Attracting new people to gaming -- ideas and strategies

[Shadowslayer]

There has got to be a way to streamline the system so that people who don't care too much about the numbers can get a balanced character and a balanced game together with little to no crunching. Perhaps this is just me, but it was enough that when I was trying to teach myself Magic (years and years ago when it first came out), I gave up and didn't come back to the game for another 10 years and that was only because someone I knew played and persuaded me to let him teach me. In that case, the "complicated" rules put me off the game. It would have been the same for D&D if I hadn't had someone holding my hand from before I even bought my first PHB.

I agree wholeheartedly, and the Basic set does that quite well, but only up to 2nd level. After that you're on your own. It states that after 2nd level you should go buy the PHB.

There's no feats. The skills used are the type that everyone has to a degree (spot, listen, escape, search etc, and its based on your ability score...no buying ranks) AoO are drastically simplified. You get 4 races, 4 classes, 3 alignments (good evil and neutral) Initiative is in descending order of Dex score, no dice rolling. And you get some nice premade characters, so you can just pull it out of the box and go. (I put mine in plastic sleeves and have the kids track hitpoints with overhead projector pens.)

I've actually had a lot of fun with the basic set, but decided to go to Castles and Crusades because it does the job better as a basic game IMHO. (no I'm not trying to start a thread on the merits or shortcomings of C&C)

I'll tell ya, I just signed on for a 3.5e game, so I've been going over my PHB tonight to do up a character. I was looking it over, and reading the fine points and realized that if I was a brand new gamer, my head would probably explode trying to keep all this stuff straight.

I think a basic edition is sorely needed.

 

[William Ronald]

I agree wholeheartedly, and the Basic set does that quite well, but only up to 2nd level. After that you're on your own. It states that after 2nd level you should go buy the PHB.

There's no feats. The skills used are the type that everyone has to a degree (spot, listen, escape, search etc, and its based on your ability score...no buying ranks) AoO are drastically simplified. You get 4 races, 4 classes, 3 alignments (good evil and neutral) Initiative is in descending order of Dex score, no dice rolling. And you get some nice premade characters, so you can just pull it out of the box and go. (I put mine in plastic sleeves and have the kids track hitpoints with overhead projector pens.)

I've actually had a lot of fun with the basic set, but decided to go to Castles and Crusades because it does the job better as a basic game IMHO. (no I'm not trying to start a thread on the merits or shortcomings of C&C)

I'll tell ya, I just signed on for a 3.5e game, so I've been going over my PHB tonight to do up a character. I was looking it over, and reading the fine points and realized that if I was a brand new gamer, my head would probably explode trying to keep all this stuff straight.

I think a basic edition is sorely needed.

There is a good discussion about this in particular at Would D&D be easier if..., where I suggested perhaps having an introductory set which could go up to level five or ten. (I think 5th level would be sufficient.) The main thing would be to keep it simple, but to be sure that characters from an introductory set could be used with the core rules.

 

[Shadowslayer]

There is a good discussion about this in particular at Would D&D be easier if..., where I suggested perhaps having an introductory set which could go up to level five or ten. (I think 5th level would be sufficient.) The main thing would be to keep it simple, but to be sure that characters from an introductory set could be used with the core rules.

I see your view. Agree that characters should be compatible with the core rules. However, I'd like to see a basic edition that can stand on its own too.

I may be all wet here, I really don't know how the industry works, but I just keep thinking that the perfect scenario would be something that CAN feed into the "big" game...but doesn't HAVE to. Keep the basic stuff functional, playable, and affordable so that older grade schoolers can play it.
I believe the basic game would still lead players into the main game eventually.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

Has anyone mentioned boardgames yet? IMX, it's easier to get people who have never played ANYTHING to play a boardgame than an RPG. Here's a selection of transitional games from one end of the spectrum to the other:

Dungeon by TSR was a great intro game back in the day. The mechanics are just one step up from Monopoly. Like most boardgames, there is no DM and the game is competitive. However, players must select a type of hero to play (i.e. a class), and the basic concepts of exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, casting spells, gathering treasure, and setting off traps are all there.

Heroscape by MB and the D&D Miniatures game are two recent games that fall more on the boardgame side of the spectrum than RPG. Neither requires a DM. However, they do offer a variety of quests and allow for team play (which is one step toward cooperative play). Both focus highly on individual pieces rather than large units, making it easier to transition mentally to roleplaying. (Traditional miniatures wargaming is more unit-oriented, and roleplaying a whole unit is, well, just plain odd.)

Heroquest by MB was probably the best RPG-intro boardgame I've seen. It steps across the boundary from boardgame into RPGs while retaining much familiar ground. It's basically a bare-bones RPG with a handful of simple quests played out on a board with miniatures. It requires a DM and is cooperative in nature, so things like talking to NPCs becomes possible. The transition to a paper-and-pencil game is really as easy as just forgoing the board/miniatures and saying, "Ok, imagine, if you will..."

The next step toward RPGdom would probably be the D&D Adventure Game boxed set by WotC (mine is dated 2000). Like Heroquest, it came with all the visual aids needed for the various quests provided in the rules, but the rules themselves are a lot closer to the D&D we all know and love. Imagine the sudden epiphany when the players come to the end of the quest, move their figures off the gameboard, and the DM just KEEPS GOING... "Ok, you find your way back to the trail that leads to the village. Up ahead you hear the sound of approaching hoofbeats...."

ironregime

 

[Seonaid]

Imagine the sudden epiphany when the players come to the end of the quest, move their figures off the gameboard, and the DM just KEEPS GOING... "Ok, you find your way back to the trail that leads to the village. Up ahead you hear the sound of approaching hoofbeats...."

I don't know . . . I like the idea of a board game, but I'm not sure it would work. This (above) assumes/implies that the DM, at least, has experience with D&D (or whatever). But aren't we trying to pull in people who have never ever considered playing? This is actually *great* for people who have one person to teach them, but in order to expand the game significantly, we need to get people who've never looked at a RPG book seriously.

I kind of agree with Shadowslayer, that the basic set should be able to stand completely on its own . . . but then why would people jump to the (arguably) "better" game of D&D? If the idea is to get more people into *gaming*, this works well. If it's to get people into D&D, not so much. I don't know; just thinking out loud. :\

 

[Shadowslayer]

snip... the basic set should be able to stand completely on its own . . . but then why would people jump to the (arguably) "better" game of D&D? If the idea is to get more people into *gaming*, this works well. If it's to get people into D&D, not so much. I don't know; just thinking out loud. :\

Well, the Old Red Box led lots of guys into AD&D. (I know...different time) But as long as those Basic games have ads and references to "real" D&D, and Wizards of the Coast online, it will lead them there eventually. Keep the "real" game the one with the fancy rulebooks, and the slick covers and the pretty pictures...keep the basic one kinda no-frills...but playable. They'd come.

 

[Seonaid]

Okay, I can see that now.

 

[William Ronald]

Well, the Old Red Box led lots of guys into AD&D. (I know...different time) But as long as those Basic games have ads and references to "real" D&D, and Wizards of the Coast online, it will lead them there eventually. Keep the "real" game the one with the fancy rulebooks, and the slick covers and the pretty pictures...keep the basic one kinda no-frills...but playable. They'd come.

I think that this is a good approach, assuming that a Basic game was kept affordable, and perhaps only covered a small range of levels. This would serve to help keep costs low, introduce key concepts, and save some of the complex stuff for the "real" game.

 

[pogre]

I think the game itself has to fundamentally change to bring wider appeal. Sort of like the way GW took miniature wargaming to the next level a few years ago.

I find myself in francisca's camp. I'll still play my games - I'll recruit players as I need them.

 

[Shadowslayer]

I think the game itself has to fundamentally change to bring wider appeal. Sort of like the way GW took miniature wargaming to the next level a few years ago.

I find myself in francisca's camp. I'll still play my games - I'll recruit players as I need them.

For the sake of the discussion, how would you do that? (I made some points early on in the thread about that too.)