The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[Set]

You can go one further, if you want to de-emphasize the combat focus in D&D, which I've very successfully used and seen used by others. Rather than awarding XP for killing things, simply award a certain amount of XP every session, irrespective of what the PCs do.

Which is something that Vampire, GURPS, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. pretty much already do. Your 'points' at the end of the session aren't determined by how many mobs lay dead before you, but by your completion of mission objectives or by your roleplaying. (Although awarding a certain amount of XP regardless of what the PCs do is, IMO, a step too far. Even if the objective isn't conflict-based, the PCs who contribute to advancing the storyline should get more XP than those who do nothing or actively mess things up...)

2E seemed to be moving in this direction, with a plethora of ways in which one could gain XP by using class abilities, but even then, they were typically awarded for 'in-combat' or mission critical uses of class abilities, so that the party Cleric couldn't level up by casting Cure Light Wounds on the townsfolk between adventures.

I've swapped out characters in games of Vampire where any attempt at building anything was foiled by random Sabbat invasions / Werewolf attacks / cranky Elders showing up and taking everything and just swapped to a Brujah with 5 dots in Potence, since doing anything constructive was actively discouraged. Sometimes punching crap until it dies is fun, too, but it's terribly frustrating to be playing the Bard with social ties out the wazoo or a Cleric who wants to found his own temple or a Wizard who wants to do spell research / scribe some scrolls between adventurers or a Halfling Paladin with a big family or an Artificer when the DM is planning on running World's Largest Meatgrinder.

It's kinda vital for DMs and players to work together on the whole pre-game communication thing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'll comment on one area here:



You can go one further, if you want to de-emphasize the combat focus in D&D, which I've very successfully used and seen used by others. Rather than awarding XP for killing things, simply award a certain amount of XP every session, irrespective of what the PCs do. That has a lot of major advantages, as I see it. It completely frees up players to have their PCs do whatever they want them to do and enjoy, without it impacting their character's progression. You want your character to go kill a dragon? To go shopping? To design a better mousetrap? To go to the queen's ball? Go ahead. You'll still get the same amount of XP for it. It also doesn't privilege one particular mode of playing the game (combat) over any other, but leaves the players free to decide what mode matters to them and also allows them to switch modes constantly as they decide.

From a DMing standpoint, it frees you up from having to worry about anything to do with XP other than the question, "How fast do I want my PCs to level up?" And then you award XP at the rate you want them to level. Simple and easy. Everyone wins. I do this now when I DM and have for years, and I'll never use any formulaic system again as long as I game. And I've seen many other DMs use it (some on my suggestion) and they all seem to consider it the best method of assigning XP.

So if you go the direction you're suggesting, I'd recommend the above.

Thats one way to handle it. I like making XP independent of killing and looting but handing out a vanilla award per session no matter what the PC's do isn't exactly motivating the players to achieve great things. If the PC's have a dangerous adventure coming up but are just one session shy of leveling why not go gear shopping and play cards at the inn for a session, then they can get thier level and proceed with the adventure?

I like goal/ performance based XP that may or may not involve combat and looting. Achieving goals by whatever means required earns XP. The more progress towards those goals that happens in a session, the larger the XP award. If the players see that their actions have an impact on the reward level then they will play towards the highest reward. This is why there are so many PC's looking for fights constantly in the standard reward system.

 

[Hairfoot]

Recently I've been playing Jagged Alliance 2, which requires the player to hire a company of mercenaries and liberate an island nation from dictatorship. Because of the demands of gaining and defending territory, some of the PCs must form assault combat squads while others stay behind to train town militia, tend wounds and manage equipment. It makes me think that perhaps a good way to introduce non-gamers - women in particular - into a game is as rear-echelon characters who manage the campaign base and co-ordinate defenses.

Incorporating a non-combat PC zone would make room for players who enjoy the game genre, but not the hack & slash. So, while the adventuring party is out fighting orcs in the ancient temple, the base party is haggling with merchants for new equipment, gathering information, tracking down thieves, and planning defenses against goblin raiders.

I think it's assumed that women don't like combat encounters, but, watching my partner play Travian, it seems to me that they just don't like the miniatures/dice/tables format of standard RPG combat. Presenting a fight as a planning/resources/creative challenge may have more appeal.

However, running running both sides of the game might be stressful for GMs.

 

[Umbran]

There are more reasons that the non-gamer never tries or enjoys D&D. Furthermore, this has less to do with the non-gamer's gender than what the non-gamer values and seeks out in experiences.

{...snip...}

... She would be more interested in a system in which the noncombat portion was a detailed, fully developed wonder with combat that little thing off to the side that gets handwaved when it gets in the way of the important, valuable noncombat stuff.

A major hurdle those of us who like RPGs have to get over is the idea that other people like the same stuff we do. You are correct in that the general topic of the game matters - not everyone is into heroic fiction, and most games out there are some variant on that.

But, it goes deeper. You note that she'd be happier with a system that did other things.

A great many people are not interested in a "system" at all. In even the most story-oriented, narrativist, call-it-what-you-will game, there's a system, a game, underlying it. And if you don't like systems and games, that means you are unlikely to like the activity much.

This sort of thing is important to remember in "we must grow the hobby" discussions. Any hobby has some very basic underlying activities, and my observation of hobbies, in general, is that for a given hobby those underlying activities are interesting to only a small number of people. Attempting to grow the hobby into groups who don't like the fundamental activities is not an efficient use of time, money, or effort.

 

[Aeolius]

...She'd want to deliver medicine to the sick. She'd want to find pretty jewelry... In short, we've all been playing Cops and Robbers when a number of non-gamers have been wanting to play House or Tea Party.

Perhaps a wandering healer/bard would be more to her liking, then? Traveling from town to town entertaining the masses and making house calls on the sick can still be D&D.

Focus on collecting knowledge and rare artifacts, instead of mounds of gold. An entire adventure could focus on the collection of rare ingredients for a healing draught, for example.

Sounds like fun, to me, but then again my campaigns are combat-light to begin with.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Recently I've been playing Jagged Alliance 2, which requires the player to hire a company of mercenaries and liberate an island nation from dictatorship. Because of the demands of gaining and defending territory, some of the PCs must form assault combat squads while others stay behind to train town militia, tend wounds and manage equipment. It makes me think that perhaps a good way to introduce non-gamers - women in particular - into a game is as rear-echelon characters who manage the campaign base and co-ordinate defenses.

Incorporating a non-combat PC zone would make room for players who enjoy the game genre, but not the hack & slash. So, while the adventuring party is out fighting orcs in the ancient temple, the base party is haggling with merchants for new equipment, gathering information, tracking down thieves, and planning defenses against goblin raiders.

I think it's assumed that women don't like combat encounters, but, watching my partner play Travian, it seems to me that they just don't like the miniatures/dice/tables format of standard RPG combat. Presenting a fight as a planning/resources/creative challenge may have more appeal.

However, running running both sides of the game might be stressful for GMs.

Sounds like a lot of grunt work for the DM, this seems like an area for comuter assistance and multiple DM, one for the regular adventures and one for the other minigames.

Hmmm... it seems to me to make this really work you would need some kind of shared world structure. Some people would be playing an RTS and others doing a social game and both sets creating quest for the violent adventure types to sort out.

 

[Hairfoot]

If you don't like systems and games, that means you are unlikely to like the activity much.
...
Any hobby has some very basic underlying activities, and...those underlying activities are interesting to only a small number of people. Attempting to grow the hobby into groups who don't like the fundamental activities is not an efficient use of time, money, or effort.

A bit defeatist, wot?

I've met several "converts" in the time I've been roleplaying, who went into RPGs as cynics and emerged as avid players.

People often don't realise how enjoyable those "underlying activities" can be until they try them.

 

[Hairfoot]

it seems to me to make this really work you would need some kind of shared world structure. Some people would be playing an RTS and others doing a social game and both sets creating quest for the violent adventure types to sort out.

That could be an advantage. The "base" team might only have to contribute occasionally, so players who aren't too keen could come along every second or third session, or manage their part by email.

The goal would be for them to have fun with partial involvement, and consider taking part in the "active" adventure.

 

[Mercurius]

A major hurdle those of us who like RPGs have to get over is the idea that other people like the same stuff we do. You are correct in that the general topic of the game matters - not everyone is into heroic fiction, and most games out there are some variant on that.

But, it goes deeper. You note that she'd be happier with a system that did other things.

A great many people are not interested in a "system" at all. In even the most story-oriented, narrativist, call-it-what-you-will game, there's a system, a game, underlying it. And if you don't like systems and games, that means you are unlikely to like the activity much.

This sort of thing is important to remember in "we must grow the hobby" discussions. Any hobby has some very basic underlying activities, and my observation of hobbies, in general, is that for a given hobby those underlying activities are interesting to only a small number of people. Attempting to grow the hobby into groups who don't like the fundamental activities is not an efficient use of time, money, or effort.

Yup, this. I always find that there is something...awkward about "we must grow the hobby" discussions, not unlike the awkwardness of the stereotypical FLGS clerk that follows you around the store and for whatever reason is under the impression that you want to hear about his latest game session or character or miniature set-up. Why do gamers, in some sense more than others, insist that everyone be into what they are into?

I'd rather take a step back and look at the larger picture, namely: what are TTRPGs a subset of? One answer is imaginative play. As an educator this is what I'm primarily interested in, and what I would like to see grow, especially in this era of decreasing creative imagination and increasing re-creative simulation. Imaginative play can include many activites, from TTRPGs to theater to art to improvisational music to creative thinking to, as my school just sponsored, Model United Nations. TTRPGs are a very specific form of imaginative play, and D&D is a specific form of TTRPGs that especially emphasizes combat, adventure, treasure seeking--things that, generally speaking, appeal more to males than females. There is just no way (or need, quite frankly) to "grow the hobby" into the ranks of folks that just aren't interested in that specific sort of imaginative play. But the encourage other forms of imaginative play...that is something I feel should be one of the very most important tasks of educators in "this day and age," especially high school students, who are so inundated with media and technological gadgetry that the imaginative capacity starts to literally atrophy.

On the other hand, I am always pleased at just how many "non-gamers" like TTRPGs if they give it a shot. And there is certainly no doubting the fact that TTRPGs, especially D&D, have a ton of baggage attached to them, largely pejorative pre-conceived notions that border on prejudice. But in terms of growing the specific hobby, I see it as being more fruitful to appeal to MMORGers and others who enjoy fantasy, but approach it in a more simulative (and re-creative) fashion, rather than creative and imaginative. To me, MMORGs and computer games are a pale shadow, even a mockery, of TTRPGs and other activities that employ imagination. I would even go so far as to say that they represent a cultural pathology, a masturbatory escapism into (static) virtual worlds not (dynamic) imaginative ones.

In other words, get your MMORGer friends out of their game console drug dens and into the wider world of TTRPGs! I am reminded of something Gary Gygax said, that when a bunch of kids back in the 60s or 70s were asked whether they like TV or radio more, one kid said radio, "because the pictures are better." Beautiful.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That could be an advantage. The "base" team might only have to contribute occasionally, so players who aren't too keen could come along every second or third session, or manage their part by email.

The goal would be for them to have fun with partial involvement, and consider taking part in the "active" adventure.

This bit I agree with but managing it for the average gamer with limited time resources would be the problem.

It would be like having an RPG and Sims expansion for Civilisation.