On playing new game systems

[Ovinomancer]

You clearly haven't been to Arizona.


That depends on the game. And how flexible the GM is. Rules-lite games are easy to learn because their rules probably don't get more complex than the "core mechanic." So if you can figure that out, you can figure out the rest. Heavier games can be easy to play if you can grasp the basics, which I think is the important part of this thread, but learning them is probably a different story.

No, I don't care about the validity of the comparison to learning to drive.

Well, one of the examples I made earlier was to a day 'rules-light' system, FATE. There's a different thread going right now where it's pretty obvious that the mechanics are grasped, but the game is missed. There are changes in paradigm that aren't really part of the rules, per se, like how FATE changes over from a DM prepped game to a created-in-the-moment game. That's not something any manner of rules-light overcomes (although rules-light means there's less obfuscation od paradigm shifts).

And, I'll be glad to drop the driving -- I, perhaps, got caught up in being defensive about being misunderstood. I can do better.

 

[jasper]

The same rules applied back in early 80s as they do now.
1. Ease of new rules. Aka Can the GM give the needed rules for the introduction session in one sheet of paper.
2. How long is the session? And set up. OH GAWD we are fifty minutes into the session and the gm is putting pieces on the board.
3. Number of players willing to play and how many does the module needs. What you tell me we need five different roles to play this game and there are only 3 players at the table.

 

[GrahamWills]

There are changes in paradigm that aren't really part of the rules, per se, like how FATE changes over from a DM prepped game to a created-in-the-moment game.

While I disagree with the characterization of Fate as a "created-in-the-moment game" (and have the plot details and background info to prove it!) I completely agree with Ovinomancer's general point -- it's very easy to get a wrong feel from the game based on reading it as opposed to playing it. Fate is a good example; it's easy to get the impression that it's radically different system requiring amazing on-the-spot creative energy from reading the rules and people's posts, but in actual play it, it's not as dramatic a shift as that.

Using my experience anecdotally, this has been my experience for:

• Pathfinder 2: Reading the rules made me think the game was more complex than it was by a lot. Playing it I found it to be much more straightforward.
• Fiasco: I honestly did not think it would work when I read it -- at least, not for traditional role-player types. But it does
• Apocalypse World: Kind of the opposite effect. I expected to really, really like it when reading it and it took me five well-run games to realize that the core mechanic of moves / pick option just doesn't work for me.

 

[Umbran]

No, the quality of the analogy really isn’t the point.

Agreed.

However, there still is a point here - most often, to play an RPG, the player wants to have some expectation of how the system behaves, to know what they can try, and have some idea of how likely it is to work. This does not requires anything like "system mastery" but it does require some base understanding. For everything but the most basic of games, this takes a bit of effort.

Broadly speaking, the best method I have seen to get some of that basic understanding is to play a one-off session. You aren't committing to or investing a lot, so it doesn't matter if the game goes well. But it gives you ideas of the basic mechanical operations, scale, and expectations.

This is kind of why I asked about what you meant by trying out a new system. There's try, and then there's try, you see.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is no try, only do!

(It had to be said.)

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

Morrus is a gem for pushing the visibility of other games, and I love him for it.

This year, my devious plan for promoting more types of RPGs (apart from running indie games in our local monthly one-shot meetup, A Good Day To Dice) is to carry around Alex Roberts' For The Queen everywhere I go - a great card-based game for introducing newbies to roleplay-based gaming.

 

[Ovinomancer]

While I disagree with the characterization of Fate as a "created-in-the-moment game" (and have the plot details and background info to prove it!) I completely agree with Ovinomancer's general point -- it's very easy to get a wrong feel from the game based on reading it as opposed to playing it. Fate is a good example; it's easy to get the impression that it's radically different system requiring amazing on-the-spot creative energy from reading the rules and people's posts, but in actual play it, it's not as dramatic a shift as that.

Using my experience anecdotally, this has been my experience for:

• Pathfinder 2: Reading the rules made me think the game was more complex than it was by a lot. Playing it I found it to be much more straightforward.
• Fiasco: I honestly did not think it would work when I read it -- at least, not for traditional role-player types. But it does
• Apocalypse World: Kind of the opposite effect. I expected to really, really like it when reading it and it took me five well-run games to realize that the core mechanic of moves / pick option just doesn't work for me.

I'm curious how you ran FATE with a tight prep like D&D. Not disbelieving, just curious because that's not how I understand the system at all. How do you allow player invokes or DM compels drive the story if it's already mapped?

 

[Reynard]

I'm curious how you ran FATE with a tight prep like D&D. Not disbelieving, just curious because that's not how I understand the system at all. How do you allow player invokes or DM compels drive the story if it's already mapped?

Not @GrahamWills but just because you know or have a good idea of the scene to scene flow doesn't mean you know precisely how any given scene is going to develop and turn out. This is true in any game, not just Fate. But in fate, because it is a fiction forward, player narrative driven game, you can still have dynamic set pieces even if they inevitably lead to the next set piece. One media example might be a Michael Bay movie -- each action scene necessarily leads to the next to progress the plot (such that it is) but there are a million ways each of those scenes might have been choreographed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not @GrahamWills but just because you know or have a good idea of the scene to scene flow doesn't mean you know precisely how any given scene is going to develop and turn out. This is true in any game, not just Fate. But in fate, because it is a fiction forward, player narrative driven game, you can still have dynamic set pieces even if they inevitably lead to the next set piece. One media example might be a Michael Bay movie -- each action scene necessarily leads to the next to progress the plot (such that it is) but there are a million ways each of those scenes might have been choreographed.

Right. In D&D, the DM creates, stocks, and then presents the dungeon for the players to discover and overcome the already established fiction. FATE, on the other hand, works when you just establish that a dungeon is there, and some qualities, and a reason for the PCs to care, but it's not mapped or stocked ahead of play because those things need to follow play, not lead it. If Graham is just meaning they have a rough outline of the plot with some set pieces better framed to start (the villian's lair is a good one), then we aren't in disagreement. But, if he does plot things out more tightly a la D&D prep, then that's a way I've not seen or heard of FATE working well, and I'm genuinely curious as to how that worked out.

 

[Umbran]

I'm curious how you ran FATE with a tight prep like D&D. Not disbelieving, just curious because that's not how I understand the system at all. How do you allow player invokes or DM compels drive the story if it's already mapped?

Others have answered but... archetypal D&D style prep is about stats and maps - populating a space with things for the PCs to interact with. It is not about events.

Invokes and compels are about what happens in the space once play begins.