Gaming Comes Out-of-the-Box [was "Beginner-Friendly Gam

[Le Joueur]

First we need to simplify 'what is role-playing gaming' (and I don't mean for print on a "half page"), in a fashion similar to Scott McCloud does in both Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics.

Would it be worth taking a page from McCloud's book and writing an RPG that expresses an answer to the question "what is RP gaming"? Would that even be meaningful?

An interesting thought experiment, what would the user play?  A game designer?  Oooh, that could be fun; maybe like InSpectres exept with game design.  We could collaborate, Ron could write the 'dealing with the three tiers' part, Clinton would get the Internet and business start-up part, I could do the design specifications part (we'd run specifics as a rating you roll against to see if your product does what you want in playtest).  Yeah definite possibilities.

Or we might wind up with a definition of 'the state of things,' like "Indulgent, Unstructured, Engaging, Communal, Narrative Entertainment Enacted with Consensual Suspension of Disbelief."  Woof!

Fang Langford

[Seth L. Blumberg]

An interesting thought experiment, what would the user play? A game designer?

Great Ghu, no! Is the bulk of Understanding Comics about the professional life of a comic book writer/artist? That wouldn't tell the player anything about what games were, only what the gaming industry was.

No, the players would play gamers. Obviously.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

We could collaborate, Ron could write the 'dealing with the three tiers' part, Clinton would get the Internet and business start-up part, I could do the design specifications part (we'd run specifics as a rating you roll against to see if your product does what you want in playtest).  Yeah definite possibilities.

Or Clinton could not. Clinton thinks being "out of the box" isn't going to get any new gamers - just people playing with strange new electronic hit-point using lightsabers.

Clinton especially thinks a game about gamers will not bring in any new people - just the opposite. Its self-referential text will only highlight the illness that permeates the social fabric of gamers today.

Clinton thinks you can get new gamers by:
a) not falling into the social retardation trap most gamers do, and
b) inviting people to game.

Not that revolutionary, I know - but I've never tried to be.

[Le Joueur]

Clinton thinks you can get new gamers by:
a) not falling into the social retardation trap most gamers do, and
b) inviting people to game.

Not that revolutionary, I know - but I've never tried to be.

Oh no, you don't get off the hook that easily.

Well?  What are the ways we do a) or b) that are effectively 'outside the box' of the way we do it now?

It doesn't have to be revolutionary.  Heck, it'd work better if it weren't.

So?

Dang Langford [sp]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Well?  What are the ways we do a) or b) that are effectively 'outside the box' of the way we do it now?

It doesn't have to be revolutionary.  Heck, it'd work better if it weren't.

Oh, how to answer this...

Clinton's not-really-revolutionary ideas for finding new gamers
1. Ask someone at work - someone who isn't a gamer - to join in your game. You'd be amazed at how many people won't do this. Fuck - I won't do this.

2. Talk about your game like you would any other hobby. I finally started doing this, and it's awesome. I'll tell you something crazy - if I didn't have a girlfriend, I'd have a super-hot date because of gaming. The girl at the print shop (print shop girls are always yummy) took one look at Donjon and started flipping through it, telling me, "This is really cool." She's called me twice "to see if I need more copies."

Tell fucking strangers. If someone asks what you do for fun, say "I play role-playing games."

3. Put up a notice ("looking for new participants") at a local gathering place - a coffee shop or whatever. Make sure people that don't game can understand it. Here's where your "what is a RPG?" paragraph needs to go.

4. Here's a cool one: put up a notice offering to play RPGs with kids at your local gathering place. It's like free babysitting. Someone's going to do it, and kids will love it. Seriously.

5. Lastly, recognize the following:
- Whether subconciously or conciously, many of us deal with emotional and social issues through gaming.
- Most people deal with these same issues through everyday human interaction.
- RPGs attract the freak element because these are people who can't deal with these issues through everyday human interaction, so they turn elsewhere.

Armed with this knowledge, either do one of two things:
a) Seek normal human interaction, and don't be a weirdo, or
b) Seek out the introverted, the sullen, the quiet creatives. Seek out the people you pass everyday that look at the ground. Seek out these people scrambling around for an outlet and give them one.

[Le Joueur]

Clinton's not-really-revolutionary ideas for finding new gamers
1. Ask someone at work - someone who isn't a gamer - to join in your game.

2. Talk about your game like you would any other hobby. I finally started doing this, and it's awesome.

Tell...strangers. If someone asks what you do for fun, say "I play role-playing games."

3. Put up a notice ("looking for new participants") at a local gathering place - a coffee shop or whatever. Make sure people that don't game can understand it. Here's where your "what is a RPG?" paragraph needs to go.

4. Here's a cool one: put up a notice offering to play RPGs with kids at your local gathering place. It's like free babysitting. Someone's going to do it, and kids will love it. Seriously.

Good advice, but a little overdone.  All the people 'in the box' already know about these.  I don't suppose you have some non-revolutionary new ideas?

The whole point for this thread was to get beyond the status quo.  If we don't, I think we can expect more of the same.  I mean, point blank, none of the above fits in a game design (yet).  This is about publishing; at least put these things into publishing context.

I ran a playtest for James Wallis where the game actually awarded, among other 'outside of game time' things, evangelizing and role-playing game advocacy.  (Still looking for those mechanics to pop up in a New Line game.)  That would put it into game design.

Fang Langford

p. s. Are gamer geeks getting you down lately?  Sheesh.

p. p. s. The secret agenda behind this thread was to get people thinking so far out of the box, when they came back they'd have fresh new perspectives on simply what to do 'in the box.'  That, this isn't.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

[Good advice, but a little overdone.  All the people 'in the box' already know about these.  I don't suppose you have some non-revolutionary new ideas?

The whole point for this thread was to get beyond the status quo.  If we don't, I think we can expect more of the same.  I mean, point blank, none of the above fits in a game design (yet).  This is about publishing; at least put these things into publishing context.

...
p. s. Are gamer geeks getting you down lately?  Sheesh.

p. p. s. The secret agenda behind this thread was to get people thinking so far out of the box, when they came back they'd have fresh new perspectives on simply what to do 'in the box.'  That, this isn't.

Fang,

As I told you above, I don't believe 'out of the box' ideas are necessary, or will even work. All the ideas I've heard espoused so far in this thread is a way to get people to play other games.

I didn't get involved because I don't trash on other people's ideas. I only responded when you volunteered me for something (lending my name to your ideas) and then asked me more questions about my answer. My first answer was clear - did you think I was going to say something different?

By the way, I've never seen a gamer do any of the above. When any of them happen, it's rare. Gamers may know about them - but they don't act that way. "Gamer geeks" aren't getting me down - but I'm getting down with gamer psychology, and it's a scary place.

I am not playing your game.

[Le Joueur]

I am not playing your game.

I'm sorry; I thought it was obvious that the "let's make a game about gaming" side light was obviously a lark.  It wasn't my intention to draw you into anything.  I hadn't expected you to respond, at least not seriously, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned you.

You're a really great guy for all the things you do for the Forge and independant games.  I had no idea you were taking this so seriously and I apologize.  I was under the mistaken impression that you were carrying on the humor; I was wrong and withdraw the questions.

Besides that, this is no game.  I am quite serious about the 'beyond the box' stuff.  I felt it was high time to build up some text to point to next time someone whines about the 'shrinking gaming market' or how 'CRPGs are stealing all our players.'  Or that gaming is dead or dying.

It may not further the goal of independant role-playing games in a direct, tangible, measurable fashion, but I hardly think it is a useless exercise or 'a game.'  I know I have gained a few new insights and have refreshed some of my motivation.  (I mean, amusement park LARPs?  Viewmaster games?  Wow!)

I'm sorry if it left a sour taste in your browser, but I can't please everyone.

Fang Langford

[Eugene Zee]

Hi everyone,

I wasn't going to say anything but this is a really important thread.

Just an observation.  It seems that there is some negativity flowing in this thread (I am not pointing any fingers) and that is probably because we are passionate about this topic.  I think that this idea is important enough to forgo the judgements, comments and retaliations.  Again I am not saying that any one person is responsible for this, I just feel that this is one of the most vital topics that we are facing in this industry.

One point that I will raise that I think is an especially good idea is creating a "gateway" type of game.  We have been discussing this idea and I am very protective of our ideas but after some thought I realized this is a good sounding board.  

A "gateway" game concept is a game that is very much like the Wizards pokemon rpg.  It has to be targeted to young children aroung 8-11.  The product has to be based on a licensed product that has a strong track record with the appropriate age group.  

The way it is written and designed are really important.  De-emphasize rules and work on the character development.  Intertwine concepts where kids can make decisions, like bravery vs. self-preservation, selflessness vs. selfishness, etc.  Make the scenarios short and run by an adult.  There are a host of other things in the design that are important but I know that you guys can think of 100 others.

A "gateway" game has to be sold through traditional rpg channels but also chain bookstores (hence the ip).  It has to be marketed in schools, children's magazines and libraries.  We have to use PR instead of advertising.  

To draw in a new group of players we have to go younger and invest the time in growing our market.  Older people are more set and less likely to be changed and teens are already targeted by this industry aggressively.

I have been considering this for a while and would love to hear your input.

Regards

[quozl]

A "gateway" game concept is a game that is very much like the Wizards pokemon rpg.  It has to be targeted to young children aroung 8-11.  The product has to be based on a licensed product that has a strong track record with the appropriate age group.

I have an idea for a non-licensed product that may fit your criteria.  Like you said, use the Pokemon Adventure Game as a base but instead of pokemon monsters, use bugs or dinosaurs.  They have instant recognition and appeal for kids and are quite similar in effect to the Pokemon monsters.

[Eugene Zee]

Quozl,

That sounds workable.  The real challenge is getting it onto the children's book shelves at B&N, Borders, etc.

We actually have an ip in mind, I can't say which but we are looking into it.

Because then I would have to...um...hire you.  ;)

Regards

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jon, Eugene,

Excellant stuff!

My partner and I have been thinking along exactly the same lines for a few years now.  Our first choice was Goosebumps (my wife has this uncanny knack for picking winners before the 'hit'), we even got as far as the contact information and who owned the rights.  We didn't because the product couldn't be ready.  Next up, she identified Harry Potter shortly after the first book came over as the Goosebumps replacement.  Still, the product wasn't ready, but we had a better idea what we wanted.

For us, part of the design of the product is not just being a 'gateway' to gaming, but to have representatives 'on the inside.'  Say you pick up the Scattershot supplement for Harry Potter.  You get to like gaming and look for more; what would be easier, Scattershot or another system (with associated learning curve)?  That's right, brand loyalty.  (We're talking big dreams here.)  This is why we're taking it so slow; we want to get it right.  The second reason is to make it super-easy to turn out a new supplement for 'the next big thing' (makes fad chasing easier).  We're also keeping tabs on her knack, seeing how well it keeps pace; it's one of the crucial parts of this concept.

Anyway, we want to have the 'gateway' product as well as the 'easily identifiable' products 'inside the box' to connect it to.  Once ya get 'em, ya gotta keep 'em, right?

The neat thing is this presents a potential 'end run' around all the problems Ron so rightly discusses with the three tier marketing of role-playing games.  First of all, it uses a slightly different marketing machine.  Second, and I know this from the bookstore end of things, rightly chosen it pretty much guarantees orders.  When Goosebumps was going through, our store ordered anything and everything that carried the license and imprint; no saving throw.  If you pick the right license, the sales may follow like this.

However, we have never licensed a product and planned to work extensively through a lawyer.  I can't stress enough the importance of not signing an agreement that says you'll pay anyone money other than a percentage (and being careful about that too), without a lawyer's practiced eye.  Don't agree to pay a fee you can't afford because you think you'll sell enough; if you can't afford to waste the cash on the spot, don't sign.  That'll be our primary limiter when we go for our licenses; if we ever do.

Good luck with the intellectual property and don't spend anything I wouldn't.

Fang Langford

[Eugene Zee]

Fang,

Thanks for the input.  Goosebumps sounds like it would have been a great idea for a project like this.  It's too bad, I would have liked to see that.  We currently are wrapping up a licensing deal for a fantasy fiction line that has sold over 1 million copies worldwide and is receiving funding to shoot a $60 million movie.  So I am up to my neck in licensing goo.  I got great advice from a friend that has maybe 5-10 licensed rpg products and is a veteran of the industry.  And you know what?  One of the things you said sounded just like what she said. :) Good advice.  Thanks.

I would really like to hear about everyone else's thoughts on a project like a "gateway" game.  Especially Ron and Clinton (whom I don't get to hear enough from).  Mike, Ralph et al., as well.

I kind of feel that we all as publishers and members of the community have a vested interest in carefully and thoughtfully growing the industry.

Regards

[Mike Holmes]

I would really like to hear about everyone else's thoughts on a project like a "gateway" game.  Especially Ron and Clinton (whom I don't get to hear enough from).  Mike, Ralph et al., as well.

To be a skeptic, didn't D&D have just such a gateway game? How did that do? What did it do wrong?

Mike

[Eugene Zee]

Mike,

That is an excellent point and it is one that we were thinking about.  Yes they did have one and I think it did not do so well.  But consider the medium.  In D&D your goal is to hoard money, improve your character etc.  It has so many aspects that do not fit with a young gamer model.  Young gamers (7-12) won't seek it out unless they are carefully mentored by a roleplaying group.  So a D&D product that relies on the interest of these kids to independantly pick up the game and so forth has a strike against it from the start.

But what about a product that stems from something that they know and love.  Six and seven-year old girls that play with Barbie's (don't worry I'm not sexist, little boys can play with Barbie too;P) buy Barbie computer games.  The same is true about the Spice Girls and many other ips.

The key is that D&D will almost never work as a gateway because kids don't care about it.  We have to find a subject matter that they love and want more of and slowly introduce roleplaying to them.  8-year olds can be many years away from being interested in D&D but they can get there.

I believe roleplayers don't only have to be born or found by chance, they can be developed from people who normally would never become interested because of insufficient exposure.

Regards