TTRPGs & Video Games (INTRO) : Approaching Things Differently & Defining the RPG

The Vibe: While Games are often commodified and designed as Toys [[which we'll hence forth be using as a shorthand for standardized crafted interactive product designed for fun]], there exists a distinct potential for them to be a meaningful artistic medium. Video Games have already proven this by blossoming into a new interactive medium all their own. Meanwhile Tabletop Games feel like they still have a great deal of their identity stuck purely in the marketable Toy mentality (Probably because of the history of The Hobby and D&D). Thus I propose we can use the innovations, lessons learned and the lexicon built for Video Games to help push The Hobby in new directions and help dig it out of the creative rut of reskinned D&Ds (D&D alternatives and D&D accessories) that saturates the zeitgeist.

A Brief History of RPGs

So I'm going to try to simplify things for the sake of time, but let me break down the timeline of the simultaneous twin-births of TTRPGs and Video Games for you like this:

1974 - OD&D is published by TSR and co, fundamentally changing "Games" as we know them and birthing The Hobby of the TTRPG (Or so the fable goes). Here we see the TTRPG take its first steps out of a formalized Wargame and into the imaginary free-form direction that has made the genre so beloved. It is also the beginning of an emphasis of "Story" insofar as Story is a narrative (Setting, Emergent Play, Banter) that exists beyond the "Sport" (Rules, Tactics, Mastery) of play.

1975 - Recent divorcee Will Crowther builds Colossal Cave Adventure (Not be confused with the similarly named 1980 Atari game Adventure which it would inspire). It is largely hailed as the "first interactive fiction" wherein the player explores a cave in an attempts to extract as much loot as possible. Crowther himself is a D&D fan and the game has often been written about in the context of D&D's influence on CRPGs. This would be the first of a torrent of indie "Dungeon Crawlers" such as Zork. Where OD&D's rules placed a focus on character progression, castle building, etx, CCA and co immediately made the focus "Loot the Dungeon". [[Note: Again this is the common tale, however games that predate CCA like dnd show evidence that the idea of "have the computer be your GM" was not unique to CCA. Yet we again see the focus reduced only to the "dungeon" aspect. Also note that many of such projects began as non-commercial pet-projects that software engineers were building for fun.]]

Mid-1970s - Meanwhile the home console game industry begins its first true console generation, saturating the market with paddle games and Pong clones of every size shape and color. Video Games were evolving from computer lab pet-projects to midway staples to marketable household "Toys". To reiterate: Computing hardware paired with Designed Software (Systems) as Toys. [[This'll be important later]]

1977 - TSR releases the "D&D Basic Set" which (while retraining some of the simplicity of its predecessor) began the trend of D&D being a true formalized and boxed product (Toy) rather than merely a set of Rules . In this instance that product takes the shape of a TTRPG masquerading as a Board Game (a distinction that is blurry and we'll surely investigate another time. Especially as the distinctions between Board Game, Video Game and TTRPG are muddier than ever.)

1977 - Simultaneously Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is released. Where the Basic Set solidified D&D as a product, AD&D solidified D&D as an even more complex and standardized ruleset, one which was the supreme authority rather than being "built for hacking" as its predecessor was. [[Seriously, OD&D literally tells you to write in the rulebook to change the rules as you see fit]] With such rigid rulesets, one wonders if you can't offload all this math and memorization to a computer...? (Answer: They already have)

1978 - The first iteration of MUD is born, drawing heavy inspiration from dungeon crawlers and the social nature of D&D. Yet another genre in video games is born from D&D: The MMORPG. 

1981 - Ultima and Wizardry begin fleshing out the CRPG space in a story too long to reiterate here, but I promise you that there's a good reason you've probably heard of both of those series.

Mid-1980s - In an important (if cataclysmic) step in the evolution of The Hobby, Dragonlance takes the field as perhaps the first "built as sequel-bait" series Tabletop had seen. (This model had already arguably been pioneered by the earlier Swordquest series on Atari). Dragonlance modules focused heavily on rigid story-telling, plot-driven table play and a setting that was meant to tie into a proprietary book series. Effectively Dragonlance's writing team was attempting to GM tables by proxy via the GMs reading long text boxes and adhering to strict story beats (Yet again making me think "But why bother with the human element at all? What if technology were good enough to replace it.") These strict plots would unfold over the course of several modules, each expanding upon the last and requiring a continuous stream of purchases to enjoy in its totality. In a poetic twist of irony, a compilation of Dragonlance modules was later released under the title "Dragonlance Classic" and shortened to DLC, 9 years before home console video games' sixth generation would introduce Downloadable Content (DLC) in what would become a similarly coercive model of "a la carte continuations". 

1985 - Ultima IV mixes up the CRPG formula, placing greater emphasis on action, story and player choices. The game also introduces various mechanics intertwined deeply with its Virtue Alignment system which intern intertwines back with the story. This level of interactivity (and moralizing player actions) would later become a large staple of the CRPG.

1986 - In video games' third home console generation Dragon Quest breaks new ground as the first home console adaptation of TTRPG combat, and arguably the first JRPG. The game focuses on repetition and combat grind as meditative ritual. From here spawns a myriad of home console games with fantastical worlds, vast multi-colored bestiaries and plenty of dungeons to loot. It should yet again be noted, that while adult enjoyment of such products was common, the home console market largely billed itself as an industry for selling Toys rather than crafting meaningful interactive fiction.

1988 - Final Fantasy 2 brings an engaging epic and static story to Japan's home console RPG stage in a way that had not been seen in the past. While players only control the party to loot dungeons and explore the overworld, the game receives high praise for its narrative, as will later entries in the franchise and the JRPG genre at large.

1989 - HeroQuest the absolute and undisputed pinnacle of Game Design and the now-fully-commercialized version of The Hobby is released. [[Note: The bit about it being the undisputed pinnacle is mostly a joke, but we can see how The Hobby is being progressively more structured and rebranded as a Toy designed to be sold in a box rather than a narrative that springs from your mind. ]]

It's 1989 and AD&D 2nd Edition has only just released to the public, yet already I hope the interplay and branching evolutions of the Digital RPG versus the Tabletop RPG are catching your interest. We see Video Games starting as a marketable Toy and attempting to break into a narrative medium of their own, shifting and redefining the formula and structure (Software) in an attempt to get a machine (Hardware) to elicit emotional responses (Art). Conversely we see tabletop becoming increasingly more commercialized and structured until it can box itself neatly as a Toy whose purpose is to be sold for the Christmas market. (Now in Space Hulk flavor!) [[Note: I genuinely really love HeroQuest and Space Hulk for reasons I'll explain another time, but they also serve as perfect examples of the near-full commodification of The Hobby. -- Commodification in this context meaning the reduction of a thing into only its monetary value and sell-ability.]]

Games As Toys

There's a really interesting excerpt from an ongoing Critique of The Hobby Written by Marcia B. (A series which, while I don't always agree with, I highly encourage reading from the beginning) that goes as follows:

"the field of 'game design' was basically created by gary gygax to sell more books. it justified the existence of advanced dungeons & dragons as the officially sanctioned version of the dungeon game. by virtue of this, it justified the publishing of other games where dungeons & dragons as a 'system' did not apply."

Or to put it another way: To commodify The Hobby you have to make Toys to sell (whether that's a rulebook, dice, miniatures etx) thus Game Design originates (at least partially) as Toy Making. [[In the context of Gygax and many other Game Desginers these Toys may have been exclusively Designed for sale, but I'm not so cynical as to declare that Toy Making / Game Design as a rule is commodification, nor that Toys are a bad thing. Rather I'm looking to acknowledge that commodification of the Toys is an important precedent Gygax set and should be actively kept in mind.]]

Whenever I talk about TTRPGs, I often talk about Calvinball as its Core origin point (Not the literal comic strip, but the ethos that the strip evokes- I hope to write an article about this next). Calvinball itself is a kind of "make up rules as you go" sport-narrative, that changes with each playing and only requires a minimum one player with an imagination. Anyone who has ever played make-believe as a child knows this imaginative play space, and knows this space can be shared quite easily. Again, a key aspect is that Calvinball does not require components or even consistent rules (or arguably rules at all)  but it can still be woven together as a Narrative or Game that the Player is affecting. However the TTRPG as envisioned by Gygax, Wargaming before it, Board Games before that and the field of Game Design (Toy Making) in general definitionally requires components. These components (written or physical) are the very fabric that make up the structure of the Game, one that can be packaged and shared (and often sold). Rule books, dice, miniatures, battle mats, terrain, rulers, ergo: Toys. By assigning Structure to Calvinball, you are fundamentally stepping away from Calvinball and engineering something else, something which hinges on Toys. [[Note: Marcia B. seems to imply that OD&D is exempt from this existing as a more vague oral practice, but I would rather say that OD&D simply attempts not to commodifying itself too much. The game still requires the Players to own dice, the rule book and often encourages the purchase of figures. It's a system about Toys. However I fully agree that AD&D (and Basic D&D) represent The Hobby plunging head first into being about selling Toys.]] 

Marcia B. continues by arguing that this "was not necessarily a forgone conclusion. for example, the mafia game has not yet exploded into an industry for producing and publishing infinitely more rules on how to play a casual party elimination game, even if by word of mouth there are different variations on the game." And while mafia may not be the best example of a game that does not spawn a commodifying industry [[Though what doesn't in this day and age?]], I agree that The Hobby followed gleefully along as TTRPGs became about not just Toys but the market of Toys. Which, on reflection, seems to follow quite logically as the TTRPG was birthed from Wargaming... [[Note: I'm of the opinion that the "Toy" aspect is not the problem here- In fact Toys hold a very special place in my heart, from Video Games, to Tabletop, to Teddy Bears. It's the fact that Toys are often looked at, designed with and produced for the intent of commodification as opposed to for the raw emotional responses they can elicit. This is something I'm hoping to change with this series! Also Re: Toys as not inherently commodity, I'll probably do a longer article about that once I've done more economics research, but the best way I can describe it is this: I feel like plenty of you reading this have picked up a stick and ascribed a fun meaning to it, whether it be a sword, staff or gun. That is a Toy devoid of commodification and you made it and I think that's quite beautiful.]]

Marcia's work goes on to ask why are we willfully commodifying what we love? It's a manifesto which I have my own opinions on which are waaaay too long to stick in here- Short summary on my feelings towards it: I certainly think that we as Designers can design more thoughtfully around Preparing Players instead of Selling Components, work to make The Hobby more about Play and less about Purchase, and most importantly focus more on Idea Exchange and less on Monetary Exchange. [[See also: Comparisons to the digital art community.]] However, I also think there's nothing necessarily wrong with having every GM publishing and pitching their various game systems, fan projects and remixes, and wouldn't necessarily advocate for less games in the space, just encourage a more thoughtful discussion of what selling and funding looks like in that space [[Especially in regards to those who believe D&D is somehow stealing their profits]]. That said Labor/Value/Who Gets to Make Art are topics far beyond our scope for today and the research I've done. 

Instead let's get back to what TTRPGs evolve into as a result: Instead of it becoming "grab some friends, try this at home, make some hacks and pass it on!" it pivoted to become a market of glistening products in every imaginable flavor. Toys meant to tempt the wallet rather than comfort the soul.  In essence we may be able to look at the typical TTRPG Game Book that would come to be as the "Instant Cake" of collaborative imagination. "No GM prep needed! Just Add Dice!" And while Game Design may be thought of as cooking, The Hobby was less interested in swapping recipes and more interested in selling secret sauces.

...Maybe there's too many analogies in this kitchen but the gist is: At this point the TTRPG has become a Commodity to be mass produced and sold, The Hobby has become distinct from its origins of Calvinball (which is why we don't necessarily call children playing make-believe TTRPGing or even LARPing) and Toys are being designed purely as products to fly off bookshelves during the Christmas season.

But where would this leave Video Games? A genre of creation that (due to the limitations of its hardware) means that its creators are purely Game Designers/Toy Makers. Are they merely commodifying an ultimately unnecessary product? Creating demand where there was none? [[Note: I'm just using the phrase "Ultimately Unnecessary Product" to add punch. Art/Toys, enhance our quality of life and I think that's quite meaningful, despite their constant commodification. Likewise, I feel like Video Games can best be sum up by my favorite advice I've ever read from a Monster Hunter GamFAQs thread about completing non-optimal armor sets for the aesthetic and concerns that it would be a waste of time. I can't for the life of me find it, but the words went something like: "All time is wasted time in Monster Hunter. Don't be so concerned about playing the game right. If you're having fun then that's what matters."]]

I think Video Games are funded as a commodified Toy market, with the intent to sell, sell, sell. But they also may be one of our most powerful story telling tools at our disposal, and many of the Designers making them use that funding to push the medium further and further. Whereas a films or plays are static, a Video Game is a true interactive fiction, one whose story brings its audience into the depths of its heart and shares that tactile emotional space. And I'm not just talking about the endless branching dialogue of a BioWare game. We're also talking about Killzone or Resident Evil, series where your actions often have little to no effect on the story, and yet that story feels all the more personal because of your personal involvement.

But isn't the TTRPG also an interactive fiction? So why do these mediums about Toys (backed by the selling of Toys) look so different? We'll get back to that, but for now let's just think of the Tabletop Game space and the Video Game space as estranged siblings.

Tabletop chants that "System Matters" while Video Games insist "The Mechanic is the Message". [*1] 

Tabletop encourages you to "Fail Forward" while Video Game wisdom reminds you to "Fail Faster".

Yet it feels like Video Games have built a much stronger critical lexicon in the time since these two genres first garnered popularity. Perhaps this is only my limited knowledge of the topic, but I rarely if hear people talk about "Emergent Gameplay" in the tabletop space. And I feel like both "Immersion" and "Innovation" are rarely spoken of as Design goals. Even the phrase "Sandbox" seems nebulous in the context of the TTRPG, meanwhile Minecraft and Terraria's systems are allowing for greater player expression and exploration than any traditional TTRPG I'm aware of. This is to say nothing of other major design tenants and discoveries:

Exit points. Tutorials. Pacing. Telegraphing. Deterministic Odds. Difficulty Curves. Skinner Boxes. Match-Ups. The dreaded Ludonarrative Dissonance. I could go on. 

These are parts of a lexicon that were built as static Games (Toys) began to make us feel things in the way traditional art did and in other new ways too. As Video Games began pushing their boundaries and using their confines more meaningfully, so too did the art of Toy Making (Game Design) require more thoughtful analysis and language.

The isolation of Shadow of the Colossus. The whimsy of Link to the Past. The weighty guilt of Silent Hill 2 and so so many more. What may have begun as making Toys for a market had blossomed into a true artform in less than half a century. Game Design in Video Games had evolved from college curiosity to Toy Making for profit to genuine artistic expression. 

But why is this relevant to The Hobby?

Toys As Art

There's a common saying in The Hobby that TTRPGs are "like video games, but you can open any door and do anything!" so why then are TTRPGs lagging so far behind as an artistic medium? While the core "do anything" appeal persists, it's starting to feel like Video Game Design has greatly outpaced Tabletop Design. It feels like a lot of TTRPG identity is still stuck in the mindset of "Game Design as justification for selling new books and getting a slice of the book-buying pie" rather than "Game Design as means of crafting new verbs, emotions and experiences at a table." [[If you're thinking about how Blades in the Dark or Mork Borg are attempting to innovate in the space, then you're not totally off the mark. These games are a blast and offer interesting new variations, but often the discussion around them boils down to these games being "The D&D Alternative" - A "Better Toy" rather than a wholly new Toy in and of itself.]]

Which brings us back to Tabletop Games. Could Game Design not be applied the same way? What if instead of every TTRPG product merely focusing on flavor and convenience and trying to be marketed/sold/commodified/taking a slice of the D&D pie, the Toys we were making tried to break new ground make us feel new emotions? Mechanics that focus on making you feel a certain way rather than simply act a certain way. Combat that feels kinetic, moves that wrench your heart, settings that aren't merely a means for an author to backseat GM nor as a cleaner Forgotten Realms. If anything the Tabletop space should be one of the most innovative and diverse, as every GM serves as a Game Designer tweaking existing systems or crafting their own to accommodate for their players (see also: comparison between oral story tellers who shift each telling to best suit the audience). If anything Game Design should be the language we're using to craft new forms of play to share, rather than new forms of D&D to sell [[As GMs will always constantly be iterating on D&D regardless of if there's published works doing so]].

And when I say new means of play, I don't mean "new means to perform stat checks" that are system agnostic (As this is still beholden to innovating on D&D as a base)- I mean the good shit. I mean Dread sitting a damn Jenga tower in front of you to instill fear. I mean Ten Candles slowly chipping away at the table's moral as the light fades away. I mean that I'm actually realizing just now that for whatever reason a lot of the indie devs that are really pushing the boundaries in Tabletop are making horror, but this is about more than just horror. This is about feel. Even more traditional TTRPGs can accomplish this! Rod, Reel & Fist's cooperation centric combat makes you actually feel like a team. Harmony Drive's Key and Spell Weaving feel genuinely freeform and sandbox, while maintaining enough structure to convey a consistent and tangible setting. These systems don't feel like "D&D except" or "D&D but" and are rarely marketed as such. This is because they are not D&D alternatives. They are very much just their own thing that at most pulls from D&D's shared lexicon of pre-70s board and war gaming. Because they are games Designed with more concern about their feel rather than what the D&D market will think of them.

RPG As a Genre

Super Mario Bros. isn't remembered because jumping on a Goomba is an interesting twist on eating a Ghost. It's remembered because of the viscerally satisfying feeling of mastering jumping on a Goomba. And likewise Celeste isn't remembered because it's Mario but harder with tighter jumping. It's because Celeste has a melancholic and satisfying feel all its own.

 "Wait Mario isn't even an RPG?" I hear you say. Well here's the gotchya of this whole article and why I think Video Games are really important to further critique, analyzing and pushing The Hobby forward:

The RPG (Roleplaying Game) has kind of a bullshit nothing title that is totally unhelpful in describing the Genre.

Definitionally you take on a role and play a game. Welcome to all of Games as a medium! When we say "RPG" what is actually meant is something that is a "D&D-like" (In the same way "Soulslikes" and "Metroidvanias" exist while being defined by the shadow of their respective ancestors)

In fact even in Video Games "RPG" has just come to mean "Probably has stats, and maybe levels and shares a common ancestor with D&D." The core component that Ultima IV and Final Fantasy II have in common is D&D, thus the "RPG" moniker is merely to label these two as "D&D offshoots". [[At least Video Games have the good sense to really push the boundaries of what a D&D-like / RPG can really be, even if this was simply out of design necessity.]]

I also believe The Hobby has done an exceptionally good job of pigeon-holing itself by (unwittingly) defining itself as a Hobby of RPGs rather than a Hobby of imaginative tabletop experiences. To the point where people often use the term "D&D" and "TTRPG" interchangeably. Where are the Tabletop Walking Sim? The Tabletop Platformers? The Tabletop Fighting and Rhythm Games? Where are the Tabletop Horr- Actually wait no, that one is kind of covered.

[[This again isn't to say you can't still innovate on the RPG / the D&D-like. Just look at Parasite Eve. Whew what a game. But certainly an RPG. But you know what isn't an RPG? Dino Crisis. And that shit slaps too.]]

Which in some ways brings us back closer to Wargames and OD&D, and thus closer to the making new structures to draw from their font of inspiration (Calvinball). We need to look at systems and components (Toys) as means of creating new player experiences (Art) rather than only ever honing the same experience for the past 40 years in an attempts to cash into a market that is already full (Commodification). Rule books as means for transforming your table, rather than simply recoloring it for profit. You're already seeing works like this start to crop up. Delve/Rise, Cozy Town and The Quiet Year are all slowly abandoning the Gygaxian D&D-like to make new works and in a genre all their own, all with thoughtful consideration of what components are really needed.

If Tabletop Game Design relegates itself to living purely in the shadow of D&D then Tabletop Game Design will only ever be writing to sell books (re: making Toys for profit) which are in effect reskins of D&D (Reskins which GMs are more than capable of brewing themselves). As Marcia B. eloquently puts it:

the story of the hobby is the story of dungeons & dragons as a zombified brand, irrespective of who is holding onto it. indie enthusiasts tend to characterize dungeons & dragons as a reactionary force that appropriates genuine progress made by 'the people' so to speak. i claim instead that the indie scene is absolutely dependent on dungeons & dragons as a foil, that all these developments in the hobby were spearheaded by dungeons & dragons, and that no progress made in this context has been 'genuine'.

If Designers are expecting The Hobby to grow beyond being defined by D&D, it must also grow past making predominantly D&D-likes. Most art from Film (Noire, Melodrama, Action, Silent) to Painting (Realism, Expressionism, Calligraphy) to Video Games (FPS, Platformer, Adventure) has genres, and that is something that The Hobby lacks. [[Instead most of what we have is the RPG hybrid with different aesthetic genres, rather than mechanical ones. Which is cool! But we can do better]]

[[[Let it be known here that I myself have mixed feelings about D&D and frankly would join the cry that people should be aware of other systems and even other RPGs/D&D-likes, BUT my reasoning is completely different. I know plenty of people who absolutely love D&D 5e and they are not the people to whom I'm interested in getting to play other systems. Those people are not a market to be broken into! They have a system that works, and likely a GM who is hacking the game to their tastes and that's fantastic! My terror is for the people who bounce off of D&D like I did. The chorus of voices I've heard that say "I don't think it's for me" or "I really have trouble getting into it" and thus bounce off The Hobby at large because it is one that's defined itself as "Like D&D but..." rather than one of make-believe. And frankly if people wanted better D&D-likes, there's already a very high bar that's been set in the Video Game industry of what RPGs can do. But there is so much magic that is only possible in the tabletop space and my heart breaks thinking that the systems of D&D might be the reason someone never tries to a Tabletop Game again, because they think that's all there is. Where I think Mork Borg and BitD succeed is appealing to an audience that is looking for a D&D-like (RPG) but doesn't who doesn't like D&D. However I'm also arguing it's important for us to keep Designing new modes of play and diversifying what the Tabletop Space can mean for those Players who aren't looking for a D&D-like (RPG) but would like to enrich their imagination with Toys.]]

Which rotates us back around to Video Games in this Ouroboros of Narrative Design. D&D was initially built as an evolution of the War Game; a structure of Designed Toys (Software) to work with the limitless computing, judging and creative potential of the human imagination and Oral Storytelling (Hardware) which in turn began eliciting emotional responses (Art). However the story mostly ends there. Video Games conversely have been constantly innovating with their limited computing systems (Hardware), using them in creative ways to make Toys that give the illusion of an unshackled experience (Software) and speak to something within our emotions (thus blooming into the Artistic medium we know today).

I propose then that the Core (Hardware) of The Hobby is human imagination paired with Oral Storytelling paired with some degree of prompts or goals, a cocktail of very fundamental human skills I affectionately refer to as Calvinball. This Core (Hardware) of The Hobby requires no rules, no components, it only requires at least one player.

From this Core D&D has created a fierce and understandably popular genre (which for simplicity we'll still call the RPG) using the method of Game Design to structure and standardize Calvinball into a Toy (Software) that now does require rules and components, with the intent of commodifying said Toys. [[Much in the same way early Video Games copied and commodified Sports into ready-to-sell Toys on home console cartridges.]] This structure in turn allowed for the rapid exchange of new ideas within the genre, similar verbs for play, sharing of experiences, inspiration galore and an unfathomable number of variations and copies as the modernist's Teddy Bear hit the market and sold like hot cakes. Thus the Software becomes commodified and its copies innumerable. And in turn The Hobby is viewed and marketed as only having the Hardware for one kind of Software; the RPG (which is patently untrue). Thus Game Design becomes less about forging new Software that takes advantage of the Hardware in the pursuit of Art, and more about variations on the best selling Software in the pursuit of profit. [[*2]]

While I personally love the RPG (D&D-like) genre, enjoy Designing in its unexplored spaces [[Especially in regards to adapting what video games have done with the RPG - Ergo JRPGs, ARPG, TRPGs, CRPGS, etx - which we'll eventually talk a lot about on this blog]] and eagerly devour many innovations and iterations made within it, I think it's important for Game Designers to start going back to The Core if we're to truly innovate [[Especially in regards to innovating the RPG]]. And likewise I think Designers need to start building new and varied foundations off of that Core if Tabletop wishes to truly thrive as a medium for art. In essence OD&D lays down the ground work for how to turn Calvinball into a Toy with nearly no limitations, and Video Games lay down the ground work for how to turn a Toy with many limitations into a varied Art Form. So lets take the lessons learned from the latter, start building with the limitations of the former and see what our Toys can really do!

There's a quote from Satorou Iwata (The late designer and CEO at Nintendo) that fits nicely here:

"Someone who’s made games for a very long time will have naturally devised a standard set of solutions to problems that pop up during the game creation process. ... The more you’ve grown up with games, know about games, and work with games, the easier it is to fall into that trap, I think. The more standard your solutions are, the less punch they have with the audience. In other words, your solution may fix things, but it also makes them bland and ordinary."

I think this applies to Tabletop Game Design [[Especially RPG Design]] as much (if not more) than it does to Video Game design. So join me as I apply this and other critical lenses I've learned in my time with Video Games to my favorite Hobby, to hybrid new genres, build new structures, and hopefully make something fun and meaningful along the way~

[[*1: In video games when we say "The Message" this usually does not necessitate a purely moral agenda, but rather an aesthetic and emotional one. The Message of Grand Turismo is "Get in a Car" as much as the Message of Dark Souls is "Get Good" -- Personally I believe Games to be the best artistic medium for personal reflection but that idea is sort of half-baked presently]]

[[ *2: If there's a voice in your head that says you're not the kind of person doing this, and that you care much more about the emotional impact of your Games/Toys rather than the Profit, then remember we're talking about the industry and culture and not you specifically. Though you have the power to help change both with that mindset! More to the point here is that the pursuit of profit is causing the evolution of The Hobby to stall out. Likewise, this is not a crucifixion of people who are trying to sell their Games to fund the creation of more Games and their survival. In fact I'd say Video Games have evolved faster than Tabletop Games because Video Games have good funding. Thus it's more common that people can justify Designing them fulltime without starving or having no free-time. Unironically when I moved from Designing in the Video Game space to the Tabletop Space it was with the full knowledge that when you make physical Toys rather than Software Toys you end up making a lot less money because much of that profit gets devoured by production costs (This gets more complicated with print and play but we'll talk about that another time). Rather I moved to the space because of the limitless potential of its Hardware, the ease of playtesting and the fact that I could spend hours writing this blog post instead of spending hours trying to squash bugs.]]