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

[Mercurius]

What strikes me, is that while I was reading the paragraph before the quoted one, I was thinking "huh, so like Basic/Advanced model?". But! As I was reading through the quoted part - what was going through my head was "huh, sounds like 4e-Essentials". Seems to me, that WotC planned on what you describe here - but with only 3 layers - Introduction-Essential-Core. As development prerogative they are meant to work modularly with each other. Of course all I have for it is what I fish out of threads and articles about it - I take keen interest in 4e development, but I lack actual play experience, so I'll take your word for whether this goal was successfully attained by Wizards.

First of all, as I said the Red Box is more of a taster and learn-how-to-play product and less of a set that you can use to play the game for many game sessions. In other words, it is not the old Red Box, which covered a bunch of levels, not just two. Now its main goal is to teach new people how to play the game; how successful it is I cannot say as I am not new to 4E. But it is absolutely worthless for even a somewhat experienced player.

From the Red Box Wizards is leading this hypothetical new gamer to the Essentials line, which is not really a simpler version of 4E but quite simply just a repackaging of 4E. This is where I think WotC didn't go far enough, which would have been to make a simpler, cleaner version of 4E, sort of like how Castles & Crusades is to 3.x.

Take the archive panic away, by hiding it. Would you say that Penny-Arcade is an epic tale of gaming industry? I mean, there's a lot of panels and articles. What they did, is if you hear that there's a cool comic there - when you visit it, you immediately see the most recent one. Nobody expects you to start reading with the first one or the one where present design was introduced. If you choose to - you can click on the archive button.

That's pretty much what I was going out with the Basic/Advanced set-up. You can "hide" the Advanced options by simply sticking to the Basic game, which in my version would be comprised of three main box sets (Heroic, Paragon, and Epic) and maybe something like the Rules Compendium. If you want to add in more monsters, you get aMonster Manual or two; if you want more detail for you character creation and classes, pick up a Player's Handbook. But ideally you could play a Basic character right next to an Advanced character, the latter would just be more detailed, more complex.

This is what I was trying to say - there's absolutely no need to simplify either of systems as OP suggested. They are not too hard to grasp. There's an illusion of such state, because we see them in complex form (buffed by huge fonts, lots of pictures, thick pages and often unjustified hardback form, and lots of empty space). Take that illusion away by producing an intro set where outlay is focused on minimalistic and non-threatening form and presto!

I'm not saying that the system should be simplified, but that a simpler version should be offered.

Whoever heard of a kid that wished that his Lego set had less pieces?

Right, but most kids start with one set and build from there, adding what pieces they want as they want. Actually, many kids start in the way that my cousin started: their cousin (me, in this case) gives them a huge bag full of thousands of random pieces and they are taught by someone or have to teach themselves. This works fine for a certain type of person--often the type that would enjoy Legos (or D&D)--but not for many, and not for some who would enjoy Legos (or D&D) if they had a softer entry point.

Again, I completely agree that there are people who want simple games. But for A LOT of people, there is a minimum threshold of complexity for a satisfying RPG experience.

The OP and you both appear to not be in that latter group. Which is fine.

Huh? When did I say that I prefer a simple game? I didn't. Actually, I like the complexity level of 4E but I don't think it is for everyone.

But then you both go on to presume that the growth of the marketplace is hinged on the presumption that everyone agrees with you. You are way way wrong at that point.

Again, huh?! Again, I am not saying that A) I prefer simple games, and B) everyone else does as well. Actually, I'm not saying either of those. What I am saying is that 4E, Pathfinder, 3.5, and most editions of D&D are too complex and esoteric for many people to want to even approach, let alone dive into; and I am saying that these games should offere simpler, "Basic" versions, but not at the expense of or instead of their usual, more Advanced forms.

It is the best of both worlds, really. Imagine if BECMI and AD&D had been fully compatible. That's what I'm talking about, but making "BECMI" even simpler, and all supplements usable by players of both the Basic and Advanced game.

Frankly, I think that if you had to choose a side, choosing simplicity does more harm than good in the long run. But both is better than either or.

Yes, exactly. I am saying both, not one or the other. All we have right now, even with the Red Box and Essentials, is a complex game with a taster intro set and a variant presentation of the same complex game.

I want the game as simple as possible, but there are a great deal of demands implicit in that "as possible" part. It is certainly very easy to make fully functional games that are much more simple at their core and still tactically complex. But the things I demand from an RPG ruleset have a great deal of dimensions and degrees of freedom.

And, the fact is, there are games out there that people complain about being to complex and yet I find them "simple". Obviously, at least two different markets exist here.

Yes, the key is having as simple a game as possible with as many options as possible. They only way I see that as being, to overuse the world, possible is to have Basic and Advanced versions of the same game.

Imagine 4E stripped down to basics: No skills, just ability scores. No feats, just a few key class features; no powers except for spell-casting classes. Just core classes. Just those things would make a much simpler, and accessible game.

I like the idea of three general levels of complexity to the game:

1. Basic D&D - The core game, comprised of only a few products - Heroic Red Box, Paragon Blue Box, and Black Epic box. Maybe a Rules Compendium that includes the rules from all three for quick reference. Would not require miniatures or a battle grid.
2. Advanced D&D - This is the default tournament game and the rules under which supplements are written. This includes the usual lineup: Player's Handbook, DMG, Monster Manuals, etc. It is completely compatible with Basic D&D, but can be "layered on."
3. Options - This is pick-and-choose, stuff like Weapons of Legacy and Magic of Incarnum. It isn't "Core" like the first two in that it isn't the default. It is, in a sense, different offshoots and possibilities that individual DMs can add to their campaign.

Most people would play "AD&D", although quite a few would play BD&D and many AD&D players would add in Options of their choosing. But it would Basic D&D that you'd see in Target, that would be evergreen in Barnes & Noble, and that would be the gateway for most new players. It is also BD&D that might just have a chance of bringing back some of the "lost flock."

The key word, though, is modularity. Play the game as simple or as complex as you want, with whatever crazy variants you want. But make sure a simple version is offered for those who want it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip

Imagine 4E stripped down to basics: No skills, just ability scores. No feats, just a few key class features; no powers except for spell-casting classes. Just core classes. Just those things would make a much simpler, and accessible game.

I just want to focus on this bit: I think that while this game would be simpler to play (at least for non magic using characters) I Thing it would be harder to DM. It would be less blanaced between the classes and with no skills system the DM would have no tools to adjudicate the non combat stuff.

I am also beginning to think that arguments about Red Box, simple games and so forth are irrelevant. The biggest issue with table top rpgs is that they are difficult to explain why they are fun in a soundbite. So they grow by existing gamers introducing fellow gamers into the hobby. In the past complexity was not an issue since they were the only platform (them and choose your own adventure books) for cetain types of games. The choose your own adventure books have given way to crpgs and MMOs, which also compete with certain style of campaign but the ttrpg is more fun but that may not be obvious to anyone that has not played one or seen one played.
I think stuff like the PAX celebrity game, if seen by a wider enough audience is a better route. The real trick is to spread the awareness of what the games is and the possibilities it offers far and wide and then have a cheap entry point easily avialable.

 

[Janx]

I want to remind you - we're talking about kids here, pre-teens, possibly. The bunch that has recent experience of roleplaying all days, the bunch that will figure out what that computer program does faster than 40 yo PhD, the very same that are currently crunching various synergies in card and handheld console versions of Pokemons.
Let's cut them some slack and admit that they are able not only to think on their toes - but often quicker than we do, eh?

Were you ever troubled by Gygaxian dungeons? Well, they were playtested by his 7 and 9 year old kids (the newer the adventure the older the kids, obviously).

PS.: arghh! Ninja'd by 3 posters? Damn my poor vocabulary and typing skills!

That right there. In 1970, 1980, the number of people who were familiar with lord of the rings or any kind of RPG (computer even) was pretty low.

Since then, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, the LotR movies, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft has introduced more people to the core concepts of RPGs (stats, and fantasy).

Its not to say somebody coming from one of those experiences will know how to read a char sheet. But they're not stupid. They know they're playing a character and all the info on that sheet must reflect their stats. With every game title having different systems, they're used to that.

It potentially wouldn't hurt to have a basic rule set that left a lot of stuff out. But personally, as somebody who did figure out D&D on his own, I'd have gone straight to the advanced product line, knowing I would need it.

Even in 2e, my char sheets were multi-page. I layed out each topic on its own sheet, because I hated how little information was on the typical 1 pager. So # of pages isn't the key. It's the fact that there's more entities to track in the modern RPG.

In 1e, with no skill system, the most data to track was inventory and spell list. Add skills, and now that's more data. Want some snippet of explanation, still more space needed per skill, feat or spell.

Thats why char sheets are so complicated. Play a game with just fighters, no skills, and a small inventory, and it can easily fit on one page.

 

[Ourph]

I've seen a lot of new players introduced to 4e (and loving it) through Encounters. Armchair industry analysts might predict something different, but the reality is that I've yet to see a new player (one who has never played RPGs before) have a problem understanding the basics of their character or walk away from a 4e game dissatisfied with their experience.

 

[Mark CMG]

There's a reason pathfinder and D&D are on top, (. . .)

Because they are both closely associated with the primary brand? There might be other reasons to like both games, and others, but that close association with the brand is what gives you a shot at being on top.

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe this is nostalgia, but I've been thinking about this lately, and I really have begun to believe that the modern D&D variants, Pathfinder and 4E, just won't attract the new players that people want them to attract. Here's why:

My current table has 3 players (out of 6) that have never played the game before.

The default character rules are just too complicated.

And my rules are more complicated than both 4e and Pathfinder (granted, not significantly so).

First look at the character sheets.

Character sheets? It's a homebrew. I don't really have them. I found a 3e excell character sheet and modified that to serve, but really, 'back in the day' we got by with pencil and paper.

It is unclear, when you sit down to look at a character sheet, what that character is good at.

Has nothing to do with it. It's very unclear what a 1e character without exceptional stats is good at. That isn't what brings new players into the game.

Thinking back to my first time playing, what was on my character sheet? There was a name, a race, a class, an alignment, six basic stats, my ac, the number I needed to roll to hit something and some items. These things are either pretty self explanatory, or take a minimum amount of time to explain them.

You thing hit points, alignment, wisdom, charisma, and inverted armor class where lower is better are all 'self explanatory' or 'take a minimum amount of time to explain them'? I've been playing nearly 30 years and I still don't think I can explain what a hit point is outside of its roll in game mechanics.

But more importantly, 'back in the day' new players weren't even expected to know the rules. 'The rules' were the province of the DM only, more or less, and there were big warnings on books not to let players know the rules. Likewise, my new players still don't know the rules and are still confused over basic things in the game. So what? What else is new? Too much focus on system misses the point here. You don't need to know the rules to play an RPG.

So, I know people think the new 4E Red Box and the Intro Box Paizo has planned will bring in new players, butI really don't see them doing that...

Well, there is something I agree with.

Instead, you must have a Basic version of your game that is a complete game, not just the first couple of levels.

But not for the reason you do. The original red box that many of us got into the game only had the first 3 levels and it was a complete game. Heck, my current campaign has run 12 sessions already (4-5 hours each) and no one has attained 3rd level. Leveling up is not what RPGs are about, nor is it what makes rules 'complete'.

Maybe I'm wrong about what a new player needs, I haven't been a new player in years, and I'm sure 99% of the people on this board are in the same boat, we are likely pretty experienced with RPGs.

Humility is great. Yeah, you are mostly wrong. What a new players needs isn't rules. That's what a new DM needs. What a new player needs is a DM who is willing to have new players and who provides an entertaining.

But I feel like a lot of people started play with a more basic version of D&D, and added things in to it. How do you do that right now with 4E and Pathfinder? They are very complex games to begin with.

Same way we did 'back in the day'. We misunderstood things, made mistakes, made things up, played the way we thought was right until we decided something was better, and yes slowly evolved more complex rules or more precisely more complex house rules.

System doesn't matter. Good players don't interface primarily with the system. It's actually a flaw that tends to develop in experienced players that they try to interface primarily with the system instead of the game world. New players have the advantage of not knowing the rules, so they just try stuff. And that is the way to play. It's the DMs job to make the rules as invisible as possible. So who cares if the system is complex or not. Understanding of the system will come in do course. The goal of a DM should be to prepare the player in such a way that when system understanding comes, it doesn't get in the way of the player's skill as a role player.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Humility is great.

Ain't it just.

What a new players needs isn't rules. That's what a new DM needs. What a new player needs is a DM who is willing to have new players and who provides an entertaining.

And what the hobby needs is new DMs. Or new GMs; either way.

System doesn't matter.

This is quite possibly the least defensible statement I've seen in this thread, so far. Give it time though, I suppose. . .

 

[prosfilaes]

Because they are both closely associated with the primary brand? There might be other reasons to like both games, and others, but that close association with the brand is what gives you a shot at being on top.

But I think we should look at what games are and have been near the top. White Wolf systems aren't a whole lot simpler; Warhammer 40K is currently selling well, and a search for a character sheet turns up "The Ultimate Excel character spreadsheet is back, bigger and better"; digging through the Amazon current bestsellers turn up L5R, Exalted, Shadowrun, GURPS... none of these strike me as being much simpler to build a character for than the D&D 4ed PHB. Where exactly are these really simple games thriving? FUDGE and TWERPS were marginal even at their peaks.

 

[teach]

Character sheets? It's a homebrew. I don't really have them. I found a 3e excell character sheet and modified that to serve, but really, 'back in the day' we got by with pencil and paper.


You thing hit points, alignment, wisdom, charisma, and inverted armor class where lower is better are all 'self explanatory' or 'take a minimum amount of time to explain them'? I've been playing nearly 30 years and I still don't think I can explain what a hit point is outside of its roll in game mechanics.

System doesn't matter. Good players don't interface primarily with the system. It's actually a flaw that tends to develop in experienced players that they try to interface primarily with the system instead of the game world. New players have the advantage of not knowing the rules, so they just try stuff. And that is the way to play. It's the DMs job to make the rules as invisible as possible. So who cares if the system is complex or not. Understanding of the system will come in do course. The goal of a DM should be to prepare the player in such a way that when system understanding comes, it doesn't get in the way of the player's skill as a role player.

First, I think you are in large part agreeing with me. Maybe you took what I said about character sheets to mean computerized character sheets, but that's not at all what I meant, I meant the sheet of paper that sits in front of you at a table.

You say you want the rules to be as invisible as possible. That's what I want too. The current character creation rules of 4E and Pathfinder are filled with all kinds of rules and steps needed to be taken. Many more than the D&D systems in the 80's and 90's. I want a character creation system that gets out of the way of the new player, so that they can create the character they want, and sit down and play. In two months or two years, maybe they'll want to try the more "advanced method", but i want there to be a basic method.

I don't want the DM to modify it for the player.

I know when I learned, the DM took care of most of the rules. I told him what I wanted to do, and he told me how I could do it. Now, I wouldn't want to play that way anymore.

And that gets to another point. People think I want 4E and Pathfinder Simplified because that's the kind of game I want to play. Nope. I like the complexity. I like the choices. I like fiddling with character creation. But I want that simpler option to be available for all those new players who might be intimidated by the systems as they stand right now.

I know there are plenty of players who will just come in at the "advanced" level. That's great! I want you to play D&D too. I don't want to tell people how they have to start playing d&d, I just want them to start playing D&D. And a complete basic version is what I think will get even more players into the game.

Having finally seen the Heros of the Fallen Lands Essientials book, I think they might have gotten close to what I was thinking. A single page for the character sheet. Nice big numbers. Skills under the ability score. I could explain that sheet to a new player in 5 minutes. I can't explain the original 4e sheet in 5 minutes, nor the official pathfinder one.

I still worry that character creation is more complicated than it needs to be, but I'm happy it's so much simpler than the default 4E rules.

I'm going to keep playing my default 4E characters, but I hope essientials allows a lot of new players to play D&D, just like I hope Paizo's intro box does the same.

 

[deinol]

I have two anecdotal pieces of evidence about how people get into role-playing.

First is how I started role-playing. When I was young (just before my seventh birthday) my older sister's friend told me about the D&D game she played in. So when my birthday came I told my mother I wanted D&D. She didn't know anything about it and wasn't certain she wanted to get me something totally unknown. However, she'd read the hobbit and saw the Middle Earth RPG and bought it for me instead. This was back when MERP was based on Rolemaster. Not a light system designed for kids.

Of course, I don't think I really played MERP, but I loved the book and eventually convinced my mother to let me get the D&D books. These were the AD&D books, and while I remember the Red Box from those days, I can't say I ever played it back then. "What do you mean I can't be an elven ranger?" My cousin and I pretty much taught ourselves from the two AD&D books (I don't think I had a monster manual back then, but some B modules.)

More recently I can tell you that the local university gaming club which I am still tangentially involved in brings in new players every quarter. Some have gamed before, but many have not. Last I heard they mostly play 4E, but they easily teach the new players the game. Of course, we are talking college students, not 7 year olds. Still, I think the hobby grows the way it has for years: learning it from someone else.

The reality is there are more ways to get into the hobby now than ever. Any slowing in the hobby industry is more related to the overall economy than anything else. If a group of 6 can get along with a single set of 3 core books, they will.