Came to thinking after this weekend's game, with the changes in the hobby that have gone on over the past ten years - most of the people who are interested in gaming but are not playing right now, are turned off by the high buy-in hurdle of what is predominant in gaming right now. The most popular tabletop RPGs are relatively expensive in money and time needed for system mastery.
So to get people who would be considered casual gamers back to the tabletop, it seems to me that cheaper and simple elegant systems should be used to attract them. Preferably in places where people gather like pubs or coffeeshops or bookstores.
This is exactly why I'm running Mouse Guard right now. There's no way in hell I could get anyone to play my granola-crunchy, heavily modified Artesia-based setting, but I'm mainly just using that as a creative outlet... whereas Mouse Guard is for actual play.
That's not a bad idea, as some newbies can be put off by having to figure a lot of mods to their hit and success chances.
One way I'd attract newbie gamers is to do a lot of the work for them at first. If they want to shoot I figure their odds to hit, explain to them their chances and ask them if they want to take the shot, if they do, I let them roll.
As (If) they stay on then they pick up how to do it themselves.
It's not just for noobs. Your typical person with a full time job, spouse, kids, and other interests doesn't feel like taking an hour just to make a character. They also rarely have the time for 6-8 hour game sessions.
Simpler games require much less reading time to learn and combat resolution is usually much quicker which works better for short sessions.
Quote from: Nicephorus;383212It's not just for noobs. Your typical person with a full time job, spouse, kids, and other interests doesn't feel like taking an hour just to make a character. They also rarely have the time for 6-8 hour game sessions.
Simpler games require much less reading time to learn and combat resolution is usually much quicker which works better for short sessions.
This is something I have seen as well. Even some of my gaming friends who loved crunch, once their responsibilities grew, avoided the game table because they just couldn't invest the time (and money) into mastering a system.
I think a lot of the issue isn't the amount of crunch/rules as opposed to the sheer size of gamebooks these days. The first RPG I ever bought was a box set with a total of 80 pages of rules/campaign (including a 16pg started adventure). I was up and running and making my own adventures pretty much instantly.
These days most corebooks seem to run to 300 pages and beyond...
There does seem to be an "extremist" spectrum of RPG games in the last few years, with some being so chrunchy you need a jackhammer to break them down, while the others are so light and fluffy that they float away in the first gentle breeze. Not sure why that is, but I suspect is is a result of people trying to "not be like the others" - in other words, trying too hard to be revolutionary, when the basic foundations of gaming have been laid down and work quite well over 30+ years.
Could be wrong, of course, but that's how it seems to me. If you want to be revolutionary, come up with something in the middle.
Also, yes, pregenerated characters is easier for newbies. :) Probably also for more established gamers who you are trying to work into a new game. That is one thing I give big thumbs-up to 4e for - if you use the character creation program, you literally never have to crack a book open - everything you need it there in front of you, and when you print it out.
Most of my experience introducing new people/reintroducing old players had little to do with the crunch of the system. Most games of any kind have some amount of bean counting involved. Instead, it was a matter of scope. They weren't wary of tracking the bonus on their sword, they were wary of pretending to be a wizard in an imaginary world.
I've seen more success "recruiting" new gamers with Milton Bradley's HeroQuest or a simple D&D dungeon crawl than any other game I can think of. I imagine if you took the same person, gave them a handful of d6 and a "lite" system expecting them to be able to get "roleplaying" easier, you'll end up terrifying them. Don't you ever get the feeling reading a "lite" game that you need some background in roleplaying before truly understanding them?
Of course, I'm talking about new players. I think the OP was referring to lapsed players. The difference is probably considerable.
Quote from: winkingbishop;383223Most of my experience introducing new people/reintroducing old players had little to do with the crunch of the system. Most games of any kind have some amount of bean counting involved. Instead, it was a matter of scope. They weren't wary of tracking the bonus on their sword, they were wary of pretending to be a wizard in an imaginary world.
I think there's some truth to this in the sense that either extreme is likely to turn off new people. It's true that most games have some accounting involved, but even with experienced players at the helm, newbie eyes glaze over if they're given the responsibility of figuring out modifiers and handling a huge palette of "powers." If you have a crunchy game that is still streamlined enough for a GM to handle the crunchy bits without requiring the player to figure out exactly what he can do within the context of the rules, crunch isn't an issue.
That being the case, there's still an assumption here that someone at the table has already mastered the rules, and the importance of rule mastery is definitely an issue in terms of entirely new groups emerging.
Structure is important for new players (most of all, in terms of defining the "goal" of a session), but if their character sheet looks like the HUD of an early 90's PC flight simulator, you're going to lose them.
Well, there are several things in play here.
I am looking for both new and lapsed Players for some casual gaming. I suspect that there are more lapsed Players than we realize out there. Recently I attended a refresher training program for work and brought in my resume, which had listed at the bottom the playtests that I had been involved in and the handful of articles I had written. Of the fifteen people in the class, when gaming was mentioned about 1/3rd said that they had played games before and half of those were interested in playing a Tabletop RPG again. One-sixth of a group is a pretty high percentage showing interest across a class of mostly people in their late thirties and early forties.
I agree with EmboldenedNavigator that structure is important, but when the Character Sheet looks like a tax form, it is kind of a turn-off for gamers, both experienced and new Players.
EDIT:
And then there is the other thing that has begun to get on my nerves about more complex RPG systems. With the d20 OGL in the forefront, I had groups of Players who enjoyed using a standardized game system for a variety of games, which allowed those of us who couldn't dedicate a lot of time to gaming to be able to play RPGs in several different settings without having to learn new rules for every campaign which could be very time-consuming. The downside to this was the ascendancy of Players who adopt the system mastery strategy for creating a character, and who then only concentrate on the character creation without trying to improve the actual play in game of those Players.
The system mastery habit goes hand-in-hand with complex RPG rules, and it has gotten on my nerves because several Players seem to want to gain mastery over the rules instead of trying to play the game. The kinds of Players whose company I enjoy the most are those who don't find it essential to do an in depth study of a game in order to have fun playing it. It isn't as bad as munchkinism, but does come in a pretty close second.
I don't think I'd have to deal with as many system mastery Players if I concentrated on simple games and casual gamers.
No, fuck them. It's Rolemaster or nothing, and If they don't die at least once during chargen, they don't deserve to play.
/Settembrini
I tend to agree with the OP. The last campaign I ran, I had one very casual gamer and one new gamer who'd never played RPGs before. I was running GURPS. It took quite a bit of work to get them on board with the system, and in the end I had to do most of the heavy lifting when it came to maintaining characters and drawing up cheat sheets so the players wouldn't get confused or overwhelmed by options. Ultimately I think those players would have been happier with something less crunchy, and I would have been happier not putting the extra time in.
Ironically, we're playing Starblazer now, which is a 600-page rulebook, but it's much more in line with the kind of game everyone wants to play. I really don't know how well it would do bringing in a totally new player, though.
Most/many Role Playing Game rules are WAYYYYYY too complicated nowadays.
Quote from: jeff37923;383234The system mastery habit goes hand-in-hand with complex RPG rules, and it has gotten on my nerves because several Players seem to want to gain mastery over the rules instead of trying to play the game. The kinds of Players whose company I enjoy the most are those who don't find it essential to do an in depth study of a game in order to have fun playing it. It isn't as bad as munchkinism, but does come in a pretty close second.
From 3E onwards, WotC has clearly been aiming D&D at players who love to master the system. The same sorts of guys who spent thousands on Magic: the Gathering, or who were always looking to build the most effective Warhammer army. They saw a demographic that, while not as broad as the heyday of D&D, would sink money on splatbooks and other ways to upgrade their decks/armies/characters.
And since D&D has always been the primary intake for RPG players, that approach has filtered down to lots of other games. But it also sparked a reaction against that kind of play and towards lower-complexity games. Thing is, none of those low-complexity games have anywhere near the market prominence and pool of players that D&D has.
Very interesting thread, with several very interesting replies.
Quote from: jeff37923;383234I suspect that there are more lapsed Players than we realize out there. Recently I attended a refresher training program for work and brought in my resume, which had listed at the bottom the playtests that I had been involved in and the handful of articles I had written. Of the fifteen people in the class, when gaming was mentioned about 1/3rd said that they had played games before and half of those were interested in playing a Tabletop RPG again. One-sixth of a group is a pretty high percentage showing interest across a class of mostly people in their late thirties and early forties.
Taking RPG books to the workplace, for a short time, has unexpectedly yielded a similar experience for me. It seems many people played in their late teens and early twenties, and would love to give it another try.
But like you've said, most have jobs and families, which kind of precludes the time investment demand by the more crunch-heavy games out there.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;383242I tend to agree with the OP. The last campaign I ran, I had one very casual gamer and one new gamer who'd never played RPGs before. I was running GURPS. It took quite a bit of work to get them on board with the system, and in the end I had to do most of the heavy lifting when it came to maintaining characters and drawing up cheat sheets so the players wouldn't get confused or overwhelmed by options. Ultimately I think those players would have been happier with something less crunchy, and I would have been happier not putting the extra time in.
The thing with GURPS crunch is that it's front-loaded. Character creation can take forever, even for experienced players, and it may be intimidating for the noobs. The system itself plays well enough, but it might feel like a big buy-in, especially for the uninitiated.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;383242Ironically, we're playing Starblazer now, which is a 600-page rulebook, but it's much more in line with the kind of game everyone wants to play. I really don't know how well it would do bringing in a totally new player, though.
SBA is a huge brick, but FATE 3.0 is really a simple system which operates on general, exception-free principles. There's Aspects, and Skills, and Stunts. Aspects can be anything, really, while Skills are a relatively short list and Stunts are extrapolations of Skills and easy enough to make up on your own. I've never used it with newbs, but I suspect it'd be orders of magnitude more friendly than GURPS.
Quote from: Haffrung;383257From 3E onwards, WotC has clearly been aiming D&D at players who love to master the system.
And since D&D has always been the primary intake for RPG players, that approach has filtered down to lots of other games. But it also sparked a reaction against that kind of play and towards lower-complexity games. Thing is, none of those low-complexity games have anywhere near the market prominence and pool of players that D&D has.
Correct on all counts; I think you've nailed it.
Quote from: winkingbishop;383223I've seen more success "recruiting" new gamers with Milton Bradley's HeroQuest or a simple D&D dungeon crawl than any other game I can think of.
Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy all do a great job as well...particularly Buffy. If its easy for the noob to picture from their memory, then its easier for them to get into the imaginary world.
Quote from: winkingbishop;383223Of course, I'm talking about new players. I think the OP was referring to lapsed players. The difference is probably considerable.
Absolutely. RPGA with 4e has done a great job recruiting lapsed players, but not so much with new players. I do wonder if the new "D&D lite" sets will attract noobs.
Dragon Age seems to be built for noobs, but I wonder if the box is being marketed anywhere the noobs are looking. With so few game stores left, it is hard to penetrate into a new market - regardless of how cool, easy and fun your product may be.
I'm not sure that rules complexity is what turns off most causal players. AD&D 1e was a relatively complex game, but it has lots of causal players -- because while its rules were complex, you really did not have to know many of them to play. A lot of rules knowledge -- let alone system mastery -- wasn't needed to play.
New players could create a fighter or a thief in minutes and really did not need to know any rules to play the character. They could just tell the GM what the character was doing in regular terms and the GM or other players could easily translate "I try to hit the zombie with my sword" or "I try to sneak down the corridor without the guard in the side passage seeing me" into whatever die roll was needed. No knowledge of the rules was needed to play characters who did not use magic.
The player never needed to buy or study rules books to play well. All he had to do was describe what his/her character was doing and roll the dice when told to. Neither their lack of rules knowledge or lack of system mastery did not really hurt them -- nor did it hurt the rest of the party.
Games that more or less require people to buy rulebooks and study them to master the game system are unlikely to attract many casual gamers, in my experience. Worse, they often tend to make causal gamers unwelcome at a table that includes non-causal gamers as their lack of knowledge of the rules and they lack of interest in system mastery hurts the other players.
Isn't this where we segue into What's the Big Deal about Savage Worlds? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14463)
Since it seems to specifically meet the requirements for gamers with less time for gaming.
=
Quote from: Greentongue;383283Isn't this where we segue into What's the Big Deal about Savage Worlds? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14463)
Since it seems to specifically meet the requirements for gamers with less time for gaming.
=
Mongoose Traveller, d6 Star Wars, Basic D&D, and its retorclone
Labyrinth Lord. There are plenty of RPG options available to not limit the choice to just a single system.
More games like WEG D6 Star Wars, epseically the very first edition and TSR Marvel Super Heroes in print would not be a bad thing.
Quote from: Greentongue;383283Isn't this where we segue into What's the Big Deal about Savage Worlds? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14463)
Since it seems to specifically meet the requirements for gamers with less time for gaming.
It's great for a certain kind of gaming, i.e. non-stop action, or as one of my players calls it, "mass murder: the game." I like SW but I find its focus kind of narrow.
just to opine a bit,
I really think any lapsed players are probably a result of a lack of like minded peers than anything. There are a ton of easy games out there , in print, etc, etc that if someone uses that as a all arround defence (as apposed to pointing out a particular game they dont like because its too crunchy) that they are just running their mouth and I don't think anything will magically convince them to come back.
(I mean honestly, just start listing free, short, and easy to get into games and you have a long old list that most people here would agree contains some real gold, increase the price a little and the list goes up an order of magnitude or something).
Its like those people who always want to do something , some magical hobby or inclination that they never bother sitting aside time for or pursuing in any fashion.
To some degree, if you want to do something, you have to pursue it. And yes life is long hard complicated and time consuming, but thats the same for everyone more or less. If you want to do something ,your probably already doing it.
(not to mention the whole, designing for people who aren't even playing business/gripe that is pretty justifiably brought up from time to time. They don't play? FUCK 'EM don't cater to ;em.)
Quote from: RandallS;383282I'm not sure that rules complexity is what turns off most causal players. AD&D 1e was a relatively complex game, but it has lots of causal players -- because while its rules were complex, you really did not have to know many of them to play. A lot of rules knowledge -- let alone system mastery -- wasn't needed to play.
Yes. What I call AD&D's "Wizard of Oz DMing". Most of the rules could be managed by the DM, with the players managing their characters' actions and rolling the dice when asked. That's a significant difference from a more number-crunching approach from the players' side of the screen.
There's that, and then there's the sheer volume (as opposed to complexity, which can be emergent) of the rules books. The AD&D PHB is slim in comparison to more modern games. And then again, nearly half of it is spell descriptions.
Something to keep in mind is that lots of people have produced simpler RPGs over the years - Ghostbusters, Prince Valiant, Marvel Superheroes, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. However, while there have been some limited successes, the biggest hits have all been the complicated games with hundreds of pages in their core rulebooks - AD&D, Vampire, GURPS, etc. Basic D&D is the biggest success, but it was more of a gateway to AD&D than a success on its own.
I think there is potentially an unfilled niche out there for a simpler tabletop RPG that will bring in more casual players. However, it's not as easy as just making a less complicated game - because lots of people have tried that.
RPG companies all tend to release big, complicated games for the simple reason that those have tended to be more successful. I think it's important to keep trying out simpler games, but it's hard to blame RPG companies for going with what tends to sell better.
I deliberately choose Swords & Wizardry (the 0e D&D 'retro-clone') for my 'Toronto group' almost 2 years ago precisely because the guys with whom I wanted to game were 'casual gamers' (old friends).
(The fact that the rules were available for free was also an initial benefit, although eventually we all owned the core book, purchased via Lulu. As GM, I purchased a number of other S&W books as well, e.g., the Monster book, and contributed a number of articles to the S&W/0e fanzine Knockspell)
I introduced a number of house rules in order to capture the 'ethos' I wanted for the game (easy to do, given the minimalist nature of S&W). Once that was done, we were up and running. This group would never have worked with a rules heavy game like 3e or 4e D&D, or Rolemaster (the latter being a game that I love).
This summer, upon my return to Toronto, I'll be running Call of Cthulhu with this same group. CoC is also 'rules light' and 'intuitive' for players. And a 'quick start' version (only 20 pages) is available for free online.
So yeah, going with simpler games has worked for me.
BRP has been my goto system for years... partly because of those issues of attracting and keeping players who aren't into 'system mastery'. Nobody likes some oppressive geek at the table lecturing them about the intricacies of the rules... they just want to play.
Frankly, I think that a lot of the attraction to those monolithic books of Byantine rules is a sort of one-upsmanship insecure dorks can toss at each other... quoting obscure intricacies of rules they've never even played (when they're not busy telling you the specs on the computer they just built).
We've got a guy like that in our group and he makes me cringe whenever he starts up about Hero or GURPS (though normally I like GURPS just fine). If I were the new guy at the table I'd be wondering what I'd gotten myself into.
I think the attitude of the 'pro-gamers' towards the 'casual gamers' plays a part in keeping folks away... similar to the disdain the 'pro players' in WOW have for the 'casual players'... a BIG part of why I don't play WOW anymore.
Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.
Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.
Got proof?
Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.
Hah, I agree.
Quote from: RandallS;383282Games that more or less require people to buy rulebooks and study them to master the game system are unlikely to attract many casual gamers, in my experience. Worse, they often tend to make causal gamers unwelcome at a table that includes non-causal gamers as their lack of knowledge of the rules and they lack of interest in system mastery hurts the other players.
One of my players, who was a long-time AD&D player, joined another group to play 3E a couple years ago. This guy is very casual, doesn't ever crack a book, and often asks for help tallying up modifiers. He games for the atmosphere and immersion.
Anyway, he only lasted a few months with the 3E guys. They were much more into rules mastery and tactical optimization. My buddy's disinterest in building powerful characters or learning the craft of grid-combat ran contrary to the group's play style and they kicked him out.
Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.
If RPG publishers want to give up on the over 30 and married crowd and rely on the youth market and confirmed bachelors with no other hobbies, then that's their call.
The boardgame industry sure has found out there's a way bigger market for games that can be taught in 15 minutes and played in 3 hours than the games of yesteryear that took 8-12 hours to play. Very, very few adults over the age of about 25 can devote that kind of time to a game. But then today's boardgame market is aiming at couples, families, people who have full-time jobs and healthy social lives.
Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.
I hate to agree, but I have to. I've said the same thing many many times, over the many occasions this myth has popped up.
The bottom line is, for 40 years, the mainline RPGs in this hobby have been far from "rules light". AD&D, WoD, Rifts, Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, even Star Wars D6 isn't really as simple as people give it credit for, especially once you factor in all the additions made in R&E.
Rules light doesn't sell. Because it's not the new people that need it, it's lazy old farts projecting their needs on younger gamers, assuming they're all idiots because they aren't perfect hardcore borderline-autistic nerds.
Leave your highschool trauma out of this, please.
I tell you what, buttmunches: I have introduced more people to RPGs than there are forae that Pundit and Trollman ared banned from COMBINED. And it is WAY EASIER to get into the hobby via rules & mechanics, than by playing pantsless.
If I have sessions with true hard-core gamerfolk, I´ll pull out Traveller and we might freeform 70% percent of it, while still keeeping ultra-simulationy and hard-sf.
But with newbs? Gimme D&D, and gimme lots of crunchy stuff for the players to chew on.
It´s only the efficency fucker-nerds that could screw that up. But you don´t invite them anyways...unles you are ONE OF THEM.
Quote from: Settembrini;383353But with newbs? Gimme D&D, and gimme lots of crunchy stuff for the players to chew on.
It´s only the efficency fucker-nerds that could screw that up. But you don´t invite them anyways...unles you are ONE OF THEM.
Unless you've found that complex rules systems tend to breed system mastery efficiency fucker-nerds. Then you might want to try something else and see if that works in bringing in the kind of people you want to game with.
Sorry dude, what you "Have found" is mostly bullshit with a 67% possibility.
I played as a player a total of ~50 levels of 3.5, highest 23: and I DMed A LOT more. Never ever have a I met an efficiency pig that could not be
a) brought to his sense sby simple pointing to the fact of what he has become since last week
b) ousted/not reinvited from/to the group because he was a douche anyway.
Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.
Um, what do you mean by 'rules-light systems'?
I find that
Classic D&D (by which I mean 0e and Basic/Expert D&D) and BRP, especially the
Call of Cthulhu, to be 'rules light' in comparison to many of the games that I've played in the past (e.g., Rolemaster, D&D 3e, etc.).
I've also found those two games to be, hands down, the
best games to introduce RPGs to new people, or to get lapsed gamers back into the swing of things.
However, I'm not sure that either of those systems would be considered 'rules light' in contrast to many other systems out there, or what the folks at RPG.net would consider 'rules light' (e.g., Wushu, Risus, etc.).
Truly 'rules light' systems probably would be a
bad way to introduce RPGs to people.
IME, you need enough rules to give new players a sense of overall 'structure', but not so many rules that they feel overwhelmed by them, or that gameplay drags because of the intricate mechanics (e.g., 3e combat).
Quote from: Settembrini;383360Sorry dude, what you "Have found" is mostly bullshit with a 67% possibility.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Settembrini;383360I played as a player a total of ~50 levels of 3.5, highest 23: and I DMed A LOT more. Never ever have a I met an efficiency pig that could not be
a) brought to his sense sby simple pointing to the fact of what he has become since last week
b) ousted/not reinvited from/to the group because he was a douche anyway.
Would you describe yourself or any of these anecdotal Players you claim to be casual gamers?
Quote from: Settembrini;383351Leave your highschool trauma out of this, please.
Yes, yes, we get it, you're German, so therefore you know more about American culture than Americans do.
I am anything but a casual gamer. But most of my firends, players, sex partners and relatives are.
I indeed had about three weeks of being an efficiency asstard myself. Shame on me, and prais to those who pointed it out when I had that fit.
@Akrasia: Man, what´s up with your memory? We´ve been over that a hundred times! ANY version of D&D is always compelx enough by virtue of Gygaxian Building blocks.
Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.
There's one hell of an excluded middle between D&D 4e and "rules light".
I wouldn't call games like d6 Star Wars or FASERIP MSH rules light at all, for example.
Quote from: Settembrini;383367... @Akrasia: Man, what´s up with your memory? We´ve been over that a hundred times!
We have?
:confused:
Okay, if you say so!
Are we considering casual gamers to be non-gamers, or just people who don't play RPGs?
Because most, and I mean most, males up to say, age 35 or so, have played or play games, and a large portion of them are considered "gamers" (in the video-game sense of the word). Playing a crunchy game doesn't necessarily turn these people off because they're used to playing a new game every month or so and being introduced to new methods, game structure, and learning curves.
Perhaps lots of rules or structure turn off people who don't have an interest in games (even on a passive level), but most people who want to actually sit down and play something want some formal structure to play, even if it's all handled on the GM's side (Dark Heresy sticks out as something that's crunchy on the GM side, but pretty light on the player side).
Plus, what are we considering "rules lite"? I don't know that many good truly rules-lite games out there that are available. OD&D is lighter than newer editions, but the rules structure is just focused on other aspects of play (tracking resources over the long-term, keeping records/maps, etc.). Mouse Guard, while being a trimmed down version of BW, isn't something I would consider rules-lite, and it's got quite a bit more structure to play than most games in terms of GM/player interactions.
Personally, I'm a lazy-ass motherfucker. I barely cracked a book open during the long 3.5 campaigns I was in, and I still enjoyed myself. I've never had a problem with any crunchy games. Crunchy isn't why I play or don't play a game. What that crunch does and how it serves the game is why I play. If I don't want to play a game based on its mechanics, it's not because it is or isn't crunchy, it's because how the crunch is implemented doesn't interest me -- and I've been that way since day one.
Quote from: Grymbok;383368There's one hell of an excluded middle between D&D 4e and "rules light".
This. QFT.
It's certainly nothing new, that certain people feel compelled to defend their choice of game, employing such imaginative tactics as quoting sales figures they don't have access to, or attaching derogatory labels to all other games and (better yet) the people who play them.
It's nothing new, but it never fails to amaze (and amuse) me.
It makes you think about the sort of life these people lead, that their choice of game is such a huge part of their identity, that it must be defended with such bile and vitriol.
I sense great things in the future of this thread. :D
Quote from: Settembrini;383367I am anything but a casual gamer. But most of my firends, players, sex partners and relatives are.
I find myself in a similar situation and want to create more casual gamers. I see interest in gaming generally decreasing on a steady scale as the complexity of the game rules used increases.
I'm considering rules light to be what I said earlier in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17344&page=2). Games like
Mongoose Traveller, d6 Star Wars, Basic D&D, and its retorclone
Labyrinth Lord. I do not have enough experience with
Savage Worlds, but I wouldn't exclude it.
My criteria here is nebulous, but can be summed in the statement, "I want a game that is easy to learn, easy to play, and is designed so that it is more interesting and entertaining to play the game for the Players than it is for them to game its rules."
Quote from: Akrasia;383362I find that Classic D&D (by which I mean 0e and Basic/Expert D&D) and BRP, especially the Call of Cthulhu, to be 'rules light' in comparison to many of the games that I've played in the past (e.g., Rolemaster, D&D 3e, etc.).
I completely agree with this. Even AD&D2 presents the player-end "crunch" in a manageable, well-structured way and only slowly phases in added complexity through higher levels and supplements. The disconnected clunkiness of the system also means subsystems can just be ignored or glossed over as needed. That's a far cry from modifier-heavy mini-battle-games like 3.5E or 4E.
But we already established the difference between crunch that can be handled by one person with system familiarity and crunch that demands everyone at the table knows exactly how every possible effect plays into into the tactical nuances of the game.
Quote from: Grymbok;383368There's one hell of an excluded middle between D&D 4e and "rules light".
You've made the mistake of looking for reasonable nuance in a schtick-post.
Quote from: The Butcher;383377I sense great things in the future of this thread. :D
We'd need to push a bit harder on the anti 4e/OSR/[insert hot button issue] front, but we sure can get there. :D
Quote from: Benoist;383386We'd need to push a bit harder on the anti 4e/OSR/[insert hot button issue] front, but we sure can get there. :D
Fucking canuck rabble-rousers...
:D
(You know, you could try and provide some constructive input to the thread....)
Quote from: jeff37923;383388(You know, you could try and provide some constructive input to the thread....
I did, a few posts back. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=383264&postcount=14) But then the poo-flinging started, so, whatever. I must be one of these lazy, no-prep nerds. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Butcher;383391
I did, a few posts back. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=383264&postcount=14) But then the poo-flinging started, so, whatever. I must be one of these lazy, no-prep nerds. :rolleyes:
I know and you did. It's OK, I'm a lazy no-prep nerd as well, so we're in good company.
Quote from: jeff37923;383388(You know, you could try and provide some constructive input to the thread....)
I've been saying a few things, but as far as the OP's concerned, you mean?
OK! Since you ask...
Quote from: jeff37923;383208Came to thinking after this weekend's game, with the changes in the hobby that have gone on over the past ten years - most of the people who are interested in gaming but are not playing right now, are turned off by the high buy-in hurdle of what is predominant in gaming right now. The most popular tabletop RPGs are relatively expensive in money and time needed for system mastery.
There's one thing that's certain: it's not the hobby you and me started with anymore. By which I mean: there as lot more role playing games out there, with tons of other types of activities directly competing for the people's time (like Game Consoles, iStuff and the like), and so on, so forth. So maybe we shouldn't expect the results in terms of rentability of introductory products to be the same as those of the 1980s.
That's a first thing.
Second, I indicated earlier that I think games are much more complex now than they were in the past. A game like Role Master is IMO a lot simpler to understand (actual layout/organization aside) compared to Euro-gamey RPGs like say, Warhammer FRP 3.
There's also a question of volume of the rule books. People today with internet, iShit and the like just won't read like they were in the 1980s. Yes. Even the 1980s. I mean. That's the hip society we live in now:
QuoteStereogum posted this yesterday, but it’s so hilarious and appalling it’s worth re-linking. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Kanye West, a “a proud non-reader of books,” is releasing a book, Thank You And You’re Welcome.
Retures reporter Mark Egan deserves applause for his lead: “Rapper Kanye West does not read books or respect them but nevertheless he has written one that he would like you to buy and read.” The quotes from West are absurd, including: “Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed,” West said. “I am not a fan of books. I would never want a book’s autograph.”
So... yeah. It's as bad as it reads. It's not your daddy's world anymore...
Quote from: jeff37923;383208So to get people who would be considered casual gamers back to the tabletop, it seems to me that cheaper and simple elegant systems should be used to attract them. Preferably in places where people gather like pubs or coffeeshops or bookstores.
But all this shit aside, though you have a little bit of a point, I think these considerations are peanuts compared to the fact that gamers massively play with gamers, and seem unwilling/unable/etc to share their passion with their non-gamer friends and relatives.
You want to have more people playing the game? Introduce new people to the hobby.
It's that simple, to me.
I'm a prep nerd.
Rules light isn't the way to go to introduce large amounts of new players - if by new players you mean young players. Facts, figures, stats, batting averages, combos, builds, synergies, and even good, old-fashioned modifiers hook in the genuinely interested, whilst wooly play-as-you like stuff keeps them in the playground at lunchtime.
How about Amber.
Rules light, accessible to newbies with a minimum of experience. Knowledge of the novels is really useful but the system is so light I could port it over to practically any environemnt the players are familiar with and rejig it on the fly.
The players are all Lost fans? We tweak the Amber stats for Combat, Willpower, Guile and Endurance or even leave then as is. we use some key skills to replace the Amber powers and we are good to go.
You are all Star Trek fans,,, same deal .. skills replaced with technical expertise etc etc ....
This is the problem I have with Cubicle 7's Doctor Who. The system is so simple and undefined that it isn't even worth investing it.
Simple may mean more accessible, but it also means less engaging. It's far more important to have a clearly described coherent system than it is to have simplicity. It's just easier to do the former when the game IS simple.
Part of it depends on your play style. I know quite a few people who are more into the story and character than rule manipulation. They don't want to optimize anything or work at math, they want an interesting character and an interesting situation. For them, complex rules are a chore, they need just enough to inspire them and keep it out of "No, I shot you first!" territory. For that style, Risus and the like work well. The RPG market has largely failed these people so most of them wind up playing computer games or hanging out at interactive fiction boards than playing rpgs. The market has failed them because, though there are tons of light games, most of them have no market presence in store fronts or really anywhere outside experimental gamer places on the web. The main reason for this is that there isn't much to sell with a truly light game and no way to sell a line of splat books.
Quote from: Nicephorus;383408The RPG market has largely failed these people so most of them wind up playing computer games or hanging out at interactive fiction boards than playing rpgs. The market has failed them because, though there are tons of light games, most of them have no market presence in store fronts or really anywhere outside experimental gamer places on the web. The main reason for this is that there isn't much to sell with a truly light game and no way to sell a line of splat books.
There is definitely truth here. An elegant game that fits on 2 sides of A4 and a dozen more pages on backgrounds samples of play etc ... well it isn;t going to make you million is it.
Quote from: Nicephorus;383408Part of it depends on your play style. I know quite a few people who are more into the story and character than rule manipulation. They don't want to optimize anything or work at math, they want an interesting character and an interesting situation. For them, complex rules are a chore, they need just enough to inspire them and keep it out of "No, I shot you first!" territory.
It may seem hard to believe but I fit more into this category any more. When I was in college and just after, I had lots of time to devote to learning new, complex games (and money to buy them). I don't any more -- and haven't in many years. What little time I have to play RPGs, I'd rather spend playing an interesting character in an interesting situation. I don't want to worry about character builds, tactical combat, rules manipulation/mastery or any of the stuff that seems popular with "intense gamers" (for lack of a better term for the opposite of casual gamer) today.
Quote from: Nicephorus;383408The main reason for this is that there isn't much to sell with a truly light game and no way to sell a line of splat books.
Earlier I was thinking something similar... about White Wolf's marketing schemes and all those fat full-color hardbacks that the crowd clamors for... graphically and physically something like original Traveller doesn't have near the same shelf/window presence.
I'm also noticing that my definition of 'rules lite' is much heavier than a lot of other folks here.
Quote from: chaosvoyager;383404This is the problem I have with Cubicle 7's Doctor Who. The system is so simple and undefined that it isn't even worth investing it.
Really? I think that Dr. Who was just about right in terms of being rules-lite without being completely undefined.
If you didn't like the final version, you would have despised the earlier experimental versions...
RPGPundit
Do you think that some of the book- and splat-bloat has something to do with human tendency to think that more of something is better, even if it costs more? A 350 Page rulebook must be superior to a 128 page one, things like that.
Quote from: Werekoala;383554Do you think that some of the book- and splat-bloat has something to do with human tendency to think that more of something is better, even if it costs more? A 350 Page rulebook must be superior to a 128 page one, things like that.
Might have something to do with the game writers wanting to make more money...
Quote from: Werekoala;383554Do you think that some of the book- and splat-bloat has something to do with human tendency to think that more of something is better, even if it costs more? A 350 Page rulebook must be superior to a 128 page one, things like that.
Quote from: Cylonophile;383558Might have something to do with the game writers wanting to make more money...
Sure does, Cylo, but Werekoala's got a point as well, for sure.
Quote from: Nicephorus;383212It's not just for noobs. Your typical person with a full time job, spouse, kids, and other interests doesn't feel like taking an hour just to make a character. They also rarely have the time for 6-8 hour game sessions.
Simpler games require much less reading time to learn and combat resolution is usually much quicker which works better for short sessions.
I certainly fall into this category, and I don't think it's unreasonable to postulate that with an aging gamer community, I suppose more and more people do as well.
You could also factor in the tastes of younger gamers. A lot of them have played MMOs or console RPGs, and while they require a lot of time to play they don't require a lot of upfront investment -time wise that is.
Quote from: Werekoala;383554Do you think that some of the book- and splat-bloat has something to do with human tendency to think that more of something is better, even if it costs more? A 350 Page rulebook must be superior to a 128 page one, things like that.
I think so... but there is a limit... if I'm already 'invested' in a setting/system then more resources are usually welcome. But on a 'cold sell' having ginormous books and a shitload of splats will give me pause... I think there is a middle ground of accessible-yet-expandable that draws me in.
White Wolf's slutty proliferation of content has always turned me away... but the Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader pace feels just about right to draw me in.
I gotta agree with you. These games are an extreme investment and for me, I generally don't pick up games unless I know what someone is going to play them. In fact, the way I came to start playing these games was by visiting my local game shop. I asked if I could join in (very confused, of course), and that's how I eventually met me best friends. :)
With that being said, I'm more comfortable with buying games. It's actually a social thing. I think that's why many game stores HAVE game play areas. The more you socialize, the more you're prone to purchasing games. Events are also held to do the same thing.
Biggest barrier is getting anybody to pay attention in the first place, whether casual or hardcore gamers.
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2010/05/20/the-hold-steady/
Replace instances of the music related keywords with "rpg" in the above linked article. In particular:
"Hip-hoppers and indie rock fans and the clueless all live in their own private universes. And you know what? The clueless are just fine with this. And they're not entirely clueless. Music just does not light their fire, it's not number one."