The Forge Archives

Quote from: Matt SnyderMalcolm, I'm not sure who's claiming they don't need to do anything in designing a game to make it newbie friendly. I've seen the opposite approach in many, many Forge-related games.

(For example, my own game, Dust Devils, has already been highlighted as a game that approaches, but doesn't quite achieve, a superb level of newbie-friendliness in both writing and design. Good. That was one of my intentions; I sure as heck wasn't hoping "innate virtue" -- whatever that means -- would get me there.)
...
So, where are you seeing this claim? About which specific games? How might your observation constructively help those and other designers as they work on new games or revisions of older ones?

OK, I think Malcolm was referring to comments in White Wolf discussion (split) and Rapid-deployment rpgs.  For example, there were claims that My Life With Master was much more newbie-friendly than White Wolf games, along with Primetime Adventures and Universalis.  

I'm sort of fence-sitting here.  In my experience, while there are exceptions, most indie games are written for experienced roleplayers.  They skip over defining what the game is; they don't provide startup features like sample characters and an adventure; and in general they assume knowledge.  Of course, this is also common in non-indie games but IMO slightly less so.  While I think that MLWM is a nifty game, I think it is not at all newbie-friendly.  It launches into talking about GMs, characters, d4's, and so forth without any explanation.  It doesn't have any filled-out character sheets, or a sample adventure.  PTA is much more newbie-friendly, but I'm still leary of handing it to a non-roleplayer.  

That aside, I think the problem is one of generalizations: which I think is going on on both sides.  Some people have generalized about indie games being newbie-friendly; while Malcolm generalized the opposite way.  

My suggestion here is to talk about specific indie games, how newbie-friendly they are, and what can be done to improve that.  I don't have Dust Devils (sorry, Matt).  I guess I'd put PTA as the most newbie-friendly in my experience, but I certainly haven't read everything out there.

QuoteI guess I'd put PTA as the most newbie-friendly in my experience, but I certainly haven't read everything out there.

Hey John, them's kind words. Did you get a copy at GenCon, or is this based on hearsay? Either way, I'll take it.

Anyway, here's some thoughts on newbie-friendliness, with some help from my wife the non-gamer.

1) the game should have some connection with games that they've already played or pastimes that they are familiar with. Primetime Adventures is about TV. Everyone except the elitist snob at your workplace who says oh, I don't watch TV* knows what the allure of a great show is. But what's GURPS similar to? How do you quickly explain what GURPS is about? No slight against GURPS, but it's not an elevator pitch kind of game. Dust Devils: westerns. zing.

2) There can't be big obstacles in the way of playing once they actually agree to check it out. That includes 300 pages of reading and 2 hours to make a character. Non gamers who like to play games don't want to read rules. People don't even want to read the 2-page pamphlet that comes with Scattergories. And imagine that we're sitting around at my place and you've never played a roleplaying game before, and you say, hey, what's D&D? Can we play that? And I say, sure, we just need you to fill out this character sheet first, with 8,000 things on it. That'll kill someone's interest.

It's kind of a combo marketing strategy. You have to intrigue them with (1), and make sure (2) keeps them there, or at least doesn't scare them off.

*If you're reading this and you're that person, just so you know: nobody likes you.

One thing that I think Ron really got right in that discussion (but nobody really paid attention to) is that White Wolf games and D&D and other "mainstream" 250-page tomes are aiming a different newbie audience than the people who pick up most indie games to start roleplaying.  Mainstream games often appeal to the younger, upcoming group that has basically the same demographics as existing roleplayers: mostly male, overeducated, disposable income, possibly with below-average social contacts, likes comic books, video games, and scifi & fantasy, etc.  They help continue to serve the existing traditions and often manage to bring in quite a few people from outside this narrow range, because of high exposure, but I don't think that's their main focus.

Many indie games, like Ron said, attract people like the spouses of ex-roleplayers, people who know something about roleplaying but wouldn't normally have given it a try because it wasn't something that they felt comfortable doing, especially in the existing roleplaying culture and the stereotypes thereof.  In general, I think the indie games that exist now are mostly aimed at an older audience of people who realize that roleplaying exists, but haven't ever done it.  Also, and I don't know if this counts as "gaining new players," a lot of indie games keep dissatisfied roleplayers from dropping the hobby completely (I know they did for me), probably because most indie designers are dissatisfied roleplayers themselves.

Going to specific examples, because that's what John says he wants to talk about, how about Vincent's Nighttime Animals Save the World?  I mean, gee, if I wanted to introduce a total newbie to roleplaying and the whole idea of shared imagination, that would be the game to choose.  It even incorperates simple mechanics and a traditional GM-player relationship, while remaining casual and super-accessible.  Vincent plays it with his 7-year-old kid.  It's like an out-of-body LARP too, where you imagine your character next to you, in the environment (so no huge game world full of details to keep in your head), but it's not "you," in the same way as a normal LARP or tabletop game.

Hey!  I'm that guy!  And I even bought your fscking game!

yrs--
--Ben

Hey John,

While I think that MLWM is a nifty game, I think it is not at all newbie-friendly. It launches into talking about GMs, characters, d4's, and so forth without any explanation. It doesn't have any filled-out character sheets, or a sample adventure....My suggestion here is to talk about specific indie games, how newbie-friendly they are, and what can be done to improve that.

I think conversation would be facilitated by decomposing "newbie-friendly" to the constituent parts of 1) accessibility, and 2) presentation. My Life with Master was not written to newbies. It was written to disillusioned, maybe lapsed and jaded gamers tired of all the lies (i.e. me in 1999). In consciously omitting a playable sample Master/minion/situation, and obfuscating the stats of the minions used in the examples of play, the game seeks to foist the thrill of its collaborative social dynamic onto otherwise dubious gamers. "Please, I insist."

So in being written to people like me, it fails newbie-friendly in its presentation, as you suggest, by referencing dice and GMs and whatnot without explaining. But system- and subject-wise, if presented to newbies by someone familiar with the terminology and ephemera, the way damn near all of us learned how to play RPGs anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that it succeeds in being eminently accessible.

Paul

QuoteI'm sort of fence-sitting here. In my experience, while there are exceptions, most indie games are written for experienced roleplayers. They skip over defining what the game is; they don't provide startup features like sample characters and an adventure; and in general they assume knowledge. Of course, this is also common in non-indie games but IMO slightly less so. While I think that MLWM is a nifty game, I think it is not at all newbie-friendly. It launches into talking about GMs, characters, d4's, and so forth without any explanation. It doesn't have any filled-out character sheets, or a sample adventure. PTA is much more newbie-friendly, but I'm still leary of handing it to a non-roleplayer.

Okay, imagine we have two tomes. Both of them contain the same sort of stuff you mention above, that requires skill ranks in knowledge: gamer (as does that in joke!).

Now, one is quite thin, perhaps twenty pages. The other is around 150 to 200 pages.(Just checking a my life with master review, I see its 64 pages. Not quite as lightweight as my example but you get the drift.)

If you don't know you don't need to use everything (like us gamers do), you'll look at the book and think you'll have to read all of it. Which is more appealing?

Okay, with the size there's a corresponding price reduction. Now, your a newbie and think you might even end up playing this just once. Which one do you invest in?

Finally, the smaller one seems to have some goal...its contents and even it's title speak of a bad guy. Even a newbie knows bad guys need to be defeated - clear goal. Defeating bad guys sounds kind of fun - clear reward.

If we think of newbie friendlyness on a sliding bar, we can place both books at quite different points on the bar. But a binary interpretation is probably going to lead to having them both on the newbie unfriendly side.

Perhaps a scale of 1 to 10 might be better.

Quote from: Noon

Okay, imagine we have two tomes. Both of them contain the same sort of stuff you mention above, that requires skill ranks in knowledge: gamer (as does that in joke!).

Now, one is quite thin, perhaps twenty pages. The other is around 150 to 200 pages.(Just checking a my life with master review, I see its 64 pages. Not quite as lightweight as my example but you get the drift.)

As a newbie, I choose the one that tells me what an RPG is and how to play them.

Disclaimer:  Serious question, no hooks intended, I just want to understand.

Do you want the one that tells you what a general RPG is, and how to play the whole genre of games?  

Or are you just looking for one that tells you what this game is, and how to play it, without assuming that you already know key facets?

Quote from: eyebeams
As a newbie, I choose the one that tells me what an RPG is and how to play them.

Slow down. Both books are as I said, the same in my example as they both lack that quality. And by lacking that quality, they have something like 'To understand roleplay, we need to take a time machine back to ancient greese...' sort of bollocks, both of them. I mentioned MLWM in case it didn't quite fit the example for someone in terms of page count, if someone wanted to insert it into it to see how it would go. But it's supposed to be a generic comparison to show binary evaluations suck.

QuoteAs a newbie, I choose the one that tells me what an RPG is and how to play them

Has anyone ever read a game book that did a really good job of this?  Not the typical slap dash "like cowboys and indians but with rules" nonsense. Or the boiler plate stuff that reappears over and over again.  But a really good "if you gave it to your Aunt Lois she could teach her bridge club how to play from the book" kind of text.

I haven't.

"What is an RPG" & "How to roleplay" sections are a waste of space even for newbies.

"How to play this game, right here, right now"...THAT's the text that we need to see more of.

No newbie want's to pick up Game X and read a "How to Roleplay" chapter.  They want to pick up Game X and read a "How to play Game X" chapter.

Figuring out how to write such a chapter is an ongoing process that many indie designers have taken stabs at.


Nobody needs to be taught "how to role play" every human being has roleplayed every day of their lives from the time they were old enough to learn the rules of etiquette and social behavior.  What is pretending to be a fine upstanding young man when you're meeting your girlfriends parents but roleplaying.  What is the "professional demeanor" that we put on when we go into the office but roleplaying.  What is the story you give your wife when you come home late and don't want to tell her you were at the strip club with the guys but roleplaying.  What are the mind games couples play on each other in their relationship but roleplaying.

People already know, in spades, how to pretend to be someone they're not.  What they need to be taught is not the generalities of how to roleplay...but the specifics of how to apply that ability to this particular game they are about to play right now.

Quote from: Matt Wilson1) the game should have some connection with games that they've already played or pastimes that they are familiar with. Primetime Adventures is about TV. Everyone except the elitist snob at your workplace who says oh, I don't watch TV* knows what the allure of a great show is. But what's GURPS similar to? How do you quickly explain what GURPS is about? No slight against GURPS, but it's not an elevator pitch kind of game. Dust Devils: westerns. zing.

Here I agree completely.  I would add, though, that the connection doesn't have to be "mainstream" in the sense that everyone knows it.  It just has to be something which your target non-gamer audience knows.  For example, goths connect to Vampire: The Masquerade; and anime fans connect to Big Eyes, Small Mouth.  

Quote from: Matt Wilson2) There can't be big obstacles in the way of playing once they actually agree to check it out. That includes 300 pages of reading and 2 hours to make a character. Non gamers who like to play games don't want to read rules. People don't even want to read the 2-page pamphlet that comes with Scattergories. And imagine that we're sitting around at my place and you've never played a roleplaying game before, and you say, hey, what's D&D? Can we play that? And I say, sure, we just need you to fill out this character sheet first, with 8,000 things on it. That'll kill someone's interest.

Well, I partly agree with this -- that's why I am in favor of having sample characters and a good sample adventure.  However, as I mentiond in Rapid deployment rpgs, I think it is easy to fall into the trap of dumbing things down for the newbies -- which I think is a mistake.  

I disagree with the "rules lite" argument that game books have to be short and super-simple for non-gamers to play them.  If you look at more "mainstream" games like Magic: The Gathering or many popular videogames, there is a lot of complexity to them.  They can be played before learning most of that complexity, but many people like to have that depth below the surface.  Empirically, there were plenty of simplified rules-lite games in the 80's, and Vampire: The Masquerade outshone them all in getting new players.  What I take from that is that a lot of people are willing to (gasp) read a book if it is relatively well-made and interesting to them.  In contrast, many people will only glance at a two-page sheet that you hand them, because they don't see anything interesting about that game.  

Which is not to say that complexity is unimportant, but isn't purely one-sided.  Complexity can be part of the draw for a game rather than being a barrier.  Now, I agree that something on the order of full-bore RoleMaster is never going to go over well.  But once you're at the level of  moderate-to-simple games (i.e. Basic D&D, West End's Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu), I think this is an issue.

I want to throw out some ideas I've got based on my experience with The Mountain Witch. I believe MW has non-gamer appeal. When I explain MW to non-gamers, it intrigues them. They often say it 'sounds cool.' More than one person said they thought it would make a good movie. And even if they're a little leery, most say that they would be willing to give it a try. (Interestingly, I feel I have to do more explaining to gamers before the light bulbs start going off, I guess because they have more pre-conceived notions.)

Now what's important to note about this, I communcate these things to my non-gamer friends without ever discussing rules.

The reason I believe MW has this effect is because MW has a clearly expressed premise (in the non-GNS sense) that people can relate to. People pick up on the implications of Trust pretty much right away. I feel people 'get' the spirit of the game.

I think that once you get a person to the point where they 'get it' and are interested in playing the game, the complexity and... err, learnability of the rules become a minor issue. If people want to play the game, I believe they will do whatever it takes. In other words, they will learn whatever rules they have to, no matter how complex (given that the rules are coherently designed and adequately explained).*

I think this is the same advantage that PTA and MLwM has.
_________

(*) I'm not saying that complexity doesn't matter or won't have an effect, but rather that I think it's a side issue.

[edit] Cross-posted with John. I think we are both trying to express simliar ideas. [/edit]

Quote from: John KimI disagree with the "rules lite" argument that game books have to be short and super-simple for non-gamers to play them.  If you look at more "mainstream" games like Magic: The Gathering or many popular videogames, there is a lot of complexity to them.

There is complexity in the play of Magic, but not in the rules of Magic. I remember buying my first Magic decks, just before it got really big. I'd vaguely heard of it, but at the time, the only games I was playing were RPGs & the occasional mainstream boardgame. My friend & I bought Magic decks, went home, read the very short book of rules, and began to play. Out of the box, Magic was pretty simple to learn. However, the complexity of play wasn't nearly so easy for me to learn. That and the escalating cost of playing against my friends (who were spending hundreds of dollars on cards) turned me off to Magic.

Overall, from my own experience with non-gamers & gamers alike, I think Matt & his wife are spot on.

I'm also thinking that having a "how to play role-playing games (in general)" section in any RPG is a lot like having a "how to play boardgames" section in the rules for Monopoly. Playing D&D is very different from playing Vampire, playing Vampire is very different from playing Trollbabe, and playing Trollbabe is very different from playing My Life With Master. I'm starting to think that there's no reason to assume that learning to play one of these games means you can play all of them straight out of the box.

When you want to learn an instrument, you don't go to a music teacher and say, "Teach me to play guitar, piano, drums and saxophone." And when you learn guitar, what you learn on Day 1 isn't applicable for playing jazz guitar, metal guitar, blues guitar and classical guitar. Learning to play Poker doesn't mean you can pick up a deck of cards and start playing Bridge. Learning to play Monopoly doesn't mean you can look at a Risk board and intuit how to play.

So, yeah, I think one definite approach to writing for newbies is to not write as if you're teaching people how to play all RPGs. Teach them how to play your own RPG, and that's it.

Actually, Ralph, I've met lots and lots of people who benefitted from just that kind of cliched text. People can and do buy mainstream games in isolation from other gamers (it may happen with indie games, too but book trade encourages it more, I think). I know, because I'm one of 'em. I nicked money from my Mom's wallet and bought a copy of D&D (and r0xx0red at some video games) when I was wee, read it, got a vague idea of how to game and ran it for my non-gamer friends. This and Dragon Magazine articles were my sole source of gaming info for about the first two years.

I know lots of people who learned to roleplay from some variation of the descriptions in TMNT and Robotech. A while back, I met a woman who had only ever played Rifts because she grabbed a copy cheap and suckered non-gamer friends for a spin.

Hey John,

QuoteThey can be played before learning most of that complexity,

Hey, if they can play without having to learn it all, there is no problem (and as you say, it can be a plus).

I'm reminded of the old class trick, where you hand everyone in a class an envelope with a special horoscope written just for them. Everyone reads it and rates how well it applies to them and everyone rates them pretty highly.

You've probably heard of it before and how all the horoscopes contain the same text.

Most 'how to roleplay' sections are very open to having anything read into them. And as Ralph said, everyone already knows how to roleplay.

Quote from: NoonI'm reminded of the old class trick, where you hand everyone in a class an envelope with a special horoscope written just for them. Everyone reads it and rates how well it applies to them and everyone rates them pretty highly.

You've probably heard of it before and how all the horoscopes contain the same text.

Most 'how to roleplay' sections are very open to having anything read into them. And as Ralph said, everyone already knows how to roleplay.

What excerpts are you thinking about exactly? Because the characteristics of these sections in lots of actual books are pretty straightforward.

Looking at the Palladium standard cut text, the format is pretty straightforward. You are pretending you are some dude. The GM tells you that some dude is in a bind. When you want the dude to do something that's tricky, you roll some dice.

Saying that everybody knows how to roleplay is, in a sense, true. I'm just not sure that it's a *useful* sense. People know how to play games with rules, talk to each other and pretend they're other dudes.

Everybody knows how to throw a punch, move from side to side and raise their arm up to keep from being whacked, too. We would not assume from the this that boxing is not a skill. The same goes for (in 80% of the population of developed nations) writing, acting, and a host of other things. They are bundles of activities that everybody knows how to do -- but they do not necessarily really know how to be a dramatic performer, writer, or boxer.

This isn't just a matter of being good at something. It's a matter of the basic proficiency that allows further development to follow. Fortunately, gaming is easier than all of my examples, because the standards are subjective and interpersonal, rather than performative -- but they do exist.

I believe it's important to come to grips with the fact that the associations between different innate attributes that we can really call "knowing how to game," are not as intuitive and as easy to conjoin into a functional whole as we would like. If roleplaying really was an innate talent, it would be a universal human pastime, like music. Again, I suppose we could still claim this, but this stretched roleplaying's definition to the point where it is useless to talk about, and in fact, destroys the idea of roleplaying at all, since from a very broad view, we ought to just fold it into some other universal human pastime and admit that it is a cultural hiccup and nothing more.

Of course, even cultural hiccups are devilishly hard to pick up.

Here's an axiom for consideration:

Any definition of roleplaying which is so broad as to assume it is a primarily innate ability is a destructive semantic position that makes it imposssible to talk about rolegaming as a distinct thing.

That's why I said the rules should include specific explanations for How to Play that particular game.

Roleplaying is universal.  The specific subset of skills on how to apply that ability to the specific game you're holding in your hand right now is what needs to be taught in the rules.

What is the structure of game play.
Who gets to say what and when.
Do you have to speak in the first person when portraying your character.
How do you interrupt what someone else is saying if you disagree with it.
How do you decide who's version of events gets used.
How does the way you portray your character effect the actual rules.
How do the rules effect the way you portray your character.
What exactly is the responsibility of the player.

These are all things that are vital to lay out in the open for the benefit of people who aren't being introduced to the game by existing gamers.

Actual instructions on "How to Play".

Most RPG books do a good job of describing what the rules for the various subsystems are.  Very few do a good job of describing how those subsystems work together in actual play and what the moment to moment events of the game are supposed to look like.  

Teaching what the rules are, and teaching "How to Play" are two very different things.  That's why I'm a big fan of (for accessibility purposes) modeling the game structure on more traditional game structure rather than traditional RPG structure.  It makes teaching "How to Play" much easier.

QuoteHere's an axiom for consideration:

Any definition of roleplaying which is so broad as to assume it is a primarily innate ability is a destructive semantic position that makes it imposssible to talk about rolegaming as a distinct thing.

Actually just the opposite.  Recognizing that roleplaying is so broad that most people can already do it easily with very little effort (its not innate BTW, its learned as a part of growing up) is vital to understanding what is REALLY important when talking about role gaming as a distinct thing.

What makes roleplaying a distinct form of entertainment is NOT the roleplaying.  Roleplaying is not unique.  Roleplaying happens all the time.

What makes roleplaying a distinct form of entertainment is the structure that surrounds the activity of roleplaying...the rules, the techniques, the way play progresses.  You can talk about "how to roleplay" until you're blue in the face, but if you don't talk about the actual moment to moment structure of play you haven't taught anyone anything about playing the game.


A rule book shouldn't try to teach people how to roleplay -- they already know.  A rule book shouldn't try to teach people what a story is -- they already know.

A rule book should teach people how, step-by-step, to use the rules and standards of the game to create a story (in the generic sense of the word) while playing a role.

Its the structure that people don't get.  Not the concept of story telling.

Quote from: Valamir
What is the structure of game play.
Who gets to say what and when.
Do you have to speak in the first person when portraying your character.
How do you interrupt what someone else is saying if you disagree with it.
How do you decide who's version of events gets used.
How does the way you portray your character effect the actual rules.
How do the rules effect the way you portray your character.
What exactly is the responsibility of the player.

I curious as to what you would say the answers to these are for Hero or GURPS. This isn't idle speculation, JAGS-2 will be out soon--and while not aimed at newbies, if you think that there are specific answers to these that would assist veteran roleplayers I'd like to hear them.

-Marco

I think we gotta pin our definition of newbie down. In another thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12647) Malcolm discounted spouses as not counting as neophytes.

That kinda implies that you are not a newbie if you have had a social relationship with someone who has already roleplayed and can act as a "gate keeper" to the hobby (or are only partners excluded?)

Personally I don't think it's valid to exlude these people from the definition – my own experience is that at least half of gamers I know started because someone else who gamed brought them into the hobby – rather than via the path of buying of D&D (or whatever) cold.

So what counts as newbie?

Alan.

QuoteI curious as to what you would say the answers to these are for Hero or GURPS. This isn't idle speculation, JAGS-2 will be out soon--and while not aimed at newbies, if you think that there are specific answers to these that would assist veteran roleplayers I'd like to hear them.

I haven't read the current editions of either of these.  From editions far past I don't recall the rules providing specific answers to most of the questions.  You can get glimmers and implications from scattered passages in the text, but the GM and gaming groups are kind of left to their own devices to come up with the structure, the framework for playing the rules.

You can't actually play the rules without the framework, but traditionally the framework comes "some assembly required".


To be truly newbie friendly you have to start pretty basic.  

How does a player identify when it is their turn to say something?
What sort of things is a player supposed / allowed to say when it is their turn?
How does a player know how much "stuff" they're allowed to say before its someone elses turn?
If these decisions are left to the GM, is the GM's authority in this regard outlined specifically and what guidelines are given to help a novice judge what is appropriate?

Most people know what constitutes a "turn" in Monopoly.  You roll the dice, you move the token, you follow the directions on the space. You pass the dice to the left.  

RPGs aimed at novices need to take similiar time and consideration for describing what "a turn" looks like and how the "turn" progresses from player to player.


For games aimed at more veteran players like JAGS-2 I think you'd still benefit from taking an approach that very carefully outlines who gets to speak, what sort of things they get to speak about, how much authority they have to make things happen and how much what they say is merely asking permission.

There are alot of techniques that game groups have adopted for figuring this stuff out, but I think outlining it more clearly in the rules makes for a cleaner game.  For instance when there is an area of the game world that has not been outlined who has the right/responsibility to fill it in.  For instance if someone is poisoned but the GM's notes are silent on the nature of the poison, and the player makes a Knowledge of Poisons roll...who gets to describe the nature of the poison...is the GM forced to come up with specific answers?  Is the player allowed to fill in the blanks themselves?  When is a player allowed to know the results of their own roll?  When should a GM make the roll for the player in secret?  Should the GM roll for NPCs in the open or in secret.  

Those sorts of answers are often missing entirely from the rule book and players are left to figure out their own methods of play.  Well written board game rules are very clear about this stuff.  Do you discard the card face up or face down?  Are you allowed to look at previous discards?  Are you allowed to know how much money the other players have?  RPGs could learn alot about how to write clear instructions for how to play from board and card games.


IIEE stuff like I outlined in my essay is also pretty important even for games aimed at veterans.

Perhaps even more usefully is to put that list, or something like it, into the "how to play" section and, if the rules don't specifically address these issues, say so.

That way, you make it explicit that these issues have to be addressed for functional play, but that the important thing is that the resolutoin of those issues works for the group you're playing in.

So, in the case of GURPS, the resolution of most of these is down to the group, not the rulebook, but these issues must be addressed satisfactorily for satisfactory play. But I'd have to have a look at my rulebook to be sure that they're not addressed there.

And I'm definitely with Ralph that it's the peculiar structure of the activity of role-playing that needs teaching, not the basic concept. It's also the thing that gets left out of most rpg rulebooks that use these conventions, and put into ones that don't, because knowledge of the structure of conventional rpg's is assumed in both cases.

Quote from: Valamir

For games aimed at more veteran players like JAGS-2 I think you'd still benefit from taking an approach that very carefully outlines who gets to speak, what sort of things they get to speak about, how much authority they have to make things happen and how much what they say is merely asking permission.

I understand that's the theory. In practice, though, what do I write? Since there aren't any "right answers" (although if you give me some 'right answers' for GURPS, I'd certainly like to look at them) I can't see this doing anything but hurting.

Even a 100pg essay wouldn't cover everything I take into account when running a game. No newbie could benefit from that.

If I did have a copious work that described my way of handling pacing, suggestions (or even worse, rules) for talking about how to describe what is seen by a perception roll, or under what conditions a player may demand a roll as a "fair shake" all I can see that doing is limiting the number of people who'd like the game. I can't see that as expanding the audience (remember: if I'm being complete, newbies will not want to wade through my analysis).

I can give short answers--which sounds good--but for a traditional game,  IIEE stuff is at best very complicated--and at worst this will be incomplete and argument-fodder.

Basically, I like the idea--I don't see how to make it work (for a traditional game).

-Marco

For that matter, can anyone point to a simple, clear, "RPG's as they are played" that sets out some sort of acceptable version of the conventions?

QuoteI understand that's the theory. In practice, though, what do I write? Since there aren't any "right answers"

Its not necessary to give specific right answers...although for games intentionally designed to be non gamer accessible my answer would be "pick A answer and use that".  

I think its generally a mistake to say "there are lots of different ways the GM can handle this and they are all good to some extent so I'll just not say anything about it".

It should at least be raised as an issue groups will have to decide for themselves.

I tried to do that with Uni (which has the advantage of being pretty focused) but there are lots of different ways to charge Coins for Facts and determine what to charge for and what not.  The "right" answer is the one the group likes best and clearly I couldn't outline all possibilities.  

But what I could do is say "hey, here's something that is an important issue.  Here's why its an issue.  And you'll need to figure this out for your play to work"

Quote
If I did have a copious work that described my way of handling pacing, suggestions (or even worse, rules) for talking about how to describe what is seen by a perception roll, or under what conditions a player may demand a roll as a "fair shake" all I can see that doing is limiting the number of people who'd like the game. I can't see that as expanding the audience (remember: if I'm being complete, newbies will not want to wade through my analysis).

No, I agree, I don't think that would be useful (as part of the rules, as a stand alone guide maybe).

Rather, when you right a rule, take a minute to deconstruct the unspoken assumptions behind it...then actually identify them.

As an example, lets say you have a rule "A player can call for a Skill Check to attempt some action."

Ok...run that through the 5Ws+H.

Who can call for a skill check..."a player" isn't very helpful here.  Is it ANY player can call for a skill check...or just a player whose character is currently involved in the scene...or just the player whose character currently has initiative.  Rewrite as:  "Any player whose character is currently involved in the scene can call for a Skill Check" for instance.

What can the call for..."a Skill Check" isn't very helpful here.  Can they call for ANY skill check?  Can they make a Sky Diving skill check when driving a car?...or are they limited to making Skill Checks that apply to the current scene.  Who decides if they apply...the GM?  What advice do you give the GM on how to make this determination.   Can the player "spend a hero point" to force a skill to apply?  Can the GM rule that it only partially applies and ascribe a penalty to it? Rewrite as "Any player whose character is currently involved in the scene can call for a Skill Check, if that Skill is appropriate to the current circumstances.  The GM has the final authority to decide if a skill applies (see Chapter 7 for GM advice on this topic) and may decide to allow the check at a penalty if the application is a stretch"   oops...bad wording...who decides if the application is a stretch.  Rewrite that part "...at a penalty if he judges the application to be a stretch".

When can it be called for...any time?  Can the player interupt the GM while he's speaking to demand a check?  Can they interrupt another player?  Does the GM have to allow the check right then or does the GM have control over when the Check occurs.  Are there specific Turn Order rules that apply if players want to each make checks at the same time.  There usually is for combat (initiative) but what about other checks.  Does the GM have the authority to determine what order the skill checks should occur in?  Are there any restrictions on this authority.


I stop there, but I think you can see where I'm going.

When you write a rule like "The player can call for a Skill Check", built into that is a lifetime of gameplay assumptions based on how you'd interpret that rule.  Instead of assuming that the readers will share your assumptions spell them out.

It doesn't require an essay, but it does require some careful consideration of word choices.

I'm struggling to find that word choice in Robots & Rapiers right now.  I don't know how well I'll succeed, but the above sort of clarity is what I'm shooting for.

Quote
Even a 100pg essay wouldn't cover everything I take into account when running a game. No newbie could benefit from that.

Definitely, which I think means that a newbie friendly game needs to have a simpler structure that can be explained in a few pages or so (at most). Perhaps it can be open to expansion, but perhaps it's best to make the game intentional, and not allow that creep. When the new player is ready for a more complex structure, they can seek out new games. Perhaps by then they have also connected with some other gamers who can mentor them.

My start in gaming was in a near vaccum. We were introduced to the game by my friends older brother, but he only played with us once or twice. Later, I hooked up with some older gamers who gave some mentoring, but it wasn't until a store owner hooked me up with a real mentor that I really took off. Part of what made that mentorship valuable to me was the mentor playing in my games. But mentorship is definitely a topic for another thread.

Perhaps some of the confusion here is that there are in fact two ways of introducing newbies. One is the mentorship way in which they are introduced by an experienced player. The other is the self start method where the new player has heard of the hobby somehow, and is interested, and buys the game and takes it home, and convinces some buddies to try it out.

Frank

Yeah, ironing out the language is quite a task. Clarity and completeness are often at odds so getting it right can be tough. No question.

My basic thought though was that I've seen players not in a scene call functionally for a skill check.

Player A: "Hmm ... I dunno. I think maybe ... hmmm."
Player B: (not in scene) "Make a detective skill roll to see if your character knows what to do at the crime scene."
Player A: "I shall ... Get a Clue!" (rolls dice)

Now, I'm not saying that this has to be legit for any game--and I know that suggesting a player call for a skill check is different than telling the GM that I'm asking to make a check--and all that.

But I'm not sure that ... you know ... maybe this: one of the things (and I'm not the first person to say this here) that really made me 'get it' was the example of play in the DMG.

IIRC that even had a caller but we ditched that idea easily.

Maybe if each concept had an example call-out that has the gaming group in a situation calling for a skill check or making a perception roll or whatever.

The thing is, I'm dubious that a really concrete answer will be good--but I think that examples of play leave a lot open in a good and functional way. If you have Experienced-Ed say "I cross the street and buy a paper" and Newbie-Ned say "Does he have to roll for that?" and GM-George say "Well, no--there's no important hazardous conditions or, in my opinion any real chance of failure--and he has the money to buy the paper--so it's okay. But if he was dashing through heavy traffic or was known to be almost dead broke then the dice might come into play ..."

I think that might be a good way explain concepts without having to enumerate them (which, I think, creates its own problems).

-Marco

Quote
My basic thought though was that I've seen players not in a scene call functionally for a skill check.

True, though this falls more into giving advice. Many games do just fine with leaving this question to the players as part of social contract. On the other hand, many people feel like advice should be "in character" in role playing games, so perhaps it is important to address this in the rules (and as Ralph mentions, you can address a rule like this by identifying the issue, and suggesting the players work out their own answer - and I think this is something anyone who has played games has the skill to answer for themselves).

Your point about street crossing is a good one. Many games mention the common sense rule in determining when skill checks are necessary. The potential problem is that such games leave themselves open to very different play. As soon as you identify a time when you don't need to make a skill check, you have introduced Drama or Karma resolution. That's something that probably needs to be clear (which was a nice thing in Everway, the rules talked about DFK, and gave the GM guidance on making his own decision - what perhaps was missing is that the players should also be involved in such decisions).

This is one of the things that I see as one of huge potentials of Universalis. Establishing the social contract and sharing expectations are part of the game play. Players introduced by this should be a lot more prepared to handle the decision as to whether to have a caller in D&D or not (I may be misremembering, but I thought they still referenced a caller in 3e, though as almost an aside compared to it being an explicit part of the rules in AD&D [that most people promptly discarded]).

Frank

Examples of play told from the perspective of the actual players and what they say and do are, for accessibility purposes, far superior to "in character" examples that blur the distinction between player and character.

I'm reminded of an exercise one of my elementary school teachers had us do.  We had to write instructions for how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  The teacher then carried them out as written.

when instructed to "spread the peanut butter on the bread" she took the jar, set it on top of the loaf and rolled it around.  etc, etc.

The correct answer was to go step by step..."grab jar in the left hand, grab lid with the right hand, rotate lid clockwise to loosen, remove lid, set lid aside, grab knife in right hand, insert into open mouth of jar...etc."

Point being that all of those steps were being assumed in the answers we gave, but for a person who has never seen a jar of peanut butter before (or a computer which was what the excercise was about) you couldn't make those assumptions.


In other words, as game designers we need to be aware that there is a certain level of understanding that we assume our readers share.  If you truly want to make an accessable game you have to be avoid assuming the reader knows more about the process than they do.

Quote from: joshua neffThere is complexity in the play of Magic, but not in the rules of Magic. I remember buying my first Magic decks, just before it got really big. I'd vaguely heard of it, but at the time, the only games I was playing were RPGs & the occasional mainstream boardgame. My friend & I bought Magic decks, went home, read the very short book of rules, and began to play.

I think we're mostly agreeing here -- although Magic does have a not-inconsiderable rulebook and a ton of short rules printed on cards.  But, I do think an RPG should be simple enough at base that when you take the pre-made characters and pre-made scenario, you can start playing with minimal effort.  However, this is not the same thing as saying that it has to be simple in all play and fit all rules in a pamphlet.  

Quote from: joshua neffSo, yeah, I think one definite approach to writing for newbies is to not write as if you're teaching people how to play all RPGs. Teach them how to play your own RPG, and that's it.

I completely agree.  I think the question comes: what are good examples, and what can we learn from them?  My feeling is that the two most important factors are (1) real examples of play (i.e. what the players say); and (2) sample characters and a sample adventure.  Even "what is this game" isn't very important if it is phrased as definitions.  

I think Prince Valiant is good for this.  I also think of Basic Set D&D (80's era), Ghostbusters, and Marvel Superheroes.  I know the topic I said for this was indie games, but I can't think of indie games which really meet the criteria for me.  (But again, my knowledge is limited.)

Quote from: Valamir
What can the call for..."a Skill Check" isn't very helpful here.  Can they call for ANY skill check?  Can they make a Sky Diving skill check when driving a car?...or are they limited to making Skill Checks that apply to the current scene.  Who decides if they apply...the GM?  What advice do you give the GM on how to make this determination.   Can the player "spend a hero point" to force a skill to apply?  Can the GM rule that it only partially applies and ascribe a penalty to it? Rewrite as "Any player whose character is currently involved in the scene can call for a Skill Check, if that Skill is appropriate to the current circumstances.  The GM has the final authority to decide if a skill applies (see Chapter 7 for GM advice on this topic) and may decide to allow the check at a penalty if the application is a stretch"   oops...bad wording...who decides if the application is a stretch.  Rewrite that part "...at a penalty if he judges the application to be a stretch".

When can it be called for...any time?  Can the player interupt the GM while he's speaking to demand a check?  Can they interrupt another player?  Does the GM have to allow the check right then or does the GM have control over when the Check occurs.  Are there specific Turn Order rules that apply if players want to each make checks at the same time.  There usually is for combat (initiative) but what about other checks.  Does the GM have the authority to determine what order the skill checks should occur in?  Are there any restrictions on this authority.

I stop there, but I think you can see where I'm going.

Oddly enough, it's actually exactly this consideration that convinced me that it's a terrible idea to try to be specific and precise about how to play. If you try to precisely describe how the rules should work, then you will invariably end up generating extremely dense legalese.  Legalese is destructive to play for two reasons, first because it discourages the players from reading the rules, and second because it undercuts their confidence and sense of mastery over the game.

My own belief is that you shouldn't describe all of the rules -- you should describe just enough of them that the players can fill in the gaps as they go along. This is what I did with Lexicon; when I wrote it I knew that the rules didn't describe the terminal conditions properly (you need to do  a little algebra to figure them out), and I didn't want to specify those because they would greatly complexify the writeup. I figured it was a better idea to simply omit them, and trust the players to fill in the gaps at the end of the game.

I'm with Neel on this one.  Ralph, if you look at your list, most of your questions (especially "who gets to say what, when / who's version of events happens") are convered by basic social interaction, which is really something that everyone (hopefully) knows how to do.  The later of the two is basically the Lumpley Principle (system as building consensus on what occurs) and if you read Vincent's posts on improvizational system, you'll see that, if people know how to communicate with each other, you don't really need an external system or someone telling you when to roll the dice.  You just decide things the same way you'd decide where to go to dinner or what movie to go see, through group negotiation and exploiting the power relations and sympathies of group members.

So, in my book, what you need to tell people is how to decide things that are outside the realm of normal social interaction.

Hmm, I'm not sure I totally agree. For one thing, I know that in such a simple thing as a conversation, not everyone is good at giving turns and interrupting or not interrupting.

An example from a recent Fudge game I played in:

Our party arrived at an inn. The NPCish leader (he was clearly an NPC, but played by the GMs brother) was seriously ill. The innkeeper was missing. The tension was building. The NPC had a heart attack (and eventually died). A couple PCs started searching the basement, arrows started flying. And my character never got a meaningfull turn in all of this. The GM never made sure I had a turn, and I'm not very good at breaking into a conversation. And things were compounded, the NPC death (which my character witnessed) got two of the other players suspicious of a third, and the NPC tried to assign leadership to me (and the other PCs were somewhat willing to look to me). I tried to get in a first aid roll to "diagnose" the heart attack (it was obvious to me as a player, and probably was to my character, I had a Fair First Aid skill). I actually made a roll that was pretty good (at least +2). But I didn't get the chance to communicate that to the GM in time, and thus lost a piece of ammunition I should have had. And then the session went down hill as the GM threw us into a situation with insufficient information to make decisions on, and let us stall. Breaking into rounds and making sure each player had a turn would have made the situation play so much better (I wasn't at a loss of things to do, I was just plainly never given a turn).

By being explicit with what a turn is, a game system can smooth these things out. In Monopoly, only rarely does a player's turn get skipped, and when it does, it's plain that a major rules breach (even if totally unintentional) has happened, and the player knows they can yell bloody murder (if necessary, usually you just have to firmly state "hey, it's my turn" and the player sheepishly hands the dice to you). Games with no structured turns are also upfront. Games (like Uno) where player B's turn doesn't always follow player  B's turn have clear rules on what causes a change. D&D has an initiative system with "attacks of opportuniity". AOOs cause lots of arguments, but they also are pretty clearly stated out. Sure, an experienced GM could implement AOOs in a game system without having strict rules, but only after understanding turn flow (and he would be best to actually specify the rules).

Universalis is very clear on how much you can do in a turn, and who gets the first turn (bidding on the scenes, and when your first turn of setting the scene ends). In fact, basically Universalis is a set of rules that define exactly "who gets to say what, when / who's version of events happens" (no surprise then that Ralph made that statement). The rules of (American) football are also very clear on what a turn is, how it starts, who can do what during a turn, how you decide which team gets the next turn, etc.

One of the things that I think is hard to convey about RPGs is that they are more freeform than most other types of games. In that vein, I think it's best for an introductory game to be more structured, while explicitly calling out places where the game is less structured, and by doing so, inviting the new player to start to explore. Done well and the system can have plenty of complexity of expression to be enjoyed by long time gamers also.

Frank

That's my thinking exactly Frank.  You nailed it completely.

One of the strengths of roleplaying as a game form is that there are so many options.  Compared to most games you really can "do anything" (even in a very focused RPG).  But this is a double edged sword.  Too many options can lead to analysis paralysis especially for players who don't have a clear idea of what they are supposed to be doing.

Asking players with no background in roleplaying (or improv theater or the like) to just work things out amongst themselves in the same way that they'd decide where to go to dinner is asking quite a bit.  But if you are going to go that route...it should still be stated clearly and upfront that that is what the players need to do.

New players need to know how to play the game...whether your rules are strict and carefully laid out like Universalis, or whether your rules are the Lumpley RPG.

Quote from: joshua neffWhen you want to learn an instrument, you don't go to a music teacher and say, "Teach me to play guitar, piano, drums and saxophone." And when you learn guitar, what you learn on Day 1 isn't applicable for playing jazz guitar, metal guitar, blues guitar and classical guitar. Learning to play Poker doesn't mean you can pick up a deck of cards and start playing Bridge. Learning to play Monopoly doesn't mean you can look at a Risk board and intuit how to play.

So, yeah, I think one definite approach to writing for newbies is to not write as if you're teaching people how to play all RPGs. Teach them how to play your own RPG, and that's it.

When you really learn to play the guitar, some of the things you learn in the first few lessons are applicable not only to all types of guitar playing, but indeed to all musical instrument play of any sort. Sure, the rules for Poker are different from those for Bridge, but in both games suit and face value are important, and it happens that card rank is the same in both games, which is important in both games (a pair of queens beats a pair of jacks, and a queen takes a jack--not information that is intuitive from the cards themselves). The differences between Monopoly and Risk are significant as board games go, but both use dice, and both involve collecting papers that are connected to spaces on the board.

That said, I doubt any of us have actually written a chapter about how to play "all" RPGs, really. We only thought we did at the time. In essence, we wrote something that had this meaning:

QuoteThis is a role playing game. I think it's a very good role playing game, and is everything a role playing game should be. A role playing game should be these things, and this is how you play them.[/list]That is to say, we thought we were writing about all role playing games, but we were really writing about this role playing game, and about other games to the degree that they are like this one.

There's really nothing inherently wrong with that, either.

Sure, if I've never played a role playing game and don't know what it is, I'm going to think that whatever this says applies to all such games; but it doesn't matter, because all that matters is that I learn to play this one, and am thereafter willing to try others. When I read the description of role playing in another game, I'll probably recognize that it's different to the degree that that designer's vision and priorities are different, and then I'll begin to understand that role playing games vary as much as board games.

Of course, if I have played other role playing games, I'll recognize immediately if the description given here doesn't mesh with my experience. That's also good. If the discord causes me to perceive that I wouldn't like this game, I've saved myself a lot of trouble. If the discord intrigues me, it has prepared my mind for the possibility that things will be done rather differently in this game.

So I don't see the problem with them.

--M. J. Young

And I've seen groups have analysis paralysis trying to decide where to go eat (especially my church brunch group), which have even resulted in everyone going their own way, and often result in just a couple people weathering the storm and going to eat.

Many people do not have the skills (or at least haven't really practiced them) for group decision making. People who have really practiced consensus building, or or improv theater, or played RPGs really have a skill set that is incredibly necessary in this modern world, but sadly lacking in training.

Another failure mode for the "you really can do anything" is kitchen sinking. I just realized my church brunch group even has an analog for this. We often wind up going to the mall food court, where the food really isn't all that good, but there are enough choices for most people, and sometimes everyone takes so long to get their individual choice that we don't really get much chance to socialize as a group.

In addition to analysis paralysis, another response to too many choices is "Whatever everyone else decides." With the degenerate "And then I'm going to veto the choice." I see this failure mode all the time in deciding where to go eat, an in gaming in chosing which board game to play, but I've also seen it in RPGs.

So maybe handling the infinite choice is something introductory RPGs should address. They don't necessarily have to have "rules", but they could - football has a limit to the huddle time for example. Of course even if you write up a page or two giving suggestions on how to handle the infinite choice and don't think of them as rules, they still are rules. They are just of a different sort than the rule that says "To make an attack, roll 1d20 and add your skill." The social contract is just as important a rule (if not more important). It also pays to point out that players do need to make a social contract (and I think Universalis is clever for making developing the social contract part of play).

That made me think of another "rule" that I've learned about RPGs (which is ultimately part of the social contract) that isn't obvious to people when they first start playing (or even to some players who have played a long time). That's the "30 minutes or so of socialization and warm up time at the beginning of a session before we hunker down and start playing." It took me several months of running games at a club in high school before I figured that one out, but it's a pretty universal rule.

Frank

Okay, so this thread sparked me to take a look at Nighttime Animals Save the World (//www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/tnaplay.html). I think this is a perfect example of a newbie-friendly RPG. I explained the game to two coworkers with children and both "got it" from a 2-minute conversation, and want to try it with their kids. I also gave them the website if they wanted to refer back to it. One did, and she asked what "GM" meant. Not wanting to go into a whole lot of background, I told her it just meant the grown-up running the game for the kids. But then, hey, GM isn't defined in the text, so it could mean "grown-up moderator" for all I know. So anyway, apparently, the "GM" term was the only questionable part of the game, and this coming from someone who'd stare very blankly at me if I tried to explain what a roleplaying game is. On reflection, I probably shouldn't have given them the link to the game, because they might start exploring Vincent's website, which could lead to me getting some of Vincent's hate mail over kpfs (but in person, which is even worse than email).

Anyway, this is the most newbie-friendly game I've personally encountered. A close second would be Universalis. Other than Complications, that's another game that can be explained in a short conversation to just about anyone.

Okay, at the risk of giving a seemingly dadaesque answer, I would argue that there is one really good way for a newbie to be introduced to roleplaying :

by another roleplayer.  In an actual game.  Involving people who are patient but enthusiastic with newbies.

Ultimately, this is a social genre of hobby, about social and imaginational interactions involving human beings with human beings.  You can't get that from a book.

Yes, I know that Ron and others point out that system counts, and once a person is a roleplayer, system does count, but when a person is a newbie, what counts is not the system or the campaign so much as the other players and game masters.

So thrusting a game book into a newbie's hands, reciting a game mechanics rulebook chapter-and-verse to a newbie, or filling a newbie's arms with sheathes of paper or filling a newbie's e-mailbox with gigabytes of text will not accomplish nearly so much as taking a newbie by the hand, smiling, welcoming him or her, and sitting down at a game with him or her.  When the newbie wants to know how to do something, he or she will ask, and then you can answer, and instead of being abstract rules and data, the answer is relevant within context of interacting with the gaming group.

Personally, that is the perspective I prefer, for it reminds us that, ultimately, for all our skills and cleverness at writing systems, the human factor is what matters most in our genre of hobby.

Doctor Xero

In terms of 'analysis paralysis' I think it's an inability as a group to determine what choice amongst choices will be rewarding for the group.

Lets say you can skip that by making only one choice rewarding (in the food example, that's like all shops being shut bar one). Now it's a matter of individual choice as how to get to that reward (in the food example, they look at the menu and choose their dish. This is far easier.

The exciting bit is where people interact with each other as they get to their goal (food eg, one person doesn't know about a certain entree, but another says they'll go halves and that way they can both try it out).

Think of it as destinations you can reach. Make only one rewarding to go to and then everyone can just get on to figuring out how to make the journey there. And as we know, its the journey that's the interesting part.

One reason its interesting is because of the consensus on various issues that can happen but doesn't have to happen. While if everyone is to go to the same destination, you have to have concensus.

Required concensus is meaningless in terms of humans sharing something...if they were forced to choose it, you don't learn anything from the choice they made because they basically had to make it.

This sounds like a bad thing and I imagine that's why many recent posts have been promoting designs that are driftable are better than focused design (like MLWM). But the thing is, you always need to have a descision forced if you want to see unforced descisions. It all starts at the game table...you have to be at the table if you want to be part of the game/part of the journey. You wont learn anything from them by their coming to the table, but what they do at the table once there/on the journey will tell you something.

Basically, 'analysis paralysis' will exclude certain explorations of play. Just like people who wouldn't decide on what food to eat in case someone wasn't happy, the games users will naturally avoid going anywhere that would make anyone else unhappy. Think on that for a moment.

So how do you go there and not miss out? You make sure the only food shop that is open is that one/your design only accomidates play focused there.

But it still probably sounds terrible to remove choice. Meh.

Doctor Xero, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the best way to bring people into role play gaming is for friends to invite friends to play, and teach them the way the game works. Although my own gaming group started without this aid, most of the players with whom we played over the years learned from us.

I've said before that this is not so unusual. We've got stacks of board games and trivia games and parlor games and maybe we haven't lost all of our bookcase games, and we've got a copy or two of Hoyle around here somewhere for card games, and in almost every case one person reads the rules and tells everyone else how to play. That's how these things are done. I learned to play Risk and Stratego because my cousins owned the games and taught me how to play; I in turn took the opportunity to teach my kids years later. I don't remember who taught me checkers or chess, but I never read the rules anywhere. Even Knock Hockey, Shuffleboard, and Air Hockey play began with someone teaching me how to play.

And in designing Multiverser, we made the assumption that the referee would read the rules and tell the players what to do. We don't have a player's handbook, and we specifically suggest that the players not read the referee's rules.

However, this leads to a serious quandary. If this is the only way to bring new players, or even the best way to do so, it has serious implications for game design. What it means is that we need to design to the existing gamer population, to make games that they will want to play, because the success of a new game depends not on attracting new people to the hobby so much as on capturing market share of the existing hobbyists. I have to create a game that does what people like you want better than the games you already play, and better enough that you'll abandon the games you already play in favor of mine. Only after I've done that have I any real hope of reaching people who are not currently gamers, and that hope relies on you as a gamer using my game to introduce others to the hobby.

Yet (the other side of the quandary) if my designs are targeting people who already play, then I must be wary of innovation. I can't get too far from the beaten path, because I'll wind up alienating the target audience in my effort to make something different enough to appeal to people outside the current demographic. Thus if I don't capture the core gamer audience, I have no one; but if I target the core gamer audience, I wind up fighting for an ever more contested share of a small pie and fail to offer anything that will appeal beyond them.

The challenge really is to design a role playing game that someone truly would pick up, take home, read, teach to a group of friends, and start to play, without ever knowing anyone else who played it. I do that with board games all the time. I don't know when I've done it with a role playing game.

I remember years ago a friend of mine came to learn how to play D&D from me. Part of the impetus was that his mother had been in a book store and picked up a copy of one of the game books, and found it so engrossing that she stood there reading it for quite some time. I never knew which book it was, but I'd love to hear of that happening with some of the new games.

--M. J. Young

To go farther than what MJ has said, even if it's true that games are best taught this way, that still doesn't answer the question of the thread which is how to present a book for those occasions when someone does want to learn off the shelf.

Or is it your opinion that this should actively be discouraged? That is, should the "what is roleplaying section" say, "It's complicated. Find somebody who knows how to teach you."
?


To address the rest of the thread, John, I agree with you that there are people who want to play more complex games. You and Josh agree on the idea of elegance, and who could argue against it. The question is whether or not the "newb" market is into more or less complex games as a whole. Ron's point has always been, and I agree, that the people who want complex roleplaying games, are already playing Rolemaster. Or whatever complex games exist.

That is, most "newbs" that remain out there (most, not all), are actually into simpler ways to spend their recreation time. You don't have to compete with other RPGs to get these folks to play your game, you have to compete with Video Games like The Sims 2.

So there are really two things being discussed here. Are we talking newbs in terms of those people in your target market for complexity, genre, etc, that would play your game, or are we talking newbs in terms of all newbs available?

In other words, is your goal in making something newb friendly to make a game that will capture as much of the mainstream as possible, or is it to make the game that you've got in mind, that one about Cthuloid Conspiracy in the Old West that considers the hit points of your spleen as important data, is it to make that game as newbie friendly as possible?

The former goal needs to consider "playability" some, while the latter only has to concern itself with clarity and elegance. Personally, I'm not out to capture the mainstream market, but I think some people are. For me, it's enough to try to keep the game that I'm working on the best it can be considering it's target.

Do indie games do a better job at this? I think so, occasionally, if only because we don't have to mess the game up with conflicting goals. But, then, that's why Malcolm has said he's out on his own.

Interestingly, to me this is the only definition of "Indie" so I'm not sure what people are trying to associate with indie games. That they're all simplistic? Like TROS and Burning Wheel? No, not simple - clear and elegant. When all goes well.

I'm fascinated that the game presented as "typical" of Indie games trying to appeal to newbs is MLWM. When the designer admitted in the thread that it's not particularly newb friendly in an "off the shelf" manner.

Mike

Even if experienced roleplayers are describing the game to new players... isn't the choice of which game they use to indoctrinate new people at least partially predicated on how easy/interesting it is to teach to new players?

If somebody put a copy of Nephilim (a game that I adore in concept) into my hands and said "This is the game you're playing go recruit some people who have never roleplayed before" I would laugh in their face.  It's not that it can't be done, but it's certainly far more effort than I want to put in.

Put a copy of InSpectres or Teenagers From Outer Space (EDIT:  First edition, way back when) into my hands, though, and that's a whole different matter.  These games beg to be used to indoctrinate people who have never before roleplayed.  

I had a TFOS campaign in college and I got people showing up to play who knew nobody in the room, but had heard about the activity second- and third-hand and wanted to participate based on that alone.  Whereas I had a dear friend try to explain Nephilim to me for two straight hours before finally just putting the rulebook into my hands and saying "Read this and come back".

You're right : I have drifted from the initial query.  Mea culpa, i.e. My bad.

All right, here is what I have noticed about newbies who simply pick up roleplaying games.  This is anecdotal evidence, no scholar studies, based on newbies I have known who have eagerly asked me about RPGs as soon as they discovered that I am also involved in RPGs.

Newbies pick up games on genres or subjects which interest them.

The game which is the twelfth cunning variation this year on the low fantasy theme first popularized by AD-&-D is not going to excite them.  If anything, having to choose among twelve low fantasy products which are easily differentiated by RPGers but look identical to the newbie only confuses and drives the newbie away.

A newbie who loves high fantasy in general will find his or her eyes attracted by the cover of the first high fantasy RPG he or she sees on the shelves of the bookstore next to the high fantasy novels.

A newbie who loves superhero comic books will find his or her eyes attracted by the cover of the first superhero RPG he or she sees on the shelves of the comic book store next to the superhero comic books.

A newbie who loves The Professor's epic work will be intrigued by the Lord of the Rings Official RPG -- and issues of complexity will not matter so much to him or her because even relatively simple rules will seem confusing and esoteric.

In other words, what attracts newbies is fidelity to a genre or subject with which the newbie is already fascinated and familiar.

Thus, the best game to which a newbie might be introduced by an experienced roleplayer would be a game in a genre or subject which the newbie loves so much that he or she is willing to learn a new genre of hobby just to indulge further in that love.  The critical thing is that said game captures the feel of that genre or subject!

Thus, the best indie game to attract newbies would be one which provides gaming within a genre or subject which has remained unaddressed (or has only been badly addressed) by the mainstream gaming companies.

For example, I love the indie game The Drones because it captures so perfectly the flavor of the old British comic tales when no mainstream company would even consider said subgenre.  Similarly, I love Pumpkin Town for its charming re-creation of the spooky-cute-spooky weirdness of films such as Nightmare Before Christmas.  Et cetera.

Indie games in the old tried-and-true genres such as low fantasy, high fantasy, space opera, superhero, and gothic horror or pseudo-gothic fantasy need to have something particularly innovative about system or setting (or attitude!) to set them off from the often-impressive mainstream efforts in those subgenres.

Doctor Xero

Quote from: Mike HolmesTo address the rest of the thread, John, I agree with you that there are people who want to play more complex games. You and Josh agree on the idea of elegance, and who could argue against it. The question is whether or not the "newb" market is into more or less complex games as a whole. Ron's point has always been, and I agree, that the people who want complex roleplaying games, are already playing Rolemaster. Or whatever complex games exist.

That is, most "newbs" that remain out there (most, not all), are actually into simpler ways to spend their recreation time.   You don't have to compete with other RPGs to get these folks to play your game, you have to compete with Video Games like The Sims 2.  

OK, I've never played the Sims, but I have read reviews.  As I understand it, there are five personality traits, eight mood indicators, three game modes (Live/Buy/Build), and several dozen controls in each mode.  It is consistently described as hyper-detailed.  To me, it seems at least comparable in complexity to games like D&D3 and Rolemaster, and not at all appealing to those who are into simpler recreation.  

In short, I disagree with your claim that the complex market is largely tapped out -- and that the remaining newbies are ones who are unable / unwilling to handle the complexity of traditional games like, say, Star Wars d6 or Call of Cthulhu.  I'm not saying that those games are an ideal, but it isn't complexity per se which prevents them from a larger market.  

Quote from: Mike HolmesIn other words, is your goal in making something newb friendly to make a game that will capture as much of the mainstream as possible, or is it to make the game that you've got in mind, that one about Cthuloid Conspiracy in the Old West that considers the hit points of your spleen as important data, is it to make that game as newbie friendly as possible?

The former goal needs to consider "playability" some, while the latter only has to concern itself with clarity and elegance.  

Well, I'm not really involved directly, but I would say that this topic is about having the goal of making a game which is "newb friendly" -- which could be by capturing an untapped fringe or by tapping into the mainstream.  But if that is really a goal then I think it should be considered before settling on details like spleen hit points.  

Quote from: Mike HolmesDo indie games do a better job at this? I think so, occasionally, if only because we don't have to mess the game up with conflicting goals. But, then, that's why Malcolm has said he's out on his own.

Interestingly, to me this is the only definition of "Indie" so I'm not sure what people are trying to associate with indie games. That they're all simplistic? Like TROS and Burning Wheel? No, not simple - clear and elegant. When all goes well.

I'm fascinated that the game presented as "typical" of Indie games trying to appeal to newbs is MLWM. When the designer admitted in the thread that it's not particularly newb friendly in an "off the shelf" manner.  

OK, I'm not interested in generalizations about indie games.  The topic is specifically about only those which are newbie-friendly.  I mentioned MLWM and PTA in my first post because Ralph (Valamir) cited MLWM and PTA in the prior thread (White Wolf discussion (split)).  But that's not intended to be a generalization of all indie games, just two examples.  I appreciate citing other newbie-friendly indie games, like NAStW.

Not the 'video games are complex and they sell' arguement again.

Video games have eye candy. That have lots of nifty pictures, rich sounds, etc. You don't need to know all the complexities to enjoy this part of the game instantly.

What you want to do is emulate that/qualities like that in an RPG. If you only look at the complexity in each game and ignore the upfront enjoyment video games have, you'll be missing the issue.

So, to be precise, you run a video game and can hit 'new game' without reading the instruction manual 99% of the time. And when you do read the instruction manual, you can skim it rather than commit it to memory. It usually starts you somewhere nice to look at and has atleast some super intuitive control so you can explore somewhat (push the joystick forward and you move forward, for example). Not to mention they usually start with a tutorial...learn to play and enjoy at the same time.

Your RPG can be as complex as you like. If a purchaser can enjoy it at even a basic level straight like the video game above, and that's clear to potential purchasers, you can be complex and be ahead of the complex book next to it that'll take a week to get something out of it.

Quote from: NoonYour RPG can be as complex as you like. If a purchaser can enjoy it at even a basic level straight like the video game above, and that's clear to potential purchasers, you can be complex and be ahead of the complex book next to it that'll take a week to get something out of it.  

Right.  I agree with that, and indeed that's what I meant to say.  That's why I've been emphasizing features like good template/sample characters and introductory adventure.  I was disagreeing with Mike's statement:

Quote from: Mike HolmesRon's point has always been, and I agree, that the people who want complex roleplaying games, are already playing Rolemaster. Or whatever complex games exist.

That is, most "newbs" that remain out there (most, not all), are actually into simpler ways to spend their recreation time.  

So as far as I can tell, we're agreeing that this is not true.  i.e. There are many potential newbs who are into complex recreation, but are not playing Rolemaster.  There are other factors which turn them off from tabletop RPGs, but it is false to say that it is the complexity per se which is turning them off.

Hey Mike,

I'm fascinated that the game presented as "typical" of Indie games trying to appeal to newbs is MLWM. When the designer admitted in the thread that it's not particularly newb friendly in an "off the shelf" manner.

To be clear, even though I wasn't trying to write it as an entry text to the hobby, I agree with folks who've suggested that it's quite newb accessible. And so maybe it's worth looking at how the game achieves accessibility despite itself...because I think its accessibility disputes the traditional notion that introductory text sections ("What is roleplaying?" and "How to use the dice") deliver accessibility. My Life with Master delivers accessible gameplay. And textually and graphically it suggests that play will be a dramatic and fun group activity. The game doesn't look like a college textbook or lab manual or technical reference, and it doesn't suggest that successful roleplay is mentally or creatively rigorous, or achieved through disciplined asceticism. So what I've seen is that folks are drawn to it, and then they leverage their social network. They ask someone familiar with roleplaying to run it. Or they ask questions about the terminology.

Paul

Completely off on a tangent here but ...

Did _anybody_ here start playing RPGs by buying an RPG and looking through the 'What is an RPG" section in the books?

I started playing D&D by having some mathhead friends get into it, and they got into it via other mathheads.  It was social learning.

I think all games get taught by somebody.  I learned to play chess via by parents, and learned to play card games and board games the same way.  Once I knew what a board game was, I could pickup new ones pretty easily -- again, once I had gone through the social learning.

In other words, newcomers are going to learn the game via friends, not the game itself.

Let me make a strong statement here:
RPG games, like all games, need an initial social learning curve.  "Newbie friendly" is a game that  an experienced player can teach quickly with minimal coaching, with commonsense and intuitive rules and no more rules than are necessary.

In short, "newbie freindly" <=> well-written game.  No more, no less.

Quote from: NoonSo, to be precise, you run a video game and can hit 'new game' without reading the instruction manual 99% of the time. And when you do read the instruction manual, you can skim it rather than commit it to memory. It usually starts you somewhere nice to look at and has atleast some super intuitive control so you can explore somewhat (push the joystick forward and you move forward, for example). Not to mention they usually start with a tutorial...learn to play and enjoy at the same time.

Your RPG can be as complex as you like. If a purchaser can enjoy it at even a basic level straight like the video game above, and that's clear to potential purchasers, you can be complex and be ahead of the complex book next to it that'll take a week to get something out of it.

I think this may be why many mainstream games have both a basic rules section and an addendum (or sidebars) of more complicated rules the players may incorporate once they wish to.  In such cases, a player can start with the basics, have fun, and move on to more complex gaming when he or she is ready for it!

I believe someone has already made reference to how templates (such as in the old West End Star Wars RPG) helped in this fashion as well?

Doctor Xero

Quote from: eefCompletely off on a tangent here but ...

Did _anybody_ here start playing RPGs by buying an RPG and looking through the 'What is an RPG" section in the books?

I started playing D&D by having some mathhead friends get into it, and they got into it via other mathheads.  It was social learning.

I did. I got the ... blue box ... Basic D&D set after my mother heard about some kids getting killed playing it ("ooh, that sounds interesting") and worked my way through it.

It was slow going and tough and I wouldn't say that it gave me a good explanation--and B1 wasn't really a good dungeon to start people with either, IMO.

But that's how I got into the game.

-Marco

Quote from: eefDid _anybody_ here start playing RPGs by buying an RPG and looking through the 'What is an RPG" section in the books?

I started playing D&D by having some mathhead friends get into it, and they got into it via other mathheads.  It was social learning.

I think all games get taught by somebody.

I had heard D&D because my friend Eric's older brother played it.  However, I never played with him and or even sat in on a session.  I think we would play games of make-believe vaguely influenced by this though, but I don't think we ever played a formal game of D&D with Eric.  We ended up going to different schools.  However, I did get the Basic Set, read it carefully, and thus learned to play with my friends.  

Quote from: eefLet me make a strong statement here:
RPG games, like all games, need an initial social learning curve.  "Newbie friendly" is a game that  an experienced player can teach quickly with minimal coaching, with commonsense and intuitive rules and no more rules than are necessary.

In short, "newbie freindly" <=> well-written game.  No more, no less.

Well, I disagree based on personal experience.  I also worry that focus on how well an experienced player can teach covers up a host of problems in writing.  i.e. A really poorly-written game can be "taught" to play well because of lots of orally-transmitted information.

I think I see three kinds of complexity here.

1) How complex is the minimal information set (rules, etc) that you need to absorb in order to play at all?

2) How complex is the total information set?

3) How complex is actual play?

The argument that computer games are complex is about type 2 complexity. As Noon argued, most computer games have low to very low type 1 complexity. Worse yet, the medium is very good for hiding the type 2 complexity. To grab a wargame example, Star Fleet Battles has something called the Cadet's Game. You can get up and running with that in perhaps 30 minutes, but all the time the other 200 pages of the rule book--which threateningly only calls itself the "Basic Set"--are breathing down your neck. The type 2 complexity is very apparent and, to a lot of people, intimidating.

On the other hand, if you play Starfleet Command (the computer game version) you'll be doing the equivalent of the Cadet's Game in about 5 minutes and the entirety of the type 2 complexity will hide in the shadows until you start to actively seek it out. Moreover, much of that complexity you'll never have to learn. How do you calculate photon torpedo damage? How do you distribute that damage over the ship's systems? As a Starfleet Battles player, I have to know these things, or I cannot play. A Starfleet Command player doesn't have to know, the computer will do the computations for him. Of course, he'll be a better player if he can at least estimate photon damage output, but it's not a must-know requirement.

I don't think you can ever have a table top game achieve as low a type 1 complexity as a computer game can have, simply because the computer is an active agent that hold your hand and guide you, while a book is a passive agent where you have to look things up.

Additionally, a book cannot hide its page count, so hiding type 2 complexity is much harder than with a computer game. About the only trick I can think of is the old 2 volume basic/advanced rules division.

So I think paper-based systems that want to appeal to a big market need to be simple (both type 1 and type 2). But that doesn't mean the game needs to be "dumbed down". Go has much lower type 1 and 2 complexity than chess, but vastly higher type 3 complexity.

So that's where I believe the challenge lies. Simple rules, that create a game that can grow with you.

SR
--

Quote from: Rob Carriere1) How complex is the minimal information set (rules, etc) that you need to absorb in order to play at all?

2) How complex is the total information set?

3) How complex is actual play?  

Quote from: Rob CarriereI don't think you can ever have a table top game achieve as low a type 1 complexity as a computer game can have, simply because the computer is an active agent that hold your hand and guide you, while a book is a passive agent where you have to look things up.

Additionally, a book cannot hide its page count, so hiding type 2 complexity is much harder than with a computer game. About the only trick I can think of is the old 2 volume basic/advanced rules division.  

That's a good point, but I think there are a lot more tricks.  Having good template and/or sample characters sidesteps the complexity of character creation.  Another is to include necessary rules for that character on the character sheet itself.  i.e. Rather than having the character sheet say "Quality: Natural Toughness" and force you to go to the index to look up what that means, a one-line summary of it can be included on the sheet itself.  Marvel Superheroes did this, for example.  

I think hiding the fact that a book has many pages isn't really necessary per se.  By parallel, people who play a game like Star Fleet Command or the Sims aren't actually fooled into thinking that it's really a simple game.  I think of it more as an issue of usability of those pages and necessity of those pages.  

Complexity can be hidden from use if it is in options which don't need to be used.  By parallel, new magic decks expand the game but don't complicate startup.  The trick is in organizing a role-playing book such that the unused options aren't crowded around the options that are used.  I think PDF publication has a potential advantage here.  This is the principle behind RPG expansion books, but they are often poorly done, in my opinion.

But we're agreeing, John. It's not complexity at all, it's learning curve. I said it before, people want complexity, sure, but they want it at as small a price as possible in terms of time and energy required to get to the fun stuff. This is where RPGs have problems, and where the built in tutor of the computer is hard to beat.

Not that it can't be competed with. I agree with lots of the tricky ideas that people are coming up with to emulate this sort of thing. That said, I've seen tutorial stuff actually make a game harder to learn. But that's a matter of doing it right, which is not at issue.

Again, what I posit is not really that the complexity loving people are playing Rolemaster already, but that those willing to overcome a large learning curve, and who like to do lots of chart lookups are already playing rolemaster. There aren't many out there left who would enjoy that learning curve who aren't playing.

The people who aren't playing aren't doing so because they haven't heard about RPGs by and large - they're doing so because rock climbing is easier to get into. Not because it isn't potentially complex, but because you can get engaged with it by just going to some rocks and starting up.

Mike

QuoteDid _anybody_ here start playing RPGs by buying an RPG and looking through the 'What is an RPG" section in the books?

I started playing D&D by having some mathhead friends get into it, and they got into it via other mathheads. It was social learning.

I got the 1980 or so boxed set of D&D (whatever comes right before the red books with Elmore art), and I was totally baffled by the text. I had no gamer friends and didn't have the slightest idea of how to play. So I owned that game for maybe a year before I met someone who'd played and could show me how. Boo hiss.

Count me among those who learned from the D&D boxed set. It was 1980, and I had never heard of D&D. My wife and I enjoyed Tolkien and the existence of the Lord of the Rings bookcase game only disappointed us into thinking that there must be a way to get exciting fantasy adventures from game play (and this wasn't it). D&D was the subject of a psychology article, and we hunted it down and learned to play it.

Also, we always buy games based on that we've heard something good about them, or like the look of them, or are looking for something new and different, and we teach ourselves to play.

In the words of King Arthur, "Well, someone has to do it."

--M. J. Young

John,
This is a minor quibble, I think we mostly agree. But there is a difference between the people buying Starfleet Command and those buying Starfleet Battles: The former are buying a small box that has a single CD in it. They may know intellectually that what's inside can't be simple, but they aren't confronted with the fact. The Starfleet Battles people on the other hand cannot avoid confrontation; you can literally feel the complexity from the weight of the box. Compare with the people who wouldn't buy multi-CD games, because that was too complicated.

Mike,
If you heard the sound of a hand slapping a forehead, that was me. Thanks for summarizing my three paragraphs into two words :-) Learning curve is indeed what it is about. I guess that in that framework what I'm trying to argue is that the player should feel in control of the learning curve. The player should be able to start satisfying play "low" on the curve and should be able choose whether and when to advance along the curve. Most importantly, the potential player should be able to see those properties of the game while he's considering his purchase decision.

SR
--

On the "learn-from-the-book" query:

Almost, 1979, AD&D1.

I had seen (not participated in) a single session of AD&D. This, and the fact I was the only one with the books, made me the resident expert... I guess this means I don't quite qualify as "learned from the book only."

Keeping track of everything (and doing a lot of figuring it out on the spot) was immensely tiring the first half dozen sessions or so, but fortunately the rest of the crowd was both supportive and understanding of the hiccups.

SR
--

I tend to agree with Dr. Xero. It seems to me that role-playing games are difficult to describe to someone who hasn't played them, because the only people to describe them are people who've played them, and they're already in a different mindset. Play one game, and suddenly you're in the state of mind where you can understand them all.

When I wrote Gods & Monsters one of the things I did was write a story that paralleled what could happen in the initial adventure--and present it for potential players to read before going through the adventure. Of course, there are things in the adventure that the story adventurers never met. And there are things that the story adventurers do that the player adventurers will want to do differently--hopefully.

It seems to work fairly well with the few non-gamers I've tried it with, but it is definitely more reading than reading the rules. It may be that it works more as a weeding out process than anything else--anyone who doesn't want to read a fantasy story in order to play a game is more likely to be among the people who would not want to play a game that has more rules than Scattergories. (Or it could of course be that it just isn't that interesting of a fantasy story to them.)

But, that said, I do have this idea for a pre-game for Gods & Monsters. The idea is that the adventure comes first, and explains the rules as they're needed. No character creation--they have to use the pregenerated characters. Make it clear at the beginning that "the players may try something else; choose an ability and ask the player to roll d20 less than or equal to their character's number in that ability. And then present each scene along with one or two or three of the rules most likely to come into play during that scene.

"If Charlotte Korde tries to read the miniature pixies' minds, she will discover that they don't have any. If any character decides to attack the miniature pixies, to be successful the player will have to roll a d20 and be less than or equal to:

Charlotte: 8
Will: 12
Gralen: 7

Any successful attack will kill the miniature pixie that the character chose to attack."

That sort of stuff.

The goal is to guide new players into gaming without them having to find experienced gamers.

I don't know if the approach will work. It's certainly challenging to write.

Jerry

As an aside, I learned from the old red D&D boxed set, the one with the Erol Otis cover. It explained roleplaying well enough that I understood what the role of the GM and player was, though at first I didn't understand what the numbers meant, so it was like a freeform game: pick a class, describe what you do, and I (as DM) describe what happens.

This was when I was 10 years old, possibly younger. I later went back and came to understand the actual system mechanics, and from there I graduated to 1st Edition AD&D.

But then again, I was the kid who loved reading directions (http://www.livejournal.com/users/xiombarg/606893.html)...