The problem is a very simple one:
When starting a new campaign (or even just planning a one-shot), it’s tough to get people into a new game. Thus, the game usually ends up being D&D. Now, there’s nothing wrong with it being D&D, but with so many RPGs out there, I enjoy a bit of variety when I can get it.
Why is it so tough? Because the “buy-in” total for the game is too high.
What do I mean by that? The buy-in is anything that has to be contributed by the players (and GM) in order to make the game function. While buying the game itself and any accessories is one form of buy-in, that’s generally not the problem. The problem is how much has to be learned in order to play a new RPG.
This can generally be divided up into two kinds of buy-ins: mechanics and setting (or if you prefer, crunch and fluff.) To expand a bit, let’s use an example. Say I want to run a game of Dark Heresy. In order to have a satisfying game experience, the players need to learn how to play the game. They need to know both how to create a character and how to play, and will be frustrated if they don’t. (The more complicated the game, the longer this process takes.) In addition, I need to convey to them all the setting details of Dark Heresy. This could mean just telling them what kind of characters they can play and what their job will be, or could go as far as having to explain the entire Warhammer 40K universe to them. When running the game, I don’t want to have to stop every few minutes to explain everything: I’d much rather be able to just say “Disciples of Nurgle have infected the toilets of Hiveworld P247 and a joint force of Ultramarines and Eldar are on their way to battle Tyranids on the other side of the planet” and have that actually mean something.
Even D&D can have this problem. I’ve yet to run a game of Forgotten Realms or Eberron, despite being interested in those settings, because I know they come with all kinds of baggage that the players will have to buy-in to in order to get the most out of it. Leaving aside published settings, there’s always going to be a buy-in required to understand whatever world I’m running, which is why I tend to lean towards “exploration” games, where the PCs begin with very little knowledge and then learn more and more about the world as they play, both in and out of game.
Of course, different RPGs have different levels of buy-in necessary. A White Wolf game, with its emphasis on the various factions, is going to have a higher story buy-in, but the rules are generally pretty portable between them. Some games are going to have more complicated mechanics: joshx0rfz ran a campaign of Iron Heroes, which despite being largely d20 based, still had enough differences to throw off the players and cause slowdowns in the game.
This all is especially a problem in convention games, which is often an ideal location to try out new RPGs. New players have to learn the rules, setting, and scenario in a very limited timeframe. It’s often just easier to play something you already know, unless you are sure you’ll have an awesome teacher, or the game is structured as such to allow easy access. Those are two ways to get around buy-in issues, but there are others.
RPGs from licensed properties usually have the advantage when it comes to story/setting buy-in. When I sit down to play Star Wars- in any system- I have a pretty good idea what to expect. While I may have to find out what era we’re playing in and lookup what a Trandoshan is, much of the work is done for me.
The same was true for the Wheel of Time game I played in. However, that game had another advantage: it was the d20 system, and didn’t stray all that far from the basic d20 setup. Thus, I was up and running rules-wise very quickly in that game, allowing most of my energy to go into playing my character, and the DM’s to practice his Illian accent.
That’s one of the many reasons D&D tends to get chosen as the current game so often. Since D&D got there first, most of the players are familiar with at least the basic concepts of how to play and what the setting is like (no matter the edition) to mostly dive right in. I myself am very fond of d20 Modern for similar reasons: the rules are similar to what I already know, and there’s almost no setting buy-in whatsoever: it takes place in today.
Still, I find myself yearning to play other games, which is why I find myself fascinated with games like Dread. The rules buy-in takes a grand total of two sentences, and I can use whatever kind of setting I want. Dread looks to be the kind of game that I can play with just about anyone, which I certainly can’t say for most RPGs. Of course, there’s always going to be this push and pull between a game with enough options to satisfy players and keeping it simple enough to understand easily, so a rules-lite system like Dread may not always be the answer.
I don’t think there’s a good, one-size-fits-all solution. In my situation, it’s likely to stay the same for a while: either I’m running D&D (or very similar game), or I’m running something extremely simple like Dread. I welcome any comments about the idea, and how you’ve tackled the buy-in issue in your games.
I have agree with you. Most other games have a heavy buy-in. Most people tend to not want to have those type of buy-ins. I think a lot has to do with expectations. My memory may be fuzzy but it seems when I started gaming way back in early 80s people expected to have to do a buy-in of some sort. It may be that there were no universal systems, so we just assumed that every new game would have different rules and thereby have a large buy-in.
As how to tackle the buy-in issue, it depends.
For something with a heavy setting buy-in, I find writing up or finding a primer of some sort of the setting usual helps.
For something with a heavy rule buy-in, finding or writing a simplified rule summary is great help. I know that really helped with a few Rolemaster games that I use to run.
For something with a complex character creation buy-in, pregenerated
characters is helpful for those that don’t want to learn right away how to generate characters and sample characters are helpful for those that do. Templates of generic character types are sometimes useful as well. I know I’ve used them to a good effect when I’ve run a few Champions games.
Bonemaster´s last post: Resurrecting Non-Violent Magic Items
Well, as the sole DM out of everyone I game with, it’s pretty easy to get people to play new games. It’s my way or the highway. 🙂
One thing I’m considering with my D&D game is making it biweekly, and then on the off weeks trying out other systems. I flirted with that a bit the day after Halloween when we ran a game of Dread.
Asmor´s last post: Setting Seeds: Bloodsport Spies
Interestingly enough, I think the number of people who play Cthulhu that have actually read any HP Lovecraft is a surprisingly low number. There is probably a good explanation for it, but to me that stands out as one of the few non-D&D games that people buy-in to pretty easily.
I agree completely. As someone who’s run in-store events, sometimes the problem is that the tools aren’t always available to help those who feel passionately about a game easily integrate other people who might be interested. On of the things I didn’t like so much about the D&D 4th Edition release period was that (other than KotS) there wasn’t something quick and engaging I could put together for players. I ended up tearing apart the sample adventure in the back of the DMG so that I could run quick sample games.
One of the cool things I saw around this time was the Hunter: the Vigil release materials. They had a small booklet included which included very rough quick-start rules, pre-generated characters, and one hour’s worth of mystery to unravel. It was very well presented, and I ended up running an event for my FLGS merely because it was such a useful preview that it would be shame not to.
I don’t know that the buy-in issue is unbeatable, I just think the “cost” (so to speak) can be reduced with the right kind of tools and attitude, not only for those wishing to evangelize a game to perspective customers, but to get their own friends to play it.
Jack Smith IV´s last post: The Kroola! (Preview)
Good post.
I think buy-in has as much to do with genre and sub-genre as it does to do with the choice of rules system. The various Editions of D&D blur that somewhat because D&D is pretty much a genre (and group of sub-genres) unto itself. For example, I know folks that love playing 3e D&D set in the Forgotten Realms, but would baulk at playing joining a Planescape game; same rules, but no buy-in.
‘Course, it’s all down to personal preference. I’ve got players who love street-level Mutants & Masterminds but who I have to wrestle to the floor to get the to commit to a four-colour spandex romp-fest.
Hmmm. I think that came out very wrong.
Getting people to buy-in is like selling anything else, and whether it’s convincing peeps to give 4e one more chance (please?), persuading a potential new gamer to join your old-school Classic D&D game, or convincing them to play they kewl Indie game you’re aching to try, there’s a certain skill to it, that’s for sure.
Dave, I find it interesting that your post and the issues you raise don’t even get to or take into account the next level of difficulty. Specifically, what about the (touched) GM who has taken the time to create both the Fluff from whole cloth and created a system to match the fluff? Bonemaster mentions the halcyon days of our gaming roots, but my recollection of that time was one of eveyone trying to screw with the rules to make them work for their settings.
I guess withing the realms of this particular post I should just say I don’t understand the problem of buy-in. I’ve been running my Celtrician setting for 25 years, currently with 2 groups playing in it, with a waiting line for players to get in. And we run a relatively complicated skill-based, social-heavy game.
So I am in agreement with my fellow fourth, Jack Smith, in that if the game is interesting enough, they will come. Even if they have to learn a new system and ingest a new setting.
Of course, I think this also has a lot to do with the level of investment a game might have. One of my two groups has been running continuously for 13+ years, the others for 7 years. People are more likely to overcome the buy-in if the payoff is a long term game, versus a short term one.
LordVreeg´s last post: Dreadwing
Bonemaster: I agree with all your suggestions, with one caveat: all those things are more work for the GM. That’s part of the issue all around is how much effort the GM has to spend in addition.
Asmor: Sure, I can generally say “I’m running this” and have people go along, but if the players don’t buy-in, it won’t be much of a game…
Bartoneus: CoC has the advantages of modern games, usually, even if they’re set in the 20’s. Also, the monsters are supposed to be unknown and indescribable, which helps.
Jack: True, I suppose I’m arguing that energy and enthusiasm can go a long way, it’s a barrier to that enthusiasm. Saying “I want to run a game of CthulhuTech, it’s a game mixing mechs and Cthulhu horror!” will get people into it. Asking them to read the sourcebook and learn all the different nations is another matter.
Greywulf: Totally, Planescape and Forgotten Realms are both settings with plenty of setting buy-ins that could easily turn people off. It will also factor in preferences… just because there’s no buy-in doesn’t mean it’ll be everyone’s style of game.
LordVreeg: You have people who are willing to do the buy-in, which is fine. You’re also running very long term campaigns where there’s more time to absorb all those details. I’m talking about all the different games there are out there, and switching between them.
This is exactly why I have started to really be choosey about what games I select. I don’t mind really buying the books or accessories for the games, it’s the huge time investing in learning the system and the storylines. As a GM, you should try to know that stuff better than your players (but that is not always possible).
Dave,
So you are talking more about the ability to switch games somewhat quickly, versus just choosing a game to run/play.
Something that I find helps in long-term games that might be a tremdous aid in all cases is finding online resources ahead of time and giving them to the client.
http://celtricia.pbwiki.com/ is given to every player weeks before their first session, and so they come in armed with a background in the rules and the setting.
I don’t expect every GM to build a wiki everytime they want to run a game, but there are online resources for most games that can give all prospective players and GM’s headstart and ‘reduce the buy-in’. By finding these first, the GM might make his task a little easier.
LordVreeg´s last post: Igbar, Capital of Trabler
LordVreeg: Yes, the buy-in problem only occurs near the beginning of a game. Once they’re into it, they’re already bought-in.
We’re big fans of Wikis here, but it still requires player buy-in. The more information I put up on the wiki that I expect the players to know, the bigger the buy-in issue. And since all my players have careers, families, etc. that’s often a big thing to ask.
You are right all my suggestions are more work for the GM. I guess if I want to run something bad enough that buy-in cost of me doing more work is worth it.
Bonemaster´s last post: The Spell Utility Belt
We’ve actually done not to badly with getting the players to take up a new game in the past but its usually been at the cost of the DM effectively doing everything for the characters if it has anything to do with game mechanics.
Bob´s last post: Giving Back To The Readers
That sounds like the consensus: the impetus is going to be on the GM.
I have definitely felt the sting of this on one game: Heavy Gear. I absolutely loved the game, crunch and fluff, but both were such a massive hurdle for my gaming buddies that I could never get a game rolling beyond a session or two. The developers sort of did it to themselves. The game world was masteruflly created, perfect for a sci-fi book or movie, that had all sorts of small but meaningful differences from our world. Days were 36 hours instead of 24, cultures were varied with alot of specific details. Large amounts of history played into the opinions of allies and enemies. It was a massive web of data for someone to just pick up and play.
The system wasn’t much better. Though the actual play was rather elegant, letting experienced charaters have a clear advantage but keep them from total invulnerability, but had some distinct issues. Character generation was a big hurdle, as it used a ‘value squared’ point cost advancement system, had 9 main attributes on top of 6 or so derived attributes, and stats were rated -5 to +5 while skills only went from 1 to 5. As well, the game was notoriously PC lethal, which just added to the story buy-in. A Player finally makes the plunge and devotes 5 hours to making a setting-kosher character, and it gets toasted from one lucky shot from a mook. That player is not likely to come back to the game.
And since it was a mecha game, they really could have made more effort in streamlining the mech creation/modification system. At one point in making a mech you had to whip out the graphing calculator and get the cube root of the millimeters of armor to determine it’s actual game value. f#%$in ridiculous.
The saddest part: It’s STILL my favorite damn game.
I hate the buy in.
Should roleplaying games have learn-as-you-go scenarios, like the boring early levels in video games?
No, but I did bother to create a ‘basic-basic’ version of Guildschool, that is used for beginning levels that introduces them to skill-heavy game play without the sophistication of all the later skills and dropdown skills. It that allows them to ‘adopt’ the later, more complicated paertws of the game as they gain levels. It streamlines a lot of character creation without changing gameplay, though it does put a little extra onto the GM.
The nice part is that it allws them to ‘work their way in’.
.-= LordVreeg´s last blog ..edited Igbar, Capital of Trabler =-.