Would tabletop RPGs suffer by being more mainstream?

[Agrippa]

Does anyone here think that mainstream acceptance would harm tabletop RPGs in anyway? Perhaps you're afraid that outside acceptance would taint or corrupt RPGs and their nature as a fringe hobby keeps them safe and pure. Maybe like me you don't care, or even want to see RPGs thought of as mainstream. Just say what you think.

[Arturick]

*Warning:  Poster is retardedly drunk*

I find the notion of "mainstreaming" being harmful to RPGs to be totally ridiculous.

Niche video games produced Pac-Man and Super Mario Brothers.  Mainstream video gaming produced Dishonored and Halo 4.  Truly, the technology level is different, but a mainstream audience creates the budgeting required for the huge staff of programmers and playtesters that mark the difference between Mario Bros. and Kratos.

[LordBlades]

Honestly, I think it would.  If RPGs became mainstream, then probably a lot of RPG producers would design them in such a way as to appeal to the tastes (and pockets) of an as large segment of the target audience as possible. Thing is, from my experience, most people are either:

a) too dumb to properly understand complex rules systems
b) too busy/not willing to put enough time in a hobby to understand lengthy and/or complex rules systems
c) both


I have quite a few friends, smart people and regular board game players that look at my passion for D&D and go like 'wtf dude, you actually read, nervermind remember, several hundres of pages of rules?' Most of them grumble when we buy a new boardgame and see the rules booklet has more than 10-15 pages.
If that would be the target audience, I expect  that the average hypothetical mainstream RPG would be something very dumbed down and short.

[Childe]

Even if the majority of games became "dumbed down" in some way (however you define that), I think that an attempt to make them more acceptable in mainstream culture (or else how are they suddenly mainstream?) would result in many beneficial eliminations of the more tedious aspects of the genre, and not significantly depreciate the positive elements. Additionally, I think that more complex games could still exist in much the same way that - while there are more than a hundred FPS games a year - you still get excellent or at least intriguing games like Braid, Bastion, Limbo, Minecraft (I'm told), and more, none of which I feel carry a terrible stigma that I think many people still associate with the tabletop genre (and which I think this thread is addressing), even if they aren't all decidedly "mainstream."

I'm not convinced that complex rules are what make these games valuable - or that the burden of such rules should be placed on the players, at least. I'd argue that a very well built tabletop RPG today - assuming it doesn't simply seamlessly integrate itself under the guise of a multiplayer computer game, which I think is still the smarter option for gaining acceptance - could be done while not exceeding the 15 pages LordBlades gives as an example, at least for its core rules.*

*I will acknowledge that accounting for individual abilities characters can gain may cause the page count to exceed this, though systems can use some abstraction to avoid this altogether, but I think all of the truly essential rules of a tabletop can be presented in 15 pages such that all individual abilities make sense in context of only those pages (or possibly an ability that is prerequisite to another ability).

For this discussion, in what way is it essential (if you feel it is) for players to not only be willing to but not be disgruntled by having to read hundreds of pages to play the game? Is the reading and preparation more essential to the enjoyment of the game than the act of playing or the group (and social dynamic) with which the game is played? If so, why?

[Garryl]

The more mainstream it gets, the more indie games will come out, either hoping to cash in on the pie or just trying to make the niche game they want that the big developers don't do as much of in the search for mass appeal. I expect that the greatest fragmentation and loss of quality will come just because there are more products that people enjoy relative to the number of participants, thus reducing the average population of each. I expect that while the average quality will drop and many styles will become less frequent relative to the whole, in absolute terms they'll be relatively stable; there will still be as many games you like on the market, just buried amidst a greater number that you don't. That's what I expect would happen.

[LordBlades]

For this discussion, in what way is it essential (if you feel it is) for players to not only be willing to but not be disgruntled by having to read hundreds of pages to play the game? Is the reading and preparation more essential to the enjoyment of the game than the act of playing or the group (and social dynamic) with which the game is played? If so, why?

Personally, I want a game where the default resolution of anything more complex than walking in a straight line and whacking the bad dude over the head isn't 'ask the GM'. Also, I want a game where different classes feel different enough so it doesn't get repetitive too quickly. That takes space, it's unavoidable.

Also, I feel willingness to read and prepare are essential at least at a basic level. You don't need to read the whole D&D all at once for example, but I think intimate knowledge of your character's abilities and how they work mechanically should be common courtesy.

[veekie]

The more mainstream it gets, the more indie games will come out, either hoping to cash in on the pie or just trying to make the niche game they want that the big developers don't do as much of in the search for mass appeal. I expect that the greatest fragmentation and loss of quality will come just because there are more products that people enjoy relative to the number of participants, thus reducing the average population of each. I expect that while the average quality will drop and many styles will become less frequent relative to the whole, in absolute terms they'll be relatively stable; there will still be as many games you like on the market, just buried amidst a greater number that you don't. That's what I expect would happen.

Indeed, mainstreaming primarily brings a very large influx of material into the domain, and has a tendency to be extremely rough on clunky gaming, but it'd never really go away either. It's a definite good for the hobby, and good for the niche games(more people playing means obtaining a group is easier, as is finding one willing to at least try out your favorite niche).

What gets hit hardest are the medium sized industries. WotC, Games Workshop, White Wolf, Paizo. These guys are big enough to basically control their corner of the industry at present, but also the ones with the most to lose from mainstreaming, if they fail to gain a foothold in the new world. While tiny indie games have nothing to lose and a whole lot of potential players to gain, these companies more or less sell about as much product as their entire customer base is already willing to buy, so they'd be under pretty big selection pressures.

[Risada]

Also, I feel willingness to read and prepare are essential at least at a basic level. You don't need to read the whole D&D all at once for example, but I think intimate knowledge of your character's abilities and how they work mechanically should be common courtesy.

This, this, this. A thousand times this.

Indeed, mainstreaming primarily brings a very large influx of material into the domain, and has a tendency to be extremely rough on clunky gaming, but it'd never really go away either. It's a definite good for the hobby, and good for the niche games(more people playing means obtaining a group is easier, as is finding one willing to at least try out your favorite niche).

What gets hit hardest are the medium sized industries. WotC, Games Workshop, White Wolf, Paizo. These guys are big enough to basically control their corner of the industry at present, but also the ones with the most to lose from mainstreaming, if they fail to gain a foothold in the new world. While tiny indie games have nothing to lose and a whole lot of potential players to gain, these companies more or less sell about as much product as their entire customer base is already willing to buy, so they'd be under pretty big selection pressures.

And a bit of this too.

[Endarire]

Mainstreaming RPGs seems like 4E done right.  It wouldn't alienate or insult previous fans, but would encourage community between the old and the new.  And it would be profitable because the games would be awesome!

[Unbeliever]

I think there's a bit of ambiguity going on in this thread.  If RPGs set out to intentionally become more mainstream, simplifying their rules to the point where the interesting things go away, or losing their unique character.  Then, that would obviously be bad.  Which isn't to say games like D&D couldn't use some (a lot!) of streamlining.

But, if RPGs just became more mainstream, as they have steadily been doing so in the time I've been involved, then that could hardly be a bad thing.  Lots of geek things have become mainstreamed:  LotR, comic books (probably the biggest example), video games, and so on.  And, it doesn't seem to have hurt the underlying properties at all. 

I think anyone concerned with the "purity" of tabletop RPGs may have some deeper issues to be explored at about $100 an hour.

[Agrippa]

You should note that most of the opposition I found to RPGs entering the mainstream comes from really old-school (OD&D and 1st Ed. AD&D mostly) players who feel that popular culture would turn D&D far too much from its roots and "dumb it down for the masses". In fact many, not necessarily most, old-schoolers/grognards seem to be proto-hipsters with a fondness for fantasy pulps and Jack Vance. Speaking of Jack Vance some old-school gamers think the problem is that most people don't appreciate the stories Dying Earth Series such as the The Dying Earth, The Eyes of the Overworld, Cugel's Saga or Rhialto the Marvelous or those of Fitz Lieber. The idea is that if people did then D&D, and by extension RPGs in general, could safely become mainstream without being warped any further. Just so can get a feel for Jack Vance's writing I'm posting a link to his quotes.

[Lars]

I think it would be a blessing and a curse. We would get alot of games that would make me  over and over again. But at the same time Im pretty sure i would find gems that make me go 

Would most games be dumbed down? I think so. Would mainstream be like 3.5? most likely no
"Our"(my opinion) version of ttrpgs would most likely be considerd Indie if that were to happen.
Mainstream would be less rules,way less.
Thats my take.

Just think about it, How many of you have people you know that play video games? How many of them understand mechanics in any of them? Easy exsample, how long before you broke Skyrim? How long beofre one of your friends outside ttrpgs did that?

[Unbeliever]

I am a pretty huge Fritz Leiber fan.  And, OD&D bears as much relationship with his work as Churchill did with vermouth.

Hell, the Lankhmar set proved that the only way to build Mouser and Fafhrd was to dual-class like 4 times ...

[SolEiji]

"We want to go after the CoD audience for our next system.  The next D&D will feature health which regenerates to full after every battle, only two attack options, and iron sights.  Yes, even iron sights on the swords.  Also achievements.  To make it easier, abilities scores are cut down to two, "Attack" and "Not Attack".  All monsters have the same stats but are described different ways.  Pre-order today and receive ORCS as a pre-order bonus (in book DLC, a value of $9.95!)

On a semi-related note, you have made me imagine a world where Tameem was given charge of D&D and I hate you for it.  *Shudder*

[Halinn]

"We want to go after the CoD audience for our next system.  The next D&D will feature health which regenerates to full after every battle, only two attack options, and iron sights.  Yes, even iron sights on the swords.  Also achievements.  To make it easier, abilities scores are cut down to two, "Attack" and "Not Attack".  All monsters have the same stats but are described different ways.  Pre-order today and receive ORCS as a pre-order bonus (in book DLC, a value of $9.95!)

On a semi-related note, you have made me imagine a world where Tameem was given charge of D&D and I hate you for it.  *Shudder*

"We are releasing two versions of our new D&D product: a modern one with red dot sights, and a WW2 one with iron sights and where everything is brown."

[Unbeliever]

"We want to go after the CoD audience for our next system.

The funny thing is that the CoD series has actually been steadily getting more RPG elements. 

It's not a lot of RPG elements to be sure, since it's not an RPG or a semi-RPG game.  It's just a funny trend, everyone likes mechanical choices and to be invested in their avatar to some degree.

[Eagle of Fire]

Does anyone here think that mainstream acceptance would harm tabletop RPGs in anyway? Perhaps you're afraid that outside acceptance would taint or corrupt RPGs and their nature as a fringe hobby keeps them safe and pure. Maybe like me you don't care, or even want to see RPGs thought of as mainstream. Just say what you think.

I think that 4E already went way, way too far that line.

And yes, video games have been harmed in a manner of magnitude I can't even describe by going mainstream. Now most of the very few gems are drowned in a collection of worthless titles.

As a gamer, I expect games to get better and better. When games began to turn to 3D and get more "modern" in the 2000's then we continuously got served worse and worse games.

The same would happen to games like D&D. Wait, didn't I say already it already did? Yeah, more like it IMHO.

[Unbeliever]

And yes, video games have been harmed in a manner of magnitude I can't even describe by going mainstream. Now most of the very few gems are drowned in a collection of worthless titles.

As a gamer, I expect games to get better and better. When games began to turn to 3D and get more "modern" in the 2000's then we continuously got served worse and worse games.

You're joking, right?  We currently live in a golden age of video games.  It is, arguably, the greatest time for the medium/hobby/whatever you want to call it. 

It is true, the market is so so so much bigger now, so there's a lot of crap.  And, there's a lot of "blockbuster" games that are kinda mediocre.  I happen to think the Assassin's Creed series, for instance, which people love has much more potential than it lives up to.  If they just managed to combine the beauty of the settings with the gameplay of Splinter Cell:  Conviction, they could have made a fantastic franchise.

But, there are so many unequivocally fantastic (video/computer) games.  Games of quality that were not achieved previously.  A non-scientific sample from the past few years includes:
God of War franchise
Red Dead Redemption
Witcher 2
Civilization 5
Batman:  Arkham __
Dragon Age:  Origins
Saints Row:  the Third
Portal

And so on.  There were, of course, great games of yesteryear -- I was a big Diablo 2 fan back in the day.  But, there are so many games of quality out now. 


P.S.:  to the extent that 4E is bad in this regard, it would be due to an intentional choice on the designers to try and cater to the "mainstream," which as I already noted would be pernicious.  That's separate from the game just becoming more popular.  They didn't go back and revise the Song of Ice and Fire (any more than putting Sean Bean on the cover, I suppose) now that it's gotten totally mainstream.

[Halinn]

And yes, video games have been harmed in a manner of magnitude I can't even describe by going mainstream. Now most of the very few gems are drowned in a collection of worthless titles.

As a gamer, I expect games to get better and better. When games began to turn to 3D and get more "modern" in the 2000's then we continuously got served worse and worse games.

You're joking, right?  We currently live in a golden age of video games.  It is, arguably, the greatest time for the medium/hobby/whatever you want to call it.

Greatest time so far

[Eagle of Fire]

You're joking, right?  We currently live in a golden age of video games.  It is, arguably, the greatest time for the medium/hobby/whatever you want to call it. 

No, not at all.

This is of course my personal opinion, but as a real gamer I've been completely let down by the gaming industry as a whole since the mid 2000. There is nothing really good anymore, everything seem to have been done. Rehashed a billion times. And since at that time the main goal was better graphics to the detriment of gameplay, I've considered that time to be particularly bad for the gaming industry.

For me, and at least for the PC game industry, the golden age was in the '90s and stopped in very early 2000. The simple fact that you would be practically unable to find a real strategy or adventure game nowaday is enough for me to take as major proof of that...

Guess what? Strategy is my main genre I like to play. Yeah, I've been boned since a loooong time now.