How you learned to play D&D: an epiphany!

[Aberzanzorax]

I was thinking about how my group, which is largely the same group of people from college plays D&D and I realized, in the context of different groups having different styles, that we all learned to play together.

Hence, we all have the same style, whatever the rulebooks guided (or future editions of rulebooks guide) us to do.


Then it occurred to me that the DMG of any edition could say just about ANYTHING (as could the PHB) but since most people are introduced to D&D by one person (and indeed, in my group, one person learns most of the rules and then helps guide others to master them)...there will be a heavy influence by the teacher.


And then, then I thought about D&D next. Forgetting that it is modular for a moment, 4e DMs with a certain style will introduce new players to it with that style. 4e DMs with a different style will do the same. Ditto for 3e dms of varying styles, and 2e and 1e, etc.

I think that's one reason I disliked 4e pretty intensely at the start. I didn't have a group for it, so I....and this is important...getting to the crux of the point I'm making... learned about 4e "in play" from Keep on the Shadowfell.

I hated it, and thought that was all 4e could be. But since then I've been taught by people on these boards and my 4e DM (who was also one of my 2e and 3e dms) that it's a fun ruleset with its own pros and cons...and I could play it in the style I learned so long ago.



So here's the point I'm making (which is two pronged). The first part is that how you learned to play (which is malleable, but influential still) might just influence your acceptance or nonacceptance of new editions and even other games. The second part is that there is not always a teacher. While the DMG is an important core book...

EVEN MORE IMPORTANT is having a great example of the system in play. For that we either have someone else run it for us or look for another entry point...to an exemplar of play...which we find in a published adventure.


Here's my tl;dr point:

Write the first adventure for 5e to sell the game. It needs to not be "simple so people can learn the rules." That is an adventure that should be in the back of the DMG or somesuch similar to playing the first round of a new card game...just to get the rules down. The first adventure needs to exhibit the wealth of the experience...it needs to be solid, it needs to be fun, it needs to not be boring or repetitive.

In my mind, there are 4 core books needed for D&D. PHB, MM, DMG, first adventure.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'll go ya one better. Write those opening adventure(s) to support at least two or three very different styles, and explain what they are and how to use those modules to get that style in play.

People feel better about an emergent style from a new game when they consciously choose it.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think you make some insightful points.

I think a lot of people enjoyed Sunless Citadel where Keep on the Shadowfell was not quite as well received. It would be cool if they could make that first adventure an absolute must play experience, rich in details as well as rich in the experience of the new rules.

Imagine if WotC did an online highlights video with their very best DM and players playing through that first adventure. I think this would be ideal for those getting into the game as well as those looking for different/better ways of running their game. Just a thought.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think I've mentioned this elsewhere on these forums, but my brother and I taught ourselves how to play with a late 2Eish product called the Adventure Set, which combined simplified rules, pregen characters, and a set of three adventures and sample town. It was pretty fun, though probably pretty bad at really teaching the fundamentals of how the game really works...

The two of us went on to teach ourselves how to play 3E shortly afterwards. Didn't really rely on either adventures (never bought ones since that first Adventure Set) or a teacher (taught ourselves in isolation) from that point on. I did spend a lot of time on the WotC forums for a while, though... To be honest, I didn't really play a lot of D&D until I joined a long-running Eberron campaign years later, and I was introduced to a lot of different groups and playstyles thanks to my college gaming club at the same time.

All told, I'm pretty much an outlier in your theory... I've probably learned more about D&D from videogames and college drama classes than from adventures or older players.

That said, I would say that something like the Adventure Set that I played, which combines pregen characters and a series of adventures, isn't a bad way to introduce people to the game. Pregen characters can give a taste of the the full fun of the rules without requiring such a set to overly simplify the rules, and it's important to have multiple adventures to provide a longer and more varied experience. Extending this out to integrate a full adventure path or even BECMI levels of rules extensions as the adventures progress would create a rather interesting product. I'd prefer something like that rather than the "core three books + adventure" scheme, which has a much higher cost of entry (and I'd prefer a single core rulebook anyways).

 

[Stormonu]

Yes, D&D really needs a decent starter set or a really compelling starting adventure.

Recently, I was able to introduce a friend who wanted to get into roleplaying by coaxing him to buy the Paizo starter set. Within a week, he'd devoured the set, ran his wife through the beginning adventures and become the DM for a circle of his friends - yet another loyal group of RPG customers because he'd had an entertaining experience starting out.

I really hope WotC puts a lot of effort into a 5E starter. I was disappointed in the 4E starter and I hope they are able to riff of starters like the Dragon Age starter set and the Paizo set for a really good 5E set. And here's to hoping they unleash it BEFORE the core books hits the shelves.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I learned from a hobbit-like dude who taught us by play- all we were allowed was the PHB. Anyone exhibiting knowledge outside that source could get penalized... My fighter was the last PC to die, one room away from the exit.

I was hooked!

 

[erleni]

I really hope WotC puts a lot of effort into a 5E starter. I was disappointed in the 4E starter and I hope they are able to riff of starters like the Dragon Age starter set and the Paizo set for a really good 5E set. And here's to hoping they unleash it BEFORE the core books hits the shelves.

I agree here. I think that when 4e was presented, as many ideas and rules were new, there was a focus on presenting the rules, but not so much on the quality of the adventures.
Only in a late stage (Gardmore Abbey, Gloomwrought and Beyond) they recovered, but even if I think that 4e is the best edition system-wise, I fully agree about 4e adventures being mainly at the low end of the quality spectrum.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I agree here. I think that when 4e was presented, as many ideas and rules were new, there was a focus on presenting the rules, but not so much on the quality of the adventures.
Only in a late stage (Gardmore Abbey, Gloomwrought and Beyond) they recovered, but even if I think that 4e is the best edition system-wise, I fully agree about 4e adventures being mainly at the low end of the quality spectrum.

I think that's a really good point about the way that 4e was introduced- I think it explains some of the '4e is a boardgame' edition warring. My first and second impressions of 4e were both bad- first impression because looking through the books it seemed unfamiliar, and second impression because the first game I played was run by someone who chose to focus almost entirely on tactical play and combat.

I was looking back at the old 2e PBH and was struck by how detailed the examples of play were, and how many more there are. 4e PBH has one example of play in the intro chapter, but it's basically 'you look around, you make some skill checks, you see some bad guys, ok now combat'. 2e PBH had examples of the back-and-forth between players and DM in combat, actions that skirted the boundary between combat and non-combat interactions, etc. 4e examples, when they crop up, are primarily of how to do the math to correctly calculate defenses, damage, and healing. The example of play from the DMG focuses on a dialog-driven skill challenge and again is heavily mechanics-driven.

The sample play really models how the game is run for people who have either never seen it before, or are uncertain if it is still going to be playable like the game that they like. DMGs have suggestions for 'you can play like this, or you can play like that', but without an example of what that looks like in practice, novice DM's are likely to still be at sea.

 

[amerigoV]

Here's my tl;dr point:

Write the first adventure for 5e to sell the game. It needs to not be "simple so people can learn the rules." That is an adventure that should be in the back of the DMG or somesuch similar to playing the first round of a new card game...just to get the rules down. The first adventure needs to exhibit the wealth of the experience...it needs to be solid, it needs to be fun, it needs to not be boring or repetitive.

In my mind, there are 4 core books needed for D&D. PHB, MM, DMG, first adventure.

Hopefully Mearls remembers his owns words. This is a Google+ post by him back in July, 2011

When designing a traditional, tabletop RPG, start by building an adventure. I can directly trace my transition from a D&D player to an RPG gamer to the first issue of White Wolf magazine I read.

WW used to print adventures for a variety of games. As it happens, my first two issues featured scenarios for Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, and Ars Magica. Reading through those adventure captivated me. They showed me what I could do beyond D&D, not in the sense that I was bored with D&D by any means. Instead, I saw some interesting new ways to play RPGs.

By the same token, those issues had an article detailing the role of the media in TORG. In theory it could've been an interesting article, but to the uninitiated such as myself it was nonsense. The world of TORG had weird lizardmen, dinosaurs, and magic, but all the writer wanted me to focus on was some random journalist writing about the interesting stuff.

CoC's scenario was all about losing sanity and tracking down unearthly horrors. It had action, it was a clarion call to play the game. The TORG article was all about thinking about TORG. Take a guess at which one I ended up buying.

So, if you want to sell a new RPG write a great adventure. You don't even need to include sample characters or quick start rules. If the adventure is good, they'll buy your rules.

 

[delericho]

Ideally, just about everybody would be taught by someone else who already plays, or failing that they would revert to a really good Starter Set for the game.

In which case your Starter Set should explain what RPGs are, teach the game, and include those really good adventures the OP mentions. And the Core Rulebooks could then omit all that stuff, and instead deal with the nuts and bolts of how to play this game - as taught to someone who already knows "What is an RPG", etc.

In reality, a significant number of people will skip directly to the Core Rulebooks, bypassing any Starter Set. And, indeed, many of them will buy the Core Rulebooks, and only the Core Rulebooks.

Which means that it must be possible to learn the game from just the Core Rulebook.

(Incidentally - the OP's suggestion of making sure there's a really good first adventure, and indeed treating that very much as a "fourth Core Rulebook" is a good one in its own right. I'll all in favour of getting more, better adventures! Unfortunately, I doubt the majority of people buying the game would treat it as a must-have of that sort, nor do I think most new players would recognise it as the teaching aid it was intended to be. Sadly.)