Ignoring my original thread, here's what I think about Kyle's question:

I played D&D with a lot of people of average or lower intelligence when I was growing up. I also played with a lot of brilliant people.

Often those people were at the same table, and it was OK.

The less intelligent players tended to play fighting classes. It was pretty easy: "See monster, hit monster", to paraphrase Mickey Mantle. Somewhere a person I respect characterizes saying "I hit him with my sword" as lame gamer behavior and extols us to show more creativity. Sometimes that's all you can or want to think of doing though.

The more intelligent players tended to play magic-users and thieves.

Everyone had a role. Everyone contributed ideas. The smart people contributed more good ones than the less smart ones, but we all had good ones sometimes, and we all loved playing D&D together, and imagining this weird stuff together.

Modern games are increasingly asking players to think in more complex ways about their decisions in play as part of game strategizing. Most significantly in D&D3 and 4, but you see this in lots of Forge designs, in games where there are 'moves' like Burning Wheel or Weapons of the Gods or Iron Heroes, etc.

Now, it could be that that stuff will just fit right in, fine. The less intelligent guys will use fewer moves and settle on a few favorite combos, accepting help from other players when the party really needs it.

Or it could be that video games mean that everyone knows how to do this stuff now and I'm just being an old fogey. I don't know enough about video games to know, actually.

But it could also be that we're raising the barrier to entry another notch.

I for one would much rather be part of a hobby which is more universally accessible. I don't really like scenes where the smart people segment themselves off to discuss the things they like very much. To each their own though.


P.S. Kyle, it's a great topic, but it almost always starts piefights when you introduce a topic by referring to a thread on another board. Would've done better to just pose the question.

Quote from: HaffrungWe play RPGs to share an imaginary adventure, roll some dice, and drink some beer. When we want to give the analytical parts of our minds a work-out, we play euros.

Which is almost the opposite in our group -- the boardgames are the "kick back and get sloshed" pasttime while the roleplaying is the more "intense" experience.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianTo answer your question, I don't think that mainstream RPG design should be intentionally dumbed down, but I do think that it should be simplified. The average person can learn the ins and outs of complex systems like D&D 3.5, but the design *does* set up barriers to that. I think that it was a deliberate design decision in order to please the grognard crowd and build in "buy in" factor (if the system is simple, then why buy tons of add-on books?). In the short term it makes business sense to keep the current crop of players happy and hooked on the "game with a game", but in the long term I suspect that it has hampered the growth of new players.

I don't know TGA, I have had this particular discussion before years ago and I always wonder about that mysterious bevy of "new players" just waiting to play RPGs as soon as the industry writes the perfect rules-light game. Over the history of RPGs, there have been tons of systems out there, including a couple painfully simple ones with pretty good exposure, such as Basic D&D.

The extreme success of WoW tells us that people are VERY interested in the concepts that D&D brings to the table. WoW involves its players in hack and slay, sword and sorcery style adventures, as does D&D. WoW involves dozens of pretty complicated character builds, as does D&D. WoW is big on mastery of certain techniques and optimization, as is D&D.

WoW is simpler than D&D to get into for the average player, but WoW is certainly not rules-light. Look at the various guides available for sale and on the web. Look at the endless discussion of DPS and warlock builds and proper raid techniques. WoW is as simple, or complex, as the player wants it to be... but that is no different than tabletop RPGs. I can play Rolemaster, or TWERPS if I am interested enough to look (like I am to figure out how my shaman can kick a hunter's behind).

Frankly, I think RPGs have a big barrier to entry that has little to do with the complexity of the rules used and it is the fact that the concept of roleplaying does not appeal to most people. Yes, I know roleplaying is a natural activity and that we do it as children. I know that many training programs use roleplaying. Still, when it comes to sitting around a table with a group of other people, talking in character, making up character backgrounds, and being personally involved in a game of make believe, most people are uncomfortable.

My friend's brother in law is a prime example. This guy loves WoW and plays it quite a bit. He enjoys engaging in endless, silly discussions about the role of the paladin in a raid party, how he is looking to PvP for better gear, and the optimal build for his rogue. Really, he would be at home on an ENWorld thread about single round damage builds for D&D. Still, he thinks D&D is silly. Why? Because you are a group of 30-somethings, playing make believe with dice!! He would feel silly doing it, thus to him, it is silly.

My wife loves Wizardry and Heroes of Might and Magic. She has played D&D and finds it sort of enjoyable, but I could never get her to actually play in a regular game. Why? Because she is introverted and finds the act of talking in character and expressing her ideas in front of a group of people uncomfortable.

I think much of our supposed "new gamer" audience falls somewhere into that category, and so won't ever be gamers, regardless of how accessable you make the games. As soon as the make believe or heavy social aspect comes out of it (ala boardgames), it is ok.

Now what about those people that ARE interested? Are they put off by the crunch of our gateway game? At the end of the day, I think bringing in new players has more to do with initial exposure to a gaming group than it does with exposure to a particular rules set. Most of the newcomers I have introduced to the hobby, I have done through the HERO System which is pretty complicated in its own right. Someone helps them make their character, someone else helps them with the terminology when it comes to combat. I don't see why this experience wouldn't be the same with regards to introducing someone to D&D.

My opinion only... thanks for the discussion,

Quote from: cmagounI don't know TGA, I have had this particular discussion before years ago and I always wonder about that mysterious bevy of "new players" just waiting to play RPGs as soon as the industry writes the perfect rules-light game. Over the history of RPGs, there have been tons of systems out there, including a couple painfully simple ones with pretty good exposure, such as Basic D&D.

Great points, Chris.  I am not above admitting to the possibility that the fact that I personally enjoy a certain type of game may impact my perception of what a good gateway game would be.  As you point out, there have been plenty of attempts to do lighter "starter" games, but 3.5 with all of its crunch still rules the roost.  And as for the great untapped audience that may be out there, again you may be right that it is a myth and that there aren't a lot more people who would like to pretend to be an Elf princess as a hobby.  I sure hope not, but your points are convincing.

Still, I am going to defend my preference, even if it is a matter of complete subjectivity.  I don't particularly like character optimization or any of the other "games within a game".  That's the function that boardgames play in my freetime.  And I suspect that there are a lot of gamers, average intelligence or not, who feel the same way.

So, that means that you all have to play my way, right? :haw:


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianSo, that means that you all have to play my way, right? :haw:
TGA

If there's beer, I am All-In!

Quote from: cmagounIf there's beer, I am All-In!

All can be arranged, my friend...


TGA

Quote from: SosthenesIn exactly that order, Doc?

Order is for libraries.

Good lord, Cali, lots of stuff on your mind these past 48 hours, what?

I agree on the meta-gaming for competence part. Actually, replace "intelligence" with "competence" throughout. Even the dullest knife in the drawer can play core books 3.x, given some friendly help. But even the sharpest one may not wish to study for exams outside of exam situations. It gets especially weird when the exam in question is not a character build but a story generated as though it were one.

I WANT RPGs to be a game where you have to have REAL intelligence to play, not the Autistic-talent of being able to crunch countless numbers like a rain-man and obsessively memorize endless lists of abilities and rules modifications, which is what far too many autistic-nerds mistake for intelligence.

You aren't "Intelligent" for being such a waste of space that you can memorize all of 3600 feats or "charms" or whatever; or because you are able to play around with little numbers so that you end up breaking a campaign. That's not intelligence, again, that's autism.

RPGPundit

...or a really sharp memory.

Nerds aren't as autistic as they'd like to be.

Having said that: I'm an excellent driver.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou aren't "Intelligent" for being such a waste of space that you can memorize all of 3600 feats or "charms" or whatever; or because you are able to play around with little numbers so that you end up breaking a campaign. That's not intelligence, again, that's autism.

Fucking hell, Pundit, that's not exactly very far off Uncle Ron's brain damage trope, is it?

Seriously, whatever-your-actual-name-is, you're evidently not a stupid guy, and I've seen you say some very smart things, but you've made a proper ass of yourself today, and if there is one thing that really riles me it's people who rail against exactly the kind of behaviour that they love to display themselves.

If you don't fucking like someone doing it to you, don't do it yourself. It's a damn easy thing to get your head round. Get a grip!

- Q

Quote from: QuireFucking hell, Pundit, that's not exactly very far off Uncle Ron's brain damage trope, is it?

Seriously, whatever-your-actual-name-is, you're evidently not a stupid guy, and I've seen you say some very smart things, but you've made a proper ass of yourself today, and if there is one thing that really riles me it's people who rail against exactly the kind of behaviour that they love to display themselves.

If you don't fucking like someone doing it to you, don't do it yourself. It's a damn easy thing to get your head round. Get a grip!

- Q

Well, except of course that there really is (apparently) a strong prevalence of people with low-grade autism (aspergers) in the gaming hobby.

Though of course, I didn't mean LITERAL autism the way Ron claims he meant LITERAL brain damage. What I did mean is that in the gaming "community" (and the bigger "nerd community" in general) there's this belief that being able to know a whole shitload of (essentially memorized) trivia makes you "intelligent", just like they believe that reading a metric fuckload of cheap b-grade licensed novels makes you "well read".

They're the kind of things that promote lawncrappers and scare away normal people.

RPGPundit

That's a splendid retrograde qualification Pundit, and despite a lack of extant contrition I'll take it - based on the fact you haven't flown off the handle - as a step down from the position in extremis of your previous post. That was very nearly a thank you on my part.

That said... Classifying autism and aspergers in such a way is still at the very best outrageous. The autistic (polictically incorrectly idiot) savant is an _exceptional_ exception, not bloody Dustin Hoffman in a shitty suit.

I recognise the kind of compulsive rote learning you're talking about, and it does nothing for me, too. But lay off the people whose brains really do work differently from most everyone elses', yeah?

- Q

Yeah yeah, it was terribly politically incorrect for me to use "autistic" in place of... what, "obsessive-compulsive"? "Retarded"? pretty much any term is going to accidentally insult someone.  The point is I don't mean it LITERALLY, like old Ron did.

I just meant "stupid fuckers who mistake obsessive behaviour and the ability to minmax for intelligence".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYeah yeah, it was terribly politically incorrect for me to use "autistic" in place of... what, "obsessive-compulsive"? "Retarded"? pretty much any term is going to accidentally insult someone.  The point is I don't mean it LITERALLY, like old Ron did.

I could argue the toss with you all night, Pundit. Hell, anyone with half a brain could.

You weren't being politically incorrect, and don't mistake me for a bleeding heart, me lad. You stepped right over a line that you yourself have defended a bazillionth times, and that kind of behaviour is pure steaming bullshit. If you don't like it, don't do it.

Do you realise that it is acceptable, without losing face - I mean, surely you do actually have the emotional intelligence to realise that it's okay to say "yeah, sorry d00d, I FUBARed that one, _this_ is what I meant" and actually say what you actually meant and not have to fucking rationalize with post-conditional LITERAL this and LITERAL that? Face is not about never putting a foot down wrong.

Quote from: RPGPunditI just meant "stupid fuckers who mistake obsessive behaviour and the ability to minmax for intelligence".

Exactly. You could have put it just like that in the first place. +FWIW, I absolutely agree with you.

Seriously, whatever-your-real-name-is, you're a smart guy, but if I knew you in the real world, I'm damn sure I'd want to give you the odd slap. :pundit:

- Q