This is a response to a post directed at me in the thread "What is a beginner-friendly game?" I was moved to respond there, but I feel the topic diverges from the matter of that thread.

Let me preface this by saying I had a two-hour root canal and after having the dentist come at me with that hot poker (I kid you not, it melts the root-fillers), I don't feel inclined to spare the venom. Spare me the indictment. For just a moment, before you read this, understand that I am not really arguing with Mike, but with the 'myth' that Ron expressed. I may be using Mike's words (I own that I am destroying some of his meaning by tearing them apart), but I am not arguing against him. (He names me in his soapbox rant; I return the favor.)

Mike Holmes wrote: So Fang, you agree that most people today who get introduced to RPGs get into RPGs via other gamers. Right?

Mike Holmes wrote: The sudden burst of popularity of such games can only be attributed by them being spread by word of mouth

Mike Holmes wrote: How many people are, today, actually unaware of the existence of RPGs.

Mike Holmes wrote: The point is that this ten minute discussion makes that half page "What are RPGs" obsolete.

Mike Holmes wrote: So what you're left with is those people who wander into a book store, and see a copy of D&D, buy it, and try to teach themselves what it's about. This is a truly small group.

Mike Holmes wrote: Because, do any of you have a problem with people getting into RPGs through other gamers?

Mike Holmes wrote: And Fang, how is making a game "more accessible" actually going to get people to get into RPGs more?

Mike Holmes wrote: Penetration of the products has gone about as far as it can. Just how large, do you estimate, is the crowd of people who really want to play RPGs but just don't know it yet?

Mike Holmes wrote: Isn't it better to virally market to new gamers by making the rules accessible such that they can be taught easily? If you want new gamers, shouldn't that be your #1 priority?

The first two RPGs my group bought were WHFRP and Mechwarrior (I was young and more foolish than I am now). But we bought them because we liked the wargames Warhammer and Btech (young and foolish). I was part of the standard group that moved from table-top to RPGs. Such a leap is common because the step from tabletop to RPG is small, especially traditional RPG.

RP is about being a character, RPGs at present are about being a character, obtuse character creation and combat mechanics. This is because character play was added on to traditional tabletop games, a small jump to the current situation.

I would think that a lot of kid's first exposure to RPGs these days is from computer games, basically BG engine games. This must lead to D&D sales to new players. I don't know the sales figures but I would guess TV and movie RPG tie-ins, LotRings, Buffy, Star Wars etc, represent most of the rest of newbie sales.

More coming...

The jump from a computer game or TV show to a pure RPG is a big jump, much bigger than from a wargame. As such, the total number of Star Wars fans going from movie to RPG would be a small percentage of the total movie viewing public. Maybe RPGs should be focussed on product with very little jumps. A narrativist version of Buffy would be a much smaller jump than the version that's out there, I think it would sell and play better.

Perhaps there could be a variant on the How to Host... with a dice mechanic, perhaps a system where a player must divulge information as long as he fails to beat a tgt number (his conscious or something). The game would appear largely the same, dress up and clue solving, but you have a small jump to RP elements.

At present the thinking appears to be, how do we take standard RPGs and make them feel like Star Wars? To design games coming from movies, or whatever, I think the best way to look at it is how do we take the current product and add character play onto that?

Jeremy

nipfipgip...dip wrote: The jump from a computer game or TV show to a pure RPG is a big jump, much bigger than from a wargame.

nipfipgip...dip wrote: As such, the total number of Star Wars fans going from movie to RPG would be a small percentage of the total movie viewing public. Maybe RPGs should be focused on product with very little jumps.

nipfipgip...dip wrote: Perhaps there could be a variant on the How to Host... with a dice mechanic

nipfipgip...dip wrote: At present the thinking appears to be, how do we take standard RPGs and make them feel like Star Wars? To design games coming from movies, or whatever, I think the best way to look at it is how do we take the current product [the movies] and add character play onto that?

Have you looked at WOTC's discontinued Pokemon Adventure game? It is designed to 6-8 year olds introduced to roleplaying. (According to insiders, it wasn't discontinued because of a lack of sales. It sold really well. It was discontinued because of politics in the Hasbro/WOTC empire.)

Also, Jared mentioned Clue over on rpg.net. I haven't played the D&D Clue but it seems to me something like Clue could easily be an introductory rpg.

The Transformers action figures have had statistics for each figure for over a decade. It's a real shame they never put any simple rpg rules in there (at least as far as I know).

And what about the bags of plastic figures you can buy at the store for a $1? You know, army men, dinosaurs, cowboys and indians, etc. Put a page of simple rpg rules in every bag and how many roleplayers would we bring in to the fold?

Trying to think outside the box,
---Jon

Jon,

Take a look at Microwar, my very own attempt at this. The game is a great success with kids, by the way.

Clay

Le Joueur wrote:
I think the "very little jumps" idea suffers from exactly the 'in the box' thinking I was ranting about. It sounds like it implies that if tabletop role-playing games were 'just a little better' they'd sell like hot cakes. Well, we've been trying that for years; it doesn't seem to make a difference.

I remember Final Fantasy IX, it had hit points, a rigid separate combat system, experience points and so on, very traditional role-playing game. The real difference would be to put the player into the position of any character and give the setting in a non-linear fashion; use the imagination not the Playstation.

I think the only reason it seems like a big jump from television to role-playing game is because it hasn't been done yet (much). A game like SOAP really goes a lot farther towards capturing the 'feel' of a soap opera, and that's still 'thinking in the box.'

"If only "a small percentage" of Star Wars fans would like role-playing games, do realize how many people "a small percentage" of Star Wars fans would be?

quozl wrote:
And what about the bags of plastic figures you can buy at the store for a $1? You know, army men, dinosaurs, cowboys and indians, etc. Put a page of simple rpg rules in every bag and how many roleplayers would we bring in to the fold?

nipfipgip...dip wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I think the only reason it seems like a big jump from television to role-playing game is because it hasn't been done yet (much). A game like SOAP really goes a lot farther towards capturing the 'feel' of a soap opera, and that's still 'thinking in the box.'

I don't mean a big jump to making RPG that simulates TV, I mean the big jump Buffy watchers have to make to play Buffy RPG. Here, a small jump would mean layering character interplay over Buffy style scripts or something.

Hi Fang,

You're mis-paraphrasing me quite badly, as well as extending my point regarding a very specific question well beyond any reasonable bounds that I'd apply it to.

"... Ron's idea [is] that practitioners are the only worthwhile audience ... "

... is not at all what I said. Nor does it reflect anything that I'd agree with.

I have not, at any point, stated what I think the worthwhile audience for RPG marketing is. I do think it's deducible, given my essays in the Sorcerer books about creating and developing a socially-functional role-playing group, which Fang hasn't read. I also think it's deducible given my emphasis on active, societally-honest play (i.e. not keeping RPGing in the closet).

I'd be happy to describe my outlook in this matter in a nutshell, but no one has asked me. I haven't done so spontaneously because I really, really dislike being assigned an outlook which is then refuted by the same person - it forces me to disclose "what I think" as a form of self-defense, which is a very bad position to be in and to be heard. I am especially disinclined to comb the thread of origin and demonstrate, line by line, just where my comments have been mis-read and misinterpreted.

Please feel free to continue the discussion and address the myth that Fang is rightly trying to explode. Please don't ascribe its origins and support to me.

Best,
Ron

I guess I want to toss a couple thoughts into this discussion -

1) I agree with Fang that it would be *very* interesting (and perhaps - PERHAPS - have a big impact on expanding the RPG user-base) to investigate completely new and different ways to sell/market/expose/whatever the RPG activity to the population. I've thrown a few such things into my posts here - try and leverage the computer entertainment distrubution channel rather than the standard "RPG industry". Or move into the "family game" world (Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit). Or an out-there innovation - get Starbucks (e.g.) to carry your game.

2) These are all high-risk, high-expense (of money, time and/or expertise) ventures. The "help each individual gamer expand their own play groups" may not have as big a "splash", but it costs a lot lesss, with a (probably) more reliable, if smaller-scale, result.

I guess that's it. Oh, and a question - the "Murder Mystery dinner party" games (by, primarily, Decipher?) were mentioned either here or over in the other thread - does anyone know how widespread play of these games is? Bigger than RPGs? Smaller? That might tell as a little about marketing alternate-"RPGs" into alternate-audiences.

Gordon

Yeah, what Ron said. I understand why you wrote what you did (you did put caveats in), but my only point was adressing the idea of the "intro paragraph" and I was rebutting you only as it pertained to that point (hell, I said that I was only proffering my anecdotal evidence to counter the anecdotal evidence of others; bad form to go after something like that). You could have just started from the basics without responding to my post to sound off.

In point of fact, I have nothing against trying to break out of the status quo. Given Universalis, I'd say that while still traditional in most ways, that I have little regard for the "box" as such. Yes, lets get out there and reach the new gamer. All I've said is that little paragraphs on "What is Role-playing" won't cut it. In fact, I'd say you pretty much made my point for me, Fang, thanks.

This all said, now, I must say that you're doing a great job of leading this charge from the rear. 'I think we can do it maybe, but it won't be me that does it!' Nice warcry. To quote Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has." This goes doubly so for so small a thing as RPGs. Lots of room to grow.

Now, I admit that I haven't a clue as to how to do this either (but then I'm not the one rattling his saber). In previous threads people have suggested various things. This actually led me to sign up to be a member of a group that was supposed to be dedicated to demoing games (remember on GO). Never got off the ground. But doesn't mean that it couldn't work.

Others have suggested that we make RPGs more mainstream somehow. Well, that's a tall order. How do you do that? The best suggestion I've seen is someone who said that they were going to try to make a movie that was about RPG gamers that showed them in a positive light. Who knows, might work.

The problem with getting outside-the-box is that, once there, will we like what gaming has become? I mean, if gaming does become mainstream, am I still going to want to play? Will it look anything like an activity that I find interesting? I'm not sure that staying away from that isn't all bad. In any case, I prefer trying the harder road of getting the mainstream to become like us, rather than changing gaming to become the mainstream. (Cards, Fang? That's your big idea for getting out-of-the-box?)

Anyhow, I think the first step is to refrain from telling people how not-outside-the-box their ideas are. The first step in moving to a new paradigm is to brainstorm. And that means no judgements.

Anybody else have an idea on how to get more gamers into the fold?

Mike

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Oh, and a question - the "Murder Mystery dinner party" games (by, primarily, Decipher?) were mentioned either here or over in the other thread - does anyone know how widespread play of these games is? Bigger than RPGs? Smaller? That might tell as a little about marketing alternate-"RPGs" into alternate-audiences.

Hey Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: You're mis-paraphrasing me quite badly...

Please don't ascribe its origins and support to me.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: 1) I agree with Fang that it would be *very* interesting (and perhaps - PERHAPS - have a big impact on expanding the RPG user-base) to investigate completely new and different ways to sell/market/expose/whatever the RPG activity to the population....

2) These are all high-risk, high-expense (of money, time and/or expertise) ventures....

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Oh, and a question - the "Murder Mystery dinner party" games (by, primarily, Decipher?) were mentioned either here or over in the other thread - does anyone know how widespread play of these games is? Bigger than RPGs? Smaller? That might tell as a little about marketing alternate-"RPGs" into alternate-audiences.

Mike Holmes wrote: I understand why you wrote what you did (you did put caveats in), but my only point was adressing the idea of the "intro paragraph"

Mike Holmes wrote: This all said, now, I must say that you're doing a great job of leading this charge from the rear. 'I think we can do it maybe, but it won't be me that does it!' Nice warcry. To quote Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has." This goes doubly so for so small a thing as RPGs. Lots of room to grow....

Mike Holmes wrote: The problem with getting outside-the-box is that, once there, will we like what gaming has become? I mean, if gaming does become mainstream, am I still going to want to play? Will it look anything like an activity that I find interesting? I'm not sure that staying away from that isn't all bad. In any case, I prefer trying the harder road of getting the mainstream to become like us, rather than changing gaming to become the mainstream. (Cards, Fang? That's your big idea for getting out-of-the-box?)

Mike Holmes wrote: Anyhow, I think the first step is to refrain from telling people how not-outside-the-box their ideas are. The first step in moving to a new paradigm is to brainstorm. And that means no judgements.

Re the Who Wants to Host, as Fang said the sales must be reasonable, and in my opinion the mark-up looks like it might be very healthy.

Anyhow, the idea I was trying to get at is that most RPers come from tabletop games, and that is a small initial market. For any other potential roleplayers, the move from the initial product is huge, to RP as it currently sits. There is no reason why roleplay (and here I'm thinking of just character and story) can't be added to other existing products.

Maybe if Star Wars Roleplay was more like the movies and less like a wargame it might be taken in by more Star Wars people.

Jeremy

Fang wrote: 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.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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?

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

Le Joueur wrote: 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.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: 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 wrote:
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.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: 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.

Le Joueur wrote: [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.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I am not playing your game.

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

Eugene Zee wrote: 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.

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

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

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

Eugene Zee wrote: 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.

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

Something's bothering me about all of this and I think I've figured it out.

The ideas of a gateway game that's being thrown about all seem to somehow be simpler versions of existing rpgs, no? Now, if you're targeting 8 to 11 year old kids doesn't this seem wrong? Perhaps it's just my experiences but most 8-11 year old kids I know would require sedatives (or a video game) to sit still for any period of time. Which is why I think we're using the wrong tool.

IMHO, a good first-tier gateway for this age group would be something active which incorporate some of the concepts of rpgs such that when they get older and more sedate the ideas presented in second-tier gateway games would not be foreign or unfamiliar.

At that point, probably 12-14, you use something more rpg-esque. Even something like a very simplified LARP would be a good gateway for the 3rd stage which would be a social gathering along the lines of modern rpgs.

Of course all of this is based on the assumption that there is not an older gamer to "bring them into the fold." This is targeting those who might see something and be curious and as they get comfortable with concepts they continue to delve deeper.

Take a look at Megabloks. If this isn't a gateway into the realm of wargames then I don't know what is. You have small, highly detailed, sculpted, Lego-like figures and established armies which fight each other. All that's missing is some rules and dice and you have the basis for most fantasy wargames.

I think if someone wants to bring newcomers into rpgs then you need to make the gateways things which they already might be doing.

wyrdlyng wrote: The ideas of a gateway game that's being thrown about all seem to somehow be simpler versions of existing rpgs, no?

wyrdlyng wrote: Take a look at Megabloks. If this isn't a gateway into the realm of wargames then I don't know what is. You have small, highly detailed, sculpted, Lego-like figures and established armies which fight each other. All that's missing is some rules and dice and you have the basis for most fantasy wargames.

wyrdlyng wrote: I think if someone wants to bring newcomers into rpgs then you need to make the gateways things which they already might be doing.

The Pokemon Adventure Game is the example Eugene used. I recently picked this up at KB Toys on clearance for $2. It's interesting, not a simpler rpg but a battle game where you make in character choices. Each mission is very short (maybe 20 minutes?). The real question is: Did kids actually play it? According to WOTC, plenty of them sold but it's hard to tell if they actually got played.

I agree that wargames can be a gateway to rpgs especially if they're skirmish level like you'd play with action figures or LEGO figs. (I'm a LEGO man, don't mention that yucky clone brand!) I think Wiz Kids' Mage Knight and Hero Clix will bring in rpg players. (It was just announced that Toys R Us would be carrying Hero Clix!)

But this is "in the box". There's got to be something else out there that nobody's tried yet. How can you go from freeform "let's pretend" to rpg rules? Put another way, why would you (or an 8 year old) want to?

quozl wrote: How can you go from freeform "let's pretend" to rpg rules? Put another way, why would you (or an 8 year old) want to?

So....then Killer should be the ultimate gateway RPG, yes?

Valamir wrote: So....then Killer should be the ultimate gateway RPG, yes?

Hi guys,

Sorry I was in the middle of posting when I lost access.

Wyrdling. I felt the remark you made about the kids attention spans was a very good point. The solution that we can up with was that kids would spend more time acting out their characters in game play. Much like a LARP and Table top put together. But you already said that. Well, I agree with you retroactively. Also if we do things the right way we may be able to mesmerize the children with a good story, that they can help write.

I think where I was trying to go was to get the kids used to roleplaying as a positive and fun form of playing in an interesting setting and as a result we can groom and grow the next generation. Although you are right, in essence a "gateway game" could be a simplefied altered roleplaying game, I think that is ok. I think we may have to start from the edges of the box because we want them to end up in the box. Also, I do think an adult would have to be present, not necessarily a roleplayer but someone who could be a "storyteller".

Quozl, I think that we go from freeform to more rules all the time. That's the thing. Kids want less rules (more expression and fun) and believe it or not adults want more. So if you gradually incorporate more rules in stages it will work. In the beginning the children go on quests with their characters and can grow and add to their PC's in simple ways but what this does is get them used to the roleplaying format of fun and hunger for more as they get older. The more out of the box you go..the more you risk not being an effective gateway. Each designer has to determine what their ultimate goal is. Draw a larger miniature gaming market. Grow the roleplaying market. Or just create a unique product that children will think is cool and play. I think they all have their attractions.

Megablocks. Sounds like little green army men. :)

Regards

Hi there,

I'm probably going to draw quite a bit of fire for suggesting this ...

... that "let's pretend" games are not the procedural precursor of role-playing.

Yes, I know all the "what is role-playing" introductions say that it's "cops and robbers" with rules to resolve disagreements, but I think that claim is false. For one thing, rules don't resolve disagreements, they introduce unpredictability. I've noted that functional Drama-rules in role-playing serve this purpose no less than Fortune mechanics do. For another, the bulk of cops-and-robbers play is hide-and-seek and chasing - neither of which correspond to any kind of activity during role-playing.

The baseline of RPG activity is Exploration, and being able to cooperate in produced shared Exploration. The first step is no problem; daydreaming is the child's stock-in-trade; all kids daydream and enjoy imagining either themselves or others doing dangerous and interesting things. But creative daydreaming is a little different - having the "authority," so to speak, to generate imaginative situations that interest someone else. And finally, communicative, creative daydreaming is a final step, and it requires a social context for that activity. Bluntly, I can think of no activity in elementary education that encourages this ability.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Fire, fire, fire. :)

I realize that there exists no medium for a reasonable precursor to roleplaying but can we create one. If we can, what would it look like. I have a suspicion that it will look very much like a simpler roleplaying game in a dramatic format or something similar.

What do you think?

Ron Edwards wrote: But creative daydreaming is a little different - having the "authority," so to speak, to generate imaginative situations that interest someone else. And finally, communicative, creative daydreaming is a final step, and it requires a social context for that activity. Bluntly, I can think of no activity in elementary education that encourages this ability.

Hi Jon,

I did that with my Legos, and also with my toy animals and my action figures. I agree with you that it's the activity I'm looking for as the bridge, and I'm interested to know how it can be recognized, matured, and encouraged. I also found the number of friends who could do it with me to be pretty rare; they usually changed the game into one form or another of "break stuff we built," or got bored with keeping an ongoing storyline in mind.

Best,
Ron

Quozl,

I don't think you were a weird 8 year old. Maybe now, JK. ;)

I think that the key is cooperative and creative play to reach a mutual goal. Not really too much structure but a little direction. A little structure will be introduced by the kids but thats all.

Regards

Ron Edwards wrote:
I did that with my Legos, and also with my toy animals and my action figures. I agree with you that it's the activity I'm looking for as the bridge, and I'm interested to know how it can be recognized, matured, and encouraged. I also found the number of friends who could do it with me to be pretty rare; they usually changed the game into one form or another of "break stuff we built," or got bored with keeping an ongoing storyline in mind.

Ron Edwards wrote: I also found the number of friends who could do it with me to be pretty rare; they usually changed the game into one form or another of "break stuff we built," or got bored with keeping an ongoing storyline in mind.

Ron Edwards wrote: I did that with my Legos, and also with my toy animals and my action figures.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: This brings me to a very "out-of-the-box" idea: that role-players aren't created by any sort of marketing - instead, they're born or socialized into the role.

Jon,

I'm not going to argue whether you or I are right, but I want to point out that this argument brings into question that egalitarian idea that's always brought up: "Everyone can role-play."

Ok - I will argue. I think that idea is, frankly, bullshit. Why?

- Some people can't role-play. Seriously - some people just don't have this capability. I can program in seven languages and read 500-page novels in a day, but have no spatial reasoning. It happens.

- Role-playing fills a need in people's lives that some people don't have. I think the answer to this entire thread's question lies in the answer to another question: Why do people role-play?

The most common answer I've ever heard when asking someone, "Why do you role-play?" is "It's fun," or "For enjoyment." The fact is, that's not an answer. We're highly complex machines - fun comes from somewhere. It wouldn't be fun if it didn't strike something in you that made it fun. My question: what is that something? Why is roleplaying an enjoyable activity to some people?

When we find that out, then we can make sure everyone that would enjoy it knows about it.

Bluntly, I can think of no activity in elementary education that encourages this ability.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Jon,

I'm not going to argue whether you or I are right, but I want to point out that this argument brings into question that egalitarian idea that's always brought up: "Everyone can role-play."

Ok - I will argue. I think that idea is, frankly, bullshit. Why?

- Some people can't role-play. Seriously - some people just don't have this capability. I can program in seven languages and read 500-page novels in a day, but have no spatial reasoning. It happens.

quozl wrote:
Now you're probably going to say, but that's not a role playing GAME. You're right. Some people won't ever be interested in rpgs. What I hope this thread is doing is getting people to think of how to connect people that would like rpgs with the roleplaying these people already do.

I hope that makes sense because it's the cornerstone of everything I've said in this thread.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: It makes perfect sense, and I don't disagree with it at all. In fact, it's the cornerstone of a lot of my arguments: some people need more role-playing than they get in their everyday lives, and turn to RPGs to fulfill that need.

Wow! I come home from work and there are 50 posts.

Quozl and Clinton, I have a question. Are you gusy saying that there is some sort of indicator that you believe can be used to find people who can be successfully introduced to roleplaying?

Also Clinton, I agree that people don't roleplay because of marketing but I do think that marketing has to be a consideration if you are trying to introduce new people to the market. Even if it is grass roots marketing.

Regards

I remain somewhat skeptical of the concept of gateway game.
Is there any evidence that young kids introduced to a certain type of game tend to morph into general gamers at a higher rate than shear random chance would suggest.

When CCGs were running rampant and dedicated RPers were getting annoyed at their favorite game stores being taken over by card players, the frequently heard refrain was. Don't hate CCGs its bringing new players into gaming. I've seen, however, no evidence that CCG players begin playing RPGs or wargames with any greater frequency than old fashion "hey wanna try this game?" would do.

Similiarly when fantasy miniatures games began taking off and historical gamers of ancients, civil war, napoleonic, or micro armor minis games were getting pissed off at the gaming tables in their favorite stores being taken over by a bunch of elves, we heard a similiar tale. Warhammer will bring more players into miniatures gaming...Didn't happen. I've been to HistoriCon in Lancaster, PA (one of the largest purely wargame and mostly mini wargame conventions left) and have seen no evidence of an influx of former WH players now playing Johnny Reb.

So I guess I'm kind of cynical about the concept. It might be a good game, it might be fun for the young kids, it might be wildly popular (like Pokemon)...but will it actually effect the rate at which those kids crossover to "full fledged" gamers...I'm dubious.

Eugene Zee wrote: Wow! I come home from work and there are 50 posts.

Quozl and Clinton, I have a question. Are you gusy saying that there is some sort of indicator that you believe can be used to find people who can be successfully introduced to roleplaying?

The argument seems to be based around forming;
a gateway game to ween people into RP
vs
people who want to game will find it.

I think there might be some detail in the middle worth fleshing out.

Most people don't RP. Almost everybody watches movies, and most do it for plot, exploration and escapism (if the definitions I've are not exact, perhaps inclusive of one another or whatever, I think my point is still vaild). To assert that the majority of people don't enjoy these elements is wrong, and these are the staples of RP . I think the reason for the lack of popularity of RP comes from other areas. Can we accept that 4 hours around a table every week for two months is not an acceptable situation for most of society? Is pretend fighting something a lot of people don't need?

More to come...

If you want to bring RP to the masses, I think we to fundamentally change it. I think the wargame connections have to be thrown out part and parcel. What if it wasn't Mr Gygax and instead Roman Polanski who first decided he wanted to pretend to be an Elf? He would have come from cinema, and attached a very different kind of feel to RP, with its own strengths and weaknesses. I think if RP can be envisaged along these lines RP could find a whole new audience. Can RP can be attached to any and every entertainment group?

I think rather than 'getting 'em while they're young', or building games for what market there is, there might be a lot of ground in making games that facilitate RP for people who aren't us. For people who don't want what we love, but may enjoy many elements of it, if its designed with them in mind.

Jeremy

Valamir wrote: I remain somewhat skeptical of the concept of gateway game.

...So I guess I'm kind of cynical about the concept. It might be a good game, it might be fun for the young kids, it might be wildly popular (like Pokemon)...but will it actually effect the rate at which those kids crossover to "full fledged" gamers...I'm dubious.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

Earlier in the thread, I said (in response to Fang asking me how to get new gamers): "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."

I think that's your indicator. I've come to believe that certain people enjoy role-playing games because they do not get enough role-playing in real life. That is, their social skills are poor enough that they do not resolve their emotions through normal everyday interaction. Therefore, they find the act of further stimulating and resolving these emotions through role-playing with like types very pleasurable.

Clinton,

I agree that the trend in rpg players currently is the folks who have a tough time expressing themselves in social situations, etc. However I'm afraid that we limit ourselves too much to say, "Our population are the 'socially challenged' (I use the term loosely)." What if the fact that most roleplayers are SC is because roleplaying is considered an activity for that type of person. If that is true, it is the responsibility of the entire industry to change that. I believe that the situation is the other way around. We need to change the industry to invite more people of other types in. For example, women are more common now than before in rpgs and this change has a reason. There was a concept before that only nerdy, geeky guys played RPGs. And now its just nerdy geeky people. ;)
I'm not saying that I am right but I think that it is something we should think about.

Ralph,
I used to work with children (ages 6-15) running D&D games in an afterschool program. Many of them that would not normally be exposed to roleplaying played in my daily games. They were of mixed age, sex, personality type and many other factors but they all loved it. Many of them are still roleplayers. Did more than the normal percentage of them, in relation to the rest of the population, pick up roleplaying. I'm not sure, I don't really have those numbers. But I guarantee that if you go to Alex, who is now a gorgeous young woman, and talk about roleplaying, her response will be way different than if she had never played before. I agree that kids will probably not just mighty morph into an RPG ranger but I think that ultimately the gateway game will make our market larger by changing the perception of rpgs and making more people open to trying another rpg as they get older.

Finally, I want to say that although I think the "gateway game" is a great idea, I don't think it is a sure thing. I think it is going to take some thought and development like we are doing right here to work. Maybe it won't even be a rpg, it doesn't matter. The point is to thoughtfully and carefully get more people doing what we love to do and to add to the industry.

Regards

deadpanbob wrote:

It would have to start with a place where actual game purchasers/players can be identified and their behavior tracked - places like the registered user base of WotC or WW or RPG.net or here at the Forge. Once those folks behaviors have been analyzed, there are ways to profile this behavior and then seek others who fit the profile and directly market a game to them - via direct mail, electonrically, telemarketing.
<snip>
BTW - in case you didn't know it from elsewhere - this is what I do for a living - Direct and Databased Marketing, Marketing strategy development, and Marketing and Research analysis.

Cheers,

Jason

...directly market a game to them - via direct mail, electonrically, telemarketing.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

Eugene Zee wrote: Wow! I come home from work and there are 50 posts.

Quozl and Clinton, I have a question. Are you gusy saying that there is some sort of indicator that you believe can be used to find people who can be successfully introduced to roleplaying?

Earlier in the thread, I said (in response to Fang asking me how to get new gamers): "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."

Busy, busy, busy.

Clinton wrote: This brings me to a very "out-of-the-box" idea: that role-players aren't created by any sort of marketing - instead, they're born or socialized into the role.

Zee wrote: Are you gusy saying that there is some sort of indicator that you believe can be used to find people who can be successfully introduced to roleplaying?

quozl wrote: Would you be interested in making a personality type survey for the people here at The Forge? Would Clinton and Ron be open to having a survey hosted here? We could get actual information on what type of people gamers are (at least the ones here at The Forge) and perhaps see what behaviors in others can be marketed to.

wyrdlyng wrote: My major is Computer Animation, not Psychology....

Which leads to...

Trying to find the answers you're looking for would almost be better suited by asking "Why do you roleplay?" We're all very distinct individuals. I like giant robots, japanese romance comics, heavy metal with strong percussions and bass lines, David Lynch's metaphoric films, the colors gray and blue, the number 17, the soft whir of computer cooling fans, and brunettes. How does any of that reveal why I game?

wyrdlyng wrote:
I do agree that even if you create the ultimate "Gateway" not everyone will turn into a gamer. Roleplaying is a specific pastime much like collecting stamps or scrapbooking. They don't appeal to everyone and probably never will.

However, I think trying to convert the world isn't what we're talking about here. I think we're looking for a way to make roleplaying more commonly recognized as a valid pastime thus reaching those who would enjoy the hobby but that are not aware of its existence.

Roleplayers aren't created by marketing, sure. But people aren't 'RPG - Yes' or 'RPG - No' binary units either. The assumption that people don't play at present, therefore there is no part of RP that they would like is a big leap.

Maybe the market analysis getting suggested here could focus on non-RPers, and what features of RP games they might like. There would be real feedback to designers about making games not to lure consumers, but just because they might like it.

Jeremy

nipfipgip...dip wrote:
Roleplayers aren't created by marketing, sure. But people aren't 'RPG - Yes' or 'RPG - No' binary units either. The assumption that people don't play at present, therefore there is no part of RP that they would like is a big leap.

Maybe the market analysis getting suggested here could focus on non-RPers, and what features of RP games they might like. There would be real feedback to designers about making games not to lure consumers, but just because they might like it.

Le Joueur wrote: [ironic]No, you're right. It'll never work; in fact, let's resolve to never do anything experimental or even try to reach new audiences. What's the point?

There, is that sullen enough to make me a candidate to play role-playing games.[/ironic]

What are we arguing here? It's not worth even trying? By anyone?

I don't buy any wet blanket argument based on 'it won't work.' No way to tell = it's worth a shot. What exactly will we lose just trying? Nobody's putting a gun to your head and saying you have to do it (or even like it).

Fang Langford

Valamir wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: [ironic] No, you're right. It'll never work; in fact, let's resolve to never do anything experimental or even try to reach new audiences. What's the point?

There, is that sullen enough to make me a candidate to play role-playing games. [/ironic]

What are we arguing here? It's not worth even trying? By anyone?

I don't buy any wet blanket argument based on 'it won't work.' No way to tell = it's worth a shot. What exactly will we lose just trying? Nobody's putting a gun to your head and saying you have to do it (or even like it).

Reading a bit much into the words skeptical and dubious aren't we? How exactly does one get from there to "not worth trying by anyone"...

We could do a survey and analysis here at the Forge, or with the help of the folks over at RPG.net, or maybe both. I would actually like to do something like this - but my area of expertise is on the analysis and strategy end of things, and a good researcher with survey design experience is needed to really make for a rigorous and useful survey design.

Besides, there is one potential gateway, albeit probably not a good example; the Dragonlance Novels were arguably marketed to attract pulp fantasy readers to role-playing games. I just don't think the 'bridge product' was there.

Maybe such a product would have better hits from the Dragonlance readers. I'm thinking of a couple of god-awful 'novelist-GMs' I had a while back, who wrote novels and then pushed us players through them. A product like the above would suit these people a lot better.

Jeremy

Well, in point of fact, I don't think it will work.

But that's a far cry from me saying it shouldn't be tried, and a farther cry from me telling you not to.

I've just seen alot of games go by that supposedly were going to bring new gamers into the hobby...but they never really seem to. At least no more than personal invites to friends would have anyway.

So yeah, I'm doubtful that there is such a thing as a gateway game...but I wouldn't dream of telling you not to do it.

I'm not really argueing anything...but if your looking for some specific contribution...my advice would be to start by trying to figure out why those other games weren't successful at being a gateway and make sure to account for that before trying the same thing.

Valamir wrote: My advice would be to start by trying to figure out why those other games weren't successful at being a gateway and make sure to account for that before trying the same thing.