All right. Thought exercise here. Let's say you wanted to make and market an RPG to non-gamers. Sure, you'd ship to gaming stores, too, but your primary goal would be to go after people who aren't gamers at all. How would you do it?
I think it would require a single product, perhaps with modules. I assume that boxed sets are expensive, since no one does them any more, but that would seem like the best format to me. Of course, my gateway drug was the Basic set, so my thoughts could be coloured with nostalgia there. :)
I'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.
As for support -- I think what might work best is to go exactly the opposite direction as the gaming industry does. No splat books, but plenty of good modules. Call 'em "Scenario Books" or something like that.
Those are my initial thoughts, at least. I don't know that there is an actual untapped non-gamer market for RPGs out there, but this makes an interesting thought exercise, at least. :)
It should have an introductary adventure that you can jump in and play with only a very basic understanding of the rules. The full ruleset can have more detailed rules, but ideally people should be able to start playing after only a short time of looking over the rules, instead of spending hours/days/an eternity trying to decipher the entire ruleset.
Quote from: KnightskyIt should have an introductary adventure that you can jump in and play with only a very basic understanding of the rules.
That sounds like a good idea to me. Start it off
in media res, preferably with a battle, and let them get a look at how things work. Then have other leading scenes, where they get to see, say, how a social situation would work. I think hopping aboard the railroad is a good thing when people are just starting, especially for the first couple of adventures. It works well for Final Fantasy.
Try to include all the basic tropes of whatever genre the game covers. Make it so only one product has to be bought for the buyer to have a complete game. For example, if you do a scifi game, INCLUDE RULES FOR STARSHIPS, GODDAMNIT! If the buyer likes your game enough, they might be more inclined to buy further products. That's one of the best ways to alienate non-gamers who aren't accustomed to buying multiple books or material to get a complete product.
I think a game along the lines of Ghostbusters where everything was visual (cards, chits and counters for everything) character cards.
GB was very much about what you did and how you did it, and less about the dice rolling.
Keeping the game focused, maybe even including a Choose your own adventure script for the guy running the game to help him out at certain key stages.
Escape from Colditz boardgame was kinda like that (without the script, but then you made up the German dialogue) where the Germans were run by just one player and the POWs were the rest of the players.
Illustrations. Most people have a hard time describing scenes and encounters. Good/Detailed artwork would set the tone of the game and make the gm's job easier. It would go some way in helping all visualize the setting and the adventure - which is sometimes the hardest aspect of playing RPGs for the first time.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RIllustrations. Most people have a hard time describing scenes and encounters. Good/Detailed artwork would set the tone of the game and make the gm's job easier. It would go some way in helping all visualize the setting and the adventure - which is sometimes the hardest aspect of playing RPGs for the first time.
Regards,
David R
but not the usual RPG fare please - something different, unique
Quote from: Lawbagbut not the usual RPG fare please - something different, unique
I think that the artwork should be eye catching but pretty general. It should do enough to convey what the setting is about and help the players(gm) navigate through the adventure.
I'm also thinking about map and encounter design here. I think a good example about graphics helping out in running an adventure would be the "Oldenhaller Contract" in the first ed of WFRP. If I'm not mistaken it had in the earlier part of the adventure the actual route through the rooftops of Nuln taken by a burglar. This was accompanied by the relevant graphic.
Being unique is great for experienced players but in my opinion utility (which does not mean bland) is more "useful" for non-gamers just beginning the journey :)
Regards,
David R
My first thoughts are:
You have a customizable board that is broken into sections that can be arranged.
You have 5-10 basic Maps/quests/adventures in the box that can be run using the pieces you bought.
These Maps/quests/adventures are easily linked but can be run in different orders.
It plays as a simple board game, that can be rearranged in different ways.
You show how the characters you make for the game can be run from one "game" to the next.
You include rules for making a new character during game/round 2 if you failed/died in game/round 1.
Have rules that allow for evening out things each round to keep play on the same level or allowing those that win/survive at round one to have a leg up.
Decide if you want to require the people playing the game to work together against the board or to fight it out, or to decide as they play.
Have the different stories/quests have a difficulty attached to them that can be modified one the default has been done.
Give them a link to a community website where people can post new combinations for the pieces to allow for new games to be played and expansions to be bought that increase the number of pieces.
(Thinking about it, I'm basically describing NeverWinters Nights with physical pieces instead of digital with small prebuilt adventures for those that just want a board game but with enough hooks into infinite expandability to open the gate to role playing games.)
They already have them - they are called "Host a Mystery!" :ponder:
Quote from: KnightskyIt should have an introductary adventure that you can jump in and play with only a very basic understanding of the rules. The full ruleset can have more detailed rules, but ideally people should be able to start playing after only a short time of looking over the rules, instead of spending hours/days/an eternity trying to decipher the entire ruleset.
You mean like this?
(http://www.wapahani.com/basic%204th%20ed.jpeg)
I loved it as an intro! It read like a story, slowly easing you into it concept by concept, and came with a nice little solo adventure. It was good, easy fun, and had just enough to inspire the imagination. :)
Quote from: Name LipsYou mean like this?
(http://www.wapahani.com/basic%204th%20ed.jpeg)
Yeah, that's pretty much the idea I was shooting for.
Depends on your design goal. Are you trying to make an introduction to the roleplaying games most people play today, or do you want to make a roleplaying game that could find appeal just because the target audience hasn't gamed before?
I think you could go haywire with conflict resolution, distributing story power among players etc in a way that would be hard for most long-time gamers to accept, but would feel quite natural to someone who had never played the "normal way". As long as the rules themselves aren't overwhelming, you wouldn't need to have any concerns about what a roleplaying game is "supposed" to look like.
Quote from: CyberzombieAll right. Thought exercise here. Let's say you wanted to make and market an RPG to non-gamers. Sure, you'd ship to gaming stores, too, but your primary goal would be to go after people who aren't gamers at all. How would you do it?
This question has many answers. This is but one.
1) Pick something that many non-roleplayers do anyway.
2) Figure out a way to turn it into a RPG.
However, this invites the age-old, fun-filled piece o' crap discussion of "What is a RPG, anyway?"
Hmm. Do we really want non-gamers to play RPG's?
:ponder:
I mean, not because we gamers want to be special and keep RPG's all to ourselves. But if a person is not inclined toward playing games, in the first place, then they're probably not interested in playing any sort of RPG; not even interested in even giving one a try, really.
Now, 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.
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.
Quote from: SettembriniTHIS is condescending and patronizing.
If you say so. Doesn't seem that way to me, and it matches exactly with my own experiences. I think you're reading an intent that really isn't there. I'm not saying that tabletop roleplayers are awesome and cool and video game players are dull-witted and unimaginative. I'm saying that they are different, though they likely appeal to the same people. Those who have only played video games may make certain assumptions about tabletop games based on that experience, just as those who have only played table top games make assumptions about how CRPGs should work. I'm also saying that if you want to make a game that will get video game players to try roleplaying games you should take that into account. I really don't know what's condescending or patronizing about that. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm thinking about how to appeal to a market segment.
QuoteThose who have only played video games may make certain assumptions about tabletop games based on that experience, just as those who have only played table top games make assumptions about how CRPGs should work.
Phrased like this, this is actually not condescending or patronizing.
But tell me, what are the assumptions? And why wouldn´t be those wrong assumptions blown away after the first actual play?
Quote from: SettembriniPhrased like this, this is actually not condescending or patronizing.
But tell me, what are the assumptions? And why wouldn´t be those wrong assumptions blown away after the first actual play?
From what I've seen, playing with people whose only gaming experience is video game, is that the RPG must be 'solved'. They may try to second guess what the GM wants them to do, much as they would with a computer game.
This is blown away after the first actual play if the GM is experienced himself and knows how to encourage players to 'think outside the box' or plan dynamically. If the GM has the same expectations he'll set up the game so the players have to find his solution, nothing else will work. RPGnet termed this 'pixelbitching', named after the game where you had to mouse over the 2x2 pixel spot to progress. It's a close cousin (and often leads to) of the railroad.
So what, you might ask. If they want to play that way let them. I would agree, except that played in this style you get what you get from a computer RPG, only without the 3d graphics, computer taking care of all the math for you, and the convinence of playing whenever you want. If that's the case, why are they going to bother to play? I guess sort of the central thesis I have here is that tabletop games compete with video games for time and money. If you want them to be successful you should emphasize what RPGs have that CRPGs do not.
And what is that? Flexibility. The fact that instead of a cold, heartless computer interpreting actions you have a living, breathing GM. Now you don't have to get all forgey and thematic to take advantage of this. Even the most old school Gygaxian GM can take things into account that a computer never could. They can make judgements to make the game more fun in whatever way the players like. The computer, it just does what it does.