Some thoughts on RPGs

I found an interesting read on RPGs. Something that made me think "whoooooooa" (and the reason I'm even posting this) is this little excerpt:

Probably the biggest single source of bad rule and mechanics decisions comes from the fact that most game designers, rather than actually going to a library, base most of their research on the work of other game designers. In this way errors are compounded, unrealistic ideas are perpetuated, and design flaws from the earliest of games become commonplace in all modern iterations. It all goes back to the origin of the "role playing game." Here we are talking about the true origin of the "let's pretend" game like House or Cops and Robbers, but of the origin of the systemized, rule-based role playing simulation. It all starts with Chainmail.

Chainmail was a short, cheaply published book by Gary Gygax and Dave Perren, originally published by Guidon Games, copyright 1971 (Gygax claimed 1969, but the copyright information contradicts this). It was a set of rules for tabletop miniatures battles using lead figures and dice, and contrary to popular geek-convention myth, there was indeed a 12 page fantasy rules supplement present (in addition to the now-standard concept of "hit points"). By 1974-1975 it was being published by Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). About this time, the first version of Dungeons and Dragons came out as sort of an add-on to Chainmail, three little brown books that focused on the playing of individual figurine-characters as opposed to conducting large scale tactical combat. The combat tables determining hits, misses, and damage were very similar to those in Chainmail. This is where all the trouble begins.

The modern idea of the systemized RPG, from pen and paper to MMORPG, all stems from this Chainmail legacy, and several silly factors have never been properly weeded out. The two biggies are:

The focus on combat as the core activity in games that are purportedly about assuming a role, as opposed to a tabletop miniatures battle system
Arbitrary and unrealistic characteristics ascribed to weapons and armor, very convenient for calculating casualties in mass combat quickly yet wholly inappropriate for small-scale tactical simulations
It is difficult to underestimate the ability of people to consider themselves an authority on things when their only source of information is a game manual someone else wrote before them, which was in turn based on another game manual, etc. etc. Things become worse when these designer-types elect to "make a few little adjustments" in the thirdhand systems they're stealing from.

Thinking about RPG design is something I've been doing quite a bit lately as I'm intending to make one. In particular, I've been musing lately about RPGs I've played and what I like and dislike about them. I have my own thoughts on the subject of RPG design overall, but the two points in the quote above seem to ring true.

I may come back and post my own thoughts on RPG design.

...But then again, I may not