from No More Incoherence! - A Rant

C. Edwards wrote:

M.J. Young wrote: Call me strange; call me an outsider, someone who doesn't understand the hobby. But allow me this much: role playing games cannot reach the mass market as long as it's inherent in the design that they don't work as written. Most people expect a game to play as designed, not as adjusted by the user.

I, and probably many others, agree that as long as role-playing games don't work as written that there is zero chance of them reaching into the mainstream market. Just the fact that most rpgs don't have a 'goal' (generally meant as 'win condition' that determines when the game is over) puts them in another dimension. Having to play 'cut and paste' with the rules puts rpgs completely in the 'when hell freezes over' category for most people. Except for us pervy gamer types anyway. :)

This is something I, personally attempting to address. What, exactly, does it mean to roleplay?

Whuh-why ... it's *simple*:

Imagine: It's like a story--the GM is the author and you're the characters. And it's kinda like acting too.

-Marco

I'm not sure there's much milage to asking what role-playing games mean: it's more a question of what you have to do to be playing a role playing game.

Having just spent the last weekend reading through the Hero Wars rules - and I hope they address this in the new edition - the main thing in my mind is the question of 'how does this play'.

Most games assume you learn this by doing or by watching someone else doing or that you already know (incidentally I don't belong to the oral tradition of role playing - my group learned it out of the the box, and we had a lot of fun doing so).

There is a length of time from picking up the book to enjoyable play, and the longer the length of time, for whatever reasons, the fewer people will get into role playing.

I don't think tabletop RPGs will ever be mass market - but I do think there are a large number of people who would game but don't because of the various barriers to entry.

Ian Charvill wrote:
I don't think tabletop RPGs will ever be mass market - but I do think there are a large number of people who would game but don't because of the various barriers to entry.

I think it is also somewhat akin to any abstract field or endeavor, like myself, I'm fairly good at sketching, drawing, etc. and would have people (adults and kids) come up to me, look at what I was doing, and sometimes would say 'could you teach me how to draw?' The short answer really, is no, I can't. Drawing isn't something I do - its... its 'part' of me - I've always done it, I started from a young age and practiced, and kept practicing, read books, took classes, etc. I couldn't tell someone why a crosshatching looks right or wrong, or a dimension or a hand looks 'natural' - I just *know*, without really knowing how, because of sheer experience.

I think playing RPGS fall into this category as well. I started 'out of the box' as well with D&D and couldn't even *understand* it (and this was the simple thin basic edition, red box of the 80s). I was excited, interested and could understand *some* of the concepts and ideas, but some of it was like reading a math textbook (and I never have liked math) so I just sat it in my closet for a couple years. Later I got it out, showed it to some friends who decided that might be fun, and we looked it over and slowly deciphered the text until we were able to play, marginally. Naturally it was mostly hack and slash, on-the-fly dungeon crawls, since we had nothing else to go by.

Over the years, and with just personal experience even with no other examples, being a referee a lot of times, I gradually began to refine my play and sessions I ran to a more cohesive, reasonable level, with cause and effect, ultimate goals, minor obstacles on the way, etc. Then I worked more as a player, as I bought different games and supplements and magazines, and played with other role-players, some experienced, and learned by example how interesting and deep characters and plots could be, how things the manuals don't mention either way, can be included as a great bit of color, how you CAN fudge rolls or ignore certain things written in pre-done modules, etc.

Now, decades later, I've read guides to being a good player, being a good referee, etc, all kinds of theories here and there and they're very insightful and helpful...BUT... I can only find value in them because I have that background knowledge and experience to comprehend what they're alluding to, or even specifically mentioning; I know *why* its 'bad' not to be a 'munchkin' or a 'Monty Haul DM' - becaues I have empathy with the situations because I experienced them all first-hand. If I had not, all these readings would have been maybe interesting but had no real *applicability* for me, because it was NOT within my sphere of interaction and knowledge - like when you tell a child not to touch the stove because its HOT and BURNS. Does that child just auotmatically understand what that means? Hot is bad, burns is bad - he gets that, usually. But HOW bad? And why is it bad? When you, as a child, inevistably burn your hand touching that hot stove, HOT and BURNS are no longer mysterious magical phrases - they have an all too real experience for you to draw on. This is partially why rpgs are not mass-media, because it is simply OUT of the normal sphere of activity for most people, they have nothing to draw from to help them 'ease' into rpgs.

Lastly, the abstraction in and of itself is a major factor. You are REQUIRED to use your imagination (no one can 'show' you how to 'imagine'), no board, no little tokens (usually), there are 'rules', yet the game itself that you are playing may have no mention at all in them. Its partially on the fly, there is someone narrating, dice to decide outcomes, interaction with the other players, with the referee, then the in-game interaction, having it kept somewhat seperate, and STILL maintain a suspension of disbelief, while at the same time, acute imagination and acceptance and 'immersiveness' to accept other characters' actions or a story twist, and ALSO creativity to come up with your OWN actions, descriptions, PLUS... you also have to PLAY and make RATIONAL decisions based on in-game FACTS, for your character, recordkeeping for character sheets, WHILE ALSO maintaining this creativity, imagination and mental bubble of 'in-game' AND interacting and compromosing with the story and the referee, the other players and their characters - all simultaneously. It is, really, truly an incredible feat of probably countless variables, assumptions, mental states and abstraction that each person engage ins, COOPERATIVELY with other people doing the same thing, yet as godlike as that level of multi-tasking on physical, mental and emotional levels is, you STILL can ALSO sneak a glance at the TV, raid the fridge, pet the cat and doddle during a 'dull part'.

The above example is maybe a bit dramatic but I think is valid in that it is near impossible to name any other 'passive' hobby or activity that requires THAT much WORK (unconscious though a lot of it may seem), ALL concurrently - RPGs are obviously NOT for everyone; there are simply some people that this sort of effort and output is NOT compatible with. Role-playing demands so many things at once, if its not instinctual to you, its overwhelming, and you can certainly see why - I think maybe potential gamers pick up on this level of activity required, unconsciously, partly.

To Dr. Velocity: Finally! Someone else who understands why RP can never be mainstream. Now, will someone tell that to WotC?

I have tried to "teach" others to RP - simply because they just HAD to learn and wouldn't quit pestering us. It works on rare occassions, but only when the individual simply hasn't tapped into their true potential.

We are indeed a unique breed. For that, I am proud.

Fairie Princess

I guess the answer to your question depends on how you define RPG.

Personally, I think RPGs ARE mainstream, or very nearly so. Look at EverQuest and all the other MMORPGs. Look at the first-person shooters that try to insert an element of character and plot. Look at Baldur's Gate and other CRPGs. It would be interesting to compare numbers, but I'd guess more people are playing RPGs in one form or another than are playing something "mainstream" like golf.

Pencil and Paper RPGs aren't mainstream and probably never will be. For one, they do require a lot of learning and practice and demand a mindset people aren't comfortable with at first. These games could become mainstream, but I don't think they will. However, right now the human mind can still do things with a book that a computer can't do yet.

As I understand it, games like Neverwinter Nights are already allowing GMs to create scenarios that players can go through. Horror Rules! uses a computer to assist much of gameplay in a more traditional tabletop setting. As computers continue to expand in their capability and complexity, so will the scenario possibilities and the differences between them will shrink. As AI technology improves, characters can become increasing complex. Picture AD&D 5e, which ships on a simplified tablet computer, with a DM AI personality and the tools to assist a human DM if someone wants that role. Instead of lugging around books, you buy and download modules that add monsters, new classes and the like.

Whether that particular idea sounds good or bad to you, I think RPGs are headed steadily into the mainstream and have a bright future ahead of them in one form or another. Whether or not those of us on this site (including myself) will like that future is an entirely different thing.

Fairie Princess wrote:
We are indeed a unique breed. For that, I am proud.

jdagna wrote:
Personally, I think RPGs ARE mainstream, or very nearly so. Look at EverQuest and all the other MMORPGs. Look at the first-person shooters that try to insert an element of character and plot. Look at Baldur's Gate and other CRPGs. It would be interesting to compare numbers, but I'd guess more people are playing RPGs in one form or another than are playing something "mainstream" like golf.

Michael S. Miller wrote: A Sony Press release from Feb '03 says, of Everquest, "During peak periods, more than 100,000 simultaneous adventurers"

A gamesdomain.com preview of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 mentions "a million units (five million, if you count the PC RPG that spawned the console-action knockoff)."

Call me old fashioned. I won't be offended. I still believe a true RPG is table top/pencil and paper. I think some of those computer games are rather fascinating, but I prefer face-to-face interaction. But, and I think many of you will agree, RPGs ARE NOT MAINSTREAM. That is NOT a bad thing! Even if you estimate the piracy, you aren't going to come up with the numbers. Unless you are using a new math I'm not familiar with. And no, when I talk to non-gamers, they do not mention unwashed bodies and sexually inept people. They mention "oh, yeah. That's the stuff those weird kids played in high school." or "you have to be really smart to play that , right?" Don't feed the stereotype, ok? Now people get "ripe" at conventions, but hey! They are playing 24/7 and some of them save money by sleeping in the hallways. When I need playtesters, I go to the local gaming store and post. I get quite a variety of people signing up, and the only problems I run into are personality clashes w/in the group. And that, not often.

I was not a gamer in highschool, because "girls aren't ALLOWED, so quit bugging us!" Never the less, I definately wasn't "of the norm". "Weird" or "not normal" were the most common words used to describe me - sometimes as a derogative, sometimes as the only words my friends could come up with. I came up with a response (in highschool) to follow that remark and I've been using it ever since:

"Normal is just another word for average, and I refuse to be average." --Fairie Princess

Hi guys,

"It's all art, man, you just...do it" is not really a helpful, or reasonable way of looking at this. Like Dr. V, I, too, learned illustration, by myself, and then took formal training. Illustration, or most other arts, on the other hand, have viable examples you can imitate and copy. I began by copying comic books.

The idea of roleplaying being orally taught, is simple because you pretty much have to imitate those you learn from. We don't have examples of "How play should go" on videotape or in books. To give a real world example of "how it would work", over in Japan, several rpgs have comics depicting "what's happening at the table" so that folks can understand how play should go.

If we're talking about the "mainstream-ness" of roleplaying, we're talking about several factors here:

-No mass media examples to show people of "what makes this fun"(and no, the 2 seconds in E.T, Mazes and Monsters, and Cloak and Dagger have not really served as good or viable examples for the mainstream)

-The trend towards high crunchiness scares away the less math/crunch inclined

-The trend towards marketing towards adolescents(ooh-chainmail bikinis!)

-The trend towards high learning time(crunch) + high commitment time(long campaign play) vs. stuff like Scattergories, which is like 5 minutes to learn and 30 mins to 2 hours in play...

-No solid examples of "what plays' about" included in the games(as previously mentioned).

The issue can be likened to wondering why a magazine that's effectively a mix of Heavy Metal and a hacker's technical manual aren't of mainstream appeal to folks of all ages and all genders.

As far as the initial question: What is roleplaying? It is Exploration, in GNS terms. I imagine, you imagine, and together through communication we imagine. Why and what we do with what we imagine, and the social contract and more explicit rules to manage the "we imagine" part is where roleplaying gets its diversity in play.

Chris

I don't think that this thread serves much purpose as presented. We can go around in circles until we all die arguing what role-playing "is." So, Jack, why do you want to know what it means to roleplay? Without some context, this conversation can have no resolution.

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.

"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

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.

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?

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

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.

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. =)

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.