Looking for Feedback on a simple introductory "Party Game" RPG

[Zzarchov]

I hope this is the correct forum for this, apologies if not.

I was looking to get some general design feedback from a simple "Party Game" RPG of mine.

The game was designed with the following goals: 

You had to be able to learn the rules, make characters, make an adventure and run an adventure in an hour or less.
It had to have boardgame elements to make the conceptual transition to RPG's easier
It had to have enough variation as to be suitable for playing up to a dozen games before switching to other RPG's


I have two versions out, rules and text wise they are identical.  One ,"the fancy print" edition, simply has a few graphics added so that if you wish to have a permanent copy it will look a little nicer.  The "regular" version is designed for quick printing at someone elses computer without wasting ink.

They are available here:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11132

and here

http://zzarchov.bravehost.com/Adventure.html

Any and all feedback is appreciated.  What works, what doesn't work and most importantly in both cases, why you feel that way.  Feedback breeds improvement.

[M. Burrell]

 My friend, let me voice my support for what you're trying to do here - there needs to be more games that can be played casually and quickly but also have, at their core, a role-playing element and enough substance to be immediately entertaining for any player without content-exposition or tried patiences. 'Adventuring Party' (or Adventure Party?) strikes me as a game that nearly anyone over the age of 12 only a little appreciation of the fantasy genre (and its trappings) could play without any problem.

It does have one or two flaws that I can see from a quick scan through. The big issue is that, instead of cutting away D&D-like artefacts until only the barest, most simple tools are left for the players to use, you retain them and let a few overly-complex or long-winded elements remain:

• - Character generation and the spending of points seems too complex, either set the scores and offer players chance to arrange ('You have scores of 2,4,6 and 8; place them as you will between your attributes') or define the ability-scores as a number of dice.
• -  In my eyes, resolution in and out of combat is too taxing, involving small arithmetic and the comparison of runs and matches in largish pools. A single die roll would suffice, or rolling a number and selecting the highest.
• - Classes have too many 'skills', and many aren't special to a single class. Also, some are fairly unconstructive. If you gain a bonus for kicking down doors your character (as well as all other knights in the game) is going to rush about challenging each door he sees. My recommendation is something like: If you're a knight you 'Deal a Mighty Blow', If you're a Hunter you 'Sneak About', If you're a Scoundrel 'Pick Locks and Traps', If you're a Mystic you 'Cast Magic.' Keep it simple and memorable with firm class-rolls in mind.
• - Could class and ability scores be collapsed into one? Obviously 'Strong' and 'Knight' are one-and-the-same, for example. Also it needs to be Strong, Quick, Clever and Lucky - the shift in style is unnerving.
• - Are movement limits and grids needed? If the GM doesn't think a character can run a distance in time or such, roll against 'Quick'.

It's about dropping the 'unfun' and 'lengthy' from the classic model and giving easy access to players otherwise unenthused about role-play, right? Think hard about the necessities and the easiest way to present them.
I hope you don't think I'm being too harsh without constructiveness, please tell me if you do!

Cheers,
Mike.

[Zzarchov]

About char generation, do you really think having 2 points to split between 4 numbers, each having at least 1 and at most 5 is taxing? Im not saying you are wrong, just never crossed my mind, expressing points as dice is a great idea though. yoink!

As for grids and maps, i've found a common hangup with new games is the gm just 'Making Crap up as they go',  while the GM vs PC mindset is stupid and flawed, its also much more intuitive compared to games people are used to, its also a reason its a recurring theme in the rpg's that brought many of us into the hobby (heroquest, dragonstrike etc).  So now there are maps and grids (which I never use in games I run with experienced gamers).  Of course my trial groups are limited to about 8 individuals thus far.so I could be wrong.

keep in mind my goals include boardgame elements to make this an easier transition to more common roleplaying games.

I'll work on smoothing out skills, though I do want overlap in case of 'small party syndrome',  after all if only the  knight can kick down doors, what do you do if they have a party of 2 and no knight? 

And critisism is never too harsh as long as it has explanations of reasonings behind them.  I'd like to thank you for your review and opinions.

[M. Burrell]

You must think of who you're writing for! Of course having 2 points to split between 4 numbers isn't taxing for you or I - but what about friends gathered at a party, or younger players; would they be willing to keep doing these boring sums? Really, you need single roll whose meaning is immediately apparent: 'Oh wow guys! I rolled a 20! Look!' - that's a happy memory in the making, right?

I think you need to accept some 'Making Crap us as they go' (or, more eloquently, 'improvisation') - it's a party game, right? Not every Referee wants, or has time, to prepare a great deal. It's a game of, as you demonstrate, simple premises and quick fiction: if what you want is boardgame elements, then use boardgame elements - corridors are single tiles and the players move as in monopoly (if you land on a hidden trap-square, role Quickness!), with rooms acting as single titles where individual placement is less important. Interesting?

If an adventure cannot go ahead without one or more type of class, is it that the game has a flaw? All combinations need to be playable. This is where GM improv. is crucial, if there is no character who can open locks, then why present locked doors blocking progress? Flexibility!

I'm glad you thing I'm being constructive. I really want to help: there's promise here, but there's some shovel work to do before gold nuggets are pulled from the earth, yeah?

Cheers,
Mike.

[Zzarchov]

As an aside on the rolling 1 die vs several issue,  I just had quite a fun discovery when playing through a game

details:
http://zzarchov.blogspot.com/2009/06/inspiration-from-unexpected-places.html

[MacLeod]

I think as a board/RP game, it should have a good mix of both worlds... and simple math is definitely part of the RPG world. No point in pulling too many punches, you want people to end up playing RPGs so they should get a taste of the more complex ideas during this game.
I have my own take on this sort of board game + RPG by taking 8-Bit Dungeon and combining it with Drowning & Falling with a mix of my own ideas... in other words, I'm definitely interested in finding a good example of this type of game for introductory purposes.

[Callan S.]

Hi zzarchov,

To me, the basic premise doesn't describe anything in particular? If I said Adventure banana is a simple party game of the zuzu genre, would you know what I meant? Would you know what fun you'd play a zuzu genre game for? Would you see a reason to start messing around with dice or calculating anything?

Perhaps I have some history with roleplay games that a new participant wouldn't have, so they'd try and read about this classes and maybe one would tickle their fancy and they'd persist. But the rest of the document doesn't seem to indicate what thing you'd play for either. Not that the first edition (and prior miasma) of D&D was any different in presentation. But to me, I sometimes wonder if D&D continued because some people see all this text and think there must be something to it, and they persist with it and eventually create a large text of their own which someone else sees and thinks there must be something in it, and so on. But to me, that's hollow, except for the capacity to capture peoples imaginations enough that they then write documents that capture more peoples imaginations, but not produce much of anything, apart from more of itself. A variety of meme, perhaps?

So that's alot of meandering on my part and I could just be missing what you play the game for?

[Zzarchov]

Well, to win.  Now in regular RPG's that isn't the case, that is also one of the huge stumbling blocks that some people never truly get over.  But that is why people play most games, so I just make sure the game has teamwork (encourage the social aspect) and that its like golf (you play against the course) and not like poker (you play against everyone else) as a halfway point.

Alot of RPG's do feature a 'play the course' mentality in the small scale when it comes to beating 'encounters',  so its not a bad starting point in my mind.  Of course this is just my opinion so if you think im out to lunch let me know.

[Callan S.]

"You play to win" isn't in there, is it? If I handed you a copy of chess (say you'd never played before) with the note that you play to win, and the win conditions, cut out of it, would you know that you play it to win? What is winning, when there is no win condition in the? Also, how do you lose?

I might have overlooked these in the text. But I'd say that you play to win aught to be in the first paragraph of the basic premise. Otherwise your thinking it as you write the game - but obviously other groups can't tell what you were thinking.

[Zzarchov]

You'd have to read through to the sample adventure for that.

[Callan S.]

I think I'm giving you what my genuine impression would be upon contact, the reasons for that impression and given the design goal, a solution. Zzarchov, I think you've responded to me as if "You've gotten it wrong, you didn't read the sample adventure". If so, this is no good - you can't ask if you've made an error somewhere, then tell people they are the ones who made an error when they genuinely try to point out what they think is a mistake on your part!? If you didn't mean this, I'm just noting it anyway because as I've said, I think this needs to be in the first paragraph of the basic premise - having it at the back is still no good.

Also, if you meant it's in the escape from the witches tower, I still don't see any win or, even more notably, lose conditions? It could be infered rescuing the princess is winning, but how can you lose? She just stays up there until eventually she's rescued, or we just stop playing?

Perhaps you don't really want to have winning and losing as part of the game? Do you really want it in the game, or are you just trying to placate peoples gamist play to win instincts, as you introduce them to what you see as the real thing about roleplaying? Perhaps you should just make it about what you see as the real thing about roleplaying, then put a description of that that up the front in the basic premise (yeah, I'm still pimping the idea of putting what its about, front and center)? I mean this as constructive feedback.

[Zzarchov]

what Im getting at, is that is destructive feedback for the design goals. Which is why I stated them.

This is a 'bridge' game,  built to go between boardgame and RPG.   Roleplaying (as a fun mechanism) is not something most people identify with,  most people who are familiar with it are familiar with it in a work context or a therapy context,  neither of which are fun environments.

Thus the word role-playing is mentioned only twice in the first paragraph and then dropped.  The game goes on implication of play,  just like most of the original RPG's that introduced so many people into the hobby. 

Explaining roleplaying, which is far more complex as a fun mechanism than any Math found in any RPG I can think of,  in under an hour, while also explaining how Roleplaying in a game context often involves story telling (most people are familiar with roleplaying in a work environment), its not really feasible.

Now If I say the goal isn't to win, they ask what is? then you get into the discussion of roleplaying, you've now eaten up an hour and a half and haven't gamed.  Roleplaying is easiest as a "show me".   If I imply the goal is to win I don't force behaviour, but the game has already moved on enough that they can already build their own end goals, even if just to get off the map.


I suppose I should go back and put more detail into the design goals,  if there is that much confusion..but keep in mind, this is an intro rpg,   for non-gamers.   Adults as well, not children (though there is nothing to stop bright children, the sort who can sit still for an hour, from joining in).   

Now I can certainly change this if this turns out to be not the case,  perhaps its merely the field I work in and the people I know who think in this manner.

But in the 'why it doesn't work',  Im getting the impression this is a 'why I don't think it will work',   not a "why it doesn't",   Im not seeking out playtesters here but has anyone run alot of games for non-gamers and thus has experience with the pitfalls of game design for non-gamers?  I've gotten quite a few comments like these from gamers before,  but never from non-gamers and not from gamers who I got to run the game for their spouses and kids.

That just means one of a few things though
.1.) they aren't telling me all the feedback I need and the real feedback is this info as you are posting.
.2.) this is armchair theorizing with no practical experience to draw upon


now Im willing to buy 1 is true, but some of the comments I've gotten seem very non-sensical for practical usage.  Not to poke people, but for example dividing 12 between 4 numbers being complicated, for adults, more than half of whom have college or university educations.  Even with children 10 and up Im sure sorting wouldn't be a problem.

I hope It makes sense where I am coming from.   That said I do take note of all suggestions and test them, even the "sort 12 between 4 is tough" could be bang on, im not so arrogant as to think Im going to be right all the time.

[Mike Sugarbaker]

now Im willing to buy 1 is true, but some of the comments I've gotten seem very non-sensical for practical usage.  Not to poke people, but for example dividing 12 between 4 numbers being complicated, for adults, more than half of whom have college or university educations.  Even with children 10 and up Im sure sorting wouldn't be a problem.

People can do it, but will they want to? If the pitch for your game is "fast, adventure, fun," then as a player, that's what my mind is on. If sorting a bunch of numbers is something I experience as even a bit of a pain in the ass - which isn't measured by whether I'm capable of it, but whether I want to be placing my attention on it right now - then it's working against your design goals. Mechanics should feel, to the player, like whatever thing they want their focus to be on.

But in the 'why it doesn't work',  Im getting the impression this is a 'why I don't think it will work',   not a "why it doesn't",   Im not seeking out playtesters here but has anyone run alot of games for non-gamers and thus has experience with the pitfalls of game design for non-gamers?  I've gotten quite a few comments like these from gamers before,  but never from non-gamers and not from gamers who I got to run the game for their spouses and kids.

The bad news is that non-gamers (or, if you're trying to gateway people from board games, non-roleplayers) are all different. There aren't a lot of useful generalizations to be made. RPGs are what they are because they crack open the closed loop of play-by-rules that people expect from games, and allow for at least some degree of just making stuff up; once you open that door, you open it to any number of things that any individual might object to or be initially uncomfortable with.

This is kind of a tangent, but: it might be productive to make a list of specific ideas that non-RPers would need to be introduced to to play an RPG, and then specifically create steps to follow in the game rules that introduce those ideas one at a time, at appropriate times.

[Zzarchov]

tangent or no, thats actually a great idea.


As for taking 12 points and splitting them between 4 numbers,  my head cannot get around that being difficult or even bad, because you do it once, and then never again. And you don't even need to, you have pre-made options too.  I know its getting off topic and all,  but if during character creation that level of customization is too much..what the heck is not?  This isn't a conflict resolution mechanic..its char gen.  If that level of customization is too much..is there any hope for a game that has things like beliefs and goals? Often where one needs to list more than 4.   I do seek to be able to get up to 12 hours of entertainment from this afterall.

[Callan S.]

But in the 'why it doesn't work',  Im getting the impression this is a 'why I don't think it will work',   not a "why it doesn't",   Im not seeking out playtesters here but has anyone run alot of games for non-gamers and thus has experience with the pitfalls of game design for non-gamers?  I've gotten quite a few comments like these from gamers before,  but never from non-gamers and not from gamers who I got to run the game for their spouses and kids.

Have you had non gamers run it for other non gamers? That was my question

To me, the basic premise doesn't describe anything in particular? If I said Adventure banana is a simple party game of the zuzu genre, would you know what I meant? Would you know what fun you'd play a zuzu genre game for? Would you see a reason to start messing around with dice or calculating anything?

What did the non gamers end up doing? Did they stumble over the 'zuzu' genre and what adventure 'banana' is about in terms of what you play for?

Or have you mostly had gamers running it for non gamers? Does this reflect who you want to reach - I got the impression you wanted to make something non gamers could run for other non gamers, mostly?

Also, gamers have a cultural tendency to 'fill in gaps' - so even if something doesn't work, they wont report it because they already filled it in/smoothed it over. This sounds fine if all groups fill it in in the same way, but often they can do it in problematic ways, or not at all, leading to issues that didn't show up in playtests where gamers ran it for non gamers.