TheRPGSite

Hey all,

I started following this guy's blog, in which he writes about his quite old-school D&D campaign, and you can find many amazing ideas for places, NPCs and magic items, and really interesting analysis on RPGs. Now, I wanted to bring to your attention this post on why, though he likes many indie games, he won't be able to play them with his crew (made of porn actresses and actors, as he works in the adult industry):

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-much-do-you-want-to-be-wizard_15.html?zx=86a9e38d1461f582

I specially liked this part:

Quote from: Zak Sabbath in his blogIn the gaming community, I would guess that 90% of people who have that particular kind of faith in their own on-the-spot creativity or who are unselfconscious and faithful enough not to worry or who are always sure their imagination is more fun than their xbox are GMs or prime GM-material.

Basically, these are the people who run the games, own the books, and write the blogs. These are the people who like to think about the game when they aren't playing the game and who know who Kevin Siembieda and Ookla the Mok are.

And, if you haven't noticed by now, this blog is largely about how you can play and have lots of fun with only one or two of those people at the table and have the rest of the people just be players.

At least, you can play D&D that way.

Also I agree on his final conclusion on the differences between indie games and D&D games, regarding the level of involvement needed from the players.

Seriously, I like his blog.

Ok, seriously, i don't get your point...
D&D is a RPG that uses common fantasy tropes?
A no-brainer with respect to "creativeness" that's needed to have one's character survive an adventure?

Or what is this thread about?

Definitely true, IMO.  Hell, I've been gaming for 8 or so years now, I'm the GM for my group, and some indie RPGs still make me go "huh"?  Sorcerer is especially guilty of this.  I don't know why, but I read through the PDF out of curiosity going "This is supposed to be fun?"  It just doesn't click with me -- I don't understand how thematic role-playing is fun if analyzing philosophical outlooks about vague concepts is part of the exercise.  I'm not at the table for therapy or academic reasons, I'm there to kill shit and do cool shit and who gives a damn if any "higher" concepts make their way to the table.

D&D, though, I got it from day one.  You make a character, you are responsible for that character, and you go on adventures and explore ruins and dungeons.  It's rewarding because the act itself is fun, not because you have some ulterior motive you're trying to fulfill, and you really don't need a long ass essay to prove whether something is "fun."  It either is, or it isn't.  Why that's such a hard concept for some people (Edwards) to grasp, I'll never know.  Yes, in sports and other games there is a winning and a losing side.  But play for most people at the recreational levels isn't about winning, it's about having fun and being social.  I really don't understand why pointless fun for the sake of fun is a problem for some people.

Read the post. It's quite good, thanks for posting the link.

Quote from: Phantom Black;355897Ok, seriously, i don't get your point...
D&D is a RPG that uses common fantasy tropes?
A no-brainer with respect to "creativeness" that's needed to have one's character survive an adventure?

Or what is this thread about?

No.

This thread is about how, for many people, playing D&D is a more easy and rewarding experience, as they can pick their level of attention and involvement and escalate it from there. A shy player may be a perfectly valid participant in a D&D game, while it would have a tougher time in an indie game which requires a higher level of authorship on every player (like, say Universalis).

On that, I agree. I also agree that D&D is articulated around an easy to grasp concept, which is more newbie-friendly.

Quote from: Peregrin;355901Definitely true, IMO.  Hell, I've been gaming for 8 or so years now, I'm the GM for my group, and some indie RPGs still make me go "huh"?  Sorcerer is especially guilty of this.  I don't know why, but I read through the PDF out of curiosity going "This is supposed to be fun?"  It just doesn't click with me -- I don't understand how thematic role-playing is fun if analyzing philosophical outlooks about vague concepts is part of the exercise.  I'm not at the table for therapy or academic reasons, I'm there to kill shit and do cool shit and who gives a damn if any "higher" concepts make their way to the table.

Well, I've ran many Sorcerer games (is one of the fav games for my crew) and I can tel you that the philosophical analysis starts and finish when the GM and/or group define what's Humanity and how sorcery works. Once you start the game, is like any other RPG. Player input is mainly used during chargen and setting creation.

QuoteI really don't understand why pointless fun for the sake of fun is a problem for some people.

[/QUOTE]
I don't think that fun for fun's sake is a problem for Edwards or any other indie designer.

Oh, ok, failed my notice roll...
Now i get what's the matter...
Hmm...
Controversial topic.
I played Burning Empires 2-3 times with my D&D group.
Astonishingly, it worked, even better than what i would've expected, although it's more like a traditional RPG and maybe not as forgy as Sorcerer or similar games.

Regarding my fellow players... they're mostly indifferent to theory, they rather act improvisingly, they don't prewrite character dossiers or such...

Interesting Blog, bookmarked.

I completely agree that as long as there are a couple of people who know what they're doing around the table, anyone can play old-school D&D with minimal knowledge of the game and bring as much input as they are comfortable during play.

Strangely enough, the hardcore game Republic of Rome (http://valleygames.ca/our-games/classic-line/republic-of-rome/) is much the same.

I can see how it holds for earlier editions, do folk think it still holds true for 3e and 4e?  Those seemed to require a lot more choices, but that may be my misimpression.

I tried creating a character for Earthdawn today, that game badly needs a simple option, I'm not yet bought in - but I can't just play a guy who hits things, I have to have magic.  Too much work for a game I'm not yet sold on.

Quote from: Balbinus;355925I can see how it holds for earlier editions, do folk think it still holds true for 3e and 4e?  Those seemed to require a lot more choices, but that may be my misimpression.

Well, this guy plays a mishmash of 3.5 and 1st ed AD&D so I can see it holding true on that cases.

The important thing is, how easy is it to do the chargen? In 3e or 4e is not harder than any other game (though more complicated that previous editions, obviously). As the player gets more experience the rules get more complicated, but that in turn makes the next chargen easier...

QuoteI tried creating a character for Earthdawn today, that game badly needs a simple option, I'm not yet bought in - but I can't just play a guy who hits things, I have to have magic.  Too much work for a game I'm not yet sold on.

Playing a guy who just hits things without any other schtick should be a constitutional right or something.

I think veteran roleplayers sometimes forget how dense D&D lore is. I guess since the LotR movies and WoW have made high fantasy more mainstream, but I recall how totally confusing it was for me when I first played with all the races and seemigly arbitrary restrictions. Even the basic concent pf "adventuring" in the sense of going into a dungeon, killing all the monsters and taking all the gold seemed like a very alien thing to do.

Something like Star Wars of James Bond is much more accessible and places no crazy lore barriers between the novice player and the setting.

Quote from: Balbinus;355925I can see how it holds for earlier editions, do folk think it still holds true for 3e and 4e?  Those seemed to require a lot more choices, but that may be my misimpression.

For me, 3e and 4e require those "in the know" to help guide new players, although they're certainly learnable by non-gamers if they have the initiative.  The problem is most people associate games with easy-to-learn mechanics and simple concepts.

From what I've observed, it's harder for a player new to 3e to get their head around the mechanics and character creation, but they're much more comfortable at the table since they don't have a crap-ton of options creating stress for them, and the more experienced players generally help them along.  

4e, while character creation is a little easier (especially with the builder), at the table new players often choke because when they deliberate about which powers to use, their limited understanding of the system acts as a barrier.  This also causes a bit of trouble during character creation, because trying to decide whether to take a power that does "3[w] damage" and "2[w] damage + slide target three squares" is only comprehensible to someone who understands how these bits lock into the meta strategies/concepts surrounding play.

Quote from: Imperator;355927Playing a guy who just hits things without any other schtick should be a constitutional right or something.

Indeed.  Steve D said once that in a new game he creates someone who hits people in the face, it's mechanically simple and another one of them is always welcome.

In Earthdawn, you're a guy who hits people in the face WITH MAGIC!  It lacks a simple option.

Re 4e, to all those who responded to that bit of my post, am I right that it allows a degree of revamping your character when you level up?  Something else I noticed with Earthdawn is that it clearly has optimal build strategies, which means it has suboptimal ones, and I really don't fancy being three months in only to find that choices I made in chargen are now crippling my character.  3e as I recall had the same issue, but I heard 4e had addressed it, is that right?

If you don't have to worry about optimisation, that in itself reduces necessary buy-in before you can start play.

Quote from: Imperator;355927Playing a guy who just hits things without any other schtick should be a constitutional right or something.

Yeah. I mean, when I am not GMing (which means you have to entertain a tableful of people for 5+ hours - no mean thing), I am usually a Thief guy - evasion, out-of-system problem solution, a backstab now and then, but sometimes, it is just so satisfactory to lay back and hit things. Then, when I'm not hitting things, I can still do the whole out-of-system things, the negotiation, role assumption and all that.

Give me that "I've got a character in 10 minutes and ready to play" experience, and I will be fine. With a bit of practice, I could do that for 3.0, but it needed some time investment at the beginning before I got there.

Quote from: Balbinus;355925I tried creating a character for Earthdawn today, that game badly needs a simple option, I'm not yet bought in - but I can't just play a guy who hits things, I have to have magic.  Too much work for a game I'm not yet sold on.

Yep. And it has sub-systems growing on sub-systems, sprouting off sub-systems.

So we can see that by the 90s the hobby was already veering into the heavy side. Earthdawn's fans don't consider it a heavy game, but it's way, way more mechanically complex than Basic D&D.

Good link Ramon. I really like what this guy has to say. And he's spot on about Forge/Trad games and the level of player investment. In fact kyle has more or less said the same thing. I'm going to keep visiting this guy and of course carry on with the Evil DM's blog :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Haffrung;355949Yep. And it has sub-systems growing on sub-systems, sprouting off sub-systems.

So we can see that by the 90s the hobby was already veering into the heavy side. Earthdawn's fans don't consider it a heavy game, but it's way, way more mechanically complex than Basic D&D.

I wonder actually if the '90s was a high watermark, my impression is that 4e is less daunting than Earthdawn for example.

Quote from: Soylent Green;355928I think veteran roleplayers sometimes forget how dense D&D lore is. I guess since the LotR movies and WoW have made high fantasy more mainstream, but I recall how totally confusing it was for me when I first played with all the races and seemigly arbitrary restrictions. Even the basic concent pf "adventuring" in the sense of going into a dungeon, killing all the monsters and taking all the gold seemed like a very alien thing to do.

Something like Star Wars of James Bond is much more accessible and places no crazy lore barriers between the novice player and the setting.

In one sense I agree with this, but I also think that 90% of D&D's target market are probably at least broadly familiar with fantasy lit. Moreso nowadays because of yes, WoW, the LotR films and Harry Potter.

Quote from: Balbinus;355925I can see how it holds for earlier editions, do folk think it still holds true for 3e and 4e?  Those seemed to require a lot more choices, but that may be my misimpression.

My friend is running a group of 5-8 year olds through 4e, and has been for about 6-7 months now.  They all got it, in the first session.  So I'd say yes.

Quote from: Soylent Green;355928I think veteran roleplayers sometimes forget how dense D&D lore is. I guess since the LotR movies and WoW have made high fantasy more mainstream, but I recall how totally confusing it was for me when I first played with all the races and seemigly arbitrary restrictions. Even the basic concent pf "adventuring" in the sense of going into a dungeon, killing all the monsters and taking all the gold seemed like a very alien thing to do.

Something like Star Wars of James Bond is much more accessible and places no crazy lore barriers between the novice player and the setting.

That may be true, but I think that has changed since we started gaming (I did in 1985). I don't think OD&D lore is so dense this days, unless you ply in an official setting.

Quote from: David R;355958Good link Ramon. I really like what this guy has to say. And he's spot on about Forge/Trad games and the level of player investment. In fact kyle has more or less said the same thing. I'm going to keep visiting this guy and of course carry on with the Evil DM's blog :D

Thanks. The guy has also a lot of neat articles about setting stuff.

Quote from: Balbinus;355965I wonder actually if the '90s was a high watermark, my impression is that 4e is less daunting than Earthdawn for example.

4e is far less daunting than Earthdawn 1e. Or at least that has been our experience.

Chargen in almost all systems only becomes a problem if you think Meta-gamey. If you think about the role its easy.

I want to play a fighter who has a bit of that old heroic epic about him. i want to be able to cite some ancient legends that inspired him to take up steel. Okay I'll pick this class and these feats and powers to fit that concept. Anyone with imagination can do this, It's just putting rules round 'let's pretend'.

Character gen gets to be a pain when you are thinking meta game. How do I best optimise this character to get best outcome that fulfil the 'controller' type or the 'tank' type. Etc etc .... Since I would never do that and find people that do do that in games a bit of a pain in the arse  (because they also tend to be the guys that say, but if I am running and dodging the rules say archers get -4 to hit me not the usual -2 for just running) making characters in any system has always been a pleasure for me as opposed to a complex puzzle to be unlocked.

Also a good GM will enable the players to use their skills and encourage free thought and imagination so a bunch of new players round a table should have no problem with getting used to combat and stuff because for the first few encounters the GM should be holding their hands, although I would do this using weak opponents that can do similar things to show thaem how such things can be used as opposed to giving them direct advice although that elderly knight/sorceror/theif/jedi master that meets the party at the start and helps them through the first few combats and then gets killed thus setting up the revenge plot hook is just as good (hey if it works for Star Wars/LotR/Dodgeball...)

Quote from: Mistwell;356026My friend is running a group of 5-8 year olds through 4e, and has been for about 6-7 months now.  They all got it, in the first session.  So I'd say yes.

Isn't that a bit young to be trying to introduce kids to RPGs and D&D in particular?

I branched out from D&D a while ago and created my own ruleset.
2 major discoveries were;
a) Every game has a learning curve.
b) Too much freedom can be a bad thing (decide where you want your players to be creative by limiting it, them they will expend the efforts where you want them to.)

SO I like this post.

I pretty much agree with the OP, though I wouldn't contain it to just D&D.  I find that for new players any game that is basically formed from a pick and choose list for characters and it's primary play is essentially made from rather obvious action/reaction checks is easier to catch on to.  Those games don't limit freedom they however do provide a list of things to do when you aren't feeling imaginative.  They have a safety net.  Even though I've been role playing for well over 2 decades I still like that safety net.  Personally I find it more fun to not always have to be on the ball.

This applies to pretty much any real commercial RPG that you can buy in most every gaming store.  D&D is just the most commonly known one.  But D&D, Warhammer, Shadowrun, Palladium, White Wolf etc... they all follow into this category.  They have mechanics for logical actions that can be performed and optional rules to cover non-standard actions.

Quote from: Stuart;356069Isn't that a bit young to be trying to introduce kids to RPGs and D&D in particular?

Braindamage! :pundit:

I played an RPG with my son first when he was 4; my daughter voluntarily joined in a year later when she was 3.  It's a matter of controlling the content and approach.  But they "got it" in all the ways that Ramon was highlighting.

!i!

This is kind of related to my thoughts over on the topic of Old School vs New School. Or so it seems to me.
 
I suspect the ease with which D&D is picked up explains much of its popularity. If I have 3-4 hours a week to play games, I want something easy to play right away, and I do not want to devote myself to one game. I want to play more games than that.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;356104Braindamage! :pundit:

I played an RPG with my son first when he was 4; my daughter voluntarily joined in a year later when she was 3.  It's a matter of controlling the content and approach.  But they "got it" in all the ways that Ramon was highlighting.

!i!

I can't see why the shouldn't.

I started roleplaying when I was 9, and I don't think I was too precocious.

Good post there, thanks for the linkage.
The guy's got some good clear thoughts going on.

I don't really agree with this post.  It seems to be saying that D&D is for dumb people.

Quote from: Maddman;356403I don't really agree with this post.  It seems to be saying that D&D is for dumb people.

Dude's running a D&D campaign, so I'm not sure that's the message he was shooting for.  I'd say his point was that the learning curve is not as steep as some RPGs.

What I got out of it is that when you have a game that is actually a game, it's a lot easier to play and to get inbterested in if you aren't already some self-declared Thespian. Being all pretendy and making up stories can be a lot of fun, but it in itself isn't a game. If you don't have a game to hang it on, and that's all there is.. well, that's not enough.

That description at the beginning is dead on:

Quote"Me: "Ok, now you have to describe your character in 50 words. Anything you want."

Mandy: "Fuck this."

Hi, that's called a completely normal adult reaction. For some reason, very few people inside the hobby can see this for what it is.

Controversial point: This is why "rules lite" has limited appeal with new players. New players counterintuitively (well, only if you aren't paying attention) will choose the game with well defined rules over the "rules lite" thing, because they recognize it the one with rules as a game, and games can be learned.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;356452What I got out of it is that when you have a game that is actually a game, it's a lot easier to play and to get inbterested in if you aren't already some self-declared Thespian. Being all pretendy and making up stories can be a lot of fun, but it in itself isn't a game. If you don't have a game to hang it on, and that's all there is.. well, that's not enough.

Funny thing is, a lot of indie games, even the narrative ones, have a decent amount of crunch, and built-in design purpose, at least compared to old-school D&D.  They just require a more thoughtful approach, is all.  I'd say Burning Wheel is a lot more game-y than D&D because it has lots of bits to tinker with and subsystems that play out like mini-games, but the way it goes about it is different (focus on themes and beliefs to drive play rather than encounters or locations).

It really just comes down to how much thought someone wants to put into their character or the game in general -- even on the mechanical/game end.  Thespian-ism has nothing to do with it. Tell someone they can roll 3 six-sided dice and start playing, and they'll probably go along with it.  Tell someone they have to think hard about their character's beliefs/background or that they have to allocate points and have to decide which section of their character sheet gets which point-caps and...yeah...game or not they're going to be disinclined.

So I don't think the whole roleplay focus puts people off, it's the amount of work expected.  I know lots of people who roleplay well but hate writing background material for their character if the GM asks for it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;356452Controversial point: This is why "rules lite" has limited appeal with new players. New players counterintuitively (well, only if you aren't paying attention) will choose the game with well defined rules over the "rules lite" thing, because they recognize it the one with rules as a game, and games can be learned.

Definitely.  One of the reasons D&D has always been a good newbie game is it has a solid rules structure that lets you play without roleplaying.

That's not saying it's not an rpg, it is saying that a newbie can say "my guy hits the orc" and not have to worry about much else, until they want to.

By contrast, Risus or somesuch really requires you from day one to give creative input, but on day one you may well not be ready to do so.

That said, there's a happy medium.  Too many rules, too much game if you will, can also put new players off.  I wouldn't want to introduce a new player with Earthdawn say, there's just too much you'd need to understand to play.  D&D avoids this by backloading complexity, to start play I only need to understand a little bit, the rest comes naturally with time.

I've seen rules-light games really shine with new players though.  Dread is pretty much my go-to game for nongamers.  The GM typically hands out archetypes - "I've got a smart college kid, a drunk salesman, and a 'cougar' divorcee who will all end up in the same motel.  Who wants to play what?"  Each player gets a questionnaire that asks specific questions.  They are typically designed to lead the player in certain directions, but gives them a free hand in filling in the blanks.

For the actual rules, you just play Jenga.  Want to do something?  Pull a block.  Tower falls?  You're toast.  That's really all there is to it.

I think it works because it asks for specifics.  One thing I've learned is that most players will go dark, darker than you expect.  If you have "What happened when you were 10 that you still haven't forgiven your father for?" you'll get ten times the "What he made me to with his poker buddies watching" or "beating me so bad I went into the hospital, and said if I told anyone he'd do the same to my sister" than you will "He missed my Little League game, the bastard".  But its their choice to go that way, so they will just run with it.

I've played the game with my 60 year old mother and 10 year old daughter, as well as plenty of nongamers.  I have a few friends that are decidedly not gamers, but they'll show up with bells on for Dread.

On another subject, there's a fun little game that was sort of meant to be a player trainer for this kind of thing.  The author said that his group was starting to play more Indie games, and they weren't too comfortable setting scenes and such.  So he made this up for practice.

Its called Zombie Cinema, and to me it occupies space between RPG and party game.  There's a simple linear board and each PC has a token on the board.  The group decides the concept for the zombie movie - a mall, an old farm house, zombies in space, whatever.  Everyone draws three cards with personality traits on them to make a character.

The PCs start in the middle of the board.  Get to the top, and you escape with your life!  At the bottom is a zombie token.  Each square has a different level of zombie action.  Starting out, the PCs are hearing news reports and rumors of zombies, but nothing else.

So how do you move on the board?  By introducing conflict.  There's no GM here, each player takes a turn setting a scene.  They describe what is going on, where the PCs are, and so on.  When two players come into conflict, they roll a d6 to resolve it.  The other players can take sides, offering their dice to the player they think is 'right'.

This is conflict resolution, not task resolution.  If a player says "I'm going to shoot the zombie in the head" and everyone agrees he could do that (maybe he's a soldier or something), then he does it, no conflict.  However, someone else could say "No way man, you're just a college kid you couldn't make that shot".  If there's a third player, he could take sides.  He agrees that the college kid doesn't have a chance and give his die to the second player.  College kid rolls a 4, the second player rolls a 3 and a 5, taking the highest.  College kid misses.

They also move on the board.  In this case, player 2 moves forward one space because he won the conflict.  Player 1 lost, so he moves back one.  Though he took sides, player 3 wasn't involved, so he doesn't move.  If they tie, the zombie token moves forward, making the zombies more prevalent.  Also, if you ever end up in the same square as the zombies, you get eaten.  Each player has the privledge and right to describe how they are eaten by zombies :).

Anyway, if you've got players that could use some practice setting scenes and/or love zombies, its a fun little game.  Runs in an hour or so usually.

Quote from: Balbinus;356489Definitely.  One of the reasons D&D has always been a good newbie game is it has a solid rules structure that lets you play without roleplaying.

That's not saying it's not an rpg, it is saying that a newbie can say "my guy hits the orc" and not have to worry about much else, until they want to.

Sure, but could that not be also seen as instilling bad habits from the start and maybe pushing away potential players who might be more interested in roleplaying than orc slaying?

I remember I was playing in a Call of Cthulhu game in a club and two new players, obviously friends, joined our game. One of the two, clearly the more experienced one was helping his friend out, but some of his advice, clearly drawn from D&D, was very suspect. For instance after a fight with some cultists, he explained to his mate how he now should have his guy loot the dead cultists for gold and treasure.

PS:

I guess what I am saying is that playing an RPG as a wargame isn't necessarily more newbie friendly than playing it setting hte wargame as the entry point may discourage a lot of potentially good players from the hobby and might go some way to explain why there is such a marked gender bias in the hobby.

Quote from: Soylent Green;356639Sure, but could that not be also seen as instilling bad habits from the start and maybe pushing away potential players who might be more interested in roleplaying than orc slaying?

Why do you suppose these are two different activities?

Quote... he explained to his mate how he now should have his guy loot the dead cultists for gold and treasure.

..Or clues. Right? I mean, it's the same.
 

QuoteI guess what I am saying is that playing an RPG as a wargame isn't necessarily more newbie friendly than playing it setting hte wargame as the entry point may discourage a lot of potentially good players from the hobby and might go some way to explain why there is such a marked gender bias in the hobby.

Here's where the needle goes off the phonograph. "As a wargame"? Also, reread that part where Mandy says "fuck this". The gender bias has been a self-imposed thing from the start, but I really think the deciding factor has very little to do with rules and everything to do with presentation and subject matter. Online roleplaying communties (and let's go out on a limb and suggest roleplaying circles on Second Life) are absolutely dominated by women, but not because they lack rules. It's because they are about Twilight and Harry Potter and dressing up.

Quote from: Soylent Green;356639Sure, but could that not be also seen as instilling bad habits from the start and maybe pushing away potential players who might be more interested in roleplaying than orc slaying?

I see the logic, but given that's how almost all of us started, I'm not too worried.  

Besides, who says D&D has to be just about orc slaying?

Quote from: Soylent Green;356639I remember I was playing in a Call of Cthulhu game in a club and two new players, obviously friends, joined our game. One of the two, clearly the more experienced one was helping his friend out, but some of his advice, clearly drawn from D&D, was very suspect. For instance after a fight with some cultists, he explained to his mate how he now should have his guy loot the dead cultists for gold and treasure.

Well, no system is perfect, we managed to work out the difference between D&D and CoC before we were 14, I figure today's teenagers aren't any dumber than we were.  There's always a few who won't get it, whatever they start on.

QuoteI guess what I am saying is that playing an RPG as a wargame isn't necessarily more newbie friendly than playing it setting hte wargame as the entry point may discourage a lot of potentially good players from the hobby and might go some way to explain why there is such a marked gender bias in the hobby.

It's not really playing it as a wargame.  It's playing it as a game.  You have a piece, you move it, you roll dice, it's highly intuitive.  There's nothing wargamey in all that.  As you gain confidence, you can invest some personality in your character, try more stuff within the game space, it's a very easy entry.

I'm talking about what helps teenagers get into the hobby, people aged say 13 or 14, maybe younger.  They're not looking for something deep, they're looking for something fun.  Deep generally comes later.

If you're being introduced to gaming by adult friends the best system is one those friends know well and the best setting is one that works for you.  So, the answer may well be that the best thing is PTA with a setting based loosely on The Office, or whatever.

If you're 12 years old learning with your friends and a 13 year old who played once on holiday, D&D is about as good an introduction as it's possible to get.

Oh, on gender, how are women represented in boardgaming (Ameritrash particularly), computer gaming?  It's not just an rpg thing, games are male dominated for reasons that are much broader than anything D&D brings to the party.

Eurogames may be an exception, though I'd bet even there it's mostly men among those who play regularly.

Quote from: Balbinus;356670Oh, on gender, how are women represented in boardgaming (Ameritrash particularly), computer gaming?  It's not just an rpg thing, games are male dominated for reasons that are much broader than anything D&D brings to the party.

Eurogames may be an exception, though I'd bet even there it's mostly men among those who play regularly.

I know more women (attractive women) who are utterly dedicated to WoW and Guild Wars than I do men. Boardgaming I have no idea about that- I play carcassonne and Ticket to Ride with my girlfriend on a regular basis though.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;356673I know more women (attractive women) who are utterly dedicated to WoW and Guild Wars than I do men. Boardgaming I have no idea about that- I play carcassonne and Ticket to Ride with my girlfriend on a regular basis though.

Good point.  I was thinking single player, not MMORPG, because I play single player and not MMORPGs.  Online, it's a whole different demographic.  Thanks for the correction.

Quote from: Balbinus;356680Good point.  I was thinking single player, not MMORPG, because I play single player and not MMORPGs.  Online, it's a whole different demographic.  Thanks for the correction.

Again, depends on the game. If I look at my facebook page I can see 6 of my female friends gushing over Wii bowling and baseball (someone won a new wii in a raffle and everyone is giving her advice about which Mario games to get, they are planning get togethers and so on). When I see guys talking about computer gaming it's always like.. Halo or Resident Evil or something.

The top creators on Spore (if you look at Sporepedia they have a content library and contests and such) are almost 3/4 female.

I think women are fairly well represented as fans of the Sims. Most of the big time clothing designers and coders I met on SecondLife were female.

That's not to say there aren't guys.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;356683Again, depends on the game. If I look at my facebook page I can see 6 of my female friends gushing over Wii bowling and baseball (someone won a new wii in a raffle and everyone is giving her advice about which Mario games to get, they are planning get togethers and so on). When I see guys talking about computer gaming it's always like.. Halo or Resident Evil or something.

The top creators on Spore (if you look at Sporepedia they have a content library and contests and such) are almost 3/4 female.

I think women are fairly well represented as fans of the Sims. Most of the big time clothing designers and coders I met on SecondLife were female.

That's not to say there aren't guys.

By definition, all breakthrough games are played by women, that's what makes them breakthrough games.

The wii is played by women, but isn't anything I recognise as computer gaming, of course that's in part why it's played by women.

Sims is a breakout game, Secondlife is online, Spore surprises me - though from the reviews I'm more surprised anyone's bothering.

All that said, single player computer gaming is a heavily male dominated hobby, the games women are playing are ones that encourage social interaction in a non-competitive way - sharing stuff, getting together and having a laugh while "bowling" and so on.

I think that's to do with societal trends wholly unrelated to D&D, going back to the original point.

Quote from: Soylent Green;356639I remember I was playing in a Call of Cthulhu game in a club and two new players, obviously friends, joined our game. One of the two, clearly the more experienced one was helping his friend out, but some of his advice, clearly drawn from D&D, was very suspect. For instance after a fight with some cultists, he explained to his mate how he now should have his guy loot the dead cultists for gold and treasure.

The correct GM response: "You find some golden coins with arcane runes carved into them.  You also find a book filled with half-mad rants and bizarre diagrams, and the cover is made of some sort of unusual leather.  You think if you studied it you could learn some magic spells from it."

:D

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;356452Controversial point: This is why "rules lite" has limited appeal with new players. New players counterintuitively (well, only if you aren't paying attention) will choose the game with well defined rules over the "rules lite" thing, because they recognize it the one with rules as a game, and games can be learned.

Of course, "rules light" is a relative thing.  For someone used to D&D 3e or 4e, OD&D is a rules light game.  Back in 1975, OD&D had more pages of rules than most other games in existence -- and certainly far more pages of rules than chess or checkers or poker or spades, the type of games non-wargamers who stumbled upon D&D were familiar with. Wargamers of the era, at least, were used to "complex rules" like those of OD&D.

I've found with my Korean schoolkids that D&D is the way to go. Most of them have lots of experience playing a MMORPG like Maple Story, and are familiar with concepts like hit points, level, etc. The only thing I really need to explain before actual play are chargen and polyhedral dice mechanics, which I've put in a Powerpoint presentation to streamline it down to a single 40-minute session, along with class-specific handouts for spells, equipment, etc. . Compare that with WFRP or Traveller, which take at least 2 hours just for chargen and maybe another hour to explain mechanics.

Quote from: Kellri;356774I've found with my Korean schoolkids that D&D is the way to go. Most of them have lots of experience playing a MMORPG like Maple Story, and are familiar with concepts like hit points, level, etc. The only thing I really need to explain before actual play are chargen and polyhedral dice mechanics, which I've put in a Powerpoint presentation to streamline it down to a single 40-minute session, along with class-specific handouts for spells, equipment, etc. . Compare that with WFRP or Traveller, which take at least 2 hours just for chargen and maybe another hour to explain mechanics.

40 mins still seems ridiculously long to me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kellri;356774Compare that with WFRP or Traveller, which take at least 2 hours just for chargen and maybe another hour to explain mechanics.

If it's taking you 2 hours to chargen characters for WFRP you are doing something seriously wrong.  If it's taking another hour on top of that to explain mechanics you are really doing something wrong.

D&D certainly has the advantage of a relatively easy but not boring chargen. The lore isn't hard to grasp either. The hardest thing for me was the D&D mindset.
"We're going into the sewers."
"...Why?"
"There are giant spiders in there!"
"Okay, so why are we going down there?"
"They might have gold and cool stuff!"
"...right."

I didn't make that up.
I don't know about 4th edition. I tried running it for a mixed group, but the powers proved problematic. A new player wanted to use one of her powers, but I told her she couldn't use it without holding a sword, as per the description of that ability. I was asked, "Why? All I'm doing is yelling at one of my friends. Why do I need a sword to do that?" I couldn't come up with a good answer for it, and we ended up trying an older edition instead.

I don't know about that, I've always found D&D (in any incarnation) to have more boring chargen than, say, WFRP 2e, which has truly awesome chargen.  The difference is that in some versions of D&D, the "boring" part is over very fast, while in others, it drags on through having to sit there while the wiener kid next to you reads through every single one of 1028 feats to try to optimize his level 1 bard.

RPGPundit

Yeah that's a great blog. Hope his tv show takes off.

Quote from: Balbinus;356687All that said, single player computer gaming is a heavily male dominated hobby, the games women are playing are ones that encourage social interaction in a non-competitive way - sharing stuff, getting together and having a laugh while "bowling" and so on.

I think that's to do with societal trends wholly unrelated to D&D, going back to the original point.

Depends on the computer game. A lot of the single player puzzle / clicky games have a lot of or are dominated by women players. Bejeweled and the like.

OTOH I really doubt there a lot of women (historical) wargamers, computer, counter or miniature. I've been to Historicon, the historical wargaming equivalent to Gencon. Aside from the expected wives and daughters we *think* there was one woman gaming there, and she was either a crossdresser in serious need of a makeover and some coordination tips or a body trapped in an awkward transitional moment. :confused: Warhammer and the like do get some female players, but again, mainly significant others or relatives of male gamers. Though if 4chan is *any* representation of gaming, females do get into the WH40K Dawn of War computer games. (re: Iron Shrine Maiden / Macha et al)