Newbie-friendly Indie Games

[Callan S.]

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.

[eyebeams]

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.

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.

[Valamir]

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.

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.

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.

[Marco]

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

[A.Neill]

I think we gotta pin our definition of newbie down. In another thread 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.

[Valamir]

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.

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.

[pete_darby]

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.

[Marco]

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

[pete_darby]

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?

[Valamir]

I 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"

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.

[ffilz]

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

[Marco]

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

[ffilz]

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

[Valamir]

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.

[John Kim]

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.

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.  

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.

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.)