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

[Crazy Jerome]

I was going to write a new post on this, but it fits here so I'll just say it: Gary was your wacky uncle. He wasn't your kindergarden teacher.

I agree with Arnehnois to the extent that D&D examples, adventures, advice, etc. trying to be your kidergarden teacher is a kind of crutch. You aren't going to learn how to run your game until you throw the crutches off, try it, fall flat on your face, and learn from the experience.

OTOH, your wacky uncle was often a better, faster teacher than that nice lady worried about proper useage of "may I?" versus "can I?" If you asked the nice lady, "Can I try some of that chewing tobacco?" she corrected, "May I?" Then when you asked it to her satisfaction, she said, "No." Meanwhile, the wacky uncle took the question at face value, and said, "Sure, go ahead." Because you can try it. Then you got sick and learned something from it--not least of all the real difference between "can I," "may I," and "should I."

This was valuable later, because when you said something like, "Can I drive your car down to the store with the guys and buy some beer? ... the answer was, "No. Heck no!" Why? "Because you'll wreck my car, get into trouble, possibly hurt yourself or someone else, and your aunt will kill me."

Gary wrote a lot like that. Don't give out too many magic items because you'll turn your game into a Monty Haul game, and your players won't respect you in the morning. Don't change this rule, because then it won't be official D&D with this consequences. After awhile, you learned that Gary was your wacky uncle, with emphasis on both, which meant he always had a reason, but the reason might not always apply.

D&D examples, adventures, etc. should tell you how to do something and why you should do it that way. Otherwise, they are worthless for anyone beyond the age of, well, about kindergarden.

 

[TerraDave]

People obviously learn to play RPGs in different ways, and the interwebs have probably made it easier, overall.

BUT, lets say you do get a truly new RPG. So not D&D...can you read the book and understand what to do with it? I remember having the Traveller Book way back when. Really interesting stuff in it...but even with the mini adventures (which were sort of gimmicky and not really good examples) I just didn't get a good idea of what an actual adventure or campaign with it would entail.

4E shouldn't have this much of a problem...but it was different enough to obviously confuse people and put them off. And when it came out, it was new to almost everyone...so there weren't a lot of people to learn from. In my case I played with a good RPGA DM at a preview event...this was key. Based on the PHB alone I probably would have never played it.

This is the advantage of a more familiar 5E. The caves of chaos are not an accident. If it is pretty close to 1E...3E...4E...then people will be more comfortable picking it up and making it there own.

But some good adventures would also be nice.

 

[Stormonu]

(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.)

It'd be really nice if they would bundle an adventure with the DMG. I'm not talking like an adventure in the back like 4E's Kobold Hall, but like the ol' basic set and B2 - Keep on the Borderlands. Something that sticks out and makes you go "oh, this is what you can do with this silly game!"

Make it a tear-out booklet (half-size, prehaps?), put it on a CD/DVD with other cool toys (hey, what about including a "let's play D&D" youtube-like video and/or an electronic copy of DMing for Dummies 5E) or even an electronic download code for a free adventur off the WotC site? Make it a loss leader like the 'ol disk they included with the 3.0 PHB.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Also, there is a different between a starter game and a starter adventure. It's ok to be incomplete as an adventure (once you've reached a certain point), but not ok to be incomplete as a starting game. That is, once you've played that starting adventure with your starting game, then you should be able to take that starting game and write an adventure for yourself.

This tendency to have a "complete adventure" with only the rules you need to run that thng, is a really bad direction.

 

[Mercule]

A learned by someone handing me a halfling character sheet and running me through a module (no clue what, anymore) at a summer day-camp at the local YMCA. I picked up the red box and started trying to figure things out. Then summer ended, and the only way I could keep playing is by teaching friends (i.e. DMing). I was wholly unprepared, but it I was the only thing enabling a game, so I made due. I'm sure I've broken, ignored, or botched every rule at least once.

Here's what I learned, though: It's a game that doesn't have enough rules to handle everything a player might try to do. Any game that does have enough rules to handle every action is too complex to try to use. Any game that limits players to only the printed rules and the uses for a given ability is too stunting to bother with. The most critical enabler of a fun game is a GM who can operate well outside the rules (or without having to look up every rule, even if it's not quite right). The two most damaging elements of a bad game are 1) an insecure GM who feels the need to make sure the players don't get off too easy or to force the players to recognize who's "in charge" and 2) insecure players who require slavish adherence to the minutiae of the rules or who demand "silly" rules be altered, but only when it helps them (i.e. undermine that critical enabler, above).

Beyond the above, I agree that a good first adventure is probably a huge benefit. For both 3e and 4e, I felt the systems were different enough from what went before that I ran the introductory module to get used to it (that, and I was very short for time, at that point). My group ended up hating 4e. While I was pretty sure it was largely because of the quality of the adventure, the ship had sailed and 4e was dead to us.

 

[pogre]

I always appreciate it when there is an intro adventure at the end of a new rulebook. For D&D, that would be the DMG. There are lots of good suggestions about what should be in that adventure, but I really agree with the OP. Our group playtested 4e, but when we started the modules we became disenchanted and gave up on the game.

 

[Animal]

My first game happened back in school. We had that kid who played with a grown-up DM who had real 2ed. books (they were extremely rare in my part of the world back then). So he was DMing, because he was the only one who read the rules. We rolled stats, decided on who our characters were going to be and he helped us sketch our charlists. The adventure was of course homebrew and very heavy on narrative and DM fiat. Mages and fighters were perfectly balanced because we only knew a handful of generic spells and abilities and when we grew in power DM would throw a new cool weapon at a fighter or a scroll at a mage.
It was probably the best gaming experience i've ever had.
I started DMing soon and we've switched to 3.0. Guys bought me 3.0 books so we finally started playing in a rigid rule system. It was also cool, but different.
That's why i have very high hopes about D&D Next. Would be great if we could see a system that gives you many choices but does not overwhelm you. And is easy to master and run even if you don't have books with you at all times.
But maybe it's not what the modern kids want.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Software sells hardware, right?