Why the Modern D&D variants will not attract new players

[delericho]

I agree that a simplified, basic-level character sheet would be a lot of help in introducing new players to the game, but (as others have mentioned), most players are just that--"introduced" to the game, by someone who knows how to play and loves it.

What is more likely is that the basic sets are tools that we, the current TTRPG players, can use to help bring new players into the fold.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. Thinking back to my own introduction, I was brought into a game by an existing DM, and instantly loved it.

Crucially, though, once Erik disappeared off to university, I was able to go to the FLGS and pick up the Red Box. And it was that that enabled me to get to grips with the rules of the game, enabled me to start playing and DMing, and so completed my conversion as a gamer. (Until that point, all of the rules had been 'behind the screen' - all I had to do was describe my actions. Even the dice rolling was 'behind the screen' - indeed, until I went to university myself, it never occurred to me that the players would use the dice after character creation!)

It was also a major help that, a few months later, I was able to buy a the Blue Box Expert Set expansion, that added on to the Red Box, and kept me playing for another six months. The Companion Set then followed, and it was only then, after more than a year of playing and DMing, that I chose to switch over to AD&D 2nd Edition.

 

[IronWolf]

I think Pathfinder and 4e can be taught to new players without any significant difficulty if someone is available to show them the ropes. I know I've taught and played many 3.x/Pathfinder games with IronPup and he has grasped things quite well at the age of six.

I think the Intro/Basic sets are most needed for someone trying to get into the game with no one readily available to help mentor them. Or even in the case of IronPup, it would be nice to have a slightly more intro focused set to give to him to read on his own to help ease his own entry into RPGs.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think that the issue with rules light games is that they require experience to referee. Playing an rpg is pretty easy, describe what you do and let thte referee adjudicate it. It can even be done in 4e. Powers are there for the hardcore gamers to create opportunities for interesting tactics, etc.

DM'ing or refereeing is the difficult black art in RPGs and that seems to be the big focus in 4e to teach DMs to be better at their job and to handhold new DMs and ease them in. I have seen several references here that in organised play poor or mediocre DMs can now run a passable game unlike in previous versions.

Can a group start cold with the Red Box, I really do not know but I do know that when I tried first with the Red Box (back in the eighties) I was hopeless and never really groked the DMs role until I saw it done by others.

 

[Umbran]

I know that a lot of people draw some kind of straight line between dumbified simplistic system, and how it attracts players. I can even understand the sentiment. I just don't agree with it.

I'm with you. Or perhaps, I agree that there's lots of folks for whom this isn't a problem.

Current gamers often underestimate the young. Many of them seem to forget their own youth. Kids and teens are learning machines. Complexity is not a problem. For many of them complexity is a draw. Tons of us picked up D&D not through the boxed sets, but through AD&D, which is by no means a simple system.

Now, if what you're trying to hook is 30+ year old gamers, then complexity might be an issue. But if you're looking to get new gamers kind of like we were when we picked up the game, there are barriers, but not in the complexity of the game.

 

[BryonD]

Current gamers often underestimate the young.

I agree, but would go even further and expand that to "anyone who isn't already a gamer".

There are absolutely people out there who want simple games. But neither age nor experience with games in general are predictive of that.

But there are also a lot of people out there who see any added complexity that adds value as a good thing.

"Dumbed down" is a bit of a verbotten phrase. But making things easier because you found a better way to do it is a great thing. Making things easier because you assume your audience can't get their brain around a better way enough to benefit from that better way is just dumbing down. And I think potential long term gamers are the ones least attracted to simplified games. A simple game might get five players to the complex game's two. But four years later, both of the complex game fans are still gaming (maybe a different game, but still gaming). You are lucky if one of the first five hasn't moved on to the next fad.

Putting difficulty in getting new players, particularly youth, off on complexity is way off base.

There are challenges. But they have vastly more to do with alternatives. I had been a gamer for years before I ever had a computer. My kids can not imaging a world without the internet any more than I can one without radio. And that is just the very big tip of a huge iceberg of alternatives that didn't exist in the "golden era".

 

[teach]

I'm not trying change everything about the system, just the character creation rules. I want there to be a simpler character creation system, that generates a simpler character sheet, that can be mostly compatible with the more advanced system.

I know there are plenty of kids and teens playing the game with their parents, what I'd like to see is more kids playing with other kids. And it's my belief a way to encourage that is to present a simpler version of the character creation. I know that they will be able to get it eventually, and probably quicker than I did, but as a poster up thread said, why would I buy the current iterations of the basic set if all I get are two or three levels, and have to rebuy the rules when I want the complete rules.

I guess I want something like the rules cyclopedia. A slightly more basic version of the game, all in one book, that if a player buys, they can play d&d.

Each of us can give examples of getting new players to play, but one thing I worry about: are those players adding to the current player base, or replacing old players?

Well, anyways, I think other people have had good points, and wotc has agreed with them, and paizo I imagine will to, unless the intro set is a radical departure from what intro sets have been in the past.

 

[Mercurius]

I know that a lot of people draw some kind of straight line between dumbified simplistic system, and how it attracts players. I can even understand the sentiment. I just don't agree with it.

I agree with the OP and thus disagree with your statement here. First of all, both terms "dumbified" and "simplistic" are somewhat pejorative in connotation; this is part of the problem, imo, and simply an erroneous perspective in terms of RPG design and mechanics. Simple does not necessarily mean dumb; it could mean elegant and efficient. And don't forget that it is because of the simple core mechanic of 3.x that it was able to make the most "option-filled" and complex version of D&D yet.

A game can be simple and complex. That, I think, is the key to success that the OP is touching upon. A simple, core game is not antithetical to an extensive game of advanced options. This is the approach that I've been advocating: A simple, core game, perhaps in the form of a Red Box set, but one that is not simply a taster of the "real" game, but a basic version, both complete in and of itself but also compatible with the advanced game. In other words, a Red Box that is introductory but also complete in itself, at least up to a certain point (or level).

In other words, I would advocate a return to the Basic/Advanced model, but one in which they are not two different streams or lineages of the game, but two different versions of the same game, fully compatible, fully modular. In some ways it is like Google maps; you can pan out and get the whole world without all of the details, or you can pan in on a specific region and get as detailed as you want. The former would be the core game, the latter the advanced options.

Furthermore, rather than the basic set being only the first level or two, I would advocate a basic box set for each tier. You would have a Heroic Red Box, a Paragon Blue Box, and an Epic Black box (or something like that). From those core products you would radiate into whatever level of detail and complexity you want, but it would all be optional. There might be "core" advanced options that are the default for tournament play--things like Player's Handbooks, etc, and then you might have truly optional books like Magic of Incarnum.

But the box sets could be marketed everywhere as truly evergreen products. And people could happily play D&D for years without going beyond them. Those that wanted more detail and options could have their fill as well. Best of both worlds, really. But it would be the former, and not the latter, that would potentially bring in a new generation of players.

 

[nedjer]

dumification is a result of the style of play not the length of the rules set. If the game's all about following combat procedures it is dumificated, because it's only using one of the many types of play and skills open to RPG players.

A rules light game that encourages exploration, mystery, investigation, discovery, challenges . . . and combat is a lot less dumificational as a result of putting the onus on players and GMs to vary play and 'take control' at an early stage. It's also far more accessible if it's offering variety of play and player choice early on.

In terms of games in general lots of people play non-dummified Catan, because it uses tons of different skills and offers great variety almost out 'of the box'. Very few people will ever be interested in Napoleonic wargaming, because it's all procedure and simulationist, i.e. uber-dummification. And no amount of insisting that rules-heavy, super-crunchy games involve serious maths is ever going to change that.

 

[Wicht]

I know there are plenty of kids and teens playing the game with their parents, what I'd like to see is more kids playing with other kids.

My kids (ages 10, 11, 13, 14) play Pathfinder on their own. Kids have a better memory than adults and learn faster*. Moreover, kids who are likely to be attracted to the idea of roleplaying are going to be kids who appreciate complexity and rules interactions, IMO. (I just asked my boys if they thought Pathfinder was too complex and they both said no.)

In my experience, kids can understand the basics of roleplaying about the time they are 5 or 6 and they will instinctivelly use the rules they understand as they understand them. Which is all that is needed. By they time they are 8 or 9 and playing on their own, they should be able to learn just about any system as fast or faster than an adult so long as they have the reading skills.

I would like Paizo to put out an introduction set of Pathfinder, not because it would be easier to learn, but because it would hopefully be cheaper as a gift and would contain rules, adventure and dice all in one package.

*full confession: I once knew every stat for every monster in the AD&D monster manual, not to mention every spell duration and effect. Now I find myself asking my kids for rule verification (apart from looking it up) as their memory is faster and clearer than mine (not that I'm a slouch) and its easier than cracking open the books.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I hope that Pathfinder Basic/Starter/whatever will be the one. Not because I want Pathfinder/Paizo to do well - and yes I do, but then, they are already anyhow - but because I believe the hobby would benefit hugely from having a simple(-ish!), high-profile, fantasy RPG box set widely available, and affordable, with everything a NEW player needs to get started in the hobby.

Needing to be introduced by those who have learned enough of, say, 3e or 4e, is just not good enough, IMO. Intake will be very limited. *IS* very limited, for the most part, as things stand.

So, I am heavily in favour of [something that sounds like] the OP's idea. Have been for a while now.

I have no inside information as to whether the Pathfinder option will be "the right one" (in my view), but dear gods I do hope so. I'm sure it - and they - will do rather well in any case, but AFAIC, that misses the point altogether.

IOW: WotC, Paizo, or any other company (or individual), making a larger or smaller amount of bucks from the mass of already dedicated current gamers, matters not one whit, to "the health of the hobby", to coin a popular phrase.

Something is missing, and has been, for some time.