How do you feel about learning new rule systems?

[pemerton]

I hadn't decided before I posted the thread. That was why I posted it, to see if resistance to a new system was too high to be worth putting the effort into creating a new one. After seeing the responses, I decided it was worth it.

I think it would be worthwhile considering what sorts of systems people say they ware willing to try. And consider whether the system you are envisaging is comparable.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Personally, I love learning new systems. I regularly buy RPGs just to study them. Not that I'm against running/playing the majority of them, but my gaming groups are far less interested in learning new systems. Regardless, I've found some cool ideas in various games over the years that I've then been able to splice into my D&D games.

 

[aramis erak]

You all play some really simple board games if you can learn the rules in 5 minutes and they only take 30 minutes to play.

Ticket to Ride New York. 5 minutes to explain. 20 minutes to play, 5 each setup/takedown. Simple in the mechanics. The strategies, however, are as in depth as the 1-2 hours of the larger TTR games.

Carcassonne - most can be played (using only the basic set) in 30-40 minutes, and the rules can be explained in 5 min.

Great Khan Game: plenty of depth - 7-10 min explanation, 20-60 min play time.

8 Minute Empires. 5-10 min explain time, 20-40 min playtime. (the name is hyperbole...)

Photosafari - 5 min explain, 15 min play time. much replay value.

Odin's Ravens: 3 min explain. 15 to 30 min play time. "It's candyland for adults"

Elkfest: 3 min to explain, 5 to 60 min, depending upon relative skills. (Dexterity game)

Any of a dozen whist variants. 5-7 min to explain.

plenty of short, non-shallow, simple to teach games available.

 

[GMMichael]

If I recall correctly, this was when Monte Cook left WotC and made his famous post about "chewy vs. crunchy." (I'd provide a link, but I can't find it. If anyone knows what I'm talking about and can share, please do.)

I would like to read this post.

I ask because a friend and I have some ideas for a game and were trying to decide on whether to use a current system or create a new one. We have some ideas for a new system that would focus more on RP than on crunch and also try to make things as easy for a GM as possible. I just didn't know if it was worth the time to put into it if people weren't interested in learning new systems, but it seems like most people are willing if the incentive to do so is there.

You don't really need a novel game. You just need a good marketing team. It helps if WAR is doing your art. I'd recommend using an open-license game, because that's gonna cut your workload by at least half. Check out the Mythological Figures kickstarter - the 5e stamp (and EN Publishing?) works wonders!

 

[SirFrog]

I'm just curious to see how people feel about new systems. Are you less likely to try a new game if it's a system you aren't familiar with?

Doesn’t bother me, I’ve learned 30+ systems over 30 years

 

[Ulfgeir]

I'm just curious to see how people feel about new systems. Are you less likely to try a new game if it's a system you aren't familiar with?

If someone else is running it, I gladly give it a shot, and try to pick up enough of the rules to be able to play. If I am to run it, I would prefer a system I am familiar with, but if the setting/genre is interesting enough for me to play I will learn it.

Some systems seem to go out of their way to be complicated. So I would prefer simpler systems.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Some systems seem to go out of their way to be complicated. So I would prefer simpler systems.

I think this is a big part of things. Some systems are just easier to learn. I also think the more distinct the system is, the easier it is to differentiate from others. I mean, my group gets mixed up all the time with D&D rules and it’s because they’re familiar with like 8 different versions of the game with minor differences.

But the same group grasped the Alien RPG immediately because it was more distinct. Same with Blades in the Dark, although there was a learning curve for some of the less traditional elements, it was not about the core mechanic.

 

[Ulfgeir]

I think this is a big part of things. Some systems are just easier to learn. I also think the more distinct the system is, the easier it is to differentiate from others. I mean, my group gets mixed up all the time with D&D rules and it’s because they’re familiar with like 8 different versions of the game with minor differences.

But the same group grasped the Alien RPG immediately because it was more distinct. Same with Blades in the Dark, although there was a learning curve for some of the less traditional elements, it was not about the core mechanic.

Definitively agree here. I mean with I don't know how many different versions of D20/storyteller-system etc I have played, all with subtle differences on how certain mechanics work, my group always have to look up how did that specific thing work in THIS version. And that would be for some common things. Like grappling, conditions, initiative, saves.

Games that went out of their way to be complicated, just because they could (and it did NOT serve a purpose): Exalted 2e, Eclipse Phase 1e, Shadowrun 5e (all Shadowrun-versions have been complicated).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm just curious to see how people feel about new systems. Are you less likely to try a new game if it's a system you aren't familiar with?

I want a pitch for the system. I'm less likely to try a new system if no one can tell me why it's good - and more likely to try if someone can tell me it does something better than other systems I've tried.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Oh absolutely!

I primarily DM and I absolutely LOVE the whole concept of an RPG game system. I've written one to almost completion (it's totally playable, and my and my group have played it; it's in the never-ending 'tweaking phase' ), two others I tinker with off and on (one is VERY 'story/narrative oriented' with an eye towards Player involvement in world creation as you play; the other is a sort of odd 2d12 based system with other dice being the Ups and Downs, determined by a skill/stat comparison), and one I'm still putting into digital form. That one is one my best friend and I "whipped up in 15 minutes". Literally. To prove we could make a game at least as 'fun' as Rolemaster. We succeeded...easily! (it's....uh....lets just say "mature-child humour oriented"; silly things we found funny...stupid names, absurd concepts, just outright nutty stuff).

I pick up new systems like I pick up, uh, dice. Yeah. Who doesn't own at least a dozen different sets of dice? Go on, admit it, we're all gamers here! Anyway, I have a fondness for the lesser known or systems, as well as anything that is a Generic Framework (e.g., Masterbook System, SilCORE, even GURPS...). I have probably two dozen "worlds/settings" or "conversions" using these other systems and popular ones. Trying to see what effect a systems mechanics and baseline-assumptions have on another game system/setting is just so dang enjoyable to me for some reason! For example, taking the "Savage Tide" Adventure Path for 3.5e D&D (from Paizo's Dungeon Magazine when they did it), and then 'converting' it for use as a Call of Cthulhu 'Adventure Path'. Or taking the "Age of Worms" AP (also from Paizo; for 3e) but 'converting' it for use in Star Frontiers. That kind of thing.

Suffice it to say, yeah, I'd consider myself an "expert" or "professional", in terms of knowledge and capability. I just absolutely LOVE tinkering and learning new systems! And after being a DM for 40 years (I'm 50...started when I was 10), I still find new things to create. Only in RPG's can you do that!

So when one of my friends/players asks, "Hey, you wanna run a game of Star Frontiers, Call of Cthulhu, Dark Dungeons, Dominion Rules, or SUPERS next campaign?" My answer is always "Yes".

^_^

Paul L. Ming