My wife's an art psychotherapist and I DM for a couple of our kids and their friends. We've talked about this a fair bit - being able to externalise and contain difficult emotions can be extremely powerful. But also just having that relationship of trust, which I think D&D really demands, can be somewhat therapeutic. You're not going to get mocked for being serious, you're not going to get in trouble for being silly, and sometimes when there's conflict it helps to be able to mediate that through your character's persona. And sometimes you really just want to work out your rage and attack the nearest NPC and undo hours of preparation by your friendly local DM, who in turn will seek out his own favoured form of therapy.
What makes it really humorous is how incredibly well it captures the particulars of an actual session, most notably the socially awkward interactions and in-jokes which normally would have been the focus of bullying, but in this space resonate as the sort of very earnest fun play they were intended as.
Having these places to go to, when the rest of your week is full of generally challenging interactions designed to tear people down, can be absolutely incredible sources needed to build up a sense of self-worth.
D&D in some ways was possibly the place where the proto-seed for this kind of nerd-safe place was created. There may be some prior versions of this, maybe golden age Sci-fi book clubs or Trek gatherings or something, but D&D seems to be where it particularly gelled and crystalized hard. It's no wonder that it became part of the 80's moral panic since it threatened to provide a place where nerd culture could find itself and took a measure of control away from those in charge of the panic with regards to how one should behave and think.
Today there are many many of these kinds of environments, and in a sense when formed a certain way like Open Source Software, have turned global industries upside-down. But even competitive card playing tournaments, demoscene parties, cosplay conventions, video game conventions, and so on are all an outgrowth of what D&D really started.
My heart swells when I see little nerd culture shops that sell comic books and manga and figurines have signs out front for "Boardgame Thursdays!" or "Magic Tournament this Saturday!" Because there will for certain be at least one person who attends, who had an absolutely terrible month being shat on by most of the people they encounter, and will thrive in this place. Where it's safe to joke, be yourself, have fun. And that confidence and those social encounters might be not just enough to turn a nerdy kid into a CTO, but could also keep them away from the deep black hole of self-worthlessness, depression, and maybe worse.
I’m reminded in turn of Foucaults concept of heterotopia (‘other place’ or ‘place of otherness’) where things are different by design. The otherness of such spaces is one of their goals: they are there to provide an outlet for something or to hide or shield certain activities or thoughts (separating discourse).
As a child I was taken out of school for a while because I couldn’t cope and caused trouble. I was sent to a place for gifted children and met a lot of neurodivergent kids. It wasn’t a DnD gameroom but it was so explicitly outside the norm that I could put myself back together and reenter society on my own terms. I’ve been attracted to such places ever since, even running my own community center for a couple of years.
So uh, totally agree with what you said and all of the above is just to add that there’s a lot more heterotopias than one might think.
I'm autistic, but I've never found the appeal of D&D. All the challenges and social pitfalls are still there in interacting with other players, but on top of that there's an additional set of unfamiliar rules and expectations for how to play my character and the game. Outside of the social aspect, I don't enjoy it as a game much either, with its slow pace and focus on narrative.
Though, both groups I've played it with consisted of close seasoned players, none of whom I was particularly comfortable with, which isn't the best introduction. I'm curious how much the particular setup in the study affected the outcome, with the social reference sheets and presumably other unique factors - with how much D&D can vary based on the DM and players, it'd be interesting to see this study done with a variety of DMs guiding things in different ways.
I hear you there. My first introduction to D&D was in a long-form campaign like this. It was pretty much as stressful as you describe. There were also a couple of incidents where I got pushed past my limits or something hit one of my triggers.
However. After that, my husband and I joined a D&D club where the campaigns are 16 weeks long. Every few months you're at a new table with new players and new characters. I found that to be a lot more tolerable, and has really improved my social skills. The thing about clubs like this is there's always new people playing for the first time, and no one takes anything too seriously. Plenty of room to fuck up without real consequence.
On the other hand, after four or five seasons, I'm real sick of short form campaigns and the lack of routine or continuity. It's also pretty tiring to invent a new persona for a character all the time.
It took me 7 tries to find a group and game that worked for me (gurps) with a DM that adjusts the amount of story/social interactions/narrative/triggers to the group preferences. DnD with a group of close seasoned players was by far the worst experience for me.
So I agree, would love to see this replicated across more groups, DM and even games.
There are plenty of valid ways to play D&D, and they might not all have a slow pace. But it's very easy for D&D to end up pretty slow.
In a combat scene with 4 party members and 4 enemies, 7/8 of the time it's not your turn. And if you're playing a simple character that just hits with a sword, while other players are wizards with dozens of spells to choose between their turns will naturally take longer.
Yes, this is exactly what I meant. TTRPGs typically have more time spent not doing anything compared to computer games (and board and card games too, to a lesser extent) simply by involving a group of people and being largely 'single-threaded'.
As for what I mean by narrative, much of the appeal of D&D seems to lie in crafting the story and adventure, being a part of the plot. If the setting and narrative were completely removed, and the game was reduced down to the most basic mechanical actions - go to location x,y and do foo to bar, etc., it would be a very different game.
Not to say the mechanical aspects don't make up part of the appeal of D&D and other TTRPGs too, but they're not a focus as much as in, say, a computer strategy game, or even something like an action platformer, where that is the game, and story/characters/etc. make up little (if any) of the gameplay.
You can still do things even if your character isn't. A big draw of D&D is the social aspect, you can still roleplay reacting to being hit or seeing an ally do something.
If you want to exercise your brain while waiting on your turn do like high-level chess players and think during other people's turns, I find that fun. Think how the recent decisions or rolls modify the state of the battlefield or your chances of victory.
> As for what I mean by narrative, much of the appeal of D&D seems to lie in crafting the story and adventure, being a part of the plot
That's what I was after. I know some people play in a much more involved way but when I played so many years ago I love the plot and setting, but really worked the mechanics. It may have been you got a DM or group that was just not suited to you.
But that's the problem with D&D in 2024. Role-playing games have moved far away from the constraints of old school levelling and fighting simulators. I am glad people enjoy D&D but role playing games have so much more to bring in term of narratology and experience than in ludology. It's getting drowned but it's still there. Move away from excel in disguise.
I must have played a different D&D, the group I used to play very much favored Hack & Slash. When we wanted something more narrative we used a different system (GURPS was a good one)
I prefer GURPS myself (although I prefer a "point-free" variant; you can put whatever advantages, disadvantages, skills, etc that you want to without worrying about the points or whether or not the modifier you want has been published in any book).
However, I think that GURPS can be OK for combat as well as narrative and other stuff. If you use many expansions books as well, then more options are possible. GURPS combat also has many options, and also I like the rules better than D&D in many ways. (Still, I think there are some problems with GURPS, and had tried to make up SciRPS to be better (in my opinion). Although GURPS has many skills, I think too many things are often combined in one skill; e.g. Brawling skill involves all unarmed combat (by punch, kick, claws, bite, horns, etc), but if you are skilled at only biting but not punch/kick, then it doesn't do that; skill of Morse code is the same skill as operating the communications devices to use it and are not separated; etc. "Point-free" helps a bit with this, but I think that it could be improved further, which is what I intended with SciRPS.)
To me, the RPG is that you can have many things together, including combat, magic spells, narrative, strategy/tactics, etc. This is what makes it what it is, rather than a computer game which is a different kind of game.
Although you might have plans (and the GM might have plans), many things will happen unexpectedly, due to what others are doing, due to the results of dice, etc, so that is another thing that RPG is.
That's interesting, I find the combat in GURPS to be FAR more satisfying and less restrictive than D&D. It's definitely more number crunching and more complex, but it's an internally consistent system so once you know it things flow pretty well. The leaky abstractions from D&D feel too much like it's trying to replicate a video game and doing so poorly.
Ironically it's closer to the other way around: Most video game RPGs are mechanically either based on D&D, based on another tabletop RPG that came about in the same era (Runequest, etc), or based on a tabletop RPG that was in-turn based on D&D.
Yes and no. There are some major issues in my mind like Armor Class which fortunately video games don’t really mess with. I started playing D&D back in the Skills and Powers days. You had a lot more character creation options and more granular systems than what D&D has simplified into. It’s really the latest versions of D&D that I feel like are a bad video game abstractions. Probably because of their streamlining efforts for the D20 system.
As someone whose first RPG was AD&D 2e, I get where you're coming from. IMO 3e/3.5e/PF1e didn't simplify it all that much, moreso they formalized the existing skills/powers systems that were there and added a buttload of additional classes and prestige classes for deeper customization options.
It's really 4e and 5e that simplified the game in huge ways. 5e kinda-sorta added some complexity back to it, but got rid of a lot of smaller numerical bonuses in favor of the advantage/disadvantage system.
But yeah, I definitely get where you're coming from with respect to the latest editions feeling more video-gamey. AD&D 2e and earlier had this distinctly simulationist feeling, where the intent was that you were in a world where you had to survive first and foremost and could maybe get some gold and glory if you were lucky, whereas 3e and later definitely drifted more into a "your party is/contains the main character(s) of this world" type paradigm which probably led to a lot of the more recent mechanical decisions.
It's a bit like the difference between a traditional roguelike vs a modern roguelike. One is a world simulation and you're on your own, the other is a game where you will win if you keep trying.
The popularity of D&D with people on the spectrum is similar to the popularity of fantasy/sci-fi lit and games and movies for the same population group, and for the same reasons (ime): technical abstractions and a strong focus on "systems" ('logical' magic systems are valorized over 'illogical' ones), often simplistic characters with very clear telegraphed and consistent archetypes, plots with heavy focus on simpler good vs. evil conflict, more chances to identify with non-human characters (a vehicle for expressing divergent thought processes/behaviors).
The difference maker seems to be that well done D&D games, with good DMs, force the players to interact with each other and problem solve together. Which, to me, suggests there's nothing particularly special about D&D beside it being something that people on the spectrum like --- what is special is the social interaction and problem solving. It would be interesting to see how gender plays into further studies. In my experience, autism in women can often look quite different than autism in men (generalizing of course).
The other major difference is that table top gaming is a constrained environment where one is allowed to act socially different than normal, and mistakes at the table are left at the table.
Players are allowed to play someone with a completely different personality, and spend extended amounts of time stepping into someone else's head and thinking how someone different would act.
There aren't any other situations in life where you can take someone socially awkward and say "ok now act really charismatic" and then, w/o judgement, that person spends 2 or 3 hours a week for months on end trying to figure out what a charismatic person would say and do.
I challenge the notion that autistic people seek more logical systems or simpler moral situations. Imo the day to day interactions of people and the world views they ascribe to are far simpler than many complex games or fantasy/scifi themes and or stories. In my experience, i have an excess of thinking around every single thing so seeing that complexity and nuance captured in media or a game, and in people willing to dive into those intricacies, makes me feel seen.
I don't think simpler is the correct word, but more understandable.
As in, given an end state you can trace back the series of events and actions to how you got there. So for a character in a movie or in a story or in a DND campaign, you can look at where they're at, and then trace back and find out how they got there. Even in pretty complicated movies, because the audience needs to know and understand what's going on.
But people aren't like that generally, because you don't have enough knowledge typically and you don't necessarily know why people are the way they are. Feelings can come up for no reason, or for a reason you can't identify. They can even come 40 years ago, perhaps their inception when you were a baby.
You talk about "excess of thinking" and complexity, and I think this sort of points to that.
Movies, characters, DND can be rationalized. Humans, their feelings, and their actions, often can't. Not because they're more complex, but because people aren't rationale beings. Most people can't pinpoint where their own feelings stem from and it takes years of therapy to find that out - let alone the feelings of others. And, even worse, the feelings of those you don't know well.
That's interesting. In my experience with people on the spectrum, obviously acknowledging that the spectrum is so broad and inclusive at this point as to be almost meaningless in terms of specificity, they really, really, want logical systems and struggle with ambiguity, whether that be in moral, social, or fictional, situations. Clear cut distinctions between wrong and right, and these media properties themselves, give them an almost joyous sense of ease and confidence. It can be very personal for them.
Fantasy and sci-fi themes in media can be complex, but, in my experience, the people I know on the spectrum are far more drawn to fare of a particular kind: systems focused and morally clear-cut. Complexity for them is often more about scale. They'll pick a Brandon Sanderson book/series over a Gene Wolfe book (or Peake's Gormenghast) or a much more thematically and emotionally rich and complicated realist story like Proust's In Search of Lost Time (comparable in a way to the giant fantasy epics with multi volumes). They'll pick an enormous space opera over Ursula K Le Guin's The Dispossessed.
But these are all generalizations. Manifestations of autism can look and be wildly different.
Another thing that I've found seems to unite a lot of ND people liking fantasy and such is the escapism, being able to imagine yourself in a "better" world where weird people are accepted and liked, and especially with roleplaying games you can almost literally be in that world, making a difference and feeling like you matter
I think for me, and maybe this should be obvious - what truly helps is having a good DM.
Because then you’re not just having a chance to ‘play’ at social interactions - you’re playing under the watch of a caring mediator. The DM is going to clarify things, guide the discussions and dialogues, suggest options, correct misassumptions, etc. - in a way that almost no one ever would IRL.
Play-acting social interaction isn’t really any less nerve wracking to me than having a ‘real’ interaction, because to me all interactions are acting anyway as far as I’m concerned. There isn’t any fundamental difference in terms of energy expended - unless someone else, e.g. the DM, is there to shoulder some of that workload. Then it’s a little easier, a little lower stakes.
> to me all interactions are acting anyway as far as I’m concerned
I suspect this is a point that is often under-appreciated. I don’t have much else to add but it really can’t be overstated how accurate this is. Just wanted to highlight the statement since I think it expresses the idea well.
> Atherton et al. wanted to specifically investigate how autistic players experience D&D when playing in groups with other autistic players. It's essentially a case study with a small sample size—just eight participants
This is a nice study but not one to extrapolate anything from.
It bears repeating in every thread with a small sample size or people might run away with what is basically anecdata as scientifically validated results.
Had many similar experiences when role playing in video games like Minecraft with an autistic relative. Him putting his needs and emotions in the context of the game made him readily engage in banter in a way that he would normally have a tough time doing.
People on the spectrum are often quite adept at 'task based' communication, in the service of clear objectives and common goals. To the point that neurotypical friends and family might be frustrated that they are so focused on the task. It becomes more difficult when that socialization is open-ended.
From experience it can be hard to judge whether participation in the banter is truly them putting themselves in the context of the game, or just mirroring the existing banter
"The game Minecraft is extremely popular and of particular interest to children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder."
From the paper
"The open-ended narrative structure of Minecraft, especially when used in Creative Mode, facilitates constructive play of a type that resembles real-life block-building play along the lines of Lego or similar interlinking toy systems. These real-world block building toys are similarly popular among children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD"
"The popularity of Minecraft with children with ASD seems fairly universal"
"the very use of Minecraft as a tool for supporting the reinforcement of a positive social communication skillset is in a way, an approach which is aligned to, rather than opposed to, particular aspects of neurodiversity."
"Certain communication skills, such as facial expression, gestures, or tone of voice, do not have parallels in the video games environment of Minecraft,"
-----
Even if it doesn't fully directly show "causality" at the level you'll likely want, the quotes are clear that if you have ASD, you almost certainly play minecraft, and minecraft is tailor made for neuro divergent people.
I don't think the result is all that surprising. As your quote supports, building block toys are popular with autistic children. Minecraft is essentially a good implementation of a block based game.
Like you said, I'm not satisfied with the causality. I'm not sure how you'd prove that either. Doesn't autism show within a few years of age, much earlier than most(?) children start playing games like Minecraft?
Seems like an extension of the observation that very introverted people can unexpectedly flourish in acting professions: I think people who are socially awkward can have an easier time compartmentalizing their social anxieties when under a persona because there's a part of the brain that can say, "It's not me; I'm playing a role."
You arguably have a "script" in D&D, too, in the form of your character sheet. "I am a chaotic neutral dwarf. I will act aggressively towards elves.", etc. You are encouraged to act and speak as your character, not as yourself.
I think it is not really a "script"; it is a description of the character. This will affect as you will do in the game, and you will have to make it up what happens according to the circumstances as it is being done, instead of everything being written ahead of time. (Even if you do have plans, which you might (I often will, and the GM also often will), things will happen unexpectedly and cannot use the plans exactly like they are anyways.)
I think that you do not generally need game mechanical traits in your character sheet to do this; you can write it in a spare section if you want to do (it is useful to have spare sections for this and other purposes; I will often want to add many extra notes that there are not pre-defined sections for).
In GURPS, you would generally represent some of such things with mental disadvantages and quirks. I prefer to not use mental disadvantages unless I specifically want the game effects of those disadvantages (e.g. if you are unlucky, or cursed, or take only half as many turns as other characters, or you will tell the truth half of the time that you do not intend to do so, etc), and would generally rather have a choice, even if my character's personality is supposed to be something, I can do it by myself instead of making the game to try to do it for me. I do usually add quirks though, and I do more often want physical and social disadvantages.
Introversion seems like it would be orthogonal to acting ability. Acting does need a very strong model of the 'other', though. An actor needs to be able to model how someone else might be feeling and more importantly, manifesting those feelings externally. So while an introvert might be a good actor someone on the autism spectrum might not be.
The idea that autistic people have poor "theory of mind" is a myth, with no supporting evidence. I'm sure Simon Baron–Cohen believed it, but all the experiments he ran to support it are flawed. Last I checked, he considers the theory discredited.
The true observation is more like “untrained people have a better intuition for the behaviour of people who think like them”. When the researchers are all allistic, and the experiments are all based on allistic psychology, the researchers find that autistic people “don't understand other people” – but that's experimental error.
I expect we'll be stuck with this ToM myth for a while, like we're stuck with Sigmund Freud's nonsense. (I mean, “Oedipus complex”, seriously? We have empirical evidence for the Westermarck effect!) But that doesn't make it true.
It's not controversial. It is wrong (or, at least, misleading), since:
• Allistic people have difficulty recognising the internal states of autistic people; and
• Autistic people have considerably less difficulty recognising the internal states of autistic people (even though there are fewer autistic people from which to learn that skill).
It's placing "blame" on autistic people for what's actually an emergent phenomenon of neurodiverse groups. See doi:10.1177/1362361320919286 "Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective", and follow up on any sentences that strike your fancy until you have an opinion.
"Autistic people are more comfortable playing D&D than in natural social interactions", which is well known.
A small part was that some people "bleed" personality from their fantasy persona to their real persona.
You can do that in D&D, but you can also do that with any kind of self-talk / persona building / masking, which non-autists also do. Actors in movies and plays do it too.
Honestly I think socially awkward people quickly get ostracized, and socially isolated early in life.
Due to this, they get less chances to practice social interaction, something they were somewhat worse at in the first place, and fall even further behind on these skills.
DnD allows them to practice these skills, such as high-stakes social conflict, bargaining, and just plain old getting along, in a relatively safe environment.
It's not just lack of practice, when these people get picked on they internalize low self value, so even if they practice social skills enough to get the hang of it they're still going to be awkward because they tend to act from a "loser" frame. That internalized low self value can be incredibly hard to fix, much harder than just developing social skills.
Yes, this is correct, I think. It is a painful but true fact that the world is constructed according to the preferences of the majority neurotypical population, and if you want to survive in it you need strong masking and coping strategies if your brain doesn't work the same way. It is not fun developing or using these strategies but it's vitally important.
It also gives people a framework in where to learn how to communicate. They can try different approaches, the stakes are low (in real life terms) if they fail, their companions and the DM will not only serve an example but give hints on how to do that better.
Anyone with problems in social communication could make use of it as a great resource.
All-in podcast was presenting RFK recently who highlighted autism rates of 1/22.
Is it just me or is the spectrum of autism now just labeling anyone with social awkwardness or challenges expressing feelings as autistic? Because I feel like there is socially awkward, and then there is 'Dating on the spectrum' level autistic.
I'm not super up to date yet, but is there an actual 'science' based test (blood, dna, something other than observing behaviors). I've seen the diagnosis of l1, l2 and l3 autism, but this isn't cited by the paper (or at least wasn't in my skim).
The paper does indicate that imagination, social interactions and community are benefits from D&D. These benefits aren't specific to autistic people though; all growing kids can benefit from these types of activities and they're challenges that neurotypical kids encounter as well.
I've run games with self-described autistic players, and I found it a supreme challenge.
* Being unable to complete a character sheet unless someone walked them through it and made every decision for them
* Being unable to come up with character background
* Not being able to communicate if they were coming to a game or not
* Being 30-40 mins late without communicating
* Walking around, playing on their phone
* Demanding handwritten journals / game tracking because the sounds of typing ruined the immersion for them
* Constantly having to remind them of rules from session 0, such as 'no alcohol before or during the game'
* Extreme arguing over dice rolls
* Projecting their trauma onto many character and DM interactions
* Showing up with real-life gifts for the DM, expecting in-game rewards
Most recently, I lasted 12 sessions of 4-6 hours each before I cancelled the game. It killed my joy and I haven't DM'd since. It's been years now.
Knowing several autistic players for whom absolutely none of that is applicable, I'd say you had bad players. The "self-described autistic" element doesn't have much to do with that.
Not everyone who wants to do a thing can or should do the thing.
It sounds like you just had some awful players, I've played with a lot of people on the spectrum and the majority of the time they've been fine to play with
Yea mostly they are obsessive about the game like I'd say they'd be more likely to be min-maxers from my experience. Just unintentionally so you don't have alot of the toxic downsides of the min-maxers of forcing xyz situations or not having a backstory, it was more thats how they had fun building a character.
Yeah, generally I will minmax a bit, but I do try to bear in mind the character themself when I design them, so I'll try to organise stats optimally, but pick thematic spells, for example. I have fun not dying, but also in having a character that makes sense to me
Which makes it so fun to dm! I had someone make basically a batman character, but it was a min-maxed goblin shadow monk. Who thought he was a great investigator but wasn't, which always was funny to have a dumb batman trying to insecurely inserting himself into situations he shouldn't. He didn't meditate, he 'brooded' and was only technically useful in stealing/combat or when wisdom was in play. So at the campfire he'd be able to console the warrior for losing with the wisest thing that character has heard, only to follow up with something extremely dumb immediately after.
I’ve had similarly poor experiences, unfortunately. I have two autistic friends, and they’re good people, but they both have very… specific ideas of what a fantasy world must entail, one of which is far more attainable than the other, if they could properly play along. So one wished to be a mary sue-esque elven princess wizard, which I okayed because they were at least trying, although decisions such as weapons, prepared spells, and especially combat were harder for them so I guided most of those. My other autistic friend was particularly difficult though. His favorite character is from a retro video game, and he wanted to play that character, which by itself is fine. However, he wanted to play his fanfiction version, which he said was a “lone wolf” who wouldn’t stick with the party, and he wanted his uber-special one-shot sword. I worked to bring him down a peg and got him to agree that, for the sake of the mission, he should stay with the party and if “lone wolf” is particularly important we can do games outside of the main ones too. Unfortunately that session ended rather poorly because not one of my 5 players could focus.
The last session I tried a year or so ago, and had the same person fanfic-writer attempting to demand control for everyone in the party because he “was the better tactician” because he “played Fire Emblem before”. My players ignored him and he got upset, and I had another player leave for unrelated reasons (D&D just wasn’t their thing, which I understood).
Now he’s been “trying” to make his own campaign, so he can get the control he desires from running the monsters, but that’s been somehow slower than his other projects.
Typing this out made me sad too, I haven’t been able to DM properly for a while.
I am going to say the terribly unfashionable, nay almost heretical for today's climate.
I am fairly convinced vast majority of self-described medical conditions, are not. I believe they are "trendy diagnosis" or "fad syndrome".
Certain medical conditions receive heightened attention in media, leading to increased self-diagnosis or people claiming to have the condition because it's seen as socially or culturally relevant.
Anyone recall the rash of Tourette syndrome TikTokers after an individual with the syndrome posted a highly viewed clip?
e.g., ADHD, Gluten Sensitivity, Chronic Lyme Disease, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), and Autism or Asperger’s Syndrome.
I'm sure it is all more pronounced with someone who is truly deep enough in the autistic gamut, but for each of those complaints I can name at least one person in my life who, while not on the spectrum at all as far as I know, exhibit that trait. Particularly the time keeping and communications ones, I could name several for those. Myself certainly on timekeeping (though I do at least let people know my estimated delay!).
Would highly recommend checking out Critical Core - https://gametogrow.org/criticalcore/ which makes it much easier for both players to start and DMs to manage
If you are running a pickup game open to new players you will probably have all the above problems which is part of the reason why I'd never run a D&D game.
If I were going to run a game it would be a second-generation or later game like Toon or Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu which were all designed by people who played D&D and recognized what was wrong with D&D and the culture around it.
To be fair newer versions of the game fix some of the brokenness such as too many kinds of dice (you think it is fun until you realize that unless you buy 20x as many dice as you need you're going to always be looking around on the floor the right dice, and there's nothing dramatic about rolling 20d6 for a dragon's attack because it's always going to do about 60 points of damage, etc.)
Second-generation games give you everything you need to start in a single book (even a scenario) whereas with D&D you need to buy several books just to get started.
The long-term character progression works OK in a group of committed players but it makes the stakes so high that players take it so seriously so it is not a lot of fun for the DM. In a shorter, simpler game with higher character mortality you can give the guy who came in 30-40 min late a preroll, a minute of instruction, and some pretense for why they are late and it's NP.
I am not going to say it is the high point of DMing because it isn't but if I want to run a Paranoia game in a hurry I can kill off most of their clones before they get to the briefing room in my very dangerous Alpha complex with little-more-than random encounters and have them rolling on the floor laughing and coming back for more. Prerolls are probably more important preparation than an actual scenario because if people aren't fluent with character creation they're going to ruin it for each other (e.g. if you are creating new characters you want to have 1-1 sessions with players and not do it in a group... In D&D in particular you could spend years with a character and there is no way you want to rush the process, if I really wanted to do a D&D activity with young people I might just have them do nothing but create characters so they can get fluent)
Unfortunately the same way that "autism" and pill-seeking behavior have crowded out awareness of other neurodivergences, developmental disabilities and mental health conditions, D&D has crowded out awareness of other tabletop RPG's so you will never see some study where people find 5 out of 75 depressed people had fun playing D&D and 62 out of 75 depressed people had fun playing Toon.
My experience with people on the spectrum (I'm a card carrying member myself) is very diverse but there is a constant: they're stubborn on specific stuff where others are not. For example, I don't want to sit near someone who's eating hard cheese (non-melted). I don't mind someone eating whatever though (and even if I would, personal choice). Looking back in my life, I learned a lot from RPGs (Hero Quest, Star Quest, various Gameboy Classic games, Warhammer Quest, Warcraft franchise (story-wise, too). More so than RTS or FPS. But I have also been nigh annoying whilst playing them. It helps to learn you are being annoying, as conflict allows one to rise up to the occasion. That being said, you need to accept certain quirks as being part of the package. That is how any friendship or relation works; just people with autism are usually more accentuated. My wife and I are both on the spectrum, and we need to work with/around each other's quirks. Just the other day she demanded me to clean and refill a water bottle as she tastes other people otherwise. She even has that w/me, I found out (we are together for almost a decade). So I ended up cleaning it (she was with our son who was ill).
(I'm diagnosed.) You wouldn't wanna be around me playing D&D if I was high. No gaming would be done, only laughing and craziness. Besides, I had various psychotic episodes on marihuana (whilst mushrooms and various other drugs were OK). There's a good reason I don't consume marihuana anymore. Any drugs for tgat matter, but specifically I want to avoid a common one (here in Amsterdam Area).
Similarly, I'm aware some people cannot behave or function on other drugs such as alcohol (same for me). I wouldn't say others aren't allowed to drink but I don't want to smell cigarettes or cannabis. Smelling alcohol does nothing to me (obviously?)
So it boils down to constructing a social agreement based on consensus. Something which works for everyone. Which is more difficult the more people on the spectrum are there, and the less flexible other players are regarding their quirks.
So if the consensus is sober, be sober or don't join the team. Quite a simple concept. What happens here is that boundaries aren't respected (common with people on the spectrum). Explain the issue and (possible) consequences.
> we get so high that any underlying condition is masked by having a damn good time. ;)
I'm glad that works for you, but I've both tried playing D&D while high, and had some players who'd get high, and it was not particularly pleasant. In my experience, D&D requires more clarity of mind than marijuana tends to leave you with.
And I say this as someone who's going to start drinking less during D&D games, because I've noticed that after my third beer, my DMing is not as good as it is after my first beer.
> Being unable to complete a character sheet unless someone walked them through it and made every decision for them
We used to play various table-top role-playing games over 20 years ago. D&D is known for its totally humiliatingly complex character creation, which is usually totally unnecessary, especially when ‘learning’ new players.
Edit: sorry for my confused mind; I meant DSA not D&D.
Character background is also not that important in my opinion. You simply explain that the goal is to play a role and that the character's background is important and determines his actions. Demanding that everything is well thought out increases the barrier to entry immensely. So keep it simple.
I remember my first ~~D&D~~ (Edit: DSA) sessions with new groups where it literally took us 5 hours to get all the characters ready.
Our group, after years of experience, simply explained the world to new players (we preferred to play World of Darkness, or shadowrun). We asked them what they wanted to play and roughly decided together with them what their strengths and weaknesses were. Rolling dice was more of a show for the newcomers, we hardly ever rolled dice ourselves. If you had 9/10 points in physical strength, we didn't think you needed to roll if you hit someone in the face. That just hurt.
Our rounds became more and more enjoyable over time. Fewer rules, fewer dice orgies. More common sense. More focussed on each other and on the game itself. At the very end, we even played without a game master. Often ancestor rounds in world of darkness (vampires that were several hundred years old. Something like demigods.) Dice rolling was more or less obsolete. We had night-long in-charachter conversations.
Oh, I miss that very much.
I have autistic traits and it definitely helped me to put myself in other people's shoes. But it helped me even more to overcome my speech disorder and to learn how to deal with it (stuttering).
No. I don't know what your parent poster is talking about. D&D chargen is not in any edition of the game terribly complex.
It's not wildly simple, either -- D&D is squarely "rules medium" and there are plenty of RPGs with simpler chargen. But it's not notably hard for its space.
20 years ago there was more manual calculation of numbers on a character sheet, that now is likely to be handled by a digital sheet
In my opinion, character creation in shadowrun is relatively simple, if a little time-consuming. In WoD character creation takes 10 to 30 minutes max, even for a complete beginner.
Backstory and internalizing the game system is a lot less straightforward in WoD though because the intent is to provide just enough rail to facilitate creativity within the setting.
> D&D is known for its totally humiliatingly complex character creation, which is usually totally unnecessary, especially when ‘learning’ new players.
Had to do that as "homework" before my first D&D session long ago, and it was indeed a long process, but that actually made it very exciting for me and made me invested in the character from the start!
>Fifteen autistic children, ten males and five females, ten- to fifteen-years old, participated in this study. They attended a special educational school specifically for children diagnosed with autism
Those that participated in the study were diagnosed with autism.
reply