| FanaticRat |
So, I'll admit, I'm still relatively new to tabletop rpgs, but there are a lot I would love to play. Problem is, I can never seem to convince my tabletop gaming and roleplaying friends to give them a shot. Usually they simply say they're not interested or don't even consider giving it a try. Best case scenario, I end up trying to run a game only to find it collapse because the people who said they were interested were just feigning interest to "be polite."
I would like to play more systems at some point, but it seems like at best I'd only get to GM them with people I don't know, not play them myself, and it's a bit of a crapshoot if it'll actually take. Is there any way to get friends interested in new systems at all, or to at least get them to consider trying it out? So far all the advice I've heard on the subject is, "it's impossible."
| PsychoticWarrior |
Get some new friends? Seriously! Widen your circle of friends a bit. I did this myself and ended up in a fantastic game of BD&D - something I have wanted to play for the last 5 years. All because I asked around with friends of friends and friends i don't get to see very often.
As for getting people to try new things - I have no real advice there. People get pretty entrenched in their ruts and getting them out is often impossible.
| Matt Filla |
Or, they found the game that they like and given the amount of time available for gaming, they'd rather spend it playing the game they like than learning a new one that they may or may not like. Nothing wrong with trying new things, but sometimes it's just a rational decision to use a limited resource (gaming time) in a certain way.
| PsychoticWarrior |
These answers are rather disheartening...how do you make friends again?
First you need a big castle and access to both dead bodies and lots of electricity....
It *is* hard to meet new people - but hardly impossible. That's why I used friends of friends to get into my BD&D group.
And Matt Filla is right - getting gamers to try anything new is extremely hard once they are in their rut. The few times I have done it I haven't really gave them a choice - I present the game I'll be running if they like it they're in if they don't...I do have a waiting list of players ready to step up. It does help to live in a player rich environment and have a reputation (almost deserved!) of running fun games.
| Ellis Mirari |
There was a time when I was really reluctant to play anything other than 3.5. Then I made the switch to PF, and then tried a classmate's new system, and now I'm eager to try any kind of new game.
Once you get the floodgates open, it's much easier. Maybe convince them to play just a one-shot with a new system.
| ngc7293 |
Gurps, BESM, AMBER, Champions, Rolemaster (of coarse) are all systems that can fake D&D or Fantasy games but most do other things.
GURPS does lots of things, so does BESM. AMBER can easily take place in a fantasy world just as easily as it can take place in a future one. Champions is Super heroes, but there is also Fantasy Heroes. Rolemaster (or chartmaster if you will) is probably the ultimate at difficult, but the game I played was very fun.
The point is, many games can be toyed with to be made into a fantasy game. If you can get the group comfortable with the system, you can try to get them to play something different.
For example, Amber. You start it off as a fantasy world and the short game(if they like it) and tell them that this world is all a lie...IT'S A SHADOW! Then you go from there.
| Arnwyn |
Is there any way to get friends interested in new systems at all, or to at least get them to consider trying it out? So far all the advice I've heard on the subject is, "it's impossible."
Because that 'advice' is generally accurate. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink and all that.
People have limited time and make decisions that best suit their needs - in this case, learning a brand new game and then playing it is way down their list of priorities. And that's the way things go in life.
With that said, if you even want a remote chance of success - especially given the responses you have received so far - the minimum amount of work you'll have to do is do ALL the legwork for them beforehand. That is, you'll have to create miniature "player's handbooks" for each one of them that defines character creation and the rules they need to know, with just enough information that they can play but not too much to make it onerous to learn; put together a coherent campaign guide that will spark their interest; distribute both of them in a reasonable amount of time beforehand (not too early in that they'll forget everything and not too late in that they won't have a chance to review what they'll need to review); and then talk-talk-talk about the game and setting in a very enthusiastic manner over a period of time. When appropriate. But not too much.
Does that sound like an extraordinary amount of work? Yes... yes it does. But if you want uninterested people to become interested, you have a massive uphill battle before you. (And yes, the above is the MINIMUM amount of work. You do anything less than that, and it's pretty much guaranteed failure.)
Good luck with that.
| Grey Lensman |
Have you considered leaving the GM chair for a little while? That's what one guy I know did. He cited 'system burnout' and stopped running 3.5 until Pathfinder came out, and eve then it may have only been due to the AP's. Although for this guy it was an improvement, he used to switch systems like the rest of us change socks before he had a player revolt.
| Matt Filla |
In summary, people suck.
How does making a rational decision as to how one spends one's limited gaming time equate to sucking? I run a Pathfinder game every other Tuesday, so we play pretty much twice a month, for four hours or so per session. Let's say we decided to play some other system. Apart from the time we would spend outside of the game learning the new system (time that we don't need to spend on PF because we all know the system), the game sessions are going to be slower at first because it's a new system, and if we're going to take the time to learn the new system, we might as well give the new system enough of a chance to know whether we like it or not, so it's not going to be a one-session thing. So we'll spend two months (given our schedule) plus out-of-game learning time to try out the new system. If we really like it, then we either switch to it (so, bye, bye Pathfinder for a long time - sorry I put all that money into the books that will be sitting on my shelf for the foreseeable future), or we don't switch (or even worse, we didn't like it), so that's two months wasted we could have been playing Pathfinder, which we all enjoy.
I'm not saying that every group should (or would) follow that thought process, but in our situation it's a perfectly reasonable decision to say, "yeah, we'll just keep playing PF and be perfectly happy with it". It's not a rut, just an honest appraisal of how best to spend our time. Given infinite gaming time (or even the gaming time I had available in my younger days), maybe we make a different decision.
| FanaticRat |
Have you considered leaving the GM chair for a little while? That's what one guy I know did. He cited 'system burnout' and stopped running 3.5 until Pathfinder came out, and eve then it may have only been due to the AP's. Although for this guy it was an improvement, he used to switch systems like the rest of us change socks before he had a player revolt.
I haven't actually been GMing that long, and I don't have a regular sit down group like that. In a case like this, if I don't arrange it, nothing gets done, 'cause I highly doubt anyone would be willing to learn a new system to gm it for me.
I figure I oughta just give up. Oh well, thanks anyway guys.
| Grey Lensman |
I haven't actually been GMing that long, and I don't have a regular sit down group like that. In a case like this, if I don't arrange it, nothing gets done, 'cause I highly doubt anyone would be willing to learn a new system to gm it for me.
I figure I oughta just give up. Oh well, thanks anyway guys.
To give any better advice we would have to learn more.
Have they been burned by other systems? This could be either a different system not capturing a feel they though it should, or simply having too many bad games under other systems. I know a guy who doesn't consider Vampire: The Masquerade after several bad games under multiple Storytellers.
Do they just think it is too much of an investment of time and effort? This could be a factor of the several things, such as limited time to play or prepare, or a look at the rules tells them it seems like too much. It took one look at Mutants and Masterminds for my group to demand serious character generation help from the GM who wanted to run it. They decided they would rather play something they felt had less complexity, like RIFTS. (yes, that was sarcasm, but that was also the voiced consensus of the table)
| FanaticRat |
Well, it varies from person to person. Some are people I used to freeform rp with; when I suggest ideas for rps and stuff they're interested (or feign interest) but if I say, "I was considering possibly doing it with this system" they suddenly lose interest. Others, when I try to elaborate on the system, they find one thing in it they don't like and completely blow it off. Most have not run very many games at all, and some have plenty of time. None has ever said anything to me about the investment to learn the rules, and I often stress that I wouldn't expect them to have everything down pat up front and I'd help guide them through stuff, but...
I often try to appeal to things that I know that they like, independent of rpg system, and try to say, "well, if you like doing X, in Y system there's W Z N for doing that," but that doesn't work.
| Grey Lensman |
Sounds more like they have a comfort zone they aren't willing to leave for any reason. There might be only two ways to deal with that. Either give in, or run ONLY other systems until they figure out that the choices are A: Give some other system a real chance OR B: find something else to do besides gaming.
| Lord Mhoram |
Or, they found the game that they like and given the amount of time available for gaming, they'd rather spend it playing the game they like than learning a new one that they may or may not like. Nothing wrong with trying new things, but sometimes it's just a rational decision to use a limited resource (gaming time) in a certain way.
That is my position. I'm 46, and most of the group is of similar age. We play HERO in group, and the wife and I play Pathfinder solo. We would rather spend out time playing than worrying about rules. Both of these rulesets (as complex as they can be) I've play long enough that I rarely have to reference much. Hero almost never, and details on spells or grappling for PF.
It just isn't worth my limited game time to try a new game. Hero is universal, and we have played many genres with it. PF is my favaorite iteration of one of my favorite games. Enjoyment for me comes from character immersion and I can do that much better with a game system that I know inside and out. New systems actually interfere with the reason I play RPGs.
Pan
|
You should look for or start a meetup. Find new gamers in the community and talk shop. Another way to look at it is ask yourself if you would want to play Little house on the prairie or Buck Rogers RPG? Some games just attract a niche group. I know you think gaming with your best friends is ideal and you dont want game without them but seriously if they are not invested it wont be fun.