Essentials: which new players?

[Scribble]

Sure. But again, we're back to dueling anecdotes and IME here, but... IME, the best sources of new PnP gamers are people who are accustomed to using powers, cooldowns, etc. They are completely aware that D&D is a game, and many games work that way for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with balance and playability.

Yes... These are not the people I was speaking of.

And yes, it's anecdotal for you and me, but I'm guessing, as John points out above, WoTC did a little more research on it.

My guess is that in a lot of cases, even people who are perfectly able to accept things like that in a video game still can't/won't in a p&p game.

Shrug.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Which will give you information you might not have expected. Like, for example, that as simple as the 4e classes are, some people want simpler ones.

Right.

And the question at hand remains.... who are those people? Is this a specific target audience?

In the absence of their resources, I can only work from my experience as a gamer (D&D and otherwise), and my experience in cognitive psychology. My experience tells me that the target audience for these rules changes are lapsed gamers with pre-existing ideas of how D&D specifically works and a relative lack of familiarity with other avenues of gaming that work more like 4e pre-essentials.

Again, the price point, the box, and so on.... that'll hit a broad demographic. But the rules? Of the people I know who are susceptible to the idea of playing D&D in the first place but never have, the new rules feel less likely to hit than the old rules did.

As I said, I'm always willing to be wrong. Heck, I like being wrong. That's when I learn things. But I'm not going to assume every one of my personal experiences with newbie D&D players was a statistical outlier until I see some data.

The reasoning that a corporation wouldn't put money on the line if it wasn't the best thing to do ignores a lot of history, you know. How many new products crash in a Hindenburg-like manner every year? They could be flat wrong. Or I could be 100% correct and they could simply have made the decision that lapsed players were a better target than new ones. That wouldn't obviate a single thing I've said.

Heck, I could be 100% on target, and they could have misread their own data or constructed their surveys poorly. I spent almost a third of my life in psychology and neurobiology research. I've lost count of how many times I've seen cats with doctorates in cognitive and social psychology, including marketing gurus who sold millions of books on the subject, who didn't notice that their own survey construction was biased to give a specific answer until after the fact. It often takes a few iterations just to figure how badly they're screwing the pooch. I'm not going to have more faith in WotC's methods than I have in people who are in the top of their academic field. Human behavior and preferences are squirrelly to nail down with surveys and market data.

As someone who has worked in the field, the tools available are crude. We're in a stone knives and bear skins stage of development there.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

My guess is that in a lot of cases, even people who are perfectly able to accept things like that in a video game still can't/won't in a p&p game.

Shrug.

Sure. Especially so if they also have pre-existing PnP experience that worked differently. But my money is on the majority of WoW players (for one demographic example) taking to 4e mechanics like ducks to water, but to 3e mechanics like sea birds to crude oil. I've seen it too many times to assume otherwise without some serious statistical analysis of a substantial data set.

Simply understanding the mechanics, of course, does not in any way mean that they will become consistent players. There's still the additional time commitment and the social stigma to get over, among other things. For every person I know who successfully got into PnP games, I've known more like 15 who had an OK time playing the once or twice, but would rather do other things. It's still a niche thing.

 

[Scribble]

Sure. Especially so if they also have pre-existing PnP experience that worked differently. But my money is on the majority of WoW players (for one demographic example) taking to 4e mechanics like ducks to water, but to 3e mechanics like sea birds to crude oil. I've seen it too many times to assume otherwise without some serious statistical analysis of a substantial data set.

YEah... That's what I meant though about the difference between understanding the mechanics (and even why they're done the way they're done) and enjoying them.

It's just a preference thing really, and I find it cool that WoTC is now opening the game up to more preferences.

As to whether or not it REALLY will succeed? Sure, as you say none of us are fortune tellers, so it remains to be seen!

I also wonder if they felt they can highlight the difference between this game and video games ("In an TTRPG you aren't constrained by code!") by making the changes... Just wild imagination though.

Simply understanding the mechanics, of course, does not in any way mean that they will become consistent players. There's still the additional time commitment and the social stigma to get over, among other things. For every person I know who successfully got into PnP games, I've known more like 15 who had an OK time playing the once or twice, but would rather do other things. It's still a niche thing.

Yep. We all need to work to get people past the social stigma part.

 

[JohnSnow]

Again, the price point, the box, and so on.... that'll hit a broad demographic. But the rules? Of the people I know who are susceptible to the idea of playing D&D in the first place but never have, the new rules feel less likely to hit than the old rules did.

....

Human behavior and preferences are squirrelly to nail down with surveys and market data.

Emphasis mine. We're back to your opinion. Even acknowledging your experience in psychology, your assessment and predilections of the people you know don't change anything about what will appeal in Essentials IF the anecdotal experience of myself and others is accurate.

What's been changed about Essentials is that SOME classes work differently than they used to. If you are willing to acknowledge that people exist (and I and many others are telling you they DO) who want classes that function differently than those in the PHB, then Essentials will broaden its appeal to include those people. Customers like you and your friends STILL have access (even in Essentials) to classes that meet the complexity demand you claim they want - in the form of Wizards and Clerics. The difference between it and baseline 4e are that players who want something simpler ALSO have it.

Where I call BS is the claim by many that simplifying some specific classes will turn people off of Essentials. Or that the lack of uniform mechanics will turn people off of Essentials. The latter will only turn off people who are unintimidated by, and/or care a great deal about the mechanical side of the games they play. I submit that many, or even most, of the people in that category are already unintimidated by 4e, and ergo would not be the dominant market for Essentials. It stands to reason that less analytical people are the ones who might be intimidated, but that they are also far more likely to be turned off by variability in game mechanics. What those people care about is generally not how every class work, but how their character works.

On your latter comment, have you ever hear of experiential market research? I took classes on it in business school. It's best understood as: "Recruit a bunch of people, hand them a product, and watch them play with it. Take notes. Lots of notes. Then ask questions. Lots of questions." This is market research the way it used to be done. And, done right, it generally works.

You will learn WAY, way, more than you can from a simple survey. The only downside with this form of market research is that it's EXPENSIVE. Obviously, it's not perfect, but it's generally way more effective than just "going with your gut," which seems to be what most gamers do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My experience tells me that the target audience for these rules changes are lapsed gamers with pre-existing ideas of how D&D specifically works and a relative lack of familiarity with other avenues of gaming that work more like 4e pre-essentials.

I've introduced 4e to both total newbies and lapsed gamers. It's a small sample size, but very consistent. The lapsed gamers who haven't gamed since 1st or 2nd ed balk at adding your whole CON score to hps, healing surges instead of band-aid clerics, and fighters with powers, and can't read a card to save thier lives. The total newbies soak all that right up, they just have to wrap their heads around the big concepts - playing a role, taking actions on your turn, etc.

The reasoning that a corporation wouldn't put money on the line if it wasn't the best thing to do ignores a lot of history, you know. How many new products crash in a Hindenburg-like manner every year? They could be flat wrong. ... I've lost count of how many times I've seen cats with doctorates in cognitive and social psychology, including marketing gurus who sold millions of books on the subject, who didn't notice that their own survey construction was biased to give a specific answer until after the fact. It often takes a few iterations just to figure how badly they're screwing the pooch. I'm not going to have more faith in WotC's methods than I have in people who are in the top of their academic field. Human behavior and preferences are squirrelly to nail down with surveys and market data.

Well said! Sometimes we fall into rather tortured logic on the boards, and assumming infallibility or incompetence is a surprisingly common part of it.

( Though, I didn't know cats were getting doctorates these days. Feline rights have realy come a long way. )

As someone who has worked in the field, the tools available are crude. We're in a stone knives and bear skins stage of development there.

Ooh, it's been a while since I heard that Star Trek reference. You know, a few years ago I ran a game that was a scene-by-scene adaptation of Devil in the Dark to D&D, complete with pregen characters whose names were puns of ST:TOS actors, and no one caught it. I realized, wow, our hobby really has attracted a younger crowd.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure. Especially so if they also have pre-existing PnP experience that worked differently. But my money is on the majority of WoW players (for one demographic example) taking to 4e mechanics like ducks to water, but to 3e mechanics like sea birds to crude oil. I've seen it too many times to assume otherwise without some serious statistical analysis of a substantial data set.

Simply understanding the mechanics, of course, does not in any way mean that they will become consistent players. There's still the additional time commitment and the social stigma to get over, among other things. For every person I know who successfully got into PnP games, I've known more like 15 who had an OK time playing the once or twice, but would rather do other things. It's still a niche thing.

My experience corresponds exactly to yours... and interestingly many of these kids did not have WoW but rather had Power Rangers or Inuyasha or various Anime shows in there background where the characters only sometimes use there big guns... or build up to them etc.

My son has introduced far more than I have... and many dont have the web access but they do have modern fantasy backgrounds.... and most all no previous roleplaying.

 

[JohnSnow]

I've introduced 4e to both total newbies and lapsed gamers. It's a small sample size, but very consistent. The lapsed gamers who haven't gamed since 1st or 2nd ed balk at adding your whole CON score to hps, healing surges instead of band-aid clerics, and fighters with powers, and can't read a card to save thier lives. The total newbies soak all that right up, they just have to wrap their heads around the big concepts - playing a role, taking actions on your turn, etc.

My experience differs from yours. I've introduced 4e to both total newbies and lapsed gamers. Sure, the gamers who haven't played much since 1e or 2e found some of the new rules different, but nothing to balk at. The newbies also had no preconceptions. However, other rules were met with either acceptance or resistance, depending on the gamer. Where I noticed a definable discrepancy in my group was not between total newbies and lapsed gamers, but between what I would call analytical and creative types.

The analytical people (who included 2 veteran gamers and one newbie) embraced the fiddly gamist bits, like at-will, encounter, and daily powers. They also loved powers that let them push, pull, slide, and otherwise manipulate the battlefield. This included one newbie gal who grokked it all in her first game. Of them, 2 of the 3 (both the vets) opted for spellcasters.

The creative types included two veteran gamers and 1 newbie (my wife). They all embraced the classes, but tended to fall back mostly on their at-wills & basic attacks. When it was pointed out to them that they had dailies, the paladin player was okay with it (but tended not to fall back on it), whereas those playing rangers or rogues found it "weird." The swordmage player (one of my vets) opted for that because he didn't like the notion of a "fighter with dailies" - it held no appeal for him. In our second game, the paladin player switched to a rogue and started focusing more on at-wills and setting up for sneak attack. She'd have gone apeshit over a "backstab" option. In that second game, my wife gave up her rogue and opted for a ranger, where it was all twin strike, all the time.

A final player was what I like to call Analtyical-Creative. He could handle either. However, after fiddling with a Warlord for one session, he opted to rebuild his character as a ranger - the warlord was too fiddly and tactical for his taste. I should also mention that the "Creative type" players, including him, were also way more likely to embrace and ask about what I like to call p. 42 options - things outside of their PC's designated power set.

That's an important point. "Powers" are not the only place for creativity in the game. There are people who would rather create their own cool moves out of a series of simpler actions than fall back on a designated list. It seems to me that offering some simpler classes will free up more brainspace for creative actions in play, thus catering to those people's tastes.

Some players just like going outside the box. It doesn't mean they're dumb - just that their brains work differently.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My experience differs from yours.

Does it, or did we just look at the experiences along different lines? I sliced it by newbie/lapsed, you went by analytical/creative. We looked at different things, too. I didn't even mention dailies vs at wills, just 'fighter powers.' You didn't mention surges or how CON affects hps. (every veteran gamer I've seen roll up his first 4e character got the hps wrong, or at least had a moment where he questioned "CON? or CON /bonus/?" - myself included).

As I break down what you posted along newbie/vet (not lapsed, BTW?), I see:

You had 4 vets and 2 newbs.

Two vets had no problem with powers - but were playing spellcasters. A third specifically played a swordmage because he balked at a fighter with dailies. The fourth (and the 'creative' paragraph is very hard to parse, you specify 3 players, but mention at least 4 classes they played initially), aparently the Paladin player, though, having 'no problem' with Dailies, didn't use them as a paladin (a class that has always had some spells in spite of being fighter-like), then switched to rogue and exclusively used at-wills. That's not really inconsistent with the experiences I've had with lapsed or ongoing players. They have no problem with powers when playing casters, but some when martial powers come up.

You don't mention whether the last player was a lapsed or new gamer.

While I'm sure our subjective experiences were different, I'm not so certain the phenomena we were observing were /that/ different.

Some players just like going outside the box. It doesn't mean they're dumb - just that their brains work differently.

So give them a smaller box? Thus more opportunity, and impetus, to go outside it.

That's not snark, I mean it. I have seen the phenomenon where a player will get sufficiently caught up in the options on his power cards that he'll forget he can do things not on them.

There are other systems - effects-based or downright freeform - that /really/ encourage or support that style, too. In a game like Ars Magica (well, the version I vaguely remember), for instance, there are hardly 'inside the box' spells to use, at all, you have to work up what you're trying to do with a spell when you cast it.

 

[mneme]

Actually, Ars has "rotes" which are explictly "inside the box" options. But you can decide how much you're into rotes, and how much just into risky improvisational casting (but it -is- a lot more risky).