For introductory-type games, I actually would put Breaking the Ice on my list.

Somewhere after True 20, mind you.  BTI is a special-case kind of deal.

I think, in order or preference, I'd use:

1. One of my own games, on the basis of raw enthusiasm (mine, that is).
2. In Spaaaace!
3. True 20, running fantasy.
4. Breaking the Ice

...I suspect Forward to Adventure will hit also that list once it's out.

Quote from: Elliot WilenStill, I haven't tried PTA, so I can't judge how the game actually plays.

I've tried it. It's good fun. We've started up a five-episode game where the players are trying to run a magic shop in a – D&D-esque – fantasy world. My guy's a gnoll who wants to make it in city life. The others are all long-term gamers, except for one guy who dropped out years ago because gaming wasn't giving him what he was after.

"I do not like green eggs and ham! I do not like them, Sam-I-am!"

Thats a hilarious thread.

Some of those fucks are profoundly ignorant about what actual gamers are doing, and especially about D&D.  

They really are living in the 1990s, with their little minigames. Funny stuff.

But once again- profoundly ignorant.

On one thing at least I think they have a point, the D&D as a minis game thing.

There does seem to be a convergence in some parts of the hobby with D&D getting more boardgamey from one end and various contenders from Games Workshop, Rackham and the like coming the other direction and becoming more RPGlike.

I'm kind of curious to see what kind of misbegotten hybrid ends up occupying the space between the two.

Quote from: GRIMI'm kind of curious to see what kind of misbegotten hybrid ends up occupying the space between the two.

I'm almost tempted to offer up Cadwallion to answer that, but I paid too damn much to just give it away....

I welcome a total fusion of miniatures and tabletop gaming.

I don't. Minis are too expensive for me.

Some generalizations that I believe are true.

• A large % of people like Fantasy and Sci-Fi.  (eg. Watched ST:TNG on TV or the Lord of the Rings in theatres)
• A large % of people like to play games: either boardgames or computer games. (eg. Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, World of Warcraft, The Sims)
• A large % of people like both Fantasy and Sci-Fi as well as playing games.
  
• A large % of people are aware of roleplaying games, notably D&D.
• A much smaller % of people actually play roleplaying games.
  

A few thoughts based on these generalizations...

Designing games and recruiting new people for your gaming group are separate issues.  They may sometimes overlap, but it's worth talking about design separately from recruitment.

Until the reason for sci-fi and fantasy viewers who also play games choosing to not play RPGs is addressed, picking another genre is not likely to yield much relative increase in players.  

I think the reason for RPGs not being more popular may include the rules complexity and the amount of time it takes to learn, setup, and play a game.  This would make sense when thinking of the difference between "family board games" and "gamer board games", and their relative popularity.

Basic D&D remains the best example for introducing new players to roleplaying games -- this is the game to emulate or improve on when designing an RPG for new players, and a good choice when wanting to recruit new players for your group.

I think I agree with you, Stuart. What really annoys me is that there is an "us against them" mentality. Why can't it be OK to use minis with one game,  lose the dice for the next, and lose the GM for the next? There are different ways of playing - there doesn't have to be only one correct way of doing it. And as an extension of this, some people are more drawn to one of these specific focuses. And mainstream is called mainstream for a reason. If a game is not mainstream, it obviously has less chance of drawing in new gamers than the mainstream game that is everywhere.

To me, the reason for RPGs not being more popular.... is because of negative stereotypes.

Quote from: StuartUntil the reason for sci-fi and fantasy viewers who also play games choosing to not play RPGs is addressed, picking another genre is not likely to yield much relative increase in players.  

The reasons are two. Firstly, most people have no interest in, and never will have an interest in, roleplaying games. The same goes for anything - most of the world is bored by your hobby, by your spouse, by your work. The second reason is that roleplayers, once they pass the teenage years, tend not to invite non-gamers to their games.

My girlfriend plays volleyball. People make their own teams, the league doesn't organise it for them. Some people get a bunch of friends and workmates together for a team. Most people join an existing team, or buddy up to people in one season and then recruit them for their own team in the next season. The second method's most common because it's easier. You know that the people already playing will be interested, and motivated. The newbies, you're gambling on. Plus it's a hassle to talk to your friends and workmates and try to get them to play, a lot of them will be bored, some will express interest but be non-commital, and so on. But in the end, if she were really interested in having new people play volleyball, she'd do it. But she's not interested in new people playing volleyball, she just wants to play good volleyball herself, and have fun.

Notice here that no-one talks about changing volleyball to make it appeal more to non-players. It is what it is, and that's that. If you want new players, you have to invite them.

Roleplaying's no different. You can recruit newbies, but it takes work, and most people just go the safe and easy route and recruit people who've played before. It's not a matter of changing the hobby or the particular game played, just of actually inviting people.

Quote from: StuartI think the reason for RPGs not being more popular may include the rules complexity and the amount of time it takes to learn, setup, and play a game.

Those are irrelevant if the person doesn't know that roleplaying exists, and if no-one invites them to a game.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe reasons are two. Firstly, most people have no interest in, and never will have an interest in, roleplaying games. The same goes for anything - most of the world is bored by your hobby, by your spouse, by your work. The second reason is that roleplayers, once they pass the teenage years, tend not to invite non-gamers to their games.

Taking both these points into consideration I still think it doesn't fully explain why someone who likes the Lord of the Rings and likes boardgames and computer games, and knows about D&D (really, who doesn't?) still chooses not to play it.

(Being invited to a game isn't the only way you can try out D&D. You can always go out and buy the game yourself and play it with your friends. That's how I got started.)

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not a matter of changing the hobby or the particular game played, just of actually inviting people.

D&D 3.x did exactly this -- changed the game to make it appeal more to non-players. They'll do it again with 4.x

I'm not sure anything can actively change "the hobby"...

Anyway, I think you've got some excellent points on recruiting new players, but I maintain that designing games that are appealing to new players is also important.

Quote from: Stuart(Being invited to a game isn't the only way you can try out D&D. You can always go out and buy the game yourself and play it with your friends. That's how I got started.)

That kind of person is the minority. Most people getting into game groups, whether the group's made up of established gamers, or entirely new ones, were invited by someone, they didn't go out and form it themselves.

Likewise, with my girlfriend and volleyball, there are two seasons a year, and she's played eight of them while I knew her. Of those eight,

• Twice she established her own team, from among volleyballers she already knew.
• Three times she was invited to, and joined alone an established team.
• Three times she was invited to, and joined with others a new team.

Each team had 6-8 players. Usually 2-3 of them she already knew from previous teams. So altogether in those eight seasons there were, besides her, about 24 players, rather than the 8x 6-8 = 48-64 you might expect. Of those, only 3 were entirely new to the sport. Of those 3, 2 had been invited by their friends who were established players, and 1 sought the place out on their own.

My experiences with rpg groups, and the experiences of people I know, have been very similar.

If you're ever in a new town looking for game groups to join, one thing you'll notice is that often there are a lot around, but they're quite insular, they keep to themselves, and don't really welcome new members. Or, they welcome them officially, but when the new person comes, their input is rejected. You have to be there six months or so before anyone will listen to you. So often they're not really welcome.

The vast majority of gamers are introduced to gaming by someone inviting them. Whether they're more or less likely to stay with the One True Perfect System is irrelevant if they're not invited. It's like a retail store whose layout is simple and attractive, and products all desireable - but it's hidden in a side street, not advertised, and the doors are locked. The store clerks sit there wondering if they should rearrange the shop. No, they should just open the doors and put a sign out.

As to what new gamers want, my advice would be as for current gamers: talk to your group. Have a session or two of what the leading members think will be fun, then talk to everyone and see what comes out, and adjust from there. Anything else is just idle speculation. Just ask 'em.

See, here's the thing, and this applies to all indie scenes, RPGs, music, whatever.

They don't really give a flying fuck about the "mainstream".  If any of those damn Forge games, or even the Forge itself, actually achieved "mainstream", and started selling at least as much as, say nWoD, or even D&D, they'd drop it like a stone.

It's all bullshit posturing by a bunch of dorks who want to feel better than everyone else, while simultaneously nursing a victim complex.  "Woe is me, the rest of the world does not understand my obviously superior taste in X!"

You see it time and time again in any form of entertainment.  

They have no real interest in appealing to the "mainstream", they don't even really know what it is, and don't care.  The meaning of it doesn't even stay the same from one whine to the next.  One minute it means "the great unwashed masses", the next it's "pretentious art snobs".  Utlimately it just changes based on which strain of whiny indie rant they're engaged in at the moment.  

It's all bullcrap.  And really, nothing new if you watch fandom phenomenon in other circles.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerI welcome a total fusion of miniatures and tabletop gaming.

This was achieved in 1974 with the original D&D.

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd really, nothing new if you watch fandom phenomenon in other circles.

Yeah, like those old farts who think nobody since the Beatles has done any decent music....