This is inspired by several comments, in various threads in the Role-Playing Games section, to the effect that D&D isn't a good game to interest young people who don't play RPGs.
If it isn't, then what would a game to interest young people who don't play RPGs be like? Is there an existing system that just lacks advertising?
Well, one thing they should have is a bit more explanation of the "assumed" things we do: How to organize a group, how to set up for play, what things to do, and how things work.
Often games give you "Examples of Play" that have assumed knowledge. You need to tell people: Get a few friends together, tell them about the game, set up some characters with them, and prepare an adventure. These things aren't always explicitly laid out.
I good introductory RPG needs to tell you how to do things without assuming that you can just figure it out. It should explain how to handle all sorts of common things a player might have their character try to do, either in the rules or in advice on how to use the rules. If beginners already knew how to resolve those things smoothly, they wouldn't need a beginner's game.
Quote from: Age of FableThis is inspired by several comments, in various threads in the Role-Playing Games section, to the effect that D&D isn't a good game to interest young people who don't play RPGs.
If it isn't, then what would a game to interest young people who don't play RPGs be like? Is there an existing system that just lacks advertising?
D&D Edition 1 was good enough to launch the hobby. When it came out, as far as I was concerned, it was a magical thing that inspired years and years of fun and joy (oh yeah and angst, but never mind that now). It had, I would say, what it takes. Sure, it wasn't a perfect system. But it was good enough to take people from zero RPG experience and make GMs and Players out of them. So for all its faults...
A good introductory RPG should have a core scenario paradigm that's inherently interesting and which uses the rules pretty heavily, but it should have a rules set of wide enough potential application that potential GMs will start to get evil ideas for bending twisting and spindling right away.
Quote from: VBWyrdeD&D Edition 1 was good enough to launch the hobby. When it came out, as far as I was concerned, it was a magical thing that inspired years and years of fun and joy (oh yeah and angst, but never mind that now). It had, I would say, what it takes. Sure, it wasn't a perfect system. But it was good enough to take people from zero RPG experience and make GMs and Players out of them. So for all its faults...
That's true, but weren't most of the people who played it initially already wargamers (or brought into it by wargamers)? If so, they'd presumably already know how to come up with scenarios, organise a game, the role of an umpire etc.
Here's a side question: what would the setting be like?
Here's another side question: figures and maps. Would using figures and very simple maps (without wargamey rules - just as a visual aid) make it more familiar to people who are used to board games? Then the rules could work up to 'you don't need a board for everything.'
Quote from: Age of FableThat's true, but weren't most of the people who played it initially already wargamers (or brought into it by wargamers)? If so, they'd presumably already know how to come up with scenarios, organise a game, the role of an umpire etc.
Well, that I'm not so sure about. The knowledge associated to "how to organize a game" and "the role of an umpire" are reasonably generic so I don't think those two items needed to be included in the original game rules. Most people already understand that. Anyway, the idea of how to come up with scenarios is something that the D&D rules covered adquately, and I don't think Wargaming experience was required to get into D&D via the D&D rules books. I had no interest or experience in wargaming before I started playing D&D, and I managed to understand it quickly and easily from the D&D books. Anyway, I'd at least give them a looksie to find out what they've got in them. It might inspire you with additional ideas possibly.
PS - what's the goal of your question?
Quote from: VBWyrdeI had no interest or experience in wargaming before I started playing D&D, and I managed to understand it quickly and easily from the D&D books.
OK...although at least some people didn't (Tunnels & Trolls was written for that reason, and Talisman and Sorcerer's Cave were attempts to cut down on the 'paperwork').
The reason for my question is to see whether the people who thought that D&D was 'doing it wrong' wanted to try and do it right.
It would be really nice if you could get a group, sit them down, and be playing within ten minutes ... then be done by the time an hour was up ... all while having a fun time and an experience that was both satisfying on its own and made you look forward to the even neater experience you could have playing the game a second time.
Quote from: TonyLBIt would be really nice if you could get a group, sit them down, and be playing within ten minutes ... then be done by the time an hour was up ... all while having a fun time and an experience that was both satisfying on its own and made you look forward to the even neater experience you could have playing the game a second time.
How would you achieve this? Pre-generated characters? Very simple character creation?
Is it possible to cut down on the time for preparing an adventure? Are randomly generated adventures feasable?
Would being done in an hour be acheived making the adventures very short? Cutting down on the possibilities of interaction? Making combat very quick?
Quote from: Age of FableHow would you achieve this?
Yeah, that's the rub.
Short answer: Lots of the above, plus other stuff too.
Even shorter answer: I don't know ... yet.
The whole question of making a manageable footprint, though, is more than just making a game where you can do
something in one hour. If you play out the big combat at the front gate of the wizard's castle, and that's your hour, then people are going to be saying "What? We don't get to fight the wizard? What about rescuing the princess? What about returning victoriously to the village?" You've told a story, but it's not a satisfying story because it doesn't have a complete cycle of natural pacing.
Honestly, I think that for a lot of stories it wouldn't even be possible to
tell the story together in an hour, much less actually have dice hit the table. They're just too big. You need to have a story that is assembled out of much-smaller chunks that are satisfying in themselves, but which build easily. I tend to look to manga pacing, since they do a
really good job of breaking up episodic stories into tiny, tiny chunks (as a result of their publishing schema as installments bundled into one large, multi-story, booklet) ... but folks can go to any episodic medium, really.
As a for-instance above: The adventurers find out about the woes of the villagers, oppressed by an evil wizard (fifteen minutes), they fight some wizardly minions (thirty minutes) and they get to bask in the praise of the villagers, and speechify about how they will seek out the wizard and destroy him (fifteen minutes). Maybe the villagers give them something useful. Maybe the mayor who originally wanted nothing to do with such troublemakers admits as how he was wrong, and they're heroes. Whatever floats your boat. Last shot is of them heading off into the dark forest that guards the path to the wizard's tower. That sounds like a reasonable breaking point where something cool has happened, and you wouldn't be heart-broken if it never resumed ("Hey, remember that time we saved Kettle Springs from the face-stealers?") ... but, at the same time, a dark forest filled with evil creatures (and maybe an unlikely ally) lies ahead!
How would you avoid 'pacing' turning into 'railroading'?
Quote from: Age of FableHow would you avoid 'pacing' turning into 'railroading'?
Generally by having the pacing controlled by something other than GM fiat.
As a for-instance from the realm of board games, most Days of Wonder games start off with some mechanical resource that exists to be consumed and used (trains in Ticket to Ride, units in Memoir 44, etc.) and then runs until a set number of them has been used. Because of the ways in which the games are constructed, the flow of resources naturally leads to distinctly different opening phases, middle games and end-games.
Go and Chess, likewise, have pacing of their own, which emerge from the flow of the rules.
'course, there are other ways of doing it too. GM can call end-game, and that'd work fine as well. But since you were specifically asking about avoiding railroading, I figured I'd give you the furthest point on the spectrum away from GM control. Plenty of good material in the middle ranges, too.
One hour...
I call bullshit...
There's absolutely no reason for an introductory RPG to feature a one hour play time.
Interesting how Go and Chess and boardgames are brought up as examples - seeing as how none of them are RPG's...
Did someone get to you Tony? What happened to you in your absence?
No non-civil argument in this thread!
Seriously, the 'role-playing games' section gives more than enough opportunity for people to vent.
Quote from: TonyLBIt would be really nice if you could get a group, sit them down, and be playing within ten minutes ... then be done by the time an hour was up ...
You could call it "Dungeons that Don't Drag On" :haw:
Quote from: James J SkachThere's absolutely no reason for an introductory RPG to feature a one hour play time.
There's no reason that they
must. But I think it'd be a cool feature. It's easier to get people to sit down for "Hey, let's play this game, it'll take about an hour, and then if we want to do something else we'll do something else," than "Hey, let's dedicate the rest of this evening, until the wee hours, to this game ... I promise, it'll be cool!"
A longer play-time is just a higher bar, in terms of how much you need to convince people. You're asking them to invest more of their life.
I think Tony's idea is terrible. Sorry, Tony. Not because of the one-hour play time, but because it's a completely plotted out, railroaded story.
I'd look more to the idea of using RPG mechanics as the resolution system within a larger "game scenario". The exact game framework could vary; it might be something like a card game with Milles Bornes-like mechanics, or it could be a hex-cum-paragraph deal like Barbarian Prince (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdwarfstar.brainiac.com%2Fds_barbarianprince.html&ei=sVovSJ34C6jmpgSjzbHLAQ&usg=AFQjCNH5ZA1C_kgHqHWc8YXLmzlB0LYePA&sig2=anxGb-mrRM-LN4g4hJg9ng) or (a much simplified) Source of the Nile.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI think Tony's idea is terrible. Sorry, Tony. Not because of the one-hour play time, but because it's a completely plotted out, railroaded story.
I'd look more to the idea of using RPG mechanics as the resolution system within a larger "game scenario". The exact game framework could vary; it might be something like a card game with Milles Bornes-like mechanics, or it could be a hex-cum-paragraph deal like Barbarian Prince or (a much simplified) Source of the Nile.
I like your idea, but I don't think Tony's talking about having a railroaded story. I got the impression that he meant a game where, within an hour, the characters will have used up all their spells/hit points/powers/Luck, so that they'll have either completed the mission or died.
What's Milles Bornes by the way?
hmm, I think a good idea for a starter game would be:
- Playable in one night. Not tied to it but one or two nights tops.
-Pregenned characters with rules for char gen included. Essentially, a means to look over a selection, and if you have the motivation, go on an make your own.
-Complete rules in a 1-2 hours read, shorter if possible.
-engaging setting that builds on common tropes of a genre. Crime drama, sci-fi that is commonly known, fantasy that is commonly known...
-Complete adventure with pointers and alternatives for the GM.
-Color maps that engage the players and gms as well.
-affordable format that is easy to impulse buy or place at the register for POS purchasing.
Man, someone should make a game like that.
Bill
Quote from: Age of FableWhat's Milles Bornes by the way?
It's a themed card game where you race cars. Essentially the cards allow you to strategically move along the "race" or cause bad things to happen to the other player, such as a flat tire. Other cards can be played to recover or protect yourself from bad stuff.
Essentially I'd look to something like a card-driven game (see also We the People and its successors) where the cards provide a framework for play and help to channel some of the decisions that are usually left up to GM judgment or more complex calculations, but many actions are resolved by resorting to the RPG mechanics. It might or might not be adversarial (i.e., have a player who's "the bad guy").
After this introductory form, you then tell players that a GM can be slotted in to replace the cards and provide a more flexible structure.
Quote from: Age of FableWhat's Milles Bornes by the way?
Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive article on it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mille_Bornes).
Side point:
I'd like to see a game that treated play-by-post as a 'proper' way to play along with playing face-to-face.
It might help to answer the question of 'what if I don't know anyone who's interested?'.
Quote from: Age of FableI like your idea, but I don't think Tony's talking about having a railroaded story. I got the impression that he meant a game where, within an hour, the characters will have used up all their spells/hit points/powers/Luck, so that they'll have either completed the mission or died.
Actually, given that this is a "What do you want?" thread, I was mostly talking about a game that runs in an hour ...
however that's accomplished.
But then we got into all the follow-on questions of "How would you do that?" and I tried to give examples of how it might be done. Not my main point, though. My main point is more like "I think it would be nice if you could play an RPG with the same (small and easy) commitment of time that a board or card game requires."
Quote from: Age of FableSide point:
I'd like to see a game that treated play-by-post as a 'proper' way to play along with playing face-to-face.
It might help to answer the question of 'what if I don't know anyone who's interested?'.
I knew a guy who was working on a game like this for Black Adder(sp?). He was quite excited about it.
Bill
Quote from: Elliot WilenEssentially I'd look to something like a card-driven game (see also We the People and its successors) where the cards provide a framework for play and help to channel some of the decisions that are usually left up to GM judgment or more complex calculations, but many actions are resolved by resorting to the RPG mechanics. It might or might not be adversarial (i.e., have a player who's "the bad guy").
Can you give an example of what the cards might do?
Quote from: HinterWeltMan, someone should make a game like that.
I don't think that I could make a game like that, but I do think that I could make one tenth of a game like that. Find nine people in the same position and the game might get made.
Part of the reason I started this thread was because there are lots of people on this forum who are saying that Wizards of the Coast is doing it wrong, and (by implication) that they know how to do it right. I wanted to see whether that was just venting on the internet, or whether it could be turned into something constructive.
Quote from: Age of FableI don't think that I could make a game like that, but I do think that I could make one tenth of a game like that. Find nine people in the same position and the game might get made.
Part of the reason I started this thread was because there are lots of people on this forum who are saying that Wizards of the Coast is doing it wrong, and (by implication) that they know how to do it right. I wanted to see whether that was just venting on the internet, or whether it could be turned into something constructive.
PM me an email if you are interested but Squirrel Attack! is based on this approach. I will send you a comp copy of the PDF.
Bill
Quote from: Age of FableCan you give an example of what the cards might do?
Bring monsters into play, represent treasure (each monster will have loot equal to a number of draws on the treasure deck; some cards will be empty), allow adverse events like loyalty checks for hirelings and allies, or misfortunes such as bad weather or rock slides or river rapids, which force saving throws to avoid expenditure of supplies. Also: bring allies into play, allow lucky breaks such as discovering a hidden pass (speeds up movement in the mountains), generic number cards which can be used as bonuses for certain activities such as speeding movement, negotiating with natives, surprise rolls, saving throws, etc.
This is off the top of my head. The important thing is that any of the stuff that's ordinarily left up to "player description mediated by GM discretion" (e.g., the bonus for a negotiation roll) is instead handled by playing a card. But the RPG mechanics still get used, especially for combat.
Quote from: Elliot WilenBring monsters into play, represent treasure (each monster will have loot equal to a number of draws on the treasure deck; some cards will be empty), allow adverse events like loyalty checks for hirelings and allies, or misfortunes such as bad weather or rock slides or river rapids, which force saving throws to avoid expenditure of supplies. Also: bring allies into play, allow lucky breaks such as discovering a hidden pass (speeds up movement in the mountains), generic number cards which can be used as bonuses for certain activities such as speeding movement, negotiating with natives, surprise rolls, saving throws, etc.
This is off the top of my head. The important thing is that any of the stuff that's ordinarily left up to "player description mediated by GM discretion" (e.g., the bonus for a negotiation roll) is instead handled by playing a card. But the RPG mechanics still get used, especially for combat.
I think I get it. How would you distribute a game which required cards though? If you make it into a pdf then the cards need to be cut out and backed, creating a relatively high amount of work.
This is also true to a lesser extent for things like paper 'miniatures' which I think might be a good idea.
Quote from: HinterWeltPM me an email if you are interested but Squirrel Attack! is based on this approach. I will send you a comp copy of the PDF.
Bill
Oh...that's the game you were talking about...I knew it sounded familiar ;)
Quote from: Age of FableI think I get it. How would you distribute a game which required cards though? If you make it into a pdf then the cards need to be cut out and backed, creating a relatively high amount of work.
This is also true to a lesser extent for things like paper 'miniatures' which I think might be a good idea.
Didn't really think about that. I assumed it would be a commercial boxed set.
If we're talking about PDF distribution, I might adapt normal playing cards with a separate lookup sheet.
In principle you could use cardboard chits--these can be handmade pretty easily by using spray glue to mount printouts onto thin cardboard, and a paper cutter to cut them out. But it's probably too much work for an introductory game.
Quote from: HinterWeltPM me an email if you are interested but Squirrel Attack! is based on this approach. I will send you a comp copy of the PDF.
Bill
In terms of anyone who thinks that an existing game is an example of "a good introductory RPG" - please say so. I'd look at that respectfully, but also skeptically; because if it is capable of appealing to non-gamers more than D&D does, that raises an obvious question.
My pick for such a game would be Dungeon Squad - but no one plays it and its author seems to have abandoned it, so I guess I must be wrong.
My guess would be that there are probably ten games which are each one-tenth 'pure gold'.
Quote from: Age of FableCan you give an example of what the cards might do?
Might be slightly off subject but after reading Darksword Adventures I was thinking of card mechanics to replace the existing TAROK mechanics that used D10 and tables in the book. TAROK is basically a game played with tarot cards within the setting and I was thinking of a card game could be supportive to that type of play actually playing a similar type of game for resolution. I was thinking of a texas hold em style of play where three cards are dealt to the players, including the GM, that they use to affect the past, present, and future. The station of the character is a card drawn which is a permanent part of the players hand and placed back in the deck (the GM receives a Joker which is a wild card). The GM deals out the three universal fate cards where betting is performed to determine narrative resolution for the past, present, and future. I believe it's more of a "storytelling" system but it seemed a fair idea with the magic heavy nature of the system with a laid back card player atmosphere.
I'd be interested to know how 'RPG-like' games - board games like Talisman, or card games like Once Upon A Time - sell compared to actual pen-and-paper RPGs.
Here's an interesting side-point:
The 'white box' D&D set that I found a picture of had a printed price of $10.
US$10 in 1974 = US$46.19 in 2007 (the inflation calculator I found only went up to 2007).
Amazon is currently offering the 4th edition Player's Handbook and DM's Guide for $46.14 (not including shipping). The Monster Manual is another $23.07.
So, it seems to me that the original set wasn't actually better value than the current one. Or to put it another way, price might not be that big a factor in explaining people's decision not to get into role-playing.
Inflation is partly psychological, and it affects different sectors differently.
Go to Toys 'R Us and see how many board games are over $40. It's possible that the Monopoly set you buy today for $10 was $2.25 back in 1974, but I doubt it.
Quote from: Age of FableIn terms of anyone who thinks that an existing game is an example of "a good introductory RPG" - please say so. I'd look at that respectfully, but also skeptically; because if it is capable of appealing to non-gamers more than D&D does, that raises an obvious question.
Faery's Tale (http://www.ogrecave.com/reviews/faerys_tale.shtml) by Firefly Games.
This is as close to an introductory game with untapped potential as I can think of. I wonder how it would fare if it was stocked by book chains, not hidden (spine-out) in the shelf but stacked alongside Harry Potter, Spiderwick, Magyk, Artemis Fowl, and Bartimaeus.
Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeFaery's Tale (http://www.ogrecave.com/reviews/faerys_tale.shtml) by Firefly Games.
I like the look of it. One good thing is that it's using something which is very prominent in popular culture, but not in role-playing.
However, it seems to be aimed at parents buying it and then GMing their children, rather than children buying it themselves?
Quote from: Elliot WilenInflation is partly psychological, and it affects different sectors differently.
Go to Toys 'R Us and see how many board games are over $40. It's possible that the Monopoly set you buy today for $10 was $2.25 back in 1974, but I doubt it.
I think you're right actually. I went to Toys R Us's US site (http://www.toysrus.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2256723) and had a look at various well-known games - Monopoly, Clue, Stratego, and Trivial Pursuit - the most expensive I found of these was $19.99.
The only comparable board game is Risk, which ranged from $19.99 to $39.99. In fact the more expensive Risk games were the two with a noticeably 'gamer-y' look (2210 AD and Godstorm).
The only things I found that were more expensive than that were the more deluxe chess sets, a chinese checkers set with a teak board etc - and I don't think they're competing for the same customers.
So what do people think is going on here?
Quote from: Age of FableSo what do people think is going on here?
In terms of mass-produced games being inflation-adjusted-cheaper now than they were? Mmm ... China, maybe?
Although this blog (http://www.squaremans.com/?p=25)says that
QuoteThese pamphlets were expensive. They were the most expensive games you could buy. $10.
Going back to an earlier question, "What would the setting be like?"
I think that something from popular culture really is a good idea (though running around attacking monsters may be joining that category thanks to videogames).
But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we're going about it backwards. Right now we're trying to get people to play our games. What we should be doing is asking what do non-gamers want, and only after that, try to figure out how to redesign rpgs to match that.
To take a videogame parallel, casual games (e.g. PopCap) have found an audience because people wanted entertainment they could fit into short (4-30 minute) time slots between other life activities, especially if there are kids in the home.
Quote from: madunkiegBut the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we're going about it backwards. Right now we're trying to get people to play our games. What we should be doing is asking what do non-gamers want, and only after that, try to figure out how to redesign rpgs to match that.
How could that be done?
Let me introduce the 2 cardinal rules of making something for non-gamers:
1. What you like and want doesn't matter.
2. What they like and want does.
Hopefully there will be a connection between what you like and what they like, but when in doubt, they win.
Now, to break down the process:
1. Listen to non-gamers: listen to what they do for entertainment, listen to their complaints about entertainment (and not just, "it sucked" complaints, look for complaints about scheduling, organization, travel, and anything else peripheral to the entertainment experience). Look for a spot where a roleplaying game might be able to do something better than another medium. Include some non-storytelling mediums (e.g. social networking sites, fashion, etc.).
2. Do some market research: What sorts of stories do they watch, read, listen to and play? What genres? What themes? What brands (if you're going that route)? Where do they look for advertising about entertainment? This may involve checking statistics (tv ratings, book sales, etc.), doing focus groups, and all that jazz.
3. Make a roleplaying game that matches the stories they like and fits the constraints (and freedoms) of their lives.
4. Playtest with non-gamers who are your target audience. Let's face it. We gamers often try to steer rpgs towards what we're familiar with. We can check the math pretty well, but we're not the target audience. And "non-gamers" are not a target audience. You need to be more specific than that.
This is all pretty general, basic business practice, and it glosses over all the places where you can go wrong in the details. How to manage those details fills books, so do some reading, and talking to successful businesspeople often helps, too.
Quote from: madunkiegLet me introduce the 2 cardinal rules of making something for non-gamers:
1. What you like and want doesn't matter.
2. What they like and want does.
Hate to break this to you but that is the rules for publishing period. At least if you want to sell it.
Bill
Quote from: Age of FableYou could call it "Dungeons that Don't Drag On" :haw:
Bwahahaha :haw:
I think you could do 1 hour. :)
Here's another bit of advice: Math is BAD. BAD bad BAD.
d20 +2 +3 +1 +3... or was that +2... better look it up... what was the target number? 17? So what did you roll? No, you added it up wrong. Did you make it? Okay, roll for damage now...
Blah. :-P
Quote from: StuartHere's another bit of advice: Math is BAD. BAD bad BAD.
d20 +2 +3 +1 +3... or was that +2... better look it up... what was the target number? 17? So what did you roll? No, you added it up wrong. Did you make it? Okay, roll for damage now...
Is it really the math that's the problem here, or is it having to keep track of so many modifiers?
Quote from: madunkiegIs it really the math that's the problem here, or is it having to keep track of so many modifiers?
Both. Most boardgames and card games have much less math in them. Even with math, ading one or two to single digit numbers is fine for most people -- but when you get into adding and subtracting double-digit numbers it slows things down. Doing a chain of adding or subtracting single digit numbers likewise slows things down.
Then you get to Rolling for damage and adding all the bonuses, and then recording hit point loss "You had 83 hp and the Ogre did 17 damage..." and it's more math.
Obviously it's not a problem for any of us, but it's different from most other games and a bit off-putting to some people. For a lot of people ANY math, even "easy" math is at odds with "Fun". It's work, and if you keep asking them to do it, they'll start thinking about doing something else.
What could replace game elements that currently rely on maths?
As Stuart says, boardgames rule this aspect of gaming, and the most basic ways they do it is by simply cutting down on the number of modifiers and by cutting down on the size of numbers. One other thing they do is provide items that list the modifiers that are used (cards that say, "roll an extra die" and such), instead of having to keep a list of 50 possible modifiers in your head.
But boardgames also get very inventive. Boards allow spatial metaphors, like the variable size of buildings in Elaslund, or having different sections of board like in Talisman.
Cardgames play some fun tricks, too. Brawl, from Cheapass Games, penalizes some decks by making them more complex than others. Citadels ties initiative to chosen special actions (if you think of the roles as special actions), and going first is a sort of modifier.
It might not be a bad idea to head over to boardgamegeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/newuser.php) and start looking through what they talk about. Better yet, get together with some friends and have some fun playing a few boardgames and cardgames.
Quote from: madunkiegIt might not be a bad idea to head over to boardgamegeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/newuser.php) and start looking through what they talk about. Better yet, get together with some friends and have some fun playing a few boardgames and cardgames.
Absolutely! It's actually a bit surprising that you see less RPGs influenced by modern boardgames than you'd expect.
For new players (an introductory RPG) they'll care a lot less about having all sorts of different modifiers and detail / crunch to the rule system. They'll prefer a game that moves quickly.
Keep in mind -- computers can do math much faster than people. Adding lots of math to a game is turning it into something that would be better done by a computer. Keep the focus on what computer games *don't* do well. Think of the actual experience for the players sitting at the table rather than just thinking about the simulation of the game world you're trying to model.
I'll be able to share my game mechanics with you all very soon. They might not hit the spot for people looking for lots of "crunch" but for people who want fast and light (but still having some depth) I think you'll like them. :)
Here's another question: is it true that Vampire got a lot of new people into role-playing?
It's quite different to the other systems I can think of that definitely did, for example in its setting (including the fact that it emphasises the details of a particular, original setting) and in the apparent assumption that you won't be running structured, 'dungeon' style adventures with it (including not having a sample adventure).
Quote from: StuartAbsolutely! It's actually a bit surprising that you see less RPGs influenced by modern boardgames than you'd expect.
Apparently the latest(?) game in the Catan series is more RPG-like, in the sense that you control an individual character and go forth into the wilderness fighting wolves and so on.
There's actually a lot of boardgames that have RPG like elements now.
Board Game Geek has an entire category for Role Playing (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browser.php?itemtype=game&sortby=mechanic&mechid=28&mechname=Role+Playing)
Quote from: Age of FableHere's another question: is it true that Vampire got a lot of new people into role-playing?
It's quite different to the other systems I can think of that definitely did, for example in its setting (including the fact that it emphasises the details of a particular, original setting) and in the apparent assumption that you won't be running structured, 'dungeon' style adventures with it (including not having a sample adventure).
See I don't think the system was all the different. It was the setting that did it. I think this is a mistake many make when they talk about intro games, that system some how makes the game intro. Setting is, IMHO, the key factor. I say this having introduced a lot of people to RPGs through oWOD.
System wise, I modified oWOD to be more combat friendly. Folks liked this and it drew more in.
Bill
I think Vampire was such a hit because the Anne Rice novels, Goth, and Vampires were popular at the time. The dress-up and go out to the clubs element of the Live Action play shouldn't be overlooked either.
I have to say I'm a bit skeptical about people being able to play Vampire in cases where none of the group are already gamers. But, as with a lot of other things, this seems to end with me wanting statistics that no one has :)
Quote from: Age of FableI have to say I'm a bit skeptical about people being able to play Vampire in cases where none of the group are already gamers. But, as with a lot of other things, this seems to end with me wanting statistics that no one has :)
I think there were a lot of guys who had been playing D&D since they were 9 or 10 picking up Vampire because it helped with picking up women. One of the guys I used to game with got really into the Vampire Live-Action scene and met quite a few lady friends that way.
Quote from: Age of FableI have to say I'm a bit skeptical about people being able to play Vampire in cases where none of the group are already gamers. But, as with a lot of other things, this seems to end with me wanting statistics that no one has :)
Well I do not have stats beyond my own two stores. We had 6 nights a week, 8-10 players per games, a couple of 2 sessions per night. Part of it was simply the setting expressed what was cool and accessible in the culture of the time. The stores were 600 miles apart so I am pretty sure this was not just a local phenomenon. We also had a lot of newbies. Easily 75% with a waitin list for more. Eventually we began forming outside groups, helping players get together with STs. Demand rose, I had to write up my mods and a small setting (New Orleans at Night). I would say about 90% of this was driven by "Man! I want to play a vampire" and not "Wow! D10 dice pool!" type comments.
Bill
I'll agree that Vampire was able to be played by many people new to gaming. I think Vampire's success with new players is a good example of how it's not about the complexity of the rules (though I have a few good things to say about dice pools), but about how the game appealed to a certain fashion, literally, clothing and music and all the cultural messages woven into those things.
I think there was a thread about introductory games and another about role play / ccg hybrid games a while back.
Two things occur to me but neither may be true.
i) The best way to introduce people to something new is to find something they like and then create something that is similar to what they like but with a new element. So Vampire was big becuase it took the Anne Rice loving goths kids, who were generally into sitting at home and listening to music or reading and other failry passive activities and added role playing. The two were a great match. D&D took wargamers who loved Tolkein (etc) and added roleplaying. Magic took roleplayers who loved games and gave them stuff to collect, took away the GM and gave them a 15 minute game time.
ii) The current 'big' things with kids that could be turned into role playing games are - the growth of pre-teen fiction that also appeals to adults, this is Harry Potter, the Young James Bond, The Amber Spyglass etc, this might give you ideas for setings; the Internet and Social networking, this might give you an idea for delivery mechanism.
I think we all tend to look to table top games as the epitome as that is where we are all from but maybe we need to look to other medium. I am not explaining this well as its late but the idea would be you introduce the RPG concept without imposing the rather geeking connotations of sitting in a basement for 4 hours with a load of blokes who can quote Blackadder and Monthy python and have well considered positions on whether Firefly or Battlestar Galactic are the better TV shows (Firefly every time !!).
Supposing you build a facebook app for example that allowed you to pick a character, you could tweak the genre but lets say Harry Potter for example, you pick a name and get some random backgrounds and abilities. Then you get dropped into a text based world much like the old MUDs but with more intelligent AI and some sort of GM power whereby by taking so many actions you can impose events on other players Effectively you are building a MMORPG but you are stripping out the graphics and the stuff that makes it "cooler" than tabletop and you are stressing the role play and revealing the mechanics (??). You also strip out the costs that MMOs have and by tapping into facebook you open it up to a lot more potential customers. Then you produce a p'n'p game based on the same mechanics and setting. The hope being that 1,000,000 load the app 10% play it and 10% of them maybe enjoy it enough to investigate the hobby further.
I just read that back and aside from the poor typing it is actually a load of bollocks so feel free to ignore it.
Well... it might be bollocks... but I have a Facebook app nearly ready to go with the mechanics from my game system in them. :haw:
Quote from: StuartWell... it might be bollocks... but I have a Facebook app nearly ready to go with the mechanics from my game system in them. :haw:
Hey fantastic well hope it works and you are the new Scrabulous (minus the expensive law suits etc ). Post the name of the app when its up and I'll certainly join in.
Quote from: Age of FableIn terms of anyone who thinks that an existing game is an example of "a good introductory RPG" - please say so. I'd look at that respectfully, but also skeptically; because if it is capable of appealing to non-gamers more than D&D does, that raises an obvious question.
I'd say Dungeons and Dragons for two reasons. The first is the dungeon and the second is (and it pains me to say this) Vancian magic, hit points, etc.
The dungeon is nice because at any juncture and with any challenge, the players are presented with meaningful choices like which door to take, how to get past traps, and how to kill the monster (or how to run away and make sure it doesn't follow you) and even with all these choices it's still easy for the first time DM to predict or model the outcomes of these events given the rules.
The limited resources for reasons tied to the "pacing" discussion above. You fight and fight until you're low on hp or cast and cast until you're low on spells, and that's as good a time as any to call it a night. *Or* if the party's still looking for more action you rest, get up, and go back for more dungeon.
The random tables handle more or less everything else (I have played Milles Bornes or however you spell it and cards for treasures traps and monsters would be pretty nifty, if not so much different from a d% roll).
For first timers there's just nothing like a dungeon and some characters with semi-limited resources.