Popular and damaging

[Walt Freitag]

I agree. Lengthy rules can be off-putting and are therefore a barrier to accessibility. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

My point is that lengthy rules aren't the only barrier to accessibility, and might not be the most significant one. Another barrier is the need for authorship, which introduces into the social scenario the potential for the same sort of discomfort that can afflict students having their essays read aloud in class.

Even if the rules fit on a playing card, if one of those rules is, "first, someone come up with a clever, original, interesting adventure idea..." or "first, someone come up with an emotionally relevant situation to explore..." there's not going to be mass-market accessibility.

In my opinion, anyway. We have one example of a role playing game with remarkably lengthy game text, but minimal need for authorship by participants, that got closer to mass-market success than any other.* When I see a role playing game (or any game of any type, for that matter) with brief rules and a high requirement for authorship come anywhere near it, then I might revise my assessment of which factors have the biggest effect on mass-market accessibility.**

- Walt

*I think that other non-RPG entertainments also provide parallel examples. The expectation that intricate rules or lengthy texts must always be an insurmountable barrier to wide accessibility has led observers to be amazed that so many players have been willing to learn the encyclopedic details needed to play Magic or Pokemon or Fantasy Football effectively, amazed that so many kids are willing (to say the least) to read Harry Potter novels, and amazed that so many people in all walks of life have been able to learn to use their personal computers. These occurrences run so counter to some people's assumptions or expectations of what people (especially kids) are able or willing to read or learn, that they prefer to surmise that the game or activity must be exerting some malevolent supernatural influence. What amazes me is that people continue to be amazed by the same phenomenon over and over again.

**This topic sounded familiar, so I went and found a previous post of mine on the relation between arcana (rules), creative demand, and accessibility. A somewhat edited version of that post follows; I've done this rather than link to the original because the original post uses (and even misuses) some now-obsolete terminology.

Arcana and Accessibility: The Fortune-Telling Analogy

I question the idea that rules-lite play and design is more accessible to non role-players than play and design entailing detailed rules and/or encyclopedic enumerations of detail such as spell lists or power modifiers lists. (I'll collectively refer to general rules and enumerated specifics, that need to be read and learned for effective play, as "arcana").

Accessibility has a somewhat more complex realationship to arcana than simply "less of one means more of the other." In my experience, both extremes of the arcana spectrum have accessibility problems, for entirely different reasons. High-arcana play has the problem of too much arcana to learn being off-putting. Low-arcana play has the problem of being, for many audiences, too creatively demanding.

Arcana aids in creative imagination. Well-designed arcana does this by constraining the scope of the individual imaginative acts or decisions required, and by providing a framework for assembling the individually limited imaginative acts into a whole.

The interaction of arcana and imagination can be a wondrous and joyful experience. An excellent example is Tarot card reading. The meanings encoded in cards and layout positions are specific enough to provoke ideas, and varied and flexible enough to allow the reader to fit those ideas to conform to the reader's intuitive perception of the person being read. This results in a reading that accurately addresses the concerns of the subject, which the reader picks up from subtle cues. This works so well that most psychologist believe that many, perhaps most, Tarot readers really do believe that the insight in the outcome is coming "from the cards" through supernatural means, rather than from their own thought processes.

Doing the same thing without the cards is called cold reading. It's less popular because it's less accessible in certain subtle ways. Some who are good at reading Tarot cannot cold read because they need the random input or "noise" of the cards to stimulate ideas. Others could cold read if they tried, but don't believe they have the ability to learn to do it or don't have enough confidence to perform it for an audience. Or they find it simply not as much fun, either because it's more strenuous or because it lacks the intriguing "color" of the Tarot's designs and traditions. All these cases have their analogues for low-arcana role playing, I believe.

I can tabulate several different methods of this particular type of interactive storytelling as follows:

Code Select Expand

Technique      Arcana      Accessibility

COLD READING   NONE        LOW

TAROT          HIGH        MODERATE

HOROSCOPES*    VERY HIGH   LOW

*Full casting of individual horoscopes based on exact birth date and planetary positions; this is far more arcane than daily newspaper "horoscopes" based on sun signs alone.

The accessibility of Tarot is moderate because the arcana of the cards must be learned, and because the basic talent or skill, the real-time perception of subtle clues to what the subject wants to hear, must be there. In fact, it's important to note that in all three cases, successful results are entirely dependent on the exercise of that "core ability." Horoscopes are less accessible for two reasons: the arcana is more difficult, and the arcana involves so much focused attention that the opportunity to read (perceive) the subject is curtailed.

The arcana of the Tarot and astrology both have one other major benefit: they provide a path for a reader to develop or discover the "core ability," by starting out focused on the arcana alone. Both methods produce superficially impressive results from the purely mechanical manipulation of the arcana alone. Astrology more so than Tarot, which is why most astrologers believe astrology can be effective without the subject present and without knowing the subject. Those results encourage the practitioner to practice. And only those that practice will have an opportunity to notice improvements in the results when and if the core ability emerges.

Now, consider a technique between cold reading and Tarot on the diagram, with a low-to-medium level of arcana. Such as, a simplified Tarot with, say, twenty cards each with a very specific meaning. Or palm reading, for which the basic lines and their meanings can be summed up on a wall poster. Shouldn't those be more accessible by virtue of their lower arcana investment?

Yes and no, depending on what results you're looking for. Yes, it's more accessible to perform the arcana. No, it's not more accessible to do so in a way that engages the core ability to create results comparable to the other three. Many schoolchildren "learn" to palm-read at some time or another. Most impress their friends for about a day, after which their friends and eventually they themselves lose interest in the "predictions" they're making, which are either dry and meaningless or arbitrary. The core ability that would make it interesting, the actual reading of the person, is never engaged. Unless, that is, one of three things happens: the reader has such a natural intuitive reading ability that it comes into play anyway; the reader's interest is deep enough to delve into additional arcana beyond the basic wall poster, which re-creates the same case as Tarot; or the reader explicitly learns or has learned to apply cold reading techniques as a separate matter beyond the palmistry.

I submit that this is closely analogous to role playing games and accessibility. Just to lay it out:

- The "core activity" in role playing is different from the "core ability" in fortune-telling. Instead of perception of subtle cues, it's imaginative exploration of setting, character, situation, and color.

- Up to a certain point, the ability to perform the core activity is assisted by arcana (rules and enumerated elements, and their manipulation in play), making it more accessible.

- There are some for whom the ability to perform the core activity, and the joy of doing so, is intuitively obvious and/or already known. (Probably a higher percentage than for cold reading ability.) Others, though, must learn/discover this by practicing it. Up to a point, more arcana promotes this leap by rewarding players with superficially interesting results even before the core activity is engaged.

- At the same time, the arcana itself makes the whole activity less accessible.

- When there's too much arcana, it may crowd out the core activity, and certainly will decrease accessibility. (However, for some, manipulation of the arcana can become sufficient end in itself, even if the core activity is marginalized or omitted completely.)

- This suggests that maximum accessibility will be found at an intermediate position on the arcana spectrum.

[Marco]

Walt's post is a better way of saying what I did when I said the gating factgor was GM's (and I agree with Walt that AD&D with it's big lists and nonsensical dungeon motif is very newbie accessible on *that* front).

I agree with Raven as well that large volumes of rules are (often) offputting--but I (as with Walt, it seems) don't think they're the major factor. I think the problem is the creative story-creating effort involved with being a traditional GM (not to mention the learning curve of figuring out how to conduct a game).

But if the tiny phamplet that comes with a boardgame is too much for most people that's not an argument for rules-lite games--it's an argument for no mainstream RPG's period (even pocket universe won't fit on a playing card, will it? and does it tell you what a GM is?)

-Marco

[C. Edwards]

But if the tiny phamplet that comes with a boardgame is too much for most people that's not an argument for rules-lite games--it's an argument for no mainstream RPG's period (even pocket universe won't fit on a playing card, will it? and does it tell you what a GM is?)

Actually, I think it's more of an argument for exploring new formats, for rules presentation and design.

-Chris

[Lxndr]

And it's also an argument that all you need is one person to read the rules, not all of them.  :)

(Though a lot of board games have the rules distributed in a lot of places, for instance with one and/or a multiple deck of cards, where the effect of the card is clearly enumerated on the card itself)

[Marco]

And it's also an argument that all you need is one person to read the rules, not all of them.  :)

This is a good point. Often the buyer of the board game is often *not* the rules reader, IME. Hmmm ...

I knew someone who (she and her friends) got the Elfquest RPG in ... middle school? I don't know. They dearly wanted to play but no one would read the rules (they didn't understand the basic concepts either, exactly).

Now, I realize this example is a big strike against traditional games being main-stream and no joke: even with adherents to the license, a (I think) moderately pretty book, and, I suspect, a lack of differential equations in the resolution system (I don't know the game--but I doubt it was uber-crunchy ... surprise me)--it never really had a chance (not with the group anyway).

But ... it *was* a sale.
And ... they were looking for that 1-rules-reader.

Maybe the 1st page should say:
"This game is not all that complex, but the quick-start rules should be read before trying to play. Find that ONE PERSON YOU KNOW who will read the rules and hand this book to them--or call our toll-free 24/7 hotline to speak to a technical support operator who will explain them to you verbally."

Mmmm 24/7 RPG support help-line ... MMmmmm... :: imagines it ::

-Marco

[Lxndr]

Yeah.  I got pounded by the two proto-goth girls in my school to teach them Vampire... but we never got around to an actual game.  *sighs* Too bad.

You know... a 24/7 rpg support line isn't exactly a bad idea.  It'd probably have to be entirely volunteer-supported though, which makes things spotty.

[Marco]

Make WotC, White Wolf, and Steve Jackson chip in if they want their games supported :)

-Marco

[Walt Freitag]

Actually, I think it's more of an argument for exploring new formats, for rules presentation and design.

-Chris

I quite agree. In a way, getting to this point is the whole reason for discussing the question (that is, which if any past games have been "popular and damaging" to the hobby or the business) at all.

Keeping in mind, of course, that all this is based on the assumption that being "more mass-market" is a reasonable and desirable goal for rpg publishers in general, and indie rpg publishers specifically. Something that, I suspect, few here will accept without at least some skepticism.

- Walt

[Valamir]

Keeping in mind, of course, that all this is based on the assumption that being "more mass-market" is a reasonable and desirable goal for rpg publishers in general, and indie rpg publishers specifically. Something that, I suspect, few here will accept without at least some skepticism

I'm thinking there is a lot of room between growing the hobby to a size where it becomes viable as an ongoing healthy industry (as opposed to the shambling mess large parts of it are today) vs. becoming mass-market.  

The latter I think is unlikely in the extreme.  The former I think is possible and necessary.

[damion]

After reading this I had the odd image of people gaming the same way many people play cards (poker/bridge/whater) now, i.e. they basicly get together and socialize and the actual game is mostly ignored.  (Which is I think was Valamir was saying in a different way). Trying to find an actual gaming group when most people just use the game as an excuse to hang out would be annoying.  

I  like Marco's comments about people reading...I suppose you could make a game with vidio tape directions or maybe a disk with the manual.

[Scripty]

Wow, there's a lot to catch up on here on this thread.

A few points that occurred to me in my reading:

I don't think that GURPS and Call of Cthulhu were the turning points in RPGs not being accessible to the "mass market". I honestly think AD&D was a big turning point, but not in that it was the perfect marriage of system and intent. IMO, the Basic and Expert boxed sets were far more effective in teaching new players *how* to play. AD&D marked, for me, the point at which RPGs consummated their war-gaming roots and left behind any desire to attract the "average joe" to the gaming table.

GURPS, as the first universal RPG that I knew of, certainly led the way for FUDGE and d20 after it. But I think that was a good thing. I feel that RPGs need to step away from system in order to pull more gamers from the masses. As a non-gamer, nothing makes my wife's eye's glaze over more than explaining rules. I see rules-sets such as the Pool, HeroQuest and even Christopher Kubasik's Story Entertainments as a step in the right direction. The core of the game, IMO, should be consistent and simple. I believe deeply that whether you're swashbuckling on a beam over a flaming pit, shooting down enemy starfighters, or engaging in a courtroom debate Perry Mason-style, the rules should remain consistent. I also think Over the Edge was on to something with its 2 page rules summary. However, these types of games will not (always) appeal to the core group of hardcore gamers who come from a war-gaming or CRPG background, IMO. These gamers, from my experience, respond more to rules-heavy/chart-heavy games like Mekton Z and D&D 2nd Edition. The two groups may have some overlap with players like me, but I don't think that we'll ever be able to create a game that appeals to both the grognards and the unwashed masses.

Regarding Call of Cthulhu, I don't think it was so much of a handicap either as it was the penultimate expression of one of the biggest turn-offs for most people I know who have actually *tried* to play an RPG: the GM's ego. Call of Cthulhu brought the "GM as god" into the setting in a way no other game had/has done. Portraying creatures like Nyarlathotep or even Cthulhu itself, CoC institutionalized the "GM as god" into not just the rules but also the setting. The players were helpless and often hapless. Although I dearly love Call of Cthulhu, I also recognize how it put an exclamation point on this style of play. On VH1's "I love the '70s", there was a brief capsule on D&D. The socially challenged GM that is interviewed talks about how he liked to GM because he was "like a god". So this obviously goes back prior to CoC. But I have certainly seen it manifest in games as recent as a week ago, where the GM uses system and setting to stroke his own ego and diminish the players' role in the story (if not outright humiliate them).

So, for the record, gaining mass market appeal and maintaining appeal of hardcore gamers is not necessarily the same thing, nor are the two objectives even necessarily related to one another...and...IME, the role of the GM (or rather the power-trip of the GM) is also an obstacle to gaining mass appeal.

Further, I think a number of points on this forum have highlighted what a mass-appeal RPG would/should look like.

First, lists are a must. But not book-long lists ala Shadowrun's Weapons Guides. IMO, the lists should be short and sweet in description and mechanics but long in options. Also, the development of "plots" or "adventures" using lists could be a good thing, akin to the AD&D "make your own dungeon" lists or Cyberpunk 2020's background lists. Such tools would also reduce, even eliminate, the prep time needed to play (a good thing, IMO) and perhaps diminish the role/power of the GM as well (another good thing, IMO). Also I have found that Templates are great for newbies. Lists of character types complete with ability scores, etc., ala Feng Shui or WEG Star Wars. Anything that speeds up getting to actual play can only help, from my POV.

Second, examples. The solo-adventure walkthroughs in the old WEG Star Wars boxed set were great tools for learning the game, as well as getting the group started on a plot thread that suggested further adventures. Examples of *actual* (not imagined) play are also invaluable, IMO. Without the transcripts in Nobilis, I would've been completely lost (and I do not feel that I am alone in that statement). Entertaining and accurate examples, IMO, are a must. Personally, I look forward to the day when the page count of the intro fiction and examples exceeds the page count of the rules themselves.

Third, as has been stated before, art is key. Big maps. Great pictures. These are invaluable in my opinion.

And, lastly, non-dice based mechanics. I know a number of people who do not play RPGs simply because they *don't like dice*. Card-based mechanics, ala Castle Falkenstein, even resource based mechanics, like Nobilis or MURPG, aren't such a turn-off, but, for some reason, I've known a number of people who associate dice with something negative. I don't know why. But it's what I've come across. It's a prime reason why a number of individuals from a former LARP that I ran did not cross over to table-top. Is "Rock-Paper-Scissors" any more adult than a d20? I personally don't think so, but, for some reason, they did.

Also, I think it's possible for a game like The Pool to catch on. With good art and better examples, I think that it would be easier for individuals new to the hobby or just flirting with the hobby (i.e. GM's girlfriends) to grok the rules and feel proactive. Games such as the Pool could also prove to be a significant value over other, more traditional, games. For instance, D&D3e fits rules, treasure, monsters and little else in over 300 pages at a cost of $90. By contrast, the Pool could fit in the rules, a number of sample campaigns, settings, characters, monsters and adventures in a modest 150pg. book (if that). When faced with a choice between buying a $15 dollar book that gives you the capacity to play Gamma World, Call of Cthulhu, Fantasy, Cyberpunk and Super-Heroes or place a downpayment on a $35 Players Handbook, I think a large number of prospective gamers would take the former option. But, then, a lot is decided on art. Despite the admonition, I know many people who *do* judge books by their covers.

A final thing to consider, however, is advancement. I like the Pool but most likely would play the Puddle because I feel it handles advancement better. Although I do not like Levels and Classes, I think that such things should not be overlooked in a game designed for mass appeal. They certainly contribute a great deal to extended play.

Well that's my 2 cents (and then some).

Thanks for reading,

Scott

[eyebeams]

This is an interesting thread.

One thing that I think is being underestimated is how odd RPGs are. They are activities that require people to act or describe pure fiction, with no coherent end of the evening goals, under various strictures, and under moderation. It's very strange indeed, and doesn't really resemble other hobbies. There's a level of shared intimacy that's unusual. In our society, we reserve straight out oral exposition for a small set of activities. Miniatures and cards have an advantage here, because we can use them to really relate to others via the medium in a more concrete way than we can with RPGs. There's the option of a more impersonal style of play with these tools that RPGs can't take total advantage of, because even at their most "gamist" there are abstract decisions involved that the player must own to a degree they don't have to in games with more straightforward, mediated forms of play.

The public's tolerance for lots of rules is actually quite high. We caqn see this in CRPGs, certain FPS games, card games, minis, and even pro sports. Aside from the advantage of mediation I just mentioned, much of the burden of play is really shifted to a set of tools (computer apps, for instance).

Plus, of course, an intriguing concept will trump trepidation about the rules. Most new groups play games with half the rules missing and the other half wrong, then tune up over time.

RPGs could do with a chapter on how to get players and how to run a game for a new player and as a new GM. Experienced gamers tend to gloss over advice like this, but plenty of folks don't; when I was asked to write GMing advice for one of WW's games, I was advised to aim for a middle group: Folks who are just getting comfortable running a regular game of *any* kind, who needed something to spark further development and commitment to their games. The core book, by contrast, is mostly a grab bag to tell folks the cool things they can do with the game. It's to reassure people that they own it and they can run all sorts of things.

It's important for a game book to be a good read; good enough that people keep coming back to it. It has to be appreciated as a *book* to a certain extent. The hardcover format works rather well for this because the book stays noticeable, reasonably attractive and encourages people to haul it out.

If you can't go for that, then, yes, go for brevity, sample adventures and examples of the game in action. DnD box sets were eally quite good at that; subsequent introductions weren't so good, because they were too simple and the gap between the starter and the full game was too big.