Adapting to New Ideas
-
I came across this piece while researching methodologies for the materials I'm developing for work. I think it has applications well beyond the tech writing field and it links to a lot of really good concepts (I totally want this book now).
It taps into why people struggle to adopt new ideas and this is something we face on MUs quite often. Why don't people like original theme as much as established IPs? Why do people skip over these cool systems? Why do people flock to WoD despite even most of its players hating it?
So much of the time our answer is 'make it easier.' Because surely if we lower the bar for entry, people will acclimate? Then when they don't we jump to laziness or stubbornness and while those might be the reasons sometimes, they're also often byproducts of the real issue.
We know that we 'stereotype' (people, situations, experiences) because it helps us inform our actions. When I'm driving, I can observe other cars and make relatively informed (and often accurate) guesses as to what people are going to do before they do it. That guy is being aggressive about edging into the next lane and keeps trying to speed up: he's about to cut someone off.
In the link, they call these 'schemas.' We develop them from birth. Its the brains way of forming familiarity so that even in a largely unfamiliar space, you can find the right behaviors, the right direction, etc..
People play WoD because it's a system they know. They may hate the environment, they may be bored of the stories, but it's familiar.
People don't play OC games as much as IPs because they don't have anything to latch onto to make it familiar.In the latter, I want to use Ithir as an example because I think their providing real world and media comparatives as reference points helps people settle in all that much more. 'Ah, yes, I know what pirates and House Greyjoy are: I can totally envision this now.'
The solution proposed is to present the new thing (system, setting, etc.) as story. And by story I mean exposition, inciting action, rising action, crisis, climax.... And oh, sure, there's no need for flow charts (though those can be fun!), but by presenting it as story people can be drawn in and envision themselves there.
Do you have a new system? A new method of doing things? Don't just provide the raw data. Don't just spit out 'Do X, run Y, have PCs roll Z.' People balk. I want to ST on Ithir for example, but I don't understand the systems. People can tell me 'just pitch a plot with this command' and 'just tell a story and have people roll for the right things' ... but without context, I'm lost still. It's a new place, I'm absorbing so many things: the lack of context makes yet another thing alien to me.
So I consider this for a new plot resolution system we're working on for SGM. Yes, there's the raw 'how to,' but I know people will be uncomfortable with it at first and struggle to find their way in. But now I'm thinking: what if I present it differently? What if I present a scenario of the system 'in action,' then provide them with the tools (even just mentally) to go through it themselves? And in doing this, what if I provide the benefits to the system for its users? And following these exercises, I can present the actual 'how to' along with encouragement via 'troubleshooting' (you may encounter X, but you can use Y to get through it).
I think for new things (projects, ideas, systems, and so on) approaching the delivery as a story may be a valid way to go. After all, we are all storytellers in some fashion. It's not an easy approach, to be sure (and is clearly heavy on my mind as per the above), but I think it has merit even if it's just considered and not put into full effect.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
-
I'm currently at work, so don't have the time to write out a lengthy reply. However, I wanted to note that I am one of those weirdos that doesn't like playing MU*s set in pre-existing IPs. However I do like some sort of elevator pitch description that does use existing IPs. For example: "It's Gothic meets Minecraft, Breath of the Wild, and Horizon: Zero Dawn."
-
@Auspice said in Adapting to New Ideas:
It taps into why people struggle to adopt new ideas and this is something we face on MUs quite often. Why don't people like original theme as much as established IPs? Why do people skip over these cool systems? Why do people flock to WoD despite even most of its players hating it?
Speaking for myself, it's simply a matter of time investment. Most games - MUSH and table-top - simply aren't known for their longevity; most die down relatively soon, or become inactive enough that they're effectively dead even if they are technically still going.
Due to that it's simply more efficient to play in settings and use mechanics you're already familiar with. My WoD MUSH might be the same as the last dozen others you've already tried but at least it's plug-and-play; you can roll a character within a few minutes, there is an expectation of how your PC fits into scenes and... that's it. If it all goes away in six weeks then you still got to play for that long.
Compare that to picking up something new that can still disappear just as fast. You might not want to spend a week figuring out the ins and outs of all those rules and social norms before you even hit the grid - and because others are just as reserved about it the initial population surge isn't the same.
Now obviously that's not going to be everyone's reasoning. It's just mine.
-
As I get older I find myself less interested in crunchy systems even those I am familiar with (like WoD). It is even less attractive to want to storyteller for because i do not want to have to deal with WoD/complex system rules lawyers. But I think with complex systems you kind of have to expect it, and be tolerant of that to a certain degree, since it is meant to encourage and attract people who want exceptions and special rules for everything.
There isn't anything at all wrong with that. Some of my favorite mushy people are rules lawyers to various degrees of obnoxiousness.
But I find myself more attracted to FS3 and ares and how arx has set up their systems (other than dominion shit and minigame stuff--i am really probably never going to understand that and that's just fine, I'm talking more about the super easy combat code and rolling without a crapload of modifiers).
If a system is relatively simple, doesn't have a ton of special exceptions or radically shifting rule sets in the same game, then I am down with trying something new).
-
@mietze Quick note. If you're (or anyone reading this is) into less crunchy systems and do tabletop RPGs in RL, check out the "Tiny" set of RPGs from Gallant Knight Games (easily available on DriveThruRPG for PDFs) and the games by Free League, which are slightly more crunchy than Gallant, but still have a low leaning curve.
There's a driving movement in the RPG community for easier, minimalist systems and can attest that the TINY games are a low learning curve, less bulky character sheets, and more "get out there and have fun."
-
Actual reply to topic.
I think one of the reasons why FS3 is used so much also ties into why minimalist RPGs are doing so well right now: a sort of "time investment to launch" balance. I think the article is really spot-on and I think all of it applies to why FS3 does so well and should be factored into designing things on MUs.
Balance: If the idea/system is new, then something easy for the brain to digest needs to exist to balance it out. Original IPs with complicated systems are less attractive than Original IPs with easy to use systems. Existing IPs (people love star wars, wod, etc or are at least very familiar with them from books, movies, or similar programming) are more accepted with conplicated systems because people really wanna play a Jedi. You can either make a crunchy system less conplicated by using simplified code automation thru scripting, but also by finding other ways to make these new ideas/systems more attractive by doing anything you can to take the weight of use off of the user.
I think this article is aces.
-
@mietze said in Adapting to New Ideas:
If a system is relatively simple, doesn't have a ton of special exceptions or radically shifting rule sets in the same game, then I am down with trying something new.
How many people here started with RPGs like Toon or Paranoia or CP2020? Even early (A)D&D was deeply simple: Pick a class, at each level you might pick a thing, and leave all the rest of the work to the DM or module designers.
Years ago (in the most recent Wora timeframe), Ink(@Darkwater, I can't remember his Wora nick) with some light frustration mentioned how that we're using these incredibly powerful computers and yet almost never did we utilize it.
Nuku, our resident furry now writing Ponyfinder god bless 'im, did utilize it and his Mucks were almost always incredibly popular, partially from theme and partially from implementation.
The unfortunate part is that we're not all game designers, we're not all code developers, and we're not all GMs. When we find a game with the magic balance of all three, it can be simple or it can be complex but I guarantee it will gain popularity. If it can hit critical mass of popularity, it will keep for quite some time.
