RPG Structure and Issues of Recruitment

[b_bankhead]

I've said it before, and I have a feeling I'll say it again: the response that we should stop playing large-scale "traditional" campaigns is extremely problematic.  One of the best points in this article, I thought, was that people often want to join RPGs for those factors.

The 'Big' campaign won't go the way of the dodo. It will still be there for those hard-core gamers who can actuaully make use of them.  But the idea that they should be the core concept around which the hobby is built is placing a barrier to entry many cannot surmount.

]Let's face it.  If you've got a semi-regular group down at the ol' Game Shop, and that group likes to do things like InSpectres, or Universalis, or whatever, then none of these critiques really apply, do they?  You're not going to have this problem of someone showing up and wanting to play, but there not being a spot for them, and the rules being too hard to learn, and whatnot.

  And if you have a game group and gamemaster, with wide open schedules,clockwork reliability, endless free time to read and memorize multi-hundred page manuals, and to manage the bookeeping of a long complex campaign then you probably have one your dream campaigns.  But lots of people don't ,and dont have anyone presenting them with any options to the unwieldy status quo.  

]So let's think a minute about the value of the traditional game.  I maintain that there are nice things about it, and that's part of why people are so nostalgic about those campaigns.  They're not nostalgic because they're stupid or misremember things; they're nostalgic because they liked those games!

   Well for my part they had their downside. I always wanted to play more different games. But people hung up on the eternal campaign can become bonded to it and won't let go, even sometime when they themselves admittedly stopped enjoying them....

  And again although many find them enjoyable, they aren't practical for most likely rpg recruits.

]So the question, logically, is this: how do you structure an otherwise "traditional" game such that newcomers can be brought in readily, and people who have to miss a session don't destroy the game

?

  Actually I think this is a credible goal. You do not have to change every element of a game to help diminish the recruitment problems I mentioned.

] The GM problem is probably insurmountable, although having an "alternate" would sure help.  Fact is, if you're going to be able to assimilate a sudden arrival into a longstanding campaign structure, you're going to need someone who's relatively in control.  Besides, the GM is part of the tradition, and often a big attraction.  People want to play a game, often, because Joe is running it, and he's supposed to be terrific.  Dropping GMs out of the equation will lose that attraction.

   First if a games structure is specifically designed not to need a DM and to accomodate new people then you wont need anyone in control.

 The DM as autuer arguement however bears examination. First what is a 'good' DM? In practice one who puts the things we like into his campaign!  However in a game designed to split up DM power you dont have to get a DM who will do that, you put them in yourself! (This is one of the big appeals of such games to me...)

 Finally, the problem with traditional game structures is that if you missed that GM when the group was forming you won't get a chance to play under him until the group breaks up (remember the solidification problem?).  This is another thing that is nice about the way CCG and Warhammer are structured.  The rpg crowds tend to split up into little archipelagos of gamers plaing with a particular group and rarely playing outside of it's membership.  With the other games members play with different people all the time.  In a game structured this way a lot more people would get to enjoy the creative contributions of this 'good' GM than in a traditionally stuctured game.

] It would help a lot to write up a quick-start version of the rules, i.e. a version that could be expressed in one or two simple pages.  Then a regular player simply walks the newcomer through the basics in a few minutes, and you're all set.  

I have a better idea, how about write the quick start rules and throw the rest away!!!?????

]Anyway, my point is that dropping traditional RPG structures because they have some recruiting problems misses the point.  If you want to play non-traditional games, by all means do so.  But it is entirely possible to play more traditional ones and yet avoid many of these recruiting problems.

Indeed it is but it is also possible to be in a situation where half measures won't do the job.....

[b_bankhead]

But, you are right, many games do appear to foment the idea that to play you have to start with a beginning (viz. introductory) level character.

Why?

You've nailed the main reason why this idea is promulgated right on the head!  It rests with the players, players who become invested in the game up to that point feel cheated if another player comes along as is able to generate a character of mid- to high level without seeming to have to go through all those iniitatory steps to 'earn' that player.

But, IMHO, that is wrong thinking and detracts from what role-playing is really all about.  Course I could be wrong.  (Heck I was probably guilty of it when I first began playing RPGs!)

What are your thoughts?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

  Saying that it's wrong thinking won't stop anybody from thinking that way guy.  This issue is one I have seen acted out over a quarter century over and over. The 'Protestant Fun Ethic' model is deeply rooted in D&D. (And games like it Everquest is an excellent example).  Guys who struggled through the often tedious process of 'leveling up'  are likely to be resentful of those who get it handed to them on a silver platter, and I don't see much that is going to change that.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Wow, cool post.

I'm gonna run some random thoughts by y'all here:

New players vs. long running campaigns
Consider the classic D&D problem with levels and building up. People already suggested for my game which should be mandatory thinking: let characters start with cool stuff (abilities etc) from the beginning.

I think a lot of problems would go away if you had just as "kewl" powers at level 1 as at level 10.

As an example of this visualized, think FF7: So, your beginning level summons might not cut it at the end of the game, but they look just as cool as the most powerful ones. The only difference between beginning and end is that you have MORE powers, not necessarily cooler.

Robotech gets a vote from me here on being able to do it well. We ran a campaign for over a year and I had new (level 1) characters entering and leaving (by way of death) while most other players managed to keep their characters alive. It was no problem whatsoever.

Robotech has a level system, but level-gain is both slow with bonuses and advantages of gaining levels subtle. In addition characters start out extremely competent.


GM dependence
Any game capable of running a campaign consisting of independent episodes might have the ability to switch GMs in-between episodes.

With an episode I need a self-contained story-arc which can take less than a session or a number of them.

The "independent" attribute is a little more complicated. Basically I mean that there can't be any great shift in events from one independent episode to another. If they gain a magical item of incredible power in the beginning of the episode, they will lose it at the end and so on.

One episode should not greatly influence the outcome of others. Consider series like x-files. There's a certain consistency in the stories no matter how big changes the characters go through.


More things

It's really interesting how Bryan (that's your first name?) observes that games have a soap-like structure. Because it stands in sharp contrast to the other "habits".

In soaps we have:

* Clear and effective methods for introducing "new characters".

* Alternate writers (=GMs) of the individual stories without much problem.

* Geared towards making watchers easily get involved with the current story.

* Episodes always ending with a cliff-hanger of some sort

* Characters evolve and improve but usually do not radically change, there is no constant "turning up the challenge" knob. E.g. "J.R." in "Dallas" doesn't set his goals increasingly higher, finally trying to become the president of the U.S.[/list:u]
Can we make the games work more like soaps perhaps?

[Bruce Baugh]

I want to point out here that the RPG market doesn't exist in a vacuum.

A lot of players were always interested in fairly simple structures and lots of exciting details, and computer games - PC and console - are much closer to their heart's desire. More sights, more sounds, a simple framework for interacting with things, some characterization chrome but no big deal, and so on.

The rise of online gaming has added a social dimension to the above, and also provided opportunities for other folks who used to play RPGs of the sort we're mostly talking about in forums like this. I have friends who readily agree that the massively multiplayer online RPGs cannot compete with a good GM and bunch of players. But they can compete with a lot of boring (or worse) GMs and players, and if someone's life is sufficiently busy, something you can play at whatever odd moments you have is going to get more use than something that requires coordination.

There are also a lot more options in entertainment of forms you don't play - more anime and wuxia to watch, Western movies and TV influenced by Hong Kong and Bollywood sources, a genre fiction publishing industry that sucks in ways that would stagger almost anyone with basic clues but does atually deliver bestsellers of different sorts pretty reliable, and so on.

Among my colleagues who aren't suffering from severe recto-cranial inversion, there's ongoing discussion about how to deal with all this. The biggest success story among new games of the last decade, Exalted, obviously owes a lot of inspiration to anime and to console games, but it's also got features that probably don't work as well in any medium other than gaming. Noticeably, it's got what any sensible person (including the developer :) ) would call a rules-heavy presentation and support for pretty traditional play. And it's doing really, really well for itself. There seems to be an audience for well-done familiarly-structured RPGs about as large as it was ten years ago.

Now, this isn't to say that alternatives have no place. They do, I think, if only because the existing distribution and retail channels aren't getting any better and another good strong wind will take them over. And I very much agree with a lot of the idea offered here. I just think it's important to keep in mind that gaming of this sort is off from its peak fifteeen-twenty years ago mostly because of the rise of alternatives that satisfied customers' real desires better. There are limits to how far you can go in trying to pull people away from other stuff without becoming that other stuff.

[John Kim]

The biggest success story among new games of the last decade, Exalted, obviously owes a lot of inspiration to anime and to console games, but it's also got features that probably don't work as well in any medium other than gaming. Noticeably, it's got what any sensible person (including the developer :) ) would call a rules-heavy presentation and support for pretty traditional play. And it's doing really, really well for itself.

A question, Bruce: do you have any information or pointers to more information about successes?  As a non-industry person, the only real measuring stick I have is the rough number and frequency of supplements for a game.  What other RPGs of the past decade have been notably successful (or unsuccessful), other than D&D3?  

I just think it's important to keep in mind that gaming of this sort is off from its peak fifteeen-twenty years ago mostly because of the rise of alternatives that satisfied customers' real desires better. There are limits to how far you can go in trying to pull people away from other stuff without becoming that other stuff.  

Well, at the same time, I think there probably is something to look for in other successes like Magic: The Gathering, Settlers of Catan, and HeroClix (I guess).  These are not new alternatives in basic principles, in that card games, board games, and miniature games are all older than RPGs.  (On the othe hand, computer games are genuinely new.)

[Bruce Baugh]

Sure, John. Ken Hite does a good annual summary of the publicly available data, and he just wrote the http://www.gamersrealm.com/store1/outofthebox.php">2002 overview - that's a good place to start. After that, unfortunately, it's into the realm of largely confidential data, but I can lay out the general spread. WotC's best-sellers move more than a hundred thousand copies a year. White Wolf's major successes are in the mid-five figures, with successful lines in the high four and low five figures. A few thousand copies a year is a solid success for pretty much everyone else, apart from maybe the major d20 lines.

Besides Exalted, signficant successes of the last decade outside d20 include Big Eyes, Small Mouth - which has had real ups and downs, but has also done great at reaching into plces RPGs don't normally go - and...hmm. Darn it, I had a list around here, and now it's not coming to mind. I'll update when I find it.

I'd consider collectible card games and clickytech significant innovations even though card games and miniatures both existed beforehand. (And they seem distinctive to customers, however we measure them against various criteria.) But yeah, there are lessons there, both about what works and what doesn't under various circumstances. My list of things RPGs must now share mindshare with was supposed to be indicative rather than exhaustive, but I see I wasn't clear about that. Now I am. :)

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings b_bankhead,

Saying that it's wrong thinking won't stop anybody from thinking that way guy.  This issue is one I have seen acted out over a quarter century over and over. The 'Protestant Fun Ethic' model is deeply rooted in D&D. (And games like it Everquest is an excellent example).  Guys who struggled through the often tedious process of 'leveling up'  are likely to be resentful of those who get it handed to them on a silver platter, and I don't see much that is going to change that.

I dunno.  All it would take is a paragraph or two explaining that it is not necessary for veteran gamers to start from 0 level, or perhaps that it is possible to generate an X level character to meet the criteria of a module or adventure.  I know some systems do this.

As I see it there are two ways to game: 1) The "invested" method, meaning you create, shape, mold, and become emotionally attached to a core character, and; B) the "non-invested" way, meaning you learn to generate characters on the fly and use them and lose them in stride.

The way I ran my games of old was this:  Players were allowed two characters.  One was their "primary" character the other was their "secondary".  My reasoning was that, should they loose one, they'd always have the other.  And thus be able to generate a second one for introduction into the game without actually detracting from game play by having to totally remove themselves from the game.

How did this work out in the game?

As you've probably already guessed.  The secondary characters became gophers and sidekicks for some, scouts who more or less were always off somewhere else for others, and shadows of the primary character for the rest.  True, those who treated the secondaries as shadows literally had them 'there', tag alongs who did very little, and that could be a problem.  Unless you happened to be me.

GM: *pointing to player*  "There is a purple writhing mass of putrid stench heading toward you, what you do do?"

Player: *picking up dice*  "I have my cleric jump out of the way, of course!"

GM *still pointing*  "And what about Fred?"

Player:  *blinking while shuffling papers frantically*  "Fred?  Oh, hey, wait a minute.  Fred's a magic user with fireball, isn't he!"

et al. . .

I also had a bevvy of NPCs that 'sit ins' could play.  These NPCs were fully written up, had a background, stated goals, yada yada yada.  And I found that this method seemed a good way to introduce 'sit ins' to role-playing.  (Actually my players sort of goaded me into this one since I more or less incorportated any passerby into the current game action anyway.)  But just look at all that I have described so far!

How many ways of playing was that?  Hmm, no matter.  The point is that gaming habits are learned, which means they can be taught.  Of course if the rule books say that one has to play only a certain way. . .


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[John Kim]

Ken Hite does a good annual summary of the publicly available data, and he just wrote the http://www.gamersrealm.com/store1/outofthebox.php">2002 overview...
Besides Exalted, signficant successes of the last decade outside d20 include Big Eyes, Small Mouth - which has had real ups and downs, but has also done great at reaching into places RPGs don't normally go - and...hmm. Darn it, I had a list around here, and now it's not coming to mind. I'll update when I find it.

OK, thanks for the info.  (And I've been reading Ken's excellent column, but I forgot about his overview.  Ken and I were in the same gaming group in U of Chicago years back, BTW.)  Unfortunately, as I read it, the market data here doesn't seem terribly promising for the more out-there story-focused systems. For example, BESM is rules-lite but is really a universal system designed to stay out of the way.  It doesn't seem that designs like "Everway" or "Baron Munchausen" are pushing through to the mainstream.  They are cool games, but their style doesn't seem to be popular in the market.  

I'd consider collectible card games and clickytech significant innovations even though card games and miniatures both existed beforehand.

I agree that they are major innovations, and indeed I would characterize them as breakthroughs of design.  What I wanted to deny was dismissing them as a new category of competition which just randomly came about.  I think rather that the innovations of card games -> CCG's is something that should be considered when thinking about what can be done with RPG design.

[Bruce Baugh]

Unfortunately, as I read it, the market data here doesn't seem terribly promising for the more out-there story-focused systems. For example, BESM is rules-lite but is really a universal system designed to stay out of the way.  It doesn't seem that designs like "Everway" or "Baron Munchausen" are pushing through to the mainstream.  They are cool games, but their style doesn't seem to be popular in the market.  

That's a correct assessment of the current gaming market. High-crunch games with detailed combat as a major element do sell literally orders of magnitude better than games with light mechanics and a strong orientation toward literary and dramatic aspects. This is one of the reasons the existing market's in a dead end; the potential audience for other things is there, but figuring out how to reach them is not a trivial challenge.

What I wanted to deny was dismissing them as a new category of competition which just randomly came about.  I think rather that the innovations of card games -> CCG's is something that should be considered when thinking about what can be done with RPG design.

Okay, that's pretty reasonable. :)

[b_bankhead]

That's a correct assessment of the current gaming market. High-crunch games with detailed combat as a major element do sell literally orders of magnitude better than games with light mechanics and a strong orientation toward literary and dramatic aspects. This is one of the reasons the existing market's in a dead end; the potential audience for other things is there, but figuring out how to reach them is not a trivial challenge.

I hate to keep harping on this, but If you want to sell a new kind of game you have to offer it to a new market. The seleciton pressure for D&D in the hobby shops is essentiallyh inescapable. I'm convinced in most areas you either learn to love D&D or you leave that scene (As I have).
As a consequence your market will consits of people outside of that matrix.

[Brendan Litton]

I don't know how aware people are of the Living Campaigns that are becoming a bigger and bigger part of DnD.  Basically, characters run through standardised modules and their characters are 'certified' to have gained a certain amount of experience/gold/other rewards (or died/been dismembered/suffered other penalty.)

They can then take that character to a convention or home game running another module from the 'Living Campaign'

Obviously a lot of sacrifices in terms of world customisation, ongiong NPC relationships and so forth are made, but this kind of campaign is attracting players for the sorts of reasons that are set out above.

A character's level depends on the rewards they have earned and had 'certified'; not on the level of the other group members.  Most conventions, however, will have groups playing at different levels, to allow players to slot into an appropriate one.

The rules are consistent across the campaign.  I can join in one country and while there are still DM variations, basically am ensured of the same game rules at a table in another country.

Given the difficulties of holding together a regular 'long-play' weekly (or so) campaign given time constraints and disractors, I see this sort of gaming and PbP gaining more and more ground from the 'traditional' RPG campaign.