RPGs: Too Much Like Math?
I ran across John Scalzi's blog a few months ago, when I was researching (on a whim) the difficulty of marketing science fiction today. Fantasy, once buried in the science fiction section at the bookstore in the early 80's (when I started looking for it), is now the dominant sub-genre. In particular, the sub-sub-genre of Urban (or "modern") Fantasy - my favorite - seems to be ruling the charts these days. Blame Harry Potter if it makes you feel better.

Now, "true" science fiction isn't normally the first on my list of desired reading. I mean, sure, I was a big Babylon 5 and Firefly fan. I've read several books by Heinlein. And William Gibson - in fact, I was pretty much a Cyberpunk fan throughout the early 90's, devouring what I could of Bruce Sterling, Walter John Williams, even a couple by Pat Cadigan. And Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash was bizarre yet awesome. And I recently came to discover Lois McMaster Bujold's novels - and I suspect The Warrior's Apprentice may be my favorite space opera story of all time (if not my favorite science fiction novel, period).

So I'm at least a remotely interested spectator to the sport. The tie-in with video games is, naturally, another aspect that leaves me curious. I can't see a very noticeable decline in science-fiction themes in video games, as we are still up to our neck in badass Space Marines these days.

Why has science fiction lost it's appeal and popularity? Scalzi, author of Old Man's War, blames accessibility. Today's SF is often written for existing (and jaded) fans of the genre, and is none-too-friendly for newbies. "It comes down to marketing and writing problems that science fiction literature has that fantasy does not; namely, that math is hard, and science fiction looks rather suspiciously like math," he writes.

That analogy could also be applied to computer role-playing games pretty easily, couldn't it? In fact, the more I read the article, the more applicable I thought the advice might be towards making RPGs more accessible. In particular, the "dying" single-player RPG. For the uninformed, the single-player computer role-playing game has been dying, on and off, since the mid-90's, stubbornly coming back into bloom with renewed vigor every time someone feels comfortable calling its effective demise. Granted, cRPGs are nowhere near their peak in the late 80's and early 90's, unless you count the MMO's, where World of Warcraft is practically a genre unto itself.

RPGs can be pretty intimidating. They do tend to carry the math-geek, chess-club stigma about them. They conjure up images of arcane formulae carried over from the early Dungeons & Dragons days - 1d8+2 Damage, THAC0 of 16, etc. I mean, D&D even had magical items described by their math. A +2 sword, for example. Yeesh! Naturally, being a geek myself, and a programmer to boot, I can get into this stuff without too much encouragement. But even I find myself a little intimidated when finding myself trying to understand what's going on when creating or leveling up a character in a new RPG.

Even those RPGs that don't wear their mechanics on their sleeves have that simulation / wargame stigma that I think might frighten off potential newcomers. Even the subject matter can get a little arcane. I mean, how many non-RPG players know what chain mail or plate mail is? There's a lot of lore there with which many RPGs assume the player has some passing familiarity. To top it all off, RPGs are notorious for being dense on exposition. As much as I love fantasy RPGs, I have come to dread the amount of backstory I'm forced to devour to figure out who I am, why I'm here, and what I'm supposed to be doing... only because it has been done so poorly in too many games.

Scalzi comments in his article on making SF more accessible, the solution is NOT to dumb it down. Likewise, I don't feel that the modern trend to dumb games down, hide the RPG-ness. and make the bad stats go away is the answer, either. For counterpoints, I look at World of Warcraft and Diablo - both extremely successful games, which wear their numbers proudly. But somehow, the numbers seem to be provided more for guidance than as something that players feel must be mastered. Once players get to a certain point, they enjoy manipulating those numbers. The trick is not to bewilder the player with all that mana, hit points, armor selection, strength-versus-dexterity crap right from the get-go.

Scalzi writes, "Make it fun, make it exciting, make it about people as much as ideas and give them a fulfilling reading experience that makes them realize that hey, this science fiction stuff really isn't so bad after all. And then beg beg beg your publisher to give it a cover that a normal 30-something human wouldn't die of embarrassment to be seen with in public. If we can do all that, then maybe, just maybe, science fiction as a literary genre would be back on its way to cultural relevance." He also cautions that not every SF author should do this - they need their hardcore SF as much as ever - but they do need to form more of an outreach to bring new fans into the fold.

This makes me pause and think for a bit.

Can we draw some parallels between bitter hardcore SF fans, annoyed to see Harry Potter taking the honors and making uncountable amounts of money, and hardcore old-school RPG fans who see their category dominated by action games "with RPG elements?"

Can we use more of our own outreach program?

Frankly, I don't see the big publishers doing it. They have no choice but to follow the money. Which means this is a job for the indies.

And they already are, to an extent. I look at Aveyond, Aveyond II: Ean's Quest, and Cute Knight as possible examples here. These titles have managed to rope in a non-traditional audience for RPGs (and Cute Knight has more numbers and math floating around than many mainstream RPGs!) In these games, which have most of the traditional trappings of a hardcore RPG, also have accessibility in spades, from the subject matter through the marketing and the actual mechanics. Players are attracted not by the "crunch" promised by these games, but by the promise of story and interesting characters. A simple story, one that doesn't overtly invoke a lot of overwrought fantasy tropes or demand too much familiarity with the genre.

Am I talking "casual RPGs?" Well, yeah. Maybe I am. Maybe not casual as in the currently defined "casual game market" (which emphasizes adult women), but casual as in not "hardcore gamers" (let the mainstream publishers worry about that group) and "not familiar with RPGs." Maybe getting away from the Tolkien-esque medieval fantasy settings a little bit and starting closer to home. Think of marketing an experience - the fun and excitement - rather than the category - for people who wouldn't know what an RPG is if it bit them on the mithril-armored keister.

I think there's opportunity here.

Labels: Biz, Roleplaying Games

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 4:25 AM (Permalink)