Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[buzz]

I think it's likely a mistake to equate lack of mechancial complexity with newbie friendliness when it's really conceptual complexity that's the bugbear.

Quoted to show that Steven is a genius.

 

[buzz]

Getting your head around a D&D style model can be tough for some people...

IMO, the standard D&D dungeon is probably the closest experience you'll get to traditional board and strategy games in an RPG. Ergo, why I think it' such a successful entry point for people new to the hobby.

 

[buzz]

Now I will be the first to admit you could take the SRD; fold, spindle and mutilate it into something wholly different; and come up with a game that reproduces those things using a d20 rather than a d10, but at that point any "networking efficiencies " your d20 game might have are basically gone. Any familiarity someone might have with D&D or any other SRD-based d20 game is going to do them little to no good in terms of being familiar with your "Warhammer" ruleset.

All of the things you listed as bieng inherrently Warhammer for you would not need to be done, IMO, to create a d20-based game that captured the feel and goals of WFRP. The mechanics don't need to mimic the mehcanics of WFRP (e.g., percentile skills), they just need to do the same thing. The end result would probably be something aking to GR's Black Company RPG, and thus would retain all of the "network" advantages.

The very fact that something like expressing Strength as a percentage, as opposed to an open-ended number that hovers around 12-20 for most PCs, is "more Warhammer" to you is an example of how previous experience colors perception. To someone who has no esxperience with the game, neither option will feel "more Warhammer" than the other.

This is the attitude that I have a real problem with. Many d20 fans feel that Warhammer (and CoC and Traveller and Gamma World and Runequest and etc.) are nothing more than cool settings/genres with inferior rulesets tacked on. Again, I call this d20 elitism in its most snobbish and unappealing form.

I think you're seeing elitism and snobbery where it doesn't exist. And you could easily replace "d20 fans" with "gamers", honestly. This is typical fan behavior, not typical d20 fan behavior.

My point isn't that Warhammer is a "cool setting with inferior mechanics tacked on." My point is that WFRP isn't doing anything so mehcanically unique nor its "core story" and goals so different that you couldn't port the setting to other systems (d20 or whatever) without losing any of the flavor that makes the setting appealing. The setting doesn't require rolling percentile dice. It does require grittiness, lethality, a skill for drinking, lower magic than the D&D standard, and horror.

Exactly, the only thing you absolutely can't replicate about Warhammer with other mechanics is.....the Warhammer game mechanics. Which, IMHO, are vastly superior to the core d20 system in just about every aspect. I'm sure YM will V.

See, you as a WFRP fan would mave been mightily honked off if WFRP2 switched systems. Ergo, reason for the publisher not to switch.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I made an overly long post about it on the last page, but I still maintain that conceptual complexity is strongly connected to mode of play.

Traditional RPGs do have a lot of conceptual complexity, but at it's core combining "Let's pretend" with "Playing a game with rules based on what we're pretending" isn't all that complex.

I also think that a lot of that complexity deals with assimilating the unstated social contract of a gaming group. Rules-heavy games, because their systems deal with resolving actions within a fictional environment according to a large number of assumptions, are a bigger hurdle to get over than games that tell you what to do at the table.

 

[Ourph]

The very fact that something like expressing Strength as a percentage, as opposed to an open-ended number that hovers around 12-20 for most PCs, is "more Warhammer" to you is an example of how previous experience colors perception. To someone who has no esxperience with the game, neither option will feel "more Warhammer" than the other.

I think it's pretty obvious that someone who's ignorant of Warhammer's strengths wouldn't miss them if they were absent in a d20 game based on the setting. Your statement is true in the same way that someone living in the Soviet Union in the 1980's might think a Lada Signet was a great car if they'd never had any experience with a Ford Mustang. But just because you can trick ignorant consumers into accepting something inferior, doesn't mean you should.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

IMO, the standard D&D dungeon is probably the closest experience you'll get to traditional board and strategy games in an RPG. Ergo, why I think it' such a successful entry point for people new to the hobby.

True, if "the hobby" means exploring party of adventures overcomes tactical challenges posed by the GM. A dungeon is helpful because it limits in-game options. But a player still has to learn how to reconcile what they'd imagine their character doing with the tactical options within the system and with the shared expectations of the group. Stuff like, "What do I roll for, versus what do I roleplay out?" Those are things people usually have to absorb through osmosis.

If the core mechanics of your game aren't about simulating a fictional reality in detail, then an "intro scenario" might limit the number of NPCs involved instead of limiting the geography. And often these rules-light games have more rules about what players do than they do about what characters do.

I don't believe that going into a dungeon is an easier thing to grasp for everyone than something like "We're going to play an episode of Buffy." It's easier to grasp the dungeon thing if you've already got a gamer mindset, but then aren't we talking about how to make people who already think like gamers into gamers?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think it's pretty obvious that someone who's ignorant of Warhammer's strengths wouldn't miss them if they were absent in a d20 game based on the setting. Your statement is true in the same way that someone living in the Soviet Union in the 1980's might think a Lada Signet was a great car if they'd never had any experience with a Ford Mustang. But just because you can trick ignorant consumers into accepting something inferior, doesn't mean you should.

Now who's being elitist?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I don't believe that going into a dungeon is an easier thing to grasp for everyone than something like "We're going to play an episode of Buffy." It's easier to grasp the dungeon thing if you've already got a gamer mindset, but then aren't we talking about how to make people who already think like gamers into gamers?

It would be for me, since I don't watch television.

However, the real question is, who are you marketing the game toward. In most cases, RPGs try to recruit people who are already gamers, but not necessarily roleplaying gamers.

Teaching a (board) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a dungeon 'game board,' minis and defined rules to guide his choice of actions.

Teaching a (card) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a lot of predefined character options to make his PC, his 'deck,' effective or interesting.

Teaching a (video) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a strong GM-led storyline and simple but comprehensive rules for combat.

Teaching a (PC) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is probably impossible. Munchy gits, them lot.

 

[Turjan]

I don't believe that going into a dungeon is an easier thing to grasp for everyone than something like "We're going to play an episode of Buffy." It's easier to grasp the dungeon thing if you've already got a gamer mindset, but then aren't we talking about how to make people who already think like gamers into gamers?

I think the dungeon is a help for the fledgling GM, because he doesn't have to deal with the trouble of guiding his troupe through the scenario; a dungeon is more or less self-guiding. This part is not true for a TV episode.

 

[JohnSnow]

However, the real question is, who are you marketing the game toward. In most cases, RPGs try to recruit people who are already gamers, but not necessarily roleplaying gamers.

Teaching a (board) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a dungeon 'game board,' minis and defined rules to guide his choice of actions.

Teaching a (card) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a lot of predefined character options to make his PC, his 'deck,' effective or interesting.

Teaching a (video) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a strong GM-led storyline and simple but comprehensive rules for combat.

Teaching a (PC) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is probably impossible. Munchy gits, them lot.

I think this goes to the basic point. D&D 3e is set up to appeal to the first 2 groups. It has a game board and minis to appeal to the board gamer. The game was first described using the "Candyland" analogy, and that holds up pretty well to this day. It also has a stack of options (and is constantly marketing new ones) for making a character more interesting, and so hits that Card gamer (the Magic crowd). WotC rightly tried to entice their existing customers to try D&D (brand extension), and obviously it worked, at least to some degree.

A strong GM-led storyline requires a strong GM. That's not something a game company can package and sell at the moment, so it's a bad case on which to build a business. If you can figure out a way to profitably teach people to be GMs, you'd start to gather in this group. Probably you have to get them through network effects from the 2 groups you can market to.

As for the fourth group, I too think you're outta luck trying to convert them to RPGs. They don't like to leave the house or talk to people face-to-face, after all.