I've been reading some of the all but freeform game writeups and thinking "this is cool, but isn't it going to be even harder to get the shyer players to speak up?" One of the big advantages I see to having rules based niches in a game is that sometimes it makes the louder players shut the hell up and let the quiet ones actually get a word or two in. Or sometimes a player doesn't really have a good handle on what things can be done in a game. It helps to sit him down and say "your player does x really well, think about ways you can do x." By limiting what the player's goals you actually help them get into the game. (In the last case this is often caused by new players and after a few games they get the hang of it, but I've seen players get so frustrated by not getting the hang of things they just give up.)

See, I've got a chance in the near future to game with a group where I will be the only person with any previous role playing experience. I'm amazed to find out there actually are a lot of people who, although always interested in that whole role playing thing, never actually tried it in High School or college. And now that we are all starting to settle down a little in life (as I get older the idea of a Saturday night sitting around just hanging out seems less like something you do because you have no other options and more like something you do cause is a damn good option) they really want a chance to try this whole role playing thing. I suspect that a simple, non limiting game might be just the thing to start them off with, if not just to see if getting a chance to start role playing off with a non gamist system leads to a very different style of early play, but I worry that the whole too much freedom thing might be bewildering to some of the players, turning them off the whole idea of role playing in the future.

Hello,

My general take on the "newbie" thing is that people without extensive role-playing experience are better participants than nearly anyone else. In other words, habits and standards of play that many of us think are "normal" or "how to role-play" are actually not much fun at all (even for us). Therefore the people who have some expertise and experience with the hobby are actually the least likely to be able to get together and enjoy it, especially with an innovative or at least atypical system. Fortunately, this is a generalization rather than a blanket description, which means I didn't give up on the hobby years ago.

My reading of the "shyer" players issue is different from yours. I think that most rules-sets out there and the in-denial Social Contracts are themselves, as such, providing the "shut-up" factor for new players. The skills of play are demonstrably so arcane, and the social standards for participating are so covert, that new folks want to follow others' leads rather than speak up. Whereas games like InSpectres or even Little Fears reward participating in a way that (although unlike many RPGs' standards) is instantly accessible to most brand-new role-players.

My question for you is this: what do you want to achieve in terms of playing with these folks? What kind of game experience are you looking for? In many cases, a "mentor" of a new-player group will train them to his own habits - usually those habits associated with (say) his entrained play of AD&D, Vampire, or Rifts. The result is that only one or two of them, at most, remain interested in the hobby. Would you prefer to avoid doing this? If so, then games like InSpectres, Soap, Universalis, Dust Devils, and The Questing Beast, or less radically, Little Fears or Heartquest, are well suited to that goal.

Best,
Ron