Newbie-friendly Indie Games

[neelk]

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.

[Jonathan Walton]

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.

[ffilz]

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

[Valamir]

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.

[M. J. Young]

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.

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:

This 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

[ffilz]

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

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, so this thread sparked me to take a look at Nighttime Animals Save the World. 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.

[Doctor Xero]

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

[Callan S.]

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.

[M. J. Young]

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

[Mike Holmes]

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

[TonyLB]

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".

[Doctor Xero]

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

[John Kim]

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12616">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.

[Callan S.]

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.