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

[InVinoVeritas]

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.

I'll consider that, and take it further:

The number of XP awarded each game is zero.

Since gaining levels grants you little outside of combat capability, it might be better just to divorce that aspect of the game from the level treadmill entirely. What's +BAB if you never pick up a sword? More HP if you make sure no one ever attacks you?

Also, to talk about other people's points on that the game shouldn't try to expand from its base:

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. However, I feel that improving on the combat rules for streamlined play is not the best direction for the game to go--if I'm looking for pure leveling and combat goodness, WOW will satisfy that need quite easily. The lure of D&D over and above WOW is in the ability to create your own worlds, explore lifestyles of your own creation, develop oneself in creative ways. D&D and other TTRPGs are all about getting a bit of Tea Party in your Cops and Robbers.

Let's consider one of the sources of fantasy: the Pre-Raphaelites.

Right now, the game does a great job of making the knight a PC. Would we be able to attract more players to the game if the game also had rules for playing the lady as a PC?

I ask because I think there's an opportunity here. There are other House games out there, like The Sims, but they don't hold that fantasy mystique. There are other fantasy games out there, but they focus on the Epic Hero. It doesn't seem to me to be too much more a stretch of the imagination to include the PC lady (and no, making an Aristocrat doesn't cut it). It can be attractive to both sides, like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. There's a wealth of fun an competition to be had in societal dances, power brokering, acquisition of the exotic, and romance.

After all, Tea Party is never about the tea.

 

[Ariosto]

Pendragon? (originally published by Chaosium, then I think by Green Ronin ... now by White Wolf?) The default focus is on knights, but there are also rules for Courtly Romance, and for a wide range of matters physical, social and psychological (e.g., Personality Traits and Passions), and (from the 3rd? 4th? ed.) magical. The time scale makes for a "dynastic" story of families.

But "making an Aristocrat" doesn't cut it? [edit: I'm guessing that's a reference to playing 3E D&D.]

 

[FireLance]

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.

I'm not sure that giving out fixed amounts of XP is the solution. In fact, as alluded to by Ariosto in his post, I think that any solution that involves changing the way that XP is awarded kind of misses the original point.

However you deal it out, XP is not the answer because, as the OP puts it, more XP just means that your character is better at taking out the trash. Essentially, the non-gamer does not consider earning XP to be satisfying or rewarding.

So, the first thing that needs to change is the reward structure, and this means that the DM's mindset has to change, too. All those side benefits that DMs used to hand out in addition to gaining a level - membership in an elite organization, a position of responsibility and authority, noble titles, the respect of the common people, relationships with NPCs, etc. - are no longer the icing on the cake; they are the main course.

The second key change would be a shift in emphasis from structured problem-solving (like most combats) to unstructured problem-solving (e.g. how do I help the poor?). Unstructured problem-solving puts a greater emphasis on skills that a DM may not use very often when dealing with structured problem-solving, e.g. improviziation, adjudicating the consquences of a variety of creative proposals (some of which he may not have thought of and prepared for), pacing the resolution of the challenge (adding complications and opportunities as necessary) so that it seems neither trivially easy nor frustratingly difficult, etc.

A game with these elements would be very different from a typical session of D&D, though (at least, the way I play it).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I ask because I think there's an opportunity here.

Pendragon.

Blue Rose.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't half-a-dozen indie games that also do this.

Still not as big as D&D because all of them still require six people, four hours, and sitting in a room talking in a funny voice, and don't have the built-in player base of good ol' fashin' monster bashin'.

This TTRPG hobby has nigh-insurmountably high barriers to entry.

 

[Leatherhead]

But a Tea Party I could actually do.

Yes, but how often do you get to do so with the Queen of England, or even the Queen of Fairyland that matter?

I agree about the "doing things I couldn't normally do" aspect, but I think you may have missed the point about combat VS other things.

 

[Umbran]

Right now, the game does a great job of making the knight a PC. Would we be able to attract more players to the game if the game also had rules for playing the lady as a PC?

There's a fundamental problem with that - in essence, the Lady and the Knight typically are playing entirely different games. The Knight is about the fighting, right? And the Lady not. That means they don't often get to work together. You wind up having to "split the party" a lot in order to get each of them to be able to do their shtick.

There's something to be said for having games mirror genres of fiction. Stories tend to cluster into genres for a reason - their themes meld together smoothly. Sure, you can have a game that focuses on the courtly aspects of a pseudo-Medieval society, rather than on fighting monsters. But mixing it with the action-adventure-combat might not be so successful. Why? Because, really, they're part of different genres.

And, in my humble opinion, a single game can only successfully cover so many genres. After it reaches a sufficient distance from its core structure, a game starts to fail to meet the needs of a different style, and it is time to find or build a different game to cover the new area. It is a matter of having the right tool for the job.

 

[FireLance]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether games for non-gamers might tap onto the same desire for fantasy wish-fulfillment, but for social position or relationships instead of personal power.

For 4e, I wonder whether it could be worthwhile to structure 30 levels of social rewards (similar to the 30 levels of magic items) where level 1 might be: you gain the gratitude of a single person, you gain the admiration of a single village, or the local authorities make you a minor official, and level 30 might be: you are the ruler of a world or a plane, you are the leader of a organization that spans multiple planes and worlds, you are the trusted servant of a deity (and may be worshipped in your own right), etc.

 

[Cadfan]

I kind of feel that people are making more out of these alleged differences than is really present, and then using that to argue that nothing ought change.

Ok, obviously D&D isn't going to turn into a game where your character does laundry and interior decorating and never fights anyone. But these things are on a bit of a continuum and it wouldn't be hard to take a few steps in a particular direction.

I'm male and I know that I've spent more time in my youth than was probably healthy designing the ultimate fantasy castle for a character... D&D: Interior Design isn't as far away from the common experience as people think.

 

[Ariosto]

Raw interest is really something the individual brings or not; absent a desire to enter, the barriers are irrelevant!

I wonder about the time commitment. Even if we're talking four hours at a sitting, how does that compare with TV watching? Internet? Of course, those activities don't require face-to-face interaction, and the challenges associated with arranging social gatherings.

If people can find time, but only for short sessions, then I think something like 4E is quite poorly suited. In (1970s-80s) grade school, we often played D&D or The Fantasy Trip on lunch breaks. Traveller and Superworld were also played that way, although character generation might take more than one such period. Greater frequency of sessions can make up for shorter ones in terms of moving a "story" along -- and may also benefit from players being "fresh" (as opposed to the fatigue that can set in over several hours).

Lightening the game-mechanical load is just the first of the ways to cut down preparation time. The availability of prepared scenarios that are quickly digested is always an asset. Aids to improvisation are a big help, one reason for the many tables in the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. Reusable encounter/scene "templates" (such as those in Prince Valiant) can combine both features.

A preconceived "plot line" is to my mind the antithesis of a proper D&D campaign -- but that does not mean a dramatically structured game is a bad thing in itself. Far from it! That so many people enjoy playing D&D that way attests to its appeal. It's easy to convey the analogy of choosing among paths through a story to one of several possible endings.

So long as everyone is on the same page, a scenario that can be outlined in a compact yet interestingly branching flowchart can be quite satisfying. It can also be quite easy to manage. Individual "chapters" of the story can be designed to provide in themselves a good bit of action in a short period.

A "character advancement" scheme is something many "gamers" would sorely miss, but the pleasures may not always be worth the pains. It sets up all the troubles to do with "level appropriateness".

Comic books provide another model. It's key that Superman or Spider-man should remain immediately recognizable as a character, in terms of powers, weaknesses and personality (and, in the comics, appearance as well). What remains perennially interesting (for fans, anyway) is how those factors are displayed in the story at hand.

In an RPG, characters might age and life experience might leave its mark on psyches. The supporting cast might change more often; one social role might be traded for another. But cutting out the concept that capabilities and challenges must be in a continual "arms race" can greatly facilitate more casual play -- as well keeping the focus on the unfolding tale rather than on "stats".

 

[Korgoth]

Yes, but how often do you get to do so with the Queen of England, or even the Queen of Fairyland that matter?

I agree about the "doing things I couldn't normally do" aspect, but I think you may have missed the point about combat VS other things.

You make a reasonable statement. I will concede this point: due to their scarcity I not only cannot slay a dragon, I also cannot have tea with one.

Is tea really good at a level of abstraction (i.e. no tea)? I would still say that slaying a dragon (or other monster) is impossible, whereas having tea is possible... just not tea with elves or dragons. At the very least, "fantasy tea party" must be a niche of a niche of a niche.

Interestingly, if this is all partly prompted by the question of getting women into gaming, I know plenty of women gamers. At least two I know play their characters as extremely bloodthirsty, too.