I'm starting to feel unusually blessed. I've never really had trouble finding players willing to try games other than D&D or some other top tier property. At worst they've balked at one particular game, but then been willing tro try some other unusual thing.
But then I read a lot of stories out there in internet land that go like this: "I always wanted to try [game X], but no one wanted to give it a shot," or "No one around here wants to play anything but D&D."
Is this really a consistent, notable phenomenon, or the internet gripe echo chamber at work? If it is a major issue, what's going on and how can it be aleviated? Should it be fixed or should we just make sure we're always ready to settle for running whatever the top 3 games are in our personal style?
Quote from: Vegetable Protein;651129I'm starting to feel unusually blessed. I've never really had trouble finding players willing to try games other than D&D or some other top tier property. At worst they've balked at one particular game, but then been willing tro try some other unusual thing.
But then I read a lot of stories out there in internet land that go like this: "I always wanted to try [game X], but no one wanted to give it a shot," or "No one around here wants to play anything but D&D."
Is this really a consistent, notable phenomenon, or the internet gripe echo chamber at work? If it is a major issue, what's going on and how can it be aleviated? Should it be fixed or should we just make sure we're always ready to settle for running whatever the top 3 games are in our personal style?
Yes, it certainly can be difficult. Some players are only interested in one milieu (Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Cyberpunk, etc.), some only in the system they started with. And when I say only, I do not mean they prefer that - I mean it's the only thing that interests them enough to play. My personal experience is that the proportion of players who fall into one of these categories is high.
I'm personally rather lucky in that my core group, composed of longtime friends, has always been willing to experiment.
Depends on the group. In my current one, the tastes of one particular player carry special weight. Besides that, though, the rest of us may split 50-50 on whether this or that seems fun.
Almost anything is likely to get a chance for 3 sessions or so, but we keep coming back to old-time D&D as the reliable crowd pleaser.
To an extent, it depends (for this bunch) on how much rules-wonkery the GM lays on the players. One guy likes to use Twilight: 2000, but nobody had to learn the details of the rules in order to play.
Quote from: Vegetable Protein;651129I'm starting to feel unusually blessed. I've never really had trouble finding players willing to try games other than D&D or some other top tier property. At worst they've balked at one particular game, but then been willing tro try some other unusual thing.
But then I read a lot of stories out there in internet land that go like this: "I always wanted to try [game X], but no one wanted to give it a shot," or "No one around here wants to play anything but D&D."
Is this really a consistent, notable phenomenon, or the internet gripe echo chamber at work? If it is a major issue, what's going on and how can it be aleviated? Should it be fixed or should we just make sure we're always ready to settle for running whatever the top 3 games are in our personal style?
I think it varies a lot from group to group. I've played with people who were open to any system, but I've also played with people who will only play D&D or Pathfinder. Another poster mentioned that some gamers will stick to a single genre as well. It really boils down to who you are playing with.
One possibly unusual thing with my group is that it's easier to get a "one off" game going with pregenerated characters.
The guys who most balk at learning a new chargen system basically just want to "get on with the game" and develop their personas in actual play. They don't want to sit down before hand even to think of a character sketch and describe it in plain language (which a GM could then translate into whatever game-ese was wanted).
My group is pretty flexible though I know some games they won't or most likely will not enjoy so I avoid them.
When coming time to switch games they have told me run what I want and I have twice even though I knew it would fail. Once was Dc heroes (MEGS version) but I and they had fun just not enough to keep running. Second was a game I hacked the Seventh sea system for called Senseis and Dojos. which was a near future martial arts game which everyone enjoyed but one player who hates Martial arts anything.
I really want to run my game system but the complexity is beyond most my players who wouldn't want to learn enough rules to play but for me it is my version of simulationist fun.
So in truth I am lucky as well.
But I have been with groups who only play one thing or maybe two. usually the old D&D standards.
I agree with everything above, but in my own experience, there's another factor involved, as well, in the online complaints. Let me fill in the blanks:
"I always wanted to try (running) [game X], but no one wanted to give it a shot (as gamemaster),"
or
"No one around here wants to play anything but D&D (when I'm gamemaster, which I've never done, except that one game where they locked me in the closet for being an ass, and played Uno for the next six months instead)."
We have a couple of people (me, and another guy) who have gamemastered a lot, and if we announced we wanted to run Monopoly as a roleplaying game, most of the group would show up at least once. And a couple of people who want to gamemaster, and just aren't very good at it[1], and nobody really bothers when they try to start a game, regardless of what system. And a few in between, where it does depend on the system, and setting.
[1]One guy wanted to run a game set in the Roman Empire, his favorite historical period, using Chivalry & Sorcery. Didn't want us running about with heavy armor and equipment, so he told us were were "the dregs of Roman society." Forgetting that, while he might have studied the period in more detail than any of the rest of us, we were all well read enough to know exactly how dreggy said dregs could get. We immediately dubbed ourselves the Roaming Roman Rape Gang, and at one point used live babies as a stepping stone to climb over a wall (hell, they were *our* babies). Though the guy took a crap in the middle of the mage's bed, then masturbated on top of it, that was a little too much for even us.
Not for my group. If you don't want to experiment, why are you here?
-clash
I gamed with two seperate groups for a few years. One would play anything, but favored Call of Cthulhu or WoD. The other would only play the current version of D&D, and nothing else mattered.
As long as I've been gaming I've been in groups where we switch systems and rotate GMs quite regularly with what we call campaigns lasting maybe 5-10 sessions, sometimes even less. So yeah we don't have any problems getting people to try less established games.
I suppose the one caveat is that if a game is really obscure, its production values poor or it's just has very unconventional in either subject matter or mechanics it really needs to work first time round. If does not make a good first impression in play it may never get another chance as there is just too little time to play and too many other games to be played. That is tricky because it is precisely the unconventional game that might take a little time to get used to.
I know "X Game Only" groups and some of them are fun. My old "Try Anything" group was awesome, but sadly disbanded. I would love to get them back together or a group like that.
I personally love variety, not just playing RPGs, but boardgames, CCGs, wargames, LARPS, etc and that's why I do as many cons each year as possible. My goal is to be free enough to do a con every month. That would pretty much eliminate my need for a regular group. I also like the concentrated 3 days of gaming instead of 4-6 hours per week.
I miss the campaign concept a bit, but for me, variety is more valuable.
I agree with what most posters have said that it varies per the group. In my experience it has been relatively easy to get people to try things. But if the game in question has been run once and didn't go well. Forget about another chance. Its all or nothing. Which sometimes really sucks. As a new system or what not to you. Trying to teach people something new. Then a couple times in my case having people that don't want to do any kind of reading, or what not to help themselves understand the setting and/or rules. (Oh and by reading I don't mean large portions of books, or even chapters. I mean a couple of paragraphs. Which has always astounded me.)
My group is very open to new games - we switch GM duties regularly and usually have two or three different campaigns, each using a different system, at once. Judging from what I see at conventions and at the shops, my group isn't the norm, though.
Quote from: Ronin;651176In my experience it has been relatively easy to get people to try things. But if the game in question has been run once and didn't go well. Forget about another chance. Its all or nothing. Which sometimes really sucks.
Actually, that's generally my experience as well. I'm not innocent of it either. First time I played Savage Worlds, the GM sucked and I didn't enjoy or understand the game at all. It took a few years before I gave it another chance with a different GM and now it is one of our regular sysstems.
I only GM for old friends and family these days and they will try anything that does not require more than 10-15 minutes of character creation. I have heard from other players in my area that it is hell to get anything other than a Pathfinder game going.
Quote from: Ronin;651176Then a couple times in my case having people that don't want to do any kind of reading, or what not to help themselves understand the setting and/or rules. (Oh and by reading I don't mean large portions of books, or even chapters. I mean a couple of paragraphs. Which has always astounded me.)
I have encountered
this more than a few times. Enough in fact that I sometimes wonder if a majority of players just want a generic setting of the appropriate genre and most of those lovingly crafted RPG worlds are either a waste of time or just a marketing attention-grabber for the GM.
Of course the problem can just be partly solved by doing what Bioware does with its computer RPGs: dish out the lore in tiny doses over time. I don't think this is what many GMs had in mind though when they picked up "Textured Richness: The RPG of Astounding Cultural Detail."
Quote from: Arkansan;651176I have heard from other players in my area that it is hell to get anything other than a Pathfinder game going.
Yeah, this is what makes me wonder. In these days of shrinking participation in the hobby and diminishing time to game for adults, is there a case for managing our expectations, bowing to the seemingly inevitable and rallying to the top games?
My group will play anything I throw in front of them.
Depends what you recruited the players for.
If they all came in for old school D&D, you'll shake some loose if you switch to GURPS later.
I've actually had such players leave (over a 3 -5 session minicampaign no less) and want to come back when I'm running OD&D again. They want what they want; not much you can do about it and no reason to resent them.
That said, I don't like hearing 'how well I run a game' if the player in question wants me to only run that game.
Yes, I'm in the odd position of wanting to shitcan much of my group. I'm ready to play something else.
My players are open to most things as long as they don't have to deal with a crunchy system – but then I'm a rules light bloke myself, so this isn't really an issue. However, even with a system as light as say 2FT, they really can't be bothered to learn the combat options – so they describe what they are doing and I tell them what to roll (again, not really a problem).
Setting they will absorb, but prefer this to be through play, rather than reading anything more than a list of bullet points to get them orientated. Personally I think this is the best way to introduce setting anyway. And as a GM, I don't really want to read a hundred pages of the world building notes for the game designer's never to be published novel. I would prefer details of everyday, food, music, and religious festivals that the PCs will come into contact with; rather than a detailed 500 year history of the kingdom, which no one living there would actually know aside from a handful of scholars.
One thing my players hate is chargen that takes more than 15 minutes. Anymore than that and they want me to provide pre-gens. All the above might make them seem like 'casual players', but they are anything but. They are committed and involved players but are really not on for learning vast chunks of rules and setting before they can play.
While I think there is a place for games with involved mechanics and heavy setting (however you would define that) for those who like that sort of thing, I think the hobby loses out by not having more leaner games with a quick set up time.
Overall I think I've been fairly lucky, as over the years I've only had one player refuse to play something I ran. He wanted fantasy only, and wouldn't play horror or sf - so even that was a genre thing rather than being committed to a specific system.
I agree that what game the group is built around plays a role, and I don't often see groups formed with no particular game in mind. I'm not sure we have to bow to the most popular games, with play by post, skype, google+ and the like I think in some ways the options for putting together groups around games that may not be that popular are wider than ever. I do think that we may have to open up our perception of what game night is, I don't ever see face to face table top gaming going away but I do see more people adding some degree of online play to their schedule. I think this is particulary true with adults, I mean I have a 10th the time to game now at 23 than I did at 18 and I don't see that number getting any better. My core group is getting increasingly scattered, the other groups in my area play shit I don't like and the older I get the less inclined I am to play, much less run, games I don't like. I see play by post gaming and the like becoming a much larger portion of my hobby, I prefer sitting around the table and playing face to face but I am willing to loose some of that aspect not to have to fuck with playing games I am not intersted in, not to mention that it can be easier to get a game going schedule wise this way.
I have found it extremely hard to get many folks to play a superhero campaign. No one wants to be pried away from fantasy.
Quote from: Vegetable Protein;651129I'm starting to feel unusually blessed. I've never really had trouble finding players willing to try games other than D&D or some other top tier property. At worst they've balked at one particular game, but then been willing tro try some other unusual thing.
But then I read a lot of stories out there in internet land that go like this: "I always wanted to try [game X], but no one wanted to give it a shot," or "No one around here wants to play anything but D&D."
Is this really a consistent, notable phenomenon, or the internet gripe echo chamber at work? If it is a major issue, what's going on and how can it be aleviated? Should it be fixed or should we just make sure we're always ready to settle for running whatever the top 3 games are in our personal style?
Sometimes it can be difficult.
In my opinion, some players are way too anal retentive about what game system they will play.
Personally I will play anything if the gm is good, and the group is fun.
When I GM though, I do like to pick the system I will use.
More often than not I end up running a system I don't really care for just to please the anal retentive selfish players.
Quote from: Bill;651420More often than not I end up running a system I don't really care for just to please the anal retentive selfish players.
I don't do this anymore. I have been much happier since then. If players are not interested in a game that I want to run, then I simply play in other games. I can play just about anything with a good group, but if I'm running the game and putting in the prep time, I really have to love what I'm running.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;651423I don't do this anymore.
Me neither.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;651423I have been much happier since then.
Me too.
Quote from: Bill;651420In my opinion, some players are way too anal retentive about what game system they will play.
Interesting isn't it? I mean in a world where most here have said their players 'never read the rules', 'don't have to read the rules', and even 'shouldn't read the rules'. You'd think no one would care what game system they are playing.
Or it might be the case that people are paying more attention than most here think.
In any case, to the OP...
We don't have any issue with experimenting, all it takes is someone who wants to try something.
The exception is when it's something that's already been tried and rejected. So anything that is D&D related would get shot down immediately by nearly everyone at the table, as would RAW Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Deadlands, etc. All those have already been attempted. It would have to be something new.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;651423I don't do this anymore. I have been much happier since then. If players are not interested in a game that I want to run, then I simply play in other games. I can play just about anything with a good group, but if I'm running the game and putting in the prep time, I really have to love what I'm running.
I am still in the irritated phase.
Eventually I will stop running things that are not my first choice.
It's mainly my fault for not insisting and being too agreeable.
Quote from: gleichman;651432Interesting isn't it? I mean in a world where most here have said their players 'never read the rules', 'don't have to read the rules', and even 'shouldn't read the rules'. You'd think no one would care what game system they are playing.
Or it might be the case that people are paying more attention than most here think.
In any case, to the OP...
We don't have any issue with experimenting, all it takes is someone who wants to try something.
The exception is when it's something that's already been tried and rejected. So anything that is D&D related would get shot down immediately by nearly everyone at the table, as would RAW Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Deadlands, etc. All those have already been attempted. It would have to be something new.
Many players pay attention to the rules, I am sure we all agree about that.
Regardless, I know many players that have irrational restrictions on what they will usually play.
Such as,
'If it uses a d20 I don't like it'
'No Feats, I don't like it'
'No skills? wtf!?'
'Why not just use Pathfinder?' (for every setting period)
'Couldn't recreate my exact character from previous version'
crap like that
Quote from: Bill;651440Regardless, I know many players that have irrational restrictions on what they will usually play.
Such as,
'If it uses a d20 I don't like it'
'No Feats, I don't like it'
'No skills? wtf!?'
'Why not just use Pathfinder?' (for every setting period)
'Couldn't recreate my exact character from previous version'
crap like that
Those all look valid to me although I would be on the other side of the fence on a couple of them (#2 and #4).
My approach would be different as I describe in another thread. My group might do the experiment (again unless its a system that's already been rejected) and we'd just note what we didn't like going into it and see if those things actually mattered when we finished the first session.
They typically do.
Quote from: gleichman;651447Those all look valid to me although I would be on the other side of the fence on a couple of them (#2 and #4).
My approach would be different as I describe in another thread. My group might do the experiment (again unless its a system that's already been rejected) and we'd just note what we didn't like going into it and see if those things actually mattered when we finished the first session.
They typically do.
Its really annoying when everyone in the group wants to play a different system.
When others GM, I play pretty much anyhting that is not really out on left field. Can't recall ever saying "I don't really want to play that' other than Toon.
When I GM I like to pick the system.
Forgot to say, I disagree that any of those are valid.
Sure, everyone has preferences.
But those reasons are petty to me.
Quote from: Bill;651449Its really annoying when everyone in the group wants to play a different system.
Never had a problem with it. We've always gone with what most want to play, and if someone really doesn't want to join it they can find another group. Haven't seen the latter in decades.
Quote from: Bill;651449Forgot to say, I disagree that any of those are valid.
Sure, everyone has preferences.
But those reasons are petty to me.
You're on record as not caring about mechanics, and being willing to override them on whim when desired. Of course those are petty reasons to you.
For those however who actually care about and follow the rules, such things are very important indeed.
I would agree that those are pretty weak reasons not to give a game a chance. Now if they try and still really can't stand it then that is one thing, but I too have come across players that literally will not sit down at the table over shit like that. In my experience that kind of thing has typically come from people who have favored ways to abuse a particular system, or those who are convinced that my only function as GM is to roll for the bad guys and read from a module. I have also had a player that refused to play anything other than a published module, and he had to know in advance what it was so he could run out, buy a copy and spoil the fun.
Most players I've known, casual or not, have been pretty open to house ruling and experimentation. I drop a game in front of them, pitch it a little, and more often than not I'll get some interest out of it. I've even had players request me to run other games they were interested in.
Right now, I have a problem with too experimental players ;p. Can't stick a system to them, because they want to try "something different".
Quote from: gleichman;651451Never had a problem with it. We've always gone with what most want to play, and if someone really doesn't want to join it they can find another group. Haven't seen the latter in decades.
You're on record as not caring about mechanics, and being willing to override them on whim when desired. Of course those are petty reasons to you.
For those however who actually care about and follow the rules, such things are very important indeed.
Hey now, don't exaggerate my preferences.
I clearly care about mechanics; I often post about desire for mechanics to be enough crunch to get the job done, fade in the background, unobtrusive; stuff like that.
I care very much about mechanics. Hell, I design rpgs.
As for whim and overriding rules, I do it when I feel the rules are inadequate, and when it makes sense. Not all the time, not without reason.
In fact, I find it counter intuitive that anyone would limit themselves to the RAW in an rpg.
Chess? sure. RAW is great.
RPG? Makes no sense to me to go RAW without exception.
Quote from: Bill;651471Hey now, don't exaggerate my preferences.
I'm not, it's just that when you say things like this:
Quote from: Bill;651471RPG? Makes no sense to me to go RAW without exception.
Then the rules don't really matter enough to care about. Thus you're saying a person is 'petty' for rejecting a game because of them is consistent, it follows from your beliefs.
Be happy, that makes you one of the more consistent people on this board. Unless of course you think that a vice and not a virtue.
Quote from: gleichman;651477I'm not, it's just that when you say things like this:
Then the rules don't really matter enough to care about. Thus you're saying a person is 'petty' for rejecting a game because of them is consistent, it follows from your beliefs.
Be happy, that makes you one of the more consistent people on this board. Unless of course you think that a vice and not a virtue.
I did not say that at all.
A person can be petty about someting without being a globally petty person.
I can like a friend that disagrees strongly with me about politics.
Its obvious I care about rules and mechanics.
You seem to think any deviation from raw equals not caring about rules.
I disagree with that; its backwards really, in my opinion.
Quote from: Bill;651485Its obvious I care about rules and mechanics.
Bill: I override rules when I feel I should
Bill: People who refuse to play a game due to its mechanics are being petty.
Bill: I value mechanics
End of story.
Quote from: gleichman;651495Bill: I override rules when I feel I should
Bill: People who refuse to play a game due to its mechanics are being petty.
Bill: I value mechanics
End of story.
End of story? Hardly :)
Thats a pretty warped version of what I say.
If you wanted to be more accurate, try this:
Bill: I overide rules when it makes sense, and when rules are inadequate.
Bill: There are reasons for not playing a system I find to be petty.
Bill: I value mechanics but not in violation with common sense.
Quote from: Bill;651498End of story? Hardly :)
Thats a pretty warped version of what I say.
It's the reality of what you say.
Yes, I know it's quite the fashion in this world to think everything is relative and to hold to no standards, beliefs, or behaviors except what feels good at the moment. Justification is easy to find, and easier yet to rename "sense". By all means have fun. Pick up the pretty gem, look it over, claim you value it, and then hurl into the trash the moment it gets in your way. The next time maybe you'll hang on to it a bit longer, or drop it sooner. It doesn't matter.
Yes, very modern. But I'm too old fashioned to wave it off as anything but what it truly is, no matter how often you wish to claim otherwise.
Quote from: gleichman;651505It's the reality of what you say.
Yes, I know it's quite the fashion in this world to think everything is relative and to hold to no standards, beliefs, or behaviors except what feels good at the moment. Justification is easy to find, and easier yet to rename "sense". By all means have fun. Pick up the pretty gem, look it over, claim you value it, and then hurl into the trash the moment it gets in your way. The next time maybe you'll hang on to it a bit longer, or drop it sooner. It doesn't matter.
Yes, very modern. But I'm too old fashioned to wave it off as anything but what it truly is, no matter how often you wish to claim otherwise.
Wow. Just wow. Are you high? Because honestly, if we were discussing something serious, like medicine or social standards, that'd still be ramblings. But we're discussing bloody games, so...
Quote from: Bill;651498End of story? Hardly :)
Thats a pretty warped version of what I say.
If you wanted to be more accurate, try this:
Bill: I overide rules when it makes sense, and when rules are inadequate.
Bill: There are reasons for not playing a system I find to be petty.
Bill: I value mechanics but not in violation with common sense.
I think that's the most common approach, and mine as well (except rather than petty, I'd say "clunky" or one that does not meet my expectations in terms of [term]). And I understood you just fine.
Quote from: gleichman;651505It's the reality of what you say.
Yes, I know it's quite the fashion in this world to think everything is relative and to hold to no standards, beliefs, or behaviors except what feels good at the moment. Justification is easy to find, and easier yet to rename "sense". By all means have fun. Pick up the pretty gem, look it over, claim you value it, and then hurl into the trash the moment it gets in your way. The next time maybe you'll hang on to it a bit longer, or drop it sooner. It doesn't matter.
Yes, very modern. But I'm too old fashioned to wave it off as anything but what it truly is, no matter how often you wish to claim otherwise.
I enjoy discussing things with you, really I do.
But this last post of yours is detached from reality.
Quote from: Bill;651510I enjoy discussing things with you, really I do.
But this last post of yours is detached from reality.
Absolutely. That gem is gonna give me the XP I need to level up!
Quote from: Bill;651510I enjoy discussing things with you, really I do.
But this last post of yours is detached from reality.
It was real enough, although you'll never see it from where you've taken yourself.
BTW, I was trying for a purple prose award because otherwise it would have just being a boring repeat of what's already been written. I hope I won.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651507Wow. Just wow. Are you high?
No. It's gleichman. Come on, everyone should know his schtick by now. Could we keep on talking about the topic and not him?
Quote from: Benoist;651517No. It's gleichman. Come on, everyone should know his schtick by now. Could we keep on talking about the topic and not him?
Of course, but even by his usual drunken Irishman style, this was a full blown Reefer Madness combined with bottom of Johnny Walker Black Label with a spice of two shots of Dębowa.
I somewhat think that this lack of system experimentation is more of an American thing, where D&D always held strongest stronghold. In the rest of the Western world, you had D&D coming alongside first as a rare import, than there was local variants from people who learnt RPGs and either loved D&D but wanted their version, or disagreed with D&D, before the TSR/WoTC arrived with the product.
Quote from: gleichman;651514It was real enough, although you'll never see it from where you've taken yourself.
BTW, I was trying for a purple prose award because otherwise it would have just being a boring repeat of what's already been written. I hope I won.
What is purple prose?
Quote from: Bill;651520What is purple prose?
Overnarrated writing.
Quote from: Bill;651520What is purple prose?
"In literary criticism, purple prose is written prose that is so extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw excessive attention to itself. Purple prose is sensually evocative beyond the requirements of its context. It may also employ certain rhetorical effects such as exaggerated sentiment or pathos in an attempt to manipulate a reader's response."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_prose
I'm actually quite prone to it I'm afraid, it's very fun. Bloody Stupid Johnston is going to be rather upset to find out that of the 262 page book he ordered, 249 pages are... oh wait. Maybe I'm thinking of something else. Oh well, never mind.
I've never had any problem with my groups trying new stuff.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651518Of course, but even by his usual drunken Irishman style
Oi! We're noted for being charming, witty, laid back and occasionally horribly violent, not procrastinating about the morals of relativity.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651518I somewhat think that this lack of system experimentation is more of an American thing, where D&D always held strongest stronghold. In the rest of the Western world, you had D&D coming alongside first as a rare import, than there was local variants from people who learnt RPGs and either loved D&D but wanted their version, or disagreed with D&D, before the TSR/WoTC arrived with the product.
Funny, now that you mention it I have noticed a trace of this, but not from direct experience.
Perhaps I'm biased though. I did prefer the U.K.'s gaming culture in general, and I say that as someone who dislikes a lot of other U.K. things :p
Quote from: Rincewind1;651518I somewhat think that this lack of system experimentation is more of an American thing, where D&D always held strongest stronghold.
Nah.
In the 70s and 80s there was a rush of experimentation and to some degree it continued even into the 90s. It really didn't end until designers could jump on the OGL bandwagon and make more money.
Also so much of that experimentation turned out so poorly that people in general gave up on it and we have today's accepted idea that 'all systems suck' and there's nothing to do about it. May as well play OD&D.
And lastly, many people became lazy or started that way.
In combination these factors effectively killed experimentation in RPG design (and thus groups) except for stuff like the Forge. Everything else is just old stuff warmed over (like FATE and Dark Heresy).
Now this may or may not be more impactful in the States, it is interesting for example that most of the people who picked up a copy of my homegrown rules (that aren't members of my groups) are from other countries.
Quote from: The Traveller;651526Oi! We're noted for being charming, witty, laid back and occasionally horribly violent, not procrastinating about the morals of relativity.
Well, I can't blame everything on Russians, Germans or Brits, can I? At least when they want to portray an Irishman in Sopranos, they get a legitimate one. I laughed my ass off the accent of the actress playing the Polish maid.
Quote from: Vegetable Protein;651535Funny, now that you mention it I have noticed a trace of this, but not from direct experience.
Perhaps I'm biased though. I did prefer the U.K.'s gaming culture in general, and I say that as someone who dislikes a lot of other U.K. things :p
I think it has more to do with the notion that when RPGs arrived in Europe, a lot of them did at the same time.
Quote from: gleichman;651537Nah.
In the 70s and 80s there was a rush of experimentation and to some degree it continued even into the 90s. It really didn't end until designers could jump on the OGL bandwagon and make more money.
Also so much of that experimentation turned out so poorly that people in general gave up on it and we have today's accepted idea that 'all systems suck' and there's nothing to do about it. May as well play OD&D.
And lastly, many people became lazy or started that way.
In combination these factors effectively killed experimentation in RPG design (and thus groups) except for stuff like the Forge. Everything else is just old stuff warmed over (like FATE and Dark Heresy).
Now this may or may not be more impactful in the States, it is interesting for example that most of the people who picked up a copy of my homegrown rules (that aren't members of my groups) are from other countries.
I'll be damned, and for some part, agree with you, minus drop the condescension and the usual thingsidontlike.jpg.
Part of the problem is, though, that we also have designers to blame. Rather than try and refine their systems, they usually tried to reinvent the engine that drove their games to work.
Quote from: Bill;651520What is purple prose?
Writing that gives you a bloodflood in your lower helmet.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651545
I think it has more to do with the notion that when RPGs arrived in Europe, a lot of them did at the same time.
Very true.
I remember discovering rpgs by wandering into the original Game Centre shop, just off of London's Oxford Street around 1979 or so. It was a very small store, but the number of different games on display would put a number of today's larger games stores (those few that exist) to shame. D&D was just one among many, albeit with a large following.
I bought T&T because it was cheaper (I was skint then) and because of the solos (I could learn the game easily before I tried it out on my mates). I don't think D&D achieved quite the dominance in Europe that it appears to have in the US.
Quote from: gleichman;651537... It really didn't end until designers could jump on the OGL bandwagon and make more money... In combination these factors effectively killed experimentation in RPG design (and thus groups)...
So Dancey's master plan of making D20 so omnipresent and convenient that it became the default game for harried, scattered tabletop players bore fruit? Now that the D20-powered Pathfinder has quashed even D&D's brand power in pushing innovation wouldn't it just be more convenient to unite the tabletop hobby around its final and eternally free ruleset... dare I say, its "chess"? :p
Quote from: Vegetable Protein;651129But then I read a lot of stories out there in internet land that go like this: "I always wanted to try [game X], but no one wanted to give it a shot," or "No one around here wants to play anything but D&D."
One thing to keep in mind is that some of these complaints are coming from players who are unwilling to run something. So they're having difficulty convincing someone else to run the game they want to play.
The other thing to keep in mind is that most RPG systems represent a heavy investment of time by everyone involved. And that investment is only increased when the default mode of play is a lengthy campaign. (And for most people that is the default mode.)
I've found a much higher rate of success in pitching one-shots with pregenerated characters as a way of introducing new games. (Or you can skip the pregens in a system like OD&D where you can generate a character in 15 minutes or less.) It's a low commitment, so people jump onboard.
Once they play it and like it, demand for a larger campaign may (or may not) arise.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;651857One thing to keep in mind is that some of these complaints are coming from players who are unwilling to run something. So they're having difficulty convincing someone else to run the game they want to play.
The other thing to keep in mind is that most RPG systems represent a heavy investment of time by everyone involved. And that investment is only increased when the default mode of play is a lengthy campaign. (And for most people that is the default mode.)
I've found a much higher rate of success in pitching one-shots with pregenerated characters as a way of introducing new games. (Or you can skip the pregens in a system like OD&D where you can generate a character in 15 minutes or less.) It's a low commitment, so people jump onboard.
Once they play it and like it, demand for a larger campaign may (or may not) arise.
I completely agree. I always do this and have had very little problems getting people to try new stuff.
Also, answering to Spinachcat's post: here in Spain Red Box arrived in 1985, but it was not such a hit. Before it some people played RPGs, mostly AD&D, Trav and RQ, in English. In 1988 a new publisher (Joc Internacional) translated CoC, RQ 3 and MERP, and Orbital Designs translated Classic Traveller (1989), and that's where RPGs really took off. So, D&D has always been popular but not dominant, and here in Spain the groups who will only play one thing are really really rare.
Maybe it's not as hard as I think it is. I just tossed out the OD&D game we were running here after school, mainly due to the lack of time we have to play (about 75 minutes). We're running the Supers! rpg starting tomorrow. No one had a problem switching. At all. (Now to plot and scheme...hehehehe...)
Quote from: gleichman;651537Nah.
In the 70s and 80s there was a rush of experimentation and to some degree it continued even into the 90s. It really didn't end until designers could jump on the OGL bandwagon and make more money.
+1. One only needs to look at the output of Fantasy Games Unlimited, Pacesetter and Chaosium for evidence of this.
The OGL had its own share of experiments and creative works. Sure, there were lots of trite products and so on, but there were (and still are) gems for the discernible costumers. Etherscope (from Goodman Games), for one.
Quote from: Benoist;652604The OGL had its own share of experiments and creative works. Sure, there were lots of trite products and so on, but there were (and still are) gems for the discernible costumers. Etherscope (from Goodman Games), for one.
And yet it still never produced the truly universal , non-Star Wars workhorse space opera ruleset I really needed :banghead:
Sorry, feeling frustrated about my sci fi rpg woes of late.
Quote from: Vegetable Protein;653409And yet it still never produced the truly universal , non-Star Wars workhorse space opera ruleset I really needed :banghead:
Sorry, feeling frustrated about my sci fi rpg woes of late.
Well, what are your main unmet requirements?
At this late date, tons of things are no longer exactly new under the gaming sun but can be found somewhere in the already existing pile of rules.
Quote from: Phillip;653418Well, what are your main unmet requirements?
At this late date, tons of things are no longer exactly new under the gaming sun but can be found somewhere in the already existing pile of rules.
Well I could have used a clean, unified, and fairly generic d20 ruleset for space opera without a media tie-in (that is to say either its own setting or practically no assumed setting).
D20 Modern/Future was messy, with pointless advanced classes and the expectation that you had to go in and figure out how to mesh the core book and the inconsistently designed supplement while also deleting stuff you didn't want.
I sometimes find myself faintly hoping for a Pathfinder Future, and I'm not really a fan of Paizo...
Quote from: Bill;651440I know many players that have irrational restrictions on what they will usually play.
Such as,
'If it uses a d20 I don't like it'
'No Feats, I don't like it'
'No skills? wtf!?'
'Why not just use Pathfinder?' (for every setting period)
'Couldn't recreate my exact character from previous version'
crap like that
You know, I consider myself lucky to be avoiding things like this now. It wasn't always so, and at this point I won't play with people like this, or have any objection to them deciding not to waste time at my table.
Quote from: Bill;651520What is purple prose?
I believe it's another term for RPG.net.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;654058You know, I consider myself lucky to be avoiding things like this now. It wasn't always so, and at this point I won't play with people like this, or have any objection to them deciding not to waste time at my table.
One annoying aspect of this is the group I was referencing is a great group....once the bickering over the ideal system for an upcoming campaign is done.
Once we are actually playing the game, all is well.
Quote from: Vegetable Protein;653409And yet it still never produced the truly universal , non-Star Wars workhorse space opera ruleset I really needed :banghead:
Sorry, feeling frustrated about my sci fi rpg woes of late.
Rifts Phase World? Stars Without Number? Silhouette?
Fun fact about Stars Without Number: He forgot the rules for surprise in combat despite referring to them elsewhere.
Other fun fact about Stars Without Number: Descending Armor class is a deal breaker for a surprising number of people (yes I'm contradicting my original post, but the circumstances were complicated so I don't think it counts).
Final fun fact: It's one of the most insightful things I've ever read on the subject of science fiction roleplaying. I love almost every page.
My groups are willing to try new things all the time. Of course, part of what helps is having a bigger pool of players rather than a single "group", it means that there will always be at least 3 or 4 players (out of a pool of about 15 steady people) who will be willing to try something new.
RPGPundit