On playing new game systems

[dragoner]

If a regualr game group is trying a new game, someone still has to to run it ...

I'm not sure if your solutions actually mitigate the concerns; nevertheless, the others still exist. For example, when I ran my Mythras - Caverns of Thracia game, or M-Space near future homebrew, the players played them because one, I was running them, and two, I got them interested in the settings. So the "why?" Is very important, and most likely it is a better question is on running new game systems; because if someone will run it, often they can attract players.

 

[schneeland]

@dragoner :
While I agree on your general reasoning, I feel your case might require a bit less persuasion, because you are staying within the same rule system/family. Had your suggestion been to switch from Mythras to Traveller, it might have been a little harder.
But as I said, I think you are right that it helps greatly if someone is passionate about running a system.

 

[dragoner]

... to switch from Mythras to Traveller.

Which there is some humor in you mentioning it, because after I ran the Mythras game this last autumn, we did switch to Mongoose 1e Traveller for a one shot; though with myself as player, not GM. We had been playing and running that system (MgT1) for about ten years.

Still I think there is more to the statement of "I don't want to learn a new system" which is able to be unpacked, I know I have said it myself, a lot of it is just that someone asks what about game X, and it's just not appealing.

 

[Umbran]

So this is just me saying that if trying a new game system seems like too much work to you, give it a try! You may find it's a lot easier than you expected! And as a bonus, you get to have fun!

Define, "try a new game system".

If "try a new game system" is sitting in on a 4-hour one-shot, sure, I totally agree with you.

If "try a new game system" is committing to a session a week for several months... then I think you've missed the difference between the needs of one-shot vs. campaign play. It is much the same as the difference between short stories and novels. In a short form, you are unlikely to be using the more complex facets of a system to any depth, and players just aren't that worried about screwing up, because they don't have a lot to lose.

If long-term character development is part of the commitment, then rather more understanding of the system is usually required to get satisfactory results.

 

[Umbran]

It's not, really, though. Not compared to, say, driving a car or cooking a meal, or the many other things people do each day. I think this myth that learning a new RPG system has to be a lot of work could do with some pushback.

For the car analogy to work, learning a new system is not like driving a car. It is like learning to drive a car. I don't know about Britain, but over here, you need to take a class just to get a permit, and you take a whole lot of practice before you just jump on the highway.

So, you are comparing, say, driving a car (playing a game you know) to, say, learning how to ride a motorcycle. Not the same effort there. Folks, don't just pick up new skillsets in an afternoon just because. If I want to go to the grocery, I hop in my car. I don't hop on my wife's motorcycle and just learn to ride as I go. Folks make an active choice to take on a new thing, and have to work at it - and the experience while learning is no the same as the experience once they have learned.

Note: I am not against learning new systems. I am for it! Every time I start a new campaign, I'm picking up a new system, and teaching my group! But, I am also for recognizing the extra effort involved, rather than dismissing or minimizing it, and taking due consideration to making that effort pay off.

 

[aramis erak]

Learning new systems is more than just the difficulty of new mechanics and/or new settings. It's not just the setting itself changing, but also the acceptable range of characters.

Like Dragoner, I've had players play because I was GMing, trusting that the game would at least be amusing, even if the system was bad.

And I've had good campaigns based upon mediocre rulesets.

And, @Zhaleskra, you left out part of the problem with d20...
most d20 adaptations were ineptly done. Made it real hard to find the worthy ones, Some were good ideas poorly executed, a few were bad ideas executed in gorgeous layouts, some were just bad all around, but only a few were both well written and well designed. (I like to think T20 Traveller's Handbook was well done, even if my involvement makes me prejudiced in its favor. On the other hand, I've not run it since the playtest ended; I've borrowed parts into MegaTraveller and Mongoose Traveller.)

 

[Aldarc]

The idea that new TTRPGs are somehow difficult to learn - often with the assumption of games apart from D&D - in an era where people are jumping between learning new video games and board games seems far-fetched.

IME, it’s not difficult getting people to play other TTRPGs apart from D&D, even newcomers to gaming. I will often run D&D for those who never played it so they have the experience but then use D&D as a means to gauge further interest in other TT games. What did they like and dislike about D&D and are there games that engage those play preferences better. This is also why I like learning new games because it means that I can find games that my players may like better for different types or genres of games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The idea that new TTRPGs are somehow difficult to learn - often with the assumption of games apart from D&D - in an era where people are jumping between learning new video games and board games seems far-fetched.

IME, it’s not difficult getting people to play other TTRPGs apart from D&D, even newcomers to gaming. I will often run D&D for those who never played it so they have the experience but then use D&D as a means to gauge further interest in other TT games. What did they like and dislike about D&D and are there games that engage those play preferences better. This is also why I like learning new games because it means that I can find games that my players may like better for different types or genres of games.

I disagree, I think, but then it really comes to the details. If you mean it's easy to be taught a new game by a passionate advocate, sure, I'm down. If you mean it's easy to pick up a game sight unseen or with a brief skim, not so much. And, really, it's not the mechanics that are the problem, as the OP tries to suggest, but grokking what the game is really abour that's often the hard leap of understanding.

I mean, heck, we sure argue about how to play D&D at a fundamental level often enough on this board, but we're all still rolling the same dice, right? Recent discussions about FATE show that while a poster understood the rules they missed the game.

As an example, I was asked to pick up WEG Star Wars and run a few games lately. I haven't touched the system in the better part of a decade, but I'm not at all concerned about relearning the mechanics. What I am.concerned about is taking the time to read and grok how the system actually plays so I can use those mechanics to best extent. Last time I played I thought it was D&D with dice pools, so I have some learning to do. That will take some study and time.

 

[Morrus]

For the car analogy to work, learning a new system is not like driving a car. It is like learning to drive a car.

It’s usually way easier than learning to drive a car. I’d say by an order of magnitude.

I don't know about Britain, but over here, you need to take a class just to get a permit, and you take a whole lot of practice before you just jump on the highway.

It’s much more difficult over here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s usually way easier than learning to drive a car. I’d say by an order of magnitude.

Is it? I mean, you press the thing and go and turn with that thing and stop with that thing. About as hard as learning a handful of mechanics, right?

I think we've gotten to the point where the argument includes different unspoken things as success states. For RPGs, in this thread, it seems to be very low at 'can you use this mechanics, great!' For cars, though, is seems to be 'can you drive this car without causing accidents and according to all the detailed laws of driving, evidence of duly witnessed and approved by government official.'

Now, granted, the failure state for a new RPG mechanic is pretty light compared to a motor vehicle's possible range of failures to drive. That's valid. But let's take care that we don't reduce RPGs to trivial interactions with a dice mechanic and use that to prove that RPGs are easy to learn. Like driving, there's a bit more to it than that. I mean, I learned to drive a car around an empty parking lot in about 15 minutes. That seems to be the comparison to learning a new RPG being made, yeah?