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'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?

There is more to this, too. I think that a lot of people tend to assume that their way into the hobby is somehow necessary to get to where they are; in other words, that you have to go through bad roleplaying games to get experienced enough to play the good ones. This system, I think, perpetuates the mindsets of the current RPG hobby (which I obviously don't find too satisfactory as a whole). It drags them through the same system of expectations (the basic stats and skills, combat systems, single-event resolution system, GM absolutism) that I don't think are necessary or beneficial. The experience also weeds out many of those not in tune with the hobby as it stands; in other words, it keeps the status quo alive.

I think, especially with regard to indie games, there should be more of a thrust toward introducing people as equals, as people who, once they get the hang of the game, will be participants on the same level as everybody else. I just wonder what methods are best used.

-Wayne

Agreement here, and this (I think) ties into one of my long-standing pet peeves - the notion that you must somehow "earn" the right to play what you really want to. People who like baseball don't have to start off watching minor-league teams, and then work their way up to those in the bottom of their bracket, and so on before being allowed to watch last year's World Series winners. People who want to read literature can skip right by Bulwer-Litton and late Hemingway. And so forth and so on.

The whole point (for me, anyway) of diversity among games is to have a better chance of getting a game that's close to players' wants and needs. And new players should absolutely be encouraged and helped with whatever seems closest. It doesn't matter what's popular overall or what has been significant in the past - it matters what's likely to be fun and rewarding for them, right now.

Now, we could end up disagreeing on what is in fact good choices for them, and the reasons for those choices, but that's a separate matter. (And of course we do - there are quite a few circumstnaces in which I'd recommend D&D and/or Vampire, and I'm obviously working in a different set of assumptions.) The key thing for me is that nobody should ever have to put up with unsatisfactory gaming, nor do they have anything to prove beyond willingness to give it a try.

I dunno if you're referencing me or not (directly)--but I don't believe any of that.

I think people who point out VtM as a good game for beginners do so because they like it and/or they think it'll be accessible and interesting to people not interested in a dungeon crawl. I didn't say the posters thought it was crap.

I don't think anyone should put up with any dysfunctional gaming at all. I think those that do for any period of time are getting something out of it.

I suspect that game-mastering is a skill (as is playing) and it takes a while to get really good at it.

That's all.
-Marco

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. When you say it is set in a fantasy world it essentialy means nothing, in both a postive and negative sense. You are given little idea of what you can do, or should do, but the opposite is also true. In many of the fantasy campians I've played in we have travled from little town to little town seeking out adventure and fortue. In the back of the player's minds they know that they could massacar the entire little village they past through without breaking a sweat and no one would be around to stop them. Unlike a game that takes place in our world were wwe have cops, fbi, army, and other painful things. The players are free to persure thier leagal and not so leagal activities without any real fear of getting caught. After all since the King hired them to kill the dragon it is obviouse he has no one better than them to do it. It is with this sort of confidense that the players stride acrost the world doing their little things. Not because they are forced to but out of benevolent kindness.

I have noticed that this confidence is sapped by any game setting that has an organization of people that is generaly more powerful than the player charecters. But by the time they make that switch they make the switch to the other game, they will already know how to roleplay, they will already have learned one very complex game system for teaching a diffrent easyer one should be a breeze, and while the confidence is sapped it can be regained once they find thier footing in the game world.

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.

Thats a good point by Comte, and I also got started with D&D, but I also agree that it really ISN'T what I'd recommend starting people out on, and if I tried to get a group of newbies together, it would quite honestly be over a free PDF or something with rules-lite and straight-forward mechanics.

Hi Cadriel,

Have you ever considered that many of the people who advocate such systems(ones they don't like) as "good entry points" may not have left the land of dysfunction?

That is to say, functional play is really about a working social contract in which folks can have fun with a minimal amount of hassle from such issues as vying for ego dominance, emotional bullying, throwing "mini-fits" for attention, or the basic fight for power(usually as a result of differing views based on GNS goals), etc.

Most people play without any sort of conscious thought about Social Contract. At best people grasp vague ideas, such as "action", "story", "adventure", etc to poorly describe their real style of play. And they go through dysfunctional play, over and over, and maybe, they find the right combination of players and GM that are close enough in styles that it works.

Basically, trial and error, without any sort of forethought.

If this is your expected method, dysfunction(error) naturally will be the place to start. And if you go with the "most popular" games, you are more likely to sort through the same issues in deciding your own style of play, all the flailing about with house rules, nightmare groups, etc, until you maybe get a stronger sense of what you want, and sift through the masses to find others who also want the same.

Notice that in this method, functional play is more a result of luck, than personal effort.

Not that I'm saying that folks should learn any kind of theory stuff to start off roleplaying, I personally prefer to expose someone to a lot of different games, and let them see the variety and options and go from there. But if you assume that trial and error is the only method, it will seem to be the "best" method for learning roleplaying.

One of the big red flags of dysfunction is the inability to clearly analyze or recognize what is actually going on. Many of the advocates of games they dislike couldn't really give solid reasons why in the world anyone should start with a "bad game". The second red flag is to just accept something without any possible questioning of the premise. And starting with a game you don't like is blind acceptance.

Chris

Marco wrote: I don't think anyone should put up with any dysfunctional gaming at all. I think those that do for any period of time are getting something out of it.

Andrew Martin wrote:

Marco wrote: I don't think anyone should put up with any dysfunctional gaming at all. I think those that do for any period of time are getting something out of it.

I'd suspect that something is like non-physical sadism and masochism or dominance and submission games.

Marco wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote:

Marco wrote: I don't think anyone should put up with any dysfunctional gaming at all. I think those that do for any period of time are getting something out of it.

I'd suspect that something is like non-physical sadism and masochism or dominance and submission games.

Could be. But doesn't have to be that extreme. From what I've seen the big one is a self-validating sense of superority ("look at all these dysfunctional people!") Could be feeding a mild persecution complex. Any of a number of mundane reasons why people engage in garden variety self-destructive behavior.

hyphz wrote:

Marco wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote:

Marco wrote: I don't think anyone should put up with any dysfunctional gaming at all. I think those that do for any period of time are getting something out of it.

I'd suspect that something is like non-physical sadism and masochism or dominance and submission games.

Could be. But doesn't have to be that extreme. From what I've seen the big one is a self-validating sense of superority ("look at all these dysfunctional people!") Could be feeding a mild persecution complex. Any of a number of mundane reasons why people engage in garden variety self-destructive behavior.

Umm, it's the "functional" players who are the ones who say "look at all the dysfunctional people".

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.

Guys...

If you have to hash out general dysfunction issues, feel free to start a new thread based on that. This one is specifically focused on the beginning role-player and dysfunction, and I'd like to keep it that way.

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.

Hi Wayne,

Consider this:

-Group as a Band metaphor-

A band gets a groove on, everyone knows how the other people play, and work off of each other. Throw in a new member, its going to take a while to gel into a group again. Same thing happens when you add new members to basketball teams. So, for most groups, there will be a period where everyone's testing each other out, and it will be weird and awkward, and then, hopefully, things will shake out.

-Functional and Dysfunctional handle things differently...-

During this shake out, a functional group is usually re-establishing social contract, and familiarizing the new player(s) to it, and perhaps making some alterations. A dysfunctional group is enforcing its dysfunctional power structure onto the new players, so that they can fit into the heirarchy. In one case a new player is learning, and being asked to participate in the social contract. In the other, the new player is being indoctrinated, and power struggles may occur.

-Closed or Open?-

You'll find that many functional groups have gelled together through luck. They'd rather not take the chance of losing that cohesion, and so, close the group to outsiders. You'll also find that a dysfunctional group, that has settled nicely into its power structure, also doesn't want shake ups, which may alter, change or openly reveal the dysfunctional behaviors going on.

On the flip side, some functional groups are open, but usually very quick to establish basic Social contract rules, or let people know when they're getting too far out of line. That is, easy in, easy out. For dysfunctional groups, particularly ones that drive away a lot of people, they're constantly trying to get replacements in the hope of gaining some sort of consistancy.

Overall, I'm not sure to the numbers of functional or dysfunctional being open or closed, since most of the closed ones just aren't available for general observation. They could be functional ones trying to protect their situation, or dysfunctional ones attempting to maintain the status quo.

Chris

Cadriel wrote: 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?

Well, I've seen new players who have entered into the group and have compleatly revitalized the game. They come in with fresh ideas and new perspective that reinvigorates everyone. I have seen this happen in both old and new players.

I have also seen new/old players cause the damage you speak of. I think that this by and large depends on the players that you bring in, and the play group that you already have.

I could take the cop out answer and just blame it on player quality but I'll dig slightly deeper than that. I think it is also how much a player is willing to learn about the game. I have observed that people find rules easyer to coprehend then ideas. For may of the people I have dealt with they are far more willing to read about the option martial arts system that is overly complicated and stupid, then rather what is thier leagal rights within the game world. I can explain rules on the fly, it isn't hard. But when someone tries to explain something in the light of the game world it all goes to hell. Why this is I don't know. But I have seen this time and time again in roleplayers both old and new, that they would rather read a book of rules then 5 pages of background info. In general rules are easyer to teach they aren't subjective nor are they ideas. I've brought new players into the hobby and after two nigjts of barrowing the book they know the rules better than I do and they still don't know anything about the game world. Personaly I am just the opposite.

Now I feel it is from this obersvation that the disfunction might stem from. A new player has a lot to learn, depending on the way they learn, sometimes it happens on the fly and sometimes pacients is required. Sometimes they despite your best efforts they get frusterated and they act out in ways that are inapropraite for a gameing table. I mean not only is there a sepcial set dice to determain how you act, you are pretending you are in an alien world, heck we have our own social contract. Often times these are radicaly diffrent from what a person is used to and somtimes they may get the wrong idea of what is appropriate behavior for the table. For alot of people it is a major adjestment to make and sometimes they get the wrong impression and dysfunction occurs. What is someones natural responce to a stressful situation may cause him to become an out cast hence the not being treated so nicly once you are let in comment. When in reality it is all just a new player trying to find thier niche. Or I could be compleatly wrong.

The only time I've ever played in a "closed" group is one that was "too big." We've usually tried to find a way to fit in an interested participant one way or the other.

It has been my experience that bringing in a third player into a two-player game has some deterimental effects of the new guy "not being part of the existing group"--so while I'll do it--I usually find it better to start another game.

I recently started running a game for a group that had been unable to get anything together for several months and was on the verge of dissolution. Our first playsession was last week and it was judged unanimously a big success: we'll see how it goes. While I'd be careful about characterizing the guys as "dysfunctional" I would say they were not, in any way, getting good gaming together despite repeated attempts. Games lacked longevity (more than 2 sessions was a shocker--and one was making characters). It was not (AFAIK) characterized by a lot of bad-temper amongst them--but I can't say for sure.

I'd also characterize them, GNS-wise, as all over the board.

The system they wanted to use was Savage Worlds.

At least two of the 6 I would classify as "begining Role-players." One is "not very experienced at all." One I don't know about. Two are very experienced (although for one of them I think his mode of play doesn't match mine much at all).

So it's a begining group, that didn't have things working, that was (at least to me) open.

I dunno what conclusions to draw from that other than I'm not sure the open-closed group thing is *especially* relevant.

-Marco

Comte wrote: 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.

Cadriel wrote: 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?

jdagna wrote:
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.

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?"

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?"

Cadriel wrote:

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?

Tony Irwin wrote: [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 Irwin wrote: 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 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

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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

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?

Cadriel wrote: 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.

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

Jack wrote: 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?

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

Isn't that pretty much how UnderWorld is built, when you get down to it?

Pick a "race," tweak that race's few fiddly bits. Pick a "class," tweak that class's few fiddly bits. Then pick one more fiddly bit from The Big List. One single system, "flip coins, count the heads" resolves everything. It's not quite go-like, but it's still really, really simple.

(And it's one of the reasons why I think UW would make such a good intro game.)

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

talysman> Perhaps "prince" or "diplomat" would be good names for that fourth category?

I've got to disagree Mike. I'll tell you what my perfect introductory game is, in fact it's the one I've used on all my most succesful introductory games. Here's what I do:

I start with a well-known and pretty basic setting. I.e medieval knights (arthurian stylee?) or Secret Agents (James Bond stylee?).

Each player picks a name for their character, two things their good at, and one thing they're bad at. (Sometimes I vary these numbers slightly, or get them to pick an important piece of equipment as well). I gives suggestions, and arbitration on these good/bad things. That's it. That's all the rules. I sometimes get them to roll dice to decide whether what happens is good or bad. Otherwise I just rule.

I then run a game that matches up with the kind of stories they've come across before, i.e. a murder mystery, a bad man trying to destroy london, that kind of jazz.

I find this an extremely succesful method, and I think I know why. It takes roleplaying down to the good bits, and the intelligable bits. There's no rules to learn, no new setting to understand, hardly any jargon to get into. A story that lets them have an understood role, and yet use their own intelligence to solve problems in it. It doesn't have the 'er, why?' nature of simplistic dungeon bashes (which I seen far too many people use as the standard introduction to role playing) or the required knowledge of something like WhiteWolf. In short, it's accessible and understandable.

Freeform is certainly good for getting people used to the idea of roleplaying in general. But if you want people to eventually be using more system, then I think you want to start out with a modicum of such things as resolution system, and ability mechanics.

I'd be afraid to lose them permenantly to the freeform crowd, essentially. :-) I want them to get the gist of what it is that we get from more system.

Mike

My problem with using freeform role-playing: for me (and many others) the rules of the game are what made playing it acceptable. After all, by the ripe old age of 12, we're pretty much past the make-believe stage of playing. We've learned that "real games" have rules. As people get older that attitude becomes increasingly entrenched, only to be replaced by the idea that all games are "kids' stuff" and not something a mature person plays. (Sports, of course, are not really games, according to this stage of life).

As wrong as this viewpoint might be, it's very common. It may even partly explain the fact that rules-heavy systems tend to dominate the commercial market.