Buy In - thoughts and queries

[steeldragons]

This thread is brought to you in part by @Mercurius ' thread on a Player Primer.

It is also brought to you in part with my own indecision and wonderings on the best way introduce a new game setting & system.

I have a Player's Handbook, nearly complete for my World of Orea RPG [to be played, specifically in my decades old setting of Orea, but designed in such a way that the system could be used in a variety of settings...and the setting could be used, independently with any system of your choice]. The classes are each 2 page spreads, detailing what the class is [in Orea], that class' features, and a few variants on the theme. The rules take significantly less pages, I assure you, and the spells, traditionally included in the player material, are pulled out into an individual book of spells and powers - since DMs need access to this info as well. I am striving, with all of the editing and layout magic I can muster to keep the PHB to 64 pages.

In a random thought experiment, I thought of putting together a basics/primer kind of short manual (not all of the classes, not all of the races, etc...)...and this has led me to question the entire system. I have "stat blocks" of classes that take, about, a quarter to a third of a page. The rules, obviously, would take up just as much room. But the overall product would be significantly simpler and less detailed on the world-elements.

So...I find myself wondering, how much "buy in" can really be expected? There's no set answer of course. Certain types of players require -well, "desire" as none of it is "required"- less or more. New players might find less to be better/easier...Experienced players who prefer various playstyles might want more...or outright different than is detailed.

But, all in all, should not "buy in" be minimal? Or not!?

I mean, the players are all there for a reason. Whether they are new to the game and want to try it out, experienced looking just for the fun/challenge of play, a love for D&D-type games, a love of the fantasy genre in general, a love of Harry Potter and nothing else, the social element...or just wanting to do something/share an activity/evening with their significant other...everyone's there for a reason. Presumably, they want to be there to play an rpg.

So, how much material is "too much"? How much is expecting too much from folks to buy in? And how does one decide/draw the lines?

Is a 16 page primer, automatically, more accessible? Is the 64 page "full starter" manual, automatically, required or optional? Is the 128-320 pp. tome, with setting details of cultures, religions, nations, non-standard PC and/or NPC races that are present in the world, etc. etc. etc..., automatically, the 'best way" [and yes, "best" is completely subjective]?

How much "buy in" do you expect from your players? How much "buy in" are you willing to give them? Or none at all, just roll 'em up and play and see where it goes? How much are you willing to exert yourself to buy in to a game you are not running? Or to buy in to a setting you might or might not want to use [won't know til you've read/bought it]?

It's all completely subjective, yet seems exceptionally necessary/crucial to success...for both the success of the individual home table/campaign as well as the [much] larger material concerns of producing an entire new game or setting. I can only assume that this is something the folks working on 5e are examining in some detail...though I haven't seen any of that yet [what 5e is doing isn't really me concern, as 1) they have a LOT more people working on things than just myself and 2) I am not seeking to emulate 5e D&D, but would like to succeed, myself.]

So...yeah...any, all, different thoughts on "buy in"?

Go!

 

[Jan van Leyden]

As much as buy-in from the players is concerned: exepect nothing and you won't be disappointed.

This reflects my experiences with my players, of course.

I once handed them hardcopies of the Ptolus Player's Guide to prepare for the campaign: one really read it, two glanced over it, the other two showed no trace of ever opening it.

I once founded a Yahoo group for all things regarding a campaign: I stopped it after writing some ten messages with just one short reply from one player.

I tried to organize information using e-mail: I usually get close to no replies, remaining in the dark about who actually read it.

Just today I talked with [MENTION=94712]Lindeloef[/MENTION] about using Obsidian portal for a shared campaign we're planning; he is not very optimistic about possible participation of the players, who are a completely different set of people.

Thinking about the topic in this context, a possible solution may be to break down the material into tiny bits and give it to player(s) asking for it. While it's probably no less work than writing up the complete stuff, I feel it's more likely to acutally be used that way.

 

[steeldragons]

As much as buy-in from the players is concerned: exepect nothing and you won't be disappointed.

Lol. Ain't that the truth!

Thinking about the topic in this context, a possible solution may be to break down the material into tiny bits and give it to player(s) asking for it. While it's probably no less work than writing up the complete stuff, I feel it's more likely to acutally be used that way.

This is my leaning...and reflects my suggestions to [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] in his Player Primer thread. Write up the generals, with individual pages for those classes/races as needed for the players who choose them. Hence, their amount of buy in is determined by the players, themselves...and everyone likes a sense of control. Those that can't be bothered, don't need it. Those that want the extra info have easy access to it.

But then, OTOH, I imagine people becoming disinterested because they need/want to read through everything to make their choices...and be annoyed that they don't have immediate/easy access to everything in order to make those choices. "How do I know if I want to be an elf is I don't have the specs/stats/abilities of what an elf in Orea can do?!" or a mage or a druid or half-orc or a human from this realm as opposed to that realm or whatever.

For a table/individual game, I think this would work very well. From a publishing/"what to release/produce" perspective...I don't know that it's really possible.

I mean, I can produce tidbits, specific guides/manuals/primers to small pieces of the setting or particular setting-specific classes/races/etc... The "World of Orea Guide to...Fighters" or "...Mages of R'Hath" or "...Mostrial, the Green Kingdom" or "the Races of Gorunduu" or what have you. Compile them into a "full" PHB later if the interest seems to be there...

On the one hand, I think "yeah this can work" and then OTOH, "I just don't know if it is 'better'."

OTOOH, I don't know if it is realistic to think producing so many different lil' books would be profitable.

I have a lot of hands...and, unfortunately, can see all of them.

 

[delericho]

Rather than present the players with a primer up-front, I instead have a thread on our message board entitled "Five Things You Know About..." Each session, I add a new entry, giving a topic and then 5 bullet points about that topic that the PCs know.

It's then up to the players to read it or not. But since some of that material comes up in the game, they generally do.

And I think that may be the key to it: present the information in bite-size pieces, don't do it all at once, and reward those who bother to develop "campaign mastery".

 

[Umbran]

So...I find myself wondering, how much "buy in" can really be expected? There's no set answer of course. Certain types of players require -well, "desire" as none of it is "required"- less or more. New players might find less to be better/easier...Experienced players who prefer various playstyles might want more...or outright different than is detailed.

But, all in all, should not "buy in" be minimal? Or not!?

I think you may be conflating a couple of things that should be separate. How much commitment should you expect from a player? What can you expect a committed player to actually do? And here's where some of the subjectivity comes in. You can have two different players, with the same level of commitment to your game (as best as that can be measured, anyway), but who will give you different results because of their differences as people. The same request does not imply the same level of commitment from everyone.

For example: Getting Player A to read your 100+ pages of game world documentation is no big deal. Player B resists, and getting them to read your worldbook is a nigh-impossible task. Meanwhile, getting Player A to give a solid answer that they'll be at a given session may be like pulling teeth, but you can always count on Player B to be at your sessions.

Who is more committed? A or B? The answer isn't clear. A and B behave differently because they are different people in different situations. The same task is not necessarily the same level of effort for both of them!

 

[steeldragons]

I think you may be conflating a couple of things that should be separate.

True. I am looking/thinking in terms of both the individual/home game...and the greater concern of producing a setting and rpg for public consumption.

For the individual/home game, with my own players, I can easily supply a sentence or two of answer to some things...But, as good as I am, I am not capable of being at every home/table who might be interested in the rpg or game setting.

-snip good stuff-
Who is more committed? A or B? The answer isn't clear. A and B behave differently because they are different people in different situations. The same task is not necessarily the same level of effort for both of them!

[emphasis mine]

This is an excellent point. Even with people in the same home game/individual table, the expectations and buy in are an individual-by-individual basis.

So, further wonderings:

How does one account for that on a grand scale, beyond the individual table? If it is possible at all!

I am putting [preparing to put] all of my game and setting "out there" for everyone [who wants] to [hopefully] enjoy. But how does one do this with a reasonable chance of success...when catering to each individual...not just "table" but separate elements [individuals] within a single table? I mean, I don't only mean, financial success...I want people to get interested and intrigued...to want grow, evolve, become more interested with it as I have, as its creator, over time...no small task, I know...or maybe not even a task that is realistically possible and all of this is just mad ramblings brought on by second-guessing.

And with the plethora of very good and/or similar options that currently exist in the fantasy/D&D-esque/OGL-type gaming ether, does the amount of buy-in even play a role anymore? Those who are interested in trying something new...just...will. Those happy where they are won't bother?

I am not meaning to sound like I am trying to please everyone. I know that is a fool's errand. I have my world and the game that has grown from it...and my years of experience in/with D&D games that have certainly impacted its growth. Some people will love it [again, hopefully] and some people will hate it and some people won't give a damn/say "oh, another one". There's not a lot I can do about that. Orea is what it is/has come to be. If it's not a particular person's cup of tea, no harm no foul.

But for the purposes of getting people, who I think might like the game/the style/the setting, to try it out/give it a look-see...is there a "cut off" point of what should be expected? How much [material] is too much...or not enough...to garner interest? Is it even possible to come up with some kind of consensus?

I find myself, recently, being overwhelmed with the "what if's" and the "I could do's." [since I can, literally, do anything/do it any way I want]. I am hoping the wisdom of ENworld will show me...not a specific answer, of course...but a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak...a direction or guideline...a north star I might use to navigate by, if you would.

 

[Umbran]

How does one account for that on a grand scale, beyond the individual table? If it is possible at all!

Well, on the larger scale, what you really need to do is hook the GMs, and make it easy for them to hook their players. Maybe that means making the work accessible to players, but maybe not. There's probably more than one way to manage the feat.

And with the plethora of very good and/or similar options that currently exist in the fantasy/D&D-esque/OGL-type gaming ether, does the amount of buy-in even play a role anymore? Those who are interested in trying something new...just...will. Those happy where they are won't bother?

Not at all. There are more games on the market than anyone can play. How much enthusiasm you generate, and how much you make them work to play the game, still matters, because you're up against all the other games those people could try.

 

[Mercurius]

Practically speaking I like [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]'s suggestion, with the addition that you could build incentive in by having little hints and lore in the write-up that impacts actual play.

But to address the larger picture, I think [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] is right that there are a few issues that, while related, shouldn't be conflated. I'd like to speak briefly to two.

First of all, in terms of "buy in" and what should or can be expected from players, I think its good to remember that most players - at least in my experience - just show up to be entertained. It is active entertainment, in that they are involved with the process, but they don't want "homework," and most don't even want to make characters or level up outside of game sessions. For folks like us that participate on online forums, we need to remember that we're a minority within the RPG community: we're the "few" that really love all aspects of the game beyond just the play session. We love world building, campaign design, adventure prep (usually!), collecting and reading RPG books, discussing RPGs and the industry, etc. Most players only, or at least mainly, just like to play.

I'd suggest that, as a DM, you try to differentiate what goes into the session, the actual play experience, and what happens out of session - and don't expect players to do much of the latter. In the Player's Primer thread you mentioned, I came to the conclusion that two pages or so of text for a primer is acceptable, but as you said, anything more detailed or specific to an individual PC, should be handled on a "need to know" basis.

This brings me to the second aspect. There are three main reasons or outcomes for world building (that I can think of): as a setting for gaming, to produce a commercial product, and for love of the creative process. I would suggest that whichever of those three applies to you, that the third - love of the act itself - should be primary. You don't need to share everything with your players, nor do they need to know what you know about the world. But if you love the process of world building and game design do it for its own sake, and then use it in your game and, if you want to go that route, publish it and try to make a few bucks. But with any creative work, the main incentive should always be for love of the act itself.

If you clarify that within yourself, the issue of player buy-in is less pressing because what you create doesn't need to be shared or known within the game itself. As the DM you are creating a context, setting, and story for your players. The whole experience is co-created, but your role is primary in terms of both responsibility and outside time and work. DMs tend to be the folks that love RPGs more than the players do, and we can't expect them to love it as much as we do.

As a teacher of high school students I've had the experience of being really excited about an idea and then sharing it with students and, when they don't share my same excitement, feeling somewhat disappointed (this also happens with my wife!). But I've learned to get over it, and while I want to share my ideas and excitement for them, I try not to be too invested in them others feeling the same, or even similarly. In teaching the main goal is to convey an idea or experience so that it lives within the student, that they make it their own - which may be different than it is for me or how I intended it to be. Similarly, with my players the main goal I have is for everyone to have a good time - including myself - to immerse us into a world that is living and evocative.

As for the commercial question, I think the best way is to create something that you love and hope that others enjoy it enough to buy it. Trying to please others can lead to some financial success, but it is usually fleeting and ultimately unsatisfying, like getting a high paying job doing something you don't feel passionate about. Those first paychecks are nice, but in the end, what's the point? What really matters?