Getting new people into RPGs

[Jack Spencer]

I felt this subject deserved a new thread. It probably goes in another forum and Darren can move it if he thinks so, but most of my activity has been on Art of Game Design and were looking at the topic as it pertains to game design.

Anyway, in another thread Kuma wrote:


Getting new players into gaming will require dice.

I guaran-f*cking-tee it.

Look at what playing an RPG means - sitting around a table with other people imagining that you are someone else with a bunch of someone else's, who aren't the people you're sitting around the table with. Righto.

The trick of this is not to make some new RPG with gee-whiz-bang effects and new meta-playing standards. Getting people into RPGs has to start with the 'G', not the 'RP'.

And ask a hundred people to name a game off the top of their head (and exclude sports), and what do you get? Candyland. Monopoly. Trivial Pursuit. And a lot of Playstation titles. The common denominator? People associate 'game' with 'board game', not 'interactive storytelling'. The trick is getting people into a board game, that they'll play as a one-off, and then sucker them, however nicely, into roleplaying.


Well, to be honest, I had often thought along those lines, but this "suckers" people into playing nearly typical RPGs, doesn't it? Maybe I'm reading something here that you haven't written.

In the end, we have two different philosophies on the subject and I have to say, good luck to both of us. May we both have much success.

With all of this talk of creating new and exciting RPG products, you're moving the finish line AWAY from the new blood, not towards it. You're taking the stance that D&D, being the standard, is *more* rarified from average experience than say Jared Sorensen's Idoru, as an example. Folks, you have to get people comfortable with role-playing before you have them riffing on some avante-garde game. You have to make them take the imaginary step *into* the game first - then you can wow them with the Magic Kingdom.

Well, the purpose is not so much to create new & exciting products. It is in a sense, but not just for their own sake but to appeal to the sensibilities of potential gamers who do not care for the typical, for whatever reason. Someone who doesn't care for D&D and all of its trappings is not likely to bother with it but if something in Idoru strikes their fancy, they may give it a second look for whatever reason, and possibly play it.

D&D (meaning typical games) does not have to be the "primer" for the hobby. Someone can have their first role-playing experience with something avant-garde, find they enjoy it and continue to play. Something can remain avante-garde only so long as it's not widely done or acepted. D&D used to be an avante-garde wargaming varient. It's not avante-garde anymore. It is a standard.

I do agree that to bring people in such games need to put the new player at ease and be encouraging all around. I've seen some new players (on typical games) and they sit there with a look on their face like a deer in headlights. It's because they're terrified of doing it wrong. A good deal of this rest at the feet of the other players teaching the new player, but the game text should be as encouraging as possible w/o overdoing it so that the player is confident in playing the game.

[joshua neff]

If you're trying to bring new people into the hobby, what kind of people are you trying to bring in? People who would normally play RPGs but just haven't been turned on to them yet (what I think of as "the typical gamer")? Or people who have seen RPGs but been turned off, because of a lot of accumulated baggage that isn't a prerequisite for playing "roleplaying games"?

For example, you've got some friends who like imaginative fiction & movies. They're into group activities & they like creativity. But they've watched people playing RPGs, or maybe they've even played once or twice, & the activity turned them off. But you think they'd actually enjoy it under the right circumstances. What would be the best game for them to be turned on to?

It seems to me the "avant garde" of gaming (for example, Jared's Idoru) is only "weird" to gamers. To people who haven't played RPGs before, it's all weird, isn't it? Why is sitting around with a bunch of dice, pretending to be barbarians & wizards more normal than sitting around without dice, creating a story about beautiful computer-generated characters in a virtual reality?

I met some people at my local coffeeshop. We were all sitting around one night & it came out that everyone at the table except the one female all played RPGs. All the males except myself had played loads of D&D. The woman mad the comment "Yeah, I've seen people play D&D, but it just didn't appeal to me. Too much talk about numbers & character abilities & stuff." I told her that didn't really appeal to me, either. Then I told her about Story Engine. As I explained Descriptors & how you rolled dice to resolve whole scenes of conflict, her eyes lit up & she said "Now that would appeal to me."

Among my friends who don't game (& most of them don't), Baron Munchausen or SOAP would be a more effective way of getting them into RPGs than D&D. After those games, I could ease them into, say, Story Engine or Nobilis (a lot of them love Sandman) or Over the Edge.

But I don't see how dice will be the most effective way to get people into RPGs.

[xenongames]

1) I have known people who would not get within 50 yards of a traditional, table-top rpg, but invite them to a murder mystery party and they will roleplay better than most gamers I know. I am not talking about those out-of-the-box, scripted affairs. They make their own characters, interact with other people as their characters not as simply as themselves, and have a really good time. To them, it was not a game, in the way Monopoly is a game, but simply a great evening of fun. No dice, no character sheets, no miniatures, and nothing to make it appear or function like a game.

2) The key to get new people into rpgs is to hit the genre that interests them. The same people who would to go a murder mystery party might not go near a fantasy game. It simply does not interest them.

[ChapinoMuse]

It's a slow transition to get someone in the hobby, here's the steps that did it for me.

1. FF Mystic Quest

2. Old AD&D 8bit PC games

3. PSX Rpgs

4. E-feds

5. Spectating many online campaigns

6. Baldurs Gate 2

7. not haivng enough money for 3e core books, so buying the one mage:Ascension book.

[Patrick Chipman]

Funny, Chapino, most CRPG players I know hold the entire sphere of tabletop RPGs in contempt. ;)

Anyway, I have to agree with joshua neff's comments. Different entrance games are required for different types of people. Some people (I'd argue from anecdotal experience that these would be men, mostly) prefer the "game" aspect of RPGs initially; these people would be optimally brought in by games like WoD or D&D3 that have a lot of rules and dicing, but not necessarily a truly complicated game system. The other group of players (women, perhaps?) might be optimally brought in with games like Sorcerer, Story Engine, or something else that's light on the game system.

There are some games with which I would not suggest bringing new players in; these would include games that are very ambiguous and thus highly contentious (Minds' Eye Theatre LARPs) and games that are built out of some sort of obsessive desire to prove the superiority of some sort of gaming style (Imagine, The Window, etc.).

Besides that, go with what the person wants. Discuss the different styles of gaming you're capable of handling, and see which one strikes the player's fancy. It might be easiest to actually run a one-on-one session, as that tends to bring shy players out of their shells. This is especially true if you have a loud, excitable, boisterous gaming group (like me ;) ).

[NPC Whymme]

I introduced a few people to roleplaying by getting into a freeform, one-on-one roleplaying game with them. I did it once on a train journey with the passenger next to me, a girl I had met in the station, who wanted to know what roleplaying actually was.

Asking some questions, I found out that she would like to play a character in a modern day martial arts scenario. Talking a bit further, we established an unspecified south east Asian city as background, where her character was a schoolgirl who was a good martial artist and had some other skills. The story began when, while she was in school, she got a strange message from her uncle, who told her to get to him immediately. She had to find a way to get permission to get out of school, and when she got it, she found that her uncle wasn't in his home anymore. I put a few clues in the description and she followed one of them, which got her in another situation. And so on. She was captivated, and when I ran out of steam and finished mid-story with "Well, that is what roleplaying is about", the people in the seats before us turned around and said "Gee, is it over already? It was so interesting!"

Since then, I've done this several times, getting among others in stories with a faerie tale princess who sets out to save her fathers kingdom and someone who was sailing solo around the world, who found a mysterious island after a storm. This method doesn't use dice or rules, it makes people interested about roleplaying games and, if you play a one on one with a member of the opposite sex, you have their undivided attention.

The disadvantage is that if they then find a group which uses a rules-heavy, story-low gaming system and campaign, they might quickly lose interest since it is so different from their first experience.

Whymme

[Forum Administrator]

I felt this subject deserved a new thread. [quote]

Wow - I thought that people were ignoring my responses in the other thread. I put on deodorant this morning and everything, too.

[quote]Well, the purpose is not so much to create new & exciting products. It is in a sense, but not just for their own sake but to appeal to the sensibilities of potential gamers who do not care for the typical, for whatever reason. Someone who doesn't care for D&D and all of its trappings is not likely to bother with it but if something in Idoru strikes their fancy, they may give it a second look for whatever reason, and possibly play it.

We should probably explain who we're trying to get into gaming. I'm aiming for everyone who now sits down and plays Monopoly. Yeah, everybody, right? I believe in games *that much* as a medium. Or how about unplugging kids from the Playstation or Nintendo and getting them hooked on something like this instead? Pokemon, with all that it had wrong, had the chance to gateway kids to RPGs *big time*, but dropped the ball *big time*.

So when you're talking about the difference between hooking someone with D&D and hooking someone with Idoru, you're essentially saying to me that you're taking the same tack. The change in gaming doesn't need to come at the genre level, although an expansion of genre would be nice. One of my classic examples for this kind of shift in thinking (I refuse to use the word 'paradigm'. 'Paradigm' to me is 20 cents.) is fantasy sports leagues.

You can, through small steps, move a fantasy sports league towards the 'traditional' RPG. First you move from using a whole player to bidding for a specific stat of a real player, and building imaginary players based on these stats.

Next, you create the players from whole-cloth, essentially 'rolling them up'. At this point, fictional games are played, using a proxy set of rules. These fictional players, essentially characters, improve (or decay) over time as their stats change.

Next, you involve the player as a person, making their skill as a player *important*, and allowing their judgement to affect the outcome of a game, played inning by inning if necessary. They act as the manager at that point.

Moving forward again, you have leagues where a single player on a team is a character, and all of the players in the league participate *cooperatively* to try and win the series. Each virtual team can then compete with others in the league.

Bingo. You have jocks playing RPGs. :D

Anyone willing to help fund this project is asked to e-mail me.

D&D (meaning typical games) does not have to be the "primer" for the hobby. Someone can have their first role-playing experience with something avant-garde, find they enjoy it and continue to play.

To these statements I say Hell yeah! and Well, maybe!

Of course D&D is not the gateway drug of choice for the vast majority of human beings. All you have to do is look at the sales numbers of LotR to get the idea that fantasy is something that people think they don't like, and won't cotton to, even if the movie is something amazing (and, frankly, Oscar quality).

Similarly, the assumption that someone who is into, say, comics or sci-fi or fantasy (or for that matter, baseball) is ripe for RPGs. I have a friend, Dex, who reads more comics in a month than I read in a year. He has a classic sci-fi movie collection that reads like an encyclopedia. Does he game? Has he ever? Even when I was trying my best to lure him into it? NEVER. There's something about roleplaying that goes beyond an attraction to the subject matter, and that barrier cannot be overcome jsut by making an amazing game - it has to be an amazing game that caters to the idea that people, in general, have a problem sitting around a table pretending to be other people. Unless *that* is addressed, you're not going to get the majority of folks into the hobby.

A good deal of this rest at the feet of the other players teaching the new player, but the game text should be as encouraging as possible w/o overdoing it so that the player is confident in playing the game.

My idea is trying to take the guesswork out of easing people into roleplaying. Don't let it rest on the shoulders of other players, who are already roleplayers. Make it part of the structure of the game (assuming that's what you're aiming for) to allow new people, not just new players or new gamers, to get into the action one step at a time.

[Forum Administrator]

But I don't see how dice will be the most effective way to get people into RPGs. [/B]

I guess I should clear up that point.

By that, I meant that traditional boardgames serve as excellent bases on which to build an RPG foundation. Most board games use dice for one reason or another.

That's what I meant.

[Menchi]

I can't remember who said it, but there was a comment on another forum once that Pulp games are a great way to hook in new players - due to its archetypal structure.

Personally, I think that it simply is fun that gets new players. If they enjoyed the game, they'll play. I hooked my Cappuccino sipping brother into a World of Darkness game by letting him create a character based on his favourite TV show - Baywatch - within a month he was the best roleplayer in our group - especially when we changed to a Dark Ages campaign. He ended up creating one of the creepiest and subtley frightening Malkavian Vampires I've ever seen!

My point here is that it's a matter of finding an angle to sell the game on. With most people you take the "play your favourite TV/Movie character" schtick and go with it. Also, ignore rules for the first few games and let them mini-munch a little.

Roleplaying games rarely aim for new markets, rather they all fight over the existing market. D&D3e broke that habit (thank god) and started targeting the CCG and Wargaming markets as well as the general populace - look at the Star Wars "what's his story" campaign. (Although D20 Star Wars was a horrible hybrid monstrosity of a system...)

Conan

[donalfall]

The only way I have ever seen work is familiarity - new players/never gamed before types will only get hooked by knowing that something within the experience is similar to what they know/have read.

Of course, gamesmaster ability doesn't hurt either.

I don't think the system or setting really matter - the point of Roleplaying, as we have all so often said is that the defining element is the ROLE playing. You have to get people to accept the ROLE element.

Hands up how many of us are familiar with the first night of people turning up for a roleplaying college society at the start of the academic year. And all the people who try Vampire:TM come again 'cos they've all seen Interview with a Vampire, but the people who tried D&D are never seen again 'cos the only fantasy movie they know is Conan and they hate it?

'Tis all about making parts of an unfamiliar experience seem familiar. I've duplicated the trick of being a princess/prince/dispossed heir in a magical kingdom and only introducing a game mechanic later as well - its a good one, stands the test of time.

As another opinion, Simon says that the best way is to lock them into a room with people gaming for 5 hours. They will eventually start too?

donalfall

[ChapinoMuse]

Yeah, rpg board games are a good way to get people into rpg's. I've seen many board games at the hobby show that are similar to rpg's but still ahve the linearity of abord game so it's a transition that takes time.

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by Menchi
My point here is that it's a matter of finding an angle to sell the game on.

My point exactly. It's all about finding an angle and exploiting it, and good luck to everyone, I say.


Roleplaying games rarely aim for new markets, rather they all fight over the existing market. D&D3e broke that habit (thank god) and started targeting the CCG and Wargaming markets as well as the general populace - look at the Star Wars "what's his story" campaign.

I honestly don't believe I agree with this statement. RPGs grew out of wargaming so there has always been crossover between the two hobbies. Maybe 3e took advantage of this crossover, but I don't think they broke any new ground doing so.

CCG's OTOH...well, I don't know...

CCGs would be sold in most game stores, so probably a decnet percentage of the CCG market were already RPGers. And those that weren't, because of the fantasy element in Magic got draw into D&D or another game. SO I have my doubts that targeting the CCG market did anything either.

Besides, how exactly did they target these markets? I don't see any evidence of this, personally, unless your refering to an ad campaign I haven't seen.

Originally posted by donalfall
I don't think the system or setting really matter - the point of Roleplaying, as we have all so often said is that the defining element is the ROLE playing.

I disagree in that I believe that the kind of rules that have traditionally been in RPGs have driven some people out/away who would've otherwise enjoyed role-playing. Hence why my angle is to find different systems that may appeal to more people.

Also setting is also important, or is it premise, as it applies to your familiarity statement.

The problem here is we're looking at it from two sides. I'm coming at it from the game designer/publisher angle and you seem to be coming at it from the "I have a friend that I want to get to role-play" angle.

Yeah, the best way to get people to role-play is probably to do it one-one or to invite someone into your group or whatever. But I'm not taking that road right now.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by ROLE playing. Probably because I've engaged in discussions that have discect the issue to the point that the term has lost any standard meaning. But this is an issue for another thread, I think.

[KlausGreen]

To bring new players into the hobby has always been a big challenge for "The old Guard" of hardcore gamers. In my younger years I wanted to spread this great hobby to as many of my friends as possible but soon found that the interest you sparked in this way was only very limited in scope and reach.

So a friend of mine and myself went to the town hall and asked for a location to open up a gaming community and club for us to "spread the word" from. I live in Denmark so all such activities are encouraged, awarded with money, and totally free for the leaders of the club. By getting the help of several game stores and our local library (allowing public games and exhibitions) we succeeded in getting approximately 50 members at the peak with biweekly games and five game rooms.

So everything was great, right? No, a lot of people came because one or two of their friends liked the game, didn't actually participate more than rolling dice and so when their friends found other more motivated people to play with they went away. In some ways roleplayers are very elitist, we want a very special kind of person to play with and the reason why it is difficult to introduce new playeres lies more within ourselves than within the games or the conceptions imposed by the society.

This was a rant. I know...

KR KGA

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by KlausGreen
...a lot of people came because one or two of their friends liked the game, didn't actually participate more than rolling dice and so when their friends found other more motivated people to play with they went away. In some ways roleplayers are very elitist, we want a very special kind of person to play with and the reason why it is difficult to introduce new playeres lies more within ourselves than within the games or the conceptions imposed by the society.

I think it's a little bit like religion. Several in this thread have suggest a method of "tricking" someone into role-playing. I don't think this is a good way to do it. To role-play, you need to bring something of yourself to the game. If the game doesn't interest you or you're half-heartedly participating then you'll just be sitting there rolling the dice when you're told.

The real way to do it is to spark genuine interest in people. Perhaps interest is a little light. How about enthusiasm? We what people who really want to play, who'll bug you to play again between sessions and so on.

Yes, that sounds nice.

Now, how you do this is a matter of personal choice and would probably depend on the person.

[Mokkurkalfe]

I don't mind "tricking" people into trying RPG's. If they don't like it, then they stop. Simple.

[Mokkurkalfe]

As most of you know, nobody(very few) is a full-fletch roleplayer capable of complete in-character speech when they start. Neither are they capable of handling heavy or complicated rules.
Could someone design a game specificly for beginners, with an easy, initiutive system that doesn't require too much acting(not unless you want to). Those who like it stays there, and those who thinks "this is too simple, i want better/more accurate rules" move on.

I think a cover that says "For beginners" would get more attention from possible new players.

[NPC iuppiter]

I realize that much of the appeal of a table-top RPG (to us!) is fleshing out a 3-dimensional character and role-playing him, her or it. However, I've found that newbies respond to structure and guidelines. It's one of the reasons that the class systems form D&D appeal to people. It defines the universe. This is hardly a new opinion, but I merely restate it because it applies to bringing new people into the role-playing game hobby. It also helps existing gamers who have system and genre prejudices ("I'm not playing a White Wolf game. Fantasy sucks. Sci-fi doesn't do it for me.").

For example, my gaming group knows absolutely zip about Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian Tales. I asked them if they would be willing to play a campaign set on Barsoom. Blank stares and hems and haws. I then presented them with a set of fully-detailed characters (e.g. Bim Zel, a three-armed green Martian mercenary - or panthan for ERBphiles) and the premise for an exciting one-shot. This won them over. It was a chance to try something new for a limited time. Plus, they didn't have the pressure of creating characters that fit an unfamilar world. If they like it, perhaps it will become a campaign.

Again, this is nothing new. But I think that a similar strategy for RPGs might work. New gamers should not start out with the chargen rules. I've lost too many potential players, including my wife, that way. They lose interest quickly when they don't get immediate rewards. One of the "rules" of the game industry is that a game should be able to be played within five minutes of opening the box. Obviously, hobby gamers who sepnd hours and hours researching background notes on a single magic artifact laugh at this, but look at an RPG from an outsider's perspective. Books upon books, all filled with technical text. I truly think there is a market for an RPG/board game hybrid that allows people to play pre-defined characters in an adventure. The How to Host a Murder model plus some stats all on one card. It would be rules lite and aim for maximum social interaction and fun.

I'll stop now. Need to return to the Caledonian Confederacy and the Battle of Mons Graupius.

[Christopher Kubasik]

If I may:

Some people like playing a game with lots of stats, lots of numbers.

Some people like sitting around making up a story in character, with as little mechanics as possible.

And, let me say quickly, there's no gender line here either. Here's the line: Some people like playing a game with lots of stats, lots of numbers; and some people like sitting around making up a story in character, with as little mechanics as possible.

There is no inherent "transition" period going either way (though people may be drawn to new styles or emphasis to keep the evening novel.) Some people actually like making things up off the top of their head. Some people actually like calculating modifiers for dice rolls. These two activities seem alien to the other group -- but you have to take my word for it, both sets of people are out there, and they probably don't need to be trained.

Kuma, my guess is that the folks who love Monopoly and will some day move to RPGs spend very little time playing Charades -- and that Jack's would be audience would rather be up on their feet making asses of themselves than working their way through the stringent, though comforting, rules of what we who play RPGs usually think of as "games."


Jack, you seem to want to reach out to the people in the second group.

In my experience (having done work in the past for several companies), one of the biggest mistakes RPG publishers do when trying for that new market is to make sure to please the old market at the same time. But if these two groups want two different things, you'll probably fail.

(Imagine this: an auto manufacturer saying to his engineers: "I want it something a mom with four kids and dogs will want to drive, but I want is small and sexy so it appeals to the people who want a Z3." Probably not. Or even this: Comic books is superpowered folks in colorful costumes beating the snot out of each other. Comic books is scratchy black and white independent titles about characters who HATE THEIR LIVES! There are audiences for both. And they both read comic books. But each audience really doens't get what the other one finds appealing in that thing they'd never read.)

If the sociable people is the group you want go for, go for them. You might find out there's not enough of them to float a game -- but if that's what you want to do, I'd suggest committing all the way.

***

Off topic, but I have to add:

Kuma, Lord of the Rings has been number one or number two at the box office since its release. As of this weekend it's earned some $235 million dollars domestically. It only dropped $3 million this last week, from $19 to $16, and will play at least through the end of March. Most likely it will top out around $300 million. You suggested in a previous post it's not doing well at the box office. I have to ask: What's your defination of success?

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Originally posted by Christopher Kubasik
Off topic, but I have to add:

Kuma, Lord of the Rings has been number one or number two at the box office since its release. As of this weekend it's earned some $235 million dollars domestically. It only dropped $3 million this last week, from $19 to $16, and will play at least through the end of March. Most likely it will top out around $300 million. You suggested in a previous post it's not doing well at the box office. I have to ask: What's your defination of success?

Yeah, Kuma you freak. ;)

According to the movie industry, a film has to make at least 3x its cost to be profitable. And of course, this is before international sales, DVD and video, TV sales etc. etc. So it's a big success, critical and commercial. Yowzers!

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by Christopher Kubasik
If I may:

Hey look, everybody! It's Christopher Kubasik! The guy who wrote that Interactive Toolkit that I've quoted often and drew inspiration from where I was working on my game.

In my experience (having done work in the past for several companies), one of the biggest mistakes RPG publishers do when trying for that new market is to make sure to please the old market at the same time. But if these two groups want two different things, you'll probably fail.

Agreed. I read something on how Castle Falkenstein screwed up their combat system by tacking on a hit point mechanic. WHere did I read that...

(Imagine this:

(snip)

Comic books is superpowered folks in colorful costumes beating the snot out of each other. Comic books is scratchy black and white independent titles about characters who HATE THEIR LIVES! There are audiences for both. And they both read comic books. But each audience really doens't get what the other one finds appealing in that thing they'd never read.)

If the sociable people is the group you want go for, go for them. You might find out there's not enough of them to float a game -- but if that's what you want to do, I'd suggest committing all the way.

I have commited all the way. The problem is to find these people. Like the b&w angst comics had to sell in the comic book store next to DC and Marvel's colorful heroes, I have to reach my audience through the current one. I strongly suspect that there are some people in the current gaming market who would want the sociable game, as you call it. These people will hopefully keep a game afloat until more of the sociable gamers take a look at role-playing games. With any luck, my sociable game will still be around and have a high enough profile that these people play my game.

Awful lot of maybes there. And chances are good it won't be my game, but maybe it'll be someone else's. The point is it's a game targeted at a different taste in games than the typical RPG. WHich is why I see more growth potential there. That taste in games hasn't been targeted and exploited for the past 25 years or so.

My point is, I have to reach my target audience somehow. It'll be easier to get the current gamers who would also enjoy such games, and then hope it grows. Hogshead seems to be having good luck with their New Style game line. Perhaps it's already begun?

[Christopher Kubasik]

If you're game is already on the market, forgive my ignorance. If you're still looking to publish, maybe hooking up through Hogshead or Wizards is the way to go. Wizards, espeicially, through their parent company, has distribution out the wazoo. I suppose I'm just suggesting a think outside the box strategy. Does it have to be for RPG channels first? (Since I don't know anything about your game, I don't know.)

"Socialable" is clearly the wrong word. So let me peck at something better. An "extrovert" game.

Hmmm... Still ugly as sin, but it captures more of what I see to be the split in these gaming styles. (And why I brought up the Charades example.)

The easiest split along these lines, even within the RPG community, is those who like to roll play social interaction, and those who thank the gods the dice are there to get it over with.

On either side of this fault line, going in opposite directions, are these two camps -- one uncomfortable in a body of flesh amid flesh, the other kind of enjoying it.

So far, roll playing games have catered more to one group than the other.... And so this group tends to be all alike in this regard. But I do think there's a place for party games and get togethers (like the Murder Mysteries people have mentioned above) for folks who want to have fun in a more verbal, spontanious way.

People once told stories together before we got used to having the stories told to us. Certainly, that's a habit that can be tapped again.

And just as clearly, these become less like games, and more like (for those who enjoy them), fun experiences.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Jack,

Okay, on another thread I saw you mention a link to The Wheel in anothe post, and tried to go back and find it-- but I'm tired and about keel over and I can't find it after all.

Could you pop the link in here? I'd love to see what you've come up with.

(It's just too much work to get through all those angry words from angy people who are angry at people who just don't want to play the kind of games they like to play anymore.)

Oh. Also... How do all you clever people get your avatar pictures to be accetable to the forum's space limitations? I found an image on a web site I want to use, but I don't know if there's a way to make it fit.

I am, and always will be, a man who uses a computer like I use my Wrangler -- I turn the ignition it goes. I've never had to lift the hood and crank it, yet... And my computer use (MacBoy, since day 1) has been the same -- smooth and easy. So if you have a suggestion, assume I don't know where the oil cap is. Thanks.

[Mithras]

Hi Chris. Nice articles BTW! Very good read indeed.

Regarding the avatar, Scott_Lynch put out an offer to 'avatarise' a suitable picture for people. Send him a friendly message via personal messages.

Unfortunately I've lost my link to The Wheel...

[Christopher Kubasik]

Well, thank you Mithras.

When I send this image I found on the web to the kind Mr. Lynch, do I send it as an attachment? In any particular file type?

[Mithras]

Yes, Chris. Send it as an attachment and as a jpg or jpeg file. Is it smallish? If so - A-OK.

Scott's a generous guy, knocked out a few avatar's for me!

[Christopher Kubasik]

Smallish, like "cold" and "far" is horribly relative. But it's about the size of a postage stamp right now.

It's a reproduction of a Blake print that you can click on to get larger and larger versions. This is the smallest one I could find.

So, when the wind lashes your bay, do you think, "Ah, the wind!" or "I really must move some day."

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by Christopher Kubasik
Jack,

Okay, on another thread I saw you mention a link to The Wheel in anothe post, and tried to go back and find it-- but I'm tired and about keel over and I can't find it after all.

Could you pop the link in here? I'd love to see what you've come up with.

I've debated posting the link for the Wheel again. For a while there I was plugging it fairly hard and it has been bugging me. And well it should since it is largely unfinished. But then I though, the heck with it. If other people can plug their half-baked D&D rip-offs, I can plug the Wheel, especially when asked.

Here you go! (http://www.geocities.com/greencatgames/WHEELrd1.htm)
As usual, forget about the dice mechanic. Actually, I've gotten an idea for a dice Crisis Situation using a similar mechanic.

I really need to SOGOTP

[Christopher Kubasik]

As with all these approaches (and why I could never get my head around it as a publishable game) so much of this approach depends on having like minded folks who intiutively "get" the idea of the evening's entertainment. In most games there's a limited set of actions. In games like yours, there's this myeterious "Quality" (a la Zen and Motor Cycle Maintenence) that everyone is responsible for building. I don't think you can direct peopel to that. They simply have to want it.

But you explain it all so well.

How have sessions gone with running it -- in it's variaus incarnations?

[Forum Administrator]

Originally posted by Christopher Kubasik
Kuma, Lord of the Rings has been number one or number two at the box office since its release. As of this weekend it's earned some $235 million dollars domestically. It only dropped $3 million this last week, from $19 to $16, and will play at least through the end of March. Most likely it will top out around $300 million. You suggested in a previous post it's not doing well at the box office. I have to ask: What's your defination of success?

:eek:

Uh - this is from left field.

Yeah, I think I mentioned in another post that LotR wasn't doing all that well. I think that this was scuttlebutt from the wifeoid. I see that it's at $228 mil when I just checked it. *shrug* The studio still hasn't broken even on it, if you consider that the budget for Fellowship is $100 mil and the advertising was supposedly $150 mil. They still got two weekends to go. :)

I think that my main point was that LotR needed to be a big hit with non-gamers in order to pull people into the hobby; which it appears that it was, at least on a one-time go-see basis. If you factor in all of the uber-geeks like the ones I have at work, your unique number of butts-in-seats falls appreciably. Most of the geeks I know have seen it 3-4 times; that's $32 a geek around these parts. (To my everlasting shame, I've only seen it once, but WILL see it again, by God!)

It remains to be seen if the gaming industry gets a boost from hobbit-mania. If you consider that the Lord of the Rings is the second-most read book in the English language, you start to get the picture that no matter how many people sit in theatres and get enthralled by this complete masterpiece, there still will only be a bump in the number of D&D gamers out there. It doesn't translate well across the passive-active border.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Yes. $228. I just knew it was up around there. ;)

But, there's no way the studio spent $150 million on advertising. Studios spend up to half the production cost on advertising, not 150%. It's an insane buisiness, but it still exists, so it can't be that crazy.

And if we're going to get into the nitty gritty of actual profit, as opposed to gross, keep in mind that New Line funded the production cost by selling off international rights a during the shooting. This means that the studio will recieve very little of the foriegn market, which is doing very well btw, but that they actually paid far less for the production of all three movies than the $300 million dollars, because distributors across the world actually picked up a chunk of the tab.

So, without trying to actually delcare I know what's on the New Line books (because trying to mind read the books of studios is a little like minding reading an alien life form from across the vast distance of space...) let's say they paid $75 million out of their own pocket for this movie, and then paid out $75 million for advertising (which I really don't think they did -- they got a lot of free tie ins through Burger King and such, and realy worked those great reviews and the internet to get the initial ticket sales up, but let' say that...) That's $150 expense. They covered that weeks ago. My guess is that once you add in DVD, VCR, tv and cable sales, the first movie will more than pay for the production and advertising for all three movies -- meaning TTT and RofK are pure gravy.

This will go down in Hollywood history as one of the smoothest victories in town.

As for LotR / RPG cross over. No. I wouldn't expect there to be. The experience of watching a movie and playing a game are completely different.

I'd humbly suggest you're still working from the point of view as D&D/genre fiction as some sort of entry point for the form of sitting around and making up stories... and you and I just disagree about that.

Nobilis, for example, is a game with magic, but not nescesarily elves. It is a game about the Power of Spreadsheets, the Power of Sports Cars, the Power of Death, the Power of Childish Delight. And anything else that matters to people. Anyone in this country can relate to any power -- so that, for me, is a game with actual break out potential.

(Hogshead didn't write it that way (too many unneeded PC, NPC, OOC abreviations, as well as references to "other games"), so I have no idea how their going to market it, but I think the *concept* has that potential for the reasons above.)

[Christopher Kubasik]

According to my own logic, New Line spent about $50 million (though I might be wrong, where'd you get the $150,000,000 figure), so out of pocket on the first movie is $75 million production, $50 million advertising (which, again, includes liscensing fees to promoters like BK, so it's not just what they sent out, but how much money came back in from other sources) ....

That's $125 million for New Line. They're already up $100 million profit on the whole deal *already.* Again, by the time this this film's closed out, they have guaranteed money makers in 2002 and 2003 that they don't have to spend *a penny* on.

God damn. They took a big risk and it worked!

[Forum Administrator]

Originally posted by Christopher Kubasik
But, there's no way the studio spent $150 million on advertising. Studios spend up to half the production cost on advertising, not 150%. It's an insane buisiness, but it still exists, so it can't be that crazy.

I give you only this: http://www.lordoftheringsmovie.com/index.php3?getnews=1055

which says that the advertising budget for FOTR was $150 mil. And this is not out of the question. Forrest Gump, which grossed $333 mil in the US - in the theaters - was in the hole before it went to video and international release. Studios spend much more in advertising than they do on the actual films themselves. Hell, Kevin Smith spend more on ads than on the movies, so why wouldn't Paramount?

Don't ask me, I'm a game mogul, not a movie mogul. It makes no sense to me either, but there it is. It is an insane business, but the thing is that the costs are spread around enough, and enough people want to be connected to Hollywood, that the business perpetuates itself. Kinda like the dot.coms, only for the long haul.

*shrug*

My guess is that once you add in DVD, VCR, tv and cable sales, the first movie will more than pay for the production and advertising for all three movies -- meaning TTT and RofK are pure gravy.

New Line will have to spend *more* for the next two movies instead of less in advertising. Why? There's always a fall-off in demand for sequels, even sequels as necessary as the next two Lord of the Rings movies. It's just a fact. Star was made $461 mil. Empire Strikes Back made $290, and Jedi made $307 (musta been the muppets). By the way, LotR is #20 with a bullet.

Jurassic Park: $351, Lost World: $229, Jurrasic III: $151. And that's a movie with fecking DINOSAURS in it, which are kid-magnets.

The list goes on. While it's not a golden rule by any stretch of the imagination - T2 is on the Top 50 Gross list and Terminator isn't - it's a pretty good bet that the other movies, particularly Two Towers, aren't going to do as well. This isn't an attack on the movies - I know I'm going to be giving the studios another 1-2 go-arounds before FotR is out of the theatres - it's just a fact, Jack.

This will go down in Hollywood history as one of the smoothest victories in town.

Best victory around? Clerks. $27,575 ----> $3 mil domestic gross.

Nobilis, for example, is a game with magic, but not nescesarily elves. It is a game about the Power of Spreadsheets, the Power of Sports Cars, the Power of Death, the Power of Childish Delight. And anything else that matters to people. Anyone in this country can relate to any power -- so that, for me, is a game with actual break out potential.

Heh? Nobilis has more breakout potential than D&D? Whazzat? Have you read the online snippets that Hogshead has put out in PDF? Personally, I think it's a work of art, and an incredibly rich setting. But lure Joe Sixpack (or someone between Joe Sixpack and George Geek) into roleplaying, for the first time, with Nobilis? Surely you jest.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Well, Kuma, now you and I are down to interpretting vague signs and reading futures uknown. So let me be clear: I'm not contradicting you, just reading the data differently and coming up with my own useless interpretations of future events.

First, Thanks for the link.

The articles refers to "a $300 million trilogy based on the J.R.F. Tolkien tales." And then, in the next sentence: "And that doesn't count the expected $150 million marketing budget."

Now: since the first sentence totals the production cost for all three movies, doesn't it make sense that the "expected ... marketing budget" refers to the budget for all three movies as well.

To me it does. Not only because right there it's refering to all three movies in the previous sentence, but because, again, the general rule of thumb in Hollywood is marketing is one half production. I live here. I read the trades. I'm telling you it's true. But, the sentence isn't clear, and there's clearly no reason to check it until another source is found.

(As far as Forest Gump goes, we'd have to take a look at the specifics. If I'm not mistaken, those figures were trotted out when the author of the novel the movie was based on wanted to know where the hell his bonus was since the movie was clearly making money. The studios *always* claim their movies aren't making money -- until someone drags them into court and an impatient judge makes them open the books or he'll send an auditor to review *all* their film profits -- and then suddenly the books for the film in question are opened and lo and behold, the movie's made money after all.)

Sequels...

That's a hard call. As you pointed out, a few have made more money but most don't.

I've thought about this for LorR, and after seeing the movie, my guess is it's going to stay even for all three. The anticipation of something interesting (not the same) is what makes the sequels rise or equal profits in a previous film. Was Darth Vader really Luke's father? Arnold was the Good Guy in T2. Something new worth paying bucks for.

Most sequels don't do better because people know they're going to get more of the same, but less so.

Again, it's only my guess, but my gut tells me the TTT and RotK are going to do well on this front because it's a contination of the movie, not what we normall call a "sequel." (Die Hard II is a sequel because it's pretty much the same movie as the first, we're not waiting to find out how the whole thing ends... Return of the Jedi, using my newly minted nomeculture, isn't a "sequel" as people are used to them because we're following a story to see how it ends.) Also, the set-pieces, (armies of trees, paths of the dead) will be fresh -- not Bruce running around a building (albiet a new one) again.

Why listen to me? No reason. I might be wrong. But two years ago when everyone in this city was asking, "Are there going to be enough people who read the books to make Fellowship a hit?" my answer was, "Of course not, but Peter Jackson's going to make a great movie that clears $300 million.

I'm just making another prediction.

Back to the thread:

Nobilis

Again, you and I might be interested in hanging out with different kinds of people, my have different expectations for a gaming evening. Yeah. I really think Nobilis would be just fine for a new gamer... as long as the gamer was the kind of gamer who wanted to play DnD. I'm suggesting, again and again, that there might be people who want to sit around making up stories that also have no interest in playing most of the games out on the market. These people might well love Nobilis.

[[Ego]Wumpus]

You see, I feel like people these days have to tight a definition of 'Roleplaying Games'. Sure, the traditional RPG requires a bunch of dice, some pencils and paper, and a bunch of chips and Mt. Dew. But give me a break, we play games because they are fun and social.

So, in theory, if you want people to play RPGs, you have to make them fun, social, and accessible.

Look at Magic:The Garnering... er... Gathering. You play with other people, it had a decent, fast-paced system, so it was fun, and anyone could pick it up quick. In addition, being good at it gave you street cred with your friends; double social points!

My feeling is that the street cred aspect is what you want to play up. Saying you play D&D religously every Tuesday and Thursday nights gives you all of zero credit, except amongst the most hardcore of us. If, on the other hand, you are capable of ranging over field and forest and kicking ass in hand-to-hand combat, then you can go places with that in a conversation at a party.

And by kick ass in hand to hand combat, I do not mean on paper. I mean there are forms of RPGs out there that involve the use of plumbing supplies to beat each other into submission. As many posters have already said, to each their own. I, however, think you're going to draw a lot more people into the genre by giving them something physical; especially with the college-age crowd and the younger than 12 crowd. Kids have a lot of energy; giving them somewhere to put it that introduces or reinforces their roleplaying addictions is going to be the most successful method of bringing new people in. After all, if you give them social perks for being involved in it, you will get more involved, and then ten years down the line you have a bunch of people who think that roleplaying is as natural as any other sport, with the added bonus that unlike any other sport, there are variants you can do at home on a rainy day.

Not that I don't think running around hitting people in the rain isn't fun. :)

[Patrick Chipman]

Being somewhat a fan of Amtgard and my own Final Fantasy Universe myself, I have to say that I do enjoy foam weapon combat as much as the next guy. I even considered adding, as an optional rule, foam weapon combat adaptations of the Skew Effect rules...

...and then I remembered how important the player/character abstraction is, and how difficult it is to implement ranged weapon fire with foam. ;) The thing is that having foam weapons available tends to make people want to beat each other upside the head, rather than get involved in a complex role-playing situation. Perhaps this is a problem with the way the rules are written, or perhaps this is because the game destroys the abstraction of character (as the only game system is physical combat).

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by Christopher Kubasik
As with all these approaches (and why I could never get my head around it as a publishable game) so much of this approach depends on having like minded folks who intiutively "get" the idea of the evening's entertainment. In most games there's a limited set of actions. In games like yours, there's this myeterious "Quality" (a la Zen and Motor Cycle Maintenence) that everyone is responsible for building. I don't think you can direct peopel to that. They simply have to want it.

But you explain it all so well.

How have sessions gone with running it -- in it's variaus incarnations?

Thanks. I tried to explain it well. Personally, I think I can make it even better, but since you say it's well-explained now, hopefully it'll be that much better when I'm personally happy with it.

It is kind of a Zen-gaming. I actually refer to it as an active RPG. My arguement (and I don't remember if this is in the Wheel rd1 or not) goes something like this:

Today, my GM stopped by for a visit. I don't get to game often thanks to my work schedule. But he talked at length on the character backgrounds that he wrote up for the characters in the D&D game he's running. One player's background bothered him the most. He spent about 30 giving me this character's history and background and ended his diatribe with "and he's done nothing with it." Basically, this guy is just showing up and rolling the dice when he's told, doing precious little by way of actually role-playing his character.

(Big surprise the player in question has seeral personal issues, but he's basically playing his character as himself, an anti-social misfit to shy to even attempt a relationship at the female NPC the GM stuck him with)

The point is, this player isn't bringing anything to the gaming table except dice.

Now, some people prefer this style of game, be they player or GM and that's their preference. Essentially the GM is providing almost everything. All the players do is react to what the GM presents them with. Based on this reaction, the GM must then compensate.

And that's fine. Not trying to knock another person's playing style.

But I'm looking for players willing to bring something to the table. The idea here is twofold.

1) a common complaint I've heard from full-time GMs (those who wind up running the game all the time) is that they never get to play anymore. Including my GM. I wanted to find a way to eliminate the GM so a GM can play. The result is more a colaborative effort than what could be called truely GM-less.

2) basically to remedy the above. I've notice, when I ever get to play, that my interest in the game wanes to the point of boredom rather quickly. There needs to be a way to sustain player interest to a higher standard. This is my solution, but milage may vary.

To be honest, doesn't any RPG require some form of "getting" it to really fly? This is beyond the scope of this thread, I suppose, but a big lie in the regular RPG design school is that anyone can play it. The idea being that the game is foolproof and will ensure that the players don't cheat and will play properly.

We all know this isn't so since mini-maxing and munchkinism are phenomena that a GM needs to be wary of, and some may have to deal with on a regular basis.

My basic philosophy is why do you need rules to keep you from cheating? Just don't cheat. Don't rob the other players of their share of the fun, etc. etc. Treat others with a bit of common courtesy. Give them their time in the spotlight. and, well, and so on.

In short, play nice, everyone pulls their own weight.

I have no idea how well this works in actual practice, unfortunately. My schedule keeps me from doing any gaming at this point and my current group is filled with D&D players who may not get it.

Not getting it isn't the problem. It's the not wanting to get it that's a subbling block. SOmeone on another forum on another site mentioned an Everyway campaign he tried to start with his group. One player was dead-set against it saying that such games were no good because all you have to do is say something and it happens. He played anyway and set out to prove how bad Everway was. All he really did was prove how one guy can ruin everyone else's fun.

Which is why, yes, the Wheel and other games require a certain mind-set to work. But then, when it works it can really fly. A more typical game will have a lot of balancing factors built in to keep players from cheating or whatever that get in the way of a properly put together play group.

Or such is the theory I'm riding on and hoping can prove financially viabale.

[Ryan Paddy]

As a big fan of running around in the forest smacking people with foam weapons, I can only strongly concur with Mr Ego Wumpus about live roleplaying pulling in new players.

The live fantasy games I run have attract a lot of people who've never tried pen-and-paper gaming. Half the people playing in my current LARP campaign have never played tabletop, including my co-organiser.

Some of them ask "what's this other type of roleplaying you're talking about" and go on to discover P&P gaming. Which is cool. But some of them don't. Some are vehemanently opposed to the idea. And that's cool too. They've found a creative hobby, and they're happy with it.

There are people on both sides of the border of live and paper gaming that sneer at anyone who enjoys the other type.

Well, that's people for you.

The point being... should we really be discussing LARP as a way of "getting people into roleplaying", like it's some sort of gateway drug? LARP is roleplaying. It's a great hobby in and of itself, for those who enjoy it, and no-one benefits from approaching it as some sort of poor cousin to the "real thing".

Someone pointed out that some LARP games put too strong a focus on combat. Of course, you couldn't possibly say that about paper games

... could you?

Ryan

[Patrick Chipman]

Someone pointed out that some LARP games put too strong a focus on combat. Of course, you couldn't possibly say that about paper games

That depends on the game. It's also worth noting that there are, in fact, two types of LARPs: weapon combat (Amtgard, IFGS, Nero, FFU, and to a lesser extent SCA) and tabletop adaptation (Minds' Eye Theatre, Unisystem LARP, Cthulhu Live!, The Last Exodus LARP, Skew Effect LARP). The former (which are the ones to which I was referring) support, nay, demand combat, as the only game systems they have are for combat. These games go into great detail on weapon building, combat strategies, and the like, and not once due they provide even a modicum of setting information or GMing information, outside of how to properly referee battles. Amtgard is a particularly serious offender in this regard. I have never met, nor spoken, to anyone who has played a foam weapon combat LARP and experienced more than tangential role-playing. I retain hope, however, that someone will break that rule. ;)

The latter LARPs may or may not have rules (Cthulhu Live! is an example of a basically systemless LARP), but all of them include copious amounts of information on the setting and the storytelling requirements of a LARP game. The lack of emphasis on combat -- which is not to say the lack of combat rules, as just because something exists and is detailed does not mean the emphasis is on it -- leads to a game that, while it may involve combat, does not revolve around it (one would hope). Of course, exceptions always exist.

Finally, you assume that I dislike LARPs; quite the contrary, I enjoy them (hell, I'm the LARP coordinator at the local convention ;) ). I'm simply stating that weapon combat LARPs put a high enough emphasis on combat that they drown out the role-playing, that's all. ;)

(And if parts of this message come out incoherent, that's because I'm running on very little sleep. I know that's not a good excuse, but I feel I should use it anyway. ;) )

[[Ego]Wumpus]

Originally posted by Patrick Chipman

That depends on the game. It's also worth noting that there are, in fact, two types of LARPs: weapon combat (Amtgard, IFGS, Nero, FFU, and to a lesser extent SCA) and tabletop adaptation (Minds' Eye Theatre, Unisystem LARP, Cthulhu Live!, The Last Exodus LARP, Skew Effect LARP). The former (which are the ones to which I was referring) support, nay, demand combat, as the only game systems they have are for combat. These games go into great detail on weapon building, combat strategies, and the like, and not once due they provide even a modicum of setting information or GMing information, outside of how to properly referee battles. Amtgard is a particularly serious offender in this regard. I have never met, nor spoken, to anyone who has played a foam weapon combat LARP and experienced more than tangential role-playing. I retain hope, however, that someone will break that rule. ;)



http://www.larp.com/madrigal/
http://www.larp.com/cavalier/
http://www.larp.com/kina/
http://www.hexeonline.com

All of these games are based on a boffer larping system known as nTeraction (I take no responsibility for the name). While they are perhaps not the best games they could be, there is a heavy emphasis on roleplaying... especially in Aralis, the third on the above list.

Hexe, you can see, has a tremendous amount of effort put into background; as much as you see in some gaming supplements.

However, I think that the key to making a system which encourages roleplaying is not the system at all, but the players. If the players are merely interested in swinging plumbing supplies or imaginary bits of shaped metal, then what can you do? All of nothing. If, on the other hand, the players have significant interest in roleplaying, then they will. Skinnerian conditioning, I've found, tends to encourage this mindset.

[Ryan Paddy]

Originally posted by [Ego]Wumpus


http://www.larp.com/madrigal/
http://www.larp.com/cavalier/
http://www.larp.com/kina/
http://www.hexeonline.com



And I'll add the game I help organise to that list of live-combat games with an emphasis on roleplaying:

http://www.larp.com/mordavia/

However, I think that the key to making a system which encourages roleplaying is not the system at all, but the players. If the players are merely interested in swinging plumbing supplies or imaginary bits of shaped metal, then what can you do? All of nothing. If, on the other hand, the players have significant interest in roleplaying, then they will. Skinnerian conditioning, I've found, tends to encourage this mindset.

Yup. Combat is a factor, but the role it takes totally depends on the players.

Patrick - Amtgard, IFGS, Nero, FFU may very well have a combat emphasis to the exclusion of all else, but I wouldn't know because I live in New Zealand. We have live combat games here too. Some of them are extremely roleplaying heavy, and some have surprisingly little combat.

All of them would make pretty good introductions to roleplaying for newcomers. If you can't say the same about the live combat games in your area, that's a pity. But it's not a universal truth.

Ryan