Quote from: CynosureNow, maybe a non-gamer hasn't heard about RPG's. (But who hasn't, nowadays?) Or maybe they're people who are intimidated and/or turned off by all the rules and by the "endless" aspect of an RPG (i.e. hundreds of pages of rules, bound in hardback books; and a game has no real pre-defined goals, and that technically never ends). But if they're people who are simply uninterested in gaming, because they're totally uninterested in that kind of social activity or they lack the attention span or whatever, then I don't know how one can design an RPG that might attract them and hold their interest.

That is the thing, isn't it? It may be possible that non-gamers simply have no interest in gaming, but I think it's much more likely that they have not seen gaming they would enjoy or could even see themselves doing... yet.

Let's see Basic D&D was definitely one of the better intro's I've seen (the solo adventure that is heavily railroaded Choose your own adventure style is very neat and explains the rules as you go.)

For teaching thers I've found the Marvel Super Heroes Adventure game (Tsr produced card driven Marvel game) one of the easiest to explain--while it has tricks, almost any comic book reader can learn "Spider-Man is played for agility stuff" "Hulk for Strength stuff" the imagery helps to speed learning.

This is actually something I've thought about a lot: Single dice using dice pool systems (D6 or NWOD form) are also easy to teach others because of the tactile nature of the dice--at least the basic format is "stat+skill" roll that many dice--most people even die hard math opponants don't have many issues with the physical visual addition of concrete things (dice) and having the numbers in small pools for results (D6 system) also makes it easier to grasp.



Discrete roles "I am a warrior". "I am a wizard" can simplify things as well another factor.



So if I were to write a basic game to teach absolute newbies to the hobby.

It have clear concise character archetypes.
It have tactile, aspects of rules (dice pool, cards) as well as perhaps color coding/icon  memory learning.


It probably look like this:

Combat: Xd6
Magic: YD6
Stealth: Qd6
Knowledge: Zd6

Where the letters are some number of d6's based on archetype.

Then each D6 would be customized. one red  combat (sword & shield) face, one purple magic (Star) face, one blue stealth (theif's hood) face, one green knowledge (book) face, and two "miss" (black x) faces.


I'd then adjust the base numbers of dice to get the probabilities I wanted in play for Warrior's to be really effective with combat, and Wizards to be really good at magic etc.
The rule books would start with a set if solo adventures that teaches each aspect of play solo, then a group adventure to run that explains how to GM. "Read this, use your own voices, explain what's going on here.." as well as explains the rules through play-- "Magic dice are rolled when someone needs to sense magic, decipher magical scripts, or actually invoke magical effects..the target numbers are Y for scripts, X for casting a fireball this number is the total number of purple star faces the player must roll in order for it to work as expected."

I think the only way to introduce none rpg-gamers to rpg's is to trick them into it.  Most if they have no want to play an RPG are basing it on the stigma around it being an RPG.  Many of them have only played once a long time ago or never have.  So it's not a case of tailoring one to their wants and needs since their wants and needs are usually to not play anything called an RPG.

The game would have to have quantifiable goals, character style sheets that are simplistic and character generation should be limited to maybe picking your piece and at most a couple options.  The game wouldn't have to have a board, but it would definitely have to have pieces.  Also there would have to be a lot of fixed story elements so that they feel it's still a game and not an RPG.  Most decisions should be of the table top variety so a lot of I move this way or that, I attack this or that type stuff.  The role playing element would have to be very limited and slid in perhaps.

Basically something like Hero Quest or the Arkham Horror style games are probably as close as you'll get a non-RPG interested person into playing that type of game.  Once they pick that up you could perhaps shift them into something slightly more RPG centred and build from there.  But Ultimately if they have no interest I just don't think you can do it subtley or in a simple fashion that they'll want to.

Oh also the age of the victim is probably going to play a huge factor in any attempt.  Younger (within reason) generally the better.

Quote from: CyberzombieI'd make a medium-low complexity game.  I wouldn't want the rules to be *too* light, though; I think that is something for experienced gamers, personally.

I'd have ways to do character customization, but I'd have archetypes and I'd have pre-printed character sheets all ready to go in the box, too.  

I'd have a sample adventure, all set to go, with clear, concise instructions for whoever runs the scenario.  That would be the most difficult part of the whole project to get done right.

Genre is another difficult thing.  I was initially thinking modern action/adventure, but fantasy might actually be popular enough these days for a mass market RPG to actually work.  I'm still undecided.

I agree with most of this. To this end, I expressed on RPGnet that I thought the old TORG system would be a good intro... perhaps with a FUDGE back end on it.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad... perhaps with a FUDGE back end on it.

Double entendre?

:naughty:

The key is to look at the introductory games that actually succeeded in bringing in huge numbers of new gamers that became interested in RPGs as a whole: of all of these, the most popular one of all time was the "Red Box" basic D&D.  That is the model to follow.

It has some things that some of the people on this list talked about; but in others they are way off.

From the marketing perspective, image and pricing are key issues: it has to be appealing to young people, and young people who are not likely to risk $50 on a hardcover glossy book that they might not end up using/enjoying.

At the moment, I'm slowly working on producing a spanish-language RPG that will be meant for a market of teenagers who are not gamers yet.

The idea of having clear examples and introductions is pretty critical, but the idea of the system being "simple" is dead wrong. Basic D&D was not simple, and the type of teenager who will get into RPGs usually won't want a "simple" game; they won't go for Over the Edge; they want a game that they have to work at to master, so that they can then show off that mastery to others.  You don't want excessive complexity; we aren't talking GURPS with all the fixings or Shadowrun 2e here; but you want something with enough rules that it actually feels like an accomplishment to be able to run it.
At the same time, ease of play is absolutely critical; you should be able to make a character very quickly, and it should be easy to DM as well, with a lot of things being aided by the use of random tables.

RPGPundit

And it should focus on High Adventure! Inspire the young ones!

and not:

QuoteI thought the old TORG system would be a good intro... perhaps with a FUDGE back end on it.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe key is to look at the introductory games that actually succeeded in bringing in huge numbers of new gamers that became interested in RPGs as a whole: of all of these, the most popular one of all time was the "Red Box" basic D&D.  That is the model to follow.

An important question that has already been raised isn't addressed by this.  Are you trying to bring in people who would enjoy gaming as it currently exists if they were introduced to it, or are you trying to make an enjoyable game for people that would not otherwise be gamers.  These are two different problems.  

If someone is likely to enjoy gaming they already likely play WoW or console games.  So in that case you're going to need to look at what you can offer that WoW can't.  If you want to bring in other people that otherwise would not be likely to game then you're going to need to appeal to them in other ways.

QuoteIt has some things that some of the people on this list talked about; but in others they are way off.

From the marketing perspective, image and pricing are key issues: it has to be appealing to young people, and young people who are not likely to risk $50 on a hardcover glossy book that they might not end up using/enjoying.

At the moment, I'm slowly working on producing a spanish-language RPG that will be meant for a market of teenagers who are not gamers yet.

I would agree with that.  For $50 you can get a new Playstation game, or a couple of older ones.  I'm assuming you're mostly focusing people who are likely to be gamers but haven't been introduced to tabletop roleplaying.  I really think you need to take into account that such people are well aquainted with video gaming.  That's good and bad - they aren't going to have a hard time with attribute scores, or task resolution, or hit points, or what have you.  On the other side they'll tend toward railroading and may not realize the flexibility of styles available in a tabletop roleplaying game.

Things may be different in Uruguay, you'd know better than me.  But here, any teenager that would be remotely interested in RPGs has been playing video game versions for years by now.

QuoteThe idea of having clear examples and introductions is pretty critical, but the idea of the system being "simple" is dead wrong. Basic D&D was not simple, and the type of teenager who will get into RPGs usually won't want a "simple" game; they won't go for Over the Edge; they want a game that they have to work at to master, so that they can then show off that mastery to others.  You don't want excessive complexity; we aren't talking GURPS with all the fixings or Shadowrun 2e here; but you want something with enough rules that it actually feels like an accomplishment to be able to run it.
At the same time, ease of play is absolutely critical; you should be able to make a character very quickly, and it should be easy to DM as well, with a lot of things being aided by the use of random tables.

RPGPundit

Much as this may give you a coronary, I agree .  Easy to play (and I've adopted SteveD's Axiom from RPGnet, any rules system must be twice as easy on the GM as the players) and overly simple are not the same thing.  You don't want a heavy complex game that's going to overwhelm them with rules.  On the other hand, a very simple, rules light game can lead to paralysis.  To a new player when they're told 'well you can do anything you want!' they often have no clue what to do.  If you can give them a short list or even just examples of attacks or spells or skills or what have you they can work with that structure a lot easier.

I've had great luck introducing new players with Cinematic Unisystem, it provides good structure without being overwhelming.

QuoteOn the other side they'll tend toward railroading and may not realize the flexibility of styles available in a tabletop roleplaying game.

Cool. you are old enough for the "video games spoil the youth" vibe?
What´s next? Rock and Roll is bad? In my days everything was better?

Sir, your argument is so lame, a wheelchair wouldn´t help. Why in fucks sake should videogaming make you expect railroading?
Apart from your grown-up misconceptions about how adolescents feel, act and learn?

Quote from: SettembriniCool. you are old enough for the "video games spoil the youth" vibe?
What´s next? Rock and Roll is bad? In my days everything was better?

Sir, your argument is so lame, a wheelchair wouldn´t help. Why in fucks sake should videogaming make you expect railroading?
Apart from your grown-up misconceptions about how adolescents feel, act and learn?

No, I'm young enough to have played them first myself.  Granted not the 3d extravaganzas we get today, but I certainly played Dragon Warrior and Legend of Zelda on NES before I ever touched a players' handbook.  Video games should make you expect railroading because video games are inherantly railroady.  You complete area A then area B then put the Smork into Goigle and it unlocks area C.  Further I've seen it myself with other gamers, that it takes them a bit to realize that you don't have a limited computer program to judge what you want to do, but a living breathing GM.  You can step outside the box in ways that a computer just can't let you do.

I'm not going all 'Ron Edwards' and saying they have brain damage or anything, but it would be foolish to try and design a game for new gamers without taking video games and the impact they can have on style would be foolish.  You're being quite antagonistic and presuming I'm getting off on some 'video games suck ass' kick.  I'm doing no such things.  Video games are fun, I play them a lot myself.  RPGs are a different kind of fun.

QuoteYou're being quite antagonistic

...to get your real argument from you. So how come you aren´t railroady, if you have played all those Video Games? Why don´t you think contemporary kids can´t take the same route of development you took? What makes you special?

Quote from: Settembrini...to get your real argument from you. So how come you aren´t railroady, if you have played all those Video Games? Why don´t you think contemporary kids can´t take the same route of development you took? What makes you special?

....isn't this thread about how to get more of them into gaming than are doing so now?  I was all railroady for a long time, in a couple of different ways.  I don't have a "real argument", if you have a point or think that I'm covering something stop being passive aggressive and just fucking say it.

We want more kids to game -> Lots of kids that would like gaming play stuff like WoW -> Make a game/marketing/appeal to those kids.  I don't know what is so controversial about this train of thought.

I´m not passive aggressive. I´m just aggressive. Look, I´m all for bringing new gamers in. But patronizing them, and building a special intorductory storytelling crapuvaganza like Fudge+TORG will not work. Give ´em Rifts with prepainted miniatures and a TV show, then you have new gamers coming. Don´t worry about stupid railroads, they´ll blast em to smithereens.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m not passive aggressive. I´m just aggressive. Look, I´m all for bringing new gamers in. But patronizing them, and building a special intorductory storytelling crapuvaganza like Fudge+TORG will not work. Give ´em Rifts with prepainted miniatures and a TV show, then you have new gamers coming. Don´t worry about stupid railroads, they´ll blast em to smithereens.

I don't see what any of this has to do with what I posted.  Nor do I see what taking into account that lots of people play video games these days is patronizing.  Nor did I say anything about FUDGE and Torg.  I'm not familiar with torg, but saying something's 'fudge' doesn't tell you much beyond the resolution mechanic.  You can use fudge to build all sorts of games.

In other words, what the fuck are you talking about?

QuoteThat's good and bad - they aren't going to have a hard time with attribute scores, or task resolution, or hit points, or what have you. On the other side they'll tend toward railroading and may not realize the flexibility of styles available in a tabletop roleplaying game.

THIS is condescending and patronizing.