Why have role-playing games been so successful?
Patrick
full of Dungeons & Dragons material. Every major bookstore I visit
has such a shelf. Many customers never notice, I suppose--but I'm
often there to find a fantasy-fiction novel for my wife (her favorite
genre), and the role-playing games (RPGs) are usually nearby.
To my knowledge, there were no RPGs before about 1974. But there were
board wargames as far back as 1958 or so, and miniatures wargames long
before that. So, how comes it that wargames are about as little known
now as they were decades ago, while it seems almost everybody has
heard of D&D?
I seem to have a knack for making terrible business predictions. When
I saw my first McDonalds restaurant (in the mid 1960s, I guess), I
said, "That drive-in will never make it; it looks like something for
kids, and kids don't have money." Around 1973, I made a similar
prediction about what would become D&D.
I was running a wargaming club, and someone (maybe me) had bought a
copy of the "Chainmail" medieval miniatures rules. In the back was a
fantasy supplement that included a few rules for fighting mythical
creatures like orcs and ents and dragons. As it happened, I exchanged
a couple letters with the rulebook's author, Gary Gygax (probably to
get clarifications on the medieval wargame rules). He asked what my
group thought of the fantasy supplement and whether we'd tried it. I
said no, we hadn't--and we probably never would; and furthermore, I
didn't think anyone else would either, because it seemed too
juvenile. I was about eighteen then, so I guess I looked forward to
becoming mature; and the last thing I wanted was anything that smacked
of too much youthfulness.
Well, Gary was obviously smart enough to laugh off my advice, and the
fantasy supplement morphed into D&D within about a year. I haven't
checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it became a multi-
million-dollar enterprise. At any rate, it's big and very well known.
But how many people remember "Chainmail"? It rates a Wikipedia entry,
but doesn't everything? A quick glance tells me that rulebook hasn't
been in print since 1979.
So, why did D&D take off, and why did medieval miniatures pretty much
get left behind? They're not entirely left behind, of course. But
even more recent games (e.g., Warhammer) mix medieval battles with
fantasy.
There's still a niche group of historical wargamers, just as there has
always been. There are enough of them to fill up convention halls
periodically and to have an ongoing Internet presence at places like
www.consimworld.com. But you don't walk into your local bookstore and
see historical wargames next to the D&D manuals, do you? And if the
bookstore also carries games (as some here in the Twin Cities do), you
may find various versions of Monopoly, along with cards, dominoes,
chess, checkers, and so on--but no wargames. There's a pretty good
chance you'll see some fantasy-based game, though; maybe some HeroClix
figures.
What pattern am I seeing here? For one thing, almost everything I
dismiss as juvenile turns out to be a big seller and potentially very
popular and lasting. On the flip side, almost every game I peg as
classy and suitable for sober, intelligent adults turns out to be
tough to sell and hard to talk others into playing.
Is that all there is to it? Does D&D have "kid appeal"? And was
Chainmail (minus the fantasy supplement) lacking in that?
When D&D took off in the mid 1970s, most of my wargaming friends
shunned it. It seemed a rift had developed. RPGers were unwelcome at
many wargaming conventions. And I guess the feelings were mutual. A
friend of mine met a D&D fan, mentioned wargames to him, and was told,
"Oh, we know about those, but we don't play them."
I suppose enough years finally passed that the two groups somehow grew
together. I don't hear disputes between them anymore. Maybe my
wargaming friends grew up, got married, had kids, and were forced to
play whatever games their kids were into. I don't know (I never grew
up or had kids myself, though I did get married).
I've never played a face-to-face RPG myself; I've only experienced
them indirectly, by playing computer RPGs or just reading RPG manuals
(I've read the AD&D basic rules, as well as GURPS and at least one
other title). My wife played AD&D in college and had fun with it.
One impression I get is that it's a very interactive sort of game and
involves some free-form creativity (well, role-playing, I guess). The
need to get at least a few people together has been enough to put me
off, but I suppose that might be what's so attractive to other people.
In contrast, to play a historical wargame you pretty much need to find
someone else who's interested in military history or battles and
warfare. Someone who's up for learning how to play a fairly
complicated game and then thinking through strategy and tactics in
more or less the way one does in chess. How many people are eager for
that sort of thing?
Have I answered my own question (the one in the subject line of this
thread)? Or is there something more that I'm missing?
* * *
I suppose I raised the question because my own gaming personality is
rather out of sync with that of most others. And yet I have a
persistent tendency to assume everybody else is basically just like
me. So, I'm easily confused when others behave in a way I wouldn't.
For instance, I tend to be repulsed by games that involve (or even
require) several players. To me, the fewer players, the better. I've
always loved games, but I've always hated having to talk other people
into playing them--and then putting up with other people if they've
agreed to play. Because other people almost always approach the game
differently than I would or prefer to play at a different pace or
whatever. If it were possible, I'd much prefer to play the game by
myself, in my own way, at my own pace. So, solo games and computer
games and such are ideal for me. And multiplayer games are almost out
of the question.
Another thing: I've always been drawn to serious subjects. War seems
serious enough, and I've long had something of an interest in military
history. So, if a game can be educational as well as fun, that's a
big plus to me. Yet, it seems to be a minus for many other people;
they don't want any education interfering with their fun.
Conversely, I'm put off by silly or juvenile subjects usually. So, if
a game has toy elves or dragons or anything, it's less likely to be
something I'll play.
So--maybe the answer to the question I've raised in this thread is:
RPGs have been so successful because most people are not much like
Patrick when it comes to tastes in game playing.
Peter Clinch
> To my knowledge, there were no RPGs before about 1974. But there were
> board wargames as far back as 1958 or so, and miniatures wargames long
> before that. So, how comes it that wargames are about as little known
> now as they were decades ago, while it seems almost everybody has
> heard of D&D?
It was something completely new, /and/ completely new in the right
place at the right time.
> I seem to have a knack for making terrible business predictions. When
> I saw my first McDonalds restaurant (in the mid 1960s, I guess), I
> said, "That drive-in will never make it; it looks like something for
> kids, and kids don't have money." Around 1973, I made a similar
> prediction about what would become D&D.
Kids don't have much money, but what they /do/ have they target
with incredible precision and single-mindedness. So on not much
money I built up a game collection (starting with RPGs and then
moving on to SF/F board games and then board wargames) and an SF
paperback collection.
> said no, we hadn't--and we probably never would; and furthermore, I
> didn't think anyone else would either, because it seemed too
> juvenile. I was about eighteen then, so I guess I looked forward to
> becoming mature; and the last thing I wanted was anything that smacked
> of too much youthfulness.
I'm a bit younger, taking up RPGs as a teenager (only just a teen,
I date from '66) in the late 70s. Ironically, we considered AD&D
really rather a mature game at the time, much more serious than
typical kids' fare.
> But how many people remember "Chainmail"? It rates a Wikipedia entry,
> but doesn't everything? A quick glance tells me that rulebook hasn't
> been in print since 1979.
It was effectively before my time. I knew of it because I was
familiar with TSR's product line, but it didn't seem to do much I
couldn't do with D&D.
> So, why did D&D take off, and why did medieval miniatures pretty much
> get left behind?
As above, something new and innovative in the right place at the
right time: increasing leisure time coupled with a burgeoning
market for fantasy fiction.
While many people played D&D with miniatures it wasn't necessary,
and you certainly didn't need hundreds of them, carefully painted,
to play the game. RPGs are all about personal control of
characters, something entirely absent from miniature wargames which
are about, well, war, and never much else. RPGs can be tuned to
the players, miniature wargame rules rather less so.
> What pattern am I seeing here? For one thing, almost everything I
> dismiss as juvenile turns out to be a big seller and potentially very
> popular and lasting.
Up to apoint: how many folk that took up D&D at 13 still play it at
30? It doesn't really matter, because a whole new set have come by
to take their places. Commercially, that's more use to a publisher
than someone who sticks with his miniatures for 50 years, at least
as far as rule sets go.
> On the flip side, almost every game I peg as
> classy and suitable for sober, intelligent adults turns out to be
> tough to sell and hard to talk others into playing.
Sober, intelligent adults aren't in short supply, but sober,
intelligent adults with a lot of spare time on their hands are,
especially spare time that intersects with the sober, intelligent
folk they might play with. Kids (by which I guess I mean up to
about 25 without families as yet) with time on their hands, OTOH,
are a universally abundant commodity, and often like to fantasise a
bit.
> Is that all there is to it? Does D&D have "kid appeal"? And was
> Chainmail (minus the fantasy supplement) lacking in that?
With the above definition of "kids", quite possibly.
> I've never played a face-to-face RPG myself; I've only experienced
> them indirectly, by playing computer RPGs or just reading RPG manuals
> (I've read the AD&D basic rules, as well as GURPS and at least one
> other title). My wife played AD&D in college and had fun with it.
> One impression I get is that it's a very interactive sort of game and
> involves some free-form creativity (well, role-playing, I guess). The
> need to get at least a few people together has been enough to put me
> off, but I suppose that might be what's so attractive to other people.
>
> In contrast, to play a historical wargame you pretty much need to find
> someone else who's interested in military history or battles and
> warfare. Someone who's up for learning how to play a fairly
> complicated game and then thinking through strategy and tactics in
> more or less the way one does in chess. How many people are eager for
> that sort of thing?
>
> Have I answered my own question (the one in the subject line of this
> thread)? Or is there something more that I'm missing?
I think you've pretty much nailed it.
> So--maybe the answer to the question I've raised in this thread is:
> RPGs have been so successful because most people are not much like
> Patrick when it comes to tastes in game playing.
People come in pretty diverse mixes. RPGs have only been
successful as a niche market, really. Yes, D&D has shipped a lot
of books, but compared to Monopoly and packs of cards its market
presence is tiny.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
David Kidd
> Conversely, I'm put off by silly or juvenile subjects usually. So, if
> a game has toy elves or dragons or anything, it's less likely to be
> something I'll play.
I think this probably relates to your personal objection to the
traditional D&D theatre -- i.e, 'high fantasy -- but there are myriad
tabletop RPGs set in a variety of realms and situation, and with
varying degrees of tactical or narrative interaction.
But to generally answer the question about tabletop RPGs versus
tabletop wargaming, I think you and Pete have answered the question:
1) RPGs have a lower entry barrier -
- one player handbook and dungeon master guide is all you need, and
the costs vary from free to $50. But what you get out of them is
immense -- a couple of kids (or adults) can plonk down $100 for some
manuals and get hundreds of hours of use for many years. What other
kind of modern entertainment gives you the same bang for your buck?
- they vary in the amount of rules you need to learn, and even if you
do have a rule-heavy system, players can 'offload' the rules onto the
DM -- they can even offload all the dice rolling -- so players that
don't want to learn rules can just say what they want to do, and have
the DM convert it into rules.
2) Improbable coincidence of availability -
- any social activity, particularly with adults, requires
availability, priority, and motivation. The chances of having a group
of people that are available, at the same time, and for the *length*
of time required, is pretty slim, and both RPGs and wargames suffer
from this 'improbably coincidence'. However, due to the higher entry
level of wargaming (familiarity with rules, collecting miniatures),
it's probably less improbable with RPGs, which don't require as much
effort or investment.
--
David Kidd
Patrick
> Patrick wrote:
> > Conversely, I'm put off by silly or juvenile subjects usually. So, if
> > a game has toy elves or dragons or anything, it's less likely to be
> > something I'll play.
>
> I think this probably relates to your personal objection to the
> traditional D&D theatre -- i.e, 'high fantasy -- but there are myriad
> tabletop RPGs set in a variety of realms and situation, and with
> varying degrees of tactical or narrative interaction.
to the Reiner Knizia game "Blue Moon," even though it has toy dragons
and other fantasy stuff. And I bought a copy of Phil Barkers's
"Hordes of the Things" miniatures rules, hoping to do something with
them someday.
So, I don't necessarily consider the fantasy genre too juvenile. I
guess maybe it depends on how seriously the game takes itself or
something. I tend to regard game-related things more seriously than
most people (and I also regard real-life things *less* seriously than
most people). So I sometimes wince at cartoonish-looking figures or
silliness in games. And if the game has those, I'll still insist on
attention to detail: if it's a game about Asterix and Obelix, I want
to see all the characters behaving strictly the way they would in the
comics--no fooling around with unrealistic, made-up, spontaneous
stuff. I'm exaggerating a little, but I do tend to be a stuffed
shirt.
The main reason I don't get into FTF RPGs is probably that I'm so
asocial. I love people, but for whatever combination of reasons, I
behave like Robinson Crusoe most of the time. I'm very unlikely to
join a group of people for an RPG--especially if it involves improv or
something. My wife would love it; she's just about the opposite of me
in that respect.
> But to generally answer the question about tabletop RPGs versus wargaming, I think you and Pete have answered the question:
> 1) RPGs have a lower entry barrier -
>
> - one player handbook and dungeon master guide is all you need, and
> the costs vary from free to $50. But what you get out of them is
> immense -- a couple of kids (or adults) can plonk down $100 for some
> manuals and get hundreds of hours of use for many years. What other
> kind of modern entertainment gives you the same bang for your buck?
have a deck of cards somewhere around the house, and there are *lots*
of games you can play with a versatile game-set like that. Dominoes
work just about as well. And then there are party games like Charades
and pencil-and-paper games.
Cards and dominoes just aren't sexy enough, I guess.
> - they vary in the amount of rules you need to learn, and even if you
> do have a rule-heavy system, players can 'offload' the rules onto the
> DM -- they can even offload all the dice rolling -- so players that
> don't want to learn rules can just say what they want to do, and have
> the DM convert it into rules.
the group--someone who'd be glad to be DM--and a mix of other players
with varying interest levels and personalities. And few people like
learning rules.
That may be a topic for another thread, btw. I'd rather read rules
and learn a game beforehand than plunk myself down at a table with an
unfamiliar game and players who've had some experience with it. I'm
much more confident in my ability to learn a game from a rulebook than
am in being able to pick up a game "on the fly" as I play it for the
first time.
This is another place where my wife is just the opposite. She doesn't
want to bother with reading rules, and she has limited patience for
having a game explained to her, but she'll pick it up very quickly
once she starts playing. Even if it's a fairly complex game.
> 2) Improbable coincidence of availability -
>
> - any social activity, particularly with adults, requires
> availability, priority, and motivation. The chances of having a group
> of people that are available, at the same time, and for the *length*
> of time required, is pretty slim, and both RPGs and wargames suffer
> from this 'improbably coincidence'. However, due to the higher entry
> level of wargaming (familiarity with rules, collecting miniatures),
> it's probably less improbable with RPGs, which don't require as much
> effort or investment.
is always an issue. I've played some very long games with people, and
most were happy with it--but a newcomer would often be shocked that
the game is taking more than about an hour. During one stretch of
time, we were having other couples over for gaming pretty often, and I
kept having to change games--finding shorter and shorter ones.
That's another factor in my being a solo gamer most of the time. It's
a hassle to get people together for a game, and then there's a need to
accommodate everybody's expectations to some degree. So, I rarely end
up playing a game I really like myself. And if I do, I'm not free to
play it at my own pace or intensity level.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> The entry barrier for traditional games is even lower. Most people
> have a deck of cards somewhere around the house, and there are *lots*
> of games you can play with a versatile game-set like that. Dominoes
> work just about as well. And then there are party games like Charades
> and pencil-and-paper games.
But you need to know the rules. With an RPG you just tell the referee
what your character is going to do.
> That may be a topic for another thread, btw. I'd rather read rules
> and learn a game beforehand than plunk myself down at a table with an
> unfamiliar game and players who've had some experience with it. I'm
> much more confident in my ability to learn a game from a rulebook than
> am in being able to pick up a game "on the fly" as I play it for the
> first time.
With most games you're trying to use the system that the game uses
optimally (e.g., to surround more territory than your opponent in Go),
but in an RPG you just say what you want to do.
"There is a dog chained at the door, growling fiercely at you, pulling
on the chain but it can't seem to get more than 2m from the door";
"Okay, I'll try and stab it with my spear so it can't get at me" or
perhaps "I'll give it the meat from my ration pack and try and make
friends".
You don't need to know lots of rules, you just need an idea of what your
character can do. It's a bit more complicated if you involve casting
magic spells etc., but beyond that you know what your character can do
for the most part, as it's similar to what you could do if you were there.
The rules deal with how you may succeed with what you try, but they
don't limit your options. So you don't get "you may do 1 of 3 things",
you decide what you want to try and the referee works out what happens.
It isn't about using the contrivances of the rules better than the
other guy.
One thing about computer based RPGs is they have to limit your choices
more, but in a classic FTF RPG the limits on what you can do are what
you can think of to try.
Sukunai
guide.
Now pick up the ASL rules manual and repeat after me, the rules are
the rules, and they are both absolute and not open to interpretation.
THAT is what separates wargames from role games.
Role gaming books can have a great deal of reading in them. And if you
look at Dungeons and Dragons alone, that's several books in the
average edition.
Even the newest edition 4.0 while it is a very easy basic and simple
design, it's still a lot of easy basic simple reading. Yet it's not
hard to get anyone to read it.
Reading the ASL manual is about as dull as dull can manage to be.
And the reader reads knowing, that the rules must be read slowly and
carefully keeping proper correct English usage foremost at all times.
Additionally, the game uses clever methods, such as the words 'in' and
'IN' are not actually the same. One is lower case the other is upper
case.
It actually matters a great deal in the game.
Role games are also 'fun' because they are about being more than you
can be, while all you get with a wargame is the study of past history.
Anyone can enjoy escapism, but only a history fan will care about a
wargame.
That role games are for 'geeks' 'nerds' 'losers' and socially
chellenged oddballs is a common misconception.
It's also a moronic misconception that role gamers are cavorting with
demons and devil worship.
First off, I think religion is for week minds, so I have an even lower
opinion of them, than they do me :)
But getting back to geeks nerds and losers :) well come on, that's
mainly a mind set held by football jocks and cheerleaders.
And it's likely unfair for us geeks nerds and losers to think Jocks
are stupid brutes oly able to understand football, and cheerleaders
only good for teen sex.
And wargamers are really just a different slice of gaming. Plenty of
role gamers are wargamers too.
It doesn't help that the people making our wargames are so utterly not
interested in being visible.
I for instance know how to find Multi Man Publishing online. I doubt
most of my friends even know who they are.
I am aware that Matrix Games is the powerhouse in computer wargame
publishing these days.
I am also aware, that the average PS3 gamer or 360 player won't have
ever heard of them.
And the why?
Because the average wargame publisher is ok publishing games made by
developers that have convinced themselves they will never get rich
doing it.
They have decided that they can't afford to do console releases, and
they are not trying to do console releases essentially.
They insist their games absolutely must be on a PC, and they listen
too much to gamers that steadfastly refuse to support any design that
can't do it all and must absolutely be 100% accurate at all costs.
In the process, the wargaming hobby remains defacto invisible, and you
can buy console games nearly anywhere.
We use phrases like "for the love of the hobby" and we think that is
ok.
Frankly, if they think they can't profit from making them, and they
are only making them because they love doing it, then precisely WHY do
any of us need to care if we pay for them or not?
I mean ask yourself, they are convinced they won't make any profit, so
why care if they don't?
Wargames should all be published the way they offer other forms of
software where you offer a donation if you enjoyed the game.
Currently nothing infuriates me more so, than the attitude of
wargaming makers with their lack of actual belief in the saleability
of their product.
I go on Matrix Games, and I ponder, why should I care if they expect
to get paid?
It's basically only my love of the games that get me to buy them. I'm
not doing it for the owner/creator of the product.
It's a testament to the worth of HOW Matrix Games actually markets
their product that makes me ok with buying from them too.
I can assure you, there ARE other wargame makers/publishers out there
whom I do NOT give a hoot for and their methodology used in marketing
their wares.
In the case of the ultra popular online MMO games like World of
Warcraft though, the game has so little appeal to my interests, that
friends have been unable to interest me even when they are willing to
provide me with the account already paid for.
The game has to deliver what the gamer wants. It's not always enough
that the price is right.