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

[delericho]

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

Unfortunately, I think Mearls has taken his experience and drawn the wrong conclusion from it. He didn't buy an adventure for "Call of Cthulhu" and so become hooked - he bought a general RPG magazine that included an adventure for CoC. After all, very very few people will buy an adventure for a system they don't know and don't use, certainly as their first exposure to the system.

If he wants to duplicate his experience, WotC do indeed need to produce that really good short adventure for the game... but then they need to give it away for free on their website (and through as many other channels as they can manage). In effect, it's part of their advertising for the game.

 

[El Mahdi]

I was taught how to play D&D by Sun Tzu and Jerry Lewis...

 

[Ahnehnois]

Much has been made of the quality of published introductory adventure products, but realistically, if people are learning to play the game in *any* prepackaged format, regardless of how well it's written, that's a problem in and of itself.

D&D isn't about playing someone else's game. There's a niche for people who need this kind of stuff, but beginners are better served by learning how to use D&D for what it is: a creative medium.

 

[delericho]

Much has been made of the quality of published introductory adventure products, but realistically, if people are learning to play the game in *any* prepackaged format, regardless of how well it's written, that's a problem in and of itself.

Waaay back in the late 80's, I learned from the Red Box. I had played a couple of one-hour 1st Ed sessions, but our DM had gone off to university and I was left to my own devices. So it is possible, and for some people it's necessary to learn from a prepackaged version of the game.

Fortunately, the Red Box did encourage those using it, once they had exhausted the built-in adventures, to go on and create their own ones. (Now, the quality of those first adventures I created... yeah, that left a little to be desired. )

D&D isn't about playing someone else's game. There's a niche for people who need this kind of stuff, but beginners are better served by learning how to use D&D for what it is: a creative medium.

While that's true, it's much easier to teach them the nuts and bolts of the mechanics, and of running the game, if you don't have to teach them how to create adventures at the same time.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Much has been made of the quality of published introductory adventure products, but realistically, if people are learning to play the game in *any* prepackaged format, regardless of how well it's written, that's a problem in and of itself.

D&D isn't about playing someone else's game. There's a niche for people who need this kind of stuff, but beginners are better served by learning how to use D&D for what it is: a creative medium.

Well, that's also true.

It is important for people accessing D&D to early on learn how to create with it as well as use other's premade creations. Most of the "best" D&D is best because it is tailored to the desires of the group, and perhaps also their characters.


However, my point about a fantastic original adventure is to be an example of "this is how this game/system really works well!". It'd not just be for people learning RPGS or D&D for the first time, but the edition for the first time.



Here I'll share the example of my group's start with 4e. My friends and I all bought the phb and one of us got the DMG. We read through em. (We're all players going back at least to 2e/AD&D...some further). Clearly they had made some significant changes and we wanted to see them in play.

We had two choices. 1. The DM use the creative medium (one that he had never used before) to create his own adventure. 2. Play the introductory flagship adventure (the only adventure released) Keep on the Shadowfell. Since the DM was learning alongside us...we went with the latter.

What we got was combat after combat, kobold ambush after kobold ambush. Then several fights with goblins. Not much was developed in the nearby town (KotSF has been improved, released for free, and hacked by numerous people since then...and it CAN be a good and fun module with lots of roleplaying, less repetitiveness, and an immersive town).


From our experience we were left with several of the following (negative and untrue) thoughts about 4e. It's all about combat. (That's what the adventure focused on). They haven't put any emphasis on roleplaying (because the adventure didn't).

In the end, we were wrongly colored against the edition with the assumption that crappy adventure = crappy edition (because THAT is how they think it plays?) I'll note that the DMG for 4e advises against MANY of the elements/styles they used in KotSF.


I think it's important to remember that some people (people like my group who pay attention to behind the scenes stuff, messageboards, news) view the first adventure as an actual effort to show us the new system (whether WotC intends that or not).

Going in, I expected that the adventure would show off all the nifty new components of their edition, show off what they were proud of, and give us an idea of how they thought their new edition should work (as a whole, not just the combat parts they were proud of...all of it). Maybe that was a mistake on my part...but even if that's not what they did, it's what they should have done.

 

[Agamon]

Much has been made of the quality of published introductory adventure products, but realistically, if people are learning to play the game in *any* prepackaged format, regardless of how well it's written, that's a problem in and of itself.

D&D isn't about playing someone else's game. There's a niche for people who need this kind of stuff, but beginners are better served by learning how to use D&D for what it is: a creative medium.

When you're learning to do something, a good example goes a long way. A good example that is a springboard for your own creativity becomes a great example.

Handing someone a ruleset and telling them to be creative when they know nothing about the hobby is not all that helpful, if we're being realistic.

 

[amerigoV]

However, my point about a fantastic original adventure is to be an example of "this is how this game/system really works well!". It'd not just be for people learning RPGS or D&D for the first time, but the edition for the first time.

....
(On KoTSF):


What we got was combat after combat, kobold ambush after kobold ambush. Then several fights with goblins. Not much was developed in the nearby town .

From our experience we were left with several of the following (negative and untrue) thoughts about 4e. It's all about combat. (That's what the adventure focused on). They haven't put any emphasis on roleplaying (because the adventure didn't).

I agree that colored our reaction as well. Plus suddenly we had PHB2 and Forgotten Realms books floating around just to play what "class/role" we wanted. The presentation combo did not resonate with my group.

I had a similar item with FR in 3e. I eagerly anticipated it to see how the cool 3e rules could be weaved into a game world. While I overall really like the 3e FRCS, that aspect disappointed me (I am not sure what I was looking for, but the feats and few PrCs did not seem that inspiring vs. say what Eberron did)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Handing someone a ruleset and telling them to be creative when they know nothing about the hobby is not all that helpful, if we're being realistic.

Really? That's precisely how I learned, and it's also how I teach people to DM. I tell them to do it.

There's two ways of looking at these introductory adventures. One is to say they're like training wheels, to give people a little aid until they're ready to ride on they're own (essentially what some of the others said above). The other is to say that they're like trying to teach someone to walk by putting them on crutches. That is to say, that doing their work for them impinges on their own development. I am firmly with the latter perspective.

 

[Agamon]

Really? That's precisely how I learned, and it's also how I teach people to DM. I tell them to do it.

There's two ways of looking at these introductory adventures. One is to say they're like training wheels, to give people a little aid until they're ready to ride on they're own (essentially what some of the others said above). The other is to say that they're like trying to teach someone to walk by putting them on crutches. That is to say, that doing their work for them impinges on their own development. I am firmly with the latter perspective.

I never said it's impossible. It depends on one's level of creativity. Some people will read the rules and think, "Wow, so many nifty ideas!" Others will read it and think, "Okay, so what now?" An intro adventure helps the latter, who can than see what is expected of him as a GM, and then the creativity can blossom. But it doesn't hinder the former, they can just ignore it and go on their merry way creating their own stuff.

Pushing someone into a swimming pool to teach them to swim doesn't always work.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Pushing someone into a swimming pool to teach them to swim doesn't always work.

No, but you have to push them to find out.

Good idea to have help handy in that scenario (and in the other side of that analogy).