Here's the idea, a little exercise if you will:

A non-roleplayer walks into a game store and next to the 37 versions of Monopoly sees a box with the title "My Game". The non-roleplayer picks it up and turns the box over to see what it's about.

What would you put on the back of the box to get that non-roleplayer to buy "My Game"?

Addendum:

Assume the non-roleplayer falls into this group: "people who don't role-play, but who would like it greatly if the content were more mainstream".

Hey Jon,

You know I've been thinking about this one:

Villainy and Self-Loathing

The life of a minion is a hard one. The horrific things you do make it difficult to feel good about yourself. If only someone loved you...

My Life with Master
a roleplaying game

Paul

Brett Favre.

Hi there,

I don't think anything on this earth will do it, at this point in history, without the presence and actions of a friend, or partner, or acquaintance, who has introduced this person to the concept of role-playing already. By "introduced," I include anything as mild as simply behaving with pride and dignity regarding the hobby, to anything as major as having this person watch a game, or anything in between.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I don't think anything on this earth will do it, at this point in history, without the presence and actions of a friend, or partner, or acquaintance, who has introduced this person to the concept of role-playing already. By "introduced," I include anything as mild as simply behaving with pride and dignity regarding the hobby, to anything as major as having this person watch a game, or anything in between.

Ron, I know you feel that way and I disagree but if it makes the exercise more palatable to you, assume the non-roleplayer has been "introduced" to but never played an rpg.

Here's a blurb I wrote in my pre-Forge, deconstructionist days as a game designer, from the prototype of what would become Storypunk:

What if there was a game that everyone could play?

What if everyone knew the rules, because there were no rules?

What if the game was as natural as breathing, but many people had forgotten how to do it?

What if the game was so universal, that people played it all the time, without even realizing it?

What if the game was infinite in scope and possibilities, and yet simple enough to be enjoyed by children everywhere?

What if I had reason to hope that this was such a game?

Later.
Jonathan

Hi there,

Fang, I'm working with generalizations. You are, I say without heat or judgment, an atypical individual in a variety of ways, especially in terms of socializing and entertainment media. Your experience doesn't represent any sort of consumer trend that I'd bank on, and this thread and topic rely heavily on identifying generalized trends rather than the rare individuals who happen not to conform to them.

My data on this point are grossly unscientific, but I have been looking into this issue as a businessman for a while now, and I think that the process of creating role-playing customers most consistently begins with other role-players.

Jon, quick point, "feelings" aren't relevant to my posts, as a general rule.

But OK, this person we're talking about already does have positive input that's impressed him or her regarding role-playing? That changes everything. That means he or she is already some percent of the way toward buying the thing, if it can catch his or her interest in terms of topic.

First, whether it calls itself "role-playing" or not seems less relevant to me. In fact, I'd suggest that admitting its own nature up-front would be more favorable than otherwise, considering that the friend probably used that term, and so we have agreement between social-impression and store-thing.

Second, it's now a matter of plain old Exploration - what does the package offer to be imagined? This is the foundation, after all. Since, I think, Character is the most easily-understood of the five elements of Exploration, for a newcomer, that's what should be offered.

Look at the cover of Unknown Armies, first edition - the Explorative response is, what the fuck is happening? Whereas, look at the cover of the UA supplement, Postmodern Magick - and the Explorative response is, cooool, I wanna be her.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Whereas, look at the cover of the UA supplement, Postmodern Magick - and the Explorative response is, cooool, I wanna be her.

Best,
Ron

Hey guys,

Ron Edwards wrote: Fang, I'm working with generalizations. You are, I say without heat or judgment, an atypical individual in a variety of ways, especially in terms of socializing and entertainment media. Your experience doesn't represent any sort of consumer trend that I'd bank on, and this thread and topic rely heavily on identifying generalized trends rather than the rare individuals who happen not to conform to them.

My data on this point are grossly unscientific, but I have been looking into this issue as a businessman for a while now, and I think that the process of creating role-playing customers most consistently begins with other role-players.

Speaking of Dummies Guides...

Anyone know what kind of hoops you have to jump through to publish under that banner? A "Dummies' Guide to Roleplaying" would be a blast to write...

Later.
Jonathan

"Dummies Guides": ever write a book before? That's hoop #1.
Was it nonfiction? Hoop #2

OK, selling RPG's outside of the comics/sci fi store: look at what game publishers want. The Big Thing after Trivial Pursuit has been social games for adults with huge margin.

So, an RPG that is a social game for adults, that is not ghettoed in a specific genre. If it has some kind of play based on a.trivia, b.word knowledge, or c.heterosexual relationships and communication--so much the better.

"Branding" is the current marketing passion, so if this game can be linked to a huge commercial enterprise and cross licensed, so much the better: say, "Starbucks: The Game" or "Nike: Superstar" or "Disney, You Are a Star" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire Survivor Terrorist?"

MK Snyder wrote:
"Branding" is the current marketing passion, so if this game can be linked to a huge commercial enterprise and cross licensed, so much the better: say, "Starbucks: The Game" or "Nike: Superstar" or "Disney, You Are a Star" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire Survivor Terrorist?"

Hi there,

Fang, you're right, my rhetoric is definitely too extreme. I'll try to cut out the never ever not in my universe side of it ...

This thread is bouncin' around a little bit, and I think one trend has already shown up that I have observed over and over. Thought A: let's get more mainstream-style content into RPGs. Thought B: yes! and the first thing we'll do, we'll license Property X; everyone loves it, so they'll buy the RPG, and then we're golden.

As a serious advocate of Thought A, I have to turn into a horrible mutated version of myself and seize the proponents of Thought B, and kill them. Licensing, as best as I can tell, does not work for this purpose. I'm doin' the blue-in-the-face thing, I think, and running into a lot of people who are saying, "Um, yeah, Ron, sure, but if we get a really good Star Trek game into the market, it'll rock!"

And I say, "No, it won't." Licensing brings money from the RPG publisher to the license owner. That's what it does, and that's why they do it. I see no evidence, whatsoever, that the existence of an RPG license-based on a popular show or property has any such effect as expressed by the hopes in this thread.

The X-Files didn't do it. How can we reasonably expect the next thing to do so? Definition of insanity: repeating the same behavior over and over, expecting different results.

But game store owners and gamers refuse to see this. They see eighty kids show up in the stores to buy Sailor Moon RPG the month it's released, and they get all starry-eyed again: "Role-playing's going mainstream! Yaaay! No one will pick on me any more (sniff)! The store will become a three-story neon-lit paradise, with waitresses at the 24-hour role-playing tables!" In-sanity.

So it's not the Friends or the Seinfeld or the WWF role-playing game I'm talking about. It's not the licensed property - it's the validity and actual fun of the activity, and a solid commitment to mainstream content (like Friends, like Seinfeld, like Buffy, or like the WWF) that will do the job. Bearing in mind, because it's easy for us hobbyists to forget it, that by "mainstream," I mean horror, fantasy, surrealism, historical, sex, biography, and humor. Not D&D fantasy, not superheroes, and not any particular kid fad.

Best,
Ron

John,

Interesting ideas. Here's something that appears to be an underlying assumption of your ideas that I think is worth pointing out.

Limited options.

Your "Desert Island" game is (from a traditional RPG perspective) one scenario. There's very little left for the GM to have to figure out. That's a good thing, IMHO. Normally we say that the wide-open nature of RPGs is one of their strengths. Could it be that this very strength is a weakness when trying to sell to the non-gamer? Right now I'm teaching someone how to roleplay, and I'm having to remember that sometimes too much freedom is overwhelming.

The same can be true of RPGs. Isn't the "Great game but what do I do with it?" question asked a lot among gamers? And these are people who are used to the idea of scenario design! What about "normal" people, who expect a game to have one "scenario"?

So perhaps the best "intro" RPG to a nongamer audience will be designed with only one scenario in mind. This scenario will need to have a high replay value and need to have most of the options spelled out for the players. I'm envisioning something like "Jailbreak" from Unknown Armies or a storymap from Alyria (both of which include pregenerated characters and situation), or, interestingly, Ninja Burger, which I tend to treat as a souped-up board game, similar to Cheapass Games. None of these require any prep, beyond a basic review of the GM notes. All can be replayed many, many times, due to their structure, and not get boring. (Well, at least in theory.) Also, each could be packaged as a standalone, including only the rules necessary to play that scenario. You could then release these standalones in a series, each with a complexity rating like WotC uses. The more complex scenarios also include new rules to use with that scenario, but each are self-contained.

Now, what does this sound like? Did you say "Host a Murder Party"? If you did, then we're thinking along the same lines. These are slowly growing in popularity in the "mainstream", and I'd like to propose that the modularity that I'm discussing is a major reason why. You buy a "Host a Murder Party" kit, and you are buying one scenario. That's it. Everything is there: characters, situation, "rules" (not many of these). There's really not much replay value involved here. The murderer is preset. Once you know the answer, you can't replay it. But it works. To my knowledge there are more of these sorts of packages then generic "Here's how to create your own murder mystery scenario" packages.

I think that an RPG that will reach the nongamer population will need to be constructed and marketed in this way. The only major differentiation from the Murder Mystery games will be the nonscripted nature of the game. Oh yes, and the rules will have to be a little more advanced than the Murder Mystery games. (Of course, this is primarily because the Murder Mystery games have no real rules of which I am aware.) But this shouldn't be an overwhelming challenge.

Then, if desired, after several scenario books are released, then a "scenario design" book could be released, compiling all the rules and setting information into one place and offering advice on how to construct your own scenarios. Sounds a lot like a normal RPG book, doesn't it?

I'm sure that there are potential holes in this scheme. (Example: what if the target audience doesn't want to create their own scenarios?) But I think that something along these lines will get much further mileage than trying to lead the nongamer market to games that just aren't made for them.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,

Fang, you're right, my rhetoric is definitely too extreme. I'll try to cut out the never ever not in my universe side of it ...

This thread is bouncin' around a little bit, and I think one trend has already shown up that I have observed over and over. Thought A: let's get more mainstream-style content into RPGs. Thought B: yes! and the first thing we'll do, we'll license Property X; everyone loves it, so they'll buy the RPG, and then we're golden.

As a serious advocate of Thought A, I have to turn into a horrible mutated version of myself and seize the proponents of Thought B, and kill them. Licensing, as best as I can tell, does not work for this purpose. I'm doin' the blue-in-the-face thing, I think, and running into a lot of people who are saying, "Um, yeah, Ron, sure, but if we get a really good Star Trek game into the market, it'll rock!"

And I say, "No, it won't." Licensing brings money from the RPG publisher to the license owner. That's what it does, and that's why they do it. I see no evidence, whatsoever, that the existence of an RPG license-based on a popular show or property has any such effect as expressed by the hopes in this thread.

The X-Files didn't do it. How can we reasonably expect the next thing to do so? Definition of insanity: repeating the same behavior over and over, expecting different results.


Best,
Ron

Hi b_bankhead,

Dude, we're goin' in circles. Your points #1 and #2 are exactly what I've been saying since the first Mainstream thread and in all the related ones. When people say, "Oooh! Licenses!" I say, uh-uh, back up, Spunky, go back to these points.

Best,
Ron

While these are all great idea, I think they have strayed away from the exercise. I think I may be at fault since I made it too vague and wide-open. In order to rectify that, here's the exercise again, a lot more specific:

A non-roleplayer who has been introduced to roleplaying but never played goes into a store like Wal-Mart. In the game section, next to Uno and Monopoly, is a box. This box contains the game Dust Devils and has the same great cover art we've already seen. The customer turns over the box to read the text which describes the game and contents of the box.

What would that text need to say for this non-roleplayer (who likes Clint Eastwood westerns) to buy Dust Devils?

Oh, and to reply to myself (rather than edit my last post), another advantage of the scheme that I'm discussing is a reduction in the intimidation factor. Rather than picking up a 250-350 page book, all the person has to do is look at a 25-page pamphlet, and that includes all the player handouts.

Example: "Jailbreak" from the One Shots supplement to UA. Currently the page count is 16 pages. Almost 11 of those pages are player handouts. Only 5 (or so) are actual GM material. Additionally, for a standalone, we'll need a rules outline. For "Jailbreak", the players don't really need to know anything beyond the basic rules (i.e. percentile dice, passion flipflops, obsession skill, combat rules, etc.) and a couple of special rules for the scenario (the taser and the pepper spray that two of the characters are carrying). The players don't even need chargen rules, because the characters are pregenerated. Of course, they will need a section on "What is roleplaying?" along with an example of play drawn directly from the scenario in the book ("Jailbreak", in this case). Even allowing room for a title page and table of contents, we can probably squeeze all this material into eight pages. So, in a 24-page pamphlet, it is possible to have a complete, ready-to-run game of Unknown Armies available. There is high replay value, since the scenario relies primarily on player interaction and not NPC actions or secrets. (Yes, there is one secret, but I don't think that player ignorance of the secret is fundamental to enjoyment of the scenario. I'll let you know once I run it.)

Now, Hogshead prints 24-page pamphlet style games (their New Style line) and prices them out at $6-7 per book. I'll grant that I don't know the profit margin on such a book, but it is a reasonable price point. It also is a lower risk for someone considering "buying into" the hobby. Now, it's competitive pricewise with classic games like Scrabble, let alone the more expensive Murder Mystery games.

Or, perhaps you could package one of these scenarios exactly like a Murder Mystery game. It could include little props, like name cards for the characters (to pin to your shirt), or perhaps a foldout map of the house where everything is happening. It could include an audio tape or CD explaining how to play the game, including setting up the gaming session and how to run it. It could even include a complete Host (e.g. GM) tutorial, similar to the print tutorial in Everway. It could include the dice. Now, this hypothetical scenario looks and feels exactly like a Murder Mystery game and a board game, which are both familiar territory to our hypothetical nongamer customer.

Would the average gamer buy such a product? Unlikely. (Cynical aside: I could see such a product being roundly spit upon by many gamers in the online community.) However, I think that such a presentation would be precisely what would get nongamers into gaming. How? Because it takes the roleplaying experience and packages it in a way that is understandable to the nongamer. It holds his hand throughout the entire process. It feels like a normal game, especially if it comes in a box with dice. (You know, like a regular board game.) Prep time is almost nil. Sure, someone needs to learn how to Host, but that's not the end of the world, especially if the CD in the box includes "An audio tutorial on how to Host this game!" It doesn't overwhelm him with massive amounts of reading.

In other words, such a presentation lowers most of the entry bars to roleplaying. It won't sell like Monopoly, but then, were we really expecting it to do so?

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Hello,

Jon's latest post is now to be construed as the opening post of a thread. Let's address that single issue very carefully, please.

Whenever this kind of subject gets going in gaming circles, people start free-associating, on amphetamines. Let's stay focused.

My call, Jon, is that the very features of the Explored elements of play that will interest the person must be supported by that text. The text should say, in some fashion,

1) This is a role-playing game. Some of you disagree about this; I think it's necessary and honest.

2) The topic/content should be absolutely clear and should nail precisely what that sort of content interests people. If it's surreal fantasy, be surreal and fantastical, and f'God's sake give an example of something in that category. This the Exploration part.

3) Here's how you do it ... wait for it ... in GNS terms, but in plain English. Or to put it differently, state the Premise. Is "winning" involved, or not? Is protagonist-decision-making the point, or not? And so on - stated up-front and with enthusiasm.

Best,
Ron

Over in the B camp...

I think using the licensed properties to date as an argument against all branding is a bit premature.

*The licensed properties were within the same genres, so they didn't move outside of the game stores much.

*The designers of the licensed games let game design take second place to the branding. The X-Files CCG is an excellent example; the decks were badly collated, alienating collectors; the game mechanics were "broken", so it could not keep the players.

"The Jerry Springer Show" game could work, I think; as just the adult party audience the board game industry seeks. Players could take the roles of various disfunctional individuals being interviewed by Jerry in terms of the specific episode's theme.

The idea is to use the brand to sneak an otherwise excellent game past the marketing weasels, who lack imagination--not to have the brand buouy a bad game.

MK Snyder wrote: I think using the licensed properties to date, as an argument against all branding, is a bit premature.

...The designers of the licensed games let game design take second place to the branding.

The idea is to use the brand to sneak an otherwise excellent game past the marketing weasels, who lack imagination--not to have the brand buoy a bad game.

Ron Edwards wrote:
This thread is bouncin' around a little bit, and I think one trend has already shown up that I have observed over and over. Thought A: let's get more mainstream-style content into RPGs. Thought B: yes! and the first thing we'll do, we'll license Property X; everyone loves it, so they'll buy the RPG, and then we're golden.

As a serious advocate of Thought A, I have to turn into a horrible mutated version of myself and seize the proponents of Thought B, and kill them. Licensing, as best as I can tell, does not work for this purpose. I'm doin' the blue-in-the-face thing, I think, and running into a lot of people who are saying, "Um, yeah, Ron, sure, but if we get a really good Star Trek game into the market, it'll rock!"

quozl wrote: A non-roleplayer who has been introduced to roleplaying but never played goes into a store like Wal-Mart. In the game section, next to Uno and Monopoly, is a box. This box contains the game Dust Devils and has the same great cover art we've already seen. The customer turns over the box to read the text which describes the game and contents of the box.

What would that text need to say for this non-roleplayer (who likes Clint Eastwood westerns) to buy Dust Devils?

quozl wrote: While these are all great idea, I think they have strayed away from the exercise. I think I may be at fault since I made it too vague and wide-open. In order to rectify that, here's the exercise again, a lot more specific:

A non-roleplayer who has been introduced to roleplaying but never played goes into a store like Wal-Mart. In the game section, next to Uno and Monopoly, is a box. This box contains the game Dust Devils and has the same great cover art we've already seen. The customer turns over the box to read the text which describes the game and contents of the box.

What would that text need to say for this non-roleplayer (who likes Clint Eastwood westerns) to buy Dust Devils?

quozl wrote: While these are all great idea, I think they have strayed away from the exercise. I think I may be at fault since I made it too vague and wide-open. In order to rectify that, here's the exercise again, a lot more specific:

A non-roleplayer who has been introduced to roleplaying but never played goes into a store like Wal-Mart. In the game section, next to Uno and Monopoly, is a box. This box contains the game Dust Devils and has the same great cover art we've already seen. The customer turns over the box to read the text which describes the game and contents of the box.

What would that text need to say for this non-roleplayer (who likes Clint Eastwood westerns) to buy Dust Devils?

I think that's a good example of a cover blurb. also, I agree about the word "roleplaying"; you don't need to say "this is a role-playing game" to sell the game, you just need it somewhere inside the rulebook so that you can say "if you like this game and want to buy similar games, here's what to look for..."

sure, the White Wolf was stupid to invent a new term for "roleplaying game", but that doesn't mean leaving "roleplaying" out of the sales pitch is wrong. just call it a game, that's what it is.