Amazing post! Thanks for sharing.

Quote from: finarvyn;721192This seems to be a well-kept secret. I've mostly played OD&D over the past few decades, but recently have taken an interest in some newer editions. I find that in the "good old days" we could explore a decent-sized dungeon in a day, but in newer editions we get through 3-4 encounters tops.

I used the old MB board game "HeroQuest" as an RPG tutorial for some new players a few years back. This game has a pre-set order of initiative and we found this to be really great because it gave the players the chance to set up some strategy. "Okay, the dwarf opens the door, the barbarian enters the room, and the mage is ready with spells."

My only problem with side-based is that the players have to determine who goes in which order. I'd rather base it on dexterity or something like that, and then once the order is fixed let them play from there.

This is why I ditched skill systems in my OD&D. When I tried to install one, I found my players spent the whole time trying to decide what they could attempt and limiting themselves to what was on their list. Without a skill system they would tend to just try things and I could reply with "okay, make a strength check" or something like that. Lists killed creativity.

In fact, I took things a step farther. I give spell lists without details so when a player wants to cast a spell he has a general idea of what it does but can be creative. I'm pretty sure Warp Wood isn't intended to allow a druid to bend a tree to capture a foe, but I let my druid do it becasue he was clever.

Hitting your points:
-Agreed completely about speed. It's amazing that "does it run FAST?" doesn't come up more often when people are talking about game systems. I find that if the game runs twice as fast you can get three times as much stuff done as it's much easier for everyone to stay focused and not quote Monty Python if things are going at blazing speed.

-For initiative, my kids were a bit younger so you often had a bunch of people throwing out ideas at once. Often you had two kids coordinating and another wanting to do something separate. After giving them a bit of time to plan I wanted to get things moving FAST so I generally went in the order of nosiest first so that the noisy one would be quiet and let the others plan. For the quieter more efficient groups they came up with plans together so there was no need for a set order. Loved HeroQuest as a kid. Pretty easy if you don't split the party though.

-Agreed completely about things like that harming creativity. What I'm looking for is to make up lists of things that you can put on a character sheet that don't harm creativity. After all having things like "bag of holding" on your character sheet generally lead to a massive uptick of creativity. This is something I'm really turning over in my brain a lot these days as even ability checks can get annoying if the players think they can succeed on most anything they can tie to that ability if they have a high score and start using it as a blunt instrument.

QuoteI'm not using skills at all really. I am using backgrounds which act as a catch-all for doing things outside of class abilities. Many of them are things anyone can attempt but having the background means the character is just better at them.

That's what I'm doing for my Dwarf Fortress game with adults. I had them roll for a random Dwarf Fortress dwarf profession and that's it.

Quote from: estar;721202I found that if you are relentless in insisting in describing first, in natural terms, and rolling second. That the problem largely goes away even with certain mechanic heavy games like GURPS.

I think that should work well in general but with pure newbie kids who you want to push through the dungeon door within ten minutes getting them to the point where they can understand all that just takes too long, especially when you have to explain that, yes, they can use a sword more than once and that, no, they can't buy a tank.

I think OG once said that thief skills are an OK system but they're the D&D rule that Gygax wrote that's the easiest to misinterpret (or something along those lines), which I find is very much true. They work fine as an adjudication system (used them by the book just black box style so the players didn't know what I was using) and they worked beautifully but it's so easy for players and DMs to get the wrong idea about them or have thinking about them in the wrong way screw up play, so my ideal person D&D would probably have another type of skill system, but they're a hell of a lot better than juggling skill points across a list of skills as long as your arm or what have you (although thinking that over the CoC skills make you juggle skill points across a list as long as you arm and those always worked out better than 3.5ed skills, hmmmm...).

I did this a few years back with some non native English speakers as well, kids of various ages.  As most kids in developed or semideveloped countries have a videogame background, the concept of ability scores are not that hard to explain nor are the basic mechanics of the game.  We played C&C and the then new 4e, with C&C being better for theatre of the mind style, and 4e better for maps style.

If you do it correctly, the kids might even want to start reading the books (which some did)!

I have heard CoC is better for older students/adults.

Cheers

This flies in the face of my feelings about aspects in FATE. OR the Ladder for that matter.

I think this is how something like FATE should work, but doesn't or at least hasn't with my group as they are stuck in "What button lets me do what" mode from the character sheets of other games and too long playing D20/Feat-based games.

Other games (CoC?) may instil the same kind of play YMMV...

Quote from: Teazia;721479I did this a few years back with some non native English speakers as well, kids of various ages.  As most kids in developed or semideveloped countries have a videogame background, the concept of ability scores are not that hard to explain nor are the basic mechanics of the game.  We played C&C and the then new 4e, with C&C being better for theatre of the mind style, and 4e better for maps style.

If you do it correctly, the kids might even want to start reading the books (which some did)!

I have heard CoC is better for older students/adults.

Cheers

Yeah the kids who liked it the very most really wanted to dig into the rules and figure out what I was doing. That was a small minority but I guess they're the ones that I'd have tried to turn into DMs if I was still working there.

I think CoC could work well for older people, good thinking, I might try that with my adult classes. I just worry about keeping them focused as "here's a dungeon, go explore" it is a lot simpler. Any ideas for good CoC outlines for adults?

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;721487This flies in the face of my feelings about aspects in FATE. OR the Ladder for that matter.

I think this is how something like FATE should work, but doesn't or at least hasn't with my group as they are stuck in "What button lets me do what" mode from the character sheets of other games and too long playing D20/Feat-based games.

Other games (CoC?) may instil the same kind of play YMMV...

Which "this"? I've been rather verbose in this thread

For FATE, I don't think I'd try it with kids. Playing it with adults it seems that about 25% of people just can't wrap their heads around Aspects no matter how much you explain it and even if they play in a FATE campaign for a while they just end up not really engaging with the FATE point economy at all and trying to explain something as abstract as aspects to kids might be a bit hard as I want to be able to run a game without telling them ANY rules as that gets things off to a much faster start when I have limited time.

The only time I'd use FATE with kids would be with a very small group of very engaged kids as the crazy hijinks that make D&D fun tend to dry up if you have only one or two players and aspects are a good way of injecting crazy stuff into a game if it's not happening by itself.

As for the "what button lets me do what" I feel your pain there. My dream RPG would be designed around getting players out of that kind of thinking.

Quote from: Daztur;721229I think that should work well in general but with pure newbie kids who you want to push through the dungeon door within ten minutes getting them to the point where they can understand all that just takes too long, especially when you have to explain that, yes, they can use a sword more than once and that, no, they can't buy a tank.

You are right. With younger gamers many don't even know the tropes.

What I do is instruct them naturally as if I was standing there with them in the dungeon. This in addition to any instructions on mechanics. Seems to work perhaps too well as more than a few back out of dangerous situations in the game.

Quote from: Daztur;721229I think OG once said that thief skills are an OK system but they're the D&D rule that Gygax wrote that's the easiest to misinterpret (or something along those lines), which I find is very much true.

The crux of the problem if that you want to make a character better at things other than fighting or spell casting than other characters, you need some type of ability or skill system. There just no way around it.  

This is not an issue in the short run over the course of one or two campaigns using the same setting. But it will come up at some point if you stick with the same setting over multiple campaigns. A player or players will want to run characters that are focused on the non-combat aspect of the setting.

A referee could say that "No that not the kind of game I run." Effectively saying no. And that fine.

As for me I always been a kitchen sink referee and if the players has an honest desire to play a certain character type I will work to make it happen in my setting. If the player being a prima donna, I have worked with that as well.

Quote from: Daztur;721229but it's so easy for players and DMs to get the wrong idea about them or have thinking about them in the wrong way screw up play,

After playing and referee multiple system my opinion that anytime you stop focusing on being a character in a setting that when the problems results. Whether it is trying win an RPG as wargame, or trying to manipulate the "story", it doesn't matter. It is the focus on things other than roleplaying a character that causes problems.

Which is why it not an issue whether I play GURPS, or OD&D because to me they are just tools. Yeah there are tools like to use but the purpose that I them use for remains the same. That is either to roleplay an imagined character or to adjudicate the action of players playing imagined characters around the table.

I am hammering this point a bit because the only thing that I found that is the most universal in creating good games and solving gaming problems. (not interpersonal problems) That is get everybody focused on the roleplaying first and the mechanics second.

Mind you I am not claiming this is a magic bullet. The only claim I make is that less issues will result by focusing on the roleplaying first and the mechanics second. And a lot of your ten points work to keep the roleplaying in forefront which I feel is one reason (among others) that they been successful for you.

Great article, especially the part about "fast play."

And I think skills are one of the worst things to happen to D&D.  I assume my players' characters are as competent at general medieval living stuff as anybody living in the time... things like how to use a rope to tie up a horse, etc.  And if you want to do something, just say so.  If it seems unlikely, I may ask you why your character knows how to do that.  On the other hand, if you say "I'm a 4th level fighter, I've been fighting from horseback since I was a boy, I'm going to jump off my horse and onto his," go for it!

Quote from: Daztur;7210905. I'm Never Going Back to Individual Initiative I've fallen in love with side-based initiative. It not only speeds things up but makes the players think of themselves as a team, i.e. "what are we doing to do now guys, it our turn" rather than "it's my turn now, you guys wait while I decide what to do" which makes a massive amount of difference in actual play.

I agree, I'm a big fan of team based initiative. Better still if it is rolled each turn, so that quite often you find on side acting twice in a row. I admit that makes things very unpredictable and the fortunes of the battle can swing wildly.

One proviso, this works best with your other condition: Small Groups Are Best. Team initiative with large groups can make concentrated fire overwhelming.

I am pleased to read this. It reaffirms my faith that kids, and people in general, like a bit of fun in that "spacious realm of choices"-imagination land. Sociable, less structured play is catchy, which is good for RPGs, especially if a lot of the system mastery is off screen.

That and now I know a few more people to call upon for Japan and Korean music imports, mwa ha ha ha!

Outstanding post. I've had a similar experience while running Swords & Wizardry and Wushu for kids. For me, it gave some good insight into how I run games in general.

http://platonicsolid.blogspot.com/search/label/With%20Kids

Quote from: Soylent Green;721612One proviso, this works best with your other condition: Small Groups Are Best. Team initiative with large groups can make concentrated fire overwhelming.

For larger groups using side initiative, I'll often break it out by rough weapon length: Winning side spears go first. Losing side spears go next. Then winner swords, etc.

Very interesting OP.

Quote from: Daztur;721535For FATE, I don't think I'd try it with kids.

Adults only. They don't get FATE.

The "This" relates to doing stuff because the character would, or the situation suggests it rather than the numbers. People coming from places that use numbers to squeeze any and every opportunity out of a game session do this with FATE too. I think that's not the point of aspects, ladders, tags and compels per se. Or at least not that explicitly.

Quote from: Daztur;7210905. I'm Never Going Back to Individual Initiative I've fallen in love with side-based initiative. It not only speeds things up but makes the players think of themselves as a team, i.e. "what are we doing to do now guys, it our turn" rather than "it's my turn now, you guys wait while I decide what to do" which makes a massive amount of difference in actual play.

Who do you do this? How do people determine talking order, and action order?

Quote from: Mistwell;722884Who do you do this? How do people determine talking order, and action order?

What I mostly do with kids is alternate between "you guys go" and "monsters go"  and have the kids form a plan together (decided against declaring actions and THEN rolling for initiative with kids, but like doing that with adults). If they work together they just all tell me together, if they're not so organized I just ask them randomly what they're doing one by one, often in the order of who seems to have already decided what they're doing or who is being noisy goes first.

If all of the players go and then all of the monsters go, it really doesn't matter that much which player goes first. It's MUCH more efficient than individual initiative in my experience since everyone gets engaged making a plan together rather than sitting waiting for their turn or if they're not so focused you can avoid having to wait while people decide what to do while having the people who already know what to do go first and the indecisive people go last, which also speeds things up.

This falls apart a bit with big groups of kids (is like herding cats with six kids). Which is why I don't like DMing for big groups. The amount the experience gets worse and the kids' style of dungeoncrawling changed from well oiled murder machine to Leroy Jenkins when I added a few more kids to the group was really shocking to me. Keep the groups small.

Quote from: Mistwell;722884Who do you do this? How do people determine talking order, and action order?

I have done group initiative in games before. It has it's advantages, but some players prefer it the other way. Basically let the players go as a group and they hash out who goes first, second, third, etc. It becomes more of a coordinated effort i find it also seems to speed things up. But it isn't for everyone.