Quote from: Ladybird;819903... 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...

Statement 1 and statement 2 are connected.

To figure out if you are any good at being a GM there is one tried and tested method. Try being a GM. See if your players are having fun - e.g. do they look and sound like they are having fun; do they come back a second, third, or fourth time to play. If you still aren't sure if they are having fun ask them. If your players are having fun, then bingo, you are at least adequately good at being a GM. Carry on.

The notion that game designers are authorities on being a GM is one of the more pernicious notions preventing some people from trying to be a GM. This is a very minor niche, leisure activity. It doesn't require experts to have fun.

I see experienced GMs and players having a hard time learning and having to teach some of the 4th-gen RPGs rules out there to players new to role-playing. Some might say that old-school RPGs (adventure games) are too simplistic to bother with in this day and age. So maybe that is why they go with Cortex+ or FATE to start new gamers with?

i have never understood people recommending coc for a first rpg a game where you are expected to fail is not in any way a good introduction to the hobby.

i have also never understood why people say 3.5 is a bad introduction sure it has a lot of elements but outside of the grappling rules none of them are particularly complicated.

but as much as i dislike the system i have to agree 5e is perfect for a first rpg.

im not sure why he would recommend fate over risus though but maybe im missing something about fate core that makes it a better choice i only know fate accelerated.

CoC is a great introduction to a hobby whose games are unique in that there are no winners (though plenty of losers, amright? ). See also Paranoia.

Quote from: tuypo1;819974i have never understood people recommending coc for a first rpg a game where you are expected to fail is not in any way a good introduction to the hobby..

That is a common misconception among people who only know hearsay about the game and then parrot it without any experience from actual gameplay on their own. The players are not expected to fail in CoC by default. There is, however, the very real chance of failure, and the fact that even if you succeed, that often comes at a price (usually in form of sanity loss). Now, these are two essential lections any new player must learn: In an RPG, you are not entitled to succeed and you will frequently suffer setbacks and hardships even if you do.
Also: Lovecraft is one of the most recognized genre fiction authors. Even if your potential players have never read anything, they will probably recognize Cthulhu, in its sanitized, iconic form (green zoidberg with wings).

that is true about there being no real winners but i still think its a bad mentality to put in new players although the very thing that makes it a poor first game may make it an ideal second game show people both sides of the coin

Quote from: CRKrueger;819877retarded bullshit

i was going to explain how stupid what you just said is but ladybird pretty much covered it

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819580No, that's not the reason at all.  For one, AD&D is more complex than 5e or 4e.  The reason was because 4e's style of play didn't appeal to enough gamers and drove too many of them away.  Alienating players had nothing to do with complexity, but with style of play.  They also wanted to avoid a system like 3e where min/maxers ruled the game with a shit ton of feats.

5e's philosophy was to take D&D back to it's roots, keep it streamlined, and incorporate the good things that people liked from every prior edition without getting bogged down with a bunch of crap.

for me the problem with 4e is that it did not work as a dungeons and dragons game if they had just given it a different name (d&d tactics most likely) it would have been fine

Quote from: Emperor Norton;819623Its not nostalgia, its practicality. Its just one of the easiest games to run, because you aren't thrown out in the deep end of "make every single thing up because there is no support for you" which is where a lot of games sit.

i can agree with almost your entire post here but i must especially point out my support of this point its not something i have ever consciously thought about but your completely right

Quote from: Bren;819840And 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.

its statements like that that remind me just how young i am compared to most of you

Quote from: Beagle;819979That is a common misconception among people who only know hearsay about the game and then parrot it without any experience from actual gameplay on their own. The players are not expected to fail in CoC by default. There is, however, the very real chance of failure, and the fact that even if you succeed, that often comes at a price (usually in form of sanity loss). Now, these are two essential lections any new player must learn: In an RPG, you are not entitled to succeed and you will frequently suffer setbacks and hardships even if you do.
Also: Lovecraft is one of the most recognized genre fiction authors. Even if your potential players have never read anything, they will probably recognize Cthulhu, in its sanitized, iconic form (green zoidberg with wings).

your right i am completely guilty of making assumptions about a game based just on what i have heard im going to go buy coc right now

Quote from: tuypo1;819981your right i am completely guilty of making assumptions about a game based just on what i have heard im going to go buy coc right now

Just go to the Chaosium website and download the free Quick-Start and other PDFs. Don't spend your money if all you want to do is try a system out, that way you can save your money for the things that really matter to you.

thats a good idea

hm this is looking quite interesting so far although i will have to fix the skill improvment rules but thats not a bad thing i take great pleasure in converting random stat gens into something not random (although thats always being in character gen before and this one will be quite difficult in general) although im still not clear if you take a major would from taking half max hp or half current hp.

Quote from: Ladybird;819871But 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.

It's why I wouldn't advocate The Fantasy Trip to a newcomer, however much I remain convinced it's the best system for a newbie ever published: with the It Has To Be New fetish in our culture, recommending a system that's been out of print for several decades does a newbie no favors.

Quote from: CRKrueger;819877The notion of "protecting new players from themselves" needs to die in a fire after being curbstomped by Godzilla and shit on by King Kong.

Oh for pity's sake.

I feel no need to haze newbies, or make them go through the same painfully long learning curves that I did.  Nor am I a drill instructor in boot camp, seeking to "toughen" newbies up.    

This hobby is a freaking pastime, and I'm quite comfy with it having a low barrier to entry.  With that in mind, I'm all for them learning clean games with simple mechanics, so that they can play the game without undue delay or fuss.  If they want to go from there to high-crunch games and complex mechanics, bless their hearts.

But seriously?  The least important part of the hobby should be the mechanics.

Quote from: tuypo1;819990hm this is looking quite interesting so far although i will have to fix the skill improvment rules but thats not a bad thing i take great pleasure in converting random stat gens into something not random (although thats always being in character gen before and this one will be quite difficult in general) although im still not clear if you take a major would from taking half max hp or half current hp.

That's not "fixing". That is the RPG equivalent of "fixing" Hamlet by adding a new ending where Hamlet and Ophelia marry and live happily ever after because you don't like the original. Nobody needs yet another boring fixed point distribution system.
Now, if you actually want to contribute to a game, an alternative character creation system for the milquetoasts,  optimizers and other people who cannot abide random character creation, is not a bad thing. More options and choice is great. However, this is obviously also at least as true the other way 'round, and many systems greatly benefit from a nice, alternative character creation system using random elements.

The first game mentioned on the list(fiasco) isnt an rpg so the whole list is voided...the first game is an improv acting/party game at best.

As for the rest...most are predictable crap from the storygamer crowd or junk that would drive new players away not intro games.

Quote from: Bren;819954Statement 1 and statement 2 are connected.

Yes, but that's mainly down to most of us being similar sorts of people. We're in it for the long term... I suspect we're also literally the worst people to ask about games for newbies. Better would be people who played a session or two and then quit; find out why they quit, and incorporate that knowledge into the next generation of games.

QuoteTo figure out if you are any good at being a GM there is one tried and tested method. Try being a GM. See if your players are having fun - e.g. do they look and sound like they are having fun; do they come back a second, third, or fourth time to play. If you still aren't sure if they are having fun ask them. If your players are having fun, then bingo, you are at least adequately good at being a GM. Carry on.

But what if they aren't having fun? Is it because they don't like gaming, they haven't worked out how to game yet, or because you're not very good as a GM yet? You don't have the understanding yet to fix the issues in a way that doesn't create bad playing habits - frex, if the problem is "we keep fighting monsters and dying", the correct GM solution should be "make it clear that not every monster needs to be fought head-on", rather than "make the players more relatively powerful so they win the fights".

It comes down to the way that RPG's are so massively different to every other gaming media. It comes down to "so what do you do now" having so many possible answers, rather than the limited amount that other games have.

QuoteThe notion that game designers are authorities on being a GM is one of the more pernicious notions preventing some people from trying to be a GM. This is a very minor niche, leisure activity. It doesn't require experts to have fun.

I'm not saying that they are automatically authorities (Although as they'd also be roleplayers, and likely GM's, I'd expect them to know what they're writing about), I'm saying that if a total newbie picks up a game book, the designers are the people that will be teaching that person how to game. Because there isn't anyone else.

Quote from: Ravenswing;819996It's why I wouldn't advocate The Fantasy Trip to a newcomer, however much I remain convinced it's the best system for a newbie ever published: with the It Has To Be New fetish in our culture, recommending a system that's been out of print for several decades does a newbie no favors.

Exactly! If you're going to run a game for someone, it doesn't matter what it is, as long as you know it. Personally I think any sort of "what you see on the sheet is what you need to roll against" system is great for that, because the numbers are nice and obvious, so players can learn the playing rather than the how to play.

The thing I'd probably recommend is Advanced Fighting Fantasy, first edition. The book starts with a brief description of roleplaying, gives you the rules you need for a basic game, then it's "grab some players, here's a scenario and pointers on how to run it". It's literally designed to be picked up and played.

It's also 25 years out of print, though, so... that's a problem, even if it is available for pennies. It's not so much "it has to be new", more "it has to be easily obtainable". The sites with complete PDF's of cool 80's games are great resources, but I wouldn't expect a newbie to find them, and even then I don't feel they're set up for "like what you see? If you're really new, START HERE" use cases.

Quote from: Ladybird;820044Yes, but that's mainly down to most of us being similar sorts of people. We're in it for the long term... I suspect we're also literally the worst people to ask about games for newbies. Better would be people who played a session or two and then quit; find out why they quit, and incorporate that knowledge into the next generation of games.

The point I was making was that in my experience there is a lot of overlap between people who naturally look to outside authorities for guidance and people who have substantial self doubt.

I don't think that RPGs are any more likely than any other leisure activity to appeal to everyone. Table Top RPGs have a substantially smaller market penetration now than they had in 1982. "Better" designed games haven't seemed to affect that. (Though obviously there are other forces at work than simply game design.)

QuoteBut what if they aren't having fun? Is it because they don't like gaming, they haven't worked out how to game yet, or because you're not very good as a GM yet?

In my experience people don't have fun for three reasons (in no particular order).
 
1) The GM is an asshole. Rules can't fix that. Maturity, which sometimes comes with age, can.

2) Playing table top RPGs isn't much fun for that person. Maybe they would enjoy playing WoW online or collaborative fan fiction story writing better. Or maybe they would just rather go drinking and dancing. Rules can't fix that.

3) The person who isn't having fun is a bad fit for the other people at the table. What they find fun is incompatible with what the others find fun. Rules can't fix that.

One might think designer notes could fix #3, but the vast majority of players (i) are not introspective about what they like and dislike and why they like or dislike it, (ii) don't have the vocabulary necessary to talk about what they like or dislike in the ways that game designers and other forum afficianados talk about such things, (iii) aren't interested in talking about game theory.

New players are worse in that they also lack the experiential background to understand what the available choices even are.

QuoteYou don't have the understanding yet to fix the issues in a way that doesn't create bad playing habits - frex, if the problem is "we keep fighting monsters and dying", the correct GM solution should be "make it clear that not every monster needs to be fought head-on", rather than "make the players more relatively powerful so they win the fights".

Or the correct fix might be to make the players more powerful relative to the monsters. Some people like that. Or to let the PCs get powerful fast so it is only an issue for a little while. Some people like that. Or to just not kill the PCs. Some people like that. Without significant experience or any help from game designers, different GMs in the groups I played with came up with their own different solutions. Frequently, wanting something different from the game was a motivator for people to be the DM/GM.

QuoteIt comes down to the way that RPG's are so massively different to every other gaming media. It comes down to "so what do you do now" having so many possible answers, rather than the limited amount that other games have.

And people for whom that is attractive will enjoy RPGs. People who don't find that attractive won't enjoy RPGs much.

QuoteI'm not saying that they are automatically authorities (Although as they'd also be roleplayers, and likely GM's, I'd expect them to know what they're writing about), I'm saying that if a total newbie picks up a game book, the designers are the people that will be teaching that person how to game. Because there isn't anyone else.

And my preference is for the designer to mostly stay out of the way of the new gamer and let them figure out what they want to do with the rules rather than acting as some authority figure telling the new person there is a right way (the designer's way) to play elf games. Early RPGs like OD&D, Traveller, Runequest, and by all accounts Tunnels & Trolls, didn't spend a lot of effort telling people how to play or that there was a right way to play. Good play examples (Traveller and Runequest did much better than OD&D at that) are extremely helpful, but they remain examples of play, not rules for play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that newer games are any better at introducing new players than those dusty old games. The number of threads complaining about nobody wanting to GM or not being able to find players to play what the GM wants kind of seems to argue that newer games may be measurably worse at introducing new people to RPGs or creating an environment where RPGs are attractive to new people.