Quote from: tuypo1;820219that has got to be one of the most nonsensicle things i have read all day

You know, I suspected that you don't bother to read anything you write.  Your confirmation in this regard wasn't strictly necessary (but is appreciated): You have proven that with every. single. post. you wrote.

I'm currently of the opinion the best RPG to recommend to a beginner is whatever RPG has subject matter most closely tied to whatever the person is interested in.

I think I might have been better off if my first RPG had been FASA's Star Trek.  I don't think FASA's Star Trek is a good system or even well written.  It's just that I was at my absolute height of Star Trek fandom in those years.

For me, trying to join other existing gamers merely resulted in pain and suffering.  For existing players, RPGs were far too much about a different form of hazing and pecking order posturing.  I didn't really enjoy the act of playing RPGs until I built my own group consisting of my pre-existing friends.  I think I would have enjoyed it much more if I had been indulging my Star Trek fandom as opposed to trying to convince myself to enjoy D&D style swords and sorcery.

For others it would be different.  Back when I was getting rid of RPG books I didn't like, I had a d20 Star Wars Revised I gave to a co-worker's 7 year old.  I was just wanting to get rid of the book because I thought it sucked.  That kid dove into that book, learned to play, and got all his friends to play.  That made me happy.  That's why I didn't just throw the book into the garbage.  I wanted someone to love it like I couldn't.  He got into that game not because d20 Star Wars has any inherent quality.  He dedicated himself to it because the Star Wars subject matter was something he was really into.

Looking back, I see the same thing with some of my own early loves: FASERIP MSH and Robotech being key examples.  Hell, the Robotech RPG sucked ass, but I kept at it because just look at all that Kevin Long art of Veritechs, and isn't it awesome?!!!

Want to get a newbie into RPGs?  Just give them something with source material they like.  It doesn't matter how complicated or how sucky the rules are.  They will figure them out.

Quote from: Gabriel2;820482I'm currently of the opinion the best RPG to recommend to a beginner is whatever RPG has subject matter most closely tied to whatever the person is interested in.

Thanks for sharing. I had been having similar thoughts in this thread. The idea that there is a best system for new players independent of the setting strikes me as a bit off as well.

We played the heck out of FASA Star Trek in the 1990s and great fun. And as you say, that was not due to the system being great, but because we enjoyed playing sessions that went like episodes of the show. We even joked about whether or not the characters should wear fancy Environmental Suits in certain situations then laughed as we said, "No. If we did that, the audience couldn't easily see the actor's faces."

I agree with Gabriel.  The easiest way to get someone to learn something is for it to spark their interest.  So go with the best style that inspires them the most.  If I had to learn with Traveller, I probably wouldn't have played.  Sorry, just no interest in that genre.  I love me my fantasy.  So D&D was perfect.

The least that list could have had was D&D 5e Basic and Pathfinder Beginner Box, but I guess they were too mainstream (if you want to call pnp RPGs mainstream) to be included.

Quote from: Gabriel2;820482wisdom

you know your right

Quote from: Bren;820206I already answered that. I refer you in particular to how OD&D, Traveller, and Runequest 1 or 2 handled rules descriptions and explanations.

You waxed nostalgic without ever giving any specifics. I played OD&D, I liked it and I still like it, but the amount of bizarrely over-specific rules far outweighs invitations to open-endedness. You seem to have some sort of effect/side effect dichotomy going on, where you know the good kind of telling players how to play from the bad kind of telling players how to play.

QuoteUnlike Ladybird, I don't see any value to a longer, more detailed, or new fangled explanation. Do you?

Quote from: Ladybird;819903The 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.

I don't see Ladybird advocating any of the things you claimed.

QuoteWhat games would you recommend for a new person wanting to play RPGs? Do you think there are games that do a better job than the ones I listed at introducing new players?

The game doesn't matter much if they are interested in the genre and there is someone who knows the game to teach it to them. Learning a bad game in a functional group is probably better than the best game with the best books.

So we are left discussing a hypothetical where someone with no knowledge of RPGs asks me for advice on starting to play RPGs but under circumstances where no experienced player or GM can be part of their group. I already made my annual charitable donation to the group that drops classic books on desert islands in case someone is stranded there and will then have a chance of finding some of the list of books they would want on a desert island, so, no, not much interested in discussing this, let alone with you.

That being said, OD&D books would be one of the worst possible things for someone new to RPGs to learn from on their own, even if you could decide how much of supplements, Chainmail, Outdoor Survival, Warriors of Mars and issues of Strategic Review to include. D&D 5e easily outstrips this: current, well explained, still a manageable amount of rules, free basic PDFs, easy to find a group to learn from.

Small games may be a better vehicle. Less to be overwhelmed by, sooner to be forced onto their own devices to make up more stuff, less likely to break the game over some subtle misunderstanding. Let them read TWERPS.

there are indeed good and bad ways to tell people how to play if you insist thats the only way then its the bad way otherwise its probably the good way

Quote from: rawma;820583You waxed nostalgic without ever giving any specifics. I played OD&D...

I'm not going to type out the examples. If you read the rules you've already read the examples. Go reread them if your memory is hazy.

QuoteI don't see Ladybird advocating any of the things you claimed.

I don't know what Ladybird's desire for better explanations is coming from. All the rules I listed explain those three elements of play.

QuoteSo we are left discussing a hypothetical where someone with no knowledge of RPGs asks me for advice on starting to play RPGs but under circumstances where no experienced player or GM can be part of their group. I already made my annual charitable donation to the group that drops classic books on desert islands in case someone is stranded there and will then have a chance of finding some of the list of books they would want on a desert island, so, no, not much interested in discussing this, let alone with you.

Yeah, I suspected you were more interested in nit picking my post than you were in discussing the topic of the thread.

QuoteThat being said, OD&D books would be one of the worst possible things for someone new to RPGs to learn from on their own...

My experience was that OD&D was relatively simple to learn by reading the books. Which makes me wonder why people like Ladybird and you seem to feel that more or different explanations are needed than were provided by the much more new user friendly games that I mentioned like Traveller and Runequest 1.

Quote from: Bren;821033My experience was that OD&D was relatively simple to learn by reading the books. Which makes me wonder why people like Ladybird and you seem to feel that more or different explanations are needed than were provided by the much more new user friendly games that I mentioned like Traveller and Runequest 1.

I don't agree that those games are user friendly, or rather: they may have been user friendly compared to other introductory hobby materials back in the 70's, but the rest of the world has moved on and became more user friendly. The main competition these days are video games (Lots of tutorials and telling the player how awesome they are), board games (Generally playable straight out of the box), wargames (With the popular ones generally providing some sort of "buy this and you can start playing NOW box"), CCG's (Starter sets, competent "play online with a tutorial mode" apps) and forum RPG's (Never having signed up to a forum in my life, I don't understand these). What do we have for new groups... a few pages in the book saying "RPG's are like lots of other things, but not" and "be good at GM'ing, achieve this by not being bad, you'll work it out".

Another aspect is how much other mediums have appropriated parts of roleplaying, resulting in things that players need to unlearn before an RPG - for example, Bioware's games (Probably the most popular of the console RPG's) are just prettified Fighting Fantasy books, so players need to realise that they have OPTIONS... or WoW players who need to unlearn "the solution to every problem is VIOLENCE". Sure, KILLKILLKILL is fun, but it's a thing that RPG's don't do as well as videogames.

RPG's are a complex medium, and that's what makes them so great, but because they superficially look like so many other things, they're easy to misunderstand... and if potential players do that, if they say "fuck this shit" and we lose them to Call of Duty or whatever, it's going to be harder to get them back.

(If this sounds like I'm advocating "dumbing down" RPG's, well, so be it; I don't believe in working harder than needed purely for the sake of it. But there's plenty of design room between Phoenix Command and Snakes & Ladders.)

Like I've said, I really like the way Advanced Fighting Fantasy (Dungeoneer!, as the first book is called) did it, as an example. It opens with an adventure, broken down into discrete areas to train players to solve problems, and with plenty of advice for the GM on what to do, not do, and how to salvage a situation that turns bad; it ends on a cliffhanger (With the next adventure at the end of the book, with steadily less basic advice as it goes) and the middle of the book is the full rules, for the GM to read between games. That, I reckon, was a good book for new groups; it also helps that the adventures themselves were pretty good (I ran them last year for an experienced group, and we had a blast).

Quote from: Ladybird;821048I don't agree that those games are user friendly, or rather: they may have been user friendly compared to other introductory hobby materials back in the 70's, but the rest of the world has moved on and became more user friendly.

I'm curious if you have ever even read the rules to Runequest 1 or 2. Your comments make me think not as the rules do exactly what you said rules should do and are amazingly easy to learn and even easier to teach and the examples are outstanding. At a page length of 120 pages including 2 sample Cult write-ups, extensive Monster Descriptions, Treasure Tables, 17 Appendices, and an Index it is far more comprehensible to a reader than the vast majority of the 200+ tomes that game companies issue today.

People who would prefer to play Call of Duty, a collectible card game, or Shoots and Ladders should do that. Trying to make an RPG more like any of those sounds like an excellent way finish of the oh, so niche TTRPG market for good.

QuoteRPG's are a complex medium, and that's what makes them so great, but because they superficially look like so many other things, they're easy to misunderstand... and if potential players do that, if they say "fuck this shit" and we lose them to Call of Duty or whatever, it's going to be harder to get them back.

So what if it is hard to get people who like other hobbies to play. We aren't "getting them back." They were never interested in creating their own content in the first place. RPGs are a oh, so niche hobby that are not going to be interesting for everyone. Better to accept RPGs for what they are as a creative and experiential activity than to try to morph them into some imitation of other hobbies in a futile effort to increase their market share relative to card games and console and online shooters.

Neither players nor GMs need to be trained. They just need to be interested in using their imaginations and given a system that allows them to play while learning. Your desire to train the players by giving them carefully predigested material sounds like a recipe to train consumers to expect to have to buy more predigested material. It does not sound like a process for helping and enabling creative people see what TTRPGs can do or to learn to do their own creation and to own their own play. Rather than dumbing things down, the latter sort of process would be my goal for RPGs.

What a ridiculous, pathetic propaganda-piece of an article that OP was...

indeed

oh wow i just read the comments on the article and holy shit this has got to be the stupidest thing i have seen all day

A really good open game rpg that almost anyone can get into (if you can find it) is Big Eye's, Small Mouth. Otherwise known as BESM; it's a wacky anime rpg that takes a lot of in house rulings since it can be a broken system.

why the fuck would you suggest a system that requires heavy houseruleing for beginners

looking at the authors twitter he really is a horrible horrible person