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.
