The Gaming Den

As crazy as it sounds, a lot of people actually don't want to create a complex character. I don't mean giving them an E-Z mode character like a blaster wizard, but I mean that they don't want to create a character at all. Shadowrun 4E had a great idea in having several pages dedicated to character sheets but I don't think that they went far enough. I think that they should've had at least 6x the number of possible characters and all of them fleshed out with backstory and motivations. And they should also be reasonably min-maxed as well. I'm okay with Trevor not getting access to the character with an army manageable minigame, but he should still be effective in the core areas that D&D covers.

I personally wouldn't mind stepping into the role of another character as long as they were interesting enough. I prefer to make my own characters, because iconics without exception suck eggs, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't play one.

Dedicate more screentime to noncombat stuff. D&D is a very specific game in combat. I'd go as far as to say extremely specific. And of course while that's part of the fun, all of those rules can alienate new people who are trying to get a handle on things. Noncombat stuff is a different story. Almost anyone can come up with ideas about how to escape the undead-infested city, almost anyone can roleplay their character hobnobbing it up at the royal ball, almost anyone can roleplay their character trying to sneak into the wizarding school. If you get people hooked on THAT stuff more then they'll be more willing to learn the combat minigame instead of being on the fence to start with when that stumbling block comes out.

Minimize arithmetic operations. A lot of people just don't like doing repeated addition or subtraction. If you ever have to do more than four arithmetic operations for a die roll then I'm very skeptical. If any PC-controlled number in the game is higher than the double digits then I'm very skeptical. If dicepools end up higher than 12 dice in it then I'm very skeptical.

Maj had an excellent list of ways to attract female gamers but I thought it was too patronizing to say that it also sounds like a good idea to attract beginners and casuals, because it implies that women are not as good as the MEN at--OH SHIT SON.

You guys know what I was trying to get at. Don't bust my balls over this. Here's her list in case you missed it.

[*] Better imagery. Grunge fantasy is, as previously mentioned, gross, and D&D is grunge fantasy. Orcs are gross. Evil is gross. Padded armor is gross. In my fantasy, I don't want to get sweaty and covered with grime from riding with no shower for a week. I want my character to have perfect hair, kick ass, and have the only stain on her be the strategically placed smudge of dirt and blood that happened during a fight with her nemesis, but makes her look hotter than ever. It will be prestidigitated away when it's no longer needed.

[*] Simplification. Time spent doing math is time spent not roleplaying. If you want women to roleplay, then minimize the time spent not roleplaying.

[*] A reason. A lot of women need to understand why roleplaying is a viable pastime. If you relate it back to the flights of fantasy that they have as a kid - be it teaparty, princess, pirate, egyptians, witches, whatever - remind them that this isn't strange, unusual, or weird. It's normal, and they once did it.

[*] Engaging storylines. You know how doing math isn't roleplaying? Well saying, "I stab it," isn't roleplaying, either. Saying it over and over again is about as exciting as watching the same Thomas the Tank Engine episode for an hour. At the end of that hour, you are crying for a good debate on the philosophies of Ayn Rand or a chance to take the SATs because your brain is so numb that any intellectual stimulation and engagement is required for your continued existence. Worlds with events and NPCs that interact with the players, and stories that are interesting and suck you in are a must.

Actually I'm a bit saddened about her declaring 'no gunge' but I can see where she's going with that. Gunge cartoons/image are generally less-liked than the slick and shiny ones; I LOVE Berserk's and One Piece's artwork but I can totally understand why people prefer Bleach and Naruto and A:TLA. PPG is always going to kick the shit out of Ren and Stimpy in ratings. Teen Titans just flat-out performs better in initial taste tests than League of Superheroes/Justice League.

If you want to attract beginners then the art style needs to be overhauled. Unfortunately I don't know of where you can get a good compromise. I would be totally stoked if we would permanently switch over to Exalted artwork (minus the random squicky things like nude women pulling out their eyeballs), but I can also already hear the grognard whining of 'OMG 5E is weeabooooooo! Frank Frazetta or GTFO'

I want my character to have perfect hair, kick ass, and have the only stain on her be the strategically placed smudge of dirt and blood that happened during a fight with her nemesis, but makes her look hotter than ever.

Wish fulfillment Sue detected.

Her list may work for some women, but others will quickly disagree with her. Not even having to be lesbian to like the art, just not snobbish to worry about a chainmail bikini, or not having a low self-esteem as most women do about their looks compared to other women living or fictional. Guys dont go around saying things like "i wish i had his butt". Ok well some do, but that isnt even what I am talking about.

Reason and engaging story dont really work either, because the reason is to kill things for some, and that works well enough. The story for many comes together after having played.

Simplification demeans the people. "You aren't smart enough to do this so we simplified it for you...dumbed it down." It really is an insult.

I would say for beginners, what you want most is engagement and lack of needless complexity. Reminder, my preferred edition of D&D is 2nd edition...

Problem is that beginners really don't need to make their own character. That is something that should come after you understand the game. So removing that and you have removed one of the greatest obstacles, because beginners really don't know what they want to do or how to choose and get swallowed by a method of creating a character be it min-maxing, or something else, and rarely break from that method.

I say story isnt important, but plot is. Beginners wont really care so much about telling a story like Harry Potter, but most interested in playing and trying things out. The plot needs to be there to make sure they can try many things out with the character they are given. Literally needs to lead them a bit until they become ready to be let lose into the game world.

D&D is largely combat, so you need quick and easy combat. Not a tons of status effects and not even one status effect if you can get by with it. The original HeroQuest gives a great example of RPG type of combat play.

It also needs to show its strengths outside of combat...the games social interaction. The fact in early editions that dwarves didnt like elfs that was taken form Tolkien, and the like give an idea of the world itself, rather than just a gladiator in a giant coliseum. So it needs to set up what social agendas the world has. A good solid and simple setting will offer this.

Playstation Underground used to give demos of one level of the game with all available at that level to get people interested in it. Be it a few minutes of play or actual level of a playing field or whatever. This is the kind of thing a beginner version should do is play like a fully functioning demo of that amount.

D&D would need to cut out a LOT of stuff to offer the full game in that context, so a new or much less bloated system would need to be had to show off some of the components of the system in order to get people accustomed to it.

You want something that doesnt require mass rules memorization, can be picked up and played quickly, and offer the same type of stuff that the full version of D&D offers.

If you are attracting a beginner, a quick to play pack of characters isn't a bad idea.

hell, I wouldn't mind playing the characters. Oh, I love making characters. Don't get me wrong. I haven't gamed in a regular game in two years. But, I still make a character every couple of weeks for shits and giggles.

In the end though I want a good game. If a short-term game has to start or if I have to introduce a new player to the existing group, this would work.

I would suggest having a set of characters for every few levels.

Or even a simple template that shows the slight changes that would be made to a character of a higher level.

Psychic Robot wrote:Wish fulfillment Sue detected.

This is a pretty hypocritical statement from someone who enjoys 3rd Edition D&D. Or does wish fulfillment suddenly not count if it's used on explodey superpowers and l33t gear?

Wish fulfillment is a primary reason why I play. I embrace it. I encourage my players to embrace it.

mean_liar wrote:Wish fulfillment is a primary reason why I play. I embrace it. I encourage my players to embrace it.

Heckz Yeah!!

This is a pretty hypocritical statement from someone who enjoys 3rd Edition D&D. Or does wish fulfillment suddenly not count if it's used on explodey superpowers and l33t gear?

My reasons for playing D&D have nothing to do with wish fulfillment. But let's not derail the thread even more.

Lago wrote:Actually I'm a bit saddened about her declaring 'no gunge' but I can see where she's going with that.

I want to clarify this because when I wrote it I was feeling a little on the snarky side. If it's strategic grunge, it's OK. If there is something that is supposed to be gross or horrifying, then grunge is acceptable, and of course, is it's appropriate to the setting (and the players are OK with that style) then it's cool. But I have seriously been told by WizOs that there isn't toilet paper in D&D, and thus standards of hygiene are low. That's just disgusting.

PR wrote:Wish fulfillment Sue detected.

Dude. Shut the hell up. I so didn't mention big boobs or sex with hot guys.

Cynic wrote:If you are attracting a beginner, a quick to play pack of characters isn't a bad idea.

This can totally backfire on you, so it's good to be versatile.

Personally, while I have met people who play with premade characters, the problem with this is that it throws them directly into learning the concepts of the game without any attachment to it at all.

What has worked best for me - and of course, your milage may vary - is talking about what kind of character the player would like to be and writing it up for them. Then the game becomes a tutorial of sorts. You can say things like, "You start walking across the bridge, but realize too late that it's been slicked in oil and you're having trouble keeping your balance. Make a balance check. <insert lesson>" Or whatever.

Sample characters that are not lame. Preferably ones used in a playtest.

Cool archetypes are well and good, but if I play a prepackaged character I want it to conform to my expectations in an actual game.

Speaking of which, maybe each character should have a small cheatsheet or guide explaining how to use them effectively. Actual rule mechanics can be a dry read for some people, so a personalised shortform included with the character sheet might be a decent tool for teaching the game.

Plus Handouts!

Lago PARANOIA wrote:This is a pretty hypocritical statement from someone who enjoys 3rd Edition D&D. Or does wish fulfillment suddenly not count if it's used on explodey superpowers and l33t gear?

He plays a lvl 20 D&D wizard to experience weakness in a way that reality just doesn't provide.

Automation perhaps? With an electronic character sheet you could allow a player to pick from some templates for character abilities and skill sets at the start and then in the future do the levelling automatically.

I think a graphical paper doll representation of characters (changing with armour/equipment, hell maybe even with HP/status effects) would also be a good way to get people with less vivid imaginations to identify with their character.

Of course I must admit this will offend the technology grognards who want to maintain pencil and paper purity...

PS. Book keeping gets easier too. As well arithmetic if you are willing to sacrifice even more of the old school feel ... physical dice.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:As crazy as it sounds, a lot of people actually don't want to create a complex character. I don't mean giving them an E-Z mode character like a blaster wizard, but I mean that they don't want to create a character at all. Shadowrun 4E had a great idea in having several pages dedicated to character sheets but I don't think that they went far enough. I think that they should've had at least 6x the number of possible characters and all of them fleshed out with backstory and motivations.

In my experience, if a player doesn't care about writing their own back story and motivations, then they wouldn't care about a pre-written back story and motivations either.

Instead, I would just put in a list of simple motivations and let the player choose or randomly generate one of those motivations (for those who aren't interested in making up their own). Lots of games do this already.

In my experience, people loved generating lifepaths from Cyberpunk 2020. That was a great way to get new players involved and provide tantalizing bits about the setting at the same time.

"Woah, I got a replacement eye this year, because I lost mine in a gang fight? Awesome!"

hogarth wrote:In my experience, if a player doesn't care about writing their own back story and motivations, then they wouldn't care about a pre-written back story and motivations either.

One of my biggest reasons for not being overly excited about writing a backstory was that if I was writing a character for a campaign for the first time I would have generally no clue whatsoever about the details of that campaign world at the time. How can I write the relationship between groups and people with my character when I had no clue what the details were of either those groups or people.

A pre-written back story and motivations does provide some time outside of the game to really study and understand the world the characters are in. Ideally I think a back story sould be a give and take dialogue with the DM, so that one can come up with a good character concept that fits well in the current campaign world. That requires a modicum of time and efforts on everyone's part.

violence in the media wrote:In my experience, people loved generating lifepaths from Cyberpunk 2020. That was a great way to get new players involved and provide tantalizing bits about the setting at the same time.

The character creation system in Traveller was also loved and considered awesome even though your haracter could die before the game even started.

Having your character die in char gen was actually fun though. It was like.. oh wow.. RAD.

It actually made Traveller char creation a fun process.

The lifepaths of Mechwarrior and Traveler were also popular. The Burning Wheel "character burner" makes me want to kill myself, but it seems reasonably popular.

But yes, I think sample characters should be more than "archetypes" and should not only be playable out of the box from a mechanical standpoint but also have entirely playable backstories and character prompts to select from as well.

It's a role playing game. Having roles you can play is a prerequisite. Having the ability to create new roles customized to your personality ad play style is nice, but it's not required for anything.

-Username17

My problem with the Sample Characters from Shadowrun 4e(for example), is that they aren't made with the same number of points as an actual starting character, and it's kinda clear they were made by someone who didn't really understand the game.

sabs wrote:My problem with the Sample Characters from Shadowrun 4e(for example), is that they aren't made with the same number of points as an actual starting character, and it's kinda clear they were made by someone who didn't really understand the game.

Same. Most of them end up missing useful equipment and just aren't good at what they're supposed to do.

Huh. I wonder; would including a 'Tutorial Adventure' as well as premade characters would be a good idea? It feels like it would make teaching the game easier and provide some common ground for most players, as well as setting a tone.

EDIT: added a word that was missing.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Huh. I wonder; would including a 'Tutorial Adventure' as well as premade characters would be a good idea? It feels like it would make teaching the game easier and provide some common ground for most players, as well as setting a tone.

EDIT: added a word that was missing.

Absolutely. I don't know anyone who played 1st edition Shadowrun who didn't play through Food Fight. Including a basic adventure in the basic game is a great idea. It instantly creates a shared experience that people who are into the game can talk about.

As a general rule, I prefer to make my own adventures. And I prefer to play in adventures that other people are making up. But it is also true that I like having something to talk to other players about. I mean, honestly I don't usually want to hear the ins and outs of your D&D campaign. Because I don't have a shared frame of reference. I don't know who Zoogh is or why you decided to break his golems, and unless the story is funny or something, I probably don't care. But I've been through Red Hand of Doom, I have a shared experience there. I am genuinely willing to listen to your war stories about how you took out the island fort.

The game doesn't need very many iconic adventures, but it does need at least one. So putting one in the MC section is really a very good thing.

-Username17

Food Fight, jesus... I actually remember that.

I replayed it in 3e and our group horrified our GM into never running SR again.

My character, out and about with no apparent weapons, proceeded to pull a compact bullpup et al assault rifle from his Marsupial Pouch. The other noteworthy character was whipping jars of salsa for 8+S damage.

That shared experience IS fun.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Huh. I wonder; would including a 'Tutorial Adventure' as well as premade characters would be a good idea? It feels like it would make teaching the game easier and provide some common ground for most players, as well as setting a tone.

Yes, I always liked the sample dungeon in the 1E AD&D DMG. Most of the original modules had smaple characters as an option for playing.