Lancer asked an interesting question in another thread.

He (or she) said "what's the harm in trying new things?"

Well, let's take an example.  Let's imagine I'm in a group that only plays White Wolf WoD games, Vampire, Werewolf, Mummy, whatever.  We'll play anything as long as it's WoD.  We haven't switched to NWoD though.

Now, what would be the harm of us trying something new?  Maybe NWoD, which isn't a huge leap, maybe D&D or Shadowrun or whatever?  What's the harm?

Well, what if we're already having great gaming?  What if we have a blast in our game every week?  And what if we only get to game once a week, maybe less?

The harm is that we spend time learning a new ruleset, we spend time not playing games we enjoy, and the odds are fairly good that most new stuff we try we won't get the same fun from.  After all, we're already having a ton of fun.  The harm is that overall we reduce how much fun we're having, by wasting potential fun time on unfun stuff.

It's like eating out in Naples.  There's a pizzeria called Da Michele, if you know the town you eat there every night.  As a young seminarian said to me once*, sometimes you eat somewhere else to try something new, but every time you regret passing up an occasion to be at Da Michele because it does what it does so well.

Trying new things makes sense if you enjoy the new for being new, or if you're not having a blast with your current game.  If you are having a blast with your current game, and have limited time in which to game, I'd argue that trying new things is probably irrational behaviour.  That's why many people don't do it, it's not close-mindedness (always, sometimes it is obviously), it's rational choice.


*It's so rare I get to say things like that.

I like that, and I tend to agree.  Trying new things is for when the group is in the mood to try new things.

We always go back to C&C, for instance, because we have the most fun playing it, and all the warm fuzzies associated with it.

I love Naples. I shall check out that place next time around.

Otherwise, nope, don't agree one little bit.

"Trying out something new" covers a very wide spectrum, of which "secluding ourselves in a monastery on the remote plains of Kashmir for one whole gameless month with nothing but water, bread, and Rolemaster Standard System for company, only to find out in the end it's not fur us, and WTF were we ever thinking in the first place" is but one extreme pole.

A more likely case is one guy coming across some new game in the store that vaguely catches his fancy, schlepping it home, reading it, then realizing either it's worth a pitch to the others or not. Whatever the outcome, no gaming group will have been harmed in the process.

Even if the game turns out to be nonpitchable, hence unplayed, merely reading it (assuming it's good in its own right, and perhaps even if it's significantly bad) will give you a clearer sense of why you prefer that other game your group is actually playing.

I have a much, much better sense of why I like AD&D 1E after I discovered rpg.net and learned about a ton of other games.

Acquiring knowledge of gaming history, of the paradigms that are out there and their transformation over the decade, is distinctly different from chasing after novelty for novelty's sake.

It's a cost/benefit analysis: the cost is the amount of time and money you'll spend trying the new thing, while the benefit is the increased enjoyment you'll get out of that thing. By that standard, the amount of time you spend trying new things should be proportionate to the projected increase in enjoyment you might experience; that's as close to logical you're likely to get.

My group played nothing but Shadowrun from 1989 until 2006 or so, with the exception of a break here or there to play Earthdawn. All of us started out playing AD&D, so Shadowrun was "something new" for us. We tried it. It was 17 years before anyone felt like playing anything else, and that was only the GM. [The players would gleefully play nothing but Shadowrun and occasional Earthdawn until our deaths, I suspect.] For the last couple of years, we've played a blend of D&D, d20 Modern, Shadowrun, and Earthdawn [I don't think I'm missing anything in there] with multiple "homebrew" settings for D&D and d20: that's new to us, and we've really enjoyed it.

I think often times, people underestimate the stimulating effect of change, and overestimate the cost of trying something different. If you're trying to be logical about it - using a sort of cost/benefit analysis - this kind of error is critical, and will prevent you from achieving optimal gaming. But if you're already having fun, the harm in not having more fun, really, is minimal, if only because you won't know what you're missing.

Have you and Mr. Analytical been taking inflexibility pills recently, Balbinus?  

While I agree with your overall construction, it's when you come to the overall conclusion that it is a non-rational behaviour that I have to disagree and express my disappointment at your lack of broader vision (something you have never demonstrated before).

I think the situation exists where bringing a new game into a group is a net-loss in time and fun. But that is part of a broad spectrum of situations that includes many times when it is a net-gain.  

I also really don't buy the system-learning cost argument.  How long does it take to learn a new system?  You tend to have the super rules geeks, who can absorb a new system at its base quite quickly.  And then you have the people who never learn the system.  And then you have the wide range in the middle, most of whom can pick up the basics through play in a session or two.

Quote from: EngineIt's a cost/benefit analysis: the cost is the amount of time and money you'll spend trying the new thing, while the benefit is the increased enjoyment you'll get out of that thing. By that standard, the amount of time you spend trying new things should be proportionate to the projected increase in enjoyment you might experience; that's as close to logical you're likely to get.

I think often times, people underestimate the stimulating effect of change, and overestimate the cost of trying something different. If you're trying to be logical about it - using a sort of cost/benefit analysis - this kind of error is critical, and will prevent you from achieving optimal gaming. But if you're already having fun, the harm in not having more fun, really, is minimal, if only because you won't know what you're missing.

YES!  For the win.  Thread closed.

The fear in trying new things.

I spent years as part of a group that wouldn't play the same game for two consecutive months. In hindsight, I consider this to have been one of the most tepid periods of my gaming existence. But then, I attribute that in part to the value of the games played. The novelty of newness couldn't make up for how good the games aren't.

On the other hand, I do think many games that have a high cost of learning are really worth it. I think it took me several sessions to really groove to SotC, but now that I am, I'm happy I did.

I think the biggest problem behind trying new things is Sturgeons Law. 90% of games are crap, or at best, provide limited novelty. As such, a game really has to make a meaningful effort to demonstrate it's not crap up front or no, it's really not worth the risk of consuming one of our precious and few gaming time slots.

Quote from: BalbinusTrying new things makes sense if you enjoy the new for being new, or if you're not having a blast with your current game.  If you are having a blast with your current game, and have limited time in which to game, I'd argue that trying new things is probably irrational behaviour.  That's why many people don't do it, it's not close-mindedness (always, sometimes it is obviously), it's rational choice.

I don't enjoy the new simply for being new, and I have had a blast with my current and prior games.  By definition, I have limited time in which to game.  (I have a wife and son, though I have two bi-weekly campaigns, one monthly, and one irregular - plus a few one-offs and conventions.)  Nevertheless, I do get enjoyment out of playing new games, which I do pretty regularly.  

By the same token, I also regularly try out new restaurants, even though there are some excellent restaurants within a close walk of me.  Even if I don't think that the food is clearly better than my local stops, I still enjoy it for what it is, and I think having that variety and perspective improves my enjoyment of both local stops and new restaurants.  

Quote from: walkerpYES!  For the win.  Thread closed.

While I disagree with Balbinus also, this really bugs me -- as much or moreso as if you declared your own "victory" over someone else.  You already expressed your disagreement, leave off the patting on the back about how your side is "winning" in your own mind.

I'd say it was a risk versus reward situation as well.

Personally, I enjoy trying new things (within reasonable limits) and I like being aware of all my options, but that's my choice. If others don't want to, shrug - that's their choice.

Letting folks know their are other choices is fine as long as it occasional and casual. "Hey, I saw a movie you might like." But many folks won't let it go or are insistent, indignant, or angry, moving themselves from the "buddy" category to the "complete penis" category.

And everytime I've run across someone in the latter category, they've also been hypocrites as well. They don't sample all choices available to them. Ask them, for example, if they've tried gay sex just in case it might work out "better" for them and watch 'em sputter.

Seanchai

I like trying new games but it can be taken to extremes because it can mean constantly not playing games that I already know that I like.  
 
For example, I had one GM that would want to alter the rules or bring in new games, constantly looking for "realistic" games.  It went like this:
 
Session 1: spend whole session learning rules and rolling up characters.
Session 2: Play a slow session as everything is new, gm has to look up or decide on a bunch of things.
Session 3: See session 1, but with new system.
 
I like lots of games but I have no problem skipping 90% of the games out there.  If I look at a character sheet and it's obvious that it's not going to be my cup of tea, I'm not going to waste time or money making absolutely certain that it's not my cup of tea.

Yeah, constantly trying new things and playing new games just for the sake of newness doesn't sound very fun to me either.

Yeah, we've done periods like that. [It's one of the things that turned us toward the d20 system, because rules existed to apply it from stone age to space age...even if those rules aren't necessary what we'd like.] You lose all the things that are great about campaigns, in exchange for trying 50 new things. If you've the leisure, it's a good idea, because you might find something in that 50 you like, but it can be frustrating for everyone; we've actually lost players from it, I think.

As always, neither extreme seems universally appealing; for the majority of us, a healthy moderation is the best policy, trying new things every so often, but continuing your existing campaigns [or running new things in-between campaigns of your old system] and making certain that there's something good about the things you try seems wise, as well. If you're just randomly grabbing a new game once a week to play - and some groups do that, and have fun doing it - that's going to irritate the hell out of most of us; some sort of preselection process is I find generally best.

I wonder how many people who advocate trying new RPG systems are as adventurous in other aspects of their lives. How many stray from SF/Fantasy novels into the latest Booker prize nominees, or 19th century history? How many take the effort to learn to prepare Thai or Indian food? How many watch foreign films, or seek out obscure musical genres?

No doubt some like to seek out novelty in lots of different ways. But I suspect that many are just voracious system and setting wonks who are frustrated that their friends won't come along for the ride.

Quote from: HaffrungI wonder how many people who advocate trying new RPG systems are as adventurous in other aspects of their lives. How many stray from SF/Fantasy novels into the latest Booker prize nominees, or 19th century history? How many take the effort to learn to prepare Thai or Indian food? How many watch foreign films, or seek out obscure musical genres?

I have no available statistics for you, but I can tell you that I both advocate trying new games, and trying new other-things. I've even been known to try new things myself, sometimes on purpose; many of the new things I try very quickly become my old things, so much do I enjoy them.

I'm probably more adventurous with "other things" than I am with game systems. Well, I played nothing but Shadowrun for 17 years, so I suppose I'd have to be.