where do you see the gaming industry in two years? Five years? Ten years?

MM:I suspect that there'll be people who see the industry in its death throes, and others who think everything's going fine. That's always there. RPGs, as a form, haven't budged more than a few inches from their starting point. There's not really any concept of generational development, or some sort of progress to a platonic ideal. There's no such concept. People will talk about "advancing the art", but the form is pretty much mapped out and done. We're just filing off the rough edges. I think we'll see more computer assisted play aids, like an interactive DM's screen or something, stuff that makes a DM's life easier. Computers are such a major part of everyday life that there's no reason they can't be part of RPGs. Some people claim that computer games are going to muscle out RPGs, that Diablo does D&D better than D&D can. But the funny thing I've noticed is that few of those prophets play D&D or Diablo on a regular basis. Computer games are so fundamentally different from RPGs. It's like saying that the toaster will kill off the blender. RPGs are a social thing. As long as people like to get together with their friends, they'll be around. We do need WotC to make a good D&D entry product (and any other company that thinks they're making a real entry product is kidding themselves), but other than that RPGs are pretty much where they are.
As far as individual products, I think we'll see a lot more basic, standard fantasy stuff that sells really well, the occasional left field product that, through accident or design, meets the needs of enough gamers to sell, and lots of self-indulgent, poorly designed, or merely inept material that sinks to the bottom of the market.

I'll have to admit that I feel similarly to Ethan. I read that interview disbelieving the whole time. "Filing off the rough edges?" What? Declaring that roleplaying is fixed, as a form, when it's only 30 years old is wildly presumptive and premature, I think. D&D-style roleplaying may (and I'm not sure I even agree with that) be pretty thoroughly mapped out, but that's just because it's what everyone's been doing for most of these past 30 years.

It seems like a comparison might be made to superhero comics, superhero stories being pretty well mapped out, while the comic format hasn't achieved anything close to its full potential. Still, even then, we keep telling superhero stories from different and fresh angles, distinguishing themselves by their contrast to the "mapped" stories (I mean, Alan Moore's made a career of that: Watchmen, LoXG, Tom Strong). Looking at roleplaying products like XCrawl and Munchkin and Donjon, you can see we're already beginning to deconstruct traditional D&D roleplaying. Do we have a "Sandman" of roleplaying yet? Do we have a "Understanding Comics"? I don't think so, but I don't think they're very far off. Nobilis is pretty close to being roleplaying's equivilent of "Sandman," though it doesn't have the kind of following that enabled "Sandman" to be revolutionary. I have faith that some game (or games) will emerge that'll open things up in ways people don't really expect.

It doesn't mean that non-traditional roleplaying will quickly eclipse D&D in sales. Superhero comics still dominate the comics scene, but not in the same way that they did previously. The big comic companies (Marvel, DC) are putting out alternative products to meet the demands of non-traditional audiences, and there are tons of indie comics publishers and smaller companies (Dark Horse, Oni, Dreamwave, Image, etc.). Are there reasons to suggest that a similar thing couldn't happen in roleplaying? Because that's the future I see for us. Not "other" games winning out over D&D-style traditional play, but a more diverse market with support for different interests and styles of play.

I don't have the time to give a good answer to this question. I'm packing for Origins and need to finish up some work for CNet. But I'll try to at least offer some sort of answer.

The basic form of an RPG - people sitting around a table, pretending to be people in an imaginary environment - hasn't changed much at all in the grand scheme of things. A few new game forms have sprouted from it, such as LARPs and computer RPGs (which I think of more as interactive narratives), but the basic form remains the same.

You can do a lot with that form, but you can't change too much before you invent a new type of game.

IMO, the indie gaming scene plays an important role in that it places a much greater importance on design, looking at a work in context, and treating RPGs as an art or craft than "professional" game design. Most "pros" don't have the skills or background to really do game design. (As an aside, this also extends to computer gaming.) Hopefully, an emerging generation of designers will take their work more seriously, or at least be more aware of what they're doing, because of it. The actual value of a given indie design is independent from that - the movement is important because it at least gets people to think about stuff in terms they may have never thought of before. For most "professional" designers, the game industry is a place where they can work out all their high school-era social complexes.

My basic idea is this: I'm not sure how much you can change to genuinely *improve* the RPG play experience. I think it is fun, interesting, and enlightening to change stuff to see what happens, but I'm not sure we can make clearly superior games. To draw an analogy, we're all engineers making superfast computers, but we don't need faster processors. We need better software.

Here's a more concrete example: Dying Earth is a cool, fun, innovative game, but I don't think it really changes what an RPG can be. That doesn't mean it isn't a fantastic game.

And as an aside, and I honestly feel a bit clever about this, the best way to prove me wrong is to go out and design a game that does radically change what an RPG can be while keeping it an RPG.

mearls wrote:
And as an aside, and I honestly feel a bit clever about this, the best way to prove me wrong is to go out and design a game that does radically change what an RPG can be while keeping it an RPG.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: Ahh... that was why you felt clever, and now i ruined the joke. Well, I hope everybody reads this far down before going to design the game.

I'd like to question why it is important that we are designing something called a "Roleplaying Game" as opposed to any other type of game, especially given that RPGs have no clear definition, other than "a game that is reasonably similar to other games that are called Role Playing Games." People have called Universalis a "story-telling game" rather than an RPG, and there are other games that border on tactical game territory.

Why can't we simply make good games? What's the deal with caring about their classification?

yrs--
--Ben

Ben Lehman wrote: Why can't we simply make good games? What's the deal with caring about their classification?

Ben Lehman wrote: Why can't we simply make good games? What's the deal with caring about their classification?

Christopher Weeks wrote:
Hey Ben, you're still classifying them as games, right? Why? Is it so that people will know what you're talking about? Isn't it the same for RPG? Or am I missing your point?

This is my definition of a roleplaying game:

1. It is adjudicated by a referee or gamemaster.
2. The game rules do not describe or mandate the game's end state.

These are the two traits that, taken together, separate an RPG from other types of games and toys. Both points 1 and 2 assume that it is already defined as a game.

Ultimately Ben, I don't really care what label people put on the games as long as they buy them, play them, and enjoy them.

I think there is value, however, to insisting that these "border line" games get considered as "RPGs".

For one, the term RPG has been used by some for exclusionary purposes: "oh you wouldn't like that game, it isn't really an RPG". There is a risk of being marginalized in an already marginal hobby by being labeled "not-RPGs". If a game structured like Universalis were to one day be nominated for a "Best RPG" Orgins award, should someone be able to disallow the nomination on the basis that the game "isn't really an RPG?". How is that a benefit to the folks making borderline games?

For another, who says the current very narrow definition of what roleplaying is supposed to look deserves to have ownership of the label "RPG". Just because a few folks take a very narrow view of what an RPG is doesn't mean they're right. The Forge is full of games that challenge the notion of what an RPG can be. Why should these games cede their right to call themselves RPGs based on someone else's definition? Who authorized that exclusionary definition anyway?

I say, if there are games that don't fit the definition of RPG, its because the definition of RPG has shrunk over the years and needs to be expanded rather than lived with.

Hello,

Since no one can mandate a solution to the issue under discussion, and there doesn't seem to be any shared set of assumptions that would make for a rigorous argument for anyone ...

... and since there are no restrictions on what one might publish and sell ...

... I'm beginning to lose track over what this thread's about. One person at least considers Mike to have clarified his position, which based on topic per se should be enough to call it closed.

Ethan, you started it, so you tell me - should this mishegoss continue, or can we say thanks & goodnite?

Best,
Ron

Hi Mike,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify; I'm much more on board with what you're talking about now.

Ron, I don't have anything further to say. Except this: What the hell is a mishegoss?

Thread's closed, folks. Ethan, do a dictionary search; it's a neat word.

Best,
Ron