#22: Targeting

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/talesfrom...thouse22.phtml

Summary:

Buffy and how you should know your audience.

Go to the column for more information.

[Craig Oxbrow]

As someone who's run Buffy for five years for a mix of experienced players and a few total newbies, I can very much see your point. It's a simple core mechanic which doesn't always get used everywhere, and 2d6 would have definitely been simpler. And in all honesty, we used about four of the combat manouevres. Keep the less opaque bits out and it's a very simple system to teach, as well as an easy setting to get into.

That said, I bought d10s for my first "proper" roleplaying game, and the bookstores also sell D&D without the however many kinds of dice it needs this year.

A full-on box set with dice included, ready-to-use sheets and all, would have been great, and I prodded for one when there was talk of the Buffy animated series being made, since it is such a newbie-friendly game apart from rules niggles, and such a gameable setting. (Hence the running it for five years, which is longer than it was published...)

[xenongames]

But the Unisystem just isn't a “newbie-friendly” system. First off, it uses ten sided dice.

So does Storyteller. And more than 1.

but it's not nearly as newbie-friendly as OWoD's roll and count successes mechanic

Except that oStoryteller had variable target numbers, which is harder to deal with than a 1d10+ roll that never changes. And both featured "use any stat with any skill," which isn't newbie friendly, but at least it's a wash.

There is a required table for levels of success, and while it's on the character sheet, it's one more bit of book keeping that seems unnecessary.

And Storyteller had a table for injuries and a number of pools that all required bookkeeping.

While I agree that Cinematic Unisystem is not as newbie-friendly as it could be, I don't think it was any worse than original Storyteller. Yes, White Wolf tapped into a pool of would-be gamers and was very successful. But if V:TM had used Cinematic Unisystem instead of Storyteller, I think it would have been just as popular.

The key to Storyteller's appeal, I believe, had nothing to do with the dice system and everything to do with the clans. It was a class-based system that gave newbies easy-to-identify archetypes that they could identify with. And this is independent of the dice and how you calculate successes.

[Beginning of the End]

I'm pretty much going to agree with Xenongames here. You cite two factors making Unisystem non-newbie friendly:

(1) The use of d10s.
(2) The use of an inconsistent stat + skill mechanic.
(3) A table for levels of successes.

But then you cite oWoD as a "perfect" system for newbies, despite the fact that:

(1) It uses d10s.
(2) It uses an inconsistent stat + skill mechanic.
(3) A table for levels of successes.

There seems to be an inconsistency in your thesis.

More generally, I think experienced gamers tend to have a very wrong-headed idea about what appeals to newbies. The prevalent theory seems to be that games for newbies should be very simple, basic, and mechanics-light.

But the two most successful games in the history of the industry when it comes to appealing to newbies (D&D and oWoD) both feature crunchy, complex rule systems. The theory is that these games were (and are) successful at attracting newbies despite the crunch, but I think the reality is quite different: They're successful at attracting newbies because of the crunch (at least in part, there are obviously other factors involved).

The completely open-ended and infinitely modifiable nature of an RPG makes it quite distinct from every other form of entertainment. When you pick up a book, you start reading from the first page and continue reading to the last. With a movie you start watching at the beginning and watch it until the end. Most video games start with a tutorial giving you step-by-step instructions on exactly what the gameplay is. Board games and card games almost universally feature step-by-step instructions that you follow.

Virtually all other forms of entertainment are like an origami book that tell you, step-by-step, how to construct a paper crane. RPGs, on the other hand, are like an origami book that teaches you the different ways to fold paper.

In other words, the typical RPG is like a toolbox. It's got everything you need: It comes with wood, hammers, nails, screwdrivers, screws, drills, bits, and the like. But a complete newbie -- who had no idea what a hammer, screwdriver, or drill are -- looks at a roleplaying game and says, "What am I supposed to do?"

D&D and oWoD, unlike many RPGs, provide an answer to this question in several ways:

(1) Crunchy game mechanics provide constant answers to the question, "What am I supposed to do if player X tries Y?"

(2) Classes, races, clans, and the like all provide similar structure for the players in creating and even playing their characters.

(3) D&D has the added benefit of an adventure structure (the standard dungeon crawl) that is both (a) easy to create and (b) easy to run, specifically because it provides a clear answer to the question, "What am I supposed to do?" The content of each room provides an encapsulated scenario (something to be done) and the exits from that room provide a concrete path for getting to the next encapsulated scenario.

So these are games which answer the question, "What am I supposed to do?" in both general and specific ways. And they answer the question both in terms of creating characters/scenarios and playing characters/scenarios.

And the crunchy mechanics are an important part of that.

(There is a sweet spot in this: Mechanics that get too complex simply obfuscate the answer to the question in a different way. But evidence seems to strongly suggest that this sweet spot lies more on the crunchy side than the non-crunchy side.)

Experienced gamers, I suspect, get led astray for two reasons:

First, the assumption that "simpler is easier". This seems like common sense, but improvisational actors will tell you that it's not true. Training for improvisational actors start with very specific scenarios in which creativity is focused in a very specific way.

Second, they don't have a lot of contact with newbies. And when they do have contact with newbies, the newbies are able to benefit specifically from the experienced gamer's expertise. That expertise can supply the answer to the question, "What do I do?" in many ways and, thus, supplants the need for the game to answer that question. In that scenario, it frequently IS easier to teach new players using simpler mechanics.

[Jorgeman]

All of the above.

And I don't think Buffy RPG was targeted to newbies. It seemed to me that it was just targeted to gamers that liked the series. Myself, I arrived to the series thanks to the game. And once I knew the series I thought the game was a fair adaptation.

[Tarafore]

Originally Posted by xenongames

So does Storyteller. And more than 1.
Except that oStoryteller had variable target numbers, which is harder to deal with than a 1d10+ roll that never changes. And both featured "use any stat with any skill," which isn't newbie friendly, but at least it's a wash.

Good point. I still think that the "no math beyond counting successes" thing is easier for non-gamers to pick up. And from a player's perspective, just rolling against the Target Number the GM gives you is easy.

While I agree that Cinematic Unisystem is not as newbie-friendly as it could be, I don't think it was any worse than original Storyteller. Yes, White Wolf tapped into a pool of would-be gamers and was very successful. But if V:TM had used Cinematic Unisystem instead of Storyteller, I think it would have been just as popular.

The key to Storyteller's appeal, I believe, had nothing to do with the dice system and everything to do with the clans. It was a class-based system that gave newbies easy-to-identify archetypes that they could identify with. And this is independent of the dice and how you calculate successes.

That's a really interesting point. I can certainly see how the character class-like Clans of Vampire: the Masquerade would be easy to latch onto, especially since each one seemed to cover a cinematic stereotype of the vampire (Brujah - Lost Boys, Toreador - Anne Rice, Tremere - Bela Lugosi, etc).

And it's something that V:tM shares with D&D and Shadowrun - Clans/Classes/Archetypes that you can immediately latch onto with minimal micro-level decisions (choosing to play a Street Samurai vs. a Street Shaman, Mercenary, or Mage is a rules-independent decision, and one that doesn't require a tremendous understanding of the setting, just a basic one).

Interesting...

[cczernia]

Originally Posted by Jorgeman

Myself, I arrived to the series thanks to the game. And once I knew the series I thought the game was a fair adaptation.

I also arrived to the series thanks to the game and also think it is a great adaptation. Also, I'm not sure why the author decided to pick on Buffy given that it is an average complexity. Star Wars d20/Saga, Star Trek and LotR coda were all just as complicated as Buffy if not more so.

Actually, the simplest licensed game (an actual attempt to simplify a system for a target audience) was probably Marvel Universe which from what I understand did not do well. So, I think a rules system has little affect on how well a licensed game does initially. If anything the system will keep a game popular for years after and people still seem to really enjoy playing the Buffy RPG.

[Tarafore]

Originally Posted by Jorgeman

All of the above.

And I don't think Buffy RPG was targeted to newbies. It seemed to me that it was just targeted to gamers that liked the series. Myself, I arrived to the series thanks to the game. And once I knew the series I thought the game was a fair adaptation.

Good point. I just think it <i>could</i> have had potential to bring non-gamers into the hobby, since it came from such a popular TV show.

And I do think that the book does an incredible job of getting anyone who reads it into the mindset of the show. The "Fluff" as they call it, is some of the best I've seen in an RPG.