Mmmm, the thread has moved on a bit but I just want to respond to this. The lord of the rings (and many good novels) use the principle of 'in media res' to begin their story. Ie, they hurl you right into an event without much explaining the context, characters or backstory. Those elements are gradually sketched in as you continue reading.
Which is the narrative equivalent of what laidlow is talking about for RPG game design. You don't throw the world backstory at the player in the start of a novel, you reveal it as they continue reading. Laidlow is talking about not throwing all the RPG game mechanics at the player to start but sketching them in as you go along, after the starting point.
Just saying, LOTR or novels aren't a good example. They almost all start with the 'narrative ABCs', focusing on core characters and their relationships as well as the basic plot hook before spinning out the rest of the exposition and backstory. If novels worked like RPGs are structured, the first 3 chapters would be a long exposition on the history and mechanics of the gameworld.
The idea that you can or should build a game only for people who are already familiar with the mechanics is just elitism. How the hell do people ever learn to play DnD then, of any edition? Do they just appear out of the ether, fully aware of the rules? Does it completely ruin a game campaign for the experienced players if the DM allows a new guy to join and spends some time helping them get up to speed?
People are being pretty silly about this. Played the DA2 demo, the 'easing in' is what, 20 minutes? And it's not like you can't have a hardcore RPG without an initial character creation screen. Gothics, anyone? Even the Witcher IIRC started you off with a set character and only let you make choices when you had levelled up for the first time.