In the beginning, there was dysfunction...

[efindel]

Well I like using D&D for introducing new people to the game.  Rules wise it is fairly awful, but with a few stradigys that I use it really isn't so bad.  The thing I like about using D&D though is the fantasy adventure motif.  

<snipping a bunch>

Do non standard games work?  Sure they work wonderfuly, but I have had to get the players over the hump of not worrying so much about some law enfoment agency and to just have fun.  In fantasy...and even vampire that really dosn't excist so much.

This seems to me to be more an element of setting, though, then of system.  One could just as easily run, say, Donjon, Sorcerer & Sword, or Tunnels & Trolls in a fantasy world with no strong central authority.  The bit about Vampire applies equally well to any modern setting where the PCs exist or are acting "outside society" -- so it could apply to, say, Sorcerer, most superhero games, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.

--Travis

[jdagna]

Specifically, in Justin Dagna's post, I saw an assumption that bugs me (though I believe one of Marco's referenced it earlier):  starting players are often better off with dysfunctional or lesser games.  I've seen hints of it here; I've also seen it a lot in places like RPGnet.  And I don't buy it.

I'm not going against Justin by way of saying that every new player should read all of Ron's essays and understand every thread on the Forge before coming to the table.  What I'm saying is, why are new players given crap?  Why is it that gamers who hate D&D or Vampire will say that they're good introductions to the hobby?

First, let me start by saying that you're misrepresenting what I said.  You're still assuming that the gaming manifesto represented advice for dysfunctional play.  My argument was to point out that the manifesto left dysfunctional play open as an option, but generally gave advice that new players would identify with more readily than something on the GNS level.  I also do not believe that Illusionism and The Impossible Thing are inherently bad; they're merely unsuited to some people's preferred styles of play (such as my own).

I DO NOT believe that new players should start with dysfunctional play.  I DO NOT believe they should be given crap.  I DO believe they should be given material that's at their level.  I DO believe they should learn the games that most of their peers are playing.

When I started taking piano lessons, one of the first songs I learned to play was the "Happy Birthday" song.  Why?  First, everyone knows it - they know the tune, the timing, everything.  This knowledge lets them focus on things like where their hands are and which keys they're pressing.  Second, it's something they're more likely to use in real life.  When was the last time your family sung something by Beethoven?

But, would anyone argue that the Happy Birthday song is good?  Probably not - there's little going on there of musical merit.  But it's simple and its easy, and its a good starting point.  Starting off with the masters would be intimidating and self-destructive.  Furthermore, the Happy Birthday song isn't necessarily bad - it's just usually sung that way by untrained and unenthusiastic singers.  Ever heard a trained singer do it with a little flair?  It's a totally different experience.

In the same way, I would absolutely not recommend that new players begin with GNS theory.  I would absolutely not recommend that new players start off with most indie games.  Vampire or D&D are actually fairly decent places to start, ESPECIALLY if it's understood that they are starting places only.  They are good starting places for the same reasons as my first piano song - they're easy to learn and played by many people.

Furthermore, as much as I do not like either game, they do not necessarily produce dysfunctional play.  There are perfectly functional groups having a perfectly good time playing both of them.  Just because YOU played them dysfunctionally doesn't mean that EVERYONE does.  If a guy has happily played OD&D for 30 years, who am I to suggest that he needs to do anything else?

I think there needs to be a wake up call on the Forge.  BAD OR INCOHERENT GAMES DESIGN HAS NO ONE TO ONE RELATIONSHIP WITH DYSFUNCTIONAL PLAY.  So much of dysfunctional falls entirely outside the realm of game systems.  I can pick up any game here on the Forge and play it dysfunctionally.  

Hell, I can use Donjon to perpetrate the Impossible Thing if I want to, and what's wrong with that if we enjoy it?!  Clearly we'll be fighting the system every step of the way, and you know what?  We'll probably conclude that its a "dysfunctional or lesser" game, just the way you've decided that D&D and Vampire are.  We'll conclude that it produces dysfunctional play and offers really stupid, lousy advice.  Then, we'll probably bump into D&D or Vampire and feel like we've finally come home.

Don't mistake me as saying that system doesn't matter.  It does (and I think the previous paragraph should make that clear).  What I'm saying is that a bad/incoherent/lesser system does not produce dysfunctional play by itself.  It may support it, and there may be better systems.  But I have never seen an RPG that could not be played in a functional and enjoyable manner.

[efindel]

Vampire or D&D are actually fairly decent places to start, ESPECIALLY if it's understood that they are starting places only. They are good starting places for the same reasons as my first piano song - they're easy to learn and played by many people.

I'll agree that they're played by many people... but are they easy to learn?  D&D3e is layered with tons of stuff to learn -- what the races are and how they're different, what the classes are and how they're different, saving throws, how skills work and what they do, various feats, a magic system where each and every spell is its own individual rule, etc.  Indeed, D&D3e is complicated enough that WotC produces the "D&D Adventure Game" to help people learn it.  Vampire has a lot of complications as well, with things like the various disciplines and what they do and lots of subsystems.

As far as game mechanics go, Donjon and Sorcerer are both simpler than D&D3e and Vampire, I'd say.  And you could simplify things greatly with Sorcerer by leaving out demons at the start -- say, doing Sorcerer & Sword with no one having a bound demon yet at the start.

And of course, there are games which are deliberately designed to be simple, like Fudge and Risus.

--Travis

[jdagna]

Travis, I agree that there's a lot of complexity in D&D, and most other major systems.  However, in teaching games to new players, the question I get most often is "OK, now what do I do?"

D&D usually provides an answer, partly as a result of its complexity.  Donjon does not provide an answer - in fact, what you can do isn't even limited to what your character can do.  This is generally more difficult for newbies than deciding between a dozen different feats.

Furthermore, does a game like Donjon prevent dysfunctional play any more than D&D?  Do you know what my friend's first question about Donjon was when he read it?  He asked "So... how do I keep players from messing up the story?"

[Bankuei]

Hi Justin,

I think you're focusing on a strong Creative Agenda as your reasoning for stuff like D&D being a good starter game.  And I agree that a strong, clear, creative agenda is vital for newbies.  I think that is, in part the reason that the first question always asked at the Forge is, "What is your game about?".

Although, I think this is where we're going to differ.  I think Inspectres and Donjon are just as strong Creative Agenda-wise as any of the old hands.  But let me point something out-

Do you know what my friend's first question about Donjon was when he read it? He asked "So... how do I keep players from messing up the story?"

This is a gamer assumption, about story being "GM only" domain, not necessarily a newbie assumption.  A gamer assumption usually passed down orally through playing some of those old hand games.  

Most of my gaming experience has been introducing newbies into gaming, and few have had any trouble with games without prescripted plots, particularly since they had no idea that it was considered a "standard" of play by many people.  

Chris

[Tony Irwin]

That said, I'm really intrigued by hyphz's comment:

For what it's worth, it could be notable that many of the dysfunctional groups I've ever seen have welcomed new players, although not necessarily treated them well once they're in; the "functional" style play groups have been entirely closed.

Has anybody had experience with this correlation?  I've found that, in general, even letting experienced players who were not in the beginning of a game into the middle can create dysfunction or exaggerate existing dysfunction to new lows; I suspect, but cannot confirm, that it is related to social contract issues.  But is this observation accurate?  Does it imply that coherent play will always benefit from closed groups?

That's a really interesting point, and I think there's a match with my own experience. When RPGs were part of our ongoing social disfunction "Who's at the top of the ladder" problems, we freely invited and accepted all and sundry to our games.

When things really clicked for us(what I'd now call functional play), whether exploration of setting in L5R, or our much later narrativist play in L5R, or exploration of colour in Seventh Sea, we realised we had something wonderful on our hands and stopped inviting new players and became very secretive about when and where we would meet.

My best example of that is probably SLA industries, where I'd now say we were doing sim exploration of colour and setting. We had been "in the zone" for a month or more. A friend came along and wrote up a depressed alcoholic med-specialist to join our team of PCs. It only took two (admittedly brief) monologues about what his character was feeling and thinking, before we stopped the game and took turns to shout at him (my god what were we like?) and insist he write up a new character. We couldn't verbalise it back then but we were deeply loving exploration of setting and colour, this guy came along wanting to explore character and we immediately sensed a clash.

Why so protective/closed? I think part of it is the inability to articulate play preferences. We couldn't specify exactly why things were going so great so we were loathe to mess with the mix. Closed to newcomers can also mean closed to house-rules/revised editions in that respect. We couldn't tell people (though we got better at it) why and how we played without relying on meaningless terms like "story", "rules-lite/rules-heavy". Since coming to the forge I've become much better at identifying games that I know I just won't gel with. I'm better at articulating what I'm looking for and much less likely to bring disfunctional play (due to differing GNS priorities) along with me.

So back to your question - I don't think closed groups will help develop coherent play, but I think once coherent play is achieved, closing the group comes as a heart-felt attempt to preserve it.

Tony

[hyphz]

[So back to your question - I don't think closed groups will help develop coherent play, but I think once coherent play is achieved, closing the group comes as a heart-felt attempt to preserve it.

And thus it's guaranteed that new players will be welcomed to incoherent play, as all the coherent groups are already closed...

[Jason Lee]

So back to your question - I don't think closed groups will help develop coherent play, but I think once coherent play is achieved, closing the group comes as a heart-felt attempt to preserve it.

I suppose that could be one reason.  For me, other reasons dominate.

1) Our group is full. We have six people and seven has been proven to just be too many, expecially with the number of characters under each player's control (I have nine at this exact moment, but I swear it isn't my fault, I'm only supposed to have four...the characters keep collecting my npcs).
2) Comfort levels are well established.  Especially with some of the subject matter that floats through our game, comfort level can be important.  I don't really like worring about offending people more than I have to.
3) Time commitment is high and scheduling is difficult.  We play every week, mostly on time...probably the most difficult thing to get a gaming group to do.  More/different people mean more scheduling hassle.
4) No one wants to leave, hence no free space.  If we lost a player for some reason we would be willing to let another person in, but we'd be really picky about who because of the above reasons.  Though, experienced gamer is not one of the criteria; I think group preference would actually be for a newbie.

So, I see some desire to protect our functional play above...but I think it's a relatively small part.

[Marco]

I agree with Cruciel.

I play in 2-4 groups. Two are full and functional (I think). Both include new players (one is her first time ever playing). Both are *full.* That's the reason for closing the group there.

In the other two there are 1-2 players and they'd be classed as open for people who were interested. Motivated new players would be especially welcome (but the maximum size would be fixed at 3, for those).

I've never met a player who I considered so dysfunctional that their presence would implicity wreck the game. One of my closest friends and I have clashed *badly* in the past (and there can still be friction in the present)--our GNS modes are probably diametrically different.

Neither of us is a saint.

Our conflicts have wrecked games in the past.

He's playing in all four groups.

I don't think new players are consigned to dysfunction.

-Marco

[Jack Spencer Jr]

What Jason said sounds an aweful lot like what's going on in the group I used to be part of, see various threads in actual play, with at least one addition, Jerry still likes to allow people in the game. I think this stems from his need for power, as I had mentioned elsewhere. However, at this point, he may be considering closing the group. Truth be told, for 4 years I wasn't able to play thanks to scheduleing. He should not have let me back in this group once the new memebers developed their comfort levels, because I recognize and hate them. Brian, I don't think he even recognizes them.

[Jason Lee]

What Jason said sounds an aweful lot like what's going on in the group I used to be part of, see various threads in actual play, with at least one addition, Jerry still likes to allow people in the game. I think this stems from his need for power, as I had mentioned elsewhere. However, at this point, he may be considering closing the group. Truth be told, for 4 years I wasn't able to play thanks to scheduleing. He should not have let me back in this group once the new memebers developed their comfort levels, because I recognize and hate them. Brian, I don't think he even recognizes them.

Heh, don't know if I like being compared to your horror group ;).

This addition is interesting: 'Jerry still likes to allow people in the game.'
Certainly makes it sound like it's Jerry's decision and not that of the group...not that I want to turn this into a 'Jack's old group is suxxor' discussion...  For this group there would probably be a functional play benefit to closing it.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Some comments on the comfort level and Jack's old soxxor group, whatever the heck soxxor means.

At one point, when Jerry was running at the local store, the group had 19 people in it plus the GM, or it would is I was there, but I rarely was. from this group, the current group was paired out. As a result, they developed some comfort levels. TBH I don't think they developed them so much as Jerry & Kat did. Some items were "backed up" by the character background. They use Central Casting from Task Force Games so more than half the group was enslaved at some point so slavery = bad even in later games with characters who have no history with slavery. Self-perpetuating moral compass. This became a problem later in metalfire. Brian's character was a summoner, a magic-type that can summon creature and bind them to her will. But this was considered slavery and so he wasn't allowed to use this ability. He tried it once and the group stole the item and released the item.

The problem illustrated by this is that there's a ill-advised permissiveness and some kind of asumption that the comfort levels won't be violated. I really don't understand what the deal is with slavery, personally. Everybodies white. Another good question is why the hell did Jerry let Brian make up a character with an ability he had no intention  of letting him use. Same could be said of my character, who was essentially a Sorcerer character, so the same thing just a little different. In many ways nastier. (I wound up not participating at all and then two weeks later I was gone)

The whole issue seems to seem from this morality which comes primarily from Jerry, but I suspect Kat is behind it as well. Her and their religion. Wicca, I think. I really don't know. Which one has Halloween as a big end of year thing?

This is part of the reason why the game was switched to V&V. Jerry wants the PCs to be "heroes" whatever that means and he seems to think that putting them in long underwear will fix this. It ain't working.

So, to make a more general summary, when it comes to comfort levels, the big question is who has set them? One player? the group? the GM? and what are they based on?

[talysman]

This is split from the thread Something by way of a counterpoint because, well, I got intrigued by one of the thoughts that was going on.

Specifically, in Justin Dagna's post, I saw an assumption that bugs me (though I believe one of Marco's referenced it earlier):  starting players are often better off with dysfunctional or lesser games.  I've seen hints of it here; I've also seen it a lot in places like RPGnet.  And I don't buy it.

I hate coming into this thread so late in the game to toss out something that might derail the discussion, but reading the original question makes me ask: does anyone recommend dysfunctional games for beginners?

because, you see, I don't think a game can be dysfunctional.

explanation time: when we use "game" in our discussions here, it can mean a variety of things. it could mean "game system" (what the designer designs,) or "game text" (the published incarnation of the game system,) or "game play" (what actually happens in a group.)

dysfunctional play, as described in Ron's essays and in teh Actual Play forum here, has always been exactly that: play. game play, in other words. dysfunction is what happens in an interaction between players; game texts and game designs cannot be dysfunctional, because they are not made up of individual players with clashing goals, but are made of mechanics, rules, and explanatory text.

game systems and texts can be incoherent, which means that the system can be interpretted in more than one way. if not everyone in a play group interprets the system in the same way, and if their individual interpretations lead to play styles that clash, that leads to dysfunction. but if a group has a unified play style and interprets incoherent game text/system to match their style, there will be no dysfunction.

I have not seen anyone seriously recommend dysfunctional play to beginners. I have seen people recommend incoherent game designs, on the theory that a group of newbies will have an easier time of finding a play style that works for them if the game is not designed for a specific play style.

[Jason Lee]

Some comments on the comfort level and Jack's old soxxor group, whatever the heck soxxor means.

Heh, I dunno.  I'm just trying to stay hip!

So, to make a more general summary, when it comes to comfort levels, the big question is who has set them? One player? the group? the GM? and what are they based on?

Comfort levels are based on respecting the personal boundries of the individual, not the individual impossing their morality on you.  So, the individual decides his comfort level, and you don't cross it.  Though, if you are like me and want things more adult, you might push it a little to make it more flexible (careful here).  Does this have the same end result? I suppose so, but you are making a decision to respect the other person, they aren't making the decision for you.  It's the big difference between 'slavery is wrong, and you're all supposed to be the good guys' and 'I have a young child, so please noone play a pedophile'.

In play, for me, that means if I want my character to be kidnapped, chained in a wooden box for two weeks by a psychotic hill-billy in a trailer home who rapes her; so I can explore the impacts of the psychological damage, how people treat the person differently afterwards, and the healing process; I can do that.  However, if that makes you uncomfortable I don't do it to your character. Or if it makes you really uncomfortable I tone down the parts I need to until I'm not emotionally violating you.

So, I guess the group sorta decides it, but it's really an individual process.  Just like the rest of life, where you interact with those wierd people thingies.

I actually think it's very important to play with people on the same comfort level; taste issues are hard to resolve...if not impossible.  Which, to just barely be on topic here, is a way I could see closed groups assisting functional play (for those people where comfort level is a sticky spot, anyway).

[Mike Holmes]

I agree in general that the most commonly suggested games for newcomers aren't at all simple or easy to learn. And to that extent, I'd agree that they're being recommended for bad reasons.

But, oddly, I think I understand why D&D and VTM are often proffered, and there's a kernel of truth to suggesting them, IMO. And that is, they are easy to get into because they have "Chinese Menu" style chargen. That is, select a race, and a class in D&D, and you're off to the races often with little more preparation. Mike Mearls opened my eyes to the fact that this is the best way to make a game accessible.

Make only two selections for all of chargen. Have ten options each. Makes 100 combinations assuming all are functional. That's plenty of variety for beginner play. Then have one single system for resolving everything, using some "go-like", simple-yet-impossible-to-master mechanic.

That would be the best for an "intro" game. No designer wants to build it, however, for some reason. They all want more "open" generation, or more complex mechanics or both.

Mike