Asmor
First Post
Those both fell completely flat among my circle of friends... You really need to have the right group to get the most out of them, I think.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)
- Thread starter InVinoVeritas
- Start date
Those both fell completely flat among my circle of friends... You really need to have the right group to get the most out of them, I think.
True. But people just as often don't like those things after they try them. There is a tendency to universalize one's own tastes, no matter how niche (it wasn't gamers or SF aficionados who taught me this, it was hard-core opera fans).
Some people just don't like Dune, Puccini, and pretending to be an elf. Even after they give it a go.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
We've had tremendous success introducing new players (particularly women) to the hobby though high-octane spy/action games like Feng Shui and Spycraft. Everyone has seen James Bond movies and action movies, so they're a little more accessible to new players than fantasy.
Horror, such as Dread, is also a great introduction. I find fast-paced action works a little better than moody horror for making a fun first game, though.
Horror, such as Dread, is also a great introduction. I find fast-paced action works a little better than moody horror for making a fun first game, though.
Aye, Dark Overlord! has been our post convention wind down game for my circle of friends, who tend to be a bit burned out after our con because they're the staff. The players are usually college aged, with familiarity with rpgs and modern boardgames, and the group as a whole is about 50/50 gender wise.
I don't think I'd be willing to bring it out to play with a bunch of guys, particularly a bunch of hardcore RPG players. They're... not the right type.
Wombat
First Post
These questions have been around for quite some time, but matters seem to be advancing the point.
Consider in computer games the classic divide: First Person Shooters versus The Sims. Now while I know a lot of women who like the former and men who like the latter, the games tend to draw in the gender that you might expect with them. In other words there is something of a gender divide, but there is enough wash-over to make the potential market worth exploring.
In rpgs White Wolf's WoD does attract a noticeable percentage of female players, although as we know so well trying to determine how many and who actually plays games is difficult to determine. Still, there are aspects of WoD that seem to draw in non-combat inclined players -- the importance of emotion, of consequences to actions, the emphasis on working around to avoid combat. Indeed, the "surprise hit" of the NWoD line has been Changeling -- I have seen (multiple) whole sessions of that with no physical conflict whatsoever, while there is a lot of emphasis on one's emotional state. Again, I have seen a lot of women (& men with less interest in combat-games, even traditional non-gamers) attracted to this game.
The "problem" (and that is a loaded word, sorry) of most gaming is trying to get outside of the "combat box". RPGs tend to strongly emphasize combat. The game rules themselves bear this out -- a huge part of any standard game book is devoted to combat. Conversely, games that have active rules for dealing with social interaction and/or emotion tracking are pretty light on the ground. As such, the image of RPGs remains that of "adolescent fantasy", combat without consequences, battle accepted easily and the only reaction to it is a grim smile of satisfaction. This is necessarily going to drive a certain segment of the population in general.
So this is not necessarily a gender divide per se, although there is a very broad connection. It could be seen much more as a "combat versus social" divide. Still, no matter what ever happens, there will always be nongamers ... although it might be possible to reach out to a wider audience by broadening the times of games generally available.
Consider in computer games the classic divide: First Person Shooters versus The Sims. Now while I know a lot of women who like the former and men who like the latter, the games tend to draw in the gender that you might expect with them. In other words there is something of a gender divide, but there is enough wash-over to make the potential market worth exploring.
In rpgs White Wolf's WoD does attract a noticeable percentage of female players, although as we know so well trying to determine how many and who actually plays games is difficult to determine. Still, there are aspects of WoD that seem to draw in non-combat inclined players -- the importance of emotion, of consequences to actions, the emphasis on working around to avoid combat. Indeed, the "surprise hit" of the NWoD line has been Changeling -- I have seen (multiple) whole sessions of that with no physical conflict whatsoever, while there is a lot of emphasis on one's emotional state. Again, I have seen a lot of women (& men with less interest in combat-games, even traditional non-gamers) attracted to this game.
The "problem" (and that is a loaded word, sorry) of most gaming is trying to get outside of the "combat box". RPGs tend to strongly emphasize combat. The game rules themselves bear this out -- a huge part of any standard game book is devoted to combat. Conversely, games that have active rules for dealing with social interaction and/or emotion tracking are pretty light on the ground. As such, the image of RPGs remains that of "adolescent fantasy", combat without consequences, battle accepted easily and the only reaction to it is a grim smile of satisfaction. This is necessarily going to drive a certain segment of the population in general.
So this is not necessarily a gender divide per se, although there is a very broad connection. It could be seen much more as a "combat versus social" divide. Still, no matter what ever happens, there will always be nongamers ... although it might be possible to reach out to a wider audience by broadening the times of games generally available.
Adding rules-heaviness in other areas is probably not very much to the point. Are you PLAYING in those areas, with or without "game systems" for them? Try just doing it first, then see whether your target audience calls for more dice rolls and number crunching.
I really don't see anything mechanically special about White Wolf's "Storyteller" games. What stands out is attitude, and a lot of game fiction in the rule books. Attitude matters!
Old-style D&D awarded XP chiefly for wealth acquired. If a magic sword can be a treasure, why not a garden? The "problem" is that what you get by gaining levels is more stuff to do with "dungeons" and "dragons" -- funny how it works out that way, eh?
If one really has no interest in "killing monsters and taking their stuff", then it's really beside the point to get -- or NOT to get -- more "hit points" and other stuff that has nothing to do with building relationships, falling in love, growing a garden or a business, and so on. It doesn't take a "roll to hit or save" to accomplish goals via role-playing; in an old fashioned dungeon game, you either learn that or you just keep rolling up new characters to replace the casualties of fickle fortune. And the accomplishments can be plenty rewarding in themselves, just as they are in real life.
Writing up non-combat skills goes all the way back to Empire of the Petal Throne (1975), in which a character could be a cook, grocer, perfumer, scribe-accountant, artist, author, botanist, dancer, musician, physician, poet, and so on. Traveller (1977) and RuneQuest (1978) dispensed with classes and levels and introduced the ratings and rolls that are pretty synonymous with "skills systems" in RPGs today.
Traveller (like the earlier sci-fi game Metamorphosis Alpha) greatly de-emphasizes increasing "stats", although it is possible (with investment in training) to do so. Your character enters play with a skill set; the big question is, "What will you do with it?"
In RuneQuest, you tend to get better at doing whatever it is that you do a lot (provided you succeed at it in significant situations, demonstrating that if you've made mistakes then you have in fact learned from them). It's the same whether your adventures involve sword-swinging or customer-charming, burglary or writing, medicine or child-wrangling.
But people who are not "gamers" in the RPG sense, even if they are avid players of board games, may be indifferent to -- or even turned off by -- the dice-fetishism that so many of us take for granted. It really is the difference between "a miniatures game" and "playing with dolls", between "an RPG" and "let's pretend".
I really don't see anything mechanically special about White Wolf's "Storyteller" games. What stands out is attitude, and a lot of game fiction in the rule books. Attitude matters!
Old-style D&D awarded XP chiefly for wealth acquired. If a magic sword can be a treasure, why not a garden? The "problem" is that what you get by gaining levels is more stuff to do with "dungeons" and "dragons" -- funny how it works out that way, eh?
If one really has no interest in "killing monsters and taking their stuff", then it's really beside the point to get -- or NOT to get -- more "hit points" and other stuff that has nothing to do with building relationships, falling in love, growing a garden or a business, and so on. It doesn't take a "roll to hit or save" to accomplish goals via role-playing; in an old fashioned dungeon game, you either learn that or you just keep rolling up new characters to replace the casualties of fickle fortune. And the accomplishments can be plenty rewarding in themselves, just as they are in real life.
Writing up non-combat skills goes all the way back to Empire of the Petal Throne (1975), in which a character could be a cook, grocer, perfumer, scribe-accountant, artist, author, botanist, dancer, musician, physician, poet, and so on. Traveller (1977) and RuneQuest (1978) dispensed with classes and levels and introduced the ratings and rolls that are pretty synonymous with "skills systems" in RPGs today.
Traveller (like the earlier sci-fi game Metamorphosis Alpha) greatly de-emphasizes increasing "stats", although it is possible (with investment in training) to do so. Your character enters play with a skill set; the big question is, "What will you do with it?"
In RuneQuest, you tend to get better at doing whatever it is that you do a lot (provided you succeed at it in significant situations, demonstrating that if you've made mistakes then you have in fact learned from them). It's the same whether your adventures involve sword-swinging or customer-charming, burglary or writing, medicine or child-wrangling.
But people who are not "gamers" in the RPG sense, even if they are avid players of board games, may be indifferent to -- or even turned off by -- the dice-fetishism that so many of us take for granted. It really is the difference between "a miniatures game" and "playing with dolls", between "an RPG" and "let's pretend".
Last edited:
Ahhh...the Golden Quote!
IMHO, that's just a matter of how a particular GM runs his game. I have no problem letting people network in a city, take up farming, etc.- usually, its the other gamers who do.
In the RW, they do their housework, network in the city, etc., and when they game, they want adventure. They're not interested in fleshing out FRPG analogues to every aspect of their real lives.
As far as I can tell, if you have a whole group of people who want to RP everyday life in an FRPG setting, you can do it in almost any RPG.
But IME, if you have a mix of traditional (adventuring) role-players and "Joe Homebody" role-players, eventually, the former are going to get peeved with the latter for taking up valuable gaming time with "shopping." And the latter group are going to feel like they're being forced to do things they have no interest in doing (killing evil dudes for phat lewt).
Much wisdom there.
Pseudopsyche
First Post
There's a difference between encouraging people to give RPGs a try because they might like them and trying to change the nature of RPGs so that more people will like them (after they try them). I don't think it's defeatist to say that the product (D&D for example) is fine but perhaps could use better marketing (perceptions of what playing D&D is all about). This opinion does contrast with the sentiment of the OP, which seems to suggest that we should change the product to broaden its appeal.
Perhaps then something close to the Palladium experience system will work with some tweaks. Most of the experience are from coming up with ideas, working out solutions etc. There is some combat related parts to it, but on the whole its more roleplaying and idea.
I would suggest something like a times level to the xp award though. It can very easily become almost impossible to gain levels at some point
I would suggest something like a times level to the xp award though. It can very easily become almost impossible to gain levels at some point
Here's the thing: I don't get to slay many dragons / droids / Shadows in my daily life. I don't get to catch many robbers, explore many monster-infested temples or visit other planets very often. So it's fun to pretend about those things.
But a Tea Party I could actually do. I mean, I don't (unless you count Tea Ceremony, which I've tried and is quite cool)... but the point is I could. And if I were going to have a Tea Party, why would I need to be a Dwarven Huscarl to do it? Couldn't I just be me and have a Tea Party?
I don't role play being a grad student or doing people's tax prep, either. I don't role play sleeping or reading or posting on EN World. I can do all that myself.
Due to the sad effects of habitat destruction and global warming, there just aren't that many dragons around... and if they weren't extinct, they'd probably be protected by Greenpeace dudes. So I pretty much don't have any opportunity in my life to take a shot at one. Tea, though, there is still plenty of and I can actually drink it without needing to pretend. And I can sit around a table and have real relationships with people without having to have pretend ones. The dragons, though... that's the hard part. It's an issue of scarcity, you see.
Similar Threads
