Quote from: JohnnyWannabeYeah, I agree, and the players themselves are partially to blame for that. The hardcore players, in fact, are tightening an already tight niche market, making it more difficult for rookies to join in the fun. In today's world, someone interested in learning more about RPGs would turn to the internet. It's not like they can ask their neighbour, whose main hobby is fly fishing or model plane building.

Yes and the internet is becoming a very good source for information.  I do agree that the players are partially at fault for the situation with games today.

They want big, bulky games with plenty of crunch and as a result large complex games are created.
 

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeThe bulk of the people who post regularly on RPG sites are experienced veterans. Many criticize rules-lite games out of hand, and bark if there isn't a complex rule for any given situation. Then, they narf on about and argue over mechanics. They shamelessly shill and recommend their favourite game - whatever the hell it happens to be - without thinking about whether a new player could comprehend the overly complicated, anally retentive, rule set. Even worse, some rain scorn down on newbies who ask simple questions.
Why the hell would some newcomer subject themselves to this flagrant stupidity when they can go to a computer games store, pick up whatever they want, install it into their computer and play? We are fast-becoming a society where instant gratification isn't a want, it's a need (at least in the eyes of the consumer). If you want to attract these people to the hobby, then games should be simpler, not more complex.
Most of the guys (and girls) I know, who still play RPGs, never visit RPG sites and they prefer very mainstream material (D&D and the like) over games by small publishers. Small publishers, on the other hand, frequent RPG sites and are (possibly) influenced by all the waffle on the boards. As a result, they make more complex games that cater to hardcore gamers, even though hardcore gamers contradict themselves constantly.

Exactly and this is what this hobby needs to overcome.   Difficult, rules crunchy games with really high prices that puts the bar for new gamers to enter the hobby way too high.

Quote from: Blue DevilI do agree that the players are partially at fault for the situation with games today.

They want big, bulky games with plenty of crunch and as a result large complex games are created.

Apart from the fact that no one wants something "bulky", what's the problem? The players want it, they get it, capitalism at its best. Where's the "fault" in this?

Quote from: SosthenesApart from the fact that no one wants something "bulky", what's the problem? The players want it, they get it, capitalism at its best. Where's the "fault" in this?

Yeah, I'm not seeing a fault or a problem either. The players want it, they get it.

-clash

Quote from: SosthenesApart from the fact that no one wants something "bulky", what's the problem? The players want it, they get it, capitalism at its best. Where's the "fault" in this?

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough.  What I mean is the big bulky games that the gamers want and get (I am all for Capitalisim) are for people already in the hobby.

That's great and you are giving the people already in the hobby what they want, however it is setting the bar for the people interested in getting into the hobby too high.  They will look at some of these games, be confused and put the game down and walk away.

So four people come together and say that they want to try RPGs? I don't think that's statistically relevant. Most of the time, you have gaming groups and new people join them. No need for introductory games there. I think that's the more likely situation right now, especially when you can quickly find games over the internet.

Apart from children, there isn't much introductory material for other games. Is there a "basic first-person shooter"? A beginner's MMORPG?

Quote from: Blue DevilOk, maybe I wasn't clear enough.  What I mean is the big bulky games that the gamers want and get (I am all for Capitalisim) are for people already in the hobby.

That's great and you are giving the people already in the hobby what they want, however it is setting the bar for the people interested in getting into the hobby too high.  They will look at some of these games, be confused and put the game down and walk away.

See, my experience, both as a retailer and a GM, says different. I introduced a LOT of newbies to RPGs through oWOD. Some might call that a light system but I would beg to differ. There is plenty of crunch and rules to go around, it is just spread through a lot of fluff.

My experience has shown that new GMs biggest problem isn't the player who hunts down obscure rules, it is having to improvise some rule that does not come back to bite him. Light systems tend to be all about improv. My Iridium Lite is less so but there is still plenty to improv. I try to make it extensible. That is important, think about it. Not just I have a rule for every situation but  I have a resolution mechanic that can be applied across the board. The next difference would be light systems need to be intuitive in their rules where the heavier systems are more about having the rules written down. Mind, the heavy systems can be intuitive but in a different way. Light systems, you may not have a Applied Engineering skill but you should be able to extend from an intuitive understanding of the skill mechanic how such a skill would work. A heavy system should already have it written down (although IMHO, the same should apply to the heavy systems) making less work and less guess work for an inexperienced GM.

Again, just my take on it. I could be wrong.

Bill

Quote from: SosthenesApart from the fact that no one wants something "bulky", what's the problem? The players want it, they get it, capitalism at its best. Where's the "fault" in this?

There's nothing wrong with it. But check the title of the thread. It's not about catering to current players, it's about attracting new players. That's the conundrum publishers face - Do I create a game for today's player, or do I create something different in the hope of attracting new players? When it comes to the bottom line, the answer is pretty simple. You go with the sure thing and make stuff that the current market says it wants, rather than try to create a new market.

Clash's post, right after yours, says as much.

Quote from: SosthenesMost of the time, you have gaming groups and new people join them. No need for introductory games there. I think that's the more likely situation right now, especially when you can quickly find games over the internet.

That's true, that's why companies do next to nothing to attract new players. The onus is dumped on the players to do the recruiting for them. That is capitalism at its best.

Quote from: SosthenesApart from children, there isn't much introductory material for other games. Is there a "basic first-person shooter"? A beginner's MMORPG?

Apples and oranges. But, since you asked, and you are talking about gaming software . . . yes, there is gaming software designed specifically for children. It's nicely designed to hook them in so they graduate to the first-person shooter or MMORPG later in life.

Quote from: SosthenesSo four people come together and say that they want to try RPGs? I don't think that's statistically relevant. Most of the time, you have gaming groups and new people join them. No need for introductory games there. I think that's the more likely situation right now, especially when you can quickly find games over the internet.

Apart from children, there isn't much introductory material for other games. Is there a "basic first-person shooter"? A beginner's MMORPG?

Your last point touches why I am always torn on the idea of "basic RPGs", even if it is slightly erroneous (most vidgames are intentionally designed to allow one to play even the most complex game with little initial learning, in a way that TRPGs can't easily match.  Civilization 4 is an excellent example of what I'm talking about).

For one thing, is that it's inherently patronizing, and I think people tend to spot when they're being treated like idiots, especially when they are young.  Kids hate being treated like kids.  Adults hate being treated like kids even more.  Push a dumbed down version of a game on someone, and what they're going to hear is "You're too stupid to play OUR game, here, you get this special stupid-people version instead".  And that sense of disrespect comes across loud and clear whenever this subject comes up for discussion amongst hardcore RPG players.

There's also a good chance that the player is going to feel gypped, like he got sold a fake, when he should've just bought the real game.  The fact that the more recent attempts by Wizards at selling a "Basic Game" were literally nothing more than con demos is a fantastic example.

However, we do have one historical example where it did work, and work spectacularly, and that's the old Basic Set D&D.  As much as I hate hearing the trolls on RPGnet go on about how it's so much better than every D&D ever, and blah blah blah, the fact that they're there says to me that even now it's had sometihng of a lasting, memorable effect on the player base.  

Sure a lot of the kids that picked it up maybe played it for a while, and then just moved on to other things, like my old boss, who played when he was in junior high and high school, but hasn't touched the games in almost 20 years.

But there's always going to be a percentage that stick around, and in the meantime the non-permanent players are still a sale, which is why D&D was the bigest thing since sliced bread in the 80s.

I think what sold box sets wasn't that they were "basic" or "easy" or "beginners versions."

It's that they were a game-in-a-box.  You got your manuals, your dice, a couple figures, some crayons, character sheets, maps...  really, you had everything you needed in one package.  You could literally open that fucker up on the table and play.

I think that's their strong point.

Quote from: RedFoxI think what sold box sets wasn't that they were "basic" or "easy" or "beginners versions."

It's that they were a game-in-a-box.  You got your manuals, your dice, a couple figures, some crayons, character sheets, maps...  really, you had everything you needed in one package.  You could literally open that fucker up on the table and play.

I think that's their strong point.

Absoloutely. My first contact with rpg's was the Moldvay edition Basic Set, complete with The Keep on the Borderlands module. Between that and the advice on dungeon creation it was simplicity itself to start a game up, even at nine years old with no one to show me the ropes.

I'd love to see something like this again. J Arcane was spot on with his observation on recent efforts, which were little more than glorified demos. The game needs to be self-contained, yet written in such a way that makes the player hungry for more, and that's exactly what the old Basic set did.

Quote from: RedFoxI think what sold box sets wasn't that they were "basic" or "easy" or "beginners versions."

It's that they were a game-in-a-box.  You got your manuals, your dice, a couple figures, some crayons, character sheets, maps...  really, you had everything you needed in one package.  You could literally open that fucker up on the table and play.

I think that's their strong point.

That's definitely an important aspect as well.

Sure, right now I can go to Barnes & Noble and buy myself a the 3-book core for D&D.  Or I pick up Vampire, whch is another one I've sen actually rear it's head in mainstream stores.

Now I have to find some dice.  Where the fuck am I supposed to find all those funky dice?  B&N doesn't sell 'em.  As a total newb picking that book up off the shelf, I likely have no idea what a d20 is, nor have I ever seen one in my life.  

It's one of the reasons I'm big on D6-based systems.  Everyone has D6s, or knows where to find them.  Most people have a few board games lying around on a shelf they can loot for dice.  When I first got into things, the first dice I ever used were ones I cannibalized from a copy of Risk.  

Self containment, or at the very least making the needed materials easy to find, is pretty important.

Indeed, but as Drew points out it's not just physical materials.  Box sets are self-contained games.  They're not demos.  They're not "dumbed down" versions.  You buy the basic set, you don't ever need anything else.

The basic set gives you...  wonder of wonders, the basics.  All those gooby extras, the fur lining, power windows, leather seats, chrome bumpers, amped up stereo with subwoofer...  that's all what you get after you figure out how to drive using dad's volvo.

If you want.  Or you could be economical and stick with the version that "just drives."  

Yes, I love well-designed boxed sets.  Personally, I had heard about RPGs because my best friend Brian's older brother played D&D.  However, I never had a group to play in myself.  I eventually got the D&D Basic Set and got my friends to play.  

I think the key is designing a game that someone can actually pick up, understand, and play with his friends.  I think that the D&D Basic Set fulfilled that.  Don't make something that's dumbed down or condescending in order to introduce people to real play -- make a fun game.  For example, Settlers of Catan and Carcassone are excellent games that new people can easily play and get into just from the box.  There are more complex boardgames that people are unlikely to play without more boardgaming experience.  However, this doesn't make Carcassone dismissable as not a real game.

Quote from: RedFoxIt's that they were a game-in-a-box.  You got your manuals, your dice, a couple figures, some crayons, character sheets, maps...  really, you had everything you needed in one package.  You could literally open that fucker up on the table and play.

I think that's their strong point.

Right and I mentioned this before.

Everything being in the box where all you have to do is read the instructions and go and not wonder what you are missing/what else you need to play really was helpful.

I have had box sets and I really loved them and I have used box set games to teach people how to game.