« It's Getting Better | Main | Advancing Steadily Forward »
November 26, 2003
Recruitment Highlights
from the RPG.Net thread.
Darelf writes
Some people may think this sounds flip and even cheap. But set it aside something NBA Commissioner David Stern said on the radio the other day - that the next growth spurt in the marketing of professional sports had to come from getting more women into them. There are of course female gamers (and many of them have horror stories), but evening out the male-female ratio helps with the "normalizing" that Matt Snyder would like to see (see comments to original recruitment item) and it has positive feedback on the recruitment of new male gamers too.I personally rely on charisma to get new gamers. Not just my own. We employ the services of our "gamer grrl" (she looks so cute in a plaid mini-skirt and thigh-high boots), as well as a local high school blonde-haired guitarist (who attracts the "womenz").
jjnevins makes a basic point:
There is a basic conflict between valuing gaming qua gaming and valuing gaming as a refuge from "mundanes" and - let's call it the Deodorized Lifestyle. (I'm all in favor of it. Others clearly aren't.) Some people may not want a broader hobby if it means living up to the expectations of those people. Those who do want a broader hobby need to keep the basics in mind.Which is to say, don't let yourself look like the Simpsons' Comic Store Guy when you meet the newbie.
Mungo:
In other words, the responsibility goes beyond the GM to everyone at the table. Possible action step: before the newbie's first session, an e-mail to all players alerting them to the event and laying out a brief code of conduct. Get buy-in from everybody.I've noticed a tendancy with gamers to try and "show off" when new players are around. It's like it's their chance to lord it over new players, to demonstrate their superior knowledge of the game in a wierd sort of attempt at self angrandizement. Nothing turns a potential player off more than being made low man on the pole, or the butt of "in-jokes". Experienced roleplayers may put up with that sort of thing to get their fix, but new players will quickly disappear.
Bards R Us wrote
No links to the gamingreport.com or ENworld threads, alas, but it is certainly true that I do not care about the D&D-only audience, since I neither play nor desire to play D&D. Anyone who wishes to mentally revise the thrust of my concerns as "recruiting for that part of the hobby that is not D&D" should feel free to do so. If D&D users find applicable lessons too, so much the better.There are is a thread on gamingreport.com about the size of the hobby as well as two threads on ENworld regarding the state of the hobby, and from what I can tell, it is growing not shrinking.
Oh, but then again you probably meant RPGs not including DnD, like alot of people on this board tend to imply.
Gilbetron:
This makes a great deal of sense, especially to me. My current preference is for small face-to-face games. I would not run most games for more than four players, and would prefer to play in groups that size too. (Our recent Amber campaigns were larger and the worst thing was the downtime. Then again, Amber practically requires 4+ people just to get the intricacy of intra-PC dynamics that are the core of that game.) I restricted my Nobilis campaign to three PCs, and while we started MURPG with five participants (GM duties rotate), I'm just as happy playing that game with two PCs and a GM. Some of the most fun I ever had was a three-user James Bond game with two very sympatico players.However, I don't think the problem ends with getting a newbie to play in your game. I think the problem is getting people to *run* games. If all the current GMs each converted 2 new players to their group, we'd see little long term growth. However, if all the current GMs convinced 2 players in their group to start up their own game and try to recruit new players, *then* we would see some long term growth as a critical reaction would begin with new GMs starting new players, convincing some of them to become new GMs, starting new players, etc. To foster this, amongst other things, is RPGers need to be less jealous of not being invited to a game. In all the groups I've dealt with, it is always a touchy subject, and puts a damper on people going off to start something new.
Point being, if you're into three and four-player games, you recruit three or four players who share your preferences and then they go out and start games of their own, you won't all fit - especially if they do their own bit to grow the hobby. We will have to let some of these people go without hunting them down and killing them. Alas.
And for aging gamers with adult responsibilities, smaller game groups probably make practical sense. It's just easier to get everyone together.
BcAugust:
One bright side of having an aging population: even we gamers get less abashed as we get older. Self-confidence - or at least indifference - accretes like tree-rings. The all-important second component is "Be friendly and explain clearly until they're satisfied." The first step there is not to assume that the inquirers aim must be derision. BcAugust says "I've helped about 15 people into the hobby since I've started, and four of them started GMing before I lost touch with them."Including all of the above(especially the girl recruiting part ), I've found being fairly open about the hobby helps too. Playing it in public areas without being a nuisance, tend to lead interested people to ask about it. Be friendly and explain clearly until they're satisfied. Being prepared to help new players heavily is also required, and bending the rules and running a little rule light until they're hooked helps. And getting them to Gm? I usually show them all the different games and let their imaginations take it from there, even if they need a lot of help from me or others in the group.
Korimyr the Rat:
It's good practice, they might change their mind, and you might change the mind of someone watching you deal with the person who doesn't intend to play.I think the biggest thing is to be open and friendly about the games-- even when dealing with people who don't intend to play.
Safid:
Bottom line of what's worked for me? Finding people with tangental interests in RPGs and then not making the experience feel overwhelming, while encouraging them with success for the things they try.
Comments
Lots of good advice there.
As a female gamer, I've found that "lording it over" is a key no-no in getting women to play. I've talked to all-women groups about their experience gaming, and more than one reported that having boyfriends/male friends/spouses tell them how to play was such a turnoff that they didn't come back to the table. This was a problem in both combat-oriented RPGs and, unsurprisingly, board games.
Also, don't hit on women immediately. Let them get comfortable with you before you ask for a date. (This worked for my husband, whom I met at a D&D game.) And if they're not comfortable with you, consider not asking, or take "no" gracefully. That should go in the basic manners department, but it needs to be said.
I recommend this page for anyone specifically interested in recruiting women into the hobby: http://www.tasteslikephoenix.com/articles/women.html
Posted by: Ginger at Nov 26, 2003 12:28:22 PM
Very nice advice and glad to see it. Those are all issues dear to my heart.
Overall of all people I've gotten into RPG, I'd say that 1 in 8 try GMing, and perhaps half of them are interested in that long term.
It might be that smaller game groups is the way to go. More tailored to the individuals.
Posted by: Arref at Nov 26, 2003 1:03:27 PM
It seems to me that GMs are the key limit to the size of the hobby, since they tend to have to do two to ten times as much scutwork as any player. People with both the time and inclination to do that are pearls of great price.
I know at least eight people who would love to have a regular game to play in, and have no doubt I could scare up a dozen more in half an hour of looking. On the other hand, I only know one GM who can't find a player group, and this is largely because hasn't figured out how to make new friends since he left high school, sad to say.
Posted by: colin roald at Nov 28, 2003 10:09:25 AM
Interesting point, Colin. That might imply that one way to make it easier to recruit new players is to simplify the task of GMing. There are a number of GM-less games that make GMing much easier, but do they perhaps displace the difficulty onto the players?
Posted by: Bryant at Nov 28, 2003 1:51:27 PM
Honestly, IMHO the single biggest aid to GMing is the existence of well-written adventures to use/adapt -- this was the great strength of AD&D and Call of Cthulhu. GURPS' pattern of lots of worldbooks that sometimes have a mini-adventure in the back is cool and entertaining but not as helpful to actually running games.
Elegant rules from clever indie games occasionally help out by streamlining the kinds of decisions the GM has to make in play, but frankly -- difficulty remembering arcane rule cases is *not* the kind of trouble that keeps me from running games. Lack of time and energy to write plots and draw maps is.
I would *love* it if some of the time and energy people put into writing Yet Another Worldbook That I Won't Have Time To Play could be redirected into writing good modules for one that already exists. Anyone else?
Posted by: colin roald at Nov 28, 2003 4:10:45 PM
Lack of time and energy to write plots and draw maps is.
Maps are optional for many styles of RP. Plots are less so, but this is another area where players can take a big load off the GM. Sorcerer kickers, for instance, hand you a great deal of plot right out of the chargen stage.
I think the key to surviving as an adult GM with limited prep time is getting comfortable with improv. I don't even have time to read modules these days, so more modules would do nothing for me.
There may be another approach available too. Someone in the Forge thread that started all this argued that what made AD&D1 a mass-appeal game was that, while the books were a lot to read, running a game was largely a matter of picking from lists. He suggested updated the "pick from lists" concept by applying it to story-oriented gaming. (Something akin to but beyond the Theatrix flow-charts, maybe.)
Posted by: Jim Henley at Nov 28, 2003 5:30:25 PM
'Maps' was kind of an arbitrary specific standing in for general setting preparedness. I happen to like maps, but there's always *something*. Becoming really good at improvising this stuff off the cuff is obviously a valuable GM survival skill, but if our goal is to expand the hobby it's incredibly limiting to require it of all GMs.
The "story element" cards from Atlas Games' Once Upon a Time are interesting -- I wonder if something more recognizable as an RPG could be written using a mechanic like that? I'm not sure how -- I dislike playing Once Upon a Time because the random plots are far too contrived and unsatisfying -- but I think there are people here who've spent a lot more time thinking about RPG design than I have.
http://www.atlas-games.com/ouat_index.html
Posted by: colin roald at Nov 28, 2003 6:08:58 PM
(I should note that neither "Sorcerer kickers" nor "Theatrix flow-charts" is anything I know anything about. I've only recently become interested in RPG theory, and have never seen many of the small-press games.)
Posted by: colin roald at Nov 28, 2003 6:15:18 PM
I dislike playing Once Upon a Time because the random plots are far too contrived and unsatisfying
Sure. In general OUAT uses story elements to make a game rather than using game elements to make a story. Robin Laws' PANTHEON, IMHO, is the same way.
The "story element" cards from Atlas Games' Once Upon a Time are interesting -- I wonder if something more recognizable as an RPG could be written using a mechanic like that?
It's an interesting question. These days my design interests are substantially in the direction of visual aids. Cards, bigass character sheets you move things around on, paper "control centers" that sit in the middle of the table, you name it. Cards? Sure.
I wonder about using cards as a non-random story generator - flip through them and take the first one you like rather than the first one that comes up.
On prep time, I look for a game where it's easy to build NPCs. Few or no attributes is a big plus. And I have some bias toward settings that approximate the present day because then much of the game background is our background.
Posted by: Jim Henley at Nov 29, 2003 12:15:41 AM
On prep time, I look for a game where it's easy to build NPCs. Few or no attributes is a big plus.
Sing it, brother.
And how many supplements are there on Improv? Or dealing with Spotlight moments? Or managing the GMs time with each Player?
Though Robin Laws' book is a good start.
Posted by: Arref at Nov 29, 2003 10:56:06 PM
