Quote from: Werekoala;819751Gotta say it - LBB Traveller. With or without the "official" setting, the actual rules are damn simple. The UPP might not be intuitive since it's just a string of numbers, but list them vertically and label them like D&D did and I think that it would be an awesome into RPG. You can (and we did) put an entire character on one side of an index card and then you're off - Ad Astra!

I support this.

Originally, I wouldn't have agreed, but then I remembered that after every design sequence in Classic Traveller from character generation to world creation there was an example given with a step-by-step description of how to use the rules.

Quote from: Spinachcat;819645I'd give the kid a copy of RIFTS. Here's why:

A) It fun to fuck with kid's heads. Little bastards deserve it.

B) Rifts is a tween's fevered dream of awesomeness. None of that watered down corporate bullshit or aren't we PC hipster indie crap. Rifts is just page after page of GUNS! ROBOTS! BLIND BOOBIE NINJAS! SKULL NAZIS!

C) The kid wouldn't give a shit about the system and their version of the system would probably be really fun to play.

As someone who got into Rifts at the age of 13, I can't fault your logic.

Quote from: CRKrueger;819646I'm glad Kevin got into video games where he can obviously make more money, but I wish he had been drawing for Rifts all this time.

You and me, brother. Long's art defines Rifts for me.

I'd love to know what video games he's been working on, BTW. Last I knew he was the lead artist on Quake 4.

Quote from: jeff37923;819549What 10 games would you suggest to a complete newb who was interested, but hadn't ever tried a Tabletop RPG?

In no particular order:

1. Red Box D&D
2. WHFRP 1st Edition
3. Marvel Superheroes Basic Set
4. Prince Valiant
5. Doctor Who: Adventures in Time & Space
6. Dragon Warriors
7. Final Fight
8. Ghostbusters
9. Star Frontiers
10. TFOS

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819554Bwuh?  What does this even mean?

"Bryce Duzan is a freelance journalist and game designer, and strives to bring a queer perspective to board games and tabletop RPGs."

I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819779I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't think his sexual orientation matters one whit as to his ability or qualifications to talk about or recommend RPGs.  It just seemed an odd thing to say on an article talking about the best RPGs for beginners.  Almost like, "RPGs for beginners should be ones with a gay influence to them".  Otherwise, why even mention that he is trying to bring "a queer perspective" to them?

It would be like me doing a list of RPGs I recommend and having at the bottom, "Roderic is a game designer bringing an ultra realism focus to RPGs".  I'm sure you'd assume that the games I'm recommending are ones that focus on ultra realism.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819783Don't misunderstand me, I don't think his sexual orientation matters one whit as to his ability or qualifications to talk about or recommend RPGs.

Thats what makes it a completely bizarre misnomer. Unless his RPG games are specifically about gay sexuality, his sexual orientation has zero bearing on the game whatsoever. His "queer perspective" is as ridiculously meaningless as my "auburn perspective". I think he's just using it to "sell himself". I guess being queer gets you some manner of social cred among certain youth groups these days, or at least gets one some extra donations to Patreon.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819784Thats what makes it a completely bizarre misnomer. Unless his RPG games are specifically about gay sexuality, his sexual orientation has zero bearing on the game whatsoever. His "queer perspective" is as ridiculously meaningless as my "auburn perspective". I think he's just using it to "sell himself". I guess being queer gets you some manner of social cred among certain youth groups these days, or at least gets one some extra donations to Patreon.

See, that is the thing, his sexual orientation doesn't matter to anybody but himself in relation to gaming. To him though, it is a Big Deal.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819779I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

And I applaude you for that. I find that true auburn, as opposed to a Miss Clairol version, is insufficiently represented in today's society.

It's a superfluous to me, but essentially harmless comment that makes me think the guy is 22 years old and still trying out personas for fit. Cut him some slack on that comment. He probably is 22 years old.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819774In no particular order:

1. Red Box D&D
2. WHFRP 1st Edition
3. Marvel Superheroes Basic Set
4. Prince Valiant
5. Doctor Who: Adventures in Time & Space
6. Dragon Warriors
7. Final Fight
8. Ghostbusters
9. Star Frontiers
10. TFOS

That's a pretty good list of games. I reckon you could get a bunch of us together and we'd have fun play any of the above; or we could run them for a new player and they'd have fun, too.

But the question is, is it a good list of games to recommend to new players these days? Most of them are out of print, they lack guidance on what play actually looks like, they have a bunch of pitfalls that unwary new players could fall into... they're not bad games, they're just games that are easy to play badly without realising it.

There are also some more issues with them being old; picking out MSH as a specific item (And I really like MSH), that's a game that could make a great intro game today, with only minimal updates required (Refluff it into MCU Superheroes RPG, for one).

Modern games aren't necessarily better, but they're better at explaining themselves because designers have more information on what explanations have and haven't worked. "Well I learnt things the hard way" just isn't good enough any more.

Quote from: Ladybird;819871they're just games that are easy to play badly without realising it.

How did you learn to realize it?  

I'm willing to bet it wasn't due to "game designer X" telling you, or even showing you through his "psychologically safe and unscarring idiot-proof game experience".

You figured shit out, and you're not a brain-damaged or emotionally scarred individual for having done so, are you?

Like everything else in the world, when you first try doing something, you suck, and then you get better, and you may even become great at it.

Constructing something so that you can't fail or can't suck is just going to mean you remain mediocre...forever.

Crutches prevent you from hurting yourself, and they get you the hell off them as soon as possible so you don't cripple yourself for life due to always using them.

You can't hurt yourself playing or GMing a RPG all the awfulpurple bullshit notwithstanding, so there is absolutely no need for any form of preventative measure via game mechanics.

The notion of "protecting new players from themselves" needs to die in a fire after being curbstomped by Godzilla and shit on by King Kong.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819779I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

Please don't trigger me.  My favorite Shadowrun character died in Auburn.

Quote from: Ladybird;819871That's a pretty good list of games. I reckon you could get a bunch of us together and we'd have fun play any of the above; or we could run them for a new player and they'd have fun, too.

But the question is, is it a good list of games to recommend to new players these days? Most of them are out of print, they lack guidance on what play actually looks like, they have a bunch of pitfalls that unwary new players could fall into... they're not bad games, they're just games that are easy to play badly without realising it.

There are also some more issues with them being old; picking out MSH as a specific item (And I really like MSH), that's a game that could make a great intro game today, with only minimal updates required (Refluff it into MCU Superheroes RPG, for one).

Modern games aren't necessarily better, but they're better at explaining themselves because designers have more information on what explanations have and haven't worked. "Well I learnt things the hard way" just isn't good enough any more.

Availability is the major issue for a few of them, though Star Frontiers and MSH are both available for free (without the need to pirate them) in pdf. Otherwise my assumption is that they would be gifts to people interested in rpgs. Elsewise, only Ghostbusters would actually be hard/expensive to get ahold of from ebay.

As for explaining RPGs to new players, I've yet to come across any game that provided a better introduction than the original Red Box D&D. I say that even as someone who is not a D&D player (of any edition). Only slightly second in that regard would be Prince Valiant. Though I havent read every new rpg to come out in the years since, of the many I have read, none have touched those 2 as the pinnacle of introducing the concept of RPGs to new players.

The rest are on about the same level in that they do a good job defining what rpgs are, how they are played, the role of the GM, and provide introductory adventures. The newest in that group is Doctor Who, the boxed set I have being specifically designed to appeal to non-roleplayers, and it does as good a job as Ghostbusters did 20 years prior.

Granted, the ideal situation is always going to be an experienced GM introducing new players in play. As such, MSH (FASERIP) tops my list as a system that can be explained to people who have never roleplayed before in under 5 minutes

Are there actually people who have a hard time figuring out how to play an RPG in a fun way?[1]

If there are, would those same people play an RPG in a fun way if there was a better explanation of how to play at the beginning of the rules?[2], [3]


[1] Notice I don't say play an RPG the same way as other people or the same way as the designer, just play in a fun way. My friends and I were able to figure out how to have fun playing OD&D after reading the fairly minimalist instructions and examples contained in the little brown books.

[2] There often seems to be an assumption by some people who presumably  learned the rules by having the rules explained to them face-to-face by another person that learning how to play on one's own by reading any old rule book is some esoteric activity that only gaming geniuses can succeed at. I think this assumption is wrong (i.e. it doesn't accord with my experience) and absent some compelling evidence, I see no reason to think it is actually true.

[3] All that being said, I think the Runequest 1 and 2 rules were extremely well written, included useful and entertaining examples that showed (a) how the rules worked, (b) how to play the game, and (c) introduced some of the color of the setting. OD&D is a fun game, but the rules were not as well written as were Runequest or Traveller. Including rules that are easier to learn makes sense if we assume that the new players are supposed to be learning by reading as opposed to learning by doing.

The best RPG to teach new players is whatever one you wanna run. A good GM could make Living Steel quick and fun to play. A shitty GM could turn TOON into the most bogged down waste of time ever.

Quote from: CRKrueger;819877How did you learn to realize it?  

I had fun the first time... after over a decade, I still don't know if I'm any good at it.

But I'm also the sort of person who will look to experts for advice when I start something so that I can get past the "crap at this" stage as quickly as possible, and also accept I won't be much good for a while. This isn't a common trait; many people don't want to admit they aren't very good at something, or to have to work at something.

So this...

QuoteLike everything else in the world, when you first try doing something, you suck, and then you get better, and you may even become great at it.

...is an interesting point. How is someone new to roleplaying meant to know whether the reason they didn't enjoy their first session was because they or their group were new (And crap), or because roleplaying just isn't for them? With no frame of reference, how can you tell that you suck? Those first few sessions are important for getting players hooked.

If people don't like roleplaying, fine, whatever. They can go and do whatever non-roleplayers do with their time. But for those first few sessions, the only thing they'll know is what the books tell them about the game. So short of a couple of more experienced players being at their table...

QuoteI'm willing to bet it wasn't due to "game designer X" telling you, or even showing you through his "psychologically safe and unscarring idiot-proof game experience".

...game designer X is pretty much the only person who can show them how to play the game, through examples and guidelines. There isn't anyone else to learn from. So, yeah, game designers X, Y and Z (Livingstone, Jackson and Costikyan, to be precise) were who me and my friends learned from.

At the end of the day, the core difference between an RPG and any other media is that at some point a player will be asked "what do you do now", and have an essentially-infinite amount of choices. The job of the games designer is:

1. To tell the players "say what you want to do, and you'll be asked what to roll"
2. To tell the GM "if anyone asks you 'what can I do', say 'tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you what to roll'"
3. To give the GM a framework that can be used to make the call on what to roll, and how to interpret the results

...and in the absence of an expert or one of us, there is nobody else to do that.

QuoteYou can't hurt yourself playing or GMing a RPG all the awfulpurple bullshit notwithstanding, so there is absolutely no need for any form of preventative measure via game mechanics.

Maybe not, but you can learn bad habits that will hold you back later on... I'm sure we've all heard stories of, say, players who think the only solution to a problem is "kill it", or players who will look at their character sheet for their, options when asked "what do you do now", GM's who can't / won't think outside the rules, or GM's who take all challenge and interest out of the game. Now, part of that is a failure on the part of the group... but because RPG's are such a different medium to anything else, a large part is also a failure of the materials used to teach the group.

So while I don't think that new gamers should be "protected from themselves", I do think it's a duty of more experienced gamers (And obv that includes games designers, as they're gamers themselves) to tell newer gamers about the mistakes we made, so they can avoid having to make them too.