In the beginning, there was dysfunction...

[Lxndr]

Isn't that pretty much how UnderWorld is built, when you get down to it?

Pick a "race," tweak that race's few fiddly bits.  Pick a "class," tweak that class's few fiddly bits.  Then pick one more fiddly bit from The Big List.  One single system, "flip coins, count the heads" resolves everything.  It's not quite go-like, but it's still really, really simple.

(And it's one of the reasons why I think UW would make such a good intro game.)

[talysman]

But, oddly, I think I understand why D&D and VTM are often proffered, and there's a kernel of truth to suggesting them, IMO. And that is, they are easy to get into because they have "Chinese Menu" style chargen. That is, select a race, and a class in D&D, and you're off to the races often with little more preparation. Mike Mearls opened my eyes to the fact that this is the best way to make a game accessible.

Make only two selections for all of chargen. Have ten options each. Makes 100 combinations assuming all are functional. That's plenty of variety for beginner play. Then have one single system for resolving everything, using some "go-like", simple-yet-impossible-to-master mechanic.

That would be the best for an "intro" game. No designer wants to build it, however, for some reason. They all want more "open" generation, or more complex mechanics or both.

I'd do it.

I don't want complex mechanics (just simple mechanics that can be applied recursively for more complexity, if desired.) and although I want the capability for open generation, I think it's a great idea to build a "chinese menu" frontend for newbies, which can become less restricted when they become veterans.

in fact, I think I will steal that idea and work it into the "fantasy inversions". I sort of have a basis for it already; in the "fantasy inversions", I basically replace attributes with "classes". I have:

[*]mystic: someone who uses magic to solve problems
[*]hero: someone who pushes physical talents to solve problems
[*]genius: someone who pushes mental talents to solve problems
[/list:u]

each of these has an adjective that goes with it (mystical, heroic, ingenius.) I need a fourth adjective/noun pair for someone who uses relationships to solve problems; I thought of "leader", but there's no nice matching adjective similar to the others.

you can pair an adjective with a noun to describe an archetypical character's primary and secondary areas of expertise. the mystical hero is primarily a warrior or athlete, but with a bit of magic; the heroic genius is an intellectual giant who can throw a punch or leap a chasm if need be.

now, instead of using a point-buy system to set the scores for these "attributes", assign a score of 15 to the primary, 10 to the secondary, and 5 to the remaining attribute. since I'm using a "roll 3d6 for average challenges, add or subtract dice to adjust the difficulty" technique, that means a heroic genius will have about even odds when solving an average challenge with physical means, but a very good chance of solving such a challenge with craft or intellectual skills.

and there are 6 basic character types. 12 if I can think of a decent social equivalent. 20 if I can think of one more very general archetype.

and then there are the talents. there will be a short list for the beginners, and instructions on how to add more talents for the veterans. in fact, the beginners might get "background packages" of three talents each, which would be closer to the way class and race work in original D&D. ten simple background packages for each setting, 12 archetypes, and you have 120 character types for beginners, which is about in the target range.

it would be so simple, the beginning chargen would be grouped with the description of conflict resolution, all in one simple chapter, instead of the typical approach these days of having one chapter for attributes, class, and race, one for skills, one for feats or advantages/disadvantages, and one for how to start playing the game. four chapters! just to begin!

[Green]

talysman> Perhaps "prince" or "diplomat" would be good names for that fourth category?

[Jack Aidley]

I've got to disagree Mike. I'll tell you what my perfect introductory game is, in fact it's the one I've used on all my most succesful introductory games. Here's what I do:

   I start with a well-known and pretty basic setting. I.e medieval knights (arthurian stylee?) or Secret Agents (James Bond stylee?).

   Each player picks a name for their character, two things their good at, and one thing they're bad at. (Sometimes I vary these numbers slightly, or get them to pick an important piece of equipment as well). I gives suggestions, and arbitration on these good/bad things. That's it. That's all the rules. I sometimes get them to roll dice to decide whether what happens is good or bad. Otherwise I just rule.

   I then run a game that matches up with the kind of stories they've come across before, i.e. a murder mystery, a bad man trying to destroy london, that kind of jazz.

I find this an extremely succesful method, and I think I know why. It takes roleplaying down to the good bits, and the intelligable bits. There's no rules to learn, no new setting to understand, hardly any jargon to get into. A story that lets them have an understood role, and yet use their own intelligence to solve problems in it. It doesn't have the 'er, why?' nature of simplistic dungeon bashes (which I seen far too many people use as the standard introduction to role playing) or the required knowledge of something like WhiteWolf. In short, it's accessible and understandable.

[Mike Holmes]

Freeform is certainly good for getting people used to the idea of roleplaying in general. But if you want people to eventually be using more system, then I think you want to start out with a modicum of such things as resolution system, and ability mechanics.

I'd be afraid to lose them permenantly to the freeform crowd, essentially. :-)  I want them to get the gist of what it is that we get from more system.

Mike

[jdagna]

My problem with using freeform role-playing: for me (and many others) the rules of the game are what made playing it acceptable.  After all, by the ripe old age of 12, we're pretty much past the make-believe stage of playing.  We've learned that "real games" have rules.  As people get older that attitude becomes increasingly entrenched, only to be replaced by the idea that all games are "kids' stuff" and not something a mature person plays.  (Sports, of course, are not really games, according to this stage of life).

As wrong as this viewpoint might be, it's very common.  It may even partly explain the fact that rules-heavy systems tend to dominate the commercial market.