[D&D]Getting New Edition players to try Old Editions.

[IvanMike]

I'd love to get any suggestions or thoughts after you read the following post.......

So getting my 1e "Basic" hybrid running I need a few more players. So far I mostly have newbies and a couple of new edition RPG enthusiasts willing to play. I'm cool with this - in fact a lot of times I think it's more fun to play with some people who have not gotten so jaded with the game. This has lead to the inevitable scenario where I explain the concept of the campaign to a prospective player, they like it, and then they find out that it's going to be run with an older rule set. Now keep in mind well over half of these people have never played or even made eyeball marks on the older versions of D&D or the clones.

This is a thread I started on RPG.net specifically targeted at asking players who have never tried older editions what would keep them from trying them, etc. There are some telling comments there.

So I'm certainly not trying to "convert" people or convince them their edition is bad and my version is good, just get a few more players who actually end up enjoying the game. So far I've tried the obvious focusing on the campaign itself but the idea of the old ruleset seems to be a major mental hurdle for the uninitiated. (Heck I play in a pathfinder game for the good DM and players NOT the edition).

So far reasons for not trying the older game are predictable:
They don't want to spend the time to learn a whole new ruleset (and mostly don't believe me when I tell them there's really not much to learn and/or they can learn it as they go, they don't need to study the manual)

Newer means better - the only reason you make a newer version is to make it better and new is always improved (you can't fix stupid - i stop the conversation there)

No superduper customization powers superhero can't be killed option - (see above)

Old D&D is boring dungeoncrawls with no plots no descriptions etc - (i give them the good DM bad DM talk, but many of them point to the script included in the latest versions so a good DM isn't needed, they just need to know their lines and the forumlas to use)

The mechanics for success and failure are too arbitrary and unfair in old D&D. Either they hear this, or they come to that conclusion when I tell them there are no skills and feats and that most things they ask to do will end up being a probability plus a modifier based on ability, level, class, race, whatever. - (I don't really have an answer to that one, but without bashing the new games at all, an unfortunate side effect seems to be that players become dependent on specific rules and a formula where they can know a probability before asking to do something - see below)

The saddest discussion I've had is with a couple of people who wanted more information, and when we got to the lack of skills and optimization they became very confused. Their big questions were "how do I know what I can do if it's not written down? You say I can try anything but how do I KNOW I can? How do I know my chances? How do I know what's allowed for me to do?" This was so disheartening, especially when you consider I just DM'd a game for RPG newbies who ended up doing better than some 5 year vets I know, even listening at doors and searching for traps without ever being told these were options or mechanics (just like a real live person would do).

[Thorkhammer]

I'd probably not try, at this point in my life.

Any player that cannot imagine how to go about having his character try/attempt something without 10 pages of text detailing the mechanics of the process, do not, IMO, have the imagination to play D&D as it is intended.


Side note: you could have them read some excerpts from some of our parent-members that are actually playing the game with their 8, 10 and 12 year old children. And then with a straight face, say-- "just do like the kids are doing"

[Scalydemon]

Yeah, I've have tried a little, but found it to be a waste of time. Why bother?

I hope that doesn't sound like a bad attitude

[Wilowisp]

I found the "old school characters are more vunerable" comment telling; and odd, as I also play Alternity- a new school game with vunerable PCs........

[T. Foster]

Trying to sell them on the old system is a losing proposition, except to make sure they understand that they don't need to "learn a new ruleset" and that you'll handle all that stuff on your side of the screen so all they have to do is show up, make decisions, and roll occasional dice as you direct.

Beyond that, the way to sell new-edition players on playing an old-edition game is to sell them on you as the GM -- that they can trust you to create a good adventure and run it well. If you can convince them that you'll do a good job as GM and they'll have an enjoyable time playing in your game, then what edition you choose to run shouldn't be much of an issue, and if it is, then honestly you probably don't want those people in your game anyway.

If you've done a good job of selling yourself and/or the other players know and trust you, you should be able to get at least one session. Your job then is to make sure that session is really good and shows off the positive aspects of the old editions without making too much of a point of it -- quick char-gen, fast-moving combat, the ability to do stuff not covered by the rules or the numbers on the character sheet. If the players have fun in this game, they'll probably be up for playing another.

Don't try to replace their new-edition game, or lecture them about how much that game sucks compared to the old editions, just position it as an alternative, something they can do for a change-of-pace between sessions of the regular game. If they like it, they'll probably start wanting to play more often. If they don't, then you've at least gotten a session or two out of it, and perhaps learned some things you can do differently or better with the next set of players you can convince to give you and your game a shot.

[LibraryOgre]

Generally, I get them into the game. That seems to be the major hurdle, really.

I'm currently running a C&C game, with mostly late-edition players. One of my keys has been simply fleshing out their backgrounds. Who identifies the worth of gems? Well, the dwarven thief does. The human cleric of the craft god. And the human fighter. Why the human fighter? Because he's a nobleman, and knows gems and jewelry (character concept is "Adventuring Gigolo").

Once they start getting used to the idea "You can try it, but it has to fit your background for you to be good at it", they start to flesh out backgrounds. Some immediately try to munchkin, but that's ok... either I say "Dude, you're 20, you didn't do all that" or something comes up and they don't have a reason they can pull it off, so it goes to someone else.

[serleran]

I usually say something like...

"Are you tired of having to consult 300+ pages of rules only to sigh in disgust that your character, no matter how awesome he is, still has limitations? Don't you want to play a hero who can try, and often succeed, at whatever he wants to do? Don't you want to be a character that is remembered for deeds and not numbers? Well, joys and girls, your search for the ultimate adventure is over..." and blah blah blah. Guess there's a reason I'm not much of a salesman.

[PlayGooYa]

Beyond that, the way to sell new-edition players on playing an old-edition game is to sell them on you as the GM -- that they can trust you to create a good adventure and run it well. If you can convince them that you'll do a good job as GM and they'll have an enjoyable time playing in your game, then what edition you choose to run shouldn't be much of an issue, and if it is, then honestly you probably don't want those people in your game anyway.

If you've done a good job of selling yourself and/or the other players know and trust you, you should be able to get at least one session. Your job then is to make sure that session is really good and shows off the positive aspects of the old editions without making too much of a point of it -- quick char-gen, fast-moving combat, the ability to do stuff not covered by the rules or the numbers on the character sheet. If the players have fun in this game, they'll probably be up for playing another.

This.

You can apply old edition sensibilities to newer editions of D&D. Homebrewing and house-ruling is common enough.

The only real grudge I have against new systems is that I feel that they don't have a consistent design philosophy or tone behind them. Nor do they really acknowledge their influences or accommodate different styles. For example, I always thought that XP and loot always proved to be a poor mechanic for games emphasizing high-fantasy Tolkien-esque campaigns. Otherwise, I still think 3rd or 4th edition had the potential to be good systems, even if they weren't "original" D&D anymore.

Yet, there those traditions are still there even if their original purpose has been forgotten. You can work with that.

Personally, I got jaded with later d20 systems. Pointing out the obvious flaws of the rules disabuses you of the notion that there is something authoritative about the "official product." But I'm still convinced that 3e could probably be re-written to fall into a more "old school" sensibility while retaining enough flexibility for more contemporary (banal) fantasy.

[IvanMike]

Thanks for the replies so far. I really suggest checking out the linked thread - it doesn't have all the objections I listed that I encountered, but it is a pretty good starting sample.

No way would I try to tell anyone their version sucked, that's not the point. I have heard enough stories out there to know there is a certain % of the gaming population who end up liking "our" version better once they try it, but I'm not going to sell them on that either. I agree you can't convince a person to give the older editions a try once they start with certain objections, so this is disheartening, but not an issue for me. Selling them on the campaign premise and me as a DM is generally my biggest focus, but the edition hurdle is a high one. I understand this if someone has played it and didn't like it (I tried new editions and don't like them, so I would not join a campaign in 4e or 3.5 or whatever - i get that). It is a bit confusing if they haven't tried it at all. Players raised in newer editions seem very programed to think that they cannot play a game without knowing all the rules. Worse still is when they find out there aren't very many rules and this leaves them unable to think of anything to do! I am doing what you suggest Nexx, I am big on the backstory filling out skills and what have you. Some people seem to get this, a lot more want to see the rules about backstories and the options along with numbers!

I swear, if I can find all newbies and even some kids I'll do that. Not trashing the new editions entirely, but something about them seems to shut down a creativity and common sense center somewhere in the cortex..........

[T. Foster]

I wouldn't take responses to an RPGNet thread too seriously -- those people are all hardcore partisans, and most of them are probably lying claiming that they don't have experience with earlier editions. Real players "in the wild" aren't much like that. If there's a game-club nearby or a local game store hosts events go there and talk to the people playing and see if you can convince some of them to give your game a try in addition to (not in place of) what they're already playing. Yeah, you'll probably get one or two jerks badmouthing the old editions, but if you stay cool and positive they'll be the ones who come off looking bad, and you'll probably get at least a couple of the newbies intersted enough to give your game a try, and hopefully it will snowball from there -- as good a sales job as you can do, a newbie-gamer who played in one of your games and had fun telling his friends about it will do even better

EDIT: also, your RPGNet was framed too negatively: "what keeps you from trying an old edition?" You might have gotten better responses if you'd framed it instead as "what would convince you to try an old edition?"

[IvanMike]

I wouldn't take responses to an RPGNet thread too seriously -- those people are all hardcore partisans, and most of them are probably lying claiming that they don't have experience with earlier editions. Real players "in the wild" aren't much like that. If there's a game-club nearby or a local game store hosts events go there and talk to the people playing and see if you can convince some of them to give your game a try in addition to (not in place of) what they're already playing. Yeah, you'll probably get one or two jerks badmouthing the old editions, but if you stay cool and positive they'll be the ones who come off looking bad, and you'll probably get at least a couple of the newbies intersted enough to give your game a try, and hopefully it will snowball from there -- as good a sales job as you can do, a newbie-gamer who played in one of your games and had fun telling his friends about it will do even better

EDIT: also, your RPGNet was framed too negatively: "what keeps you from trying an old edition?" You might have gotten better responses if you'd framed it instead as "what would convince you to try an old edition?"

Punch and Pie. More people will come if you tell them there is punch and pie.

I agree about RPG.net, I actually got more of my objections on some other forums I advertised the game on and in person. Seeing as it is such a partisan website, and as I don't care all that much about my membership there, I thought it would make an interesting testbed for the question.

[Matthew-]

I just brought the books and a few modules along to a game night at the local store. We played after the D20/4e slot was finished, no real problems convincing people to give it a go, as they wanted to. Sometimes you will get a negative response, and I guess you just have to suck it up. Otherwise, most people are pretty open minded about trying new games.

[ExTSR]

I usually say something like...

Well *I* usually say something like...

"Can you give me 10 minutes?"

By that time I'll have 'em so deep into an adventure (no detailed PC to start -- just "you're a Fighter, fully equipped, okay? -- winging it all the way) that they can hardly believe it. "It's THIS easy? Whoa!"

The ones who listen will return. The ones who won't are too programmed to listen.

And listen to Trent. Keep it positive and inclusive.

F

[serleran]

Well, heckle Jekyll, I can see that working a wonder.

I seem to recall a few conventions of yore doing something very much like that. Woot.


Oh, and yeah... few people like being told something they like sucks.

[Brunomac]

Their big questions were "how do I know what I can do if it's not written down? You say I can try anything but how do I KNOW I can? How do I know my chances? How do I know what's allowed for me to do?" .

That is truly some very sad stuff. "How do I know what I can do if it's not written down." Mind boggling. Have gamers become so souless and heartless?

But considering the source, It's a minor miracle if some D-bag didn't tell you that you were having fun wrong.

When I started my new group the other year for my 1st edition, I of course have many house mods after 30 years, and I had some 'splainin' to do Lucy. But once anyone who had an eyebrow cocked at my changes played a fun session or two, they didn't seem to care as much. So say what you gotta (which in this case might be the less the better) to get them there. When they show up, ask them to have an open mind and get right down to the game. If they come back then it's all good. If not, there'll be more. The couple of players who quit my new group early on buggered off more because I didn't focus on "story" or "plot" rather than the house rules I made.

[Classicdnd]

I'd try and push the retro-cool element; sell an image of the game from when it was a cult classic. Some older players might even remember those days and it could trigger some nostalgia. But at a more fundamental level I'd suggest they come along for just one session, "Give it a go! What have you got to lose?" But in saying that, if you've stumbled upon someone who is so instantly negative you're fighting an uphill battle anyway. Don't waste too much energy on someone who doesn't want to be convinced. Finding new players who are prepared to play the older editions is like playing poker: you fold many hands until you get a good one.

[RichardAshenden]

I'm skeptical. I think that if people are not curious enough to venture into older editions on their own, no amount of earnest proselytising will convince them to abandon their own games. My 2 coppers.

[IvanMike]

More good points. I confess on RPG net I wasn't looking for converts so I didn't think of phrasing the question positively - usually I do. The idea to just call it "earlier D&D" is probably a lot less scary as well.

FWIW, I'm really not out to take people from their existing games. I wouldn't approach new gamers at all save for the fact that they seem to make up the majority of players that I run across, especially if one is advertising on websites to find in your area for an actual face to face sit down game. Heck, if I had my way I'd have 6 brand new RPG newbies at the table. Even old school gamers get a little concrete in their thinking sometimes -

[ExTSR]

no amount of earnest proselytising will convince them to abandon their own games.

Any change if it's earnest demonstrating -- doing, not yakking -- praps with empasis on the "got 10 minutes?" approach? If no, then what has any possibility of communicating? Alternatives please...

[IvanMike]

I usually say something like...

Well *I* usually say something like...

"Can you give me 10 minutes?"

By that time I'll have 'em so deep into an adventure (no detailed PC to start -- just "you're a Fighter, fully equipped, okay? -- winging it all the way) that they can hardly believe it. "It's THIS easy? Whoa!"

The ones who listen will return. The ones who won't are too programmed to listen.

And listen to Trent. Keep it positive and inclusive.

F

OK, so this may be the dumbest question I ever ask.................

Assuming that scenario, is there a particular method/story line/idea you use when introducing someone like this?

I'm assuming no, but still I imagine the introductory yarn you might spin might have a particular "feel" to it for an RPG newbie, and perhaps a bit different for an RPG vet who never got around to playing real OS D&D. I have my own favorite introductory stuff, but to be honest, I haven't cold adventured someone that didn't already say "yes i would like to play this" in a long time.

(this is either the most brilliant question I have ever asked, or the most stupid)

[ExTSR]

Assuming that scenario, is there a particular method/story line/idea you use when introducing someone like this?

I have a few basics -- rescue the princess, slay the dragon, whatever seems appropriate at the time -- but the first 3 minutes involve tailoring the style to the recipient. The story can't be completed in that timeframe, but it provides a focus. Existent gamers are skeptical about mechanics (usually the lack of same; many have been taught to 'want' More Rules); both they and newbies are wary of learning curves. So you allay fears, stay positive, recognize that everybody should choose their own style (and this may not be their golden apple), and settle for education.

F

[Mr. Awesome]

First, if they have any false ideas that THAC0 is super complicated or anything like that, dispel them. ("What's 20 minus 10? What's 20 minus 5? What's 20 minus 0? What's 20 minus -3? Congratulations! You just calculated THAC0 four times in fifteen seconds!") I'm terrible at math, and I used THAC0 without a hitch at the age of 14. It's become this weird illusionary symbol of what was wrong with older versions of D&D. You must encourage them to disbelieve!

Emphasize that it's more about imagination than number crunching and character builds. You could probably sell it as a mental break from all those nitpicky skills and feats and whatnot; in older games instead of calculating numbers, you say what you want to do and the DM judges out what happens.

I expect that the hardest part is getting past their falsely-based misgivings and getting them to play once. Once most people have played a single time, I expect they'll think, 'Oh, this isn't so bad!' and keep playing. You just have to get them to put their toe in the water. Of course there will be people who hate it no matter what, due to preconceptions that they bring with them: 'You don't get better stats with levels? That's lame!' 'I can't use [feat combination]? That's lame!' I would tend to give up such players as too much effort to bother with, myself.

[ExTSR]

there will be people who hate it no matter what, due to preconceptions that they bring with them: 'You don't get better stats with levels? That's lame!' 'I can't use [feat combination]? That's lame!' I would tend to give up such players as too much effort to bother with, myself.

Until their friends start playing Old School; then it's suddenly Not Lame.

F

[IvanMike]

Thanks again for the replies.

The RPG.net thread went as expected, but I did get some good replies.

General consensus by many New School players is explicitly as follows: if you have to roll for your abilities and hit points, if you can die, if traps will kill you, if monsters play intelligently and take all the advantages you would, if you use monsters that can kill you, or if the DM won't promise not to do all that - then the game isn't fair.

Edit: They also had some lovely things to say about EGG..............

[ExTSR]

General consensus by many New School players is explicitly as follows: if you have to roll for your abilities and hit points, if you can die, if traps will kill you, if monsters play intelligently and take all the advantages you would, if you use monsters that can kill you, or if the DM won't promise not to do all that - then the game isn't fair.

Um, not to argue, but I just read 4 recent pages over there. There are a lot of valid comments about 1e: disorganized & incomplete, obscure unused weapons (can you say 'pole arms'?), some silly monsters; and general things: "Gotcha" DMs, InstaDeathNoSave, and other unfairness -- whether in 4e or 1e.

I'd grant your comments above only for some NS players.
And I still say they may not know better, having never tried OS.

[IvanMike]

General consensus by many New School players is explicitly as follows: if you have to roll for your abilities and hit points, if you can die, if traps will kill you, if monsters play intelligently and take all the advantages you would, if you use monsters that can kill you, or if the DM won't promise not to do all that - then the game isn't fair.

Um, not to argue, but I just read 4 recent pages over there. There are a lot of valid comments about 1e: disorganized & incomplete, obscure unused weapons (can you say 'pole arms'?), some silly monsters; and general things: "Gotcha" DMs, InstaDeathNoSave, and other unfairness -- whether in 4e or 1e.

I'd grant your comments above only for some NS players.
And I still say they may not know better, having never tried OS.

well there is all that - many of their complaints are valid - i agreed with them for the most part, and attempted to mention that I cut a lot of those out, but got the "well you aren't playing by the book so it's not really old school" rebuttal.

And no, most of them don't know better.

I still like rot grubs, but i don't think I've ever had the heart to use them.

[TheDungeonDelver]

This is so strange to me; I'm not bragging (certainly not right now: I have laid off my current gaming group with serious reservations about starting back up again - long story), but everywhere I've taken/played OD&D or AD&D it's been most enthusiastically received. It could be the use of Dwarven Forge; I'm not blind to the idea that to many people a game these days must have a miniatures representation to "be" D&D.

But seriously? At the local HMGS cons I was always asked to run an "overflow" game during an "off" session for the 5-10 players who couldn't fit in to the slated game to play...when I kicked off the recently-ended five year odyssey at the (now just a comic shop) FLGS, I think we had fourteen participants that day.

I wish I could say "do this, and that will work".

I will tell you this though: asking about it (that is, will you play an old version of D&D) on the internet is largely futile. Mostly because of this:



to-wit, the generally polite person who might come over to the table, be eager to play AD&D, comment on how much fun it is to get in to the old game, you put that person on rpg.net or the enworld forum and give them a user name Straight Outa Waterdeep, Yo and suddenly...well...see the cartoon.

And unfortunately, at the end of the day, it can be an exercise in futility. I mean, people have got this irrational hate-on for older versions of the game, some of it spills over either onto or due to opinions of Gary ("He was a jerk to me at a con in 1981 when I was eight, AD&D SUCKS!", "His articles in Dragon were those of a big old meanie!" - and yes that is a distillation of many negative opinions of old D&D, voiced directly to me), some of it comes from bad brushes with shitty DMs, and so on. And at the end of the day, you're not going to crack that nut. Going back to the cartoon, again, a person who might politely say no, or even show a little interest, that person on the internet (and, again, to a special degree from some folks at rpg.net) becomes the "greater <expletive deleted>".

Sad, but true.

Best of luck in your journey!

[Nathaniel]

The ones who listen will return. The ones who won't are too programmed to listen.

And listen to Trent. Keep it positive and inclusive.

F

Positive and inclusive? Like writing off anyone who's not interested as being "too programmed to listen?"

I think the first real step in getting people to try the games we like is to let go of the notion that we have the one true way to have fun.

[Nathaniel]

Edit: They also had some lovely things to say about EGG..............

I actually thought the quotes were a pretty accurate representation of EGG's position on more recently published RPGs. He was very uncharitable in many of the Q&A threads here on Dragonsfoot when it comes to RPGs published after AD&D/BECMI and their players.

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone examining Gary's preferences and seeing them as not something they like. As well being happy/pleased that other games they do like have been invented since he was last involved with TSR.

[ExTSR]

Like writing off anyone who's not interested as being "too programmed to listen?"

Yup, you're right, my bad.


Hey, when I screw up, call me on it. That way things improve.

I should have elaborated:

When you buy and play one particular RPG, and receive all that game's self-promo without any contrast, and then that basis is fortified by mass-trend peer pressure, you are educated/programmed in a certain specific direction and thereby lack perspective.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, my education/programming included many hateful race-based things. Not the 'book larnin'" education, the real street stuff. Luckily my family believed otherwise, and then came the movements of the sixties, and things changed for the better. I dodged the imprint.

But back to the topic... you can only rarely break through that canalization (is that more palatable than 'programming' 'cause it's highfalutin braintalk?) with logic. Stop yakking and act, in positive outreach. Demonstrate the alternatives, or find some other way into the fortress... and stop with the catapults, they aren't helping.

F