What do you think are the most damaging ideas in the hobby?

[chuckdee]

There are just too many unique core rules sets, and too many games that offer only core-rules revisions without significant creative content. It's like pulling out Trivial Pursuit at a board game party only to discover that every box has its own unique rules that no one at your party knows. This is a component of the general gamer ADD problem, but is its own particular kind of poison.

How do you correct that? I know I like hacking and creating rules for a variety of different feels- there's even contests built around that. And some really cool things come out of those.

I'm also not sure that's a problem in getting people into gaming- it might be a problem in getting to try other games. But when they are entry level players, in general, they're only going to be concerned with one ruleset.

 

[AsenRG]

I wouldn't really say that anyone is off the mark. There are people who genuinely like D&D and prefer it to other games (crazy, I know) and there are people who go to D&D more out of habit than anything else, and there are people who don't really get exposed to anything other than D&D, despite how odd that may seem for enthusiasts like us.

Yes, I'm just disputing that those who "prefer it to other games" are most D&D players. IME, the other two groups are the absolute majority.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, I'm just disputing that those who "prefer it to other games" are most D&D players. IME, the other two groups are the absolute majority.

Sure, I get that.....I just see one anecdote competing with another. I've seen enough of both things to accept each, and to realize that I don't really have enough info to know for sure.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How do you correct that? I know I like hacking and creating rules for a variety of different feels- there's even contests built around that. And some really cool things come out of those.

I'm also not sure that's a problem in getting people into gaming- it might be a problem in getting to try other games. But when they are entry level players, in general, they're only going to be concerned with one ruleset.

Yeah, I don't think having a variety of games to choose from is really a problem. Apply that logic to most other forms of entertainment, and it's clearly pretty limited.

There should only be first person shooter video games, or police procedural TV shows, or romance novels!

 

[Endless Flight]

The most damaging idea in Roleplaying is that you have to do it a particular way. I always hated the “traditional vs story game” arguments and that’s just a small part of the overall issue.

 

[Ladybird]

Exactly because it presents the idea that there is only one way of playing

You could level that same criticism at every RPG ever published, but now we're back to it coincidentally only being games the poster doesn't like that are the problem. All any game describes - all any game ever describes - is how the designer feels that RPG should be played; it doesn't say anything about any others.

 

[AsenRG]

Sure, I get that.....I just see one anecdote competing with another. I've seen enough of both things to accept each, and to realize that I don't really have enough info to know for sure.

Yeah, I think it goes without saying that nobody believes AsenRG's opinion is Infailible Truth. But I still prefer to go from my personal experience, because it's likely to be more valid for what concerns me, right? I mean, regional/group/whatever variations are a thing, and we're so far apart IRL, the possibilities for that are magnified by orders of magnitude.

 

[Silverlion]

That all indie games are innovative--when nearly all their mechanics were already done, sometimes better elsewhere.

 

[Trippy]

The most damaging idea in Roleplaying is that you have to do it a particular way. I always hated the “traditional vs story game” arguments and that’s just a small part of the overall issue.

Yep. For me, it is just a reason to be tribal rather than any meaningful debate about game design. So, for me, that is the most damaging idea currently.

That, and propriety dice.

Actually, another thing I get irritated by is the continual notion that gamers have to buy anything to enjoy gaming. It is actually what fuels a massive amount of anger when it comes to edition wars, the cost of products, which systems are used and other issues with any new release. While there is nothing wrong with being passionate about a game of your choice, or being critical about anything, it would take heat out of any given argument if fans could readily acknowledge that they don’t actually need to buy anything and it is all just optional.

 

[TristramEvans]

You could level that same criticism at every RPG ever published, but now we're back to it coincidentally only being games the poster doesn't like that are the problem.

To define all RPGs according to a single playstyle is entirely a one-sided issue from my experience.

I've never, for example, seen a game that sets out to support sandbox play, redefine all RPGs as sandboxes.

 

[Paradigm Shaft]

The most "damaging" idea overall that I can think of is the comparison of RPGs to storytelling and the likewise conceptualization of RPGs defined as "the joint creation of a story" and the promotion of GM as "auteur"

I am partially with you on this one. There have been games I have enjoyed which had a more collaborative element. However, my preference has always been that idea of 'GM as God'. That doesn't preclude cooperation, but I also feel that in a lot of 'story games' there will be some strong personalities who shepherd the story to where they want it to go to the exclusion of more shy or new players.

I think also that story telling is an element of RPGs. Like, a story is what comes out in retrospect. It is the end product of an RPG session. But RPGs are not a story, if that makes sense?

I played D&D for a many years unaware that there were other RPGs out there. That was before the Internet, however.

Wow. I never encountered this. Fascinating. Thank you for sharing.

And I know enough people who refuse to play anything but D&D (for various reasons), so yes, you're off the mark.

Fair enough. But do they refuse because they don't know other games exist or because they like DnD?

The most damaging idea in Roleplaying is that you have to do it a particular way. I always hated the “traditional vs story game” arguments and that’s just a small part of the overall issue.

Hard agree.

That all indie games are innovative--when nearly all their mechanics were already done, sometimes better elsewhere.

True. Very few indie games are truly innovative. I like that they exist, because more options is always better than fewer options. But they do tend to arrange elements which already exist in interesting ways.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I actually think D&D4e is a great example of new > old, and learning how to do things better. 4e shook up D&D in a pretty big way and threw in a ton of new ideas, but it took later games building on it's chassis and stealing it's parts - Pathfinder 2e, D&D5e, 13th Age, The One Ring, etc - to really show how they shone.

Whatever your views on 4e, that strikes me as a leap of logic.

"I think this newer game is good" != "new > old". That's just a mirror image of the worst parts of the OSR.

I accept that technology progresses, but when it comes to creative output (music, painting, RPGs) I outright reject the Whiggish view that design is a forward march. It's a circle.

---

I think it's exclusionism; "those sorts of games don't count as RPG's", and oddly enough it's almost always games the writer doesn't like that don't count. Like whatever you like; that's totally cool, nobody is going to abduct you and force to to enjoy a game of Dungeons in the Dark (And if they do, call the fucking cops, that shit's illegal). But spending so much time coming up with reasons why it shouldn't be included just feels like... such a waste of time. Do something productive; write something for a game you like.

dungeons in the dark is such a fucking great name and someone should totally write that hack

On here at least, I think that's the minority view of a handful of outliers.

People differentiate between narrative and trad RPGs but "not RPGs" is a much smaller category of hardcore story games where half of their fans would seem to agree.

On 4e, I'm not saying it's a bad RPG. It is however bad D&D. By that I mean that D&D is a brand rather than a single game and it diverged too far from that, hence the lack of commercial success.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

To define all RPGs according to a single playstyle is entirely a one-sided issue from my experience.

I've never, for example, seen a game that sets out to support sandbox play, redefine all RPGs as sandboxes.

Possibly not, but I have seen sandbox players and even designers try to redefine sandboxing as the purest superior form of roleplaying.

 

[Endless Flight]

I’ve always maintained that the breadth of games, and more specifically, systems created during the 1980s has yet to be topped since then, even though I consider this the new Golden Age.

 

[TristramEvans]

Possibly not, but I have seen sandbox players and even designers try to redefine sandboxing as the purest superior form of roleplaying.

Sure, you've got elitists in any clique. But paying attention to them is pointlessly feeding their ego, anyone can just ignore them.

Which is why I think the term "gatekeeping" is the most asinine and meaningless term to become a common part of online discussions recently. There is no gate.

 

[David Johansen]

ooolf...that's a rough one...that you can sell or publish games and make a living is probably pretty high...

new editions are good for games...

I've seen the 'geek social fallacies" used to bully and exclude people without real cause, it was a bit of a fad here, I dunno, I saw people get hurt by people no better than themselves...maybe, "your shit doesn't stink" is in the whole morass somehow...

something about design movements and theories I suppose I'm not sure I can put it into words beyond the building of elitist cliques...

I'm afraid I don't have any really coherent thoughts on the matter, just some anecdotally supported biases.

Maybe that's the real answer, "anecdotally supported biases."

 

[CRKrueger]

The most damaging idea in Roleplaying is that you have to do it a particular way. I always hated the “traditional vs story game” arguments and that’s just a small part of the overall issue.

You misunderstand the argument then. First of all it’s not Traditional RPG vs. Storygame, it’s Traditional RPG vs. Narrative RPG. Secondly, it’s not about which one is better, it’s that there is a distinction that is the bone of contention in most cases.

 

[CRKrueger]

To define all RPGs according to a single playstyle is entirely a one-sided issue from my experience.

I've never, for example, seen a game that sets out to support sandbox play, redefine all RPGs as sandboxes.

 

[CRKrueger]

The most "damaging" idea overall that I can think of is the comparison of RPGs to storytelling and the likewise conceptualization of RPGs defined as "the joint creation of a story" and the promotion of GM as "auteur"

 

[Endless Flight]

You misunderstand the argument then. First of all it’s not Traditional RPG vs. Storygame, it’s Traditional RPG vs. Narrative RPG. Secondly, it’s not about which one is better, it’s that there is a distinction that is the bone of contention in most cases.

I don’t misunderstand anything. I think the arguments are silly. It’s like arguing whether blue or red is better. They are both colors. Just like narrative and traditional or “story game” type RPGs are all RPGs. The debates bore me to tears.

 

[chuckdee]

The most "damaging" idea overall that I can think of is the comparison of RPGs to storytelling and the likewise conceptualization of RPGs defined as "the joint creation of a story" and the promotion of GM as "auteur"

How is that damaging towards people getting into the hobby, though? In fact, I'd disagree that it's damaging in general. It's just the tribalism that is engendered by a lot of people in 'camps' of play. If you think a game is a story and is joint creation between the players and the GM- more power to you. Just don't make it the 'definition' of roleplaying and the one true way.

 

[TristramEvans]

How is that damaging towards people getting into the hobby, though?

It presents a very limited conception of play that engenders a lot of bad behaviours (on the part of the DMs primarily, but also players) and creates false expectations of what RPGs are and should be.

 

[Trippy]

It presents a very limited conception of play that engenders a lot of bad behaviours (on the part of the DMs primarily, but also players) and creates false expectations of what RPGs are and should be.

Isn’t that what the ‘narrativists’ say about ’traditional’ RPGs? I mean 'brain damage' and all that....

 

[Moonglum]

Yeah, I don't think having a variety of games to choose from is really a problem. Apply that logic to most other forms of entertainment, and it's clearly pretty limited.

There should only be first person shooter video games, or police procedural TV shows, or romance novels!

The counter examples you give involve a diversity of creative content, not a diversity of mechanics you need to learn. All first person shooters are run with closely similar commands; all TV shows are watched by sitting on your butt and directing your eyes at the screen; all romance novels are read by turning pages and reading words. The problem with having literally hundreds and hundreds of unique game systems is that each one of them demands that you learn new (usually pointlessly new) fiddly rules for resolving attack rolls and so forth. If you know how to play D&D you literally don't even know where to start when you sit down to play Runequest or Chivalry and Sorcery or Dragonquest or any the dozens and dozens of other thematically similar fantasy roleplaying games until you've read and digested a couple hundred pages of new rules.

 

[TristramEvans]

Isn’t that what the ‘narrativists’ say about ’traditional’ RPGs? I mean 'brain damage' and all that....

I didnt say anything about brain damage

 

[Trippy]

I didnt say anything about brain damage

No, you didn’t - but one of the main thrusts of the whole Forge movement, that led to the ridiculous and literal extremeness of that notorious essay, was similar in that they argued that particular games were damaging as they engendered bad behaviours and false expectations in gamers.

 

[TristramEvans]

No, you didn’t - but one of the main thrusts of the whole Forge movement, that led to the ridiculous and literal extremeness of that notorious essay, was similar in that they argued that particular games were damaging as they engendered bad behaviours and false expectations in gamers.

Well, I don't think any game is "damaging" in and of itself, but I think one can badly present concepts in a way that leads to perpetuated misconceptions.

But I think Forge Theory itself is a prime example of that - badly presented half-baked concepts that instead of doing what any good game theory should - foster/facilitate communication, instead encouraged tribalism and fostered misunderstandings, to the point that RPG theory in general is still a toxic subject on forums to this day.

 

[chuckdee]

Well, I don't think any game is "damaging" in and of itself, but I think one can badly present concepts in a way that leads to perpetuated misconceptions.

But I think Forge Theory itself is a prime example of that - badly presented half-baked concepts that instead of doing what any good game theory should - foster/facilitate communication, instead encouraged tribalism and fostered misunderstandings, to the point that RPG theory in general is still a toxic subject on forums to this day.

And I think this points to what I was saying- it's not the ideas in and of themselves, it's the hidebound mentalities of those that tout them, presenting them as truisms rather than opinions and theories to foster and facilitate conversation.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Well, I don't think any game is "damaging" in and of itself, but I think one can badly present concepts in a way that leads to perpetuated misconceptions.

But I think Forge Theory itself is a prime example of that - badly presented half-baked concepts that instead of doing what any good game theory should - foster/facilitate communication, instead encouraged tribalism and fostered misunderstandings, to the point that RPG theory in general is still a toxic subject on forums to this day.

I'd argue the pushback against the term "story" is part of that reaction to Forge theory. You find references to RPGs telling stories very early on (Dicing with Dragons for example) and my deep dive into old RPG mags doesn't suggest it's a particularly hot topic back then. A lot of today's controversies are rehashes, that doesn't seem to be. The idea it means something other than "stories emerge naturally from play rather than being something you set out to tell" seems to me to be a combination of Edwardsisms and probably some residual stuff from White Wolf at their most pompous.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'd argue the pushback against the term "story" is part of that reaction to Forge theory. You find references to RPGs telling stories very early on (Dicing with Dragons for example) and my deep dive into old RPG mags doesn't suggest it's a particularly hot topic back then. A lot of today's controversies are rehashes, that doesn't seem to be. The idea it means something other than "stories emerge naturally from play rather than being something you set out to tell" seems to me to be a combination of Edwardsisms and probably some residual stuff from White Wolf at their most pompous.

yeah, originally it was simply an analogy. I'd say the issues started with Dragonlance, and from there the perception that a good adventure module exists to "tell a story" by the authors, and it snowballed from there. The pushback against "GM as autuer" started primarily in the hobby zines, and certainly White Wolf didn't help with it's ridiculous "we're continuing the tradition of cavemen telling stories around the campfire and here's some Joseph Campbell that has no relation whatsoever to what our games are supposed to be about"

 

[hawkeyefan]

The counter examples you give involve a diversity of creative content, not a diversity of mechanics you need to learn. All first person shooters are run with closely similar commands; all TV shows are watched by sitting on your butt and directing your eyes at the screen; all romance novels are read by turning pages and reading words. The problem with having literally hundreds and hundreds of unique game systems is that each one of them demands that you learn new (usually pointlessly new) fiddly rules for resolving attack rolls and so forth. If you know how to play D&D you literally don't even know where to start when you sit down to play Runequest or Chivalry and Sorcery or Dragonquest or any the dozens and dozens of other thematically similar fantasy roleplaying games until you've read and digested a couple hundred pages of new rules.

That’s not a bad thing. People are able to understand different sports or different boardgames. “All sports should play like golf” or “all boardgames should be like Stratego” seem like pretty flawed ideas.

Oh you want a team sport? You want a boardgame for four people? Too bad…that’d just be confusing!

Now, if you want to say that some rules systems are needlessly complex, or that rule books can be streamlined, or that we don't need 37 different versions of D&D type fantasy…I’d say you have some valid criticisms of the RPG industry.

But I would never agree that variety of games or game mechanics is damaging to the hobby.

 

[Silverlion]

Another one: I'm tired of games assuming that X players will be optimal for a game.

Notable D&D' which has an optimal number of players being four players/characters and encounter creation being tied to that. That's damaging to the hobby because it forces more people to GM, and not everyone honestly has the mind for juggling even D&D simplest stuff for four people. Bad or overwhelmed GMs get burned out and leave the hobby, and sometimes their players do the same. So why not let them pick their groups size, setting it what they can handle.


While I /personally/ prefer 3-4, I've had games with 9 or more people.

The same thing happens with video games--MMO's which limit parties to four, shooters which limit teams to three or four (Destiny, etc..) Heck I've played City of Heroes with a team of sixteen people in its glory days--eight mentors and eight sidekicks (or other ways of doing sixteen.) It was glorious!

 

[Gringnr]

Another vote for One True Wayism. Show me a grown-ass person who gets mad about how other people play elfgames, I'll show you someone who never gets laid.

As far as that type being the vocal minority, I tend to agree. Empty barrels make the most noise and all that.

 

[Gringnr]

Another one: I'm tired of games assuming that X players will be optimal for a game.

Notable D&D' which has an optimal number of players being four players/characters and encounter creation being tied to that. That's damaging to the hobby because it forces more people to GM, and not everyone honestly has the mind for juggling even D&D simplest stuff for four people. Bad or overwhelmed GMs get burned out and leave the hobby, and sometimes their players do the same. So why not let them pick their groups size, setting it what they can handle.


While I /personally/ prefer 3-4, I've had games with 9 or more people.

The same thing happens with video games--MMO's which limit parties to four, shooters which limit teams to three or four (Destiny, etc..) Heck I've played City of Heroes with a team of sixteen people in its glory days--eight mentors and eight sidekicks (or other ways of doing sixteen.) It was glorious!

I think you're on to something here. Video games have set some unrealistic expectations for younger RPG neophytes, IMO. I've met a couple of twentysomethings who had a hard time with the idea that their character could actually wind up dead, dead, dead.

 

[VisionStorm]

That’s not a bad thing. People are able to understand different sports or different boardgames. “All sports should play like golf” or “all boardgames should be like Stratego” seem like pretty flawed ideas.

Oh you want a team sport? You want a boardgame for four people? Too bad…that’d just be confusing!

Now, if you want to say that some rules systems are needlessly complex, or that rule books can be streamlined, or that we don't need 37 different versions of D&D type fantasy…I’d say you have some valid criticisms of the RPG industry.

But I would never agree that variety of games or game mechanics is damaging to the hobby.

I don't think that it's damaging either, but I do get the point that there is a significant barrier of entry to TTRPGs that doesn't exist in almost any other type of recreational activity in terms of the sheer amount of material you typically need to read just to learn ONE system, vs the amount of effort involved learning anything else. Sports have simple rules that can be taught quickly--the athletic ability may take time to devolve but the rules themselves don't require a 300+ page manual. Not even video game RPGs require that. Only TTRPGs do. Which is probably one of the main reasons D&D is vastly more "popular" (or more often played or known) than any other TTRPG. Name recognition alone isn't enough to explain the gap between D&D and other RPGs.

 

[Trippy]

To be sure, I think the whole Forge-theory debates are conflicts of yesteryear now anyway, gone the same way as other damaging ideas like the satanic panic in the 80s or Games Workshop stuffing up the British RPG hobby in the late 80s/early90s as they refocussed on miniature games (the 'RPGs are dying out’ meme). Older gamers remember these things, but they aren’t relevant to younger gamers so much.

 

[chuckdee]

I don't think that it's damaging either, but I do get the point that there is a significant barrier of entry to TTRPGs that doesn't exist in almost any other type of recreational activity in terms of the sheer amount of material you typically need to read just to learn ONE system, vs the amount of effort involved learning anything else. Sports have simple rules that can be taught quickly--the athletic ability may take time to devolve but the rules themselves don't require a 300+ page manual. Not even video game RPGs require that. Only TTRPGs do. Which is probably one of the main reasons D&D is vastly more "popular" (or more often played or known) than any other TTRPG. Name recognition alone isn't enough to explain the gap between D&D and other RPGs.

But that's not all TTRPGs. Some have very few rules. A lot is based on what the person wants. It's the same for other recreational activities as you go deeper. The amount I had to learn for fencing and martial arts for tournaments and in different competition styles and different divisions approaches that of a pretty decent TTRPG in all honesty. And I've seen playbooks for Football though I've never played and... that's some indepth shit.

 

[chuckdee]

The counter examples you give involve a diversity of creative content, not a diversity of mechanics you need to learn. All first person shooters are run with closely similar commands; all TV shows are watched by sitting on your butt and directing your eyes at the screen; all romance novels are read by turning pages and reading words. The problem with having literally hundreds and hundreds of unique game systems is that each one of them demands that you learn new (usually pointlessly new) fiddly rules for resolving attack rolls and so forth. If you know how to play D&D you literally don't even know where to start when you sit down to play Runequest or Chivalry and Sorcery or Dragonquest or any the dozens and dozens of other thematically similar fantasy roleplaying games until you've read and digested a couple hundred pages of new rules.

But you don't have to- and that goes back to the OP- how many people just learn D&D and why are so many games D&D derivative? Because of this reason. And that's OK. And I think to say that it's not is one of the most damaging things to the hobby.

 

[Voros]

I'd argue the pushback against the term "story" is part of that reaction to Forge theory. You find references to RPGs telling stories very early on (Dicing with Dragons for example) and my deep dive into old RPG mags doesn't suggest it's a particularly hot topic back then. A lot of today's controversies are rehashes, that doesn't seem to be. The idea it means something other than "stories emerge naturally from play rather than being something you set out to tell" seems to me to be a combination of Edwardsisms and probably some residual stuff from White Wolf at their most pompous.

The Elusive Shift by Jon Peterson documents a lot of arguments in the APAs in the early days of the hobby that echo much of that tiresome debate.

Although there doesn't seem much obsessing over the common terms 'story' or 'storytelling' as you see these days.

As Paul Mason notes in his essay on the history of rpg theory most fan attempts at theory have been thinly disguised attempts to claim the superiority of one form of play over another.

I would note that most self-described storygames are no more about creating a pre-determined or plotted series of events than other rpgs. Hence the popular slogan 'Play to find out.'

 

[Simlasa]

But that's not all TTRPGs. Some have very few rules. A lot is based on what the person wants.

Yes, and if you are actually interested in what a different game is doing, reading and learning those rules can be a joy... to the point that you might actually wish the rulebook was bigger, or had more supplements.