From Malcolm Shepherd’s new “Shooting Dice” blog: Getting Real About RPGs and Mainstream Culture. A lot of intersting points, including a skewering the two most common modes of rpgs:
RPG design usually picks one of two routes. We either get well-defined complexity or vague simplicity. Neither of these fly with people who aren’t going to get fannish over it.
Here’s the originating RPGnet thread: RPGs need their Neil Gaiman…
The idea is that he managed to make comics more acceptable to the mainstream, albeit by rebranding them as “graphic novels”. So there’s a wish by some (which Malcolm, above, feels is misguided) to upscale/intellectualize RPGs to make them more acceptable as art. Rebecca Bergstrom was mentioned as a possible analogue; “Forge games in general” was also suggested.
I’m not looking to make things more highbrow myself, but I have seen inadvertently occur. I have a friend who didn’t really “get” the RPG thing, and was even turned off by Nobilis (!) or at least from overhearing a geekish discussion of Domains, Powers, etc.
However: when I described Primetime Adventures to her, she very clear change in understanding, saying “Wow, so these are more like improvisational storytelling than roleplaying games…” I found that a very interesting reaction.
Bear in mind that I don’t have an investment in actually making a distinction or break between kinds of games or terminology, nor am I selling any particular set games as fancy heralds of fancy intellectualism. Nonetheless, this is still the one time I’ve seen that change actually occur.
(If you’re unfamliar about the larger past discussions of the mainstream and roleplaying, check out the Forge for Mainstream: a revision, and other related threads.)